Legal age of consent

DinoBot

Hi,

Seeing as its in the papers I thought Id ask.

Does Islam have a legal age of consent ? If so what is the age ?

Hobbes

It would be the legal age of the countrys laws.

p.pete

In an Islamic state then?

dbnavan

World Wide ages of consent

http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm

DinoBot

Yeah ?

Saudi Arabia = Must be married

So no age limit. Is it in the quran. I know one of Muhammods wives was 9 or 12 when he married her. Would this be taken as the correct age ?

Hobbes

DinoBot wrote:

Yeah ?

Saudi Arabia = Must be married

So no age limit.

As I said it depends very much on the laws of the country. The UK for example has Shia law but those laws can't superceed the laws of the land.

Saudi Arabia is not reflective of the whole. Iran for example it is 14 for female / 17 for a male, Turkey is 18, Iraq is 18, Indonesia is 17 and so on.

the_new_mr

As Hobbes said, it totally depends on the law of the country of residence.

As for an age of consent in general, there are too many factors involved. One thing to keep in mind is that it is a well documented scientific fact that different people in different climates mature at different rates (both physically and, as a result, mentally). This is one important thing to keep in mind. And, in the case of A'isha (and others like her), actually growing up in the desert would have had an even greater affect.

Also, another thing to keep in mind is that there is a difference between betrothal/engagement, becoming someone's wife and the actual consummation of the marriage.

Some sources state that A'isha was around 9 or 10 years old at the time of consummation but more reliable sources state that she was about 14 or 15 years of age at the time of consummation which, given the difference in maturity, would be the same as being about 17 or 18 or something like that. Here's a link on more about A'isha, one of the greatest individuals in Islamic history and one of the most important in relating a large number of hadith.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/history/biographies/sahaabah/bio.AISHAH_BINT_ABI_BAKR.html

Anyway, as for these days, one would have to take into account the fact that people don't mature (both physically and mentally) as quickly these days in our nicely covered homes shielded from the outside environment as back then in the desert due to the difference in climate, surroundings and general circumstances.

Personally, I think that each society in the world has a good enough idea of "when's the right time" and if you take a look at that table posted earlier, it seems that most places are close enough to each other.

Wibbs

the_new_mr wrote:

As for an age of consent in general, there are too many factors involved. One thing to keep in mind is that it is a well documented scientific fact that different people in different climates mature at different rates (both physically and, as a result, mentally). This is one important thing to keep in mind. And, in the case of A'isha (and others like her), actually growing up in the desert would have had an even greater affect.

Any non Muslim links for this oft quoted theory? Any study I've seen suggest the opposite, that the age of first menses is dropping in the modern developed world(many factors, diet and possibly environmental artificial hormones).

Some sources state that A'isha was around 9 or 10 years old at the time of consummation but more reliable sources state that she was about 14 or 15 years of age at the time of consummation which, given the difference in maturity, would be the same as being about 17 or 18 or something like that.

There seems to be a lot fo debate on this. A quick google will show that most seem to take the view that she was 9 when she was married. Your link states that "About her wedding, she related that shortly before she was to leave her parent's house, she slipped out into the courtyard to play with a passing friend:

"I was playing on a see-saw and my long streaming hair was dishevelled," she said. "They came and took me from my play and made me ready."" and "Marriage to the Prophet did not change her playful ways. Her young friends came regularly to visit her in her own apartment.

"I would be playing with my dolls," she said, "with the girls who were my friends, and the Prophet would come in.."

How many 18yr olds in a society that is claimed matured it's youth quicker would be still playing with dolls? Also her hair was uncovered which would suggest that she was a young girl as if she was any older, would she not have been veiled? Also what may be lost here is that the Prophet was in his 50's when all this occurred.

Anyway, as for these days, one would have to take into account the fact that people don't mature (both physically and mentally) as quickly these days in our nicely covered homes shielded from the outside environment as back then in the desert due to the difference in climate, surroundings and general circumstances.

You could argue the opposite quite well. More information and better education would give younger people far more knowledge and "maturity" than found in most "primitive" societies.

Personally, I think that each society in the world has a good enough idea of "when's the right time" and if you take a look at that table posted earlier, it seems that most places are close enough to each other.

True. Luckily we've evolved beyond child brides. It happened here too, not so long ago.


*I knew this had been discussed before. Pros and cons from a few contributors; http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=304905

the_new_mr

Wibbs wrote:

Any study I've seen suggest the opposite, that the age of first menses is dropping in the modern developed world(many factors, diet and possibly environmental artificial hormones)

Yep, the age of first menses is dropping in the modern developed world and this is supported by Muslim studies too but that's besides the point. The point is that back then, in those conditions, the age was even lower than it is now in the developed world. Many people make the mistake of judging 7th century situations regarding conditions and such with 21st century judgements and conceptions. People are sometimes over confident in their opinions of whats right and wrong.

Wibbs wrote:

A quick google will show that most seem to take the view that she was 9 when she was married.

Well, actually, the word "marry" can cause some confusement as meaning is lost in translation in most cases. Sometimes "marry" is translated to mean the wedding itself and sometimes to mean the consummation of the marriage. As I said:

the_new_mr wrote:

another thing to keep in mind is that there is a difference between betrothal/engagement, becoming someone's wife and the actual consummation of the marriage.

This quite neatly answers your next question of:

Wibbs wrote:

How many 18yr olds in a society that is claimed matured it's youth quicker would be still playing with dolls?

A'isha spent some years of her youth living with the Prophet after the "wedding" had taken place but before it was consumated.

The main thing to keep in mind is that life in general was very different back then. Also, some people try to make the Prophet (peace be upon him) look bad by using this episode against him despite it having been refuted and the fact that other Prophets of Islam, Christianity and Judaism have had the same circumstances. I know from life experience that people and the world can change a lot in as little as 20 years so one can only imagine how much different things can change in over 1000 years People have to try and be less narrowminded and understand that their knowledge and process of thought isn't always correct.

Schuhart

the_new_mr wrote:

The main thing to keep in mind is that life in general was very different back then.

