Marisol already wrote about this here, but I had some additional thoughts. Robina Niaz is doing good work. So why lie? "Her 'duty' is helping Muslim women heal after abuse," from CNN, September 25 (thanks to all who sent this in):
NEW YORK (CNN) -- Toward the end of her marriage, Rabia Iqbal said she feared for her life.
Iqbal was born in New York to parents who had immigrated to the United States from the tribal areas of Pakistan. She had a strict Muslim upbringing and when she was 16, her parents arranged her marriage to a 38-year-old man. She claims her husband turned violent during their 10 years of marriage.
When she finally left him, she did not know where to turn. Going home wasn't an option, she said.
"My parents ... made clear that they would disown me," Iqbal said. "My father even said ... 'You're lucky you live in America because if you lived back home, you would have been dead by now.' "...
A devout Muslim, Niaz stresses that there is no evidence that domestic violence is more common among Muslim families."Abuse happens everywhere," said Niaz. "It cuts across barriers of race, religion, culture."
But, she said, Muslims are often reluctant to confront the issue.
"There's a lot of denial," she said. "It makes it much harder for the victims of abuse to speak out."...
Niaz said she firmly believes that domestic violence goes against Islamic teachings, and considers it her religious duty to try to stop abuse from happening."Quran condemns abusive behavior of women," she said, noting that the prophet Mohammed was never known to have abused women. "Allah says, 'Stand up against injustice and bear witness, even if it's against your own kin. So if I see injustice being done to women and children, I have to speak up. It's my duty."...
"Quran condemns abusive behavior of women," but says it is okay to beat them.
Imagine! Where could they have gotten such an idea? Koran 4:34 tells men to beat their disobedient wives after first warning them and then sending them to sleep in separate beds? This is, of course, an extremely controversial verse, so it is worth noting how several translators render the key word here, وَاضْرِبُوهُنَّ, waidriboohunna.
Pickthall: "and scourge them"
Yusuf Ali: "(And last) beat them (lightly)"
Al-Hilali/Khan: "(and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful)"
Shakir: "and beat them"
Sher Ali: "and chastise them"
Khalifa: "then you may (as a last alternative) beat them"
Arberry: "and beat them"
Rodwell: "and scourge them"
Sale: "and chastise them"
Asad: "then beat them"
Muhammad was "never known to have abused women," yet Aisha, his favorite wife, says that at one point "he struck me on the chest which caused me pain."
"There's a lot of denial," says Rabia Iqbal. You can say that again.
Sahi Al Bukhari
Book 62 #114
Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "Whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day should not hurt (trouble) his neighbor. And I advise you to take care of the women, for they are created from a rib and the most crooked portion of the rib is its upper part; if you try to straighten it, it will break, and if you leave it, it will remain crooked, so I urge you to take care of the women." (Book #62, Hadith #114)
Here is just one advice from the Prophet to be easy and kind and soft with women.
Peace
Abdullah
What does being "easy and kind and soft with women" mean in mahoundian epistemology?
Since "oppression" from a mahoundian perspective means "mahoundians being equal to the 'dirty kufr' before man-made laws", just as "injustice" means "giving women and men equal status before those very same man-made secular laws", so sharia-violating that they are, perhaps "being kind and easy and soft with women" in a-rab/mahoundian, inbred bedouin savage epistemology means "beating them, but without crippling them or hurting them so much so that they won't be able to perform their duties as jihadist-breeding mobile tents, mahound's imaginary alter-ego willing."
Abdullah,
Speaking of being kind and soft with women, since you seem to have abandoned the thread this question came from, and are ducking me, I'm going to ask it again and again.
I have one question; a simple yes or no question:
Do you think that Nonie Darwish should be put to death for her "treason" against Islam?
Answer this one question please. It's a very simple question.
"Abuse happens everywhere," said Niaz. "It cuts across barriers of race, religion, culture."
That explains why an estimated 90% of the women in Pakistan report being beaten by their husbands.
Any comments, Abdullah Mikail?
What about that hadith where Mohammed (BBOH) hits Ayesha, his "favorite" wife?
to "take care of" can be said in a very sinister way; you know the Mafia boss who tells his underlings to "take care of that guy"
Even Muhammad's supposed softness 'n kindness towards women is loaded with insults. And you can almost hear the disdain Mo has for women in the narrative you've provided. Bet you didn't even catch that, did you, AM?
Muhammad is basically telling men to take-it-easy when they attempt to straighten out their womenfolk -- and BOY, do they need straightening out! Leave it to Muhammad to twist the essence and meaning behind Eve being a part of Adam's rib.
Thanks for providing yet another example and insight into Muhammad's evil mindset.
"So why lie?"......
One thought from the article above.....
"A devout Muslim, Niaz stresses that..."
He wasn't too strong on biology, was he AM?
Created from rib? How intellectually subnormal would one have to be to believe that?
If it's purely a cultural issue then islam has to bear the brunt of the blame. It's the islamic culture that has by far the highest incidences of spousal abuse.
Even Google translates وَاضْرِبُوهُنَّ to 'beat them'....
I agree Champ...AM's attempt to sugar coat that verse is amusing. It essentially means that women are inherently "crooked" and if muslim men need to take care of that (but not too much so as to break) or she will remain crooked.
why didn't Allah make Muslim women with an equal intelligence, worth, and rights as a Muslim Man?....There are ample examples and evidence that he just didn't like women...
can a Muslim woman have more that one husband?
can a Muslim woman contol the destiny of her children should a husband die?
can a Muslim woman conrol the families finances and make important decisions without the Muslim males approval?
In many Muslim countries, can a Muslim woman speak privately with other males without approval?
Why is it so hard for a Muslim woman to prove that a rape occured, and if it did, why is she the one that is usually punished.?
Why is a Muslim woman punished if she refuses to give sex to her husband?
Why is it more difficult for a woman to divorce her husband than it is for the husband to divorce her?
well, the list is long and there are so many instances where a Muslim woman is essentially considered to be less than equal and certainly with few rights...Yes, I am sure of it...Allah does not like Muslim women...
Aw c'mon guys, we know Islam has no oppression of women, much less the beating of them, otherwise there woulda been a mountain of public outcry from JudeoChristian feminists.
*** 33:59 ***
And we've heard nary a peep from that vociferous crowd. Maybe the rules of feminism applies only to JudeoChristian white males, and maybe Afro-American JudeoChristians too?
*** 4:15 ***
Couldn't be, cuz almost all public spokesperson feminists have sinecures as college professors, and the rules for objectivity are strictly enforced in academe by way of vigorous peer review.
Question everything:
"It's the islamic culture that has by far the highest incidences of spousal abuse"
"U.N. Finds That 25% of Married Syrian Women Have Been Beaten":
nytimes.com/2006/04/11/world/middleeast/11syria.html?_r=1
"nearly 25% of [US] women...were raped and/or physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, or dating partner/acquaintance at some time in their lifetime."
ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/181867.pdf
Muslims lie. But in this case this woman's lies only hurt those she seeks to help.
You need another plan, girlfriend.
Abdullah Mikail (AM) above quotes from a hadith --
The Prophet said, "Whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day should not hurt (trouble) his neighbor. And I advise you to take care of the women, for they are created from a rib and the most crooked portion of the rib is its upper part; if you try to straighten it, it will break, and if you leave it, it will remain crooked, so I urge you to take care of the women." (Book #62, Hadith #114)
-- and then concludes:
"Here is just one advice from the Prophet to be easy and kind and soft with women."
No, this evidence adduced by AM does not show that Mohammed (i.e., "the Prophet") advised Muslim men "to be easy and kind and soft with women". What the evidence shows is that Mohammed advises Muslim men "to take care of the women". What does this mean? The subsequent text only clarifies a little:
"...for they [i.e., women] are created from a rib and the most crooked portion of the rib is its upper part; if you try to straighten it, it will break, and if you leave it, it will remain crooked, so I urge you to take care of the women."
This rather cryptic clarification uses a metaphor, a crooked rib. Mohammed then uses this metaphor to counsel against two ways of dealing with the crooked rib that is woman:
1) don't straighten it, or it will break
2) on the other hand, don't do nothing, else it will remain crooked.
It is reasonable to derive from Mohammed's metaphor what he is saying, and it comports well with other hadith and tafsirs -- and it boils down to this:
1) don't beat your women too hard, or you will break them;
2) but on the other hand, don't leave them unpunished when you feel they deserve it.
I.e., women are crooked, and it is up to you as the "protectors and maintainers" of your women to bend them into right shape as best you can, using beating if you see fit, but don't beat them black and blue into critical condition, because then you will break them.
Muhammad would never justify killing a woman because she slandered his Islamic duty, now would he?
This is what is taught...
"'You obey a stranger who encourages you to murder for booty. You are greedy men. Is there no honor among you?' Upon hearing those lines Muhammad said, ‘Will no one rid me of this woman?' Umayr, a zealous Muslim, decided to execute the Prophet's wishes. That very night he crept into the writer's home while she lay sleeping surrounded by her young children. There was one at her breast. Umayr removed the suckling babe and then plunged his sword into the poet. The next morning in the mosque, Muhammad, who was aware of the assassination, said, ‘You have helped Allah and His Apostle.' Umayr said. ‘She had five sons; should I feel guilty?' ‘No,' the Prophet answered. ‘Killing her was as meaningless as two goats butting heads."
Ishaq: 676
and Qur'an 4:15 says: "If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, take the evidence of four witnesses from amongst you against them; if they testify, confine them to houses until death [by starvation] claims them. If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and improve, leave them alone; for Allah is Oft-Returning."
and this...I am very unhappy. Our way of life is under attack. And we are not fighting back. Deep down, we know that when a woman has disgraced her family, nothing will restore honor except by killing her. More...
"Answer this one question please. It's a very simple question."
Perhaps not.
Options
1. agree
2. disagree
3. lie
4. avoid
Looks like number four is the islam-o-troll's current strategy
Here is what Shafi'i had to say on the subject:
"[Shafi'i] was aware of the contradictory reports transmitted in the traditions and tried to reconcile the differences between them by suggesting a chronological sequence. First, the Prophet forbade men to beat women; second, he received the revelation of Qur'an 4:34; and third, in accordance with this revelation, he allowed men, to beat their wives. However, al- Shafi'i continues, the Prophet's admonition 'the best of you will not beat them' qualifies his own permissive statement, because it implies that every man has the possibility of choosing not to beat. In concluding his reflection on the subject, al-Shafi'i says that according to the Prophet's words, beating is permitted, but it is not a religious duty (fard), adding finally: 'we choose what the Messenger of God chose himself, and we prefer that the husband does not beat his wife when she goes too far against him in her words and in similar things.'"
Here is the reference for the tradition:
"A similar tradition presents the Prophet saying: 'you may beat them, but the best of you will not beat women' (Abu Dawud, Sunan, ed. K. Y. al-Hut, Beirut, 1988, I, no 2146; Abu Bakr Ibn al-'Arabi, Akham al-Qur'an, I, ed. 'A. M. al- Bajawi, Cairo, 1988, p. 469)"
Disciplining Wives: A Historical Reading of Qur'ân 4:34
Author(s): Manuela Marín
Source: Studia Islamica, No. 97 (2003), pp. 5-40
A blanket statement forbidding beating would have been better, but this is quite progressive for the eighth century.
The white-washer of Islam from Dallas Abdullah Mikhail has been THOROUGHLY vanquished by YANKEL!
I posted this response to his latest idiocy and HE slithered back into his hole, never daring to face me. What a loser! I understand he gets paid to try and refute the truth that is disseminated here, but his latest white-wash job hit a new high on the stupidity index. Why does CAIR waste their money on him.
Anyway, here it is, again:
Good Old Abdullah Mikhail put forth a dooooozy on the thread "NY Women complain of Abuse"
He said that "daraba" which is a simple triliteral Arabic verb meaning "to beat" can also denote having sexual intercourse, and in the context of Sura 4:34 means "to have sexual intercouse." His exact words: "Daraba (to have intercourse, not to beat)"
Need I point out that "daraba" - to knock or strike, contextualized into meaning sexual intercourse would correspond to our using the English word "knock" or "bang" to denote sexual intercourse. But such a idiomatic stretching of the meaning would of course be very slangish and derogatory. As in "he 'knocked' her up" or "he 'banged' her." Not nice.
Anyway, if "daraba" can also mean to have sexual intercouse, then thinketh abdullah, Sura 4:34 can have a gentler, a better, a more infidel-friendly meaning.
Y'all following me here? Please don't spit your coffee or chablis all over your keyboard.
Abdullah has bowdlerized the Koran and given a kinder, gentler Sura 4:34.
Without further ado, here it is
Sura 4:34
...As to those women on whose part you see ill conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) rape them (lightly, if it is useful)...
You see, Abdullah is saying is that "rape" (Daraba: to have intercourse, not to beat) is the proper punishment for severely disobedient wives.
And CAIR pays him for this?
Peace Out
Yankel
Abdullah: Stop pretending to be a reasonable "moderate" person. YOU HAVE BEEN CAUGHT. You used an anti-Jewish racist slur and then lied about it being offensive.
http://www.englishclub.com/ref/esl/Slang/Y/yid_Yid_1251.htm
I replied with a link that proved that it was indeed and yet you never apologized. You have contentiously praised Shiara law practices of flogging and stoning as "deterants". Of Rushdie and Van Gogh you said ""Questioning" Islam, yeah, you are a bigot...a religious bigot...there is a difference between questioning and what these two people [Rushdie and Van Gogh) did...if you consider vile crap like theirs "questioning" that's a sad pathetic place to be from."
Then never answered my follow up question: "Tell me, AM do you think people like Rushdie and Van Gogh should not be legally allowed to criticize Islam in the way they do? What kind of questioning Islam is alright? Is it alright to question the historical facts behind his marriage of Aisha at age 9? That he raided and killed? That he declared Jews the "descendants of apes and pigs" and said that in the last days the rocks would call out to Muslims to kill them?"
You claim that Mr. Spencer and others are lairs and bigots, but you're the one who is both. I hope and pray that your beliefs will be challenged and that you will leave your hate.
Er. in my question them is of course, Jews. (Sorry for the abiguity) and Lairs=liars.
Hesperado,
This was posted as a lesson for you in your bias.
The meaning is simple...many Muslim women have commented that "women have curves" don't force them to be other than their natures they may break.
Women are more caring and considreate and emotional by nature, and men are the opposite as well, hard, forceful, and agressive.
The simple meaning of it is understand easily as it was intended when it was said.
I could tell you "Stop." and you would simply argue "Go!"
It is not that you lack the ability or the intelligence to understand, it is only your steadfast arrogance that leads you to argue.
Peace
Abdullah
Great analysis, Hesp! ...and how perfect that AM unwittingly provided this text which further supports abuse towards women within Islam. My gawd, I would hate to be married to someone as loathsome as AM; and I pity his poor wife, but then she did sign up for the abuse by marrying him, didn't she? He probably has his own wife convinced that this narrative speaks well of Muhammad. Bet they're quite a pair.
Foolster,
Keep cherry picking to fit your bias...go here to see Jew translated into Yiddish:
http://online.ectaco.co.uk/main.jsp;jsessionid=bc30f842c25543574575?do=e-services-dictionaries-word_translate1&direction=1&status=translate&lang1=23&lang2=ji&refid=-1&source=jew
Peace
Abdullah
AM is very stupid, else, he would never have reverted to a pseudo religion with the WORLD'S MOST POORLY WRITTEN AND MOST UNHOLY BOOK. I'd rather lick out every urinal in Grand Central station than swear allegiance to such a pastiche of garbled, incoherent, evil nonsense as is the Quran.
To Abdullah, it smells like roses.
Abdullah has very little integrity...maybe none.
The only reason he posts here and whiffs and whiffs and whiffs the ball, in the long run causing more damage to the image of islam is because it is part of his "job responsibilities" (for which he gets paid.) Yup, he's a paid stooge.
Take a look at the thorough trouncing Abdullah got from me in response to his mind-bogglingly asinine post that "daraba" means "have sexual intercourse" in the context of Sura 4:34, so that the proper punishment for disobedient women is rape. And that's supposed to make the Sura more warm and fuzzy.
Is this guy nuts, dishonest, or both?
Well, both, but he gets paid for it.
CHA-CHING should be AM's signoff, not Peace.
Yankel,
You would be funny if you weren't so pathetic.
Try reading more than one sentence at a time ....then try to grasp understanding and over all meaning…..I am not the author of the excerpt you misinterpret and herein misrepresent (again.)
The excerpt was from “Al-Qur'an: a contemporary translation by Ahmed Ali, Princeton University Press, 1988; pp78-79”
Peace
Abdullah
Dave742,
You showed two articles that skewed the figures nicely.
Married Syrian women agains U.S. population as a whole.
Here's where your logc is off even before we start:
The group 'Syrian married women' is highly unlikely to contain U.S. citizens, however the U.S. figures undoubtedly contain Syrian married women. No point comparing the two groups. You'd need numbers comparing the ME Vs. West then allow for corrupt ME police, the fact that women in the West have support groups to help them report the assaults, etc, etc....
Everywhere that you have moslem communities you invariably have violence against their women, be they married, single, young or old.
Ask yourself why you demand they wear complete body covering? Easy! To hide the bruises.
Come on, dave742, think! Just stop banging your head off the floor 5 times a day and use your mind!
AM, regarding Yankel: You would be funny if you weren't so pathetic.
You would be human if you weren't a moslem.
Crawl back under your rock, we all see you for what you are.
AbsoluteMoron is pretending that the narrative he provided shows the softer-side of Muhammad & Company ...HHAAAHAHAAAA!!!! Oh gawd, you crack me up Abtard!!
Question everything:
“The group 'Syrian married women' is highly unlikely to contain U.S. citizens, however the U.S. figures undoubtedly contain Syrian married women”
The percentage of US citizens identifying themselves as Muslim is 0.6%. This is not going to affect any comparison:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
“then allow for corrupt ME police, the fact that women in the West have support groups to help them report the assaults, etc, etc..."
The study from Syria had nothing to do with police reports or government data. It was a survey conducted directly with Syrian citizens, the same as the US data. Did you know most violence against women in the US is also not reported? From the US report:
“Most intimate partner victimizations are not reported to the police. Approximately onefifth of all rapes, one-quarter of all physical assaults, and one-half of all stalkings perpetrated against female respondents by intimates were reported to the police. Even fewer rapes, physical assaults, and stalkings perpetrated against male respondents by intimates were reported. The majority of victims who did not report their victimization to the police thought the police would not or could not do anything on their behalf. These findings suggest that most victims of intimate partner violence do not consider the justice system an appropriate vehicle for resolving conflicts with intimates.”
Go ahead and do your mental gymnastics and spin it however you want, but the numbers are comparable.
Does a Muslim man beating his wife(ves)make for a happy home, a loving relationship? or does it just keep the fear of Islam embedded in the mind of the Muslim women?..
Foolster,
Q "I replied with a link that proved that it was indeed and yet you never apologized."
A Don't need to... Jew translates straight to "Yid" in Yiddish...see the reference above. There is no insult at all in calling someone a Jew or a Yid, there is absolutely nothing wrong with being Jewish.
(Is that settled now? Move on, already?...)
Q "You have contentiously praised Shiara law practices of flogging and stoning as "deterants". They are deterents...what is there to argue about?
A Of Rushdie and Van Gogh: “..if you consider vile crap like theirs "questioning" that's a sad pathetic place to be from.” And it’s still as fresh and true as when I wrote it.
Q Then never answered my follow up question: "Tell me, AM do you think people like Rushdie and Van Gogh should not be legally allowed to criticize Islam in the way they do?”
A I never said they couldn’t, did I? They both did so with wild abandon and made money doing it, and, all things considered, do you think it was a wise thing for them to do?
Q “What kind of questioning Islam is alright? Is it alright to question the historical facts behind his marriage of Aisha at age 9?”
A What is there to question? She was betrothed at a very young age, happens all the time in European society, he was married to her at a very young age and consummated the marriage when she was mature. Nothing at all wrong with his life long marriage to Aisha…not even his most venerate enemies said a thing about it…but then you, Johnny come lately, insert all kinds of nefarious things into something pure and noble.
Q “That he raided and killed?”
A He killed one man in a fair fight in a just conflict with his own hand. What is there to argue about?
Q (“That he declared Jews the "descendants of apes and pigs" )
A - This is a lie. We can make it a discussion all on its own. Invite me to it, we’ll do it.)
Q “…and said that in the last days the rocks would call out to Muslims to kill them?"
A This is from the revelation of the Quran and it is an apocalyptic…Mohammad didn’t “say it.”
Q “You claim that Mr. Spencer and others are lairs…”
A On a case by case basis and only when I can prove it, and I have proved it or I wouldn’t say it.
Q “…and bigots,”
A The truth is self evident, you know but you need to be truthful I only called him a “religious bigot.”
Q “..but you're the one who is both.”
A I have often been labeled by posters here as a “liar” but it has never been proven as such…”bigot?” What kind of bigot? Yes, I have strong ideals based in Islam, if that makes me some sort of bigot in your book, so be it. Otherwise, what kind of bigot are you talking about?
Q “ I hope and pray that your beliefs will be challenged and that you will leave your hate.”
A I have no hate at all…that’s your bias projection, not mine…my belief is challenged all the time and every time it is simply reinforced.
Peace
Abdullah
AM:
Of course, you weren't trying to insult Yankel, you were just spontaneously speaking Yiddish! Yeah, that's it! Even
if the word isn't in itself offensive, we all know you were using it offensively. You're not kidding anyone. If someone says "you yid" or "you Africian" (or perhaps "you people", hmm?) even though those words aren't necessity offensive it's clear what they mean. (And by the way, quite a few dictionaries online agree that 'yid' is offensive, it wasn't just one dictionary.)
Yeah, I guess I'm just "cherry picking" your quotes about saying flogging and stoning are "deterrents".
You never did answer my questions about sharia and freedom of speech.
Me: "Tell me, AM do you think people like Rushdie and Van Gogh should not be legally allowed to criticize Islam in the way they do? What kind of questioning Islam is alright? Is it alright to question the historical facts behind his marriage of Aisha at age 9? That he raided and killed? That he declared Jews the "descendants of apes and pigs" and said that in the last days the rocks would call out to Muslims to kill them?"
Do you beleive Rushdie and Van Gogh should be legally prevented from saying what they said/printing what they printed? If so, what should be the penalty? This is an important question.
Yankel,
"CHA-CHING"
Of we two you're the only paid poster...unless of course you volunteer for Robert like Marisol.
Peace
Abdullah
Everybody, please take note that the obsessive-compulsive poster Abdullah Mikhail, who ALAWAYS has to have the last word, has been thoroughly thrashed by YANKEL.
No rebuttal, nothing. What a loser.
In Abdullah's "bowdlerized" Koran (Def-Koran by AM), the proper punishment for disobedient women is to "rape" them.
Abdullah:
"Daraba (to have intercourse, not to beat)"
Therefore Sura 4:34 really means:
...As to those women on whose part you see ill conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) rape them (lightly, if it is useful)...
Foolster,
"Do you beleive Rushdie and Van Gogh should be legally prevented from saying what they said/printing what they printed? If so, what should be the penalty? This is an important question."
Man are you thick headed...
: )
Read above....more than one sentence at a time, and try to keep that short term memory intact. (p.s. put the bong down for a while, okay?)
Peace
Abdullah
Yankel,
There is nothing to rebut...your spin on things is from you...you own the sick opinion you project. Rebut yourself.
And try reading more than one sentence at a time ....
The excerpt was from “Al-Qur'an: a contemporary translation by Ahmed Ali, Princeton University Press, 1988; pp78-79”
Peace
Abdullah
Abdullah wants to run, but he can't hide.
Abdullah considers himself some kind of an expert on muhammadanism.
Yet, he can't even read Arabic. He probably doesn't even know how to form the root of a simple triliteral verb.If he could, he'd realize that daraba (actually dharaba as the d "da" is emphatic) can never, except in slangy, vernacular speech, mean "bang" or "knock." Obviously, it is absurd to think that muhammad told his followers to "schtup" a woman who was being disobedient in the "holy" Quran. But nothing's too silly for Abdullah to post. He needs the job. He needs the money.
How is it that CAIR Dallas uses this guy to do damage control at infidel sites. He's whiffing.
A real loser is someone like AM, who, after he has lost and been publically humiliated, continues his "get the last word" behavior and says (like a broken record) "you'd be funny if you weren't so pathetic."
He brains have been beaten out on the floor of a mosque.
Great work as always Yankel,
I love to see AM's posts get more irrational and insulting as I scroll down.
Yankel,
Darabha is a tap, and lightly as explained by the Prophet such that it does not even leave a mark and never on the face, he wa asked to explain it, and he held up a miswak, a tooth brush, and said, "With this." It is the last step in the series of actions prior to divorce. It does not mean "beat" in respect to what you are meaning. It can never mean that in respect to how it was explained.
Now if you still fail to understand we'll post it again for you one more time:
The excerpt I posted prior to walking out of my office was from “Al-Qur'an: a contemporary translation by Ahmed Ali, Princeton University Press, 1988; pp78-79”
The opinion on daraba was Ahmed's not mine...my opinion has been expressed here before straight forward and it is nothing akin to what you allude to. It is exactly what I issued above and not different from it.
Contact Ahmed if you want to discuss Arabic linguistics and his odd take on that word.
You are the only one who is hung up on that word and the way you want it represented.
Clear enough, yet?
Peace
Abdullah
"My parents ... made clear that they would disown me,"
Iqbal said. "My father even said ... 'You're lucky you live in America because if you lived back home, you would have been dead by now.'"
Big surprise, eh? Another Muslim "Father" [PUKE] making a death threat.
Women Beware: Islam, religion of Death and Threats, as sanctioned by the unholy Qur'an.
AM: Sorry. I didn't see your post above. I don't smoke anything, though bongs can be used on tobacco which isn't a hallucinogen. You seem to be projecting that all people use bongs are druggies, hmm.
AM: "Don't need to... Jew translates straight to "Yid" in Yiddish...see the reference above. There is no insult at all in calling someone a Jew or a Yid, there is absolutely nothing wrong with being Jewish."
I call bull. Do you normally speak Yiddish? If not, even if "yid" isn't specifically a racial slur, then it is obvious that you were being insulting the way you said it (i.e. "you yid"). See my post above.
AM: "Q "Then never answered my follow up question: "Tell me, AM do you think people like Rushdie and Van Gogh should not be legally allowed to criticize Islam in the way they do?”
A I never said they couldn’t, did I? They both did so with wild abandon and made money doing it, and, all things considered, do you think it was a wise thing for them to do?"
That was pretty unclear. Was that a "they should be allowed"? Ah, it's about wisdom now? That sounds like a veiled threat. "they CAN, but don't you know, something terrible might happen to them.". Let me ask it this way: do you beleive they should be able to without worrying for their lives? YES or NO.
AM: [On Aisha] "What is there to question? She was betrothed at a very young age, happens all the time in European society, he was married to her at a very young age and consummated the marriage when she was mature. "
YOU ARE A LIAR (Or ignorant)!
Tabari IX:131 "My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse took over and wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was brought in while Muhammad was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. The other men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old."
He had sex with her at the age of 9! These are Aisha's OWN WORDS. There are no records of that being acceptable in Jewish customs (i.e. the bible, talmud).
AM Said: ""You have contentiously praised Shiara law practices of flogging and stoning as "deterants". They are deterents...what is there to argue about?"
Yes, flogging and stoning could be called "deterrents" but where as I, and most here call them abominable and horrible practices, you refuse to denounce them as such. Well, will you?
"This is from the revelation of the Quran and it is an apocalyptic…Mohammad didn’t “say it.” "
Uh, it's in the Quran and it came from somewhere. If Mohammad didn't have it recorded, then who did? He said that Jews would be killed in the end times, not disbelievers or bad Jews, but Jews, and what's more they will be slain by Muslims ON EARTH. It is practicly a promise/command to slay Jews to bring on the end times and it is disgusting.
There is no such thing in the Christian Revelation. Yes, people will be killed, but it is the armies gathering to conquer Jerusalem, or wars between nations. There are no decelerations that Christians in the end will kill anyone of any religious or racial group. Where as the Jewish/Christian god only commanded specific peoples at specific times be attacked, this is FUTURE TENSE.
AM: "On a case by case basis and only when I can prove it, and I have proved it or I wouldn’t say it."
No, you haven't. You argue the alcoholic point (over and over again), but that is far from conclusive. As I (and others) have said: (1) Prove the first statement was untrue and (2) prove that he changed it DIRECTLY from your post and then I'll beleive you. I haven't seen proof of either.
AM Said:" “ I hope and pray that your beliefs will be challenged and that you will leave your hate.” A I have no hate at all…that’s your bias projection, not mine…my belief is challenged all the time and every time it is simply reinforced."
No, I have no hate. I follow my master's teachings of "love your neighbor" and "pray for your enemies". However, I hate suppremisism (floggings and stoinings for apostocy that your co-religionists practice) that is in your religion, enforced by your master's teachings in the Quran/Hadiths.
It's been asked before, and I wonder; why not go after the fellow Muslims who do these evil things instead of the ones who are reporting them? Surely you beleive that slavery, apostosy/blashpomy laws, death fatwas are bad, right?
"dave" adduces the Shafi tradition of Islamic law. That's only one school out of 4 schools of Islamic law. Even if the interpretation of it he supplies is correct, that seems to mean that the other 3 traditions of Islamic law are not so favorable to his Islamic apolegetics (else surely he would have adduced them too, eh?).
Secondly, I am now reading the article "dave" used --
Disciplining Wives: A Historical Reading of Qur'ân 4:34
Author(s): Manuela Marín
Source: Studia Islamica, No. 97 (2003), pp. 5-40.
Although the scholar, Ms. Marín, seems MESA-Nostra-esque, her presentation (at least thus far) is in some respects sufficiently rational to undermine, rather than bolster, dave's apologetics for Islam. In her first couple of pages, using as a jumping-off point the infamous Islamic cleric of Spain, Mohamed Kamal Mostafa, who in 2000 published a book justifiying beating wives, Ms. Marín concedes that wifebeating and misogynistic attitudes against, and mistreatment of women is a major problem in the contemporary Muslim world and has direct roots in Islamic texts among which is Koran 4:34.
Thus, her tap-dance is subtler than those who simply deny this massive fact. She attempts to argue that the contemporary Muslim world has become beholden to "conservative" renderings of those Islamic texts, renderings that tend to ignore the suppler methodology of "classical" Islam wherein one can find a development of a more humane way of treating women. Exactly why the contemporary Muslim world is getting their own tradition so wrong on this issue (other than the few exceptions she notes which tend to prove the rule), Ms. Marín never answers -- though doubtless she would find a way to blame the West for it, somehow.
At any rate, in my reading of her article thus far, I note two interesting things:
1) the earlier Islamic traditions (as far back as the 9th century A.D.) of exegetical contextualization of Koran 4:34 do not contain dave's exculpatory and "progressive" exegesis: in fact, quite the opposite: the nucleus of the context is of a woman who along with her father complains to Mohammed that her husband beat her; Mohammed's impromptu response that they should seek retaliation against her husband; then Mohammed suddenly saying -- "Wait a sec, I'm getting a fax" -- i.e., a revelation from Allah, which was Koran 4:34. The tradition records this divine correction of Mohammed's impromptu opinion in Mohammed's words as: "I wanted something, and God wanted something else. What God wanted is better." (p. 10).
2) Ms. Marín makes the remarkable observation that this particular early tradition -- i.e., of replacing the possibility of the women getting retaliation for being beat with the divine revelation that she has no right and that in fact the husband has the right to beat her -- reflects a progressive development -- at least she implies this with her adorning language:
Thus, the Qur'ânic revelation is the occasion, not only of establishing a new framework for the relationships between husband and wife, but also of abolishing the pre-islamic practice of retaliation within the life of a married couple.
A "new framework for the relationships between husband and wife"! God says to men you can beat your wives. That's not a "new framework for the relationships between husband and wife" -- it's a divine carte blanche for wifebeating.
And note her final phrase, that this "new framework" helped to "abolish the pre-islamic practice of retaliation within the life of a married couple": notice her sleight-of-hand, eliminating the wife from the "married couple" and thus deflecting from this "pre-islamic practice" the specific fact that it accorded the wife the right to redress the wrong of being beaten. And also notice her sly phrase "pre-islamic practice", connoting an Islamic progress away from a time of savage Bedouin tribalism.
More later, when I finish the article.
AM: "Darabha is a tap, and lightly as explained by the Prophet such that it does not even leave a mark and never on the face, he wa asked to explain it, and he held up a miswak, a tooth brush, and said, "With this." It is the last step in the series of actions prior to divorce. It does not mean "beat" in respect to what you are meaning."
Muhammad had NO business instructing men, or women, for that matter, on what is proper and respectful treatment of women. Nor did he have any business instructing anyone on human behaviors, in general. Muhammad was criminally insane, so why give any of his thoughts and opinions an audience. All he ever taught any of us was on how NOT to behave. Everything he ever did or said must be properly framed as coming from a con man and a complete lunatic, so you must keep things in their proper perspective.
And I cannot think of an occasion where even a "light tap" with a toothbrush is neither appropriate or acceptable. Suggesting a man take said action on a woman, or on any human being, only speaks ILL of the person making the suggestion. And it also speaks ILL of the person who endorses it. Plus, it only shows that Muhammad was a coward and afraid of women, and that he did not respect them -- and it also shows the cowardess and disrespect of men who endorse this humiliating and unholy rite-of-passage.
Also, if you didn't agree with in Ahmed, then why would you post his material in the first place? You obviously agree with his position, so I'm not at all sure what point you are trying to make by correcting Yankel -- other than to show just how LOW you're willing to go to avoid being confronted, and confront you he did!!! ...good job, btw, Yankel!!
