In the name of Allah (God),
I have decided to dedicate sincere and honest endeavour in helping to establish the Truth by helping to defend the good name of the last Prophet (pbuh) of Allah as well as refuting many other lies and misconceptions that are being disseminated by the insincere, wicked, deceptive, intellectually and morally bankrupted individuals as well as the ignorant individuals who all share a faulty characteristic; a blatant disregard for the Truth.
I ask Allah to purify my intentions and save me from doing any good action for self-aggrandizement, as all actions are judged by intentions. May Allah Love me, and bless this work. My message to any non-Muslim reading this is thus:
Please give Islam a chance, research it for yourself and allow Muslims and Muslim sources to be your primary resources you refer to when studying Islam rather than basing your views on agenda-motivated Islamophobic sources.
O Allah, You are Al-Wadud (The Loving)...please O Allah love me and bless all those Muslims and non-Muslims who read this.
Ameen
In the Middle Ages, getting married was easy for Christians living in western Europe...Marriage was the only acceptable place for sex and as a result Christians were allowed to marry from puberty onwards, generally seen at the time as age 12 for women and 14 for men. Parental consent was not required. When this law finally changed in England in the 18th century, the old rules still applied in Scotland [Emma Mason]
This excerpt from Dr Jonathan Brown is insightful and important for many on the internet as there are misconceptions and Islamophobic allegations swirling around the internet.
Some of the take home points:
Muslim scholars historically have forbade sex with girls who are not of physical capability to undergo it on the basis that sex could be physically harmful. Thus really, if we transfer this historical scholarship and thought, then stories of young girls dying or being harmed through sex because they weren't physically ready for it would be in contradiction with Muslim scholarly views.
If somebody did have sex with a girl who was pre-pubescent, the Shariah courts considered it despicable and censured it. It was socially condemned too thus showing that Muslim communities considered this act to be despicable.
The legacy of Prophet Muhammad's (p) marriage to Aisha (ra) is the Muslim teaching that sexual relations cannot be had with anybody not physically mature enough.
Islam, contrary to what some Islamophobic bigots may say, does not allow sex if it is physically harmful for the girl. And of course, that is an outright opposition to paedophilia (sex with prepubescent girls).
...the medieval ulama considered the point at which a girl was fit for intercourse to be too varied to be firmly legislated for. It was most appropriate for the bride, groom and the bride's guardian to determine the appropriate age for intercourse. The norm that the ulama did come to consensus on was only a general guideline: they prohibited sexual intercourse for girls 'not able to undergo it,' on the basis that otherwise sex could be physically harmful. If the groom and his wife or her guardian disagreed about her capacity for sex, a Shariah court judge would decide, perhaps after a female expert witness examined her. This was also based on the Prophet's marriage to Aisha. The couple had concluded the marriage contract when Aisha was only six but waited to consummate the marriage until she reached physical maturity. In the case of the Hanbali tradition followed by the Mufti of Saudi Arabia, sex was allowed when the bride was 'at the age which others like her have intercourse,' specifying nine as the norm for suitability on the basis of Aisha's Hadith. A Scottish physician resident in Aleppo in the mid 1700s noted how families endeavoured to marry their children off (i.e. complete the marriage contract) at a young age but that they would not consummate the marriage until the girl 'had come of age''. Historical evidence from nineteenth-century Ottoman Palestine suggests that the husbands having sexual intercourse with wives before they reached puberty did sometimes occur. But it was rare, condemned socially and censured by Shariah court judges. Shariah courts in French Algeria in the 1850s considered it equally despicable.
'Misquoting Muhammad', Jonathan A.C Brown, Kindle p143
Here's an important video featuring Shaikh Muhammad Salah, Dr Jonathan Brown, Hamza Yusuf, Dr Bilal Philips, Shaikh Imran Hossein and Dr Yasir Qadhi which all go towards destroying the Islamophobic claim against the idea of Aisha having reached puberty.
This excerpt from Dr Jonathan Brown is insightful and important for many on the internet as there are misconceptions and Islamophobic allegations swirling around the internet.
Some of the take home points:
Muslim scholars historically have forbade sex with girls who are not of physical capability to undergo it on the basis that sex could be physically harmful. Thus really, if we transfer this historical scholarship and thought, then stories of young girls dying or being harmed through sex because they weren't physically ready for it would be in contradiction with Muslim scholarly views.
If somebody did have sex with a girl who was pre-pubescent, the Shariah courts considered it despicable and censured it. It was socially condemned too thus showing that Muslim communities considered this act to be despicable.