This would look to be a very apt point. Presumably, much of the Koran, too, must be read bearing in mind that it was written in a very different time and many of the assumptions that might have been made about the audience are simply no longer valid.

the_new_mr

Well, not really. Most of the Quran (and I'm tempted to say all of the Quran but I'm not a scholar so will avoid doing so) is directly aimed towards Muslims of all times. When attempting to understand the meaning of the verses, the reason for revelation as well as the historical and textual contexts are absolutely essential in the process of understanding. However, any laws in the Quran are there to be used as the laws of the religion until the day of judgement. So, we can't say that because the Quran was revealed over 1400 years ago that it doesn't apply to today.

This is slightly different to hadith where some of the hadith are more specific to the time. One example are hadith concerning having statues in the home. At the time, idol worship was common place and so the forbidding of having statues in the home was understandable at the time. Nowadays, a large number of scholars will say that there is no harm in having statues in the home as long as they are just there for decoration and no more. It is of course the job of the scholars to decide how to approach the meanings.

I hope this answers your question but please remember that I'm not a scholar.

bounty_hunter

dbnavan wrote:

World Wide ages of consent

http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm

Jesus, the amount of countries where gay sex is illegal. That's a ****ing disgrace.

lostexpectation

I wonder what the age of consent was in Jesus supposed time,

it not all about mense, are wrong to always to presume back then we were adults much sooner

Black Swan

lostexpectation wrote:

I wonder what the age of consent was in Jesus supposed time,
it not all about mense, are wrong to always to presume back then we were adults much sooner

Like life expentancy was less than a half of what it is today. If Jesus died at 33, I understand that was the average for a male back then. Because of matural mortality, women typically did not live as long as men, so age of consent had to be earlier. Of course, as noted before, the laws of the land would be a good source on this.

Wibbs

the_new_mr wrote:

The point is that back then, in those conditions, the age was even lower than it is now in the developed world. Many people make the mistake of judging 7th century situations regarding conditions and such with 21st century judgements and conceptions.

Well you could also argue that many people especially in the desert regions would be living under pretty much identical conditions to the 7th century

People are sometimes over confident in their opinions of whats right and wrong.

True enough.

Sometimes "marry" is translated to mean the wedding itself and sometimes to mean the consummation of the marriage.

Generally though, marriage is defined as "legal" only after consummation. I get your point though.

I know from life experience that people and the world can change a lot in as little as 20 years so one can only imagine how much different things can change in over 1000 years

Agreed and I also agree with Schuhart's take on it.

Like life expentancy was less than a half of what it is today. If Jesus died at 33, I understand that was the average for a male back then. Because of matural mortality, women typically did not live as long as men,

Bit of a misconception. Childhood mortality was much higher, but if you lived through that, the chances were good you would reach a fairly good age. The old 3 score and ten years springs to mind.

Jesus died quite young. Look at the ages attained by the famous of the ancient world. Caesar was in his 40's before he even got to power. He would have likely lived to his 70's if the knives weren't out for him. Moses IIRC was in his 70's. Mohammed himself died in his late 50's(IIRC) after a fairly hard life. Aristotle wasn't exactly a spring chicken. The list goes on.

Women sometimes had shorter lives, but depending on how many kids they had they could live to good ages in "primitive" societies. Antibiotics and immunisation are largely responsible for helping us live longer today. Most hunter gatherer societies had life expectancies higher than industrial age europe. The childhood mortality rates bring down the average.

Schuhart

the_new_mr wrote:

Well, not really. Most of the Quran (and I'm tempted to say all of the Quran but I'm not a scholar so will avoid doing so) is directly aimed towards Muslims of all times. When attempting to understand the meaning of the verses, the reason for revelation as well as the historical and textual contexts are absolutely essential in the process of understanding. However, any laws in the Quran are there to be used as the laws of the religion until the day of judgement. So, we can't say that because the Quran was revealed over 1400 years ago that it doesn't apply to today.

Indeed, but hopefully you'll understand where this presents a challenge to our understanding. For example, the idea that women should be entitled to half the inheritance of a man was probably an enlightened act of liberation 1400 years ago – i.e. in the society of the time this presumably meant that women should get half a share instead of no share at all. In Western societies today, the idea that women would only get a half share would be regarded as discriminatory – i.e. that they should only get half as much as a man. Ditto for the idea that a woman’s evidence counts for half of a man’s. So the meaning of those ideas would seem to be utterly reversed because of the passage of time.

I don’t doubt there are other examples we can pick, but the passage that decries the practice of rejecting girl babies and leaving them to die would seem to be another example. At the time this passage was first revealed, it presumably had great relevance to the people hearing it as it was criticising something that was widely practiced. Again, in Western societies today this passage simply looks anachronistic, as there is no current practice that relates to it.

So the meaning and relevant of the Quran today must surely be very different to 1400 years ago – and your reference to the need to consider historical context in interpretation is a bridge towards accepting this.

the_new_mr

Wibbs wrote:

Generally though, marriage is defined as "legal" only after consummation. I get your point though.

Yes I know what marriage generally means. I was just pointing out that sometimes there is mistranslation leading to mis-understanding

Wibbs wrote:

Mohammed himself died in his late 50's(IIRC) after a fairly hard life.

Not being pedantic but it was 63.

Schuhart wrote:

the idea that women should be entitled to half the inheritance of a man was probably an enlightened act of liberation 1400 years ago – i.e. in the society of the time this presumably meant that women should get half a share instead of no share at all. In Western societies today, the idea that women would only get a half share would be regarded as discriminatory – i.e. that they should only get half as much as a man.

This is one of the most easily refuted claims against Islam. In Islam, the man is obligated to financially support his family including sisters if not yet married as well as his mother (if alive). The woman on the other hand is not obligated to do so and is completely entitled to have her own money to do with as she pleases and no man has the right to go anywhere near it without her prior consent. On top of that though, if a woman does contribute financially to her family in any way then it is considered an act of charity in the sight of God and is rewarded highly.

Someone puts it better than I do on islamonline.net:

Many critics of Shari`ah Law point to the discrepancy in inheritance - sons receive twice as much as the daughters. However, there are social reasons for this. The son is expected to take care of the fatherless family, appropriating funds to care for his sibling(s). This financial, social, and moral duty becomes incumbent upon the son. It is common for a son who has just buried the father to hear: “You are the man of the house now, you are responsible now.”

The financial responsibilities of the father fall on the son. Furthermore, a son is expected to start a family and spend on his dependents. The husband becomes financially responsible for his wife, although she maintains financial independence; she, moreover, retains her inheritance as her own, and she is not obliged to share it with her husband. She does not carry the financial burdens appointed to her brother.