Anyway, all I can say is that you and your false prophet, Motard, deserve one another, AM. You know, birds of a feather flock together....
Foolster
You raise a good point about free speech, but I stand by my point. I believe in free speech but not without accountability…however they should neither one have ever be threatened with harm for their ideas unless their ideas promoted harming others. ( Joseph Goebbels, right to speak freely or not? Point made yet?)
Foolster said “Let me ask it this way: do you beleive they should be able to without worrying for their lives? YES or NO.”
I believe in knowing where I am walking into and that I’d like to walk out of again, and knowing that not everywhere is as free as America is in stating what is on our minds.
Try speaking out against the Chinese or Egyptian government…or in fact almost any Central European government and see what happens. I am saying be cognizant of what one says, there may be ramifications, like it or not, the world is an ugly place.
I noted before the usual tactic for those here at JW is to put pre-conditions that are impossible to meet on their challenges…yes, I can not prove that Robert changed the article because of what I wrote.
I can only prove Robert lied in initially posting it…and that’s all I have to prove.
Robert was proven a liar in the alcohol incident. It happened in real time. I posted the rebuttal that crushed his premise. He suddenly changed the article. When I called him on it he tried to bring up darura and I defeated that argument of his as well. End of story. Let’s never bring this up again, okay? It’s very old news.
Foolster said “It's been asked before, and I wonder; why not go after the fellow Muslims who do these evil things instead of the ones who are reporting them?”
My "Fellow Muslims" don't commit crimes. And it is not the reporting I go after…it’s the false projection that Islam teaches these things ( “honor killing,” ‘wife beating,” and any number of other crimes…) that I go after. Islam does the opposite and teaches against those things.
Foolster said “Surely you beleive that slavery,”
Yes, slavery was a vile scourge that existed before the advent of Islam and it still does today. When properly followed slavery has been abolished by Islam.
Foolster said “death fatwas are bad, right?”
Generally speaking, yes, it seems bad that someone would put out a fatwa against just one person for something, as if that kind of thing was taken seriously…yes, someone might…but I still point out Salman has been under a “death fatwa!” for what, like twenty one years?
And you reeally think that it is a serious thing, I mean, really? Who on earth is listening to the nut bag issuing that stuff? I’ll tell you, no one. Otherwise it would have been days and the daisies would have been the only publishing he did…but no, here we are two decades later and nothing is threatening Salman but losing sales.
Foolster said “No, I have no hate. I follow my master's teachings of "love your neighbor" and "pray for your enemies". However, I hate suppremisism (floggings and stoinings for apostocy that your co-religionists practice) that is in your religion, enforced by your master's teachings in the Quran/Hadiths.”
And he drove the money lenders from the temple with a whip. Hmmmm? Who did that? Your Master?
“Think not that I bring peace on the world, I bring a sword.” Hmmmm…. Who said that? Your Master?
I am not here to point fingers at your belief…it is yours.
I understand mine very well and I am pleased with it.
This would be so much easier if you’d just e-mail me…wouldn’t it?
challengingreddyneck@yahoo.com
But then again, you could always hide from the light...altruism is so much more refreshing than posing for the crowd here...let's take it off line? You can post anything I write to you...there, you have permission.
What do you say? Truth?
Peace
Abdullah
Ah, AM takes the last resort...it wasn't me who said it...he's just reporting on it. Sounds a lot like what Robert Spencer does, except AM is on the wrong side of right. I can see why cair pays AM...he's very good at deflecting and obfuscating a simple question by providing answers that makes no sense. Apparently, per his last post, now he admits it's OK to tap lightly as long as you don't leave a mark (especially on the face since that would show in public). Always amusing, AM can have my Comic Relief posting name.
champ,
The miswak is disingenuously translated by Islam apologists as a "toothbrush", trying to mislead us into thinking a little implement like our modern toothbrush is meant; but actually the miswak is a strip from a plant used, among other things, in its smaller forms as a kind of floss for the teeth. It resembles more what is known in the American South as a "switch". (This incidentally may shed light on the manner of the physical violence prescribed by Koran 4:34 and may mean that two of the Muslim translators, Pickthall and Sheri Ali, may have been on the mark in implying whipping when the former used the word "scourge" to translate while the latter used "chastise" -- both terms in older usage definitely implying whipping.)
Abdullah,
You sure have been on this thread a lot, but you haven't yet found the time to answer my one simple question, so I'm going to ask it again; a simple yes or no question:
Do you think that Nonie Darwish should be put to death for her "treason" against Islam?
Answer this one question please. It's a very simple question.
Wow, AM working overtime today...must of got tapped out donating to the cause over ramadamadingdong.
Mo Foe,
AM finally did answer your question. Not sure which thread. He said "No." As a follow-up question, I'd suggest you ask him what would be the suitable punishment for Nonie Darwish.
AM: My "Fellow Muslims" don't commit crimes.
Funniest thing you've ever posted, liar.
AM: Generally speaking, yes, it seems bad that someone would put out a fatwa against just one person for something...[SNIP]
Wow......only 'generally speaking? Typical psychotic moslem mindset.
AM: but I still point out Salman has been under a “death fatwa!” for what, like twenty one years?
So because of the ineptitude of your moslem assassins we should take the threat more seriously?
So because of the ineptitude of your moslem assassins we should take the threat 'more seriously?
Should read 'less seriously'
Your apologist Gordian knot is unraveling, AM, take it elsewhere.
Abdullah,
I didn't see that you answered the question on the other thread ("More from the threatener") so my apologies for reposting.
But, I didn't appreciate your insults. I was sincerely asking a simple question, and didn't need your insults.
See, now that you have said that Nonie Darwish does not deserve to be put to death, I want to know "why not?"
I mean not only is she an apostate, and that, according to some scholars is enough for a death penalty, but she goes around saying very negative things about Islam. I guess that doesn't qualify as "treason" in your book?
Then what would? What would she have to do?
Moe Foe -- your last question "What would she have to do?" -- excellent follow-up question.
Hesp,
Thanks for providing this information.
A switch? Well, that's even more distressing. I was upset over the idea that Muhammad (no-peace be upon him) had suggested tapping a woman with a toothbrush-type-instrument, now I learn that it's actually a "switch" he endorsed.
Well then, let me be perfectly clear, whether it's a toothbrush or a switch, tapping a woman with ANYTHING is unacceptable and wrong. Period.
Muhammad had nothing to offer society or humanity, so shame on those who heed his rantings and follow his evil examples. I mean, good gawd! ...whatever happened to common sense.
AM: "Robert was proven a liar in the alcohol incident. It happened in real time. I posted the rebuttal that crushed his premise. He suddenly changed the article. When I called him on it he tried to bring up darura and I defeated that argument of his as well. End of story. Let’s never bring this up again, okay? It’s very old news."
>You're the one who keeps bringing up and pretending you "won" but I haven't seen very convincing proof it was at all a lie, only that it was vague.
AM said: "Yes, slavery was a vile scourge that existed before the advent of Islam and it still does today. When properly followed slavery has been abolished by Islam."
>This is a lie. Slavery is practiced widely in the Muslim world. And yet, you complain of "bioggotry" when we report this here.
"Try speaking out against the Chinese or Egyptian government…or in fact almost any Central European government and see what happens. I am saying be cognizant of what one says, there may be ramifications, like it or not, the world is an ugly place."
>I of course hate any kind of tyrany anywhere, and I do speak out against it when I see it. Yes the world is an ugly place, but don't forget it is your co-religionists who are the ones who make people who speak out against Islam and those religious minorities in Islamic lands like the copts in Egypt afraid.
>I've told you why I've decided to not e-mail you. I prefer the openness of the internet. I don't trust you to later twist my e-mails or claim I did the same, as with the claims you have with Mr. Spencer.
AM Said: "I noted before the usual tactic for those here at JW is to put pre-conditions that are impossible to meet on their challenges…yes, I can not prove that Robert changed the article because of what I wrote."
>Ha! Notice, these "impossible pre-conditions" is EVIDENCE. If you can't back up what you say, then don't say it. It MAKES NO SENSE to complain and say my asking for the proof is an "impossible pre-condition".
Truth is so annoying, isn't it?
Champ: That wood is still used in some countries for cleaning teeth. I have a photo of a man selling it by the roadside, cut up into pieces a few inches long. Left uncut, the wood would be able to be used to inflict a lot of pain. Yes, it is amazing that the sneaky "toothbrush" translation has worked so well for the Islamic apologists, as if Mohammed was being ironic and making admonishment of women seem a bit of a joke. In any case, beating was (and is) only one aspect of Islamic cruelty to women. Raping captured slaves, polygamy, "honour killing", FGM...and so on, quite a few incentives for women to deny their own nature and submit to the fantasies of their lords and masters.
AlKidya's example of Mohammed's "kindness" to women (his cold approval of the killing of the poetess) probably says enough. Who needs to know more? If Mohammed ever TALKED about "kindness" to women then he was simply being vilely hypocritical.
Hesperado,
Thanks!
It's a bit more complicated than a yes or no question, and I look forward to the insults that will accompany an answer--if one is forthcoming.
Hesperado:
“Ms. Marín concedes that wifebeating and misogynistic attitudes against, and mistreatment of women is a major problem in the contemporary Muslim world and has direct roots in Islamic texts among which is Koran 4:34.” -Hesperado
Wrong. She does not say that wifebeating and misogyny are “a major problem.” If you think she does, show me where. She says “the offending paragraphs in the book by M. K. Mostafa are hardly original. Similar statements can be found in Islamist literature all over the Arab-speaking world as well as in Western languages.” She also says that “at present, more liberal or even progressive interpretations of this controversial Qur'anic verse are not uncommon.”
So she says that there are varying interpretations of 4:34. She is talking about interpretations, not actions. Nowhere does she talk about actual conduct of contemporary Muslims. I brought up actual conduct on this thread, and the problem is not bigger in Muslim society than in the US. It is a problem with humans, not Islam.
“Exactly why the contemporary Muslim world is getting their own tradition so wrong on this issue (other than the few exceptions she notes which tend to prove the rule), Ms. Marín never answers”-Hesperado
Yes, she does. First, she details how contemporary conservative Muslims read 4:34 literally and ignore the classical debate on the subject:
“Similar statements [to Mostafa’s] can be found in Islamist literature all over the Arab-speaking world as well as in Western languages. As a rule, this kind of literature offers literal readings of Qur'an, 4:34, a verse used to justify male domination over women in the family as well as in the social sphere. Following the traditional exegesis of this verse, contemporary Islamists and conservative Muslim scholars understand it as God's will to give husbands the authority to beat their disobedient wives. Characteristically, this kind of commentary disregards the classical debate on the subject, and focuses instead on defining the essential inferiority of women, who need to be guided by the male members of their families and, if necessary, to be physically chastised by them.”
She explains how this approach ignores the complexity of the subject in Islamic history:
“A literal interpretation of Qur'an 4:34, such as the one proposed by [Mostafa] quoted at the beginning of this article (or by anti-Muslim propagandists) overlooks the historical complexity of the subject under discussion.”
An anti-Muslim propagandist would ignore the historical complexity of Islamic law and instead insist on a literal interpretation?!? What anti-Muslim propagandist would do such a thing? Those anti-Muslim propagandists who insist on literal interpretations and cannot bother themselves with Islamic history have a lot in common with the extramist clerics like Mostafa.
She then says that progressive Muslims do take into account the historical debate on the subject:
“Methodologically, what distinguishes modern ‘progressive’ exegesis from its conservative counterpart, is mainly the insistence on taking into account the historicity of the Qur'an.”
She explains how taking into account the history of debate within Islamic law has always been a feature of Islamic law. Too bad it is not a feature of the "anti-Muslim propagandists":
“But if awareness of the problem of ‘battered wives’ is a very recent one in Western societies, in Muslim societies it was already discussed from early times. These discussions have to be placed, as the Qur'anic revelation itself, in their historical context. It should be noted that the emphasis on ‘historical circumstances’ surrounding the revelation is not, by any means, new. In fact, a well developed part of the traditional curriculum in Qur'anic sciences’ is that of asbab al-nuzal (‘occasions of revelation’).”
“Exactly why the contemporary Muslim world is getting their own tradition so wrong on this issue (other than the few exceptions she notes which tend to prove the rule), Ms. Marín never answers”????-Hesperado
I really don’t know how she could be any clearer. Maybe you need to reread the article.
Here is an example of the early history:
“That violence against women was a matter discussed in early Islamic times is clearly shown by the short chapter entitled ‘on beating women’ (dhikr darb al-nisd) in the volume of women's biographies that ends the Tabaqdt of Ibn Sa'd. The chapter begins with a terse statement by 'A'isha: the Prophet never struck a woman or a servant girl, or anybody else, unless he was engaged in a military campaign. The rest of the chapter is divided in two different types of traditions. In the first one, the Prophet unequivocally and in strong terms condemns men who beat their wives; in the second one, he allows beatings but pointing out that only the worst men in the community would mistreat treat their wives. Of the two traditions belonging to the first group, one is of a positive character: ‘the best of you - said the Prophet - is the one who is the best for his womenfolk (ahl), and I am the best of you for my womenfolk.’ In another account, the Prophet shows his displeasure when a woman complained to him that her husband had beat her severely. In the Prophet's words, men like this husband should be ashamed of beating their wives as if they were their slaves and later having intercourse with them.”
Regardless of interpretations, the simple conclusion is that men beat their wives worldwide. When people have the power to physically dominate another human, they frequently take advantage of it, and use physical methods to address their issues. They do not need a book to tell them it is OK or not. This is a problem with humans that will take millennia to solve.
These same human issues also manifest themselves in the actions of nations, since nations are composed of humans. Some nations seem to want the rest of the world to submit to their military dominance, and to follow their orders, rather than allow less militarily advanced nations to find their own path. Do you know any nations like this?
"Robert was proven a liar in the alcohol incident. It happened in real time. I posted the rebuttal that crushed his premise. He suddenly changed the article. When I called him on it he tried to bring up darura and I defeated that argument of his as well. End of story. Let’s never bring this up again, okay? It’s very old news."
Much as you might like to cover your ears and hum on this one, I for one will not let you get away with this.
YOU have made the accusation, therefore YOU must have the evidence. If you don't have the evidence, have the good grace to retract your accusation. All you know for sure is that Robert was mistaken. You are not the arbiter of this disagreement as you are involved. Conflict of interest.
"Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "Whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day should not hurt (trouble) his neighbor. And I advise you to take care of the women, for they are created from a rib and the most crooked portion of the rib is its upper part; if you try to straighten it, it will break, and if you leave it, it will remain crooked, so I urge you to take care of the women." (Book #62, Hadith #114)
Here is just one advice from the Prophet to be easy and kind and soft with women."
This is the best you could come up with. Which, as others have pointed out, is open to interpretation.
Your interpretation says that "The meaning is simple...many Muslim women have commented that "women have curves" don't force them to be other than their natures they may break. Women are more caring and considreate and emotional by nature, and men are the opposite as well, hard, forceful, and agressive."
What an incredibly sexist thing to say! AbdullahMikail, do you consider yourself to be hard, forceful and aggressive? By stating this, you show your true colours - that men are akin to beasts, uncontrollable in their natures and lacking self discipline. It is this attitude that is used as an excuse to enforce the wearing of Burqas. And I reject your interpretation.
You still don't seem to get it. The very fact that we are having this discussion proves that something is indeed rotten with the state of Islam. It is the same with your take on the misinterpretations of Islamist Jihadists or honour killings. As much as you may try to dance, your arguments do not correlate with reality.
This grand statement that you have found is an endorsement of some kind of "soft" enforcement of the male's will. Don't try to straighten them to the point of breaking, but don't leave things crooked either. It still gives a big thumbs up to having the male as the king of the household. It leaves, with a wink and a nod, the idea that it's up to the man to impose that dictatorial will over the females in his life - just don't break the women while you do it.
So bravo, AbdullahMikail. In your best defence of Islam and it's stance on spousal abuse, you have uncovered its rampant sexism and its endorsement of abuse.
I get a lot of requests for donating to charity. Here is one I received about a week ago:
"September 2009
Punjab, Pakistan
Dear friend,
My name is Mukhtar Mai. In 2002, I was gang raped on the orders of a village council to avenge my brother's supposed misconduct. I fought for justice against the men who raped me and won, and used the money to help women in my community. Among other things, I opened schools for girls so that future generations would not grow up illiterate, as I had.
Mercy Corps has been a great partner to me in this effort. More than 4,700 people have given $628,000 through Mercy Corps to support my work. For that, I say thank you.
My case is not unique, and neither is the help I've received from Mercy Corps. They support women like me around the world — women fighting against oppression, hunger, poverty and hopelessness. From Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, including here in Pakistan, they are empowering women to be change agents in their families and communities.
As Muslims around the world celebrate Ramadan through fasting, reflection and charity, I invite you to support Mercy Corps and help millions of women like me see a brighter future.
Thank you."
.................
I have enormous respect for Mukhtar Mai, a woman *ordered gang raped* by an Islamic council, who fought back. But even she cannot bring herself to mention Islam--the cause of her horrendous and unjust suffering, in anything other than a wholly positive manner.
Until the boot of Islam is off the necks of Muslim village women like Mukhtar Mai, it will always be true that cases like hers are "not unique".
I will only respond for now to two points raised by dave742, in response to what I wrote :
1) dave742 wrote, in response to my statement that -- “Ms. Marín concedes that wifebeating and misogynistic attitudes against, and mistreatm of women is a major problem in the contemporary Muslim world and has direct roots in Islamic texts among which is Koran 4:34” --:
“Wrong. She does not say that wifebeating and misogyny are “a major problem.” ”
I didn’t write that she said that; I wrote that she concedes that, meaning through the force of her presentation. She writes more than what dave742 reported: Aside from writing that “Similar statements [similar to the Muslim imam M.K. Mostafa’s justification of wifebeating and the more general dominance over women which this entails and reflects] can be found in Islamist literature all over the Arab-speaking world as well as in Western languages. As a rule, this kind of literature offers literal readings of Qur’ân, 4:34, a verse used to justify male domination over women in the family as well as in the social sphere. Following the traditional exegesis of this verse, contemporary Islamists and conservative Muslim scholars understand it as God’s will to give husbands the authority to beat their disobedient wives. Characteristically, this kind of commentary disregards the classical debate on the subject, and focuses instead on defining the essential inferiority of women, who need to be guided by the male members of their families and, if necessary, to be physically chastised by them.”
All this indicates that, as I characterized it, she concedes that in fact wifebeating and misogyny are a major problem throughout the Muslim world. She had ample opportunity to leaven her description of the problem with nice mitigating terms like “tiny minority”, etc., but she chose not to. The coexistent fact that contrary voices of “progress” are “not uncommon” does not mitigate the problem nor its magnitude. Nor should the dubious allegation that the problem is no greater in the Muslim world than in the West, even if true, mitigate the problem or its magnitude. Furthermore, if all Ms. Marín's initial presentation is doing is talking about "interpretations" to the exclusion of behavior among Muslims, why are all these "progressive" Muslims she adduces so busy working against them? Social activists busy tilting at the windmills of dusty "traditional" texts that nobody is acting upon? Of course not.
2) dave742 wrote in response to my rhetorical question -- “Exactly why the contemporary Muslim world is getting their own tradition so wrong on this issue... Ms. Marín never answers” -- “Yes she does.”
No, she doesn’t. She answers how they get it so wrong (and dave742's re-presentation of it only reiterates the how, not the why). She does not tackle the problem of why.
Hesperado:
"I didn’t write that she said that; I wrote that she concedes that"
I guess it takes a scholar like you to tease that out of her paper. You say that "She writes more than what dave742 reported," and then go on to quote the EXACT quote that I did.If she wrote more than what I quoted that is relevant, then quote that. Saying that she said more, then quoting what I did, is nonsensical.
"She had ample opportunity to leaven her description of the problem with nice mitigating terms like “tiny minority”, etc., but she chose not to."
Sometimes I wonder why I post here. No, she didn't write that only a tiny minority of Muslims beat their wives, because that is not true. That is not true anywhere in the world, including the US. No sane person would write that a "tiny minority" of US men beat their wives. Using your logic, that means that wife beating is a "major problem" in the US. If you don't say "tiny minority,' then it is a "major problem." Grow up. Whatever term you want to use, the problem of wife beating is approximately equal in the US and Muslim countries. Call the problem "Steve".
"She answers how they get it so wrong (and dave742's re-presentation of it only reiterates the how, not the why). She does not tackle the problem of why."
You are very obnoxious. I don't think you are even impressing your fellow JW readers with your inane parsing of words. OK. she shows how they get it wrong. She says that Islamic extremist conservatives and anti-Muslim propagandists both read the text literally and ignore the entire history of Islamic law surrounding the issue. I'll give you the "why" for this. Both these groups are imbeciles.
Hesperado:
I think I got sucked into your nonsense game of pertending like Marin said something about the extent that spousal abuse occurs in Muslim countries. She did not say a word about that. Not a word. Her paper concerns interpretation of Islamic law surrounding a particular issue. She was comparing interpretations, and to an extent, how widespread different interpretations are. She said one interpretion "can be found in Islamist literature all over the Arab-speaking world," and another view is "not uncommon." I doubt that she put nearly as much effort into choosing these terms as you are putting into analyzing them. There are different interpretations. That's all she was saying. The point of her entire paper is that one of these interpretations is wrong, because it concentrates on analyzing a few words rather than discussing the entire history of the issue in Islamic law. This is the same thing you are doing in this thread. You are focusing all your attention on what a couple of words, and trying to figure out the hidden meaning of those words in the mind of the author. Meanwhile, you ignore the entire body of the paper. This is exactly what she says the problem is with the Islamic conservatives.
You JW readers will spend hours looking up what a stupid word means, or what type of stick a person meant, and ignore a thousand years worth of history. When she said that "anti-Muslim propandists" have the same problem as Muslim conservatives regarding ignoring history and focusing on a few words, she sure had JW readers pegged.
Robert | September 17, 2009 7:07 AM | Reply
For those of you who may be joining our program late, a few notes:
A.) “Abdullah M. is referring to an article in which I wrote this: "Yet in reality, Islam forbids drinking alcohol, but it doesn’t command one to shun those who do, or not to be anywhere near them." Later I decided that in light of Islamic law and a famous hadith, this statement was unclear, and so I changed it.”
B.) “Abdullah has always imagined himself responsible for this change, but the facts are otherwise. In reality, my first formulation was accurate regarding Muslims in non-Muslim states, which is what the article was about. However, it wasn't specific enough, and could have been misleading, so I decided to revise it.”
C.) “But it was accurate in reporting the views of some Islamic scholars, in light of the principle of darura. Don't take my word for it. C1) In Ihsan Yilmaz's book Muslim Laws, Politics And Society In Modern Nation States, Yilmaz notes this: "Muslims in the post-modern age have not abandoned their religious laws in favor of the lex loci, but have found ways to reconstruct it under the conditions of asr al-darura..." And "Regarding alcohol, although there is a consensus that drinking is prohibited, the external usage is permitted by some Hanafi scholars." C2) Al-Ghazali even allows for the consumption of alcohol in cases of darura -- necessity.”
D.) “But now Abdullah M. would have you believe that I demonstrated "ignorance" in speaking of darura in this connection, and that that somehow demonstrates that I am only writing about this for the money. He ignores the evidence that Islamic scholars have spoken in the same way, because it doesn't suit his agenda.”
Abdullah's case is instructive …( snip)
As for his attacks on me personally…( snip)
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Robert | September 17, 2009 10:15 AM | Reply
Abdullah:
"Email exchange"?
Funny how there is only one email in that exchange. (LIE THERE WERE THREE) In reality, as you well know, I did not converse about this with you. Contrary to your preening claim, I did not change the article because of your email, which I only saw after the change had been made.
A1.) “Any interested parties will also note that you do not address, and cannot address, the information above re darura that shows I was correct.”
Cordially
Robert Spencer
A1) Really, Robert? Read below...
Robert claimed the Muslim cabbies were allowed by darura “convenience” to transport alcohol.
He was absolutely wrong, even the references he used which he thinks supports his claim actually condemns him:
C1) In Ihsan Yilmaz's book Muslim Laws, Politics And Society In Modern Nation States, Yilmaz notes this: "Muslims in the post-modern age have not abandoned their religious laws in favor of the lex loci, but have found ways to reconstruct it under the conditions of asr al-darura..." And "Regarding alcohol, although there is a consensus that drinking is prohibited, the external usage is permitted by some Hanafi scholars."
C1 has nothing to do in relation to his stated position of darura in respect to how he framed it as allowing the cabbie the “convenience” of transporting alcohol.
C2) Al-Ghazali even allows for the consumption of alcohol in cases of darura -- necessity.”
Robert attempts to frame Al-Ghazali as supporting his position, yet Al-Gazali properly addresses the avoidance of imminent harm, darura…and this is the correct interpretation…if one is dying of thirst and there is no other alternative period, and one will die without drinking it, one may drink alcohol in order to survive… which is not what Robert claimed “convenience.”
C2 is a false correlation posted by Robert in an attempt to some how lend credence to his false claim of “darura”, and Al-Ghazali does not agree with him and is in agreement with that which I posted as proof of his error:
Mūil Yūsuf Izz al-Dīn, Islamic law: from historical foundations to contemporary practice; Chapter 6 Darura, necessity, wherein is discussed the element of avoidance of imminent harm.
The cabbies can not as a matter of Islamic law claim darura allows them to transport alcohol unless it is in order to avoid an imminent harm, period. To boil it down, if someone gets in their cab and holds them at gun point ordering them to transport the alcohol, that would qualify, and thus Robert is himself wrong in his initial interpretation.
http://books.google.com/books?id=fQzVVL8zI0sC&pg=PA82&dq=darura+imminent+harm#v=onepage&q=darura%20imminent%20harm&f=false
It can never be said that as a matter of “convenience” that they be allowed under Islamic Law to transport alcohol.
Robert was absolutely wrong in his claim that darura applied in allowing Muslim cabbies to transport alcohol, and thus get himself off the hook for initially lying about what you were thinking applied and why you wrote this falsehood:
Robert Spencer "Yet in reality, Islam forbids drinking alcohol, but it doesn’t command one to shun those who do, or not to be anywhere near them."
No, darura cannot apply in the way Robert said it did. Read the definition in Mūil Yūsuf Izz al-Dīn, Islamic law: from historical foundations to contemporary practice; Chapter 6 Darura, Necessity.
Robert Spencer: “He ignores the evidence that Islamic scholars have spoken in the same way, because it doesn't suit his agenda.”
The scholars Robert referred to agree with the proper interpretation of darura and not Robert's erroneous assumptions, despite his attempt to disseminate information as if it supported him, with very little research by anyone they will find he only condemned his position thereby.
Which brings us back to the initial falsehood...he posted a lie, retracted it, and tried to cover his error with a false interpretation and application of the concept of darura.
Robert was wrong, proven wrong, edited his falsehood, then attempted to cover himself with an erroneous opinion on darura.
Peace
Abdullah
AM: I'm not going to respond to your last post, because a lot of it seems to rely heavily on knowledge of the issue of darura, which I don't know enough about but hope more knowledgeable posters like Hugh will answer.
You never did answer me a few of my questions in the earlier post, that I didn't really notice until now.
I'd like to know do you usually speak yiddish? If so, how often do you speak it? Do you know anyone who does?
Do you think saying "you jew" or "you arab" (and I think you know what tone I mean) is insulting, even though the terms "jew" and "arab" is not offensive?
You also didn't respond in any way to my catching you on the lie about Aisha. When I said made the claim the Mohammad had sex with a minor you said "What is there to question? She was betrothed at a very young age, happens all the time in European society, he was married to her at a very young age and consummated the marriage when she was mature. "
you say he was "betrothed", and perhaps it is true that it was common in those days to be betrothed so young as 6, but you didn't mention that he had sex with her when she was 9! (Tabari IX:131 in Aisha's own words!) do you consider 9 to be "mature"? If so, you're a pedophile! As I said before, there is no proof of anything like this in the Torah/Old Testament.
You also never answered my challenge to denounce floggings and stoning as abominable. Will you?
Also, I have a follow up question to freedom of speach issue: You talked about accountability and mention Nazi propagandist Joseph Gobbels Do you think this accountability should be enforced by the government? If so, how much is going too far for example in a case of "insulting Islam"? Would it have to be outright call for violence (i.e. saying something direct like "kill the Muslims")? If it is something less severe that that, then What should the penalty be in those cases?
Foolster
I only speak Yiddish or Hebrew in very rare occasions, and I only know a very few polite phrases among them have a good and sweet year in Hebrew and its Yiddish equivalent…and I most likely ruin the pronunciation.
I can see how that saying some things in some contexts may be interpreted as an insult, so if you were insulted by it being posted, then by all means I apologize to you.
“You also didn't respond in any way to my catching you on the lie about Aisha.”
To this, what lie was stated? None.
The marriage was consummated when she was mature…physical maturitty is the point...there are sources that give a whole range of ages that Aisha suppossedly was…it is immaterial, she was physically mature when the marriage was consummated and there was nothing wrong with it at all. The most vehement enemies of the Prophet would have been all over him at the time had it been somehow wrong, and they were not. It was normal in tribal society then, it is normal in a tribal society today, and the human being is biologically created for life in this purpose.
In respect ot the possible age of Aisha look up the hadith in which the Prophet was pryaing in the Kabba and some Quraish dumped goat intestines on his back. Aisha was a child of enough age in years to see this was bad and she was the one who removed them from his back...this happened in the very early days of the revelatoin in Mecca. How old was she then?
Yes, with advancements in education and science we now understand it is better to wait until both of the people are older, more physically and emotionally mature, rather than just biologically ready for child bearing…because from time immemorial menses was the indication of biological readiness for child bearing in tribal and agrarian societies, even in the US at the turn of the century children as young as eleven, thirteen, fourteen were wed…doesn’t make it wrong or immoral if they were mature that is a natural fact of life in agrarian and tribal societies of not too long ago, and probably still today in the developing world…without the indicator menses it would have been very wrong for it to have occurred… there is no marital relationship allowed in lieu of maturity. Again, they were married for the remainder of his life and it was a noble and honorable marriage that brought much good to mankind.
Foolster you wrote: “there is no proof of anything like this in the Torah/Old Testament.”
You are absolutely wrong. A thirty second search turns up in the Old Testament there is a direct order to Jewish soldiers to spare alive Virgin captives and slay the maids (namely Numbers 31:18):
King James Version, Numbers 31: 9 to 19:
9 And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.
10And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire.
11And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts.
12And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near Jericho.
13And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp.
14And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle.
15And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
16Behold, 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.
17Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
19And do ye abide without the camp seven days: whosoever hath killed any person, and whosoever hath touched any slain, purify both yourselves and your captives on the third day, and on the seventh day.
In Numbers 31;17 there is an order to the Jewish soldiers to murder all the captive male children, and to murder every captive women who was not a virgin, and to keep the “women children” alive for themselves.
So just how do you think a Jewish foot soldier 2,000 years ago could determine the intactness or non-intactness of a girl’s virginity? I REALLY want to see you try to explain this one.
As far as your question about censure I won’t entertain it…it’s a fruitless argumentative point…
There is freedom of speech in the US and a court of law already and anyone can file suit against anyone else and invite them to legally discuss the issue. It must of course rise beyond the level of frivolity, and one must be able to prove one’s case. The issue of ICNA & Others Versus Joe Kaufman comes to mind.
Joe violated a court order, which I hope he gets penalized for… free speech does not give one the right to violate a court order… but his opponents must prove their point in court and have as of yet been unable to accomplish that.
“You also never answered my challenge to denounce floggings and stoning as abominable. Will you?”
These are punishments in Islamic Law for certain crimes, and in any law there are punishments and the punishment should be a deterrent to a criminal committing a crime. Some punishments are more harsh than others, we have them in every system of law on the planet. Some cultures have diametrically opposite morals and actions, our US Culture being one where we will turn our nose up as something as simple as caning a criminal as being “brutal” and “medieval”
yet most of us will argue that using the Atom bomb against Japan was “”justified”… no, it’s not a moral equivalence argument I am using…I am saying don’t point fingers at issues you yourself and our culture here are not above. There is crime and there are punishments for those crimes…they serve as deterrents and no one wants them to be carried out on another human being. What is the key? Don’t commit the crime.
“AM: I'm not going to respond to your last post, because a lot of it seems to rely heavily on knowledge of the issue of darura, which I don't know enough about but hope more knowledgeable posters like Hugh will answer.”
I would gladly discuss the darura issue with Hugh at length as he has recently shown both honor and integrity.
Peace
Abdullah
Foolster41, you wrote to Abdullah, "You also never answered my challenge to denounce floggings and stoning as abominable. Will you?"
He won't. He has said they are good deterrents.
Abdullah,
Are you gonna answer my question about Nonie Darwish? What would she (or any apostate) have to do to qualify for the death penalty due to "treason"?
Bad More Foe,
Look it up yourself:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj2.htm#894.%20ART.%2094.%20MUTINY%20OR%20SEDITION
Peace
Abdullah
#1 - This is all in relation to "lawful civil (or military) authority" which it seems to me has nothing to do with religious beliefs. I mean, not believing in Allah, has nothing to do with any civil authority in free countries.
Therefore, by your definition, there is nothing she could do to cause an accusation to treason. Good to know! Go Nonie--keep publishing and telling the truth about Islam.
#2 - On the other hand, in your definition, there's this, "(2) with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition;"
So, any imam who preaches against the government of the country they're in; is guilty of sedition.
We should enforce this immediately!
Abdullah:
I am a little confused as to what the issue was between yourself and Mr. Spencer, but I have a question about alcohol. I read that one school (I think Hanafi) says that drinking wine is prohibited, but other alcohol is not, as long as you do not get intoxicated. I could get the reference tonight. Have you heard of this? Correct? Incorrect?
