Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Does this embarrass you when you hear things like this?
-
27-01-2009 12:26am#1http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/17/saudi.child.marriage/
Is there a real justification for this in the Koran? Who is right or wrong?0
Comments
-
Well does it embarrass YOU to hear THIS?
http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0121/roscommon.html
No matter what religion you are, there will always be injustice in the world. However, forcing people into marriages such as this is NOT Islamic- people have a right to say 'no' to their prospective suitors.
http://www.answering-christianity.com/cant_force_marriage.htmAbsolutely not! Let us look at what Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him said regarding this issue:
Can a woman be forced into marriage in Islam?
Abu Huraira (Allah be pleased with him) reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as having said: "A woman without a husband (or divorced or a widow) must not be married until she is consulted, and a virgin must not be married until her permission is sought. They asked the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him): How her (virgin's) consent can be solicited? He (the Holy Prophet) said: That she keeps silence. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Book 008, Number 3303)"
Allah Almighty said in the Noble Quran: "O ye who believe! Ye are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should ye treat them with harshness, that ye may take away part of the dower [money given by the husband to the wife for the marriage contract] ye have given them, except where they have been guilty of open lewdness; on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing, and God brings about through it a great deal of good. (The Noble Quran, 4:19)"
The following Saying is an explanation to Noble Verse 4:19:
Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: "About the Qur'anic verse: 'It is not lawful for you forcibly to inherit the woman (of your deceased kinsmen), nor (that) ye should put constraint upon them.' When a man died, his relatives had more right to his wife then her own guardian. If any one of them wanted to marry her, he did so; or they married her (to some other person), and if they did not want to marry her, they did so. So this verse was revealed about the matter. (Translation of Sunan Abu-Dawud, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Book 11, Number 2084)" So according to Noble Verse 4:19, a woman can not be forced into marriage by any mean.
Narrated AbuHurayrah: "The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: An orphan virgin girl should be consulted about herself; if she says nothing that indicates her permission, but if she refuses, the authority of the guardian cannot be exercised against her will. (Translation of Sunan Abu-Dawud, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Book 11, Number 2088)"
Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar: "The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Consult women about (the marriage of) their daughters. (Translation of Sunan Abu-Dawud, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Book 11, Number 2090)"
Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: "A virgin came to the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and mentioned that her father had married her against her will, so the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) allowed her to exercise her choice. (Translation of Sunan Abu-Dawud, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Book 11, Number 2091)"
Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: "The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: A guardian has no concern with a woman previously married and has no husband, and an orphan girl (i.e. virgin) must be consulted, her silence being her acceptance. (Translation of Sunan Abu-Dawud, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Book 11, Number 2095)"
The above Noble Verse 4:19 and the Sayings of our beloved Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him clearly explain that according to Islam, whether the woman is virgin or not, her permission is a MUST. Her father or older brother can not force her into marriage as the Pagan Arabs and the Jews and Christians before Islam in the Middle East used to do; see Deuteronomy 25:5 in the Bible to see how women are forced into marriage.Can the woman divorce herself from a forced marriage upon her?As we've seen above, it is clearly forbidden in Islam to force women into marriage. But in case this ever should happen or have happened already to any woman, then Islam allows for her to divorce herself from the man she was forced to marry. Let us read the following:
Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: "A virgin came to the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and mentioned that her father had married her against her will, so the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) allowed her to exercise her choice. (Translation of Sunan Abu-Dawud, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Book 11, Number 2091)"
The choice that our beloved Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him gave to the woman is she can either remain married to the man, or divorce herself from him.0 -
But didn't Muhammad marry one of his slaves? Can a slave really disobey her master by refusing?0
-
-
Not really, because that has nothing to do with me. However, these people are using the same guidebook you are (if you are muslim). I just wonder why this kind of stuff is allowed to happen based on that book?0 -
My point exactly. Since this practice is contrary to the rules of Islam, they are certainly not following the "same guidebook" as me. In fact, it is by going against its teachings that bad things may happen.Flamed Diving wrote: »Not really, because that has nothing to do with me.
This has nothing to do with Muslims, because it is not a Muslim belief and forced marriages are not allowed in the Quran. It is the exact same thing as me blaming the Irish child protection service for the abuse that Roscommon woman inflicted on her children- they try their best to prevent it, they certainly don't condone it, but that doesn't mean it cannot happen in unfortunate circumstances.Flamed Diving wrote: »I just wonder why this kind of stuff is allowed to happen based on that book?