Shari`ah Law does forbid a husband from claiming control of his wife’s earnings, capital, and holdings. She keeps it all. Compare that with the fact that in most Western nations, women could not own property at all until the late 19th/early 20th centuries.

According to Shari`ah Law, the wife is given a pre-determined financial sum at the time of the marriage (mahr), which is written down as a term of the “nikah” or marriage contract. The mahr is to ensure that the wife has enough finances in case of widowhood or sudden divorce.

Furthermore, Shari`ah Law unambiguously forbids the forcing or coercing of women into a marriage they do not want. Too often in the Arab world, girls are forced to marry whom their parents —usually the father— deem appropriate. This is contrary to Shari`ah Law, when Islam swept through the Arabian Peninsula, it liberated women by declaring that a woman’s consent has to be obtained for marriage, something unprecedented in the world of the 6th and 7th centuries.

Schuhart wrote:

Ditto for the idea that a woman’s evidence counts for half of a man’s.

Another easily refuted claim. The only time you need two women instead of one man to act as a witness is in financial transactions. In other situations, a woman's testimony is considered equal or greater than a man's.

More here:
http://www.islamicity.com/Mosque/w_islam/witness.htm

Schuhart wrote:

I don’t doubt there are other examples we can pick, but the passage that decries the practice of rejecting girl babies and leaving them to die would seem to be another example. At the time this passage was first revealed, it presumably had great relevance to the people hearing it as it was criticising something that was widely practiced. Again, in Western societies today this passage simply looks anachronistic, as there is no current practice that relates to it.

One of the greatest things about this forum is that I get to greatly improve my vocabulary and learn words like "anachronistic"

Anyway, such actions of evil people would appear to be eradicated wouldn't they? That's no problem though, right? I mean, if it's not being done then no worries, right?

However, the horror is that it is being done even today!! In China, where the one baby rule exists, many parents abort female babies after performing a sonogram. This practice forced the Chinese government to ban sonograms altogether but it's still being done in alleyways with machines bought on the black market.

"That's the far east, not the west" I hear you say! Well, true but I shudder to think that such actions are being carried out by people in the west and I don't doubt it with people wanting to have an exact number of boys and/or girls.

As I said, historical and textual context along with the reasons for revelation are important when attempting to understand how the verses apply to our daily life although this usually the job of the scholars. Laws are laws though and cannot be changed.

Anyway, the point is that we can't just pick-and-choose things to suit what we think is best for ourselves. If you believe that the Quran is the word of God then you'll accept that God tells us things for our own good and He knows best. If you don't believe that the Quran is the word of God then there's no need to worry yourself about it.

Schuhart

the_new_mr wrote:

This is one of the most easily refuted claims against Islam. In Islam, the man is obligated to financially support his family including sisters if not yet married as well as his mother (if alive). The woman on the other hand is not obligated to do so and is completely entitled to have her own money to do with as she pleases and no man has the right to go anywhere near it without her prior consent. On top of that though, if a woman does contribute financially to her family in any way then it is considered an act of charity in the sight of God and is rewarded highly.

While you have presented an amount of material, you are not really addressing my point. Bear in mind I’m not making a charge ‘against Islam’. I’m simply pointing out that the significance of a particular rule would vary depending on the society. For what its worth, the idea that you present that the reason a woman only gets a half share is because she has no obligation to support her family is, again, something that might be regarded as empowering in a society where women were held of little account. But you have to understand that in a Western household where both parents earn an income, the idea that any contribution by the mother towards family expenses is an act of charity is not empowering. Its demeaning. That’s not to say people should not believe this or that. It is just to point out that a rule that might have empowered women in the past would be a constriction today.

the_new_mr wrote:

Another easily refuted claim. The only time you need two women instead of one man to act as a witness is in financial transactions. In other situations, a woman's testimony is considered equal or greater than a man's.

Again, you are not really addressing my point. The principle in Western societies would be that a woman’s testimony is no better or worse than a man’s. Again, my point is not about the merits or otherwise of this rule. Its that the rule would have a different significance in different situations. 1400 years ago a woman may well have felt empowered that her evidence in financial transactions was now worth half a man’s, if before this revelation her evidence was worth nothing. But in Western society if a woman found her evidence was now only worth half a man’s, instead of being of equal value, clearly it is a restriction. This reverses the original intention of the rule.

the_new_mr wrote:

However, the horror is that it is being done even today!! In China, where the one baby rule exists, many parents abort female babies after performing a sonogram. This practice forced the Chinese government to ban sonograms altogether but it's still being done in alleyways with machines bought on the black market. .

Indeed, but hopefully you are getting the point at this stage that the significance of the rule depends on the context. In itself, it is meaningless in the West. Where the rule might have relevance in the West might be in suggesting that, say, the whole ‘designer baby’ idea would not be consistent with Islam as parents should just accept their children as they are.

the_new_mr wrote:

As I said, historical and textual context along with the reasons for revelation are important when attempting to understand how the verses apply to our daily life although this usually the job of the scholars. Laws are laws though and cannot be changed.

But what you seem to be saying is that it is the interpretation by scholars that is important, rather than the text. You and I might look at a particular passage and say ‘it seems to mean this’, but a scholar might take the same passage and say ‘oh, yes, but that passage was said in a particular context in a very different time, so it actually means something quite different.’ Essentially, this is not unlike what I’m saying – if in a different way. I’m saying the same text would mean different things in different times, and you would need to reflect on the meaning in its original context. That could mean you find the details of the rule or passage to be largely redundant. For example, the specific rule about a woman’s voice being worth half a man’s in certain situations would look to be an irrelevance. What would look to be still relevant would be the desire to empower women that inspired this rule.

the_new_mr wrote:

If you don't believe that the Quran is the word of God then there's no need to worry yourself about it.

Indeed, but you seem yourself to understand that a flat statement that the Quran is the word of God does not tell it all. What you actually seem to be saying is ‘the Quran, once explained by scholars, is the word of God’.

Hobbes

The principle in Western societies would be that a woman’s testimony is no better or worse than a man’s.

People keep going on about the West and the rights of women. The rights of women in the west is not something they have had for a long time.

Schuhart

Hobbes wrote:

People keep going on about the West and the rights of women. The rights of women in the west is not something they have had for a long time.