BMF,
#1 "Therefore, by your definition, there is nothing she could do to cause an accusation to treason. "
I said that from the start... are you paying attention?
Peace
Abdullah
Dave,
I am not one to issue any ruling on anything and I am only relaying what I have learned from the people of knowledge.
What I have learned from them is that the prohibition is against khamr "intoxicants" and it covers not only alcohol directly, but also every intoxicant, period...this includes intoxicating drugs.
Alcohol has a special classification in that in the prohibition it was singled out and directly named, and as a Muslim, we may not drink it, pour it, sit with people who drink it and or serve it, we may not transport, we may not buy, sell, or even use the profits from the sale of it to buy things that are halal, and we may not even own the implements that are used to even make the alcohol. Every avenue to it has been prohibitted.
The belief that a Muslim is only to avoid "intoxication" is a self deception...the prohibition is more severe than any other named in Quran as far as the extent of the prohibition...all paths to it and its use have been prohibitted.
I would be interested in reading your Hanafi reference. Please do post it.
Peace
Abdullah
Abdullah,
I guess I wasn't paying attention. But, it's good to know that, at least according to you, anyone can leave Islam whenever they want, and even preach against it, perhaps causing others to leave Islam, and that's not a reason to kill them.
Good!
Abdullah:
Thanks for the info. The reference I read this in was not a "Hanafi reference," but simply a book on Islamic law by an American author (I do not know Arabic). The author, however, is not anti-Islamic, and is what I consider a reputable source. As I remember, there was no Arabic source for this statement, but it was just made in passing. I was certainly shocked when I read it. From what you say, it is likely simply incorrect. I will look it up tonight.
dave742 wrote -- in response my writing that "She [Ms. Marín] writes more than what dave742 reported..." --
that I "then go on to quote the EXACT quote that I [i.e., that dave742] did.If she wrote more than what I quoted that is relevant, then quote that. Saying that she said more, then quoting what I did, is nonsensical."
Here is what dave742 had quoted with regard to the problem I was referring to (not, of course, with regard to the solution in the "not uncommon" reformers which is not pertinent in this regard):
She says “the offending paragraphs in the book by M. K. Mostafa are hardly original. Similar statements can be found in Islamist literature all over the Arab-speaking world as well as in Western languages.”
Here is what I quoted:
“Similar statements [similar to the Muslim imam M.K. Mostafa’s justification of wifebeating and the more general dominance over women which this entails and reflects] can be found in Islamist literature all over the Arab-speaking world as well as in Western languages. As a rule, this kind of literature offers literal readings of Qur’ân, 4:34, a verse used to justify male domination over women in the family as well as in the social sphere. Following the traditional exegesis of this verse, contemporary Islamists and conservative Muslim scholars understand it as God’s will to give husbands the authority to beat their disobedient wives. Characteristically, this kind of commentary disregards the classical debate on the subject, and focuses instead on defining the essential inferiority of women, who need to be guided by the male members of their families and, if necessary, to be physically chastised by them.”
Obviously, I quoted more. Is the more I quoted relevant? I think so. Who are these "Islamists" she mentions who purvey this approval of wifebeating and the misogyny that undergirds it, and indeed, purvey it "all over the Arab-speaking world as well as in Western languages" (notice how dave742 left out the "Western languages" part)? Evidently, they are distinct from the other category she adduces, the "conservative Muslim scholars". When you have two related yet distinct categories of Muslims, and you magnify them by saying their influence is "all over the Arab-speaking world as well as in Western languages", and when you imply that progressive social activists are struggling against them (which they would not do were this a merely a dusty academic question and not also a sociopolitical problem), then there's no other way to slice this than to interpret it as a major problem in the Muslim world. Saying that it's a major problem in the Muslim world doesn't necessarily mean it's worse than in the West -- but I guess it's too negative for dave742's Islam-defensive sensibilities. Only mild superficial problems must pertain to the Muslim world -- since, as we all know, only Western culture has major pathologies.
As for dave742's attempts to render the treatment of women equivalent between the Muslim world and the West:
Afghanistan:
Nearly 90% of women in Afghanistan suffer physical abuse.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/09/23/afghanistan.women.abuse/index.html
Pakistan:
Human Rights Watch: Between 50 percent and 90 percent of Pakistan's 82 million girls and women are victims of violence.
http://www.cleveland.com/world/index.ssf/2008/07/pakistani_women_defy_society_t.html
Its [the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan] figures show that this year between January and August, 175 women including 24 minors were gang raped and 225 were raped, of which 38 were minors.
Ten women were stripped naked publicly - a practice sometimes used to punish women considered to have brought shame on their communities... For example, in 2002, 12 women were stripped in public places - in 2003, the number rose to 40.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4017441.stm
Also see:
http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache%3A-fxNINtsNvMJ%3Awww.du.edu%2Fintl%2Fhumanrights%2Fviolencepkstn.pdf+pakistan+women+abuse&hl=en&gl=us&sig=AFQjCNFvikpzkKkCnpiTX5ujRkKs3yNTyg
Egypt:
"Brutal husbands can be a problem anywhere in the world, but in some countries domestic violence is so common that it's almost an institution.
A survey conducted for the Egyptian government a few years ago found that one woman in three had been beaten at some time by her husband. Of those women, 45% had been beaten at least once in the past year and 17% had been beaten three or more times during the same period."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/nov/30/worlddispatch.brianwhitaker
Iran:
"According to the NGO [the Association for the Development and Enhancement of Women (ADEW)], domestic abuse is common in Egypt. A 2001 survey conducted in low-income neighbourhoods found that 96 percent of women had been beaten..."
http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportid=26139
And from a book by Margi Laird McCue Domestic violence: a reference handbook:
"Many countries -- including Iran, Syria, and Yemen -- extend leniency to men who commit honor killings or honor crimes, which are violent acts against women for alleged sexual misconduct. In Lebanon, the penal code allows a defendent to commute a life sentence or the death penalty to one to seven years in prison if his offense was proved to be an honor crime." (p. 92)
This also is the case in Jordan:
http://english.aljazeera.net/archive/2003/09/2008410102158508644.html
Lest dave742 at this precise juncture have an elbow spasm of "that's just "culture" and has nothing to do with Islam" -- we note that the Al Jazeera report linked above notes that "Islamists and conservatives said the laws [to stiffen penalties against honor killings] violated religious traditions and would destroy families and values" -- those darned "Islamists and conservatives" again! They sure do seem to sprout up a lot throughout the Muslim world, as Ms. Marín herself indicates! And furthermore we also have the immediately preceding paragraph to the one I quoted from McCue's book where she discusses honor killing in several Muslim countries:
"Throughout the region, Islamic law has been adopted as the basis for legal matters pertaining to marriage, divorce, child custody, inheritance, ability to travel, and the legal status of women." (p. 92)
With such comprehensive Islamic legal influence over the conduct and treatment of women, one cannot continue the canard that honor killings there have nothing to do with Islamic law and with Islamic atmospherics.
Then we have the problem of under-reporting of abuse in Muslim countries, where the stigma of reporting, the danger of reporting, and the laggard progress in institutionalizing awareness and reporting are markedly inferior to what pertains throughout the West. A tip of the iceberg is indicated in this report, again quoting McCue:
Algeria: "...in Algeria, spousal abuse is criminalized...; however, the victim must be incapacitated for at least 15 days and must have a doctor verify injuries sustained to prosecute the abuser..."
Imagine what fun a man could have beating his wife but only so that she is "incapacitated" for less than 15 days! Why, you could beat your wife for 50 years regularly, and yet never "incapacitate" her for 15 straight days at a time! That's a loophole you could march a whole caravan through!
Egypt: "Egyptian law permits women to divorce their husbands because of physical abuse, but women are required to produce medical certification from a government hospital and at least two witnesses (the Egypt court system requires the testimony of two women to equal the testimony of one man) of the assault (Human Rights Watch 2004). These legal barriers have discouraged women from reporting violence perpetrated against them."
(pp. 91-92)
http://books.google.com/books?id=30G_awoS4DIC&pg=PA92&lpg=PA92&dq=yemen+women+abuse&source=bl&ots=sfBscMr0pY&sig=_2w9e5V9mVslPGf6WBbabk37cU4&hl=en&ei=tGDCSr6OA5GW8AbZor3-CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7#v=onepage&q=yemen%20women%20abuse&f=false
Gee, I wonder where modern Egyptian law got the idea that a woman's testimony is only worth half of a man's...? Oh wait, yes! -- from that "progressive" document, the Koran! See 2:282.
One could go on an on adducing the mountains of appalling pathologies of the Muslim world with regard to women. Not that it would do much good for dave742 and his outrageously preposterous attempts at equivalency between the treatment of women in the Muslim world and the West. The West indeed has a major problem with the treatment of women and we have been progressing with regard to it and making great strides; the problem in the Muslim world, however, is demonstrably, monstrously worse.
Hesperado,
This is juvenille one upsmanship.
"One could go on an on adducing the mountains of appalling pathologies of the Muslim world with regard to women."
We could go on and on with examples of all the poor treatement of women by men in every single culture and religion...it only proves that men have always been this way and only the best among us abide by what is proper and just in how we treat our fellow human beings, whether they be male of female.
Some do right by a sense of honor, some do right by right guidence in religion, the important thing is those of us who do right do so and see that those around us do as well to the best of our ability.
If you question others question yourself.
Have you sheltered a battered wife? Have you helped at a call center? Have you assisted in building a protected safe haven for battered wives and children? Have you assisted local religious and or community leaders in any of the above?
Have you done any of these?
I and other Muslims I know have, as a matter of faith, done these.
What about you?
What have you done to further the better treatement of women and children and those around you who are in duress and need help?
What have you done?
Peace
Abdullah
“Obviously, I quoted more.”
Read my entire post at 4:52. I initially quoted a shorter version of what you quoted, then I quote EXACTLY WHAT YOU QUOTED soon afterwards. You are such a complete imbecile. Once again, there is a difference in interpretations. The actual incidence of wife beating between the West and Islamic countries, however, is similar. As I showed. Last time I showed you this, you made up similar lame apologies. I showed you how 20% of people in the UK think it is OK to hit a woman if she wears sexy clothes in public:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/violence-against-women-poll?view=Binary
Your response was that all those in the UK who said that were Muslim, even though only 2% of the people in the UK are Muslim. You are insane.
I have started looking up your refs. I am glad you decided to bring up actual information. I am proud of you. I already am having difficulty:
“Nearly 90% of women in Afghanistan suffer physical abuse.”
This supposedly comes from UNIFEM. The only report I can find from UNIFEM on Afghanistan is this:
http://afghanistan.unifem.org/docs/pubs/06/uncounted_discounted_EN.pdf
This only analyzes known cases, as does not have a percentage.
Malalai Joya makes the claim, but does not say where it came from:
“She claims that although liberating women was one of the main moral arguments for invading Afghanistan in 2001, the situation for women has continued to deteriorate. ‘Ninety per cent of women in Afghanistan suffer from domestic violence, 80 per cent of marriages are forced, and the average life expectancy for women is 44 years,’ she says.”
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2009/04/13/1239474816110.html
Notice how she says the situation is getting worse. I guess bombing them is not helping them. I don’t want to brush this off, but I cannot find this UNIFEM report, and cannot find another source for the info. Can you? I'll keep looking, and will eventually get to the rest of your stuff. I doubt it will happen on this thread, though.
Hesperado:
I have been looking for this report on Lexis. Even VOA News brings up the UNIFEM report, but says nothing about the 90 percent number:
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-1172013281.html
(You can't read the entire article, but it says nothing).
You would think that VOA News would bring up the 90 percent number, wouldn't you?
Abdullah:
What was your lie? It was more a lie of omission. You said "What is there to question? She was betrothed at a very young age, happens all the time in European society, he was married to her at a very young age and consummated the marriage when she was mature." leaving the age of consummation purposefully vague to try to hide the fact that THEY CONSUMMATED (had sex) when she was 9. Of course, a normal western person would assume that "mature" means at least 16 or as old as 18.
When you say "consummated when she was mature" I don't think of NINE as being "mature" in the context of having sex, but it appears you do since that was the age she consummated. THAT'S SICK.
Abdullah said: "In respect ot the possible age of Aisha look up the hadith in which the Prophet was pryaing in the Kabba and some Quraish dumped goat intestines on his back. Aisha was a child of enough age in years to see this was bad and she was the one who removed them from his back...this happened in the very early days of the revelatoin in Mecca. How old was she then?"
Me: NINE! For the Had-iths tell me so! Nine is plenty old enough to know.
Nice non-answer antidote. Come on, you accuse others of dishonesty and then you give a sidelong antidote about dumping intestines that proves nothing? I think you need to go back to LOGIC 101.
Just because she's old enough to know this is wrong, that doesn't mean she's mature enough to have sex with a 53 year old. I imagine a kid at the age of 6 would know dumping icky things on people would be wrong. Does that mean 6 is "mature enough" to have sex in your mind then? Where specifically does it say that her age is something other than 9? How is it more reliable than the verse I quoted?
Hesperaso:
The AP had a story about the UNIFEM report, and nothing about the 90 percent number. It does say this:
“Domestic violence, which accounts for 82 percent of the cases, is the most prevalent form of violence against women reported. Partners are responsible for 47 percent of the cases, Aslan said.”
(A reprint is available here: http://www.iran-daily.com/1385/2641/html/panorama.htm )
The more I read about this, the more I realize that the UNIFEM report I linked to above is the actual source that the BBC article you linked to is quoting from. Whoever wrote that BBC article misread the report. The report is only looking at violence case, and does not look at percentage of violence victims within the general population. This first reference is either a mistake or intentional propaganda. I will look at the others.
Oh yeah, and since Question Everything mentioned these already I didn't but since you didn't reply I'm going to repeat them:
AM: "My "Fellow Muslims" don't commit crimes."
Complete bullsh*t. Do you really beleive that Muslims don't EVER commit crimes? That not only is everything here "out of proportion" but completely false? Can you prove it?
AM: "Generally speaking, yes, it seems bad that someone would put out a fatwa against just one person for something..."
I thought the same thing as QE when I read this, "generally speaking"? You can't say fatwas are inequitably bad?
AM: "but I still point out Salman has been under a “death fatwa!” for what, like twenty one years?"
Ineptitude =/= meaningless. If fact it sounds like you're saying Rushdie and others with fatwas should just go to sleep and let their guard down (which would happen to coincide with the Jihadist assassin's goals. Hmm.)
Foolster,
I just looked up the Hadith I referred to and I made a serious error, it was Fatima, Mohammad’s daughter and not Aisha who removed the offal from his back. My bad...
Back to the point….Aisha was mature, i.e. had entered menses…she was not a child. Her age is a matter of a very young person, some references say seven, some say nine, some say eleven… it is immaterial… she had entered puberty and was mature. They were married for the rest of his life, period. It was a noble marriage and blessed. Period.
If you’d read what I wrote you would understand my position, but you don’t.
We are talking about a historical event that occurred in a period in time.
Pull your head out of the desire to argue and insult. Or let me play by the same rules?
“I accept none of your argument unless you produce multiple verified Hadith references quoting the Pagan Quraish as condemning the marriage of Aisha to Mohammad as something bad, unheard of, unusual, or just plain wrong.”
You see?
You just want to argue and insult and insert your opinion as if it were mine. Your negative insulting opinion in this matter is not mine, it is yours.
The marriage of Aisha to Mohammad was noble and proper, and much good to humanity arose from it.
The situation and circumstances today are vastly different than the one those two human beings were in...cultural attitudes have changed, attitudes have changed about many things...it does not change the fact that it was normal and proper for those two to wed.
Or can you prove a single sahih Hadith that says otherwise?
I vote we leave this issue alone as it is pointless to argue.
Peace
Abdullah
Foolster,
Let us address this.
1) The people who are my fellow Muslims don’t commit crimes.
The many crimes that are showcased here daily are not Islam…they are what they are, crimes.
Have you learned nothing reading what I write? Pointless question, you haven’t.
What you open here is a similar subject to the darura issue, it will not help to discuss it with you.
A person who commits an act such that it is not condoned in Islam, a violation of Sharia, they are not a Muslim when they are doing it, they are not acting upon Islam when they do it, they can in no way be noted as “my fellow” anything in that instance. They have no relation whatsoever to me.
Many people from many backgrounds commit crimes. Those who do are not my fellow anything regardless of who they are or what they say.
2) A death sentence for a capital crime is a secular “fatwa” isn’t it?
Now do you understand?
I don’t blanket condemn all death sentences in this country…some are just.
I only condemn those that are unjust, and thus, yes, “generally speaking” I feel a ruling of a death penalty against any person seems bad. Don’t you?
That is unless they deserve it for the crime they committed.
Understand yet?
3) I am trying hard not to insult your intelligence.
This hubaloo about “death fatwas” I am trying to get you to realize that if they were such a serious and religiously binding thing as you people seem to think that any person under the threat of one would have been taken care of immediately, right? I mean, if you say it is such a serious and binding thing!!!!
But what is the evidence?
There are people walking around for the last twenty years under the pall of the dreaded “death fatwa.”
But what is really happening? Is anyone acting on it? I mean, anyone? But wait a minute? What is the reality? Who is taking it seriously? The one nut bag who issued the fatwa? Who else? Anyone?
So you are telling me you really believe anyone takes the “death fatwas” seriously?
What is the evidence for that? A high profile person like
Salman has not suffered any undue worry over it…heck, it probably helped him sell copy.
So why has none of the so called "screaming hordes" you harp about taken that “death fatwa” seriously? You don't think any person is unreachable, do you? So why hasn't it been carried out?
Use your brain…and stop using your gut to think with.
Peace
Abdullah
To say that Aisha had entered menses is absolutely idiotic but well in line with the rubbish spouted moslems.
What source are you using to establish that Aisha was a pubescent girl? The quran? A document so full of errors and so slanted towards the 'hero' that it is invalid?
The marriage was yet another convenience to the desert bandit, child molesting, psychopath, brain damaged cult starting fraud and anyone who thinks otherwise would be a great candidate for any of the myriad confidence tricks out there.
AM, Dave, do either of you believe in jinn?
1) The people who are my fellow Muslims don’t commit crimes. Classic "No true Scotsman" argument.
FAIL
2) A death fatwa is handed out by a bunch of vile, misogynistic, elitist elderly men for the entire ummah to implement by whatever means they see fit. A secular death sentence is the result of a fair trial using science-based evidence to support a verdict from a jury of peers, with the Judge's advice, and carried out in the most humane method possible.
FAIL
You say that "if they were such a serious and religiously binding thing as you people seem to think that any person under the threat of one would have been taken care of immediately, right?
There should be no underestimating the cowardice and lack of skills the ummah have. Great in a howling pack, not so good one-on-one.
FAIL
You're a liar.
You're a cultist.
You approve child molestation.
You are the lowest form of life.
I hope I've made myself very clear, moslem apologist?
Hesperado - and everyone else - is it not fascinating how dave742 (dawood, I'll bet) and Abdullah Mikail, our Iranian Muslim (shiite, probably) and Abdullah Mikail are tag-teaming with their denials and deflections.
To all non-Muslims on this thread, especially those new to this site and to this subject, who may have persevered to this point, I have one piece of advice: go right back up to the posted article and re-read it, slowly and thoughtfully.
Then, if you haven't already watched 'Submission', by Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Theo van Gogh, do so.
And if you haven't yet bought yourself a copy of ex-Muslim Nonie Darwish's excellent book about sharia, 'Cruel and Usual Punishment', do so; and read the first half, chapters 1-4, 'Sharia: The Family'. It will tell you all you need to know.
The other part of Nonie's book that should be read with attention by all non-Muslims is in Part Two, Sharia: The State, chapter five, 'Life Behind the Muslim Curtain', subsection entitled 'Permission to Lie'. "According to Islamic Sharia I am obligated to lie if the goal is obligatory; and Muslim expansion is obligatory".
Bear that in mind every time you read a posting by Abdullah Mikail or by 'dave'. In fact, I have come to the conclusion, some time ago, that they are NOT arguing in good faith. Their job is to run interference; to cover up for Islam; to try to prevent non-Muslims who come here, from seeing the obvious.
As for AM's attempt to romanticise and justify what Muhammad is firmly believed by Muslims to have done to little Aisha - whom we learn from various sources he was 'thighing' (that is, sexually molesting) from age 6 and whom he then screwed once she turned nine - and his rhapsodising about what a 'noble' 'marriage' it was, I can only say, that his effusions filled me with a strong inclination to vomit; followed by an equally strong feeling of utter contempt toward AM. I hope he doesn't live anywhere near a primary school, I'd be worried about him hanging around the school gate, ogling and perving at the fourth and fifth and sixth-graders. (For Mohammed's example is valid for all time...).
Any competent modern midwife or gynecologist would be able to explain why a nine-year-old girl, even if she - very unusually - has begun to menstruate, is not fit, psychologically or physically, to sustain full penetration by an adult male. 'Mature', indeed. The poor child hasn't even finished getting an adult set of teeth!
Biology says a nine-year-old girl is simply NOT as mature as a twelve-year-old, even, let alone as mature as a woman of eighteen who has completed her skeletal growth, finished laying down her calcium stores, and so on.
Abdullah:
Here is the quote:
This is in the section titled: "Classical Doctrine":
"The Shafi'ites follow the example of the Prophet and make drinking alcohol punishable with forty lashes. The other schools follow the example of 'Umar, who increased the punishments to eighty lashes. For non-Muslims, drinking alcohol is no hadd offense. There is some controversy about drinking alcoholic beverages other than wine. Most schools put them on a par with wine and hold that their consumption in whatever quantities is punishable, but the Hanafites hold that if a person drinks these beverages, he will only be punished if he actually gets intoxicated."
Peters, Rudolph, "Crime and Punishment in Islamic Law," (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), p. 64
No reference!!
Very eloquently put DDA,
I think we can both agree that AM's defense of a child molester should concern any decent person.
Dave,
It is alcohol, all the same regardless of the person' opinion...in any quantity forbidden.
Peace
Abdullah
dave742 says he can't find a UNIFEM source confirming the "at least 90%" of Afghanistan women suffering domestic abuse.
"Statistics indicate that in Afghanistan more than 87 percent of all women suffer from domestic abuse, making the country one of the most dangerous places in the world to be a woman. "
-- from the UNIFEM website
http://www.unifem.org/worldwide/asia_pacific/
I guess "more than 87 percent" isn't close enough to "at least 90%" to satisfy dave742's sophistical apologetics for Islam. In fact, "more than 87 percent" is a house on fire and there is not one Western country even remotely approaching that monstrous degree of violence against women.
DDA
“Bear that in mind every time you read a posting by Abdullah Mikail or by 'dave'. In fact, I have come to the conclusion, some time ago, that they are NOT arguing in good faith”
You have vile opinions…these come from you and your imagined fantasies your mind has run away with. You are a sick person to think like you do, and further more a disgusting person to express it in writing.
The lives of Prophets are different than our own, all of them. You have grown so accustomed in your culture to insulting and degrading the memory of the majority of the Prophets of old in a defense of your own psyche, as if by putting them into a lower place you somehow lift yourself up from the low place you are in.
You know nothing of the life I lead and the works I do, and God is aware of all things. I will be given justice and reward for whatever I have done by the intention I have in doing it, and you will as well.
I hope and pray we are both able to stand before God and state our mutual case and settle the evil things you have said against me and against others. I have no fear of injustice then.
I fear no injustice before God doing honor to the memory of all Prophets, noble people, every one of them, their wives, their companions, their disciples, all of them.
Peace
Abdullah
AM: I fear no injustice before God...
Certainly a god who assists his faithful Desert bandit, child molesting, psychopathic, brain damaged, cult starting fraud to molest children and kill indiscriminately for mere gain would look upon you favorably.
"You have vile opinions…these come from you and your imagined fantasies your mind has run away with. You are a sick person to think like you do, and further more a disgusting person to express it in writing."
Whoa, do I hear an echo in here?!
You used that same line on me last week, AM! Jeez, are you running out of original material? ...or are all of these cookie-cutter-comebacks courtesy CAIR. My, you lack originality.
DDA, consider his scorn and platitudes a compliment. You're in good company, my friend :)
Hey Champ,
Typical moslem rantings. If you bashed your head on the floor five times a day you'd lack imagination and have to resort to cut-and-paste insults too.
Oh, and when AM says "peace" to us in his posts he really means the type of peace you get when you finally submit to allah. Imagine? A god that supports and allows pedophilia?
Perfect man? Pretty low bar.
AM contorts: "You know nothing of the life I lead and the works I do, and God is aware of all things."
We certainly know enough of your "work" on Jihad Watch to find you completely and utterly repulsive, AM.
And as far as God is concerned, may He graciously spare us the knowledge of your noxious and perverted devotion for a liar, thief, rapist, pedophile and murderer; ie, Muhammad. Such a devotion to evil on your part most certainly turns Gods stomach, and will in fact warrant some kind of a "reward" in the end, to be sure.
Hi, QE!
Yeah, how anyone can devote their life to the likes of Muhammad is beyond me ...well, it's beyond most of us, right? AM and his devotion for a pervert and murderer is just so repugnant to me -- it's like some kind of twisted and vile love affair, a love affair with evil! ...ick*
Hesperado:
"Statistics indicate that in Afghanistan more than 87 percent of all women suffer from domestic abuse, making the country one of the most dangerous places in the world to be a woman."
I actually thought you had something. Not really.
The exact same quote is in their anual report:
http://www.unifem.org/attachments/products/AnnualReport_2008_2009.pdf
STATISTICS FROM WHERE??? Where in the hell does this statistic come from?
"It is estimated that more than 87 percent of women in Afghanistan are subjected to domestic violence."
States News Service
March 6, 2009 Friday
WOMEN IN AFGHANISTAN TO MARK INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY WITH PUBLIC PRAYER FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE
BYLINE: States News Service
ESTIMATED BY WHO???
Then I found this:
"More than 87 percent of all women in Afghanistan, for instance, are victims of some form of domestic violence, according a 2008 publication by the Afghan Ministry of Women’s Affairs and United Nations Development Fund for Women, known as Unifem."
http://www.unausa.org/Page.aspx?pid=1212
OK. The "estimate" does not come from UNIFEM, or else they would have said so, or cited their own report. This "estimate" really comes from the "Afghan Ministry of Women's Affairs."
So what the hell is that?? To Lexis Nexis:
"The United States Government should provide strong support for the Afghan Ministry of Women's Affairs and the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, both of which were created by the Agreement on Provisional Agreements in Afghanistan Pending the Establishment of Permanent Governing Institutions, done in Bonn, December 5, 2001 (commonly known as the `Bonn Agreement'), to remedy past violations of women's rights and human rights and to establish institutions and programs to ensure policies that advance such rights."
US Fed News
May 8, 2009 Friday 2:58 PM EST
Introduces Afghan Women Empowerment Act
Sounds like when the US set up their ICTY kangaroo court to try Milosevic. This organization was founded by the US government after invading their country. Now we give this group tons of money:
"Launched at a joint press conference with Afghan Deputy Minister of Women's Affairs Syeda Mojgan Mostafavi, this three-year, $26.3 million program will provide technical assistance and small grants to women-focused Afghan NGOs in accordance with the National Action Plan for the Women of Afghanistan. Working in coordination with the Afghan Ministry of Women's Affairs, the Ambassador's Small Grants Program will increase gender equality and build the capacity of women-led civil society organizations to deliver services to Afghan citizens."
US State News
June 29, 2009 Monday 5:55 PM EST
U.S. GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCES $26.3 MILLION SMALL GRANTS FUND TO SUPPORT AFGHAN WOMEN
And so does Europe:
“In order to further support the promotion of women's rights, the EP is calling on the Commission to provide direct funding and assistance to the Afghan Ministry of Women's Affairs.”
States News Service
April 24, 2009 Friday
HUMAN RIGHTS: WOMEN IN AFGHANISTAN, SITUATION IN CAMP ASHRAF, SPECIAL COURT OF SIERRA LEONE
And good old USAID started it off:
"At a signing ceremony at the Afghan Ministry of Women's Affairs today, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) representative Jim Kunder, announced two grants totaling $64,000 for the rehabilitation of the Afghan Ministry of Women's Affairs building complex."
USAID Supports Afghan Ministry of Women's Affairs and Indigenous Afghan Women's Humanitarian Organization
U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PRESS RELEASE
February 19, 2002
And now members from the Afghan Ministry of Women's Affairs hang out at Bagram:
"Afghan Ministry of Women's Affairs Dr. Husn Banu Ghazanfar and Afghan national army Gen. Khatool Mohammadzai participated in the ceremony."
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123089100
This is a freaking joke. The US invades a country, sets up a Womens Rights organization and gives them millions so they can party at Bagram. Then they put out propaganda about how evil Musllims are. They give "estimates" of domestic abuse, but nobody knows where it came from. The head of the Women's Affairs Ministry, making I'd say about $220,000, probably "estimated" it off the top of her head. This is a complete joke. I want a real number from a real source.
Imagine if China invaded and occupied the US, and then set up a women's human rights organization. They fund it, and their members hang out at Chinese bases in Washington DC. Then this Chinese funded organization says they "estimate" that 87 percent of those evil Americans beat their wives, and this propaganda is fed to the Chinese civilians back home. Freaking joke.
Hesperado:
I almost forgot. Here is the website for the "Afghan Ministry of Women's Affairs":
http://www.mowa.gov.af/
Funny.
Hesperado:
You next reference is from “Cleveland.com” (not a good start):
“Between 50 percent and 90 percent of Pakistan's 82 million girls and women are victims of violence.”
Wow. That’s a big range. I looked this article up in Lexis. “Cleveland.com” got the article straight from this source (word for word):
Newhouse News Service
July 14, 2008 Monday 3:02 PM EDT
Pakistani women defy society to flee endemic abuse
BYLINE: By JAMES PALMER
SECTION: INTERNATIONAL
I use Lexis all the time. I never in my life saw Newhouse News Service, What the hell is Newhouse News Service?? If you doubt the source, do this:
Google: "Newhouse News Service" "abuse of girls and women"
Click on the cached link of the title “Hundreds of migrant workers riot in east China,” which will take you to this site:
http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:ctpDdu2ts7MJ:www.cleveland.com/world/index.ssf/2008/07/14/+%22Newhouse+News+Service%22+%22abuse+of+girls+and+women%22&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Halfway down the page you will see:
Pakistani women must endure endless abuse
by James Palmer / Newhouse News Service
When you click on the link, it will take you to the link you supplied.
So what in the hell is Newhouse News Service?
Here’s what you find when you Google it:
http://www.newhousenews.com/
National Federation of Republican Women? What the hell does that mean? Why doesn’t this webpage work? It doesn’t work because Newhouse News Service closed:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003832716
They closed two weeks after the article you posted. It must have been quite an operation: “NNS has 24 staffers.” Awesome.
Anyway, I can find no other information about the Human Rights Watch report claiming that “50 to 90 percent” of women in Pakistan are abused. It does not exist at hrw.org/ If you find it, let me know.
I research right wing stuff all the time. Why does it always have to be this wild goose chase that leads nowhere?
dave742 denigrates the Afghan Ministry of Women's Affairs. The head of the Afghan Ministry of Women's Affairs is --
"Husn Banu Ghazanfar daughter of Abdul Ghafar was born in Balkh on February 1, 1957 (Dalwa 1336 of the local calendar) she graduated from Sultan Razia High School in Mazar-e-sharif and obtained her BA and Master's degree on Literature and Sociology from Stawarpool Qafqaaz in 1362 (of the local calendar). Right after she obtained her Master's degree she became the scientific cadre of the Literature Faculty of Kabul University.
After two years of service as a lecturer in the literature faculty of Kabul University, she went to Petersburg to obtain her Doctrine on Philology. She obtained her doctrine and returned to the country. In 1382, she was appointed as the Head of the Literature Faculty and was working in this post until she was appointed as the Minister for the Ministry of Women's Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. In addition to the above-mentioned posts, she has worked as a member of the High Council of the Ministry of Higher Education, member of Speranto International Association of Women, member of the International Association of Turk Zabanan and member of the Board of Directors of Hakim Naser Khesro Balkhi Association.
She is fluent in Dari, Pashto, Uzbek and Russian and she knows a little Turkish and English.
http://www.afghan-web.com/politics/cabinet_members.html#women
Yes, with evil Western intruders like this, the Afghan people stand no chance of a better life! How evil of us to help talented reform-minded locals like this try to reform their country! Funny, Ms. Ghazanfar seems to be precisely the kind of progressive reformist that Ms. Marín referred to as among those seeking to stem the tide of the "Islamists" (though it is likely that she, like dave742, would take umbrage at Ms. Gahazanfar for noticing too much disease to seek to cure). People like dave724, by minimizing what needs to be reformed and how, are the ones shooting the more credible Muslim reformists in the foot. According to dave724's logic, if a Muslim reformer commits the sin of saying the Islamic problem is too large, and if furthermore that Muslim reformer accepts the help of the West, they suddenly become discredited. That's the apologist's two-tiered formula for Islamic reform:
1) There's nothing much to reform in Islam, since Islam is so great by itself
2) Any aspects that seem to need reforming are all mostly caused by the evil West.
Gotcha.
dave's repetitive use of question marks is staggering. The chore of thinking and analyzing data must be taxing his brainstem.
Hesperado:
It's hilarious that you are trying to defend the Afghan Ministry. Really funny. Let's look at your next reference:
“Its [the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan] figures show that this year between January and August, 175 women including 24 minors were gang raped and 225 were raped, of which 38 were minors."