That's the thing- it ISN'T allowed.
As far as the whole slave/master relationship goes, their right to refuse marriage is exactly as valid as anybody elses. In fact, in a Nikka (wedding ceremony) the person to whom the proposal of marriage has been initiated is asked 3 times if they wish to marry this person.0 -
Advertisement
-
My point exactly. Since this practice is contrary to the rules of Islam, they are certainly not following the "same guidebook" as me. In fact, it is by going against its teachings that bad things may happen.
This has nothing to do with Muslims, because it is not a Muslim belief and forced marriages are not allowed in the Quran. It is the exact same thing as me blaming the Irish child protection service for the abuse that Roscommon woman inflicted on her children- they try their best to prevent it, they certainly don't condone it, but that doesn't mean it cannot happen in unfortunate circumstances.
That's the thing- it ISN'T allowed.
As far as the whole slave/master relationship goes, their right to refuse marriage is exactly as valid as anybody elses. In fact, in a Nikka (wedding ceremony) the person to whom the proposal of marriage has been initiated is asked 3 times if they wish to marry this person.
So how come it happens then? Are they completely getting it wrong? Is it Islam gone mad or something?0 -
But how old was Ayeesha when Mohammed married her?
She was 6, he was 54 and the marriage was consummated when she was 9.
Are you saying this was consensual?
And it is relevant surely because if your prophet did it, then why shouldn't everybody else do it?
Comparing it to the case in Roscommon is ludicrous -- how can you even draw parallels between something that the HSE and the child protection service messed up and failed to act on and something that is being sanctioned by a religious cleric?0 -
No, why should it? It is a totally un-religious issue, unlike the topic at hand,0 -
Flamed Diving wrote: »So how come it happens then?
How come the other thing happens then? Because there are screwed up people in the world.
He has already pointed out that this goes against Islams teachings. What more do you want?Yogabba wrote:But how old was Ayeesha when Mohammed married her?
She was 6, he was 54 and the marriage was consummated when she was 9.
Are you saying this was consensual?
There is already a long thread on this, as well as links in the FAQ to read up on this which will answer your questions.0 -
ChocolateSauce wrote: »No, why should it? It is a totally un-religious issue, unlike the topic at hand,
Agreed. So instead of trying to point the finger in other directions, back to original question?
Even if its pointed out as being against the teachings of Islam, Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Sheikh is clearly an official authority on the teachings of Islam. He's a real life example, not a notional concept.0 -
Advertisement
-
But how old was Ayeesha when Mohammed married her?
She was 6, he was 54 and the marriage was consummated when she was 9.
Are you saying this was consensual?
We went into this in a LOT of detail in a different thread, so let's not even get started on that one.Comparing it to the case in Roscommon is ludicrous -- how can you even draw parallels between something that the HSE and the child protection service messed up and failed to act on and something that is being sanctioned by a religious cleric?
Nope, indeed there are similarities. Once can ask- it is a rule in the HSE contrary to what actually is occuring- so why do atrocities like this happen? Now, think- it is a rule in the Qur'an contrary to what actually is occuring- so why do atrocities like this happen? And the answer is simple: free will. We can condemn something and use references which people are supposed to be following, but the fact of the matter is that everyone has free will and things like this do happen as a result of its abuse.ChocolateSauce wrote: »No, why should it? It is a totally un-religious issue, unlike the topic at hand,
It's not simply a religious issue, but a moral one. See above.How come the other thing happens then? Because there are screwed up people in the world.
Exactly. It is a lazy option to simply decide that "Muslims are bad, so they do x,y and z" - wouldn't life be so simple and black and white if we could blame everything on a country's religion?0 -
Now, think- it is a rule in the Qur'an contrary to what actually is occuring- so why do atrocities like this happen?
They happen because a religious cleric condones it. Where in the HSE will you find an employer that condones child abuse???
Your comparisons don't hold up.
Also, if a good muslim should model himself on his prophet and his prophet married a child, well then...... (Yes I know it's been discussed before but it's still relevant to this thread)0 -
Well if you'd bothered to look at previous posts on the subject, you would know that Aisha's actual age is widely debated. The fact of the matter is, it she didn't want to marry the prophet, she was under no obligation to do so. There are many hadiths which prove that they had a very happy marriage and it wasn't the child raping paedophilic nonsense that people like to make it out to be.