The legacy of Prophet Muhammad's (p) marriage to Aisha (ra) is the Muslim teaching that sexual relations cannot be had with anybody not physically mature enough.
Islam, contrary to what some Islamophobic bigots may say, does not allow sex if it is physically harmful for the girl. And of course, that is an outright opposition to paedophilia (sex with prepubescent girls).
...the medieval ulama considered the point at which a girl was fit for intercourse to be too varied to be firmly legislated for. It was most appropriate for the bride, groom and the bride's guardian to determine the appropriate age for intercourse. The norm that the ulama did come to consensus on was only a general guideline: they prohibited sexual intercourse for girls 'not able to undergo it,' on the basis that otherwise sex could be physically harmful. If the groom and his wife or her guardian disagreed about her capacity for sex, a Shariah court judge would decide, perhaps after a female expert witness examined her. This was also based on the Prophet's marriage to Aisha. The couple had concluded the marriage contract when Aisha was only six but waited to consummate the marriage until she reached physical maturity. In the case of the Hanbali tradition followed by the Mufti of Saudi Arabia, sex was allowed when the bride was 'at the age which others like her have intercourse,' specifying nine as the norm for suitability on the basis of Aisha's Hadith. A Scottish physician resident in Aleppo in the mid 1700s noted how families endeavoured to marry their children off (i.e. complete the marriage contract) at a young age but that they would not consummate the marriage until the girl 'had come of age''. Historical evidence from nineteenth-century Ottoman Palestine suggests that the husbands having sexual intercourse with wives before they reached puberty did sometimes occur. But it was rare, condemned socially and censured by Shariah court judges. Shariah courts in French Algeria in the 1850s considered it equally despicable.
'Misquoting Muhammad', Jonathan A.C Brown, Kindle p143
Here's an important video featuring Shaikh Muhammad Salah, Dr Jonathan Brown, Hamza Yusuf, Dr Bilal Philips, Shaikh Imran Hossein and Dr Yasir Qadhi which all go towards destroying the Islamophobic claim against the idea of Aisha having reached puberty.
Jochen Katz Continues to Peddle an Internet Hoax about Surah 65:4
At this blog we have already unveiled a few sexual related hoaxes which are being peddled by rogue “Christian” missionaries on the internet; they include the “thighing girls” fabrication, the bestiality hoax and the outrageous necrophilia allegation. Well, we have another rogue “Christian” missionary (Jochen Katz) who is STILL peddling the prepubescent girls hoax – this chap is not exactly Mr Current Affairs as this hoax was denounced many moons ago by many people!
Jochen Katz, for those who are unaware is a “Christian” missionary colleague of the infamous Sam Shamoun – yes, that’s the bloke who made up his OWN Quranic Verse translation to claim Muslims “can have sex with animals”.
Thus it comes as no surprise that Jochen Katz is imputing ANOTHER fanciful sex-related claim on Islam. Katz, is not interested in convincing his audience of “Muslim sex with animals”; Katz is more interested in convincing his fanatical followers that “Muslims can have sex with prepubescent girls.
Jochen Katz is Regurgitating the Same Tired and Failed Arguments
I have denounced a couple of Jochen Katz’s colleagues in this regard in the past, yet Katz seems to be trying to slip under the radar with this outrageous claim. I guess his motto is, if at first you don’t succeed, try again!
Is Jochen Katz Wrong?
Of course Jochen Katz is wrong; I would not be surprised if he KNEW he was peddling misinformation; such is the extent of public refutation and denouncement of his colleagues in the same regard.
Can Muslims have sex with prepubescent girls?
No.
Islamic Law prohibits sex with prepubescent girls a relationship is only acceptable if the female has reached maturity [1]. According to Sharia consummation of a marriage can take place (only) AFTER maturity [1].
The classical scholar Hasan al Basri also taught one cannot do anything of an intimate (sexual) nature with a girl who has not reached puberty. See here for more information on this “sex with prepubescent girls claim” and a subsequent refutation:
Maulana Muhammad Ali in his commentary of the qu’ran comments:
These words, moreover, show that marriage should be performed at the age when a person has attained majority, for the age of marriage is spoken of as being the age of attaining majority (sourced from http://www.answering-christianity.com/karim/part_3_c.pdf)
OK, so we KNOW Jochen Katz is wrong but does Katz use any Reasoning?