I will take these figures as accurate. Let's look at gang rape first. 175 were gang raped in 7 months in Pakistan, which is 300 per year. The US does not keep stats for gang rape, so we cannot compare. Australia (a non-Muslim country), does keep stats. This article says that “In the last financial year, 63 cases were reported.”:
(The Sun Herald: http://www.nswrapecrisis.com.au/LatestNews/Media-Articles/SunHeraldArticle_6-2-05.htm )
300 in Pakistan, 63 in Australia. We need to look at rates of gang rape, however. Pakistan has more people than Australia:
Pakistan population = 172 million
Australia population = 21 million
If we look at the number of gang rapes per million citizens we get:
Australia = 3 gang rapes per million people
Pakistan = 1.75 gang rapes per million people
THE INCIDENCE OF GANG RAPE IN AUSTRALIA IS 70% HIGHER THAN IN PAKISTAN
____________________________________________________________
OK. What about rape. In Pakistan, 225 were raped in 7 months. That is 386 in a year. In the US, the number of actual rape victims (not including attempted rape or sexual assault), the number is 113,290:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus/current/cv0627.pdf
Of course, the US has more people than Pakistan (pop = 304 million)
Here are the number of rapes per million people:
US = 372 rapes per million people
Pakistan = 2.2 rapes per million people.
Using your numbers, THE RAPE RATE IN THE US IS 169 TIMES HIGHER THAN IN PAKISTAN.
________________________________________________________
OK. What about child rape? For Pakistan, there were 62 in 7 months (we will include the ones who were gang raped). That is 106 per year. In the US, only 12 states kept stats for child rape in the reference I found:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/crv92.pdf
The issue here is: What is a “Minor”? It doesn’t say what age was used for Pakistan. Let’s be safe and use 13. We will compare cases of rape of “minors” in Pakistan to cases of rape in the US of children under 13 years old. Not even teenagers. Surely this is very generous. If you look at the chart in my link, numbers are given for rape of 13 year olds or less for 8 states. The following list contains those states, followed by the percentage of rapes in that state which are of children under 13, followed by the total number of rapes, followed by the number of rapes of children under 13 (the two previous numbers multiplied):
Alabama: 10% 1404 140
Delaware: 29% 78 22
Idaho: 9% 221 19
Michigan: 35% 4731 1655
North Dakota: 35% 124 43
Pennsylvania: 14% 2996 419
South Carolina: 16% 2193 350
Wisconsin:10% 1314 131
The total number of rapes in these states of women under 13 is 2779. These states contain 13.2% of the total US population. If the rate of rape under 13 is approximately equal in these states compared to the entire country, then the total number of women under 13 who are raped in one year in the US is about 21,000.
Here are the rates of rape per million (minors for Pakistan, children under 13 for the US):
Pakistan: 0.624 rapes of minors per million people
US: 69 rapes of children under 13 per million people
THE US RAPES OVER 100 TIMES AS MANY CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF 13 AS PAKISTAN RAPES MINORS
Nice reference, nitwit. Feel free to check my math,
Hesperado:
Next reference:
“A survey conducted for the Egyptian government a few years ago found that one woman in three had been beaten at some time by her husband.”
I won’t even look this up. 33% for Egypt, 25% for the US. So what.
Next reference:
You say that the following quote is for Iran:
"According to the NGO [the Association for the Development and Enhancement of Women (ADEW)], domestic abuse is common in Egypt.”
I don’t know how you can determine the rate of domestic abuse in Iran by looking at an article about Egypt. Your quote continues:
“A 2001 survey conducted in low-income neighbourhoods found that 96 percent of women had been beaten..."
So you give one quote for Egypt that says 33%, and another that says 96%. This has gotten so pathetic I don’t know whether to laugh or puke. I’m going to bed.
dave, statistics and percentages aside, lets get down to brass tacks....
Muhammad, the Qur'an, and other Islamic texts support and encourage wife beating -- so you're completely dancing around the issue by creating a smoke screen to hide behind. Stats & percentages can ebb and flow, but what's written in the Qur'an DOES NOT ebb and flow. Muhammad was a wife beater, plain and simple(among other horrors), so put that in a pipe and smoke it. At least that would be a more Honest smoke screen. Hey, I hope you didn't puke while IN bed. Whatta mess, eh?
Any defense of Muhammad at this point will only serve to make you look even more foolish than you already do.
AM: You know, it disturbs me that while you admit you were wrong about who the person was in the offal story, that you won't acknowledge that it was a non-sequester argument that I showed had no bearing on the issue (i.e. mature about offal/goodness =/= mature enough for sex). Doesn't it bother you at all when you use logical fallacys like "no true Scotsman"? I MIGHT actually beleive you are being honest, but misguided (from my POV) but when you use such arguments it looks foolish, and hypocritical when you call others dishonest.
As for the issue of Fatwa. Forgive me for phrasing the question vaguely. I will ask you directly: Do you beleive any Fatwa that is issued against some one for merely criticizing Islam/The Koran, or saying something bad about the prophet, no matter how bad (but mind, not saying Muslims should be killed or any actions) is just? YES or NO.
(And I realize you may have answered this question above before, but I don't know where it would be and I would like an answer)
Also, having sex with a 9 year old is sick no matter what time or culture, despite your praising of it. Jesus never did it, Abraham never did, nor did any of the other patriarchs of the Old Testament.
(Sorry for the triple post. Hitting send too soon then thought hits me)
AM the pouter said:
“I accept none of your argument unless you produce multiple verified Hadith references quoting the Pagan Quraish as condemning the marriage of Aisha to Mohammad as something bad, unheard of, unusual, or just plain wrong.”
This is just bad sportsmanship, and you know it AM. You can't provide any proof that she was an age other than 9 from Hadiths or the Koran, so you give a large list of possible ages and then pout.
I showed a verse that said she had sex with her when she was 9. Unless you can show another verse (YOU HAVN'T) that shows her age is something other then 9 is the number we should go with. Any other speculation on possible ages is just that, SPECULATION. THIS IS CALLED LOGIC BY THE WAY. You argue that no matter the age she was "mature" because she went through puberty, but dumbledore's army I think answered this well:
"a nine-year-old girl, even if she - very unusually - has begun to menstruate, is not fit, psychologically or physically, to sustain full penetration by an adult male. 'Mature', indeed. The poor child hasn't even finished getting an adult set of teeth!
Biology says a nine-year-old girl is simply NOT as mature as a twelve-year-old, even, let alone as mature as a woman of eighteen who has completed her skeletal growth, finished laying down her calcium stores, and so on."
Champ:
“ statistics and percentages aside”:
That’s what people say who are end the wrong side of the statistics. I doubt that the rape rate in the US is over 100 times that of Pakistan (I don’t believe that any two cultures on the same planet could be that different – but if the statistics were reversed I am sure you would be able to believe it), but there are no credible statistics at all that say the situation in Islamic countries regarding domestic violence or rape are any different than in the West. I think my discussion with Hesperado has shown that quite conclusively for anyone but the extremists. Statistics are not always accurate and do not always tell the whole story, but they do say a lot. The US has by far the highest incidence of rape and domestic violence in the World, certainly in the Western world. Our rape rate is four times that of Germany, and 20 times that of Japan. How someone in this society could point a finger at any other is the height of arrogance and hubris. But you know what is worse than statistics? Focusing on individual stories. The main purpose of the JW website is to detail the worst individual acts performed by the one billion plus Muslims worldwide, and to then allow readers to assume that they are all, or the majority are, like this. This is far more deceiving than any statistic ever was. The US has 20,000 rapes per year of children under 13. From looking at the DOJ graph, I estimate that at least 5,000 are children under 10. A Pakistani could start a website and post 5,000 stories a year talking about each case of an American raping a child under the age of 10, along with all the gory details. That’s just rape. He could also post every story of mass murder, wife beatings, mutilations, etc. Would this be an accurate way for a Pakistani to portray US society? I don’t think so.
“Muhammad, the Qur'an, and other Islamic texts support and encourage wife beating”:
This is untrue, as the Marin article I referred to shows. The Marin article goes into the history of 4:34, and shows that this is not true. She also says that Muslim conservatives and anti-Muslim propagandists (i.e., you) ignore the history. You ignore a thousand years of history, and focus on 5 words. You search out the worst, and then extrapolate that to the entire religion. You will never understand the truth, because you will never tear yourself away from the JW website long enough to read anything that can remotely be considered objective. The Prophets teachings spoke out against hitting wives. The Qur’an allows it, but from what I have read seems to limit it as well. I am an atheist (I know you JW readers think I am a Muslim, because they cannot fathom the idea of an objective American, but you are wrong), and I do not believe that the Qur’an is the word of God. (Sorry, Abdullah). So in the early days of Islam, the tradition of Mohammad was not to hit wives, then the practice was somehow permitted to a certain extent in the Qur’an, but then immediately afterwards, jurists began limiting it again. Shafi’i, as I said, taught that “the best of you will not hit your wives.” Once again, that hitting wives was even a debate in the eighth century is extremely progressive. I cannot imagine that this question was being debated at the time in the West. There wasn't much debate on this in the West in the 1950's! And 4:34 is certainly more progressive than another book I know teaching that you should kill homosexuals. There is a lot of Islamic history that comes after the eighth century. Maybe you should read about it.
“what's written in the Qur'an DOES NOT ebb and flow”
Other than a few rules such as fasting, what is written in the Qur’an is open to interpretation, and Islamic society developed just like any other. Islamic society was far more advanced until the West colonized Islamic lands. We couldn’t compete, so we conquered.
“ Muhammad was a wife beater, plain and simple”:
This goes against everything I have read. I am sure you will tell me otherwise. My quote above talks about a book by Ibn Said:
“That violence against women was a matter discussed in early Islamic times is clearly shown by the short chapter entitled ‘on beating women’ (dhikr darb al-nisd) in the volume of women's biographies that ends the Tabaqdt of Ibn Sa'd. The chapter begins with a terse statement by 'A'isha: the Prophet never struck a woman or a servant girl, or anybody else, unless he was engaged in a military campaign. The rest of the chapter is divided in two different types of traditions. In the first one, the Prophet unequivocally and in strong terms condemns men who beat their wives; in the second one, he allows beatings but pointing out that only the worst men in the community would mistreat treat their wives. Of the two traditions belonging to the first group, one is of a positive character: ‘the best of you - said the Prophet - is the one who is the best for his womenfolk (ahl), and I am the best of you for my womenfolk.’ In another account, the Prophet shows his displeasure when a woman complained to him that her husband had beat her severely. In the Prophet's words, men like this husband should be ashamed of beating their wives as if they were their slaves and later having intercourse with them.”
Was Sa’d mistaken?
“be a more Honest smoke screen”:
Hesperado brought up all the lame “stats”. Responding to something is not setting up a smoke screen. What I brought up is credible, and not fabricated.
“Any defense of Muhammad at this point will only serve to make you look even more foolish than you already do.”:
Sure. Any average person (i.e., non-extremist) who reads this thread would conclude that I am the fool. Funny.
No, you brought up stats as well -- LOTS of them! ...and to say that Hesperado "started it!" sounds rather childish, don't you think?
Anyway, you are most certainly foolish for two reasons, and perhaps there are more reasons, but two jump out at me:
1) claiming that Americans rape more women than anyone in the world, when their is nothing written in ANY of our American texts which support or encourage such a crime. Nothing.
2) your own "prophet" and Islamic texts supporting such evil. Get it, fool, this is all in writing, and it is all in your own unholy books. Hello!!
THAT is the 'key' difference here. If you want to level the playing field on this issue, then instead of producing more statistics (and such), provide American texts, like our Constitution, or our law books, anything, anything in writing which gives "permission" to rape women, anything in writing that is ON PAR with the Qur'an. Ha! You won't find it, will you? See, this is why you're foolish, because you don't fight fair.
You're a flaming hypocrite.
Foolster,
"Do you beleive any Fatwa that is issued against some one for merely criticizing Islam/The Koran, or saying something bad about the prophet, no matter how bad (but mind, not saying Muslims should be killed or any actions) is just? YES or NO."
Absolutley not...you should have been able to infer this from what I wrote before.
"This is just bad sportsmanship, and you know it AM. You can't provide any proof that she was an age other than 9 from Hadiths or the Koran, so you give a large list of possible ages and then pout."
There are some that say 7, some 9, some 11, and I think even one out there that says 16...the point is immaterial. Some time in the future just to please you I will look them up. The point is, Aisha was mature and the marriage was a noble union, period. Now move on, okay?
Peace
Abdullah
dave742 performs a little statistical experiment, and sets up a comparison between two countries -- Pakistan and Australia. What he is comparing is incidence of gang-rapes, and rapes, factoring in respective populations.
dave742 links to a page from the NSW Rape Crisis Centre --
http://www.nswrapecrisis.com.au/LatestNews/Media-Articles/SunHeraldArticle_6-2-05.htm
which reprints this Sydney Morning Herald article from 2005:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Party-rape--the-rise-of-a-disturbing-new-trend/2005/02/05/1107476853247.html
It appears that dave742's conscientiously dogged standards for evidence have selectively abandoned him, as the figures adduced for Australia's gang-rapes -- 63 in a "financial year" -- derive only from this sole statement in that SMH article:
"In the last financial year, 63 cases were reported."
The reader assumes that the reporters are referring to the experience of the staff at the NSW Rape Crisis Centre, about which in two paragraphs previously they note that "[d]uring the past 18 months, NSW Rape Crisis Centre officials have been inundated with calls from young women."
That's it. No study. Where is dave742's deluge of question marks for the dearth of actual evidence here??? Furthermore, the report indicates that the vast majority of those "calls" were never followed through:
"But the overwhelming majority refused to follow through with their complaints and make reports to police, fearing ridicule by friends and family."
Without follow-through to gain not only certainty but also details about the nature of the incidents, the evidence upon which to base a survey and statistical comparison is flimy at best.
Furthermore, when reading the report, one realizes that a goodly proportion of the "calls" pertained to girls who go to a party with other young people, get drunk, consent to fool around with one guy they sort of know (maybe from school, etc., probably knowing it will lead to sex), then get surprised by two more more of his friends who join in and have sex with her also, against her will. This kind of gang-rape, while reprehensible, is hardly comparable to the monstrous rapes that go on in Pakistan. And it is ironic that the reporters in the same article allude to the more virile, robust type of gang-rape which they report that the police distinguish from these "party rapes" which the NSW Rape Crisis Centre is getting "calls" about:
"Police agree the wave of offences are different in nature to the horrific gang rapes which shocked Sydney four years ago."
And guess who perpetrated those horrific gang rapes? A gang of fourteen Lebanese Muslims. In one of the seven rapes committed during a 3-week spree --
"One 18-year-old girl was lured from a railway station and assaulted up to 25 times by 14 men. The trial judge called the ringleader "a menace to civilised society" and said the rapes were of a nature usually seen only in war zones."
"The gang leader, known only as X, was jailed for 55 years for his part in the rapes, which were carried out by 14 youths, all of Lebanese Muslim origin. The group terrorised western Sydney in August 2000, attacking seven women during a three-week spree that was planned and co-ordinated by mobile phone."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/sydney-gang-rapes-trigger-race-tension-640894.html
The other crucial aspect to the problem of comparing Pakistan to Australia -- the former a grotesquely backward and fanatical country (e.g., up to 78% of its population believing it is right to kill apostates and 83% favor stoning adulterers according to a Pew report last month), the latter one of the most progressive and liberal countries on the planet -- is the problem of under-reporting. In the NSW Rape Crisis Centre's report, they note this problem, but the reader cannot help noticing the way it is characterized:
"...the overwhelming majority refused to follow through with their complaints and make reports to police, fearing ridicule by friends and family."
Compare this relatively mild white suburban ostracization with the utter ruination of a woman's entire life that usually happens in societies like Pakistan if she were to report a rape without the requisite male four witnesses (and even then it might get dicey) -- and this is at best: there is the all too real danger of getting physically punished with beatings, torture, further rapes, or murder; or in a cruelly grotesque irony, being charged with zina and suffering a lynch mob stoning or official capital punishment at worst, miserable jail time in frightful Pakistani prisons or Dickensian mental asylum (and "Dickensian" is probably painting a rosy picture) at best with, again, utter ruination of the woman's life and utter ostracization from her family, friends, workplace, school, etc.
Champ:
"claiming that Americans rape more women than anyone in the world, when their is nothing written in ANY of our American texts which support or encourage such a crime."
There does not have to be a correlation between rape and the availability of texts that condone rape. People rape women without being told tha it is OK to do so by some text.
I should not have said that the US is number one in rape statistics, but we do have a very high incidence. This list from the UN has the US at number 9:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita
The Qur'an is not mine. I am not Islamic. The Qur'an does not permit rape. The Bible, however, does permit killing homosexuals and prohibits wearing cotton/polyester blended shirts. Nice book.
AM said:
"Absolutley not...you should have been able to infer this from what I wrote before."
Yes, but I wanted to be absolutely sure. This is good to hear.
"The point is, Aisha was mature and the marriage was a noble union, period. Now move on, okay?"
NO. It really bothers me that you list the ages of 7 or 9 as possible ages and then say it was all good, and tell me to shut up. Dumbledore has pointed out why 7-9 is too young. You use the leap logic (another logical fallacy, funny how those keep popping up) that dispite her age the mere fact that she was married is proof she was mature. You're willing to excuse it because he's the prophet who can do no wrong(sm). SICK.
Also, why are there directly conflicting ages in the Hadiths/Koran?
I'd think this would be very inconvenient. How do you know which one is correct in cases of conflict? Why were conflicting verses allowed into the canon of the Hadiths/Koran in the first place?
Hesperado:
I hope that didn't take you too long. You were able to find some Muslims that raped some women in Australia. Good job. Now you can use that incident to assume all rapes everywhere in the world are perpetrated by Muslims. Awesome mind you have. But I know that's how it works.
You are right, that there is no "study" backing up gang rapes in Australia. I will withdraw my comparison of gang rapes. This stat is simply too underreported worldwide to find anything useful. Everything else stands, including the stat that Americans rape children under 13 at a rate 100 times higher than Pakistanis rape minors. This is using your reference. Twenty thousand children under 13 get raped in the US every year. Your goal is to find one that was committed by a Muslim, and then you can assume that all 20,000 are committed by Muslims. Get to work!
Hesperado:
Using the same DOJ chart and your numbers, I compared the rate of rape in Pakistan of ALL women of ALL age groups to the rate of rape in the US of ONLY children under 10. THE US RATE OF RAPE OF CHILDREN UNDER 10 IS 22 TIMES HIGHER THAT THE RAPE RATE IN PAKISTAN OF ***ALL*** WOMEN.
Nice society.
Abdullah:
I find another article that seems to indicate more permissive attitudes by Hanafi's. This one has a source for the comment. I would appreciate any comment you might have:
“Hanafi jurists argue that a Muslim residing in a non-Muslim territory may deal in usury (ribd) with non-Muslims, may sell or buy prohibited substances such as alcohol, pork or an animal killed by Islamically unacceptable means such as suffocation or clubbing (mayta), and may engage in gambling or questionable financial dealings such as insurance schemes and the like - on the condition that such transactions are legal under the laws of the host territory and that the transactions are between a Muslim and a non-Muslim."
Ref. for above:
(Al-Shaybani, al-Siyar, vol. 4, 1486-90, 1492; vol. 5, 1884; al-Kasani, Badd'i', vol. 7, 132; Ibn 'Abidin, Radd, vol. 3, 247, 249-250; al-Sarakhsi, al- Mabsut, vol. 10, 21-22; al-Fatdwd al-Hindiyya, vol. 2, 227. Abu Yusuf once again dissents from the Hanafi position.)
Islamic Law and Muslim Minorities: The Juristic Discourse on Muslim Minorities from the Second/Eighth to the Eleventh/Seventeenth Centuries Author(s): Khaled Abou El Fadl Source: Islamic Law and Society, Vol. 1, No. 2 (1994), pp. 141-187
Dave,
Return it to the Quran.
Does it stand up to that test?
When I get time I will research it beyond that.
Peace
Abdullah
Statistics about rape are useless to guage Muslim societies. The penalties for reporting rape are too monstrous to guarantee that we are getting even a fraction of the actual numbers committed. Better to go by those who have escaped the Gulag and tell us of the harrowing, horrible disease of Islam.
"There does not have to be a correlation between rape and the availability of texts that condone rape."
>> dave >>
I completely disagree with your determination that there does not need to be a correlation between rape and available texts to bridge the gap in this discussion. Given the CONTEXT of this headline, and how it relates to Islamic texts, then I still maintain that you'll need to provide something in writing on par with the Qur'an to support your position. Note, this is not necessary to support your statistics, but it's necessary to support your POSITION on this issue.
Hesperado
Exactly.
Nonie Darwish, in 'Cruel and Usual Punishment', recounts what happened to the teenage girl who came to work as a maid for the Darwish family, when Nonie was a girl. The teenager was discovered to be pregnant - as a result of having been raped by her previous boss. The girl's own family 'honor' murdered her. I also recall a news story from Israel, about a hellcat mother among the local Arab Muslims, who murdered her own daughter...for the 'crime' of having been incestuously raped and impregnated by the girl's own brothers.
So any man in dar al Islam who rapes a woman knows that he is, very probably, setting her up to be murdered, either by her own family, hugger mugger, or else, if publicly accused and convicted of zina, by the males of the community, in a hideous public ritual of human sacrifice, by flogging or by stoning.
Why would *any* woman, any girl, report a rape, in a society that works like that? In which everything is set up so that the rapist/s get off scot free, while the victim is shamed and *murdered*. In which the testimony not only of the rape victim herself, but of any other female who might have seen the crime take place, is ...not admissible, according to sharia (which is surely a system of 'law' inspired by demons). It's not his word vs her word, which has been enough of a problem in the West; rather, under Islam, her word and any woman's word - in cases involving sexual crimes - simply is not even considered.
(waidriboohunna) وَاضْرِبُوهُنَّ comes from the root D R B meaning "to beat, to strike, to hit", according to "The Hans Wehr dictionary of modern written Arabic" (Urbana, IL). To have a correct idea of the kind of hitting we are speaking about, "daraba 'aunuqahu" (to hit somebody's neck) means to behead somebody.
All the best
Hesperado:
"Statistics about rape are useless to guage Muslim societies."
When I first brought up a statistic regarding rape in Syria, you did not respond with this. Instead, you brought up statistics of your own. It was only after I showed that your statistics were bogus that you now adopt the position that statistics are useless. That's funny.
I understand that it is impossible for you to ever see anything differently. My only point is to bring up reality and watch people here do their mental gymnastics to justify ignoring it. This thread was very entertaining in that respect.
You say statistics in Muslim countries are useless. Here is a stat involving only "civilized" Western countries:
Our rate of rape only considering children 13 or under is 0.0658 per 100 people. You can compare this rate directly with this list, which is the rape rate for ALL women in the respective countries:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita)
People in the US rape children 13 or under at a greater rate than the rate of rape of ALL women in countries like Ireland and Switzerland. I guess it must be because of the Muslims.
"Our rate of rape only considering children 13 or under is 0.0658 per 100 people"
Should say "per 1000 people"
Abdullah:
Regarding Rudolph Peters' quote above on alcohol, I E-mailed the author to ask about a reference. He maintains that the ruling is not just a minority opinion, but is the "prevailing view". He gave the following as an example of a ref., but said that similar views can be found in any Hanafi book on fiqh:
Shaykhzadeh, Majma`al-Anhur sharh Multaqa al-Abhur (Istanbul: Matba`a-yi `Amira, 1301 H.), vol. 1, pp. 558-560 (Bab Hadd al-Shurb).
Abdullah:
Regarding Rudolph Peters' quote above on alcohol, I E-mailed the author to ask about a reference. He maintains that the ruling is not just a minority opinion, but is the "prevailing view". He gave the following as an example of a ref., but said that similar views can be found in any Hanafi book on fiqh:
Shaykhzadeh, Majma`al-Anhur sharh Multaqa al-Abhur (Istanbul: Matba`a-yi `Amira, 1301 H.), vol. 1, pp. 558-560 (Bab Hadd al-Shurb).
Foolster,
"There are some that say 7, some 9, some 11, and I think even one out there that says 16...the point is immaterial. Some time in the future just to please you I will look them up. The point is, Aisha was mature and the marriage was a noble union, period. Now move on, okay?"
The above is what I stated is based on different hadith references I have not reasearched them as far as chains of transmission etc.
Foolster you wrote "Why were conflicting verses allowed into the canon of the Hadiths/Koran in the first place?"
There is no conflicting information in the Quran.
On the subject of hadiths and the appearence of conflicting information, keep in mind as well, there are a vast number of Hadiths about the same subjects and some are attributed to different chains of transmission, and thus you have the grading of them as strong or weak.
Some of the referenced hadiths that name the age as 7 are highly quesionable as the main transmitted of that one, I recall and it is not at my finger tips, was noted as being extremely old when he lived in Iraq just before his death and relayed the hadith naming that age. Some question whether or not he was senile at that point. I have not researched it. Other ages reported are similar...and there is a question as to when someone in that time was actually born...it was after all over fourteen centuries ago.
On the appearance of conlficting information from hadiths, this comes some times from not knowing the science of hadith...the speeches were stated at certain times and certain places and dealt with different issues. Some seem to deal with the same thing, yet in reality the illa or "issue" being ruled upon is entirely different.
For instance, a person came to the Prophet to ask what was the best thing he could do in Islam, "Control your temper." yet in other places in response to seemingly the same question the Prophet said, "Pray early at the designated time."
Seems to conflict, doesn't it?
But it doesn't.
The first questioner was given a direct response which dealt with him personally, that person had a very bad temper, and was given personal advice. The other questioner was asking a general question and was given a general answer...the best thing for anyone to do in Islam was the answer.
Understand?
If you don't know the scene, setting, people involved, political and military realities surrounding some hadiths as reported you can actually string together a great list of truthful hadiths and yet skew the meaning of what you are reporting to actually produce a great big lie...which is modus operandi here at JW most of the time.
That all being said, I have not studied the differences in age reported in hadiths because it does not concern me as Aisha was mature when the marriage was consummated and the marriage brought the greatest good to many people as Aisha was a major hadith source for fifty years after the Prophet passed away.
It brings to mind to me the argument about the sleepers in the cave, it doesn't matter the number of them, what matters is the meaning of their lives to us and the message they bore from God to us, yet those who want to disbelieve get caught up in arguing the minutae in order to try and over power someone who is not secure in their knowledge of the issue. Only the weak of mind and faith are ever overpowered by arguements of thats kind...being secure in knowledge and secure in faith is best.
And in closing this issue, hopefully, I note that what is most important on the day of Judgement is how we treated one another, and in Islam the mis-treatement of disbelievers is stressed as being A more SEVERE CRIME than the MIS-treatment of believers...
I BET YOU NEVER HEARD THAT DID YOU?
Peace
Abdullah
dave742's snide, and unfair, sarcasm, in his rhetorical statement that "it must be because of the Muslims" after he adduced statistics about the rapes of girls under 13 in the USA ignores what I have said. I already said the West, including the USA, has a "major problem" with its treatment of women, including on the issue of rape, and the subcategory of rape of minors. Indeed, the West, including the USA, has a major problem with a whole host of sociopolitical issues beyond the treatment of women.
But the Muslim world is grotesquely, monstrously, horrifically worse. And we will never be able to get proper statistics from a Muslim society, due to the following factors, among others I may neglect to list:
a) the ultra-violence that threaten any woman or girl who might come forward to report their abuse
b) the primitive stigmas of utter and shameful ostracization -- on a social level of being disowned by your own family and your own village, as well as legal-politically by being fired from your job (if the woman is even allowed one) or ruined in your career (those few women who have such), as well as psychologically by the shame and puritanical fanaticism that has been insinuated into the women's heads from childhood forward
c) a good deal of Stockholm Syndrome-type codependent enabling of their own abusers that also afflict probably most Muslim women
d) and the markedly laggard by 21st century standards (let alone 20th or even 19th or 18th century standards) of progress in the sociopolitico-legal area one could subsume under the broad category of a society "airing its own dirty laundry" in order to try to correct its own faults -- a sociopolitico-legal area that the modern West has excelled at, and continues to excel at (for progress is an ongoing never-ending project as long as humans are imperfect), more than any other culture on earth now and throughout all history. The markedly laggard behavior of Muslim societies in this regard -- due to their own fanatical sense of being perfect and superior to non-Muslims, coupled with their psychotic paranoia of having "enemies" who are the cause of all ills in their society -- in this specific regard manifests itself in having little or no proper, efficient institutional mechanisms and processes by which to ferret out abuse of women, give women maximum ability to protect themselves beforehand and attain redress after the fact, and punish the malefactors including those who would try to punish the woman physically or through ostracization or discrimination.
One sees in various parts of the Muslim world the odd appearance of some rudimentary apparatus of these institutional mechanisms and processes: it is reasonable to suppose, however, that the vast majority of these are due to the intrusion of the West beginning in Colonial times and continuing into the post-Colonial era where Western influence (more and more American) continues to pressure the despotisms that are the main sociopolitical representation of Muslim societies now (and throughout its history).
Wherever, and whenever, Islam tries to reassert itself through Sharia -- and it always tries, and has been trying to reassert its rightful hegemony of earth which belongs to Allah alone according to Muslims not just symbolically or theologically or mystically but also in concrete political and military terms--, ever since the modern West ascended into the stratosphere of stupendous superiority in all fields of human endeavor beginning in the 17th century and progressing exponentially with each century after that, the treatment of women will become jeopardized. We thus see throughout the Muslim world a complex pastiche of types which can be simplified by seeing that they reflect the combination basically of three forces:
1) the fanatical zeal for Sharia
2) the intrusion of the West into the Muslim world (over the last 300-odd years) exerting pressure to change by the sheer force of the superiority of the West and the necessitities of globalist interrelationships, and also remedially offering to help them change (the latter arousing as much paranoid hostility as the former)
3) the tendency for Muslim societies to be ruled by "strong men" -- i.e., despots of one flavor or another, whose fanatical zeal for Islam might sometimes be compromised by their own personal corruption, greed, lust for power, and the constant fear of violent coups-d'etat from fanatical Muslims -- and thus these despots in one way or another find it expedient to cooperate with the Western powers, though most of them try to play both sides in this regard, at best, thus hampering any beneficial effects the Western influence might have.
(About #2 above: The global superiority of the West unavoidably impinging upon the Muslim world through the interrelations of globalism which no country can isolate itself from, and to which inferior countries (which are inferior in terms of accomplishment and in terms of internal injustice and corruption) are related necessarily in ways that aggravate members of their societies who are psychologically incapable of looking at themselves in the mirror, owning their faults in order to try to better themselves, and airing their own dirty laundry as part of this process -- this brings into relief a sociopolitico-psychological debility that probably most non-Western countries have in contrast to Western countries, but which Muslim countries among them have to a remarkable degree, due to the peculiar nature of Islam.)
Due to the above factors, until we actually militarily invade and occupy a Muslim country, as we have done in Afghanistan or Iraq, where we have begun to glimpse the true horror -- at least 87% of women horribly abused, not just mildly abused, in the case of Afghanistan -- we will tend to remain incognizant of the welter of Islamic pathology as reflected not only in its treatment of women but in many other areas -- its treatment of children, of the poor, of what it considers inferior races and classes of people, of its animal abuse, its suppression and oppression of free thought and expression; and on and on.
Hesperado:
blah blah blah.
Do you think even JW readers are going to read that?
AM: "...and in Islam the mis-treatement of disbelievers is stressed as being A more SEVERE CRIME than the MIS-treatment of believers..."
Well, if that's true, then why waste your time pushing your perverted-prophet-from-the-pitofhell propoganda on Jihad Watch? No, seriously!
Why haven't you taken your message -- as in your ABOVE message, on the road? Why are you on JW? When right now you should be sitting down with the heads of terrorist organizations and explaining to THEM that they need to shape-up?! Huh? Your time spent on JW is so damn backwards and nonsensical, Abduuuuulah. You bitch and moan about Robert by keeping track of his supposed lies....O what, he's up to lie #5 now, lol....I mean good gawd, what a waste of time, especially since what you really need to do is hit the road and rattle the cages of your fellow followers from hell.
You need to take your show on the road, Jack! ...and don't ya come back no more, no more, no more, no more! Hit the road, Jack, and don't ya come back no more!
...I'll sing it again if ya want me to...
Ah, you're a fool, AM ..and a con man and a drug pusher, of sorts, too. You're stoned on Islam and you don't even know it. Pathetic.
...take your Muhammad poopaganda and flush it, druggie...
Muhammad was an evil man-whore, and so are You for selling his perversion here, or anywhere! Hope the truth hurts like hell.
"Muhammad was an evil man-whore, and so are You for selling his perversion here, or anywhere! Hope the truth hurts like hell."
...same goes for you, druggie-dave...
"I BET YOU NEVER HEARD THAT DID YOU?" ...O, shut up!
AM likes to yell by using all caps ...OK then, here goes...
MUHAMMAD WAS AN EVIL MAN-WHORE, AND SO ARE YOU FOR SELLING HIS PERVERSION HERE, OR ANYWHERE! HOPE THE TRUTH HURTS LIKE HELL.
...a more appropriate use for caps...
Abdullah:
If there are different ages given for when she consumated her marrage with mohammad, that sounds like conflicting information. You lecture me with this example:
"For instance, a person came to the Prophet to ask what was the best thing he could do in Islam, "Control your temper." yet in other places in response to seemingly the same question the Prophet said, "Pray early at the designated time." Seems to conflict, doesn't it? But it doesn't." [White spaces snipped for space]
But there's no way to have multiple answers for the question: "At what age did Aisha consumate her marrage with mohammad?" same with there's only one answer to "who was the sixteenth president of the united states?". Your reply makes no sense, and once again is using anctidotes to try to distract me from the question.
Maybe what I should have asked is why are there weak hadiths? Wasn't there a process to weed out passages that were not as likely of being true? How do you tell weak passages from strong passages? Does chronology play into it (Medina vs. Mecca)?