As for 'condoning child abuse' - that's nonsense. Nowhere in the Qur'an does it say that people can rape children. Yet it does happen- EVEN- going back to my example- in Ireland. And who are you going to blame for that? She wasn't a Muslim- will you blame the fact that she is a Catholic for the fact that she raped her son? No. Of course not. Because when terrible things happen in the west, the finger is not automatically pointed at religion like it is in countries with Muslim majorities.0 -
But you are missing the point. We are discussing the fact that a cleric IS condoning child abuse.
We are not talking about mistakes or deviations being made by individuals, we are talking about a so called spiritual (and probably influential) leader who is saying that this is ok.
And herein lies the difference -- you won't find anyone within the HSE or child protection service here in Ireland condoning what happened.
Can you really not see the difference???
So if someone rapes a child in Saudi Arabia (under the pretense of marriage) he will have the backing of a religious leader. Did this woman have that kind of backing?
And if this is the doing of individuals and not cultural/religious, how come it's not prevalent amongst the population here in the west?
Are you defending the possibility of a six-year old marrying a 54-year old??The fact of the matter is, it she didn't want to marry the prophet, she was under no obligation to do so. There are many hadiths which prove that they had a very happy marriage0 -
But you are missing the point. We are discussing the fact that a cleric IS condoning child abuse.
Just because he is a cleric doesn't mean that he cannot be corrupted and wrongly interpret Islam- it's only in recent years that people in Ireland are beginning to wake up to the fact that children were abused by clergy and that everyone was turning a blind eye to it- sound familiar?!
As far as the prophet being compared to him in concerned- it is completely different. Theirs was a consenting marriage and a very happy one at that- http://muslim-responses.com/Marriage_with_Aisha/Marriage_with_Aisha_
Indeed, if Muhammad was perverted towards younger people, why would he have married Khadijah when he was 25 and she was 40? He stayed with her without any other wife until her death and he was very upset by her passing
No, and it is a violation of her rights in Islam. How many times will I have to say it? This clergyman isn't Islam incarnated as a human- he is a person with faults and an obviously very skewed and badly interpreted view of what is said in the Qur'an.So if someone rapes a child in Saudi Arabia (under the pretense of marriage) he will have the backing of a religious leader. Did this woman have that kind of backing?
For the same reason that we don't have FGM or high illiteracy rates- we've got a more developed society and a lot less poverty. Look at London for example- it has an enormous Muslim population, yet you don't see the same problems occuringAnd if this is the doing of individuals and not cultural/religious, how come it's not prevalent amongst the population here in the west?
Once again, read the post about this earlier- we're not getting into the same arguments again, because it has already been settledAre you defending the possibility of a six-year old marrying a 54-year old??
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=53084584
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055057121
The Prophet Muhammad Says {Volume 9, Book 86, Number 101} Narrated by Aisha:" It is
essential to have the consent of a virgin (for the marriage)".0 -
But how old was Ayeesha when Mohammed married her?
She was 6, he was 54 and the marriage was consummated when she was 9.
Are you saying this was consensual?
And it is relevant surely because if your prophet did it, then why shouldn't everybody else do it?
Comparing it to the case in Roscommon is ludicrous -- how can you even draw parallels between something that the HSE and the child protection service messed up and failed to act on and something that is being sanctioned by a religious cleric?
Prophet Muhammed married Ayesha with her permission after she attained puberty at the agr of 9.Puberty is a biological sign which shows that a women is capable of bearing children. Can anyone logically deny this?
This is certainly not something that Islam invented,this has been the norm of cultures and nations.Today the civilized world considers same sex marriage perfectly legal so it is no wonder the natural bilogical permission for marriage seems to belong -primitive societies.
As to his alleged old age (he was the commander in chief of his army not a shabby saint with hanging skin).You should know Prophet-s marriage to Aishah was an exceedingly happy one for both of them.If you couple this with the fact that attaining the age of puberty varies with countries and races due to the climate, hereditary, physical and social conditions, you wouldnt be asking this question.
1400 years ago , women were not playing with dolls and they were much more mature both physically and mentally.