I'm not immediately alert as to the relevance of this comment to the point at issue. I'm not making any comment on whether, for the sake of argument, the testimony of a woman should be worth half a man's or be equal to a man's in any particular situation. I'm pointing out that a rule to a certain effect can have different meanings in different times and, taking the case in point, that a specific statement made 1400 years ago would have been made in a very different context and hence it is difficult to understand how it could be felt to have the same meaning and relevance today.

This is as true in the West as anywhere else. The Bible states that a woman raped in a city is partly to blame because she could have cried out for help. But I'm not aware of anyone who takes that statement seriously today.

the_new_mr

Schuhart wrote:

What you actually seem to be saying is ‘the Quran, once explained by scholars, is the word of God’.

Oh no, I'm certainly not saying that The Quran is the word of God. The scholars can help us to understand it but they themselves may not understand it correctly.

Let's say there is a verse I want clarification on. I'll ask a scholar. That's not because the scholar has some kind of spirtual enlightenment superior to my own. It's purely because of knowledge. The scholar is likely to know more about the subject than I am. As an analogy, if there's something wrong with your washing machine then you'll probably go to a hardware shop and ask an engineer/repairman there just because he knows more about it than you do.

So, the same goes for the Quran. A scholar may be able to highlight particular things that I didn't know (or didn't consider before). The only person that could ever explain the verses of the Quran 100% as they were intended was the Prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him) because he was given knowledge by God to answer queries.

So I just want to get that bit clear. That the Quran (in Arabic) is the literal word of God and that's how it is seen.

Now, I understand that you're not necessarily "against" Islam so forgive me if I misunderstood you. I was just providing information refuting these claims that I've seen over and over.

And I see where you're coming from with your point. Your point is that women may feel that they are being treated unequally and are therefore not equal with men in society. As I've said in a few other threads before, men and women are equal in the sight of God and are equal on earth (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/notislam/misconceptions.html#HEADING3). But, men and women are different so different rules apply according to the situation. By the way, men and women are mentioned an equal number of times in the Quran like other opposites are present an equal number of times. This is God pointing out something very clear.

You said that a woman would find her act of contribution to a family considered as charity demeaning. I look at it the other way completely (as do all the Muslim women I know). When a man spends on his house then he is fulfilling an obligation and would indeed be held accountable for not providing sufficiently (unless it's out of his control) but, when a woman does it, she is rewarded by God. What better way could you have it? So, how is that demeaning? I'd love to be in that position myself

According to current econmic situations in most Muslim countries around the world, both partners in a marriage are required to work in order to financially support their families. Still, in this situation, a woman is rewarded more.

As for the thing about the testimony, as I said, it's only in financial transactions. I'm sure there's a "why" but I don't know it and I don't know if anyone does. As the link shows, a woman's testimony is more powerful than a man in some cases (as the link showed, a woman's testimony has more weight than a man's in refuting accusations of being unchaste) and it's just her word against his. There are other situations where a woman could be seen to have more rights than a man but nobody seems to mention that.

And anyway, why don't you pose these questions to Muslim women? All the Muslim women I know are sick and tired of being told that they're not considered equal with men or that they're oppressed. They see that, as it stands, women in the "west" are the ones oppressed being told how to act, what to wear, being pressured to have a certain figure or show a certain amount skin for the masses or risk being considered unattractive all because of a society whose ideas are all based on men's on how they want women to be in their society.

Here's a good poem expressing such a view:

OBJECT OF DESPAIR
(By Fahim Firfiray)

Emma is a lawyer
And so is Aisha too
Colleagues going into court
At circa half past two

Its 1 O'Clock right now
They grab a bite before the trial
They chat about this and that
Conversing with a smile

Aisha is in full hijab
With a loose all over suit
Emma's in her business wear
With accessories taboot

Emma's really quite bemused
At Aisha's godly ways
She looks Aisha in the eyes
And very firmly says

You're a smart girl Aisha
Why do you wear that across your hair?
Subjugated by "man"-kind
An object of despair

Take it off my sister
Let your banner be unfurled
Don't blindly follow all around
DECLARE YOUR FREEDOM TO THE WORLD

Aisha is amazed
But not the least bit shy
She bravely puts her milkshake down
And gives Emma the reply

My dear sister Emma,
Why do you dress the way you do?
The skirt you're wearing round your waist,
Is it really you?

Now that we've sat down
I see you tug it across your thighs,
Do you feel ashamed?
Aware of prying eyes?

I see the way you're sitting,
Both legs joined at the knees,
Who forces you to sit like that?
Do you feel at ease?

I'll tell you who obliges you,
To dress the way you do,
Gucci, Klein, and St. Laurent
All have designs on you!

In the main, its men my friend,
Who dictate the whims of fashion,
Generating all the garb,
To incite the basest passion

"Sex Sells" there is no doubt
But who buys with such great haste,
The answer is likes like you,
Because they want to be embraced...

They want to be accepted,
On a level playing field
Sure, with brain and intellect
But with body parts revealed

Intelligence and reason
Are useful by and by
But if you want to make a mark
Stay appealing to the eye

You claim your skirt is office like
A business dress of sorts
Would we not laugh at Tony Blair?
If he turned up in shorts?

His could be the poshest of pants
Pinstripe from Saville Rowe
But walking round like that my friend
He'd really have to go

Why do you douse yourself in creams
To make your skin so milky?
Why do you rip off all your hair
To keep your body silky?

A simple shower's all you need
To stay respectable and clean
The time and money that you spend
Is really quite obscene

Why do you wake up at dawn,
To apply a firm foundation,
Topped with make up and the like,
In one chaotic combination?

And if you should have to leave the house
Devoid of this routine
Why do you feel insecure
That you should not be seen?

Be free my sister Emma
Escape from your deep mire
Don hijab today my friend
And all Islam's attire

Avoid all those sickly stares
Or whistles from afar
Walk down the street with dignity
Take pride in who you are

Strength lies in anonymity
Be a shadow in the crowd
Until you speak and interact
When your voice will carry loud

You're a smart girl Emma
Wear this across your hair
Don't be subjugated by "man"-kind
An object of despair

To use your very words my friend
Let your banner be unfurled
Don't blindly follow all around
DECLARE YOUR FREEDOM TO THE WORLD

Schuhart wrote:

Indeed, but hopefully you are getting the point at this stage that the significance of the rule depends on the context.