Abdullah said: "That all being said, I have not studied the differences in age reported in hadiths because it does not concern me as Aisha was mature when the marriage was consummated and the marriage brought the greatest good to many people as Aisha was a major hadith source for fifty years after the Prophet passed away."
Ah, that's the problem. You think it doesn't matter, but It'd matter to me to know whether the prophet I'm following who had these revelations was a CHILD MOLESTOR or not. You keep saying that it was good, and that she was mature, but that sounds like an assumption if you're not even considering what age she ACTUALLY WAS. If she was 7-9, then then she was NOT mature.
Notice, I'm not saying that she was neccierly 7-9, if you can provide proof otherwise I'd be willing to beleive it, but it's imaterial. What bothers me more is that it's POSSIBLE in YOUR MIND that she was 7-9 and it's still "good and proper". BLECK.
"And in closing this issue, hopefully, I note that what is most important on the day of Judgement is how we treated one another, and in Islam the mis-treatement of disbelievers is stressed as being A more SEVERE CRIME than the MIS-treatment of believers...
I BET YOU NEVER HEARD THAT DID YOU?"
No I didn't. I've heard plenty about how non-believers are the worst people, but not that. Chapter and verse, please.
"Only the weak of mind and faith"
Again, you use insults and act all condescending pretend I'm the ignorant one when you resort to logical fallacies such as no true Scotsman, and stupid anecdotal stories ("She was mature enough about pouring offal being bad, therefore she was old enough for sex!"). You apologize when you misatribute a story. but you don't even acknowledge when you get caught using a logical fallacy, but keep on going as if it never happened and you're the smartest guy on the planet!
champ said: "Why haven't you taken your message -- as in your ABOVE message, on the road? Why are you on JW? When right now you should be sitting down with the heads of terrorist organizations and explaining to THEM that they need to shape-up?! Huh? Your time spent on JW is so damn backwards and nonsensical, Abduuuuulah. You bitch and moan about Robert by keeping track of his supposed lies....O what, he's up to lie #5 now, lol....I mean good gawd, what a waste of time, especially since what you really need to do is hit the road and rattle the cages of your fellow followers from hell."
He believes that Muslims magically stop being Muslims while their killing, even if it's obeying their master's orders. (Koran 9:111 and many others) Don't ask me how that works.
Also for AM on the lies thing: I only keep hearing over and over again about the alcohol thing (which you STILL haven't proven by the way and called it a "impossible pre-condition" to prove!) what are the others?
Hesperado:
"due to the intrusion of the West beginning in Colonial times"
Ever look into the status of the legal systems in the West vs that of Islam just prior to the colonial period? I did. The following is taken from a paper I am writing. Due to word version issues, my footnotes did not come out. All of my quotes are not footnoted, but you will see the full paper wventually anyway.
So let’s compare the legal systems of the West with that of Islam just prior to the colonial period. This is the only point a fair comparison can be made because “between 1790 and 1807 the British transformed Islamic criminal law totally and beyond recognition.” Islamic law ceased to exist two centuries ago. At that point in time, Islamic lands that had been invaded and subjugated by the West had their law system replace by the codified systems of the invaders. A fair comparison of the Shari’a with the legal systems of the West can only be made before the colonial period, and before the Shari’a was completely mangled by the West.
Access to courts and court decisions
To begin with, we will look at who used the court systems, and who prevailed. In colonial New England, it was the rich who were suing the poor, and they were winning:
“A study of colonial New England…has shown that the class structure of the society was clearly supplicated in the working of the court: most of the suits were initiated by members of the aristocratic elite and were against members of the lower classes. Moreover, members of the elite won proportionately more cases than did common people and got away with lighter penalties when sued in criminal charges. The conclusion is reached that the elite received distinctly preferential treatment.”
The situation in the Ottoman Empire was the exact opposite:
“If, in colonial New Haven the court was mainly used by the aristocracy to regulate and control the lower classes, this was definitely not so in the case under study, where the court was used mainly by the common people themselves simply to smooth the flow of their daily lives…In all but a few cases, it was the social underdog who initiated the case – women versus men, non-Muslims versus Muslims, commoners versus members of the elite. The court is seen mainly as a tool of the common people to defend a modicum of legal rights…Women won seventeen of twenty-two cases against men; non-Muslims won seven of eight cases against Muslims; commoners won six of eight cases against askeris. Only in the category of commoners against religious doctors do we find a tie of ten cases each.”
Unlike in colonial New England, in Islam it was most often commoners suing the rich, and they won the majority of cases. Even members of the government were not safe in the Shari’a court:
“There is…no shortage of cases where government officials themselves were involved in court cases with ordinary citizens and lost them.”
As examples of this, Gerber describes a case where villagers sued high state officials serving the sultan claiming that they had taken over their pasture land to use for the sultan’s court. The villagers won. (The shari’a did not have an equivalent for “eminent domain.”)
Another example was when ordinary citizens charged a fiefholder with murder. In that case, the fiefholder was convicted and condemned to death. The shari’a did not allow the rich to get away with murder by hiring an expensive lawyer. (See O.J. Simpson).
Hallaq’s research shows much of the same:
“It was particularly the court’s open and informal forum that permitted the individual and defenders from within his or her micro-community to argue their cases and special circumstances from a moral perspective. But it was also the commitment to universal principals of law and justice that created a legal culture wherein everyone expected that injustices against the weak would be redressed and the wrongdoing of the powerful curbed. This was an expectation based on a centuries-long proven practice where peasants almost always won cases against their oppressive overlords, and where Jews and Christians often prevailed in court not only over Muslim business partners and neighbors but also against no less powerful figures than the provincial governor himself. The Muslim court thus afforded a sort of public arena for anyone who chose toutilize that space for his of her defense. The highly formalized processes of the modern court and its structure of legal representation (costly and tending to suppress the individual voices of the litigants, let alone their sense of morality) were unknown to Islam. So were lawyers and the escessive costs of litigation that prevent the weak and poor from pressing their rights. A case in point was women. Considerable recent research has shown that this group received not only fair treatment in the Muslim court but also even greater protection than other groups…That those who initiated the litigation at the court were the social underdogs is now beyond debate. They were women versus men, non-Muslims versus Muslims, and commoners versus the economic and political elite. That they won the great majority of cases and that they found in the court a defender of their rights is likewise clear from the evidence.”
In terms of fairness with respect to class structure, the Shari’a courts were far more advanced than those in the colonial US or England at that time; or the present time as well, for that matter. Winner: Islam.
Cruel punishments
But what about the cruel hadd offenses? Specifically, what about the cruel practices of cutting off people’s hands for theft and executing them for sex outside of marriage?
First, a few general statements about hadd offenses. Hadd offenses can only be proven by witness testimony or by confession of the accused. Circumstantial evidence is generally not allowed. There must be at least two male eyewitnesses (or one male and two female), and the witness testimony must not conflict at all. (For example, witness testimony in one case was not admitted because one witness said that the accused kicked the victim with his right foot, and the other one said it was his left foot). For hadd crimes, witnesses are neither morally or legally obliged to give testimony, so there is no pressure at all to do so. Any confessions made outside the courtroom are not valid. The accused must confess at the trial, so the judge can see if he is acting voluntarily. The defendant is free to retract his confession at any time before the punishment, in which case the hadd punishment will not be delivered. This is still true today in Saudi Arabia:
“If, during the trial of a hadd case, the accused retracts his confession, alleging that he was coerced into confessing, the case is dropped.”
For zina offenses, the rules were even more strict. In that case, four eyewitnesses were needed, and “they must have seen the act in its most intimate details, i.e. the penetration, or, in terms of certain hadiths, the witnesses must have observed the act just like ‘a pencil going into a kohl container (ka-l-mil fi al-mikhala) or a bucket into a well (ka-l-rasha fi al-bi’r)’.” Unless you decide to have sex before marriage in front of four males, and those four males all see the man’s bucket enter the woman’s well, and all four decide to testify against you in court, you will not be found guilty of zina. Guess what? This does not happen often. For these reasons, in the “cases of zina and theft, the only offenses that required, respectively, capital punishment or mutilation – aside from highway robbery – were, short of confession, nearly impossible to establish.”
The following is a good example of how easy it is to avoid hadd punishment. According to Malikite doctrine, circumstantial evidence is allowed in the following situation: if an unmarried woman has a child, she can be charged with zina. Having a child is pretty good circumstantial proof of having had sex, correct? Even in this case, the woman can avoid the hadd penalty by saying that she got pregnant in her sleep without her knowledge, or that the pregnancy was the result of heavy petting without penetration! It is clear that hadd penalties were easy to avoid.
Another example:
“Hanafis were willing to accept statements from the accused such as ‘you married me’ or ‘I married her,’ even though there had been no legal marriage, as sufficient for establishing shubha [judicial doubt]. Although a man owed his partner monetary compensation in this case equivalent to the amount of a fair dower, the judicial doubt established by these claims voided hadd penalties.”
Here is an example of a male who actually was convicted of zina in the seventeenth century, and how it happened:
“A man voluntarily admitted having had sex at a time when he was unmarried (the exact time was not mentioned) and demanded to be punished. The qadi proceeded to investigate the man’s mental health by questioning people who knew him. The mental capacity was also tested by asking him simple questions, such as what day, month, and year it was. Finally, the qadi gave the man a chance to reconsider his claims. When he persisted, he was sentenced.”
It is true, then, that if you really wanted to be punished, the Shari’a had some harsh penalties. However, if you did not want to be punished, hadd penalties were very easy to avoid.
As for homosexual sex, most schools considered it the same as zina, and the same rules, and the same rules of avoiding hadd penalties, were followed. As with heterosexual sex, penetration must have occurred, and anything less did not incur the hadd penalty. Hanafites, however, considered homosexual sex less of an offense than zina, and left the punishment up to the qadi instead of the automatic hadd penalty.
As we move from the realm of theory to reality we find that just prior to the colonial period, zina penalties had loosened up quite a bit beyond what was stipulated by the Qur’an:
“While the Ottoman qanun paid lip service to the penalties prescribed by the shari’a, which might be imposed in any given case, it also instituted a broad range of alternative penalties, primarily fines. Sultan Sularman’s criminal code, for example, listed a series of graduated fines incurred by perpetrators of zina, to be calibrated by the status of the perpetrator, whether a virgin or not, and by his or her assets. In the case on consensual zina, only a recurrent offender, such as a habitual prostitute, incurred stiffer penalties of flogging, ridiculing in public, or banishment. The law specified that a prostitute could have her face blackened or smeared with dirt and be led through the streets sitting backwards on a donkey, holding its tail instead of its reins…In brief, the Ottoman criminal code effectively eliminated execution as a penalty for zina, prescribed only monetary fines for consensual sexual intercourse, and received a range of non-lethal corporal punishments for those who were violent or habitual offenders…Same-sex intercourse between males was to be punished like zina, with the same system of graduated fines.”
Usually only habitual offenders were punished, and even then only by fines. Even for homosexual sex. Islamic law was static and unchanging??
To summarize, very few were put to death for unlawful intercourse (unless they really wanted to be), and in reality only repeat offenders, such as prostitutes, were punished. And even then usually with fines. As for hand amputation for theft, because the requirements were so exacting, “amputation, at least in the eighteenth century, was rarely practised as a fixed penalty.” Instead, a common result is that the victim would bring the thief to court and the thief would have to repay the victim the stolen money.
So what did the British do to the “cruel” practices of Islamic law when they replaced it with their own law? Did they change the primitive practices of Islamic law and make them less cruel and more “civilized”?
Actually, the exact opposite happened. When the British took over, their problem was with how lenient Islamic law was, not how cruel:
“Hastings argued that government would have to intervene to ensure adequate punishment, because Islamic law was ‘founded on the most lenient principles and on an abhorrence of bloodshed.’”
Peters finds the same:
“The main objection of the British to Islamic criminal law as administered in northern India was that it restricted the power of the courts to hand down capital sentences. Under Islamic criminal law, as compared to contemporary British law, there were relatively few capital offences and, in addition, there were so many defenses available that convictions for such capital offenses were difficult to obtain.”
According to the British, Islamic law left too much discretion to the qadi, who usually looked for reasons to diminish the penalty. The British wanted “fixed and immutable” penalties.” (But remember, it was Islamic law that was rigid):
“Contemporary European views on the greater efficacy of fixed and immutable penalties, as against ancient regime practices of discretionary selection for punishment and ‘cruel spectacles’ were posed in India as a contrast between arbitrary justice of the oriental despot and due process of law under the Company. However, it was the laxity which indigenous rulers seemed to display in exercising their punitive rights, rather than the ‘barbarity’ with which they did so which drew the more strident criticism.”
The British problem with theft was that they wanted the Muslims to be executing thieves, like they did in “civilized” England, and not just cutting their hands off:
“[Hastings] believed strongly in the necessity, and greater efficacy, of fixed and immutable penalties. Yet the actual record of Company justice by no means indicates that arbitrary and discretionary were disavowed. British justice turned out to be far more draconian-in practice as well as in principle-than Islamic justice had been, resorting much more frequently to capital punishment, and much less often to community-based methods of enforcement and reconciliation. As it happened, the Company state was far more concerned with public order, and with the specific use of the law to protect its own trade and commerce as well as authority, than was the old regime.”
Cutting thieves hands off was barbaric. The “civilized” thing to do was to execute the thief instead:
“The British were very outspoken in their opposition to mutilating penalties. Paradoxically, they seemed to values limbs more than lives, as they attached great value to capital punishment as a deterrent, introduced it for a variety of offenses and used it widely.”
It should also be noted that amputation for theft was a rare event, as it still is today in Saudi Arabia:
“Hadd sentences cannot be rashly pronounced. Judges usually award discretionary punishments: in the year 1403 (1982-3), for example, 4,925 ta’zir sentences for theft were pronounced, as against two sentences of amputation for theft.”
The British were shocked at the rare case of amputation, so they replace the practice with widespread executions. How civilized!
Taking someone elses property was the most heinous crime that one could commit in England at that time, and people were executed for it often. For example, in Surrey County from 1660 to 1800, 84% of those who were hanged had committed property offenses, as compared to 8% for murder, and 0.4% for rape. Stealing was obviously far more objectionable to the “civilized” West than murder or rape. The English had many capital crimes, but theft was the priority, not murder;
“There were more than two hundred crimes punishable with death. If a man stole a sheep or a horse, or forty shillings from a dwelling house, five shillings from a shop or twelve and a half pence from a pocket, he was hanged. If a man broke down a fish pond where fish might be lost or cut down trees in an avenue or garden, he was hanged. If he falsely swore, pretended to be a Greenwich pensioner, he was hanged. If he destroyed a turnpike gate, or was found before the expiration of his term of transportation, or if he counterfeited coin, he was hanged. But manslaughter was a clergyable felony until 1822 and an attempt to murder merely a Common law misdemeanor until 1803.”
As we saw previously, in the West the courts existed for the benefit of the rich. The rich were obviously much more concerned about punishing theft than the poor were, and the death penalty was mainly used for thieves. The English were not afraid to use the death penalty either: “From 1771 to 1783, for instance, there were 467 executions in London and Middlesex.”
Islamic law acted as a check on the imposed Western law from being too harsh:
“In the long run the principles of Islamic law were simply replaced by European ones. Nor was there any important direct influence of the Islamic law on the new law as introduced by the Company’s legislation. There was, however, a remarkable indirect influence. The new law was, right from the beginning, not the English criminal law of the time. It was a law developed more or less independently out of European principles. One of its prominent features was its comparative mildness if the contemporary criminal law of England or other European countries was taken as a standard. This mildness was not the mildness of the Islamic law. But it was a kind of dialectical consequence of it. The Islamic law was in many respects excessively mild. The purpose of British legislation was to limit this mildness. But at the same time the original mildness was a check on the new law being too harsh.”
The court system in England was far more brutal than under the Shari’a. Winner: Islam
Divorce
Maybe now JW readers would bring up talaq. According to Mr. Spencer, “all a Muslim husband has to say is ‘Talaq,’ and he has divorced his wife. This is just one element of an institutionalized system of oppression of women…” . First of all, Mr. Spencer leaves out the part that after the man proclaims talaq, the divorce is not final until three months later. During those three months, the man can change his mind at any point, which leaves open the possibility of reconciliation. If the three months passed and the divorce did become final, the couple was allowed to remarry if they chose to do so. This type of divorce was called talaq al-ahsan , and was the preferred method of divorce. Mr. Spencer calls this type of divorce “oppression of women”. I don’t understand why a man saying he wants a divorce and getting one after a three month period, is considered oppression. I was under the impression that even in the West today a man can divorce his wife if he desires. Is it more honorable in the West because the man must hire a lawyer and pay him large amounts of money in order to get the divorce? It is true that women should have the same procedure available to them, but women did have a route to divorce, which we will discuss in a minute.
Another type of divorce brought up often in the JW website is the triple talaq, which is called talaq al-bid’a. In this type of divorce, a man can say talaq three times at once and divorce his wife immediately. This type of divorce was irrevocable, meaning the woman must remarry another man before the original couple can remarry. Although this type of divorce was generally valid, it is not usually discussed on the JW website that this type of divorce was “severely criticized since it goes against the rules laid down by the Quran.” Malik even said that this type of divorce was forbidden. Ahmed explains how this type of divorce originated, even though “this form of divorce was clearly not approved by the Prophet.” During the reign of Caliph Umar, “loose tendencies” had become commonplace with respect to the approved form of divorce. Umar’s attempt to curb these tendencies was to allow the triple talaq, the object of which was “to warn the man that he would have to take the evil consequences of following an un-Islamic practice to pronounce divorce thrice on one occasion.” Umar’s goal was to get people to take divorce more seriously, but it had the opposite effect, and the people began to use the triple talaq rather than avoid it. The triple talaq is not favored by Islam, and it use originated in an attempt to encourage the favored type of divorce.
Spencer says that “men can divorce their wives simply by saying, ‘Talaq’ – I divorce you – but women may not do this.” This is not wholly true. It is true that talaq was a male initiated divorce, but the wife “could acquire the ability to choose her divorce if her husband delegated this power of talaq to her. Jurists from the main Sunni schools of law recognized the right of the husband to delegate such power.” The act of delegating to the wife various stipulations in marriage contracts started over a thousand years ago, and by the 17th century had become common:
“Adult women could better protect themselves by taking advantage of the right to insert stipulations into the marriage contract, with the agreement of the groom to be sure. We have the most consistent information on this practice in the case of Egypt, where a marriage contract drawn up as early as the ninth century conferred upon the bride the power to effect the divorce of any second wife her husband might acquire and sell or manumit any slave woman he took as a concubine…One study of seventeenth–century marriage contracts estimates that a third of them included stipulations.”
Although the different schools placed various limitations of the stipulations in regard to a wife’s right to a unilateral divorce (stipulations were used more often to give the woman a right to divorce if the man took another wife or a concubine, or if he forced her to move where she didn’t want to, or if he failed to pay child support, or if he beat her ), the “conditional delegation conferred some real powers on a woman.”
Also, the financial consequences of talaq should also be understood:
“Talaq, as the jurists understood very well, and as legal practice testifies, was a very costly financial enterprise for the husband, let alone that in many cases it was effectively ruinous (a fact which may explain the rarity of polygamy). Upon talaq, the ex-wife was entitled to maintenance for at least three months (‘idda), delayed dower, children’s maintenance, any debts the husband incurred to her during the marriage (a relatively frequent occurrence), and, if the children were young, a fee for nursing. And if the husband had not been consistent in paying for marital obligations (also a relatively frequent occurrence), he would owe the total sum due upon the initiation of his talaq. In this context, it must be clear that when women entered marriage, they frequently did so with a fair amount of capital, which explains why they were a source of lending for many husbands and why so many of them engaged in the business of money-lending in the first place. In addition to the immediate dower and the financial and material guarantees for her livelihood, the wife secured a postponed payment, but one that she could retrieve at any time she wished (unless otherwise stipulated in the contract). But more financially significant was the trousseau that she received from her parents, customarily consisting of her share of her natal family’s inheritance paid in the form of furniture, clothing, jewelry and at times cash. Many women, before or during marriage, were endowed with a waqf portion, giving them further income. Whatever the form of the trousseau and the total wealth they could accumulate, women were entirely aware of their exclusive right to this wealth, and understood well that they were under no obligation to spend any portion of it on others or even on themselves. They apparently spent their own money on themselves only if they chose to do so, since such expenses as pertained to sustenance, shelter and clothing (in the expansive meaning of these terms if the husband was prosperous) were entirely his responsibility, not hers. In other words, unlike that of husbands, the property of wives was not subject to the chipping effect of expenditure, but could instead be saved, invested and augmented.”
The man had the right to talaq, but the woman ended up with all the money.
Although talaq is brought up quite often on JW, the khul divorce is rarely discussed. Khul divorce is a divorce initiated by the woman,and it was “apparently more widespread than talaq.” Tucker states the commonplace nature of kuhl divorce:
“The majority of divorces in Mamluk society were apparently khul divorce, and this trend seems to continue during Ottoman times…for example, Madeline Zilfi found that ten to twelve women came to a court in eighteenth-century Istanbul every month seeking khul, and this was in just one of several courts in the city…In Jerusalem, Nablus, and Damscus, khul was the type of divorce most frequently encountered in court by far”
Khul divorce was initiated by the woman, and involved paying the man compensation, usually an amount equal to the dower that she had been given. An extraordinary explanation for the khul request was not necessary:
“In Istanbul and Sofia, most khul requests were preceded by ‘we don’t have a good life together,’ ‘there was no understanding between us,’ or ‘there were quarrels and dissention between us’. In Syria and Palestine in the eighteenth century, khul requests did not usually mention reasons or background; rather, a woman simply ‘asks’ her husband to divorce her for a compensation.”
Gerber finds much of the same:
“One of the most widespread types of cases involving family law that appear in the records is khul’ divorce – that is, divorce initiated by the wife, whether of her own free will or as a consequence of a prior agreement between her and her husband. Such an initiative on the part of the woman would entail the automatic waiver of her financial privileges, In most of the cases cited in the records, the reason adduced for the request is quarrelsome relations. In some cases women even paid sums out of their own pockets to obtain the divorce. No cases were found where the court tried to dissuade women from pursuing their effort to obtain a divorce.”
The woman could initiate a divorce, and the practice was common. More common than talaq. It is not surprising that this is not a topic on JW.
Now for the comparison. What was divorce like in England at the time? Basically, divorce was only allowed by one group of people: wealthy males! What a surprise:
“In England marital controversies were judged by the ecclesiastical courts, and these courts applied canon law, under which a valid marriage was regarded as indissoluble. True divorce (divortium a vinculo matrimonii), allowing the partners to remarry, was never granted unless a marriage was judged null to begin with, on grounds such as consanguinity, bigamy, or sexual incapacity. Such causes as adultery, desertion, or cruelty warranted only separation from bed and board (divortium a mensa et thoro), which sustained the legal obligations of marriage, excepting cohabitation, and did not allow either partner to remarry. At the end of the seventeenth century, in order to relieve the stringency of ecclesiastical rule for noblemen whose wives were adulterous, the House of Lords began to dissolve marriages by private act. Only a select group could take advantage of this avenue to divorce. The cost often amounted to several thousand pounds, because a petitioner was expected to have first obtained a decree of divorce a mensa and a civil judgment against the adulterers. The Lords passed only about ninety private acts of divorce between 1697 and 1785, all resting on adultery charges and all awarded to husbands.”
Within a span of 88 years, all of England awarded 90 divorces, all to rich males. Now that’s how a civilized country deals with divorce! The situation in the colonies was not much better:
“Divorce a vinculo from a valid marriage was more frequent in Massachusetts during the same period. Between 1692 and 1786, 110 divorces were granted in the province on grounds other than those considered legitimate by the English ecclesiastical courts-63 to men, 47 to women- and England and Wales had a population of almost seven million in 1765, when the Massachusetts population was under 250,000.”
In Massachusetts during a span of 94 years, 47 divorces were granted to women. One every other year for a population of 250,000. Let’s compare that to what we already quoted above:
“Madeline Zilfi found that ten to twelve women came to a court in eighteenth-century Istanbul every month seeking khul, and this was in just one of several courts in the city”
Let’s conservatively estimate 30 divorces every month initiated by women in Istanbul, whose population in the eighteenth century was about 500,000.
The following, then, is the number of divorces granted to women per year per million women in three different areas:
England: 0
Colonial US: 2
Istanbul: 720
Quiz: Under what legal system did women have the easiest access to divorce? Winner: Islam.
Inheritance
Since we just brought up the subject of women’s financial rights in the contexts of talaq, it is a good time to bring up another common concern on JW, which is the stipulation that a male stands to inherit twice the amount that a female would.
In effect, though, all this law did was to balance the financial advantage that women had in receiving the dower:
“The privileged female access to property through the dower system was counterbalanced, however, by an inheritance law that discriminated against the females.”
On balance, it was the women that had the overall financial advantage:
“When a woman’s many property entitlements (mahr, maintenance, and the absence of any material responsibility to her family members) were taken into account, women stood to acquire more property through the operation of Islamic rules for property transfers than did men.”
And what was inheritance like for women in England? Eileen Spring finds that under English common law, “when indirect inheritance by collateral females is added to direct inheritance by daughters, twenty-five percent of all inheritances would at common law go to females.” If my math is correct, a two to one inheritance disadvantage for females under Islamic law (neglecting the mitigating factors mentioned above), is still better than twenty-five percent. Also, Spring finds the inheritance situation for females got worse over time (the English inheritance gates had not only closed, but stuff was being thrown out of the gates as well), and reached its nadir in the eighteenth century. She points out some statistics published by Lawrence Stone:
“In An Open Elite?, a book that focuses on the relations between businessmen and landowners, the Stones have presented as thorough a study of landed inheritance as we are ever likely to have. They have analyzed the dispositions of over 2,000 owners of 362 country houses in 3 English counties from 1540 to 1879…In one table the Stones indicate what proportion of those inheritances that went directly from father to child went to daughters and what proportion to sons. If the average is taken over the period 1540 to 1780 then 6 percent of such inheritances went to daughters and 94 percent to sons. In a second table the Stones indicate what proportion of all inheritances, direct and indirect, went to women. If a similar average is taken, then 8 percent went to women and 92 percent to men…Their table showing how often women inherited also shows how often women had inheritance go through them. Taking the average, thirteen percent of inheritances between 1540 and 1760 went either to or through women. This is a rate little above what was biologically unavoidable. It is clear then not only that landowners had much reduced female inheritance, but also that they had reduced it almost as far as nature permitted.”
Tucker finds much the same:
“[Muslim] women were designated by law to inherit from many of their male relatives and could not legally be disinherited; women, although they often inherited one-half the share of their male relatives, enjoyed unfettered control of the family property they thus received; and finally, there were no constraints placed on the kinds of property women might inherit. We see some marked contrasts here to the rules for female dowers and inheritance in places like England and China. In England, the practice of primogeniture when it came to real property had become firmly ensconced in theory and practice by the early modern period: the eldest male child stood to inherit the family’s real property while female children and younger males were typically allotted maintenance incomes. Although historians have pointed out some variations in this pattern, most significantly among classes, the fact remains that ‘property continued to be transmitted between men to secure patriarchal social structures.’”
Winner: Islamic law.
Women’s Financial Inependence
Muslim married women were financially independent. In the West, they were not:
“It is worthy of note that, unlike in much of the western legal tradition, the marital status of a [Muslim] woman had no impact on her legal competence. European legal systems of the early modern period had placed most women and their property under the legal authority of their husbands: in the extreme case of the English tradition of coverture, a husband exercised almost total control over his wife’s property; on the continent, dowry systems protected the assets the wife brought to the marriage but usually gave the husband broad powers to manage this property…The Muslim jurists, with only a few school-specific exceptions, took the contrary position that marital status held no ramifications for legal capacity for either spouse, and a husband had no right to manage or dispose of his wife’s property.”
This is another case where Islamic law was clearly ahead of the West. Married women in Great Britain did not gain the right to own property until 1882, about a thousand years after Islamic women had that right.
At this point I will make one more point regarding women’s rightsin general. Many Islamic women find the Qur’an to be the source of needed reforms, not the source of the problem:
“Several women scholars have focused recently on the Qur’an as the fount of discourse on gender, and argued that responsible and scholarly Qur’anic interpretation (tafsir) leads inexorably to an egalitarian view of gender relations, not the male dominance expressed in some aspects of the legal tradition. As the number and sophistication of these works increase, they are entering into serious contention for the hearts and minds of believing Muslim women and men alike, and they are acquiring the potential to supply the necessary foundations for more extensive legal reforms.”
Winner: Islam.
Women’s dress
But the JW reader says “What about the dreaded hijab!!” Once again, the situation over a century ago is probably different than what a JW reader might think:
“So we are left with the distinct impression that, prior to the late nineteenth century, women’s dress in general, and the practice of veiling in particular, were not matters that much engaged the attention of Islamic jurists and courts. Women (and men) no doubt dressed modestly, at least in large parts of the Islamic heartland, but a wide range of degrees of covering, reflecting differences in class and setting, appears to have been the norm.”
Muslim women wore modest dress, but probably not much different from Puritan women were wearing in the American colonies. Overall, women in the West still had much more freedom to wear more revealing clothes, so if less clothing is a mark of a better society, we will give the win to the West.
Winner: the West.
Apostasy and Forced Convesion
I will still make a few comments about this subject. A more complete treatment will come later.
In brief, the Qur’an gives no punishment for apostasy except in the afterlife, so the fringe right has to find evidence for Islam’s sanctioning of apostasy in ahad ahadith. In response to this argument, it is clear that a solitary hadith cannot overrule the Qur’an. Secondly, examples of apostasy resulting in the death penalty involve treason as well. Treason was a crime that was dealt with severely in many cultures at the time. For instance, this is an example of how the English punished those convicted of treason:
“For high treason the punishment was solemn and terrible. The statute stated that before the offender was beheaded, he should be half hanged and that his entrails should be drawn out of his body and burnt before his very eyes. This shocking punishment actually was meted out to eight officers on Kennington Common in 1746. When one David Tyrie was so executed on August 24, 1782, the Gentleman's Magazine remarked: ‘It was astonishing to see what numbers of women there were in the crowd to see such a savage process, the bare relation of which is shocking to humanity.’ The heads of traitors in the first half of the century were hung on Temple Bar, the only remaining gate of the city of London. The heads thus exposed were allowed to bleach for years in the sun and rain until the wind hurled them in the footway.”
When looking at the issue of apostasy, it will be important to consider it in situations that are divorced from any other issues such as treason.
The related issue of forced conversions will also be covered separately. In general, non-Muslims in the Ottoman empire were treated as second-class citizens, and conversion to Islam was motivated by a desire to assimilate in order to overcome this. There were no mass forced conversions:
“Although there were obvious cases of enforced conversions, most were nonenforced. These, often euphemistically called ‘voluntary,’ were the result of indirect economic and social, but not administrative, pressure. They were stimulated primarily by the desire to achieve a distinct kind of integration.”
Ocak agrees:
“The Ottoman Empire never considered the official religion as a belief that was to be imposed on its non-Muslim subjects, and it never carried out any activity in this regard.”
Ocak does point out that Muslims who challenged the prevailing orthodoxy were dealt with harshly, however:
“The Ottoman center never used Islam as a weapon for the conversion of non-Muslims, in fact it deliberately avoided doing so. [However] Sunni Islam was used, as an ideology of suppression in the most unremitting fashion, against deviants or heretics that sprang from among their own ranks.”
This was, of course, in response to keeping unity within Islam, and not allowing splinter groups to destroy the religion. The issue of conversion in the Ottoman Empire was never a central feature, as it was in the Spanish empire, for example:
“the Ottoman Empire never had a ’Propaganda Fide,’ or an ‘Agency for Convert Affairs,’ nor did it have any press which was used by the Propaganda Fide to such good effect.”
Winner: Islam
Overall conditions
In conclusion, I would like to compare some general observations about what is was like in the Ottoman Empire as compared to the West. European observers of the Ottoman Empire made the usual comments about Muslims attaching little value to life and limb (ironically, they were making these comments at the same time they were executing 35 people per year in London alone). However, they also made the following observations:
“European observers in the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries were impressed by the efficiency, effectiveness, and even fairness of the Ottoman administration of criminal justice. In their view, it compared favorably with the long drawn out and very costly lawsuits and trial in Europe. They noticed with astonishment that in the Ottoman courts a case was generally dealt with in a single session; there were no lawyers who would drag out the procedure unnecessarily, and appeals were relatively rare. The speedy and often severe punishment meted out, together with the efficient police methods and the collective responsibility at the whole village or town-quarter for any crime committed there, were in their opinion the main reasons for the amazingly low crime rate, especially in the cities".
An amazlingly low crime rate. So what was crime like in London at the time?:
“In some respects Dr. Johnson was right. Crime did pay in the eighteenth century. Thieving, smuggling, and highway robbery were the fashion of the day. The danger people ran of being robbed or murdered in the streets was great. As soon as night fell, highwaymen and footpads emerged from their retreats in the capital like so many bats in order to begin the work of depredation and plunder. The contempt for the law was great. Horace Walpole complained that in London ‘one is forced to travel even at noon as if one was going to battle,’ and he expected to be robbed one night in his own garden at Strawberry Hill.”
Another important observation is the use of Shari’a courts by dhimmis. Although both Christians and Jews had their own communal courts available to them, it turns out that quite a few decided to use the Shari’a courts voluntarily for cases involving other dhimmis as well as their own families. This is especially true for women, who found that the rules under Islamic Law were far more favorable than under their own religious rules. For example:
“In Ottoman Egypt, Copts as well as other minorities sought the auspices of the sharia’s court. Marriages concluded in the court were, as a consequence, dissolvable therein, and Coptic women also appear to have benefitted from the practice - widespread among Muslim women in Egypt - of adding protecting clauses to their marriage contracts (clauses dealing with the rights of children from previous marriages, material support, etc.). A similar perception appears to have attracted Jews to the Muslim court. This is particularly interesting insofar as it seems to have appealed primarily to women who, for example, used the shari’a courts in order to obtain a share of their patrimony, denied them in Jewish law. Jewish women also appear to have sought shari’a marriages, which guaranteed material support (nafaqa) as well as divorce, especially when attempting to annul marriages made insupportable by deserting husbands.”