Katz employs a form of warped “reasoning” on this one. He bypasses the FACT Islamic Law (Sharia) does NOT allow sex with prepubescent girls and proceeds to draw bizarre and unsupported conclusions from a Quranic Verse (65:4), here is a translation of the Verse:
And those of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the 'Iddah (prescribed period), if you have doubts (about their periods), is three months, and for those who have no courses [(i.e. they are still immature) their 'Iddah (prescribed period) is three months likewise, except in case of death]. And for those who are pregnant (whether they are divorced or their husbands are dead), their 'Iddah (prescribed period) is until they deliver (their burdens), and whosoever fears Allah and keeps his duty to Him, He will make his matter easy for him. (HilaliKhan translation of 65:4)
As you can see it is not instructing prepubescent sex – the claim of sex with prepubescent girls comes from the mind of Jochen Katz. To educate Katz and the readers further we will present an audio (by Brother Colin at the ozzycda YouTube page). This audio is more than a year old, it refutes Katz’s hoax. Somebody should have directed him to this audio before he put pen to paper – it would have saved him from looking so dated and inaccurate:
I will also put forward a link to a couple of articles which have ALREADY refuted Jochen Katz’s canard:
Sheikh Moustafa Zayed Educates Jochen Katz and those of his ilk
I will allow Sheikh Moustafa Zayed to explain (perhaps he will circumnavigate Jochen Katz’s shield of fanaticism and get through to him) and the others who cling onto this malicious polemic in attempts to demonise Prophet Muhammad, Islam and all Muslims):
The most important rule as to marriage of females as per the majority of Muslim scholars is that the female had reached puberty and that she can mentally carry the responsibility of marriage.She has to be physically and mentally able to fulfil the duties of marriage…why was the Prophet waiting to consummate the marriage for three years? The answer is simple; for Aisha to reach the acceptable combination of conditions for her to be accepted as a wife. [5]
Logic Argues Against Jochen Katz
Even the one who lacks knowledge in this regard can still realise Katz is speaking through a hole in his hat. IF Katz was correct and Muslims could have sex with prepubescent girls then we would have a history of these sexual cases which spans volumes and centuries, we would also have a very long list of scholars stating this act to be permitted; we don’t have anything of such nature. The fact that we don’t have this “history” shows Katz up for the hoaxer he is.
Bringing a Hadith and a Jesus Scholar to Educate the Merchant of Hoaxes named Jochen Katz
If Katz had done some serious study he would KNOW it is thought the Jews at the time of Jesus conducted marriages similar to their Arab brethren; that is to say that they betrothed the young girl whilst she was immature and then waited for her to attain maturity before consummating the marriage [2][3][4]
So, if this is case Jochen Katz’s “man-god” (Katz believe Jesus was both god and man at the same time) gave tacit approval to this phenomenon. Moreover in Islam once the girl has reached maturity she then decides whether to approve of the marriage, if she does then the marriage is consummated:
Allah's Apostle said, "It is essential to have the consent of a virgin (for the marriage). I said, "A virgin feels shy." The Prophet; said, "Her silence means her consent." Some people said, "If a man falls in love with an orphan slave girl or a virgin and she refuses (him) and then he makes a trick by bringing two false witnesses to testify that he has married her, and then she attains the age of puberty and agrees to marry him and the judge accepts the false witness and the husband knows that the witnesses were false ones, he may consummate his marriage." (Bukhari: Book 9: Volume 86: Hadith 101)
It is clear old Jochen Katz is looking silly; nobody of a rational disposition will view what he presented as credible – especially in the light of what has already been presented. However, I have some more egg to smear of Jochen Katz’s face – at this blog we like to be thorough and kicking a bloke whilst he is down is the norm.
Jochen Katz Makes a Song and Dance about Maududi’s Tafsir and is Deceptive to boot!
Katz quotes a snip from footnote 13 (Tafhim al-Qur'an by Maududi):
Here, one should bear in mind the fact that according to the explanations given in the Qur'an the question of the waiting period arises in respect of the women with whom marriage may have been consummated, for there is no waiting-period in case divorce is pronounced before the consummation of marriage. (Al-Ahzab: 49). Therefore, making mention of the waiting-period for the girls who have not yet menstruated, clearly proves that it is not only permissible to give away the girl in marriage at this age but it is also permissible for the husband to consummate marriage with her. Now, obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Qur'an has held as permissible
Having Realised Katz is Misinformation Central we Realise he is Dishonest
Jochen Katz is deceptive in this regard as he omits the (crucial) preceding portion of the footnote. Before quoting the entire footnote and unveiling Katz’s deceptive ways we can discuss Maududi’s Tafsir. Firstly, if Maududi claimed sex with prepubescent girls is allowed (I don’t believe he did) then he would be rejected as ALL four schools of Jurisprudence prohibit the practice. In fact the Sunnah dictates to us that contracting a marriage with a prepubescent girl prior to her attaining puberty is permissible BUT to live with and consummate the marriage (prior to maturation) is unacceptable [2], [3], [4]
Did Syed Abul A'ala Maududi Claim Sex with Prepubescent Girls is allowed?
