Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله


Veteran Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Propaganda_of_the_Deed

  1. Pakistani Ambassador Riffat Masood has visited the National Library and Archives of Iran (NLAI), the library announced on Tuesday. She also held a meeting with NLAI director Ashraf Borujerdi, and ways to expand relation were discussed during the visit. Masood said that she had recently visited the Astan Qods Razavi Library and Museum in the northeastern Iranian city of Mashhad and praised the wide variety of resources preserved by the Iranian libraries. “The process of preserving rare books and documents is far from satisfactory in Pakistan’s libraries, accordingly, we need NLAI’s cooperation to improve the process,” she said. Masood announced her country’s readiness to sign a memorandum of understanding to facilitate collaboration on this issue. Borujerdi welcomed Masood’s proposal and said, “We believe that Pakistani cultural heritage belongs to all people in the world, therefore it is necessary for it to be preserved.” She said that organizing workshops and educational courses by Iranian experts in Pakistan can help improve the Pakistani librarians’ skills. NLAI deputy director Ali Zarafshan, who also attended the meeting, said that the library has organized over 20 workshops on librarianship over the past few years and added that seven Pakistani librarians attended a weeklong workshop on preservation of rare manuscripts organized at the NLAI last year. “Pakistani libraries hold many rare Persian manuscripts and documents, and this fact necessitates cooperation between Iran and Pakistan on the preservation of these valuable sources,” he noted. https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/438271/Pakistani-ambassador-visits-National-Library-and-Archives-of
  2. It becomes cringey and predictable, especially when one starts talking about "Wahabi/Salafi, Shirazi, British, MI6", as if that has anything to do with these fatwas. Such stereotypical defensive mechanisms only helps the haters.
  3. Those Tweets of his are capable of starting stock market fluctuations, wars and nuclear annihilation.
  4. Shi’I Islam takes a different approach, consistent with its own focus respecting the purpose of sex regulation. My focus here is on that subject that most preoccupies modern Shi’I jurists, which is sex between an adult man and a young girl to whom he is married. It is worth noting as an initial matter that such a marriage is possible. A paternal father or grandfather has a right of guardianship that enables him to marry his sons and daughters before they are adults. Moreover, the age at which a girl becomes an adult is quite young— specifically, nine lunar years of age, which is approximately eight years and nine months. That Shi’I jurists allow child marriages is not in and of itself particularly surprising. If the foundation of sex is not the realization of any particular value of autonomy, but the establishment of gender hierarchies and the availability of plentiful God-centered sex within the context of the nikah, then the marriage of young girls is by itself unproblematic. Of course, given her marital rights, it is important that the guardian exercising the right to marry his daughter do so with her best interests in mind. This would mean that he marry her to a respectable person with means to support her, who offers her a sufficient mahr. Thus, Shi’I jurists condition the right of the father or paternal grandfather to the absence of a corrupt purpose, and, in some cases, the perception of a benefit. They further specifically disallow marriages that seem to be contracted with unsuitable husbands, and do not permit any man in the absence of a living father or paternal grandfather (or any other direct lineal male ascendant) to marry off a minor ward, out of fear that such a guardian would not be acting in the ward’s main interest. Thus, it is not as if there are no interests to consider on the part of a young girl—it is merely that her right to exercise sexual autonomy over her own body is not one of them. Hence, if the husband is suitable, offers a mahr, has the means to support his wife, and merely happens to enjoy sex with nine-year-olds, no particular problem arises. In fact, some of the jurists go so far as to encourage marriages at such a young age, quoting two different Imams to the effect that it adds to a man’s happiness that his daughter not menstruate in his home. Modern jurists further describe as unproblematic sexual enjoyments with a child bride, including kissing, grasping with appetite, and even “thighing” (the same term as used to refer to the scriptural crime when two men engage in it). There is no minimum age for this, and Hakim goes so far as to indicate it is permissible even if the child is still nursing. Again, that some men enjoy sex with children is not a reason to deny it to them within this normative framework, so long as they engage in it in a God-centered fashion, avoid fornication, and make sure to fulfill their financial marital obligations to their wives in the process. In fact, there is some reason to permit it, precisely because otherwise men who enjoy sex with children might seek it outside of the confines of the nikah, and thereby engage in the highly impermissible act of fornication. There is one obvious problem with all of this that the jurists recognized, and this is that the penetration of a young girl could cause obvious physical harm to her. They did as a result try to take account of this. First, they declared penetration of a girl anally or vaginally to be impermissible prior to her reaching the age of nine, and there is no dispute among them on this point. The specific reason is the lack of a girl younger than this to handle such penetration.Given how generally permissive Shi’I Islam is as concerns sexual enjoyment of a wife within the nikah, the restriction is considerable. This leaves two obvious questions. First, precisely what happens to a husband who breaks this rule and penetrates his child bride before the age of nine? Second, is there any consequence if a husband causes his wife physical harm through penetration after the age of nine? As to the first, because the sole problem is not violation of autonomy, but rather the causing of physical harm, modern jurists have broadly read the ambiguous source text to conclude there is no earthly consequence to the husband’s penetration if he does not cause severe harm. In so doing, they have rejected an alternative interpretation, described by Grand Ayatollah Hakim as “majority,” denying the husband the right to have sex