No doubt. I believe I agreed with you on this earlier

And just getting back to the thing about the opinion of the scholars. Let's say there is a question that I want to ask a scholar. I might have a certain opinion beforehand but the scholar may highlight something that I didn't know before thereby convincing me of his opinion. What if I'm not convinced? Well then, I'm not convinced. It's as simple as that. Scholars may disagree amongst themselves. In the Quran, God says "Ask those with knowledge if you do not know" so that's what we're meant to do but they are not prophets and their opinion are not treated as such. Still, their knowledge is much greater than your average person and it's worth noting that most people are happy and convinced with opinions put forward by scholars on certain subjects.

Wibbs

the_new_mr wrote:

Yes I know what marriage generally means. I was just pointing out that sometimes there is mistranslation leading to mis-understanding

Fair enough, so is it a mistranslation or misunderstanding? When was the marriage consummated? 9 or 10 seems to be the most accepted date(with all the stuff about fast growth in desert climes etc)

Not being pedantic but it was 63.

Thanks. Wasn't sure, but it adds to my point that people(war/accidents excluded) didn't die that young as much as some think they did.

This is one of the most easily refuted claims against Islam. In Islam, the man is obligated to financially support his family including sisters if not yet married as well as his mother (if alive). The woman on the other hand is not obligated to do so and is completely entitled to have her own money to do with as she pleases and no man has the right to go anywhere near it without her prior consent.

Which seems fine til you read the passages where it say that a man is a "degree" above a woman and men are the "protectors" and "maintainers" of women.

Men are "in charge" of women, and can beat them if they are disobedient.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/004.qmt.html#004.034

Women are considered tilth to "cultivate" when and if you will. Sounds a bit like a possession to me.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/002.qmt.html#002.223

Here's another where men have a degree of advantage over women(in divorce and rights therein).
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/002.qmt.html#002.228

Can a Muslim woman even instigate a divorce? Can a Muslim woman marry a non Muslim? Can a Muslim woman marry 4 men? Can a Muslim woman travel on her own, without family members in tow? Could a Muslim woman even be a prophet(Before Mohammed obviously) Nope, but a man can do all the above(prophet being the rare one). Where lies the equality. Read further and you will find more passages along these lines.

While you can certainly argue that compared to a woman's lot among "primitive" bedu tribes, Islam was an improvement, one can hardly argue it's as equitable as what most would see as equality today, at least in the accepted sense, if not sadly in the practical.

the_new_mr wrote:

As for the thing about the testimony, as I said, it's only in financial transactions

Before Islam, when the Prophet was young, was his first wife not a successful businesswoman? How did she manage that if the pre Islamic tribes were so "backward" and unequal? You would think it may have made life difficult for a businesswoman to need an extra woman present to draw up a contract. Maybe that wasn't an issue before Islam?

the_new_mr wrote:

If you don't believe that the Quran is the word of God then there's no need to worry yourself about it.

Very true. I would only see it as a worry when those laws may differ from secular ones, in secular countries with a large Muslim population.

Hobbes wrote:

People keep going on about the West and the rights of women. The rights of women in the west is not something they have had for a long time.

Sorry, I also don't see the relevance. In any case we've evolved and indeed hopefully may continue to do so. What evolution is possible in any dogmatic faith by comparison?

the_new_mr wrote:

They see that, as it stands, women in the "west" are the ones oppressed being told how to act, what to wear, being pressured to have a certain figure or show a certain amount skin for the masses or risk being considered unattractive all because of a society whose ideas are all based on men's on how they want women to be in their society.

So just like Islam then. They're told how to act(even to the pint of avoiding others while menstruating, a natural thing), how much inheritance they may get, they're told how to dress, how little skin and hair they may or may not show. The ideas of men also express what they want obedient Muslim women to be in their society. Even if you believe it's Allah's word, it's apparently because men are such sexually predatory creatures that they would be distracted by a woman's leg or hair. Again we're back to the religious concept between mother and whore. Never the twain can meet it seems. Faiths and religious dogma that can't see the human beyond the short skirt and the makeup. Maybe I'm weird, but I can equally take the views on board of a woman regardless of what she's wearing, hijab or bellytop(OK maybe not bellytop) as I would a man(definitely not bellytopped:D ).

Yes the poem. The part I noted was "Strength lies in anonymity
Be a shadow in the crowd". Indeed.

Schuhart

the_new_mr wrote:

Your point is that women may feel that they are being treated unequally and are therefore not equal with men in society. As I've said in a few other threads before, men and women are equal in the sight of God and are equal on earth (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/notislam...html#HEADING3). But, men and women are different so different rules apply according to the situation.

I want to avoid digressing too much into notions of equality, because that’s not really my point in this discussion. But I feel it necessary to say something.

Islam teaches that women should be treated decently. But that’s not the same as equality. So when you ask if any woman could argue against getting an extra benefit denied to men, the answer is yes. What many women want is equality – to enjoy the same rights and bear the same obligations as men. So when you say

When a man spends on his house then he is fulfilling an obligation and would indeed be held accountable for not providing sufficiently (unless it's out of his control) but, when a woman does it, she is rewarded by God. What better way could you have it?

the better way IMHO would be for both man and woman to be seen equally in God’s eyes, so that the woman would get the same rewards as a man for the same actions.

I could fill a thread with thoughts about the poem you posted, and its conception of the feminine. But I’ll limit myself to one observation. I was going home on the train today, thinking about the poem and its comparison of skirt to hijab. Then I noticed most of the women around me were wearing trousers. And its Summer.

the_new_mr wrote:

Oh no, I'm certainly not saying that The Quran is the word of God. The scholars can help us to understand it but they themselves may not understand it correctly.

Up to a point, we are saying similar things. We both seem to accept that the Quran requires interpretation in the light of the context in which a passage was originally delivered. I suspect we might depart in detail when we got into the detail of what looks like the ‘core’ message and what looks like time specific information. With this in mind, I think its profitable to reflect on how revolutionary the idea that a woman would hold half the weight of a man in financial affairs would have been 1400 years ago, compared to how restricting it seems today.

Schuhart

Wibbs wrote:

In any case we've evolved and indeed hopefully may continue to do so. What evolution is possible in any dogmatic faith by comparison?