Just check the age of British Queens few centuries back.You will see that women getting married at early age is not an anonmoly or exception. It is a norm
etoile.co.uk/Columns/Paul/060129.html
King Edward II - His wife Isabella of France was 12 at the time of marriage
King Richard II - Married the daughter of daughter of King Charles VI of France,Isabella de Valois when she was 8
King Henry III -Mariied Eleanor of Provence when she was 13
Written by MICHELLE ROBERTS, Associated Press Writer
Thursday, 10 April 2008
More than 400 children of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints were taken into state custody - in what authorities described Monday as the largest child-welfare operation in Texas history.
A church compound of polygamists was filled with sexual abuse, say child welfare officers in court documents. One man married many girls (as soon as they could have babies) some giving birth while only 10 or 11 years old.
Check the peer reviewed journal below for more details on this
questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&se=gglsc&d=98501236
....since elite women generally married around the age of puberty or even earlier.....While certain biological and even psychological aspects of human de*velopment may be universal -- although sociologists, psychologists,
and historians debate this -- A study of the lives of elite women in England and France between 1050 and 1300 illustrates this reality.0 -
It's not simply a religious issue, but a moral one. See above.
It was an immoral act, but I don't subscribe to raping children. That is why it does not embarrass me. In what way can I be responsible for her actions? We don't share the same morals (I have them, she seemingly does not).0 -
But you are missing the point. We are discussing the fact that a cleric IS condoning child abuse.
I would have to go with the earlier comment in that just because it is a Cleric condoning child abuse does not mean he speaks for all of the Islamic faith. As I understand it the Islam faith doesn't even have it's version of a pope, so his comments would have less strength.So if someone rapes a child in Saudi Arabia (under the pretense of marriage) he will have the backing of a religious leader. Did this woman have that kind of backing?
I put the main point in bold for you. The answer is probably yes they would have backing of a religious leader in Saudi Arabia. That is not reflective of muslims as a whole.Are you defending the possibility of a six-year old marrying a 54-year old??
I don't see how he said that at all.0 -
zulfikarMD wrote: »Puberty is a biological sign which shows that a women is capable of bearing children. Can anyone logically deny this?
So what you're saying is that it's perfectly natural for grown men to have sexual intercourse with girls as young as 5, so long as they're capable of bearing children? Even 3 month old infants have been known to menstruate, how about them?0 -
As I understand it the Islam faith doesn't even have it's version of a pope, so his comments would have less strength.
I think this is a point a lot of people miss. There is no organised clergy in Islam (unlike in Catholicism etc) and as such anyone can be a "cleric" and have crackpot ideas. You only need enough supporters to back an idea (however crackpot) before it gets traction. This applies across all walks of life, not just in religion..0 -
Advertisement
-
I put the main point in bold for you. The answer is probably yes they would have backing of a religious leader in Saudi Arabia. That is not reflective of muslims as a whole.
While I do agree with this, I also wouldn't underestimate the clout Saudi Arabia has. It is the birthplace of Islam and Mohammad and contains Mecca and Medina. They also hold themselves as the moral guardians of Islam, and their ways influence the ways of many.0 -
So what you're saying is that it's perfectly natural for grown men to have sexual intercourse with girls as young as 5, so long as they're capable of bearing children? Even 3 month old infants have been known to menstruate, how about them?
Please see entire text i have wrote and understand the context of it...its not only about puberty and sex by the way!0 -
zulfikarMD wrote: »Please see entire text i have wrote and understand the context of it...its not only about puberty and sex by the way!
I've read your text and don't see how I've taken you out of context.. You seem to be arguing that European monarchs have married young girls and therefore it's okay for Mohammed to do so.. I don't understand what you're trying to say, or why you think it benefits your argument by comparing a supposedly divine individual with some of the most morally corrupt people this world has produced..
If Aisha was five years old (like Lina Medina), would Mohammed have been within his moral right to have sexual intercourse with her (assuming he had the child's permission, and married her)?0 -
I've read(.....her)?
What he's saying is that this was 1400 years ago, and social mores were rather different then than now. Its why the majority of the muslim world would look in askance at that kind of thing now. Generaly speaking only in the most isolated parts of the developing world (not nessecarily muslim parts either) does this go on. Whereas Saudi is not strictly in those parameters, its population is for the most part cut off from outside contact.