If Islamic Law was so primitive, why were so many Christians and Jews going to the Shari’a court when they had their own courts available to them?
I would like to make one last point which relates to contemporary Islamic law. Western media like to find extreme cases of punishment in Islamic countries and report on them endlessy. To the extent that these stories are true (which is certainly not the case for all the stories), they do not represent the Shari’a:
“Certainly, most if not all of the incidents reported in the Western press as examples of the implementation of Shari’ah provisions in many Muslim countries have been gross miscarriages of justice according to most traditional Shari’ah conventions, carried out by people with only a slogan-like knowledge of traditional mainstream fiqh.”
Conclusion
Overall winner: Islamic law
That Islamic law surpassed the legal systems of the West at the time should hardly be a surprise, and this is accepted by scholarship. William McNeill notes that…:
“an intelligent and informed observer of the fifteenth century could hardly have avoided the conclusion that Islam, rather than the remote and still comparatively crude society of the European Far West, was destined to dominate the world in the following centuries.”
Makdisi:
“Readers familiar with the intellectual history of the Christian West can hardly fail to see its development as following that of Islam on parallel lines with a time lag of a century or so…It is inconceivable that two cultures could develop side by side for literally centuries without being aware of developments on either side. That Islam cared little for what was going on in the West is proof of its indifference to a lesser developed culture. On the other hand, it is common knowledge that the West was not oblivious of the higher civilization of Islam: it learned its language and translated its works in order to bring itself up to the level of the higher culture, the better to defend itself against it.”
W.M. Watt:
“When one keeps hold of all the facets of the medieval confrontation of Christianity and Islam, it is clear that the influence of Islam on Western Christendom is greater than is usually realized. Not only did Islam share with Western Europe many material products and technological discoveries; not only did it stimulate Europe intellectually in the fields of science and philosophy; but it provoked Europe into forming a new image of itself. Because Europe was reacting against Islam, it belittled the influence of the Saracens and exaggerated its dependence on its Greek and Roman heritage. So today, an important task for our Western Europeans, as we move into the era of the one world, is to correct this false emphasis and to acknowledge fully our debt to the Arab and Islamic world.”
Even Count Ostrorog, the Orientalist who was the first to use the “gates of ijtihad” terminology, had this to say about Islamic law in the same presentation containing his “gates” garbage:
“Considered from the point of view of its logical structure the [Islamic law] system is one of rare perfection, and to this day it commands the admiration of the student…Those Eastern thinkers of the IXth century laid down, on the basis of their theology, the principle of the Rights of Man, in those very terms, comprehending the rights of individual liberty, and of inviolability of person and property; described the supreme power in Islam, or Caliphate, as based on a contract, implying conditions of capacity and performance, and subject to cancellation if the conditions under the contract were not fulfilled; elaborated a Law of War of which the humane, chivalrous prescriptions would have put to the blush certain belligerents in the Great War; expounded a doctrine of toleration of non-Moslem creeds so liberal that our West had to wait a thousand years before seeing equivalent principles adopted.”
Even Orientalists sometimes tell the truth in order to appear scholarly.
"He believes that Muslims magically stop being Muslims while their killing, even if it's obeying their master's orders. (Koran 9:111 and many others) Don't ask me how that works." -- Foolster41
How nice, AM has created his own twisted version of Islam. He must be the only member belonging to his evil brand of cult-Islam. Well then, that would explain why he's here. He's looking for converts willing to join his one-man freak show. Misery loves company, I guess.
The quran called allah the greatest deceiver, liar, schemer, and planner to do it all. The Bible had said in Reve, 12:9 that Satan the devil was the deceiver of the world 600 yrs before Mo was conceived.
AM
the books said she was 6 when married and thighed from 6-9 and had intercourse at 9. She lost her hair. In Islam they consider girls mature at first mentral. A girl in peru was 5 and got pregnant by her brother. They were not Muslims in 1925. In the 7th century a little arab girl was raped and thus when the Arabs sold African black slaves to Europeans, it was not rape because slaves are property or whatever your right hand posessed, right AM.
You lying son of Allah the greatest.
The quran called allah the greatest deceiver, liar, schemer, and planner to do it all. The Bible had said in Reve, 12:9 that Satan the devil was the deceiver of the world 600 yrs before Mo was conceived.
AM
the books said she was 6 when married and thighed from 6-9 and had intercourse at 9. She lost her hair. In Islam they consider girls mature at first mentral. A girl in peru was 5 and got pregnant by her brother. They were not Muslims in 1925. In the 7th century a little arab girl was raped and thus when the Arabs sold African black slaves to Europeans, it was not rape because slaves are property or whatever your right hand posessed, right AM.
You lying son of Allah the greatest.
Foolster,
I will address this one more time and one more only and leave you to read what is posted and either understand it or not.
You believe as you do because you have only a desire to smear and promote hatred toward Muslims…if you had any good in you and any altruistic motivation toward truth you would read the proofs of my opinion as well as the greater scope on the issue outside of Islam and revise your opinion on the matter at hand. You base your opinion on many lies arrived at through stringing together hadiths taken out of context and out of time and out of meaning.
I am not sure if the Arabic script will post, so forgive me if it does not.
Several lies have been invented recently against Islam regarding Prophet Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha. These lies manipulate invented interpretations that contradict the legislation of all the 4 Islamic Schools of thought, or “mathaheb”.
1) Abu Bakr Urged the Marriage
The 1st lie claims that “Prophet Muhammad forced Aisha’s father to accept the marriage”.
• This lie distorts a summarized narration about Abu Bakr. The detailed hadith narrated by Aisha herself provides 4 facts that disprove the lie:
1. Prophet Muhammad did not initiate the engagement. Khawla suggested the marriage,(1) because the companions feared for the Prophet’s health after the death of Khadijah.
2. The Prophet did not approach Abu Bakr directly, rather, using the applicable etiquette, he replied to Khawla's suggestion: "So go, and mention me to them".(1)
3. Abu Bakr’s question to Khawla “Is she good for him? She is his brother’s daughter” was not an objection, rather, a question due to the pre-Islamic norm that assigned blood ties which do not actually exist, such as in adoption. The Prophet corrected this false notion through Khawla.
4. If Abu Bakr had any hesitation, he would simply have used the acceptable justification that she was already engaged, but instead he told Khawla to “Wait” and went immediately to request permission from Aisha’s previous fiancé.
• More importantly, even the consummation itself was urged by Abu Bakr, which disproves any reluctance from his side. Lady Aisha narrated: “Abu Bakr told him ‘What prevents you from consummating with your wife?’ So he consummated (our marriage)“.
• Last, any doubt about Abu Bakr’s compassion for his daughter’s best interests is rejected, because he was very well known for his "Shafaqa", which is a term normally used to praise a compassionate father.
As a result, not only did Abu Bakr consent, but both the engagement and the consummation were initiated and urged by people other than the Prophet.
2) Sexual Acts Prohibited Before Puberty
The 2nd lie claims that “sexual acts were performed when Aisha was 6 years old”.
• The lie does not cite any hadith, but merely repeats a falsified fatwa against Saudi scholars who denied ever having made it, as declared on their website, and they added "Our Prophet prohibits even seclusion with a fiancee."
• In Islam, "approaching" even ones wife intimately even without penetration is only allowed “if she has reached puberty (itha balaghat)…” as stated by Hasan al Basri, leader of the "followers" of the companions.
• The relevant hadith by Aisha proves that she had passed puberty because she said “The Prophet used to tell us during our period to wear a skirt before (physically) approaching us".
Therefore, the only sexual acts with prepubescent girls were actually just fantasized in the perverted imagination of the person fabricating the lie in his sick mind about “thighing” and “rubbing” repeatedly a 6 year old girl.
3) Lady Aisha was a Mature Adult
The 3rd lie claims that “Lady Aisha had not reached puberty when her marriage was consummated.”
• The fallacy claims that the proof of Aisha’s childhood is her saying that “her dolls were with her” when “she was taken to his house as a bride when she was 9”.
(14) But Ibn Hajar cites in Fathulbari that the Muslim scholars deduced from the context of this hadith, the permission to play with dolls regardless of age as a means to learn about matters of the home and raising children.
o Indeed, playing with dolls by adults is also common in many recent societies, as educational preparation for motherhood. It is ridiculous to claim that merely playing with dolls or swings is evidence of physical or even mental maturity.
• The evidence for Aisha’s adulthood is quite explicit:
1. As shown in part 1 of this presentation, even until the 18th century, psychological maturity coincided with puberty, (see part 1: ref. 58 to 86) and all societies recognized puberty as the requirement to give informed consent for marriage. (see part 1: ref. 31 to 50)
2. In her parents' opinion, Aisha had reached puberty and was fit for marriage when Abu Bakr requested the consummation,(3) just like the Jewish princess Safiyyah, who married when she became "capable of marriage" in her neighboring Jewish tribe.
3. Lady Aisha said: “If the young girl reaches 9 years, then she is a woman”. She is obviously describing herself and her acquaintances.
4. Not merely did she reach menstruation, the great Malki scholar Dawudi commented about her marriage “Aisha then had physically matured well indeed”.
As a result, not only had Lady Aisha reached puberty when her marriage was consummated, she was also a physically and psychologically mature adult.
4) Aisha Consented & Was Overjoyed
The 4th lie dares to claim that “Aisha did not consent to the marriage.”
• Not only did she consent to the marriage according to Islam’s requirements, Lady Aisha was overjoyed, and stated 6 priveleges directly relating to her marriage:
“I have been given features not given to any woman. The Prophet (peace be upon him) married me when I was seven, the angel brought him my image in his hand to look at it, he consummated our marriage when I was nine, I saw the angel Gabriel, I was his most beloved wife, and I attended his disease till he died, not witnessed but by me and the angels."
It is clear from this hadith that Aisha not only consented, but was even ecstatic about this privilege.
5) Puberty, Maturity, & Consent Required
The 5th lie claims that “Quranic verses permit consummation to prepubescent girls”.
• To disfigure the truth, the fallacy ommits the very 1st verse revealed regarding the waiting period after divorce. In the correct context and order:
o the 1st verse sets the waiting period to 3 menstrual cycles.
o Since old and young women do not menstruate, the 2nd verse was subsequently revealed setting their waiting period to 3 months, as explained by Ibn Kathir.
o And finally, the 3rd verse sets the exception for any marriage that has not been consummated. This exception applies to marriages that cannot be consummated, such as not only prepubescent girls, but even women who have menstruated but who are not yet ready physically or emotionally for intercourse.(24)
• In fact, the only verse in the Quran using the term “bulugh al nikah”, or "age of procreation", to describe puberty mentions the additional requirement of mental maturity for orphans to receive their financial assets.
This Islamic requirement of maturity, which is even correctly relayed in Encyclopedia Britannica, undeniably applies even more to marriage contracts, because it entails responsibility towards other people.
• Furthermore, Imam Abu Hanifa legislated that since a woman who reached puberty has authority over her own financial affairs, then she has authority over her own marriage. Consummation before puberty cannot occur, because it would violate this right of women to consent.(26)
o Indeed, an authentic hadith shows that “A young girl who was still a virgin came to the Prophet and she mentioned that her father married her (to someone), while she was forced, so the Prophet gave her the choice (to remained married or not).”
As a result, prior to consummating a marriage, Islam not only requires menstruation, but physical and mental maturity followed by consent as well.
6) Islam Curtailed Sexual Freedoms
The 6th ridiculous claim is that “Muhammad invented Islam to satisfy his sexual desires.”
• First of all, there were already Talmud and Church laws permitting vast sexual aberrations. But while affirming the divine source of Judaism and Christianity, Islam rejected these obviously false interpretations or alterations. Please read the following examples:
o Bible: no mention of a minimum age for marriage.
o Talmud: “a girl who is 3 years and 1 day old may be betrothed through sexual intercourse”.
o Canon: 7 years is the minimum age for consummation (passed on to 19th century Europe & US Common Law). (see part 1: ref. 31 to 50)
o Talmud: "A proselyte (non-Jewish girl) who is under the age of 3 years and 1 day is permitted to marry a priest" citing Numbers 31:17.
o "Saint" Constantine: legalized sale of infants as slaves (313 AD).
o Talmud: fathers permitted to sell daughters as slaves, citing Exodus 21:7.
o Talmud: For pederasty and incest of boys under 9 and girls under 3, “no guilt is incurred” by the adult.
o Deuteronomy 22:13-18 requires parents to deflower their daughters before marriage to show “tokens of her virginity”.
• Secondly, Islam actually opposed the extreme sexual permissiveness of that time, such as:
o Prostitution and pederasty were cherished from the Greeks up until the 15th century Roman Byzantine society.
o Talmud: did not require consent of women under 12 for marriage.
o Pagan Arabs: used to perform their public worship completely naked.
o Child prostitution was legal at age 7 from Greco-Roman times (remained legal at age 10 even until 1885 in US and UK).
o Arab and Jewish people could marry an unlimited number of simultaneous wives.
Therefore, to satisfy abnormal sexual desires in 7th century Arabia, no new religion was needed: all one had to do was take his pick from the existing religions and norms. In contrast, Islam protected people from these shameful laws.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, we have seen that these attacks against Islam necessitated disfiguration, concealing the truth, and incompetent, twisted interpretations. This unacceptable approach puts into serious question the morality, system of values and beliefs of anyone perpetrating such lies.
From Imam Ahmed (Good Hadith according to Ibn Hajar in Fathul Bari, with other hadiths corroborating many of the details including Tabarani as good, Al Hakim in Mustadrak as authentic, and Abdulrazaq in Mustadrak):
“After Khadijah died, Khawlah bint
Hakeem,...said: ‘Wouldn’t you marry, O prophet of Allah?’ He said: ‘Who?’ She said: ‘If you like, a virgin, or a previously married woman.’ He said: ‘Who is the virgin?’ She said: ‘The daughter of the most beloved creature to you, Aisha daughter of Abu Bakr.’ He said: ‘And who is the previously married?’ She said: ‘Sawda bint Zama; she believed in you and followed you, in what you say.’ He said: ‘So go, and mention me to them.’
So she entered Abu Bakr’s house and said: ‘O Um Ruman, what great good and blessing did Allah grant you!’ She said: ‘And what is that?’ She said: ‘The Prophet PBUH sent me to propose his marriage to Aisha.’ She said: ‘Wait for Abu Bakr to come.’ Abu Bakr came and she said: ‘O Abu Bakr, what great good and blessings did Allah grant you!’ He said: ‘And what is that?’ She said: ‘The Prophet PBUH sent me to propose his marriage to Aisha.’ He said: ‘Is she good for him? She is his brother’s daughter.’
She returned to the Prophet PBUH and mentioned that to him. He said: ‘Return and tell him I am your brother and you are my brother in Islam, and your daughter is good for me.’
She returned and mentioned that to him. He said: ‘Wait.’ And he went out. Um Ruman said that Mutim Ibn Adiyy had proposed for her to his son, and by Allah, Abu Bakr never made a promise and broke it... He returned and told Khawlah: ‘Invite the Prophet PBUH to come over.’ She invited him, and he married him to her, while Aisha was six years old then...
Aisha said: ‘Then we moved to Madinah and lived among bani al Harth al Khazraj, in al Zanh.’
She said: ‘Then the Prophet PBUH came and entered our house, and men and women gathered around him. And my mother came to me... and then said: ‘These are your parents, so may Allah bless them for you and bless you for them’... And the Prophet consummated our marriage in our house… and I was nine years old that day’.”
روى الإمام احمد
لما هلكت خديجة جاءت خولة بنت حكيم امرأة عثمان بن مظعون قالت: يا رسول الله ألا تزوج قال: من قالت: إن شئت بكرا أو ثيبا قال: فمن البكر قالت ابنة أحب خلق الله عز وجل إليك عائشة بنت أبي بكر قال: ومن الثيب قالت: سودة بنت زمعة قد آمنت بك واتبعتك على ما تقول قال: فاذهبي فأذكريهما عليَّ فدخلت بيت أبي بكر فقالت: يا أم رومان ماذا أدخل الله عز وجل عليكم من الخير والبركة قالت: وما ذاك قالت: أرسلني رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أخطب عليه عائشة قالت: انتظري أبا بكر حتى يأتي فجاء أبو بكر فقالت: يا أبا بكر ماذا أدخل الله عليكم من الخير والبركة قال وما ذاك قالت: أرسلني رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أخطب عليه عائشة قال: وهل تصلح له إنما هي ابنة أخيه فرجعت إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فذكرت له ذلك قال: ارجعي إليه فقولي له أنا أخوك وأنت أخي في الإسلام وابنتك تصلح لي فرجعت فذكرت ذلك له قال: انتظري وخرج قالت أم رومان إن مطعم بن عدي قد كان ذكرها على ابنه فوالله ما وعد وعدا قط فأخلفه لأبي بكر ...
فرجع فقال لخولة: ادعي لي رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم صلى الله عليه وسلم فدعته فزوجها إياه وعائشة يومئذ بنت ست ... قالت عائشة فقدمنا المدينة فنزلنا في بني الحرث بن الخزرج في السنح قالت: فجاء رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فدخل بيتنا واجتمع إليه رجال من الأنصار ونساء فجاءتني أمي ... ثم قالت: هؤلاء أهلك فبارك الله لك فيهم وبارك لهم فيك... وبنى بي رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم في بيتنا ... وأنا يومئذ بنت تسع سنين.
“Al Isabah” by Ibn Hajar, “Al Bidayah wal Nihayah” by Ibn Kathir
“The Prophet PBUH pained for Khadijah’s (death) to the point they feared for him (to die), until he married Aisha.”
وَجَدَ رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم على خديجة حتى خـُشِـيَ عليه حتى
تزوج عائشة
Ibn Hajar (in “Fathul Bari”) and Al Tabaraani
“Aisha said:...’Until we arrived at Madinah, so I dwelt among the family of Abu Bakr...So Abu Bakr told him: ‘What prevents you from consummating with your wife?’ So he consummated with me’.”
قال ابن حجر في فتح الباري: وأخرج الطبراني … عن عائشة قالت
لما هاجر رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وأبو بكر خلفنا بمكة، فلما استقر بالمدينة ... حتى قدمنا المدينة فنزلت في عيال أبي بكر...فقال له أبو بكر: ما يمنعك أن تبني بأهلك؟ فبني بي
Tafseer Al Qurtubi
"Abu Bakr al Siddiq was called the weeper (alawah) for his compassion and kindness."
قال القرطبي في تفسيره:
...وكان أبو بكر الصديق رضي الله عنه يسمى الأواه لشفقته ورأفته.
Kanzul Ummal,
"Uthman told Abu Bakr: 'I see you a good counselor to people of this religion and compassionate to them'…Khalid Ibn Said told Abu Bakr: 'and you are the compassionate and counseling leader'."
كنز العمال
مسند أبي بكر: ...قال عثمان بن عفان (لأبي بكر): إني أرى أنك ناصح لأهل هذا الدين شفيق عليهم...
...قال خالد ابن سعيد (لأبي بكر): ... وأنت الوالي الناصح الشفيق
The Explanation of Riyadh al Saliheen
"Ibn Alan said: 'So if the merciful (shafiq) father fears harm for his child after him…"
قال ابن علان، في شرح رياض الصالحين
...فإن الوالد الشفيق يخشى على ولده الضيعة بعده...
Al Tabari, "Al Tareikh"
"The action of the merciful (shafiq) father with his son, and the loving leader with his followers…"
قال الطبري، في "التاريخ":
...فعل الوالد الشفيق على ولده والراعي الحب عى رعيته...
Al Suyuti, Al La-ale Al Masnua
"Just as the merciful (shafiq) father cares for goodness towards his child"
قال السيوطي في اللآلئ المصنوعة
... كما يتعاهد الوالد الشفيق ولده بالخير ...
Ibn Taymiya, Al Fatawa al Kubra
"…Just like the father constrains his child to what is better for him…"
قال ابن تيمية في الفتاوى الكبرى
... كما يلزم الأب الشفيق ولده ما هو أصلح له ...
Imam Al Ghazali, "Ihya Ulum al Deen"
"…Just like the merciful (shafiq) father would prevent his child the pleasure of fruits (if medically necessary) or imposes the pain of medical cuts out of compassion (shafaqa) and love for him."
قال الغزالي في الإحياء
كما يمنع الوالد الشفيق ولده لذة الفواكه ويلزم ألم الفصد والحجامة شفقة عليه وحبا له
http://www.imanway1.com/horras/showthread.php?t=8044
AbdulRazzaq, “al Musannaf”
"citing Maymoonah, the Prophet’s wife, that if his wife had the period, he would approach his wife provided she was dressed till the middle of the thighs (not less), or till the knees (this is the recommended practice of all Muslims).
Then Abdul Razzaq added, citing Al Hasan: It is OK, IF SHE HAS REACHED PUBERTY, if it is on her belly or between her thighs."
(Hasan Al Basri was the most eminent authority in the generation succeeding the Prophet -Muhaddith MR)
عَنْ مَيْمُونَةَ زَوْجِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَليه وسلَّم، أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَليه وسلَّم كَانَ يُبَاشِرُ المَرْأَةَ مِنْ نِسَائِهِ وَهِيَ حَائِضٌ إذَا كَانَ عَلَيْهَا إزَارٌ يَبْلُغُ أَنْصَافَ الفَخِذَيْنِ أَوْ الرُّكْبَتَيْنِ مُحْتَجِرَةً بِهِ.
حَدَّثَنَا وَكِيعٌ عَنْ الرَّبِيعِ عَنْ الحَسَنِ قَالَ: لاَ بَأْسَ إنْ بَلَغَتْ عَلَى بَطْنِهَا وَبَيْنَ فَخِذَيْهَا.
Bukhari (Book 6, Hadith 296), Muslim (Kitab Al Hayd, Hadith #2), Ibn Majah, Al Hakim, “Al Mustadrak” (Hadith # 614/169), Abu Dawud (Hadith #272)
The Prophet used to tell us during our period to wear a skirt before (physically) approaching us, AND WHO AMONG YOU CAN CONTROL HIS DESIRE (TO DO MORE THAN THAT) LIKE THE PROPHET USED TO BE ABLE TO CONTROL HIS DESIRE.
حدثنا عُثْمَانُ بنُ أبي شَيْبَةَ أخبرنا جَرِيرٌ عن الشّيْبَانِيّ عن عَبْدِالرّحْمَنِ بنِ الأسْوَدِ عن أبِيهِ عن عَائِشَةَ قَالَتْ "كَانَ رسولُ الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يَأْمُرُنَا في فَوْحِ حَيْضَتِنَا أنْ نَتّزِرَ ثُمّ يُبَاشِرُنَا، وَأيّكُمْ يَمْلِكُ إرَبَهُ كَمَا كَانَ رسولُ الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يَمْلِكُ إرَبَهُ".
Sahih Muslim, Vol. 8, #3311
“Aisha reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and she was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine , and her dolls * were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old.”
*(the majority of scholars permit dolls to train women starting from youth about matters of their homes and raising children)
“Fath-ul-Bari, Explanation of Sahih Bukhari”, page 143, vol 13, Imam Ibn Hajar
(I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet... the Prophet would call them to join and play with me)
“And from this hadith was deduced the permission to keep dolls and toys for girls to play with them, and that this was excluded from the general prohibition of keeping images (statues), and (The Judge) Iyad affirmed it, and related it was the majority (opinion), and that they (the majority) allow selling dolls to girls to train them from (the time of) their youth, about the matter of their homes and children; He (Iyad) said and some (the minority) had the opinion that it (the permission) is abrogated.”
This quote of Judge Iyad is also in “The Explanation of Sahih Muslim”.
قوله: (عَنْ عَائِشَةَ: أَنَّها كَانَتْ تَلْعَبُ بِالْبَنَاتِ عِنْدَ رَسُولِ اللهِ -صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ-). قال القاضي(القاضي عياض): فيه جواز اللعب بهن. قال: وهن مخصوصات من الصور المنهي عنها لهذا الحديث ولما فيه من تدريب النساء في صغرهن لأمر أنفسهن وبيوتهن وأولادهن ... قال: ومذهب جمهور العلماء جواز اللعب بهن. ... وقالت طائفة: هو منسوخ بالنهي عن الصور، هذا كلام القاضي.
“Fathul Bari, The Explanation of Sahih Bukhari”, Ibn Hajar
“Abu Dawud and Nasaii related that Aisha said: ‘Allah’s Messenger (pbuh) came from the battle of Tabuk or Khaybar...so he uncovered the curtained area above my dolls...he asked ‘What is this Aisha?’ Aisha said ‘My dolls.’...Aisha was in the battle of Khaybar a girl of about 14 years old...in the battle of Tabuk absolutely more...”
(This hadith contradicts the “minority” opinion referred to in the previous hadith, because Aisha here is seen to have toys and dolls when she was at least 14 years old, and far beyond puberty – Muhaddith MR)
فتح الباري، شرح صحيح البخاري، الإصدار 2.09
للإمام ابن حجر العسقلاني
وأخرج أبو داود والنسائي من وجه آخر عن عائشة قالت: " قدم رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم من غزوة تبوك أو خيبر "... فكشف ناحية الستر على بنات لعائشة لعب ...قال ما هذا يا عائشة، قالت: بناتي ... لأن عائشة كانت في غزوة خيبر بنت أربع عشرة سنة إما أكملتها أو جاوزتها أو قاربتها. وأما في غزوة تبوك فكانت قد بلغت قطعا فيترجح رواية من قال في خيبر، ويجمع بما قال الخطابي لأن ذلك أولى من التعارض.
"Perfect Little Girls' Dolls", Temporary Exhibit, 2007 & 2008
"The museum’s new temporary exhibit highlights the role of dolls in the upbringing of perfect little girls since 1840...continue in their role as an idealized model for children to imitate...As we can see it in « Les malheurs de Sophie », good manners were taught by using dolls that were first made of wax or papier maché, than bisque, composition, celluloïd, cloth or plastic. As the materials changed due to technical advances so did the dolls morphologies in order to adapt to children’s tastes : from the fashion doll with a papier mache head and a leather body representing the women the little girl would become, to the caracter baby or baby doll which represents a baby or a young child that enables the child girl to play « mummy »...By playing with dolls, children have learnt sewing, embroidery, knitting, tapestry and even making trousseaus but also cooking and childcare. Doll accessories and doll furniture like sewing machines, tea sets, cradles, layettes…also helped to teach these skills.”
"Voices from the Past", Jay Teague, 2005 July, Houston Teachers Institute
“Dolls were not strictly limited to children alone. Examples of female adults carrying or possessing dolls are also noted during the medieval period. Children also must have played with whatever was at hand.”
"Anecdotal evidence for child marriage in America", Jane Galt, 2007
"Child marriage may not have been the norm in America in the 19th century, but it clearly wasn't too rare, because it's featured in some of the most popular historical novels based on real experiences...mountain patterns where it was the accepted custom for a girl to get married when she should still be skipping around, climbing trees, catching lightning bugs, pumping high in a homemade swing, and playing elves and fairies in a cool glen."
"Yes, Polish Women are Good Wives and Mothers", PolishMarriage.org & Gosia & Robert
"Most, if not all, Polish girls prepare early for their roles of wives and mothers, dressing up, playing with dolls, kitchen utensils, etc."
"The value of playing with dolls for girls and boys", Randa Morris, Helium
“Realizing that all your children's toys can be wonderful teaching tools, helping to engage them in developing essential life-skills, can open up a whole new realm of interactive play experiences for you and your child...Using these "toys" to role-play with your child can assist them in learning "positive" ways to communicate, and aid in social and educational development...Showing your little one how to rock, cuddle, be gentle with, bathe, feed, change and just "love" the baby, are all ways to begin to teach future parenting skills.”
“Al Bidayeh wal Nihayeh” (The Beginning and the End), Ibn Kathir, vol.4, Mention of the story of Safiyyah daughter of Huyayy, from the Bani Nudayr tribe
“Concerning her, when Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) expelled the Jewish tribe of Bani Nudayr from Madinah, as was mentioned, most of them went to Khaibar, among them Huyay ibn Akhtab, and the descendents of Abi al Haqiqa, and they were financially affluent and of high lineage among their people, and Safiyyah was then a child below puberty. Then when she became capable of marriage one of her cousins married her, so when she was brought to him and was entered into his (house) he consummated the marriage with her…”
(The Arabic scholars' terminology to identify "being capable or fit for marriage" applies to both Princess Safiya and Lady Aisha – Muhaddith MR)
البداية والنهاية، للإمام إسماعيل بن كثير الدمشقي. الجزء الرابع. فصل فتح رسول الله عليه السلام للحصون. ذكر قصة صفية بنت حيي النضرية
كان من شأنها أنه لما أجلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يهود بني النضير من المدينة كما تقدم، فذهب عامتهم إلى خيبر، وفيهم حيي بن أخطب، وبنو أبي الحقيق، وكانوا ذوي أموال وشرف في قومهم، وكانت صفية إذ ذاك طفلة دون البلوغ. ثم لما تأهلت للتزويج تزوجها بعض بني عمها، فلما زفت إليه وأدخلت إليه بنى بها...
“Al Isabah”, by Ibn Hajar
“Safiyyah daughter of Huyayy Ibn Akhtab…she was married to Salam son of Mishkim...Then Kinaanah son of Haqeeq succeeded him as her husband…that Umayyah daughter of Abi Qays from Ghufar said: ‘I am among the women who accompanied Safiyyah, in her marriage ceremony, to the Prophet PBUH, and I heard her say: I had not reached seventeen, the day I entered unto the prophet of Allah (peace be upon him)’.”
“Awn Al Mabood”, Al Aabadi
“… Aisha said: ‘If the “jariyah” (young girl) reaches nine years, then she is a woman”, Al Munzhiri (the hadeeth expert) said: Narrated by Tirmizhi and Nasaa’i; Al Tirmithi said: Good Hadeeth.
Explanation of Muslim by Imam Nawawi, Book of Marriage, Hadeeth 75, Vol 9, p.207
Aisha said: ‘Allah’s Messenger (pbuh) engaged me when I was six years old, and consummated the marriage when I was a girl of nine years old.’...
And Malik and Shafii and Abu Hanifa said: ‘The limit for that (consummation) is her (the female’s) capability for (sexual) intercourse.’
Dawudi said: ‘And Aisha then had physically matured well indeed’.”
(When Malik, and Shafii and Abu Hanifa all say that the limit for consummation is the female's capability for intercourse, this includes any and all ways in which this can be defined. For example, whether it is being fully physically or psychologically developed.Muhaddith MR)
صحيح مسلم بشرح النووي
فيه: حديث عائشة -رَضِيَ اللهُ عَنْهَا- قالت: (تَزَوَّجَنِي رَسُولُ اللهِ -صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيهِ وَسَلَّمَ- لِسِتِّ سِنِينَ، وَبَنَى بِي وَأَنَا بِنْتُ تِسْعِ سِنِينَ).
وقال مالك والشَّافعيُّ وأبو حنيفة: حدُّ ذلك أن تطيق الجماع
قال الدَّاوديُّ: وكانت عائشة قد شبَّت شباباً حسناً -رَضِيَ اللهُ عَنْهَا- (ج/ص: 9/207)
Sunan Abi Dawud, Nasaii, ibn Majah, and Musnad Imam Ahmad from the hadith of ibn Abbas:
“A young girl who was still a virgin came to the Prophet (peace be upon him) and she mentioned that her father married her (to someone), while she was forced, so the Prophet (peace be upon him) gave her the choice (to remained married or not).
ibn al Qattan said: this hadith of ibn Abbas is authentic.”
وفي سنن أبي داود والنسائي وابن ماجه ومسند الإمام أحمد من حديث ابن عباس:
أن جارية بكراً أتت النبي صلى اللّه عليه وسلم، فذكرت أن أباها زوجها، وهي كارهة، فخيرها النبي صلى اللّه عليه وسلم
قال ابن القطان: حديث ابن عباس هذا صحيح.
Abu Hanifah in his Musnad (collection of hadiths that he arrated with his personal chain to the Prophet PBUH)
“The virgin cannot be made to marry without requesting her command, and if she keeps silent, then this is her permission (Qari: The reason is that modesty overcomes her) and the previously married cannot be made to marry without her permission.”
(Even here, when a prepubescent girl does not object to an engagement, her acceptance is only temporary until she reaches menstruation and psychological maturity, at which time her acceptance can be accepted. Her rejection of a suitor as a minor is accepted. – Muhaddith MR)
روى أبو حنيفة في مسنده:
لا تنكحْ البكر حتى تُسْتَأمر، وإذا سكتت فهو إذنها (القاري: وسبب ذلك، أن الحياء غالب عليها) ولا تنكح الثيب حتى تستأذن
Sahih Muslim and “Musanaf” by Abdulrazzaq
Citing Aisha: ‘I asked the Prophet (PBUH) about the young girl, her parents want to marry her (to someone); is she asked for her command or not?’
The Prophet PBUH told her: ‘Yes, she is asked for her command.’
Aisah said: ‘But she gets shy.’
The Prophet PBUH said: ‘So this is her permission, if she is silent’.”