I read (I think in Malise Ruthven’s ‘Islam and the World’) that the Quran occupies the same place within Islam as the figure of Christ does in Christianity. With this in mind it has to be appreciated that looking on the Quran as just a time specific collection of religious writings has uncomfortable implications for adherents.

Much the same implications occur in Christianity when people enquire into the historical figure of Jesus. If we say Jesus was just another preacher, then his teachings might have a certain value in themselves as a guide to treating people decently. But they no longer have the stamp of divine approval.

Hence, it is easy on the outside to look at large chunks of the Quran and see them as being largely aimed at the people who first converted to Islam, with little relevance for today. Someone with the faith has to thread softly. There are limits to which someone can re-interpret the Quran without undermining its status within the faith as the embodiment of the divine message. I think the point of real interest is finding out what those limits are.

Wibbs

Schuhart wrote:

There are limits to which someone can re-interpret the Quran without undermining its status within the faith as the embodiment of the divine message. I think the point of real interest is finding out what those limits are.

Very strong food for thought there and not just for Islam.

the_new_mr

Wibbs wrote:

Fair enough, so is it a mistranslation or misunderstanding? When was the marriage consummated? 9 or 10 seems to be the most accepted date(with all the stuff about fast growth in desert climes etc)

As I said earlier:

the_new_mr wrote:

Some sources state that A'isha was around 9 or 10 years old at the time of consummation but more reliable sources state that she was about 14 or 15 years of age at the time of consummation

Wibbs wrote:

Which seems fine til you read the passages where it say that a man is a "degree" above a woman and men are the "protectors" and "maintainers" of women.

Please read this:
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1123996016420&pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam%2FAskAboutIslamE%2FAskAboutIslamE

Wibbs wrote:

Men are "in charge" of women, and can beat them if they are disobedient.

and this:
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1123996016760&pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam%2FAskAboutIslamE%2FAskAboutIslamE

Wibbs wrote:

Women are considered tilth to "cultivate" when and if you will. Sounds a bit like a possession to me.

Once again, understanding the reason for revelation is essential in getting the correct understanding here.
More here:
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1123996015582&pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam/AskAboutIslamE/AskAboutIslamE
Also, on this subject, a verse showing quite the opposite of what you stated.

Rum:21
"And among His Signs is this, that He created for you mates from among yourselves, that ye may dwell in tranquillity with them, and He has put love and mercy between your (hearts): verily in that are Signs for those who reflect."

Wibbs wrote:

Can a Muslim woman even instigate a divorce?

Yes.

Wibbs wrote:

Can a Muslim woman travel on her own, without family members in tow?

Yes.

Wibbs wrote:

While you can certainly argue that compared to a woman's lot among "primitive" bedu tribes, Islam was an improvement, one can hardly argue it's as equitable as what most would see as equality today, at least in the accepted sense, if not sadly in the practical.

I like one of the statements in one of the links I put up there. "equality is something different from sameness"

Wibbs wrote:

They're told how to act(even to the pint of avoiding others while menstruating, a natural thing)

No idea where you got that. Women are told not to engage in sexual intercourse with their husbands during mentruation. That is all.

Wibbs wrote:

Faiths and religious dogma that can't see the human beyond the short skirt and the makeup.

That's a very unfair and untrue statement based completely on ignorance.

And to say that the form of oppression of women in the west is the same as Islam is quite untrue in my opinion. The former is what men want, the latter is what God wants and knows what's best for men and women. If you're a Muslim, you believe this. If you're not then you're perfectly entitled to disagree as, after all, "there's no compulsion in religion".

Wibbs wrote:

Yes the poem. The part I noted was "Strength lies in anonymity
Be a shadow in the crowd". Indeed.

And the lines after that?

Until you speak and interact
When your voice will carry loud

Now Wibbs, I'm afraid you can't go and reel off a number of flase allegations against Islam like the way you did in your post there (especially when some have already been discussed and covered at length). A person as educated in Islam as you should know not to jump to conclusions and that you have to read into it a bit more (as with the already mentioned reasons for revelations). I refer you to Rule #1 and, as a moderator, I regret to inform you that I am issuing you a warning.

Schuhart wrote:

What many women want is equality – to enjoy the same rights and bear the same obligations as men.

Again, the "equality is something different from sameness" comes to mind here.

Schuhart wrote:

the better way IMHO would be for both man and woman to be seen equally in God’s eyes

They are.

Al-Ahzab:35
"For Muslim men and women,- for believing men and women, for devout men and women, for true men and women, for men and women who are patient and constant, for men and women who humble themselves, for men and women who give in Charity, for men and women who fast (and deny themselves), for men and women who guard their chastity, and for men and women who engage much in Allah's praise,- for them has Allah prepared forgiveness and great reward."

Schuhart wrote:

I was going home on the train today, thinking about the poem and its comparison of skirt to hijab. Then I noticed most of the women around me were wearing trousers. And its Summer.

So I'm not the only one that thinks about this forum away from the computer then Anyway, good to hear

Schuhart wrote:

Up to a point, we are saying similar things. We both seem to accept that the Quran requires interpretation in the light of the context in which a passage was originally delivered. I suspect we might depart in detail when we got into the detail of what looks like the ‘core’ message and what looks like time specific information.

Fair enough, we shall agree to disagree then. I only base my views on following clear black and white statements by God.

Schuhart wrote:

Hence, it is easy on the outside to look at large chunks of the Quran and see them as being largely aimed at the people who first converted to Islam, with little relevance for today. Someone with the faith has to thread softly. There are limits to which someone can re-interpret the Quran without undermining its status within the faith as the embodiment of the divine message. I think the point of real interest is finding out what those limits are.

Well, I agree with some of that and not with some. I think that the real point of interest is just to know what is the way to live our lives according to the teachings in the Quran. Also, there is no worry of undermining the Quran. God gave it to us as a guideance afterall and Islam is a religion for all times. Personally speaking, it's all very simple from one day to the next in the regular routine in life. It's not that often that you have to do a lot of research on something that affects your life.