with his wife again as a consequence of this sin. It would be fair to point out that jurists such as Sistani indicate the sin remains even if no harm ensues. Thus, the rules seem to presume that there are believers who are willing to have sex with their wives while clothed, reciting the names of God, avoiding sex on boats, during eclipses and at the end of each month, all due to a series of rules that recommend some conduct and disfavor other conduct. Such believers are then not likely to engage in a form of sex that is not merely disfavored, but entirely prohibited. One less enamored of the rules, however—Holmes’ proverbial “bad man,” for example— might feel less constrained. In any event, there are legal consequences to a husband penetrating an underage wife if the penetration causes “ripping,” which means the combination of one of the urinal, anal or menstrual pathways with another one of them. In that case, the modern jurists take the position that, whether or not the man remains married to the girl, he must pay her what is known as blood money. In taking this position, the jurists reject alternative source text that would suggest that no such amounts are due so long as the marriage remains intact. Modern jurists are thus adopting positions subject to earlier debate that both enable sexual enjoyment on the part of husbands, but also impose financial consequences on them for doing so. The concept of blood money arises in the case of the law of retaliation, whereby, upon an intentional injury inflicted by one person onto another, the victim (or his male relatives, if he dies) has the choice to inflict a retaliatory injury on the perpetrator or to receive blood money, but not both. Within “intentional” injury is some notion of extreme recklessness, such that a person who digs a well in a public road in a manner that would ordinarily kill a person who fell in would be deemed subject to retaliation whether the purpose was to kill someone or not. However, where the perpetrator inflicted the injury as a matter of ordinary recklessness or even mistake, then retaliation is not possible, and only blood money is due. By declaring blood money due, and making no reference to the possibility of retaliation, the jurists seem to view the injury as akin to a mistake, even if a culpable one, rather than some sort of extreme recklessness. The amount the husband owes is the same amount that would be due to her relatives if he had killed her.There are various standards that can be used to measure this amount, but the most common would probably be five hundred gold dinars, equal to 2.25 kg of gold, or about US $75,000 in 2015. Other important consequences attach if the husband causes a ripping of his wife. Specifically, many of the legal effects of marriage would remain his for his life even if he chose to divorce her. Thus, he could not take four permanent wives in addition to her, she would be entitled to inherit as his wife, he could not marry her sister, and, perhaps most importantly of all to her, his obligation to support her would remain for life, even if he divorced her and she married someone else. As for sex with a girl nine lunar years or older, this constitutes no sin at all, because the girl is deemed an adult. Thus, if he causes the ripping referred to before, he need not pay blood money, as he has done no wrong, and only engaged in lawful sex. That said, the jurists plainly were aware that the harm done to the girl would effectively make it nearly impossible for her to remarry, and hence imposed upon him the same obligations as they did for the ripping of an underage girl, except for the blood money. Specifically, the legal effects of marriage, including support and a right to a portion of the inheritance, remain on the husband for life. To be clear, these obligations are not insignificant, and it would be unfair to describe them as such. The blood money is quite large—almost surely larger than any dower a husband would agree to pay except in the richest of families. Moreover, a lifelong support obligation means that the injured woman has some modicum of financial security that other women would lack, for no reason other than that the husbands of healthy women might divorce them and be free of all obligations to them after the waiting period. The jurists are thus not indifferent to physical injury that can occur to young girls if they have premature sex. What they do not seem to take into account is any other harm arising from sex with minors that requires compensation, punishment or both. This is because there is no sense that the deprivation of autonomy over the body, among the greatest forms of deprivation imaginable in the liberal consciousness, and a key pillar around which much sex regulation is based in the liberal society, is in fact a recognizable harm that demands legal recognition. The key areas of concern are not ensuring autonomy and consent, but instead, preventing acts that will cause a breakdown of gender hierarchy, the seeking of sex outside of the bounds of the nikah, and excessive licentiousness due to the unquenchable desire for sex that would lead the believers away from a God-centered moral life. The fact is that marital sex with children, unlike homosexuality or fornication, constitutes none of these, and therefore need not be prevented in such strong terms. From: Sex and the Shari'a: Defining Gender Norms and Sexual Deviancy in Shi'I Islam
  5. Not sure, however similar to Ayatullahs Sistani and Khoei, as I mentioned earlier, Khomeini issued this ruling: Tahreer al-Waseelah: مسألة 12 : لا يجوز وطء الزوجة قبل إكمال تسع سنين ، دواما كان النكاح أو منقطعا ، و أما سائر الاستمتاعات كاللمس بشهوة و الضم و التفخيذ فلا بأس بها حتى فى الرضيعة Tahreer al-Waseelah, volume 2, page 343 Issue #12: It is not permissible to have sexual intercourse (with one’s wife) before she reaches 9 years in age, be it in Nikaah (permanent marriage) or Mut’a (temporary marriage). As for all other pleasures such as lustful touch, embracing, and thighing (I.e., rubbing penis between the thighs), there is no problem in it, even if she is a suckling baby. https://www.leader.ir/ar/book/13?sn=6910
  6. I understand, however there are probably hundreds of thousands of preteen girls in rural areas across the world not finishing school, living very traditional, domestic lifestyles that have not changed much 1,000 years back and getting married. Rural Yemen, Afghanistan, India, Egypt, Sudan. Even rural Turkey and Iran this happens. Also not to mention nomadic, bedouins living on the fringe of society. If village lifestyle has changed little in a thousand years, you should see these people.