Jochen Katz, disingenuously, gives the impression Maududi did. In defence of Maududi it would be wise to do the honest and wise action; that is to quote the ENTIRE footnote, something Katz failed to do.
However, before doing so it would be wise to state Maududi would have been well aware of the Sunnah and the four schools of Fiqh (Jurisprudence), thus it is extremely unlikely he would have claimed the Verse taught having sex with prepubescent girls is permitted
A case of context and Katz taking advantage of Ambiguity
Here is the ENTIRE footnote
They may not have menstruated as yet either because of young age, or delayed menstrual discharge as it happens in the case of some women, or because of no discharge at all throughout life which, though rare, may also be the case. In any case, the waiting-period of such a woman is the same as of the woman, who has stopped menstruation, that is three months from the time divorce was pronounced.
Here, one should bear in mind the fact that according to the explanations given in the Qur'an the question of the waiting period arises in respect of the women with whom marriage may have been consummated, for there is no waiting-period in case divorce is pronounced before the consummation of marriage. (Al-Ahzab: 49). Therefore, making mention of the waiting-period for the girls who have not yet menstruated, clearly proves that it is not only permissible to give away the girl in marriage at this age but it is also permissible for the husband to consummate marriage with her. Now, obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Qur'an has held as permissible.
The girl who is divorced in the state when she has not yet menstruated and then she starts having the menses during the waiting-period, will reckon her waiting-period from the same menstruation and her waiting-period will be reckoned just like the woman who menstruates regularly.
Do you notice the first paragraphed (conveniently omitted by Katz)? Maududi gives a number of reasons why the female may not have menstruated. So Katz, there is a context and ambiguity to the snippet you showcased.
Sadly, Katz takes advantage of the ambiguity and his partial quoting in order to suggest Maududi is speaking about sex with prepubescent girls. It is not entirely clear who Maududi was referring to, Katz does not care. One would imagine, in the light of Islamic Jurisprudence, it refers to the females who have not menstruated for OTHER reasons. Katz had access to the COMPLETE footnote yet chose not to quote it; he withheld it from his reader’s attention in order to misdirect them into his thought path.
Serious Truth Seeker?
It gets worse as Jochen Katz, if he was a serious truth seeker would have immediately ran to Maududi’s commentary of Surah 4 in order to ascertain his position on orphan maturity (see footnote 10 of his Tafsir):
Two conditions of puberty and capability have been laid down for the return of their property to the orphans. As to the application of the first condition, there is consensus among the scholars of law, but in regard to the second condition there is some difference of opinion. Imam Abu Hanifah is of the opinion that if the orphan lacks capability when he reaches the age of puberty, his guardian may wait for a maximum period of seven years, and then he must return this property to him whether he shows signs of capability or not. But Imam Abu Yusuf, Imam Muhammad and Imam Shaf'i are of the opinion that capability is a pre-requisite for .the return of his property to the orphan. Probably these latter scholars were inclined to the opinion that the case of such a person should be referred to a Muslim judge, who would himself arrange for the management of the property of the one who has not acquired capability of management.
Maududi was accepting of the fact that PUBERTY was a condition for orphans to be deemed responsible for their property, thus by the way of implication this leads us to believe Maududi would have been in line with ALL schools of Jurisprudence in saying prepubescent sex is NOT allowed.
Again, in the interest of kicking a carcass we shall look at Katz’s conclusion in some detail.
Jochen Katz’s fanciful conclusion dissected
Katz states:
Syed Abul A'ala Maududi (1903 - 1979) was a highly respected scholar of Islam. He was well aware of the criticism of child-marriages that is levelled also at Islam but he clearly says Muslims cannot reject and forbid something that the Qur'an has permitted.
The parents’ contracting a marriage of their child to a man is allowed in Sharia but sex prior to maturation is not allowed. Katz displays his ignorance and/or inconsistency as Geza Vermes taught Jews at the time of Jesus undertook a similar practice [6]. In fact it is thought Mary and Joseph had a similar union, thus Jesus gave tacit approval to such a practice. I get the feeling Katz was more interested in bashing Muslims rather than “edifying” the church. Katz gives us an insight into his debauched and troublesome thought-pattern:
In other words, the Qur'an endorses explicitly that (usually much older) Muslim men can marry eight or nine or ten year old girls, have sex with them, then divorce them and – after a waiting period of three months – other (older) Men men can marry them, and have sex with them. That would be a traumatic experience for any girl. (And, potentially, this could be repeated several times without violating Islamic law.)