Wibbs

the_new_mr wrote:

Please read this:
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1123996016420&pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam%2FAskAboutIslamE%2FAskAboutIslamE

OK "Actually it is the latter that the feminist movement nowadays call for, while Islam and sound intellect totally reject it. Men and women are different emotionally as well as in physical characteristics and endurance. Hence they were naturally created for two different, but complementary, functions and roles. This has been demonstrated by the variance of roles of men and women in all ages, civilizations, and cultures. The long history of humanity did not witness women prophets. It would be absurd to ascribe this to male self-imposed supremacy or coercion. Rather one should ask: Why did Allah exclusively send His messages through men, unless this is His will and the norms of His creation."

It seems Allah only believes men are capable of prophethood, among other things. I would precisely ascribe this to "male self-imposed supremacy or coercion". History has shown that more than once. Look at the west and the changing roles of women in such a short time as evidence.

and this:
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1123996016760&pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam%2FAskAboutIslamE%2FAskAboutIslamE

"Islam actually prohibits men from hitting women, except in one very limited case when the wife is continuously rebellious and disobedient—not when she disobeys one request—and only as a last resort after all else fails. "

It still allows hitting or beating a woman. Even in extremis how can this be justified? Put it another way, can a woman in extremis hit or beat her disobedient husband? http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/073.sbt.html#008.073.068 The full text at least says he shouldn't beat her like a slave, which is good.

Once again, understanding the reason for revelation is essential in getting the correct understanding here.
More here:
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1123996015582&pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam/AskAboutIslamE/AskAboutIslamE
Also, on this subject, a verse showing quite the opposite of what you stated.

"Islam urges the Muslim woman that - however busy she may be - she should leave whatever is keeping her busy, if her husband asks her. Here, if the woman refuses to submit to her husband's desire, for no serious reason, she would be exposed to God's displeasure."
It would depend on what a "serious" reason would be for refusing I suppose.

Yes.

Can you show me a link for this?

Yes.

Women and travel.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/020.sbt.html#002.020.194
Even on pilgrimage http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/029.sbt.html#003.029.085
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/020.sbt.html#002.020.192
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html#004.052.250

I like one of the statements in one of the links I put up there. "equality is something different from sameness"

Only if you believe in rigid gender stereotyping

No idea where you got that. Women are told not to engage in sexual intercourse with their husbands during mentruation. That is all.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/002.qmt.html#002.222

Apparently a hurt and pollution. an illness and one must keep away from them during same. That could easily be interpreted as avoiding them entirely until they're "pure" again.

And to say that the form of oppression of women in the west is the same as Islam is quite untrue in my opinion. The former is what men want, the latter is what God wants and knows what's best for men and women. If you're a Muslim, you believe this. If you're not then you're perfectly entitled to disagree as, after all, "there's no compulsion in religion".

We'll have to agree to disagree then. There are many angles to look at the forms of oppression in both systems. Maybe this kind of thing would be better in humanities. Cause less offfense and all that.

Schuhart

the_new_mr wrote:

Again, the "equality is something different from sameness" comes to mind here.

Indeed, equality does not mean sameness. But it does mean that any difference in treatment should have an understandable basis. There is no understandable basis for suggesting that women should count for half a man in financial transactions, or for saying a woman who makes a financial contribution to her home is more deserving of grace than her husband for the same act.

Your faith is your faith, and you are the only one who can work out why you believe what you want to believe. From the outside, I have an honest feeling that Islam is a religion that lost its way. Statements relevant to a particular time and place are being taken to apply in situations and contexts where they are simply inappropriate.

What’s moved me to do such reading about Islam as I have is the charge that as products of Western culture we have a mindset that misunderstands Islam. I honestly cannot say that I have found any great misunderstanding. For example, all I've really learned from our discussion here is that what you describe as ‘equality’, I would describe as ‘inequality’. I know this is only your view of your Islamic belief, but I don't see you as out of step with what I have read elsewhere.

I don’t know where this leaves me, other than wondering if we’ll ever see a Quranic version of the Why can’t I own Canadians letter.

the_new_mr

Wibbs wrote:

It seems Allah only believes men are capable of prophethood, among other things. I would precisely ascribe this to "male self-imposed supremacy or coercion". History has shown that more than once.

To imply this means that you believe that the Quran is not sent by God and you're perfectly entitled to your opinion. Still, what exactly is the point of your statement?

As it happens, I remember reading a discussion somewhere if Mary the mother of Jesus (peace be upon them both) could be considered as a Prophet. Also, the point was raised that perhaps there was a woman Prophet of the ones that God hasn't told of.

Ghafir:78
"40:78 We did aforetime send apostles before thee: of them there are some whose story We have related to thee, and some whose story We have not related to thee. It was not (possible) for any apostle to bring a sign except by the leave of Allah. but when the Command of Allah issued, the matter was decided in truth and justice, and there perished, there and then those who stood on Falsehoods."

In either case, whether there can be a woman Prophet or not, that's something up to God and who are we to argue such a point?

Wibbs wrote:

It still allows hitting or beating a woman. Even in extremis how can this be justified? Put it another way, can a woman in extremis hit or beat her disobedient husband?

Not beating and so please don't use that word again. This precaution is only to be taken in the most extreme case (you've probably never met anyone like this in your life) and only when it may help. It's only meant as a last resort with someone who is likely to respond positively to such an action. Personally, I don't know anyone who would be.

And I wouldn't recommend a woman to hit her husband if he is the rebellious type for fear of his retribution... unless she's some kind of kung fu master and can handle it herself Anyway, personally speaking as a male, I'd go with the "appointing family members from each side".

And let's not forget the hadiths of the Prophet (peace be upon him):
"The best of you are the best to your wives"
and
"The best of you are the best to your families and I am the best to mine"

Wibbs wrote:

"Islam urges the Muslim woman that - however busy she may be - she should leave whatever is keeping her busy, if her husband asks her. Here, if the woman refuses to submit to her husband's desire, for no serious reason, she would be exposed to God's displeasure."
It would depend on what a "serious" reason would be for refusing I suppose.

Same goes for a man. Oh, and don't forget this bit.

Well, it seems you haven't read about the Islamic teaching that also made it obligatory for husbands to offer sex to their wives. This is due to the fact that the woman might be shy or embarrassed to ask it for herself, every four days.

Wibbs wrote:

Can you show me a link for this?

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1123996015686&pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam/AskAboutIslamE/AskAboutIslamE
Actually, that link seems to cover a lot of what's already been said here and is very suitable to this thread.
Here's some text from the link for your convenience.