Grabbing a few oddballs and painting them as somehow representative of the whole Islamic world seems a rather shallow approach, IMO.0 -
What he's saying is that this was 1400 years ago, and social mores were rather different then than now. Its why the majority of the muslim world would look in askance at that kind of thing now. Generaly speaking only in the most isolated parts of the developing world (not nessecarily muslim parts either) does this go on. Whereas Saudi is not strictly in those parameters, its population is for the most part cut off from outside contact.
Grabbing a few oddballs and painting them as somehow representative of the whole Islamic world seems a rather shallow approach, IMO.
I'm solely referring to Mohammed's actions with Aisha, not a few "oddballs". Yes social mores were different 1400 years ago, but the religious in this world like to see morality as an absolute and constant standard defined by their deity, and Muslim's view every action Mohammed made as right and just and as an example to be followed by all, which includes his sexual encounters with a young girl.
Muslims simply cannot admit to themselves that sexual relations between grown men and young pubescent girls are wrong, as doing so would compromise the moral authority of their "perfect" prophet..0 -
I'm confused, isn't Muhammad titled, "the perfect man"? So surely he should act in accordance to God's eternal laws, not the laws of the society he happened to grow up in? Jesus, for example, lived in a society that was violent, unequal and cruel, but preached a message of mercy, forgiveness, compassion and equality. Mohammad fought wars; Jesus forbade them. Muhammad had sex with children; Jesus said one who harms a child deserves to be drowned. Muhammad said adulterers should be killed; Jesus actively intercedes between a mob and an adulteress condemned to death. Muhammad owned slaves, for God's sake. If your the greatest person who has ever lived, it's hardly an acceptable defence to say, "Everyone else is doing it! They all said it was OK!"What he's saying is that this was 1400 years ago, and social mores were rather different then than now.0 -
I've read your text and don't see how I've taken you out of context.. You seem to be arguing that European monarchs have married young girls and therefore it's okay for Mohammed to do so.. I don't understand what you're trying to say, or why you think it benefits your argument by comparing a supposedly divine individual with some of the most morally corrupt people this world has produced..
If Aisha was five years old (like Lina Medina), would Mohammed have been within his moral right to have sexual intercourse with her (assuming he had the child's permission, and married her)?
you have mentioned in your earlier post that even 3 months old infant have menstruate but does it mean she is mature? my argument is based on maturity and puberty both.0 -
I'm confused, isn't Muhammad titled, "the perfect man"? So surely he should act in accordance to God's eternal laws, not the laws of the society he happened to grow up in? Jesus, for example, lived in a society that was violent, unequal and cruel, but preached a message of mercy, forgiveness, compassion and equality. Mohammad fought wars; Jesus forbade them. Muhammad had sex with children; Jesus said one who harms a child deserves to be drowned. Muhammad said adulterers should be killed; Jesus actively intercedes between a mob and an adulteress condemned to death. Muhammad owned slaves, for God's sake. If your the greatest person who has ever lived, it's hardly an acceptable defence to say, "Everyone else is doing it! They all said it was OK!"
Do you know history of islam? Do you know events which took place during the time of prophet and after his demise? if yes, you would argue whether Prophet was false in his action and Jesus was 100% right.0 -
zulfikarMD wrote: »you have mentioned in your earlier post that even 3 months old infant have menstruate but does it mean she is mature? my argument is based on maturity and puberty both.
Would you allow a 50 year old man to marry your own "mature" 9 year old daughter? Would you feel comfortable about such an arrangement? What if she was 7 years old with this grown up personality, what then? (Again assuming she was pubescent at such a young age)0 -
Advertisement
-
I'm solely referring to Mohammed's actions with Aisha, not a few "oddballs". Yes social mores were different 1400 years ago, but the religious in this world like to see morality as an absolute and constant standard defined by their deity, and Muslim's view every action Mohammed made as right and just and as an example to be followed by all, which includes his sexual encounters with a young girl...
Beats me, I'm an athiest. All I'm saying is that to judge that kind of thing 1,400 years ago by todays standards is a rather pointless exercise.Muslims simply cannot admit to themselves that sexual relations between grown men and young pubescent girls are wrong, as doing so would compromise the moral authority of their "perfect" prophet..
Well as the majority of them don't engage in such relations, I'd imagine the answer is rather more complex.994 wrote:I'm confused, isn't Muhammad titled, "the perfect man"? So surely he should act in accordance to God's eternal laws,(.....)!" ..
Which copy of Gods eternal laws are you going by? The Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh....?0
Advertisement