Crikey! Firstly, Muslims are not allowed to have sex with prepubescent girls and the girls who have had marriages contracted to an older man do not reside with the potential husband until she has matured and then SHE gets to choose whether she wants to go ahead with the marriage or not (see the Hadith cited earlier). Thus Katz’s conclusion is far fetched and rather disturbing – he was playing to his fanatical audience in an effort to shock. He certainly has shocked us with his deceptive, inconsistent and unlearned ways. Here Katz goes on the offensive against a straw man which he wrongly perceives to be Sharia:
Certainly, this alone should be a sufficient reason to reject Sharia as the law for any country, to object strongly against the introduction of Sharia law in not traditionally Muslim countries, and for enlightened Muslims to campaign for its restriction or replacement in countries where Sharia is currently the basis of national law.
Katz has argued against sex with prepubescent girls and wrongly imputed an instruction of such a practice on Sharia. The irony is twofold; Katz is against sex with prepubescent girls, so too is the ACTUAL Sharia (not the straw man he ignorantly presents). The second bout of irony comes into play as it is thought Jesus (pbuh) gave tacit approval to such unions, it is even thought the mother of Jochen Katz’s “god-man” (he believes Prophet Jesus was god incarnate) was involved in such a union.
Irony is best served with a slice of humble pie. Jochen have a rethink. By the way; Sharia means “law” thus it is a redundancy for you to coin the term “Sharia law”. The irony continues:
However, manipulating the text to cover up what it really says is not acceptable.
Katz thinks Muslims have been “manipulating” the texts. The only ones manipulating texts are Jochen Katz and his buddies. Katz came forward with a preconceived notion that “Muslims are allowed to have sex with prepubescent girls) and he adopted desperate means in order to make this tired and refuted argument resonate with his fanatical support. Sad. It gets sadder as Katz’s colleague has made up his OWN Quranic translations in order to support his fallacious and crazed arguments in the past. Does Katz want to talk about manipulating texts with a straight face?
Genuine progress can only be made on the basis of knowledge and truth and dealing with the facts.
Oh, the irony continues to flow! Like I say, Jochen Katz’s material is old hat and he is sounding like a stuck record; I guess even his small fanatical following are tiring of his regurgitated and tired arguments.
Message to serious Christians
People like Katz should not receive any of your money; it is clear they are fellows of hate and have no regard for honesty; all the while they give the church a bad name.
Jesus would never support Katz and those of his ilk. Do not give him or his site any cash!
Message to Jochen Katz (and any Christian who is tired of “missionary” hoaxes and wants the Truth)
Jochen, this is not the way to behave. You are not behaving in a Christ-like manner. Muslims are the brothers and sisters of Jesus. Would you like to become a brother of Jesus? If yes please become a Muslim today; at the moment you are wasting your life immersed in anti-Muslim bigotry. Do not reject your Creator (the Creator of Jesus, Muhammad and all of us): http://www.ediscoverislam.com/
[1] Yasir Qahdi’s QA session in The Quran and Orientalists
[2] Explanation of Muslim by Imam Nawawi, Book of Marriage, Hadeeth 75, Vol 9, p.207 Aisha said: ‘Allah’s Messenger (pbuh) engaged me when I was six years old, and consummated the marriage when I was a girl of nine years old.’... And Malik and Shafii and Abu Hanifa said: ‘The limit for that (consummation) is her (the female’s) capability for (sexual) intercourse.’ Dawudi said: ‘And Aisha then had physically matured well indeed’.” (see muhaddith.org)
[3] Ar-Raheequl-Makhtum by Safi-ur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri, Darussalam, 2002 pg 176-177
[4] Sahih Al Bukhari 1/551, Talqih Fuhum Ahlil-Athar, p10
[5] The Lies About Muhammad, Moustafa Zayed, 2010, pg 333
[6] Jesus the Jew, by Geza Vermes, 1973, William Collins sons and Co Ltd, pages 219-222
A compilation of all the debate material concerning whether Islam allows sex with prepubescent girls.
David Wood is found wanting in this debate. Wood argues for the position that "Islam does allow sex with prepubescent girls" While Snow argues against him.
Wood had no evidence and was caught lying about Tafsir.
Snow proves from Islamic sources that Islam does not allow sex with prepubescent girls.
The debate is in chronological order, four parts.
Part 1: Wood starts the ball rolling by claiming "Islam CERTAINLY allows sex with prepubescent girls"
Part 2: Snow challenges him on this and brings evidence to show he is wrong.