Another important point, is that the Islamic law grants the woman the right to get divorce if, simply, she is not happy in her marriage! This advantage is not granted to western women, without many legal complications resulting from the gap between civil and church laws.

As for women and travel, this is something which has changed a great deal since the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Travel is much safer now. Whereas in the past, people would be going across the desert for days on end, it's not quite the same now. Scholars say now that it is okay if a woman is in "trusted company" (translation) meaning a large group of women or a large group of men and women whose conduct is correct.

Wibbs wrote:

Apparently a hurt and pollution. an illness and one must keep away from them during same. That could easily be interpreted as avoiding them entirely until they're "pure" again.

I think not.

First of all, the Arabic word "itha" is closer to discomfort (as translated by Shakir).

Second of all, if you look at the rest of the verse, you'll see
"then when they have cleansed themselves, go in to them as Allah has commanded you; surely Allah loves those who turn much (to Him), and He loves those who purify themselves."
clearly showing how it is meant to stay away from sexual intercourse and not away in general.

Thirdly, despite your apparent confidence in interpreting Islam as you see it, perhaps you should consider the possibility that you don't know enough to make such hard and fast judgements completely in contrast to what all the religious scholars say especially considering lack of knowledge such as reasons for revelation or the arabic language.

Schuhart wrote:

Indeed, equality does not mean sameness. But it does mean that any difference in treatment should have an understandable basis. There is no understandable basis for suggesting that women should count for half a man in financial transactions, or for saying a woman who makes a financial contribution to her home is more deserving of grace than her husband for the same act.

Well, it depends.

In religion, you don't have to know the reason for everything. Most things in Islam have an obvious reason for why but with other things, we should say "we hear and obey". As in the travel example I stated earlier, the circumstances have changed and therefore so has the religous viewpoint. Taking the example of God forbidding us to eat pork, we can see that there is no reason stated so that doesn't mean that we should say "Ah well, since there's no obvious reason then it's okay to eat pork". D'ya catch my drift? Of course that's aside from some recent medical studies showing the unhealthiness of eating pork but their findings are somewhat inconclusive. Perhaps there may be no reason except it being a test of following God's command. Only God knows anyway.

Some things are explained to us and some things are up to God's wisdom and shouldn't need explanation and we leave it at that. If you believe in God then you'll be fine with that but if you don't believe in God then what does it matter anyway?

Schuhart wrote:

Statements relevant to a particular time and place are being taken to apply in situations and contexts where they are simply inappropriate.

Again, who's to say that its inappropriate especially considering that the reason may not have been known in the first place? Are we to take the ideas learnt from a non-perfect society and fed to us from a very young age as the unchangeable truth? Or are we to be so confident in our own human mind (which is never perfect) that we believe that we can come up with the right way ourselves? Please don't take this the wrong way but I find it interesting that people are so bold as to call a religion arrogant when they themselves are guilty of the same.

Schuhart wrote:

What’s moved me to do such reading about Islam as I have is the charge that as products of Western culture we have a mindset that misunderstands Islam. I honestly cannot say that I have found any great misunderstanding. For example, all I've really learned from our discussion here is that what you describe as ‘equality’, I would describe as ‘inequality’. I know this is only your view of your Islamic belief, but I don't see you as out of step with what I have read elsewhere.

Well, I'm glad to see that you're doing the responsible thing of reading about Islam to try and understand it better especially considering the overwhelming mass media misrepresentation going on. However, when you said "I know this is only your view of your Islamic belief", the first thing that came to my mind is "I know that this is only your view of equality". It works both ways

Schuhart wrote:

I don’t know where this leaves me, other than wondering if we’ll ever see a Quranic version of the Why can’t I own Canadians letter.

Well, there's a lot to say about that letter.

The first is the obvious thing that the author of that letter clearly believes that the Torah's teachings are not to be followed whatever the reason may be. I guess that's just me stating the obvious Still, the more interesting thing about it is why? Are they athiest? Or are they like Schuhart of the opinion that this stuff just doesn't apply anymore? That's not me agreeing with the passages quoted by the author of the letter mind you. This forum is not meant for religion vs. religion and I'm not about to start that now. It's the Islamic belief that, even though Abraham, Moses and Jesus (peace be upon them all) were given holy scriptures, the only true word of God that remains on earth is the Quran. This means that the other holy scriptures have either been corrupted by men, lost to time or weren't even there properly to begin with.

the_new_mr

<continued from previous post>
Now, I'm all for discussion and (as some of you have probably worked out by now), I enjoy having discussions about religion and Islam in particular. However, I'm a little lost as to the purpose of this discussion (and others like it). Don't get me wrong, I'm very honoured to be answering any questions about my religion that people have and am perfectly happy to do so and I hope that, God willing, I am doing a good enough job. May God forgive me for my shortcomings and unintentional mistakes.

Still, I feel that in some discussions, we find ourselves going round and round in circles. I believe that, according to the forum charter, this forum is "for the open discussion of the religon for those who are following it or for those who may have honest questions about it." and most certainly not "FOR YOU TO VENT, OR FOR MUSLIMS TO HAVE TO DEFEND THIER FAITH FROM ATTACK."

Now, I know there is a fine line between "honest questions" and pointless debate or attack but I believe that people need to ask themselves what is the purpose here? If anybody is trying to do something as disprove Islam (or indeed the concept of religion), bring Islam into disrepute or something of that nature then this is not the place for it and indeed some of these acts will get you banned. I don't go into any of the other religious forums trying to do the same.

I'm perfectly prepared to answer questions and/or provide reading material as best as I can but I'm most certainly not prepared to debate with people with point and counter-point especially when the other person has apparently already made their mind up. This is not because I feel that I won't be able to because my religion cannot stand up to it, on the contrary, however it's not the purpose of this forum. If people want information and/or the opinion or viewpoint of an actual Muslim then this is the place for it but otherwise no.

I hope that that statement is not read in the wrong way and I would like to reiterate that I welcome everyone here and everyone's participation.

Victor

Wibbs wrote:

Any non Muslim links for this oft quoted theory? Any study I've seen suggest the opposite, that the age of first menses is dropping in the modern developed world(many factors, diet and possibly environmental artificial hormones).

Read the posts by nesf here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054935533 I don't know how authoritive they are.

Also her hair was uncovered which would suggest that she was a young girl as if she was any older, would she not have been veiled?

How old is that tradition?