روى الإمام مسلم في صحيحه عن عائشة...سَأَلْتُ رَسُولَ اللهِ -صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيهِ وَسَلَّمَ- عَنِ الْجَارِيَةِ يُنْكِحُهَا أَهْلُهَا أَتُسْتَأْمَرُ أَمْ لاَ؟ فَقَالَ لَهَا رَسُولُ اللهِ -صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيهِ وَسَلَّمَ-: "نَعَمْ، تُسْتَأْمَرُ". فَقَالَتْ عَائِشَةُ: فَقُلْتُ لَهُ: فَإِنَّهَا تَسْتَحْيِي. فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللهِ -صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيهِ وَسَلَّمَ-: "فَذَلِكَ إِذْنُهَا إِذَا هِيَ سَكَتَتْ".
Fath ul Bari (The Explanation of Sahih Bukhari), Ibn Hajar
“Ibn Sad narrated…that Al Ni’man ibn abi al Jawn the Kindi, came to the Prophet … and said: ‘O Prophet of Allah, shouldn’t I marry you to the most beautiful lady among the Arabs, she was married to a cousin of hers who died, and she wanted you in marriage?’
He (the Prophet) said yes.
He (Kindi) said: ‘So send someone to bring her to you.’
(Narrated by Bukhari and Al Hakim in al Mustadrak, and Abdul Razzaq in al Musannaf, that:)
When the (female) from the Kilaab tribe entered into the Prophet (‘s house) she said: ‘I take refuge in Allah from you.’
So he said: You took refuge in a Great One, rejoin your people.”
في فتح الباري، شرح صحيح البخاري:
ثم أخرج (ابن سعد) من طريق عند الواحد بن أبي عون قال " قدم النعمان بن أبي الجون الكندي على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم مسلما فقال: يا رسول الله ألا أزوجك أجمل أيم في العرب، كانت تحت ابن عم لها فتوفي وقد رغبت فيك؟ قال: نعم. قال: فابعث من يحملها إليك.
(روى البخاري والحاكم في المستدرك وعبد الرزاق في المصنف وابن ماجة والنسائي)
عن عُرْوَةُ عَنْ عَائِشَةَ: أَنّ (ابنة الجون) الْكِلاَبِيّةَ لَمّا دَخَلَتْ عَلَى النّبِيّ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَتْ: أَعُوذُ بِاللّهِ مِنكَ فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم: "لَقَدْ عُذْتِ بِعَظِيمِ الْحَقِي بِأَهْلِكِ"
The Status of Women under Islamic Law and under Modern Islamic Legislation by Jamal J. Nasir
"The analysis includes both the rights and the obligations of women under the Shari’ah and modern Arab legislation...’far from being a subordinate and powerless follower of the man, be he a father, a husband, or a brother, the woman under Islam, whether she is Muslim or not, has the last word, and the ultimate power to choose her life-partner. She enjoys full autonomy as far as her property is concerned, and is the beneficiary of securities that must be the envy of her western sister in terms of respect, marital rights, maintenance, guardianship, and custody of minors’."
“Awn al Mabud”, Al Abadi
Al Khattabi said in al Ma’aalim:
The outward (meaning) of the hadeeth indicates that if the virgin is made to marry before asking her permission and (obtaining) her silence (or her express permission), that the marriage becomes invalid just like the marriage of previously married becomes invalid (if performed) before she is asked for her command. And this is the view of Al Awzaii (great Mujtahid like “the Four”) and Sufyan al Thawri (famous Aalim and Hadeeth scholar), and this is the view of people of raii (Abu Hanifah).
وقال أيضا في عون المعبود:
قال الخطابي في المعالم: ظاهر الحديث يدل على أن البكر إذا أنكحت قبل أن تستأذن فتصمت، أن النكاح باطل كما يبطل إنكاح الثيب قبل أن تستأمر، فتأذن بالقول. وإلى هذا ذهب الأوزاعي وسفيان الثوري وهو قول أصحاب الرأي
“al Isabah fi Tamyeez al Sahabah (The correct differentiation between the Companions”, Ibn Hajar
“Ibn Sa’d said:...Aisha said (in appreciation): ‘I have been given features not given to any woman. The Prophet (peace be upon him) married me when I was seven, the angel brought him my image in his hand to look at it, he consummated our marriage when I was nine, I saw the angel Gabriel, I was his most beloved wife, and I attended his diseased till he died, not witnessed but by me and the angels’.”
الإمام ابن حجر العسقلاني (مؤلف فتح الباري، شرح حيح البخاري) قال في كتابه: الإصابة في تمييز الصحابة
وقال ابن سعد: أخبرنا هشام هو ابن عبد الملك الطيالسي حدثنا أبو عوانة عن عبد الملك بن عمير عن عائشة قالت: أعطيت خلالاً ما أعطيتها امرأة ملكني رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم وأنا بنت سبع وأتاه الملك بصورتي في كفه لينظر إليها وبنى بي لتسع ورأيت جبرائيل وكنت أحب نسائه إليه ومرضته فقبض ولم يشهده غيري والملائكة
Al Suyuti, in "Al Durr Al Manthoor" wrote:
Abu Dawood and Ibn Abi Hatim and Al Bayhaqi in his "Sunan" related, that Asmaa'... al Ansariyyah said:
I got divorced during the time of the Prophet PBUH, when the divorced had no iddah (waiting period), so when I got divorced Allah revealed the waiting period for divorce: {and the divorced (women) wait for themselves three periods}.
Thus she was the first (woman) concerning whom was revealed the divorce's waiting period.
قال السيوطي في الدر المنثور
أخرج أبو داود وابن أبي حاتم (وزاد في الدر المنثور: والبيهقي في سننه) عن أسماء بنت يزيد بن السكن الأنصارية قالت: طلقت على عهد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ولم يكن للمطلقة عدة، فأنزل الله حين طلقت العدة للطلاق {والمطلقات يتربصن بأنفسهن ثلاثة قروء}
فكانت أول من أنزلت فيها العدة للطلاق.
"Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged)", Darussalam 2nd edition, July 2003, Volume 10, p.44
"Ibn Abi Hatim recorded a simpler narration than this one from Ubay bin Ka'b who waid, 'O Allah's Messenger! When the Ayah in Surat Al-Baqarah was revealed prescribing the 'iddah of divorce, some people in Madinah said, 'There are some women whose Iddah has not been mentioned in the Quran. There are the young, the old whose menstruation is discontinued, and the pregnant.' Later on this Ayah was revealed:
Quran 65:4 (Surah At-Talaq): {Those in menopause among your women, for them the 'iddah, if you have doubt, is three months; and for those who have no courses}
Al Suyuti, in "Al Durr Al Manthoor" wrote:
Abd Ibn Humaid related, citing Qatadah: "and the divorced (women) wait themselves for three periods"
so he made the waiting period for divorce three periods
then he abrogated (i.e. excluded) from it the divorced who was divorced before her husband consummated with her, so He said in Al Ahzab 49:
"O you who believe if you marry the believing women then divorce them before you touch them, then there is no waiting period for you to observe"
so this one marries the same day if she wants
وتابع السيوطي في الدر المنثور
وأخرج عبد بن حميد عن قتادة {والمطلقات يتربصن بأنفسهن ثلاثة قروء} فجعل عدة الطلاق ثلاث حيض،
ثم أنه نسخ منها المطلقة التي طلقت ولم يدخل بها زوجها فقال: في سورة الأحزاب
(يا أيها الذين آمنوا إذا نكحتم المؤمنات ثم طلقتموهن من قبل أن تمسوهن فما لكم عليهن من عدة تعتدونها) (الأحزاب الآية 49)
فهذه تزوج إن شاءت من يومها.
{وَابْتَلُواْ الْيَتَامَى حَتَّىَ إِذَا بَلَغُواْ النِّكَاحَ فَإِنْ آنَسْتُم مِّنْهُمْ رُشْداً فَادْفَعُواْ إِلَيْهِمْ أَمْوَالَهُمْ...}
{Test the orphans, so that if they have reached the age of procreation* (Balaghu Al Nikah), and if (you) discerned from them sound judgement then deliver to them their fortune} Quran: Al Nisaa (The Women) 4:6, p. 77
(The responsibility of another person or children is far more important to test than the responsibility of money alone. Furthermore, this is the only verse in the Quran using the term “Balaghu Alnikah“, age of procreation or marriageable age for puberty, and it is to mention the condition of sound judgement before gaining the responsibilities normally associated with puberty.
* While most translations of “Balaghu Al Nikah” have used “reached the marriageable age”, there is an important distinction. Most other verses to describe puberty use the term “Balagh Al Huluma”, while this verse specifically relates puberty to marriage. On the other hand, the term “marriageable age” could be construed to mean the age at which someone can conduct a marriage contract (or engagement) with no relation to puberty, which is not the meaning of the verse. - Muhaddith MR)
“Shari'ah”, Encyclopedia Britannica, 2008
“A legal capacity to transact belongs to any person “of prudent judgment” (rashid), a quality that is normally deemed to arrive with physical maturity or puberty...Persons who are not rashid, on account of minority, mental deficiency, simplicity, or prodigality, are placed under interdiction: their affairs are managed by a guardian and they cannot transact effectively without the guardian's consent.”
(Muslim scholars agree that no Islamic legislative qualifications are needed to reach this conclusion that the rights of people supercede monetary issues concerning the condition of "rushd" in the previous verse) - Muhaddith MR)
Imam Muslim wrote, in his explanation of Saheeh Muslim:
And Abu Hanifah said: ‘He (the guardian) is not required for the post-pubescent girl, whether she is a virgin or previously married; on the contrary, she can perform her own marriage without her guardian’s permission.’ And Abu Haneefah brought argument based on comparison (qiyaas) with selling and other (transactions) for she is autonomous in this, without (the necessity of) a guardian; and he interpreted that the hadeeths requiring the guardian concerned the slave and the young, and he restricted their general wording by this comparison (qiyas) And restricting the general wording through the logic of comparison (qiyas) is allowable according to numerous among the people of usool (experts in deducing legislation).
وقال أبو حنيفة: لا يشترط في الثَّيِّب ولا في البكر البالغة بل لها أن تزوِّج نفسها بغير إذن وليِّها. واحتجَّ أبو حنيفة بالقياس على البيع وغيره فإنَّها تستقلُّ فيه بلا وليٍّ، وحمل الأحاديث الواردة في اشتراط الوليِّ على الأمة والصَّغيرة وخصَّ عمومها بهذا القياس، وتخصيص العموم بالقياس جائز عند كثيرين من أهل الأصول
Sunan Abi Dawud, Nasaii, ibn Majah, and Musnad Imam Ahmad from the hadith of ibn Abbas:
“A young girl who was still a virgin came to the Prophet (peace be upon him) and she mentioned that her father married her (to someone), while she was forced, so the Prophet (peace be upon him) gave her the choice (to remained married or not).
ibn al Qattan said: this hadith of ibn Abbas is authentic.”
وفي سنن أبي داود والنسائي وابن ماجه ومسند الإمام أحمد من حديث ابن عباس:
أن جارية بكراً أتت النبي صلى اللّه عليه وسلم، فذكرت أن أباها زوجها، وهي كارهة، فخيرها النبي صلى اللّه عليه وسلم
قال ابن القطان: حديث ابن عباس هذا صحيح.
Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Niddah 44b
"Mishnah: A girl of the age of three years and one day may be betrothed by intercourse...Gemara: Our Rabbis taught: A girl of the age of three years may be betrothed by intercourse; so R. Meir. But the Sages say: Only one who is three years and one day old...
Gemara: Our Rabbis taught: A girl of the age of three years may be betrothed by intercourse; so R. Meir. But the Sages say: Only one who is three years and one day old."
”Insiders or outsiders: women and rabbinic literature”, Judaism, Summer-Fall, 2003, Dvora Weisberg
"A girl who is three years and one day old may be betrothed through sexual intercourse...(Mishnah Niddah 5:4)"
Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 55b
“R. Joseph said: Come and hear! A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband's brother cohabits with her, she becomes his.”
Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Kethuboth Folio 6a
“R. Hisda objected: If a girl, whose period [14] to see [blood] had not arrived yet, got married, Beth Shammai say: One gives her four nights,[16] and the disciples of Hillel say: Until the wound is healed up.[17] If her period to see [blood] had arrived [18] and she married, Beth Shammai say: One gives her the first night,[19] and Beth Hillel say: Until the night following the Sabbath [one gives her] four nights.[20]
[16] In which she can have intercourse with her husband.
[17] The blood that comes out is attributed to the wound and not to menstruation. Ordinarily, after the first intercourse further intercourse is forbidden until the coming out of blood, i.e., menstruation, is over. But in this case, in which the young bride had never yet had any menstruation, it is assumed that the blood is not due to menstruation but to the wound caused by the intercourse. According to Beth Shammai this assumption holds good for four nights, and according to Beth Hillel it holds good 'until the wound is healed up.' As to the definition of this phrase, v. Nid. 64b. V. also Nid. 65b, where it is finally decided that after the first coition no further intercourse must take place until the flowing of blood has stopped, even in the case of a young bride who had not yet had any menstruation. V. also Eben ha-'Ezer, 63, and Yoreh De'ah, 193.
[18] But she had in fact not yet seen blood; that is, she had the maturity for it, but the maturity had not yet manifested itself. A girl has reached the period of maidenhood (puberty) when she is twelve years and one day old. When she is twelve and a half years old she has reached the state of bogereth, (v. Glos.), full maturity, womanhood. V. infra 39a.
[19] He may repeat the intercourse during the first night.
[20] Mishnah in Nid. 64b”
Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Yebamoth 60b
"It was taught: R. Simeon b. Yohai stated: A proselyte who is under the age of three years and one day is permitted to marry a priest, for it is said, But all the women children that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves, and Phinehas surely was with them. And the Rabbis? — [These were kept alive] as bondmen and bondwomen. If so, a proselyte whose age is three years and one day should also be permitted!"
"Child-Exposure in the Roman Empire", W. V. Harris, The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 84, 1994 (1994), pp. 1-22
“Disapproval of exposure seems slowly to have gained ground. Then, after the sale of infants was authorized by Constantine in A.D. 313, the need for child-exposure somewhat diminished.”
Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Kethuboth, Folio 47a
Whence is it deduced that a daughter's handiwork belongs to her father? — (From Scripture) where it is stated, And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant,[2] as the handiwork of a maidservant belongs to her master so does the handiwork of a daughter belong to her father...It is but logical to assume that it should belong to her father; for should it be imagined that her handiwork does not belong to him [the objection could well be advanced against] the right6 which the All-Merciful has conferred upon a father to consign his daughter to the bridal chamber...— (The fact), however, (is that in the case of) a minor no Scriptural text was necessary.[12] For since [13] is he may even sell her was it at all necessary (to state that her handiwork belongs to him)?[14]
[2] Ex. XXI, 7
[12] To confer upon her father the right to her handiwork.
[13] Lit., 'now'.
[14] Obviously not.
Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 54b
“Rab said: Pederasty with a child below nine years of age is not deemed as pederasty with a child above that. Samuel said: Pederasty with a child below three years is not treated as with a child above that.[24] What is the basis of their dispute? — Rab maintains that only he who is able to engage in sexual intercourse, may, as the passive subject of pederasty throw guilt [upon the active offender]
[24] (rabbi scholar footnote) I.e. Rab makes nine years the minimum; but if one committed sodomy with a child of lesser age, no guilt is incurred. Samuel makes three the minimum.”
Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 55a
“[he] who commits bestiality, whether naturally or unnaturally; or a woman who causes herself to be bestially abused, whether naturally or unnaturally, is liable to punishment.[1]
[1] There are thus three distinct clauses in this Baraitha. The first — a male aged nine years and a day — refers to the passive subject of pederasty, the punishment being incurred by the adult offender. This must be its meaning — because firstly, the active offender is never explicitly designated as a male, it being understood, just as the Bible states, Thou shalt not lie with mankind, where only the sex of the passive participant is mentioned; and secondly, if the age reference is to the active party, the guilt being incurred by the passive adult party, why single out pederasty: in all crimes of incest, the passive adult does not incur guilt unless the other party is at least nine years and a day? Hence the Baraitha supports Rab's contention that nine years (and a day) is the minimum age of the passive partner for the adult to be liable.”
Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin 69b
“Our Rabbis taught: If a woman sported lewdly with her young son [a minor], and he committed the first stage of cohabitation with her, — Beth Shammai say, he thereby renders her unfit to the priesthood.[4] Beth Hillel declare her fit. R. Hiyya the son of Rabbah b. Nahmani said in R. Hisda's name; others state, R. Hisda said in Ze'iri's name: All agree that the connection of a boy aged nine years and a day is a real connection; whilst that of one less than eight years is not:[5] their dispute refers only to one who is eight years old,...
[4] I.e., she becomes a harlot, whom a priest may not marry (Lev. XXI, 7).
[5] So that if he was nine years and a day or more, Beth Hillel agree that she is invalidated from the priesthood; whilst if he was less than eight, Beth Shammai agree that she is not.”
King James Version Bible, Deuteronomy 22:13-18
[13] If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
[14] And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
[15] Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:
[16] And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
[17] And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
[18] And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
“A Comparison Between the Roman and Modern Views of Homosexuality” Nathanael Blake, Oregon State University
"The upper classes were much more likely to indulge in homosexual acts, and masters had the sexual use of their slaves...The measure of sexual manhood was to penetrate, while to be penetrated was regarded as effeminizing. The first was seen as an assertion of dominance, the latter as a degrading submission...Despite the temptation, Rome never seems to have adopted pedastry as an accepted part of its bisexual repertoire. In contrast to Greece, where the sexual apprenticeship of adolescent males by their elders was a regular part of life, the Romans decided against the use of their sons in such a manner."
"Growing Up Sexually, Europe, Historical Generalia", Janssen, D. F. (Oct., 2002). Growing Up Sexually. Volume I: World Reference Atlas
“A small Roman elite adopted at least the narrative of Greek pederasty, but the general attitude was a negative one; boy prostitutes were probably slaves...The common notion that [buggery of boys in Greece / Rome] occurred only at "adolescence" is quite mistaken. It began around age seven, continued for several years and ended by puberty”
"History of Marriage in Western Civilization", Magnus Hirshfeld Archive for Sexology
“Marriage in Ancient Greece and Rome...For their erotic needs, men often turned to prostitutes and concubines. As Demosthenes, the orator, explained it: 'We have prostitutes for our pleasure, concubines for our health, and wives to bear us lawful offspring'.”
Child sexual abuse: historical cases in the Byzantine Empire (324–1453 A.D.), John Lascaratos & Effie Poulakou-Rebelakou
“Furthermore, cases of child prostitution, pederasty, and incest are included in the historical texts and some contemporary authors confirmed the presence of many such cases in all classes of Byzantine society... The research of original Byzantine literature disclosed many instances of child sexual abuse in all social classes even in the mediaeval Byzantine society which was characterized by strict legal and religious prohibitions.”
Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Gittin, Folio 21a
Or if you prefer, I can reply that we find cases where an agent for receiving [the Get is also appointed] without the consent [of the wife], since a father can accept a Get for his daughter who is still a child [14] without her consent.
[14] I.e., under twelve years of age, v. Keth. 47a.
"Protection, Harm and Social Evil: the Age of Consent since 1885", D'Cruz, Evil, Law and the State Conference, July 2004
“When Victoria came to the throne, the age of consent for girls was effectively 10. The 1861 Offences against the Person Act was a major consolidating statute...In enacting that it was ‘no offence to have sexual intercourse with a girl under 12 who ‘freely consented’ however ignorant’, the 1861 Act maintained the age of consent at 10, two years before the age of valid marriage. Consent (from a 10 year old) thus negatived violence...These laws implicitly acknowledged prostitution as a necessary outlet for the sexual imperatives of [initially, though of course not exclusively] the military – a potentially disorderly male population with a significant working-class component. The furore about child prostitution of the 1880s however, had as its legislative outcome in the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885, a raising of the age of consent to 16.”
The Progressive Era's Health Reform Movement: A Historical Dictionary By Ruth Clifford Engs, p.4
"American age-of-consent laws gained attention in 1885 when a sensational British report by William Stead on forced prostitution resulted in the age of consent being raised in that country...As a result of this public pressure, many states between 1887 and 1893 raised their age of consent from ten to at least fourteen years of age; Congress in 1880 passed legislation raising the age from ten to sixteen years in Washington D.C....By 1900, thirty-two states had raised the age of consent to sixteen or eighteen...Age-of-consent agitation spanned more than fifteen years..."
“Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse: Science, Religion, and the Slippery Slope”, Mark E. Pietrzyk
“As of 1886, twenty-five of the American states, following earlier English law, had an age of consent of ten years; four states, following Christian canon law on marriage, had an age of consent of twelve; Delaware, following Christian canon law on the age of discretion, set its age of consent at seven.”
"The Crazy-Quilt of Our Age of Consent Laws", Jonathan Dolhenty, Ph.D.
“The common law, from which America gets much of its precedents in the legal field, set the age of consent at age ten. In other words, participating in sexual activity with someone above the age of ten did not result in the crime of "statutory" rape or child molesting. The activity may have come under other statutory or informal social regulations, but anyone over the age of ten could consent to a sexual activity. During the latter part of the last century and the early part of the present one, attitudes towards sexual activity began to change in America and so did attitudes toward the age of consent. California was one of the first states to raise the age of consent. It raised it from ten to fourteen in 1889 and then from fourteen to sixteen in 1897. Then, in 1913, California again raised it from sixteen to eighteen.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent#_ref-waites_3
“ages from 10 to 13 were typically acceptable in western countries during the mid-19th century
source: Waites, Matthew (2005) The Age of Consent: Young People, Sexuality and Citizenship, (New York States and Houndmills, Basingstoke Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan) ISBN 1-4039-2173-3”
From Imam Ahmed (Good Hadith according to Ibn Hajar in Fathul Bari, with other hadiths corroborating many of the details including Tabarani as good, Al Hakim in Mustadrak as authentic, and Abdulrazaq in Mustadrak):
“After Khadijah died, Khawlah bint
Hakeem,...said: ‘Wouldn’t you marry, O prophet of Allah?’ He said: ‘Who?’ She said: ‘If you like, a virgin, or a previously married woman.’ He said: ‘Who is the virgin?’ She said: ‘The daughter of the most beloved creature to you, Aisha daughter of Abu Bakr.’ He said: ‘And who is the previously married?’ She said: ‘Sawda bint Zama; she believed in you and followed you, in what you say.’ He said: ‘So go, and mention me to them.’
So she entered Abu Bakr’s house and said: ‘O Um Ruman, what great good and blessing did Allah grant you!’ She said: ‘And what is that?’ She said: ‘The Prophet PBUH sent me to propose his marriage to Aisha.’ She said: ‘Wait for Abu Bakr to come.’ Abu Bakr came and she said: ‘O Abu Bakr, what great good and blessings did Allah grant you!’ He said: ‘And what is that?’ She said: ‘The Prophet PBUH sent me to propose his marriage to Aisha.’ He said: ‘Is she good for him? She is his brother’s daughter.’
She returned to the Prophet PBUH and mentioned that to him. He said: ‘Return and tell him I am your brother and you are my brother in Islam, and your daughter is good for me.’
She returned and mentioned that to him. He said: ‘Wait.’ And he went out. Um Ruman said that Mutim Ibn Adiyy had proposed for her to his son, and by Allah, Abu Bakr never made a promise and broke it... He returned and told Khawlah: ‘Invite the Prophet PBUH to come over.’ She invited him, and he married him to her, while Aisha was six years old then...
Aisha said: ‘Then we moved to Madinah and lived among bani al Harth al Khazraj, in al Zanh.’
She said: ‘Then the Prophet PBUH came and entered our house, and men and women gathered around him. And my mother came to me... and then said: ‘These are your parents, so may Allah bless them for you and bless you for them’... And the Prophet consummated our marriage in our house… and I was nine years old that day’.”
روى الإمام احمد
لما هلكت خديجة جاءت خولة بنت حكيم امرأة عثمان بن مظعون قالت: يا رسول الله ألا تزوج قال: من قالت: إن شئت بكرا أو ثيبا قال: فمن البكر قالت ابنة أحب خلق الله عز وجل إليك عائشة بنت أبي بكر قال: ومن الثيب قالت: سودة بنت زمعة قد آمنت بك واتبعتك على ما تقول قال: فاذهبي فأذكريهما عليَّ فدخلت بيت أبي بكر فقالت: يا أم رومان ماذا أدخل الله عز وجل عليكم من الخير والبركة قالت: وما ذاك قالت: أرسلني رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أخطب عليه عائشة قالت: انتظري أبا بكر حتى يأتي فجاء أبو بكر فقالت: يا أبا بكر ماذا أدخل الله عليكم من الخير والبركة قال وما ذاك قالت: أرسلني رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أخطب عليه عائشة قال: وهل تصلح له إنما هي ابنة أخيه فرجعت إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فذكرت له ذلك قال: ارجعي إليه فقولي له أنا أخوك وأنت أخي في الإسلام وابنتك تصلح لي فرجعت فذكرت ذلك له قال: انتظري وخرج قالت أم رومان إن مطعم بن عدي قد كان ذكرها على ابنه فوالله ما وعد وعدا قط فأخلفه لأبي بكر ...
فرجع فقال لخولة: ادعي لي رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم صلى الله عليه وسلم فدعته فزوجها إياه وعائشة يومئذ بنت ست ... قالت عائشة فقدمنا المدينة فنزلنا في بني الحرث بن الخزرج في السنح قالت: فجاء رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فدخل بيتنا واجتمع إليه رجال من الأنصار ونساء فجاءتني أمي ... ثم قالت: هؤلاء أهلك فبارك الله لك فيهم وبارك لهم فيك... وبنى بي رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم في بيتنا ... وأنا يومئذ بنت تسع سنين.
“Al Isabah” by Ibn Hajar, “Al Bidayah wal Nihayah” by Ibn Kathir
“The Prophet PBUH pained for Khadijah’s (death) to the point they feared for him (to die), until he married Aisha.”
وَجَدَ رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم على خديجة حتى خـُشِـيَ عليه حتى تزوج عائشة
Ibn Hajar (in “Fathul Bari”) and Al Tabaraani
“Aisha said:...’Until we arrived at Madinah, so I dwelt among the family of Abu Bakr...So Abu Bakr told him: ‘What prevents you from consummating with your wife?’ So he consummated with me’.”
قال ابن حجر في فتح الباري: وأخرج الطبراني … عن عائشة قالت
لما هاجر رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وأبو بكر خلفنا بمكة، فلما استقر بالمدينة ... حتى قدمنا المدينة فنزلت في عيال أبي بكر...فقال له أبو بكر: ما يمنعك أن تبني بأهلك؟ فبني بي
Tafseer Al Qurtubi
"Abu Bakr al Siddiq was called the weeper (alawah) for his compassion and kindness."
قال القرطبي في تفسيره:
...وكان أبو بكر الصديق رضي الله عنه يسمى الأواه لشفقته ورأفته.
Kanzul Ummal,
"Uthman told Abu Bakr: 'I see you a good counselor to people of this religion and compassionate to them'…Khalid Ibn Said told Abu Bakr: 'and you are the compassionate and counseling leader'."
كنز العمال
مسند أبي بكر: ...قال عثمان بن عفان (لأبي بكر): إني أرى أنك ناصح لأهل هذا الدين شفيق عليهم...
...قال خالد ابن سعيد (لأبي بكر): ... وأنت الوالي الناصح الشفيق
The Explanation of Riyadh al Saliheen
"Ibn Alan said: 'So if the merciful (shafiq) father fears harm for his child after him…"
قال ابن علان، في شرح رياض الصالحين
...فإن الوالد الشفيق يخشى على ولده الضيعة بعده...
Al Tabari, "Al Tareikh"
"The action of the merciful (shafiq) father with his son, and the loving leader with his followers…"
قال الطبري، في "التاريخ":
...فعل الوالد الشفيق على ولده والراعي الحب عى رعيته...
Al Suyuti, Al La-ale Al Masnua
"Just as the merciful (shafiq) father cares for goodness towards his child"
قال السيوطي في اللآلئ المصنوعة
... كما يتعاهد الوالد الشفيق ولده بالخير ...
Ibn Taymiya, Al Fatawa al Kubra
"…Just like the father constrains his child to what is better for him…"
قال ابن تيمية في الفتاوى الكبرى
... كما يلزم الأب الشفيق ولده ما هو أصلح له ...
Imam Al Ghazali, "Ihya Ulum al Deen"
"…Just like the merciful (shafiq) father would prevent his child the pleasure of fruits (if medically necessary) or imposes the pain of medical cuts out of compassion (shafaqa) and love for him."
قال الغزالي في الإحياء
كما يمنع الوالد الشفيق ولده لذة الفواكه ويلزم ألم الفصد والحجامة شفقة عليه وحبا له
http://www.imanway1.com/horras/showthread.php?t=8044
AbdulRazzaq, “al Musannaf”
"citing Maymoonah, the Prophet’s wife, that if his wife had the period, he would approach his wife provided she was dressed till the middle of the thighs (not less), or till the knees (this is the recommended practice of all Muslims).
Then Abdul Razzaq added, citing Al Hasan: It is OK, IF SHE HAS REACHED PUBERTY, if it is on her belly or between her thighs."
(Hasan Al Basri was the most eminent authority in the generation succeeding the Prophet -Muhaddith MR)
عَنْ مَيْمُونَةَ زَوْجِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَليه وسلَّم، أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَليه وسلَّم كَانَ يُبَاشِرُ المَرْأَةَ مِنْ نِسَائِهِ وَهِيَ حَائِضٌ إذَا كَانَ عَلَيْهَا إزَارٌ يَبْلُغُ أَنْصَافَ الفَخِذَيْنِ أَوْ الرُّكْبَتَيْنِ مُحْتَجِرَةً بِهِ.
حَدَّثَنَا وَكِيعٌ عَنْ الرَّبِيعِ عَنْ الحَسَنِ قَالَ: لاَ بَأْسَ إنْ بَلَغَتْ عَلَى بَطْنِهَا وَبَيْنَ فَخِذَيْهَا.
Bukhari (Book 6, Hadith 296), Muslim (Kitab Al Hayd, Hadith #2), Ibn Majah, Al Hakim, “Al Mustadrak” (Hadith # 614/169), Abu Dawud (Hadith #272)
The Prophet used to tell us during our period to wear a skirt before (physically) approaching us, AND WHO AMONG YOU CAN CONTROL HIS DESIRE (TO DO MORE THAN THAT) LIKE THE PROPHET USED TO BE ABLE TO CONTROL HIS DESIRE.
حدثنا عُثْمَانُ بنُ أبي شَيْبَةَ أخبرنا جَرِيرٌ عن الشّيْبَانِيّ عن عَبْدِالرّحْمَنِ بنِ الأسْوَدِ عن أبِيهِ عن عَائِشَةَ قَالَتْ "كَانَ رسولُ الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يَأْمُرُنَا في فَوْحِ حَيْضَتِنَا أنْ نَتّزِرَ ثُمّ يُبَاشِرُنَا، وَأيّكُمْ يَمْلِكُ إرَبَهُ كَمَا كَانَ رسولُ الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يَمْلِكُ إرَبَهُ".
Sahih Muslim, Vol. 8, #3311
“Aisha reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and she was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine , and her dolls * were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old.”
*(the majority of scholars permit dolls to train women starting from youth about matters of their homes and raising children)
“Fath-ul-Bari, Explanation of Sahih Bukhari”, page 143, vol 13, Imam Ibn Hajar
(I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet... the Prophet would call them to join and play with me)
“And from this hadith was deduced the permission to keep dolls and toys for girls to play with them, and that this was excluded from the general prohibition of keeping images (statues), and (The Judge) Iyad affirmed it, and related it was the majority (opinion), and that they (the majority) allow selling dolls to girls to train them from (the time of) their youth, about the matter of their homes and children; He (Iyad) said and some (the minority) had the opinion that it (the permission) is abrogated.”
This quote of Judge Iyad is also in “The Explanation of Sahih Muslim”.
قوله: (عَنْ عَائِشَةَ: أَنَّها كَانَتْ تَلْعَبُ بِالْبَنَاتِ عِنْدَ رَسُولِ اللهِ -صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ-). قال القاضي(القاضي عياض): فيه جواز اللعب بهن. قال: وهن مخصوصات من الصور المنهي عنها لهذا الحديث ولما فيه من تدريب النساء في صغرهن لأمر أنفسهن وبيوتهن وأولادهن ... قال: ومذهب جمهور العلماء جواز اللعب بهن. ... وقالت طائفة: هو منسوخ بالنهي عن الصور، هذا كلام القاضي.
“Fathul Bari, The Explanation of Sahih Bukhari”, Ibn Hajar
“Abu Dawud and Nasaii related that Aisha said: ‘Allah’s Messenger (pbuh) came from the battle of Tabuk or Khaybar...so he uncovered the curtained area above my dolls...he asked ‘What is this Aisha?’ Aisha said ‘My dolls.’...Aisha was in the battle of Khaybar a girl of about 14 years old...in the battle of Tabuk absolutely more...”
(This hadith contradicts the “minority” opinion referred to in the previous hadith, because Aisha here is seen to have toys and dolls when she was at least 14 years old, and far beyond puberty – Muhaddith MR)
فتح الباري، شرح صحيح البخاري، الإصدار 2.09
للإمام ابن حجر العسقلاني
وأخرج أبو داود والنسائي من وجه آخر عن عائشة قالت: " قدم رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم من غزوة تبوك أو خيبر "... فكشف ناحية الستر على بنات لعائشة لعب ...قال ما هذا يا عائشة، قالت: بناتي ... لأن عائشة كانت في غزوة خيبر بنت أربع عشرة سنة إما أكملتها أو جاوزتها أو قاربتها. وأما في غزوة تبوك فكانت قد بلغت قطعا فيترجح رواية من قال في خيبر، ويجمع بما قال الخطابي لأن ذلك أولى من التعارض.