Part 3: Wood is found wanting and distorts Tafsir in order to try and prove his case. He asks Snow for references concerning part 2.
Part 4: Snow delivers a devastating blow. He gives references and brings more evidence to disprove Wood. He exposes Wood's misquoting and distorting of tafseer literature and points to the fact that Wood has shown no evidence for his claim.
Quote of the debate (by Yahya Snow): "David Wood brought a pen knife to a gun fight (a very small pen knife)"
Part 1: David makes his claim. by writing:
"Islam certainly allows sex with prepubescent girls"
Part 2: Yahya Snow challenges him and disproves his claim.
Part 3: Wood Responds by bringing his own interpretation of the Quran and changing tafseer literature. Wood simply leaves himself open and Snow finishes him off in the final exchange.
Part 4: Yahya Snow ends the debate in spectacular fashion by disproving Wood with evidences, showing Wood to have no evidence for his claim and exposing the deceit and distortions which Wood presented.
Here is my earliest attempt on this subject (the material above should take priority:
An allegation by Islamophobes on the internet; they claim the Quran allows sex with pre-pubescent girls, this is a hateful and bigoted allegation that has no other intention but to demonize Muslims. By Yahya Snow
Of course this claim contains no truth and is absurd. There are abundant claims of this fallacious and hateful nature on the internet. The internet is an unregulated media which means it can be a safe-haven for all sorts of hate-mongers and aberrations; in this case their vile and unscholarly claims are directed at Muslims.
I am a student of comparative religion and it astounds me that anybody can make such sullying claims against any religion, through study you realise that all religions teach good basic morals and encourage good and just actions.
Another aspect of this bizarre claim that truly saddens me is that this ignorant claim is supported by some Christian evangelical groups on the internet. I say anybody who supports claims of this nature has nothing to do with any religion but has everything to do with the devil’s work. My message to any Christian who supports such dehumanising claims is thus; fear God, for you are working inequity.
Having condemned their actions as hateful, ignorant and as propaganda used to demonize Muslims we must do the scholarly thing and look at their claim and show it to be false in a scholarly fashion so that people who may be unsure realise that the Quran does not support pedophilia. Let us examine their claim.
They claim that the Quran, chapter 65 verse 4, allows pedophilia. The verse in question is speaking of…As their fallacious claim is hinged on this reference allow us to quote an English translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali:
65:4- Such of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the prescribed period, if ye have any doubts, is three months, and for those who have no courses (it is the same): for those who carry (life within their wombs), their period is until they deliver their burdens: and for those who fear Allah, He will make their path easy.
As you can see, the verse is actually pertaining to divorce and it is not instructing Muslims in pedophilia. One may ask how did the Islamophobes come to such a horrific allegation. Is it a totally baseless allegation or do they support it with some sort of argumentation?
Well their allegations are based on two fallacious arguments, both of which are addressed:
Their first argument:
Their allegation is in fact based on ‘those who have no courses’. They allege that this term refers to those who are still pre-pubescent. They are correct; it does refer to those who are yet to have their period. The problem here is that the islamophobic critic adds into this verse their own interpretation. They allege that this verse means that Muslims can have sex with pre-pubescent girls (paedophilia) as Muslims are allowed to conduct marriages between immature girls and men. This, of course, is their mischievous addition to the text. It may fool the one who is unversed with the context and the norms of the time in Arabia.
In Semitic communities, including Jewish communities (the community of Jesus included too) people would marry off their daughters to older men despite their daughters being immature (i.e. pre-pubescent). The girls would have to wait for maturity (ie puberty) before consummating the marriage. Of course (in Islam) once the girl has reached a mature age she decides if she wants the marriage to stand (I stress this so nobody goes away with the idea that Islam allows forced marriage). If she agrees upon it then she can consummate the marriage and live as husband and wife. The term to describe this (marrying off before maturity) would be ‘betrothal’, the most well known example of betrothal in history would be that of Mary being betrothed to Joseph, before Mary and Joseph came together for consummation (i.e. before Mary’s full maturity) she became pregnant with Jesus via immaculate conception.
This example is not given to digress but to illustrate that this did happen it is an example that Christians, Jews and Muslims can relate to. None of the communities mentioned (Islamic, Christian or Jewish) allowed sex with the girl before maturity so any accusation that disagrees with this fact is a false accusation. As we are speaking of Muslims I feel compelled to show that Islam does not allow sex with immature girls. This will be highlighted through two examples:
1. Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him) took part in this type of union too where the parents of a lady named Aisha betrothed their daughter (Aisha) to Muhammad (pbuh) and Muhammad (pbuh) and the parents of the girl waited until she had reached puberty before consummation of the marriage was allowed to take place. This is a recorded fact in history and the waiting period was roughly three years.
2. The all-encompassing example in this regard is given by looking at Islamic Law which is based on the Quran and the teachings of the last Prophet of Allah. So the bigot really should have looked at Islamic law (Jurisprudence) concerning marriage before making such an allegation. Islamic law does not allow sex with minors (both girls and boys). According to Islamic Law males can only have sexual contact with a female, if both parties are physically and mentally mature. The physical aspect refers to the maturity (having reached puberty) and mentally mature refers to somebody who is mentally capable (for example, you may have a mentally handicapped lady who has attained physical maturity but may be mentally handicapped, thus she would be deemed to be amongst those who are not eligible for marriage).
Their second argument:
The alternative argument follows a slightly different despite leading to the same allegation. The argument follows the same unscholarly skeleton as their first argument; both arguments are built on their own interpolations and interpretations into the clear text of the Quran.
In this case they bring forth another verse from the Quran (33:49) and try to impose their understanding of the verse into the previously mentioned Quranic verse (65:4); I will quote an English translation of the Quran of the new verse, 33:49-
O ye who believe! When ye marry believing women, and then divorce them before ye have touched them, no period of 'Iddat have ye to count in respect of them: so give them a present. And set them free in a handsome manner.
Just to help the reader understand an Iddah/Iddat is merely a woman's post marital waiting period (of time), this period of time must expire before she marries again. There are four wisdoms behind the Iddat period (given by Abdul-Karim Zidan, Nazarat fi ash-Shari`ah al-Islamiyyah):
1- To discern whether the woman is pregnant or not. 2- Shari`ah has ordained the period of `Iddah to avoid any confusion of lineage which may result from the woman's pressing need of marriage. 3- The period a woman spends in `Iddah whether short or otherwise sheds light on the seriousness of marriage and how far it is a sacred bond. 4- It allows the man and the woman to think twice before breaking up the family tie, especially in cases where divorce is revocable. (Source: The Kuwaiti Encyclopaedia of Fiqh)
So, in short, the Quran (33:49) teaches us that that there is no Iddat if the man did not touch the wife (i.e. he did not have sex with her). However, for the immature girl we realise she has an Iddat. One may wonder what is the benefit for an immature girl to have an Iddat. We must remember that the girl’s family would have been responsible for setting up the marriage therefore any breaking of this marriage contract would have been between the husband (and/or his family) and the family of the girl. Family ties are very important in Islam therefore an Iddat gives the two parties a period of time to reconcile. In short, emotions would be more prominent in this type of divorce as opposed to a divorce between a mature female and male.
Going back to their claim; the Islamophobe uses verse 33:49 and then suggests that the previously mentioned verse (65:4) allows sex with pre-pubescent girls as 65:4 teaches Muslims that girls who have not had puberty have an Iddat if they are divorced. This is their claim, it is not substantiated by the Quran, and nowhere does the Quran allow sex with pre-pubescent girls. The Islamophobe uses textual acrobatics and his own interpolations in order to argue for his allegation.
The Quran gives a general instruction in 33:49 but simply gives an exception in 65:4. So it is clear that girls (immature) who have been married and are divorced are afforded an Iddat despite not having had sex with her husband. These girls are immature girls who have never even lived with the husband never mind having had sex with the husband. These immature girls live with their parents/guardians until they reach maturity and only after that they can consummate the marriage if the girl agrees to the union. Contrary to the Islamophobes’ claims these girls are not allowed to have sex with the husband until they reach maturity. This is proven by the following five pieces of evidence:
The Prophet Muhammed married an immature girl and waited three years (i.e. waited for her to reach maturity before consummating the marriage, this is documented in the reference section).(1) This action of the Prophet Mohammed shows Muslims that sex with pre-pubescent girls is not allowed, this is evidenced by the fact that the Prophet Mohammed did not consummate the marriage immediately (i.e. when the girl was pre-pubescent).(4) This action scuppers the Islamophobe’s argument because the actions of the Prophet oppose their unscholarly claims.