"Perfect Little Girls' Dolls", Temporary Exhibit, 2007 & 2008
"The museum’s new temporary exhibit highlights the role of dolls in the upbringing of perfect little girls since 1840...continue in their role as an idealized model for children to imitate...As we can see it in « Les malheurs de Sophie », good manners were taught by using dolls that were first made of wax or papier maché, than bisque, composition, celluloïd, cloth or plastic. As the materials changed due to technical advances so did the dolls morphologies in order to adapt to children’s tastes : from the fashion doll with a papier mache head and a leather body representing the women the little girl would become, to the caracter baby or baby doll which represents a baby or a young child that enables the child girl to play « mummy »...By playing with dolls, children have learnt sewing, embroidery, knitting, tapestry and even making trousseaus but also cooking and childcare. Doll accessories and doll furniture like sewing machines, tea sets, cradles, layettes…also helped to teach these skills.”
"Voices from the Past", Jay Teague, 2005 July, Houston Teachers Institute
“Dolls were not strictly limited to children alone. Examples of female adults carrying or possessing dolls are also noted during the medieval period. Children also must have played with whatever was at hand.”
"Anecdotal evidence for child marriage in America", Jane Galt, 2007
"Child marriage may not have been the norm in America in the 19th century, but it clearly wasn't too rare, because it's featured in some of the most popular historical novels based on real experiences...mountain patterns where it was the accepted custom for a girl to get married when she should still be skipping around, climbing trees, catching lightning bugs, pumping high in a homemade swing, and playing elves and fairies in a cool glen."
"Yes, Polish Women are Good Wives and Mothers",
PolishMarriage.org & Gosia & Robert
"Most, if not all, Polish girls prepare early for their roles of wives and mothers, dressing up, playing with dolls, kitchen utensils, etc."
"The value of playing with dolls for girls and boys", Randa Morris, Helium
“Realizing that all your children's toys can be wonderful teaching tools, helping to engage them in developing essential life-skills, can open up a whole new realm of interactive play experiences for you and your child...Using these "toys" to role-play with your child can assist them in learning "positive" ways to communicate, and aid in social and educational development...Showing your little one how to rock, cuddle, be gentle with, bathe, feed, change and just "love" the baby, are all ways to begin to teach future parenting skills.”
“Al Bidayeh wal Nihayeh” (The Beginning and the End), Ibn Kathir, vol.4, Mention of the story of Safiyyah daughter of Huyayy, from the Bani Nudayr tribe
“Concerning her, when Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) expelled the Jewish tribe of Bani Nudayr from Madinah, as was mentioned, most of them went to Khaibar, among them Huyay ibn Akhtab, and the descendents of Abi al Haqiqa, and they were financially affluent and of high lineage among their people, and Safiyyah was then a child below puberty. Then when she became capable of marriage one of her cousins married her, so when she was brought to him and was entered into his (house) he consummated the marriage with her…”
(The Arabic scholars' terminology to identify "being capable or fit for marriage" applies to both Princess Safiya and Lady Aisha – Muhaddith MR)
البداية والنهاية، للإمام إسماعيل بن كثير الدمشقي. الجزء الرابع. فصل فتح رسول الله عليه السلام للحصون. ذكر قصة صفية بنت حيي النضرية
كان من شأنها أنه لما أجلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يهود بني النضير من المدينة كما تقدم، فذهب عامتهم إلى خيبر، وفيهم حيي بن أخطب، وبنو أبي الحقيق، وكانوا ذوي أموال وشرف في قومهم، وكانت صفية إذ ذاك طفلة دون البلوغ. ثم لما تأهلت للتزويج تزوجها بعض بني عمها، فلما زفت إليه وأدخلت إليه بنى بها...
“Al Isabah”, by Ibn Hajar
“Safiyyah daughter of Huyayy Ibn Akhtab…she was married to Salam son of Mishkim...Then Kinaanah son of Haqeeq succeeded him as her husband…that Umayyah daughter of Abi Qays from Ghufar said: ‘I am among the women who accompanied Safiyyah, in her marriage ceremony, to the Prophet PBUH, and I heard her say: I had not reached seventeen, the day I entered unto the prophet of Allah (peace be upon him)’.”
“Awn Al Mabood”, Al Aabadi
“… Aisha said: ‘If the “jariyah” (young girl) reaches nine years, then she is a woman”, Al Munzhiri (the hadeeth expert) said: Narrated by Tirmizhi and Nasaa’i; Al Tirmithi said: Good Hadeeth.
Explanation of Muslim by Imam Nawawi, Book of Marriage, Hadeeth 75, Vol 9, p.207
Aisha said: ‘Allah’s Messenger (pbuh) engaged me when I was six years old, and consummated the marriage when I was a girl of nine years old.’...
And Malik and Shafii and Abu Hanifa said: ‘The limit for that (consummation) is her (the female’s) capability for (sexual) intercourse.’
Dawudi said: ‘And Aisha then had physically matured well indeed’.”
(When Malik, and Shafii and Abu Hanifa all say that the limit for consummation is the female's capability for intercourse, this includes any and all ways in which this can be defined. For example, whether it is being fully physically or psychologically developed.Muhaddith MR)
صحيح مسلم بشرح النووي
فيه: حديث عائشة -رَضِيَ اللهُ عَنْهَا- قالت: (تَزَوَّجَنِي رَسُولُ اللهِ -صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيهِ وَسَلَّمَ- لِسِتِّ سِنِينَ، وَبَنَى بِي وَأَنَا بِنْتُ تِسْعِ سِنِينَ).
وقال مالك والشَّافعيُّ وأبو حنيفة: حدُّ ذلك أن تطيق الجماع
قال الدَّاوديُّ: وكانت عائشة قد شبَّت شباباً حسناً -رَضِيَ اللهُ عَنْهَا- (ج/ص: 9/207)
Sunan Abi Dawud, Nasaii, ibn Majah, and Musnad Imam Ahmad from the hadith of ibn Abbas:
“A young girl who was still a virgin came to the Prophet (peace be upon him) and she mentioned that her father married her (to someone), while she was forced, so the Prophet (peace be upon him) gave her the choice (to remained married or not).
ibn al Qattan said: this hadith of ibn Abbas is authentic.”
وفي سنن أبي داود والنسائي وابن ماجه ومسند الإمام أحمد من حديث ابن عباس:
أن جارية بكراً أتت النبي صلى اللّه عليه وسلم، فذكرت أن أباها زوجها، وهي كارهة، فخيرها النبي صلى اللّه عليه وسلم
قال ابن القطان: حديث ابن عباس هذا صحيح.
Abu Hanifah in his Musnad (collection of hadiths that he narrated with his personal chain to the Prophet PBUH)
“The virgin cannot be made to marry without requesting her command, and if she keeps silent, then this is her permission (Qari: The reason is that modesty overcomes her) and the previously married cannot be made to marry without her permission.”
(Even here, when a prepubescent girl does not object to an engagement, her acceptance is only temporary until she reaches menstruation and psychological maturity, at which time her acceptance can be accepted. Her rejection of a suitor as a minor is accepted. – Muhaddith MR)
روى أبو حنيفة في مسنده:
لا تنكحْ البكر حتى تُسْتَأمر، وإذا سكتت فهو إذنها (القاري: وسبب ذلك، أن الحياء غالب عليها) ولا تنكح الثيب حتى تستأذن
Sahih Muslim and “Musanaf” by Abdulrazzaq
Citing Aisha: ‘I asked the Prophet (PBUH) about the young girl, her parents want to marry her (to someone); is she asked for her command or not?’
The Prophet PBUH told her: ‘Yes, she is asked for her command.’
Aisah said: ‘But she gets shy.’
The Prophet PBUH said: ‘So this is her permission, if she is silent’.”
روى الإمام مسلم في صحيحه عن عائشة...سَأَلْتُ رَسُولَ اللهِ -صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيهِ وَسَلَّمَ- عَنِ الْجَارِيَةِ يُنْكِحُهَا أَهْلُهَا أَتُسْتَأْمَرُ أَمْ لاَ؟ فَقَالَ لَهَا رَسُولُ اللهِ -صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيهِ وَسَلَّمَ-: "نَعَمْ، تُسْتَأْمَرُ". فَقَالَتْ عَائِشَةُ: فَقُلْتُ لَهُ: فَإِنَّهَا تَسْتَحْيِي. فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللهِ -صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيهِ وَسَلَّمَ-: "فَذَلِكَ إِذْنُهَا إِذَا هِيَ سَكَتَتْ".
Fath ul Bari (The Explanation of Sahih Bukhari), Ibn Hajar
“Ibn Sad narrated…that Al Ni’man ibn abi al Jawn the Kindi, came to the Prophet … and said: ‘O Prophet of Allah, shouldn’t I marry you to the most beautiful lady among the Arabs, she was married to a cousin of hers who died, and she wanted you in marriage?’
He (the Prophet) said yes.
He (Kindi) said: ‘So send someone to bring her to you.’
(Narrated by Bukhari and Al Hakim in al Mustadrak, and Abdul Razzaq in al Musannaf, that:)
When the (female) from the Kilaab tribe entered into the Prophet (‘s house) she said: ‘I take refuge in Allah from you.’
So he said: You took refuge in a Great One, rejoin your people.”
في فتح الباري، شرح صحيح البخاري:
ثم أخرج (ابن سعد) من طريق عند الواحد بن أبي عون قال " قدم النعمان بن أبي الجون الكندي على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم مسلما فقال: يا رسول الله ألا أزوجك أجمل أيم في العرب، كانت تحت ابن عم لها فتوفي وقد رغبت فيك؟ قال: نعم. قال: فابعث من يحملها إليك.
(روى البخاري والحاكم في المستدرك وعبد الرزاق في المصنف وابن ماجة والنسائي)
عن عُرْوَةُ عَنْ عَائِشَةَ: أَنّ (ابنة الجون) الْكِلاَبِيّةَ لَمّا دَخَلَتْ عَلَى النّبِيّ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَتْ: أَعُوذُ بِاللّهِ مِنكَ فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم: "لَقَدْ عُذْتِ بِعَظِيمِ الْحَقِي بِأَهْلِكِ"
The Status of Women under Islamic Law and under Modern Islamic Legislation by Jamal J. Nasir
"The analysis includes both the rights and the obligations of women under the Shari’ah and modern Arab legislation...’far from being a subordinate and powerless follower of the man, be he a father, a husband, or a brother, the woman under Islam, whether she is Muslim or not, has the last word, and the ultimate power to choose her life-partner. She enjoys full autonomy as far as her property is concerned, and is the beneficiary of securities that must be the envy of her western sister in terms of respect, marital rights, maintenance, guardianship, and custody of minors’."
“Awn al Mabud”, Al Abadi
Al Khattabi said in al Ma’aalim:
The outward (meaning) of the hadeeth indicates that if the virgin is made to marry before asking her permission and (obtaining) her silence (or her express permission), that the marriage becomes invalid just like the marriage of previously married becomes invalid (if performed) before she is asked for her command. And this is the view of Al Awzaii (great Mujtahid like “the Four”) and Sufyan al Thawri (famous Aalim and Hadeeth scholar), and this is the view of people of raii (Abu Hanifah).
وقال أيضا في عون المعبود:
قال الخطابي في المعالم: ظاهر الحديث يدل على أن البكر إذا أنكحت قبل أن تستأذن فتصمت، أن النكاح باطل كما يبطل إنكاح الثيب قبل أن تستأمر، فتأذن بالقول. وإلى هذا ذهب الأوزاعي وسفيان
الثوري وهو قول أصحاب الرأي
“al Isabah fi Tamyeez al Sahabah (The correct differentiation between the Companions”, Ibn Hajar
“Ibn Sa’d said:...Aisha said (in appreciation): ‘I have been given features not given to any woman. The Prophet (peace be upon him) married me when I was seven, the angel brought him my image in his hand to look at it, he consummated our marriage when I was nine, I saw the angel Gabriel, I was his most beloved wife, and I attended his diseased till he died, not witnessed but by me and the angels’.”
الإمام ابن حجر العسقلاني (مؤلف فتح الباري، شرح حيح البخاري) قال في كتابه: الإصابة في تمييز الصحابة
وقال ابن سعد: أخبرنا هشام هو ابن عبد الملك الطيالسي حدثنا أبو عوانة عن عبد الملك بن عمير عن عائشة قالت: أعطيت خلالاً ما أعطيتها امرأة ملكني رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم وأنا بنت سبع وأتاه الملك بصورتي في كفه لينظر إليها وبنى بي لتسع ورأيت جبرائيل وكنت أحب نسائه إليه ومرضته فقبض ولم يشهده غيري والملائكة
Al Suyuti, in "Al Durr Al Manthoor" wrote:
Abu Dawood and Ibn Abi Hatim and Al Bayhaqi in his "Sunan" related, that Asmaa'... al Ansariyyah said:
I got divorced during the time of the Prophet PBUH, when the divorced had no iddah (waiting period), so when I got divorced Allah revealed the waiting period for divorce:
{and the divorced (women) wait for themselves three periods}.
Thus she was the first (woman) concerning whom was revealed the divorce's waiting period.
قال السيوطي في الدر المنثور
أخرج أبو داود وابن أبي حاتم (وزاد في الدر المنثور: والبيهقي في سننه) عن أسماء بنت يزيد بن السكن الأنصارية قالت: طلقت على عهد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ولم يكن للمطلقة عدة، فأنزل الله حين طلقت العدة للطلاق {والمطلقات يتربصن بأنفسهن ثلاثة قروء}
فكانت أول من أنزلت فيها العدة للطلاق.
"Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged)", Darussalam 2nd edition, July 2003, Volume 10, p.44
"Ibn Abi Hatim recorded a simpler narration than this one from Ubay bin Ka'b who waid, 'O Allah's Messenger! When the Ayah in Surat Al-Baqarah was revealed prescribing the 'iddah of divorce, some people in Madinah said, 'There are some women whose Iddah has not been mentioned in the Quran. There are the young, the old whose menstruation is discontinued, and the pregnant.' Later on this Ayah was revealed:
Quran 65:4 (Surah At-Talaq): {Those in menopause among your women, for them the 'iddah, if you have doubt, is three months; and for those who have no courses}
Al Suyuti, in "Al Durr Al Manthoor" wrote:
Abd Ibn Humaid related, citing Qatadah: "and the divorced (women) wait themselves for three periods"
so he made the waiting period for divorce three periods
then he abrogated (i.e. excluded) from it the divorced who was divorced before her husband consummated with her, so He said in Al Ahzab 49:
"O you who believe if you marry the believing women then divorce them before you touch them, then there is no waiting period for you to observe"
so this one marries the same day if she wants
وتابع السيوطي في الدر المنثور
وأخرج عبد بن حميد عن قتادة {والمطلقات يتربصن بأنفسهن ثلاثة قروء} فجعل عدة الطلاق ثلاث حيض،
ثم أنه نسخ منها المطلقة التي طلقت ولم يدخل بها زوجها فقال: في سورة الأحزاب
(يا أيها الذين آمنوا إذا نكحتم المؤمنات ثم طلقتموهن من قبل أن تمسوهن فما لكم عليهن من عدة تعتدونها) (الأحزاب الآية 49)
فهذه تزوج إن شاءت من يومها.
{وَابْتَلُواْ الْيَتَامَى حَتَّىَ إِذَا بَلَغُواْ النِّكَاحَ فَإِنْ آنَسْتُم مِّنْهُمْ رُشْداً فَادْفَعُواْ إِلَيْهِمْ أَمْوَالَهُمْ...}
{Test the orphans, so that if they have reached the age of procreation* (Balaghu Al Nikah), and if (you) discerned from them sound judgement then deliver to them their fortune} Quran: Al Nisaa (The Women) 4:6, p. 77
(The responsibility of another person or children is far more important to test than the responsibility of money alone. Furthermore, this is the only verse in the Quran using the term “Balaghu Alnikah“, age of procreation or marriageable age for puberty, and it is to mention the condition of sound judgement before gaining the responsibilities normally associated with puberty.
* While most translations of “Balaghu Al Nikah” have used “reached the marriageable age”, there is an important distinction. Most other verses to describe puberty use the term “Balagh Al Huluma”, while this verse specifically relates puberty to marriage. On the other hand, the term “marriageable age” could be construed to mean the age at which someone can conduct a marriage contract (or engagement) with no relation to puberty, which is not the meaning of the verse. - Muhaddith MR)
“Shari'ah”, Encyclopedia Britannica, 2008
“A legal capacity to transact belongs to any person “of prudent judgment” (rashid), a quality that is normally deemed to arrive with physical maturity or puberty...Persons who are not rashid, on account of minority, mental deficiency, simplicity, or prodigality, are placed under interdiction: their affairs are managed by a guardian and they cannot transact effectively without the guardian's consent.”
Muslim scholars agree that no Islamic legislative qualifications are needed to reach this conclusion that the rights of people supercede monetary issues concerning the condition of "rushd" in the previous verse) - Muhaddith MR)
Imam Muslim wrote, in his explanation of Saheeh Muslim:
And Abu Hanifah said: ‘He (the guardian) is not required for the post-pubescent girl, whether she is a virgin or previously married; on the contrary, she can perform her own marriage without her guardian’s permission.’ And Abu Haneefah brought argument based on comparison (qiyaas) with selling and other (transactions) for she is autonomous in this, without (the necessity of) a guardian; and he interpreted that the hadeeths requiring the guardian concerned the slave and the young, and he restricted their general wording by this comparison (qiyas) And restricting the general wording through the logic of comparison (qiyas) is allowable according to numerous among the people of usool (experts in deducing legislation).
وقال أبو حنيفة: لا يشترط في الثَّيِّب ولا في البكر البالغة بل لها أن تزوِّج نفسها بغير إذن وليِّها. واحتجَّ أبو حنيفة بالقياس على البيع وغيره فإنَّها تستقلُّ فيه بلا وليٍّ، وحمل الأحاديث الواردة في اشتراط الوليِّ على الأمة والصَّغيرة وخصَّ عمومها بهذا القياس، وتخصيص العموم بالقياس جائز عند كثيرين من أهل الأصول
Sunan Abi Dawud, Nasaii, ibn Majah, and Musnad Imam Ahmad from the hadith of ibn Abbas:
“A young girl who was still a virgin came to the Prophet (peace be upon him) and she mentioned that her father married her (to someone), while she was forced, so the Prophet (peace be upon him) gave her the choice (to remained married or not).
ibn al Qattan said: this hadith of ibn Abbas is authentic.”
وفي سنن أبي داود والنسائي وابن ماجه ومسند الإمام أحمد من حديث ابن عباس:
أن جارية بكراً أتت النبي صلى اللّه عليه وسلم، فذكرت أن أباها زوجها، وهي كارهة، فخيرها النبي صلى اللّه عليه وسلم
قال ابن القطان: حديث ابن عباس هذا صحيح.
Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Niddah 44b
"Mishnah: A girl of the age of three years and one day may be betrothed by intercourse...Gemara: Our Rabbis taught: A girl of the age of three years may be betrothed by intercourse; so R. Meir. But the Sages say: Only one who is three years and one day old...
Gemara: Our Rabbis taught: A girl of the age of three years may be betrothed by intercourse; so R. Meir. But the Sages say: Only one who is three years and one day old."
”Insiders or outsiders: women and rabbinic literature”, Judaism, Summer-Fall, 2003, Dvora Weisberg
"A girl who is three years and one day old may be betrothed through sexual intercourse...(Mishnah Niddah 5:4)"
Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 55b
“R. Joseph said: Come and hear! A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband's brother cohabits with her, she becomes his.”
Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Kethuboth Folio 6a
“R. Hisda objected: If a girl, whose period [14] to see [blood] had not arrived yet, got married, Beth Shammai say: One gives her four nights,[16] and the disciples of Hillel say: Until the wound is healed up.[17] If her period to see [blood] had arrived [18] and she married, Beth Shammai say: One gives her the first night,[19] and Beth Hillel say: Until the night following the Sabbath [one gives her] four nights.[20]
[16] In which she can have intercourse with her husband.
[17] The blood that comes out is attributed to the wound and not to menstruation. Ordinarily, after the first intercourse further intercourse is forbidden until the coming out of blood, i.e., menstruation, is over. But in this case, in which the young bride had never yet had any menstruation, it is assumed that the blood is not due to menstruation but to the wound caused by the intercourse. According to Beth Shammai this assumption holds good for four nights, and according to Beth Hillel it holds good 'until the wound is healed up.' As to the definition of this phrase, v. Nid. 64b. V. also Nid. 65b, where it is finally decided that after the first coition no further intercourse must take place until the flowing of blood has stopped, even in the case of a young bride who had not yet had any menstruation. V. also Eben ha-'Ezer, 63, and Yoreh De'ah, 193.
[18] But she had in fact not yet seen blood; that is, she had the maturity for it, but the maturity had not yet manifested itself. A girl has reached the period of maidenhood (puberty) when she is twelve years and one day old. When she is twelve and a half years old she has reached the state of bogereth, (v. Glos.), full maturity, womanhood. V. infra 39a.
[19] He may repeat the intercourse during the first night.
[20] Mishnah in Nid. 64b”
Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Yebamoth 60b
"It was taught: R. Simeon b. Yohai stated: A proselyte who is under the age of three years and one day is permitted to marry a priest, for it is said, But all the women children that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves, and Phinehas surely was with them. And the Rabbis? — [These were kept alive] as bondmen and bondwomen. If so, a proselyte whose age is three years and one day should also be permitted!"
"Child-Exposure in the Roman Empire", W. V. Harris, The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 84, 1994 (1994), pp. 1-22
“Disapproval of exposure seems slowly to have gained ground. Then, after the sale of infants was authorized by Constantine in A.D. 313, the need for child-exposure somewhat diminished.”
Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Kethuboth, Folio 47a
Whence is it deduced that a daughter's handiwork belongs to her father? — (From Scripture) where it is stated, And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant,[2] as the handiwork of a maidservant belongs to her master so does the handiwork of a daughter belong to her father...It is but logical to assume that it should belong to her father; for should it be imagined that her handiwork does not belong to him [the objection could well be advanced against] the right6 which the All-Merciful has conferred upon a father to consign his daughter to the bridal chamber...— (The fact), however, (is that in the case of) a minor no Scriptural text was necessary.
[12] For since
[13] is he may even sell her was it at all necessary (to state that her handiwork belongs to him)?
[14]
[2] Ex. XXI, 7
[12] To confer upon her father the right to her handiwork.
[13] Lit., 'now'.
[14] Obviously not.
Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 54b
“Rab said: Pederasty with a child below nine years of age is not deemed as pederasty with a child above that. Samuel said: Pederasty with a child below three years is not treated as with a child above that.[24] What is the basis of their dispute? — Rab maintains that only he who is able to engage in sexual intercourse, may, as the passive subject of pederasty throw guilt [upon the active offender]
[24] (rabbi scholar footnote) I.e. Rab makes nine years the minimum; but if one committed sodomy with a child of lesser age, no guilt is incurred. Samuel makes three the minimum.”
Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 55a
“[he] who commits bestiality, whether naturally or unnaturally; or a woman who causes herself to be bestially abused, whether naturally or unnaturally, is liable to punishment.[1]
[1] There are thus three distinct clauses in this Baraitha. The first — a male aged nine years and a day — refers to the passive subject of pederasty, the punishment being incurred by the adult offender. This must be its meaning — because firstly, the active offender is never explicitly designated as a male, it being understood, just as the Bible states, Thou shalt not lie with mankind, where only the sex of the passive participant is mentioned; and secondly, if the age reference is to the active party, the guilt being incurred by the passive adult party, why single out pederasty: in all crimes of incest, the passive adult does not incur guilt unless the other party is at least nine years and a day? Hence the Baraitha supports Rab's contention that nine years (and a day) is the minimum age of the passive partner for the adult to be liable.”
Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin 69b
“Our Rabbis taught: If a woman sported lewdly with her young son [a minor], and he committed the first stage of cohabitation with her, — Beth Shammai say, he thereby renders her unfit to the priesthood.
[4] Beth Hillel declare her fit. R. Hiyya the son of Rabbah b. Nahmani said in R. Hisda's name; others state, R. Hisda said in Ze'iri's name: All agree that the connection of a boy aged nine years and a day is a real connection; whilst that of one less than eight years is not:
[5] their dispute refers only to one who is eight years old,...
[4] I.e., she becomes a harlot, whom a priest may not marry (Lev. XXI, 7).
[5] So that if he was nine years and a day or more, Beth Hillel agree that she is invalidated from the priesthood; whilst if he was less than eight, Beth Shammai agree that she is not.”
King James Version Bible, Deuteronomy 22:13-18
[13] If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
[14] And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
[15] Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:
[16] And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
[17] And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
[18] And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
“A Comparison Between the Roman and Modern Views of Homosexuality” Nathanael Blake, Oregon State University
"The upper classes were much more likely to indulge in homosexual acts, and masters had the sexual use of their slaves...The measure of sexual manhood was to penetrate, while to be penetrated was regarded as effeminizing. The first was seen as an assertion of dominance, the latter as a degrading submission...Despite the temptation, Rome never seems to have adopted pedastry as an accepted part of its bisexual repertoire. In contrast to Greece, where the sexual apprenticeship of adolescent males by their elders was a regular part of life, the Romans decided against the use of their sons in such a manner."
"Growing Up Sexually, Europe, Historical Generalia",
Janssen, D. F. (Oct., 2002). Growing Up Sexually. Volume I: World Reference Atlas
“A small Roman elite adopted at least the narrative of Greek pederasty, but the general attitude was a negative one; boy prostitutes were probably slaves...The common notion that [buggery of boys in Greece / Rome] occurred only at "adolescence" is quite mistaken. It began around age seven, continued for several years and ended by puberty”
"History of Marriage in Western Civilization", Magnus Hirshfeld Archive for Sexology
“Marriage in Ancient Greece and Rome...For their erotic needs, men often turned to prostitutes and concubines. As Demosthenes, the orator, explained it: 'We have prostitutes for our pleasure, concubines for our health, and wives to bear us lawful offspring'.”
Child sexual abuse: historical cases in the Byzantine Empire (324–1453 A.D.), John Lascaratos & Effie Poulakou-Rebelakou
“Furthermore, cases of child prostitution, pederasty, and incest are included in the historical texts and some contemporary authors confirmed the presence of many such cases in all classes of Byzantine society... The research of original Byzantine literature disclosed many instances of child sexual abuse in all social classes even in the mediaeval Byzantine society which was characterized by strict legal and religious prohibitions.”
Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Gittin, Folio 21a
Or if you prefer, I can reply that we find cases where an agent for receiving [the Get is also appointed] without the consent [of the wife], since a father can accept a Get for his daughter who is still a child [14] without her consent.
[14] I.e., under twelve years of age, v. Keth. 47a.
"Protection, Harm and Social Evil: the Age of Consent since 1885", D'Cruz, Evil, Law and the State Conference, July 2004
“When Victoria came to the throne, the age of consent for girls was effectively 10. The 1861 Offences against the Person Act was a major consolidating statute...In enacting that it was ‘no offence to have sexual intercourse with a girl under 12 who ‘freely consented’ however ignorant’, the 1861 Act maintained the age of consent at 10, two years before the age of valid marriage. Consent (from a 10 year old) thus negatived violence...These laws implicitly acknowledged prostitution as a necessary outlet for the sexual imperatives of [initially, though of course not exclusively] the military – a potentially disorderly male population with a significant working-class component. The furore about child prostitution of the 1880s however, had as its legislative outcome in the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885, a raising of the age of consent to 16.”
The Progressive Era's Health Reform Movement: A Historical Dictionary By Ruth Clifford Engs, p.4
"American age-of-consent laws gained attention in 1885 when a sensational British report by William Stead on forced prostitution resulted in the age of consent being raised in that country...As a result of this public pressure, many states between 1887 and 1893 raised their age of consent from ten to at least fourteen years of age; Congress in 1880 passed legislation raising the age from ten to sixteen years in Washington D.C....By 1900, thirty-two states had raised the age of consent to sixteen or eighteen...Age-of-consent agitation spanned more than fifteen years..."
“Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse: Science, Religion, and the Slippery Slope”, Mark E. Pietrzyk
“As of 1886, twenty-five of the American states, following earlier English law, had an age of consent of ten years; four states, following Christian canon law on marriage, had an age of consent of twelve; Delaware, following Christian canon law on the age of discretion, set its age of consent at seven.”
"The Crazy-Quilt of Our Age of Consent Laws", Jonathan Dolhenty, Ph.D.
“The common law, from which America gets much of its precedents in the legal field, set the age of consent at age ten. In other words, participating in sexual activity with someone above the age of ten did not result in the crime of "statutory" rape or child molesting. The activity may have come under other statutory or informal social regulations, but anyone over the age of ten could consent to a sexual activity. During the latter part of the last century and the early part of the present one, attitudes towards sexual activity began to change in America and so did attitudes toward the age of consent. California was one of the first states to raise the age of consent. It raised it from ten to fourteen in 1889 and then from fourteen to sixteen in 1897. Then, in 1913, California again raised it from sixteen to eighteen.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent#_ref-waites_3
“ages from 10 to 13 were typically acceptable in western countries during the mid-19th century
source: Waites, Matthew (2005) The Age of Consent: Young People, Sexuality and Citizenship, (New York States and Houndmills, Basingstoke Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan) ISBN 1-4039-2173-3”
AM is certifiably insane!!! ...as demonstrated by his latest gobstopper post.
Wow, he's done his darndest to defend his pedophile prophet with yet another perverse defense outline of Muhammad. I mean, I'm shocked! ...and I don't even know where to begin; and I'm surprised that AM doesn't work for ACORN, or worse yet, helping NAMBLA with their perv-projects. O, maybe NAMBLA is too rich for AM's self-righteous blood.
I didn't think it was possible for AM to stoop any lower -- but big surprise, he has. Boy, will wonders never cease. Amazing and gross!
A creep like you should be behind BARS, AM, and not allowed near children of any age. Shame on you for promoting pedophilia through your perverted pedophile prophet. Double shame. He's not a lover of God, but a lover of evil.
chimp,
"You believe as you do because you have only a desire to smear and promote hatred toward Muslims…"
Foolster demanded proof of Aisha's physical maturity and it was posted. You are incapable of understanding clear proofs.
The other material is posted in order to hold the mirror up for you to look at your own perverted "Judeo-Christian" religious rulings and "Western Civilization" laws dealing with the subject at hand. If it sickens you as it does me then good... but know, it is what produced you and the way you think. Pretty sick, isn't it?
Your perverted little tantrum belongs to you, and has nothing to do with me.
That you would project your own perverted thoughts onto me is just proof of your own twisted morality you sick perverted individual.
All the same, I wish nothing for you but peace in this life.
Peace
Abdullah
chimp? ...way too original ...yawn :-O
Hmm, I believe you stand alone in your opinion of me, AM. I have yet to read a single comment from anyone, which the exception of you, of course, that considers me to be...uh, perverted? ...is that right? Right! Nope, you would be the first.
Whereas you have received comments from innumerable posters making this same observation of you. Hey, the numbers don't lie, now do they?
Pashaw!
champ:
youre perverted
ah, well that's two posters, anyone else think I'm perverted?
BTW, it's a compliment coming from Muhammad's Fan Club. Man-whores, all of ya!
Abdullah:
You misunderstand, or purposefully misstate my motives. I am a seeker of the truth, and my opinion is based on the evidence I have seen so far. Of course, I may be mistaken, but though you have shown time and time again that you cannot be civil and refrain from being insulting, as Mr. Spencer has been civil to you regardless. This alone makes it pretty clear who the reasonable one is.
I am willing to perhaps concede points 1 and 2.
As for 3 (Aisha's maturity), I think you don't bring compelling proof. I still contend that regardless of whether Aisha had gone through puberty, or her own words (Do you really think someone so young's going to be a good judge about who's an adult, do you?) I think it's a pretty far stretch to call a 9 year old an adult. Do you think a 9 year old who have entered puberty should be considered an adult, or do you think Aisha was a special case? Whether or not she gave consent is pointless if she is a minor, because a minor isn't old enough to have knowledge to make such a consent. This isn't about textual analysis but common sense.
You don't just humbly point out an error, but you do so in a such way to paint yourself the expert and everyone else as dishonest. If you're so right, then why do you so often resort to dirty tactics such as fallacies ("no true scottsman") and false dichotomy arguments ("She knew pouring offal was wrong, so she must have been mature enough for sex" which I debunked)? If you'd just admit these are fallacies I MIGHT take you more seriously in the future, but so far you've ignored it as pretend it never happened.
I did read all the arguments part of your post (I admit, I skimmed the references at the end), so I apologize if you already answered these questions in there:
* Could you give a reference that says that's it's a more severe crime to mistreat unbelievers than believers? Also, is it from the Medina or mecca period?
* Also, could you answer my question about the age of Aisha when she consummated. (though this is more from curiosity of how information is sorted in the koran/hadiths and not really about the disagreement about Aisha)
AM said: "There is no conflicting information in the Quran." ... "For instance, a person came to the Prophet to ask what was the best thing he could do in Islam, "Control your temper." yet in other places in response to seemingly the same question the Prophet said, "Pray early at the designated time." Seems to conflict, doesn't it? But it doesn't." [White spaces snipped for space]
But there's no way to have multiple answers for the question: "At what age did Aisha consummate her marriage with mohammad?" same with there's only one answer to "who was the sixteenth president of the united states?" If there are multiple ages, doesn't that conflict? How do you know which is the most reliable?
(By the way, Abraham Lincoln)
So far I've received two comments stating that I am a pervert -- whereas AM has received, by my guesstimation, at least 4,000 such comments. Hmm.
Well, I really wanted this to be a fair fight, but like I said before, the numbers don't lie. Sorry, but the winner appears to be AM by a screaming landslide.
So Congratz, AM! ...go buy yourself an ice cream cone, or treat yourself to a eyebrow wax & trim. Hell, treat yourself to both -- because you're worth it!