Islamic Law is based on the Quran and the actions of the Prophet Muhammed. Islamic Law does not allow sex with pre-pubescent girls, in fact Islamic Law does not allow sex with minors (both girls and boys), and this is shown in al-Fath by Al-Hafiz ibn Hajar. According to Islamic Law males can only have sexual contact with a female, if both parties are physically and mentally mature. This is a key point as the Law is based on the Quran as well as teachings of the Prophet so if the Islamophobe was correct then Islamic Law would allow sex with pre-pubescent girls. This is not the case and pours a comprehensive refutation upon the perverted claims of the Islamophobe. (3)
No mufassireen (commentators of the Quran) or companion of the Prophet viewed the verse 65:4 as allowing sex with immature girls. The mufassireen and companions of the Prophet are authoritative sources on the Quran and if they did not deem it to allow pre-pubescent sex then it is safe to say that the Quran does not allow such a thing.
The Quran (4:6) illustrates to us quite clearly that there is an ‘age of marriage’. This is another key point as it directly opposes the claim of the Islamophobe. (2)
No non-Muslim scholar such as Karen Armstrong or W.M. Watt made such a claim, surely if they believed the Islamophobe then they would have voiced the claim.
Based on the evidence outlined above; it is clear that the Quran does not allow sex with pre-pubescent girls.
Just to put all this into perspective, the Quran, the Prophet, the companions of the Prophet, the Mufassireen, Muslims scholars, non-Muslims scholars and Islamic Law all disagree with the Islamophobe’s claim. The Islamophobe has no evidence to back up his claim; he merely has conjecture and his own perverted interpretation of the Quran. An interpretation that is in opposition to the Quran, the Prophet, the companions of the Prophet, the Mufassireen, Muslims scholars, non-Muslims scholars and Islamic Law.
So my message to the Islamopobe is thus; if you make a claim in a scholarly field then you must bring evidence to back your claim up and not conjecture and your own faulty interpretations that differ to all the authoritative interpretations and sources.
The first rule of making a positive assertion is:
‘Bring your evidence if you are truthful’
The Islamophobe is making a positive claim, therefore the burden of proof is on him, just to remind him; your own interpretation, speculation and conjecture does not constitute as evidence and nor can it be substituted for evidence. If I employed the same shoddy scholarship and deceptive argumentative approach as the Islamophobes have shown here I could state:
‘Barack Obama is from the planet Mars and his parents are Superman and Lara Croft. Because Mars is in the same solar-system as the Earth and Superman came to the planet Earth and met Lara Croft’
The questioner may ask me to prove this claim, using the Islamophobe’s argument I would merely restate my claim and interpolate a load of speculation and conjecture into the fold. Silly! The Islamophobe’s claim is also described as ‘silly’!
Their claim can be dismissed as untruthful, untrustworthy, unsubstantiated and shoddy to the extent that is an insult to the term ‘a school-boy error’.
To summarize:
The Islamophobe interpolates his own sad views into the Quran by claiming that the Quran allows sex with the pre-pubescent girl. This is dismissed as errant nonsense by all those who know about the concept of betrothal, Islamic history, Islamic scholarship, Islamic Law, the Quran, the Seerah and non-Muslim scholarship of Islam. It just goes to show that a ‘little knowledge is dangerous’, I would like to add that severely stunted knowledge coupled with a hateful agenda is even more dangerous as illustrated by the nature of the ignorant claims of the Islamophobes. W.Montgomery Watt (a Western scholar of Islam) speaks about the sexually charged critique that critics of Islam level at Islam and he suggests that men often project their own faults onto others and criticize others for what is really a more serious flaw in themselves. (5) This is food for thought for the Islamophobe as it points the finger at them. The issue of Christian clergy and abuse of children in their care and extreme evangelical Chrsitian’s ‘sexual claims’ against Islam springs to mind. This is quite apposite as a lot of anti-Islamic material originates from ‘not so loving’ evangelical Christians.
If that is not enough for the Islamophobes then nothing will suffice.
May Allah guide us all and keep us away from the trickery of the Islamophobes, may Allah also help the Islamophobes see the inequity and deception in their claims. Ameen.
References
1. Karen Armstrong, Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet, Harper San Francisco, 1992, page 157
2. Quran translation (A.Y. Ali) for 4:6-
And try orphans (as regards their intelligence) until they reach the age of marriage; if then you find sound judgement in them, release their property to them, but consume it not wastefully, and hastily fearing that they should grow up, and whoever amongst guardians is rich, he should take no wages, but if he is poor, let him have for himself what is just and reasonable (according to his work). And when you release their property to them, take witness in their presence; and Allah is All Sufficient in taking account.
3.
http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/Fatwa/ShowFatwa.php?lang=E&Id=84343&Option=FatwaId
4. http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/search/label/Accustaion%20of%20Paedophilia%20against%20the%20Prophet%20Muhammed%20%28saw%29%20Refuted
5. What Is Islam by W.Montgomery Watt, Longman Group, Second Edition, 1979, pg230