  7. I don't recall stating rulings by maraji as such. And village, rural based womenfolk, (where child marriage is higher than urban based) are really that much different? But yours is not, with your blanket assumption that women's roles and opprtunites have drastically, universally changed around the world? (They have not).
  8. That is not true, yes she is obligated to fulfil her wajib acts but also she is an adult at this age. Technically she can be married too and this does happen. Whether or not the individual is physically and mentally mature is of course another matter. Issue #8: It is not permissible to have sexual intercourse (with one’s wife) before she reaches 9 years in age, be it in Nikaah (permanent marriage) or Mut’a (temporary marriage). As for all other pleasures such as lustful touch, kissing, embracing, and thighing (I.e., rubbing penis between the thighs), there is no problem in it. [That is, there is no problem in deriving such pleasures from one’s wife before she reaches the age of 9 years.] https://www.Sistani.org/Arabic/book/16/858/ Also Ayatullah Khoei: [ 3694 ] مسألة 1 : لا يجوز وطء الزوجة قبل إكمال تسع سنين(1) حرّة كانت أو أَمة، دواماً كان النكاح أو متعة(2)، بل لا يجوز وطء المملوكة(3) والمحلّلة كذلك. http://www.al-khoei.us/books/?id=4703
  9. Sure it is about consent. But bulugh is relevant as clearly Islamic civilisation and the West differ as to when a child reaches adult accountability. Admittedly age of consent has changed over the years in the West, in some Euro countries it is 14, 15. But people's outrage in this thread is on a presupposed legislation allowing such relationships. I have not watched these videos but I am guessing they are talking about mutual, consentual relationships as opposed to going about forcibly doing it without consent. So if a 9 year old girl's wali gave his permission and she consented (and this has and does happen) then you have no issue with it?
  10. So do you disagree with maraji that a girl reaches bulugh aged 9? Not only in our fiqh but other mathabs too.
  11. But child marriage happens in Muslim socieities, especially rural ones, religiously sanctioned nikkah. Would yall be equally opposed to this and equally outraged? My point is, this is already a thing.
  12. Now I hate to be that guy, but to remind all those morally disgusted at the thought of this becoming a thing let's not forget that technically speaking a girl could be married at 9 according to fiqh as she is baligha, an adult. Also the social construct of "teenagers" is relatively new (1950s) in the big scheme of things. Before that you were either a child or an adult. In many Muslim socieities this already happens. Yemen as of present still does not even have a minimum age of consent in law. And as we know from a secular, Western perspective the Prophet's (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) marriage to Ayesha has been much scrutinised too (yes we all know the arguments and counter arguments). All I'm saying is let's not be hypocrites, I can almost imagine a bemused non Muslim reading this.
  13. A good point in the right direction has to be Al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya by the 4th Imam Ali ibn al Hussain, Zainul Abidin, al Sajjad ((عليه السلام)). Think of the emotional trauma he experienced and lived with after witnessing numerous relatives perish and be mistreated during and after Karbala. He devoted himself fully to his Lord, he had no desire for worldly power and you really sense how much he surrendered to Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) in his beautiful heart-felt supplications.
  14. That is what maraji refer to as a known fornicatress, and some do permit it, while others say it is reprehensible and rule as obligatory precaution that it is not permissable. Anyway, There are enough threads on this specific topic alone, I'm not saying anything groundbreaking here.
  15. This is perceived benefits of abstaining from consuming such meat. But we cannot speculate reasons as to the laws of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). As I said, this is hukm of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). We are commanded not to touch or eat the flesh of the swine.
  16. That's new to me. As far as I know, although there are certain health issues related to eating pork, no reason has been stipulated, rather it is hukm of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) plain and simple.
  17. Following Mohammed Hijab's current online dispute (seems to be having a few lately) with SPUBS (Salafi Publications) he posted a discussion video with a Salafi preacher Sheikh Usama Atthahabi on the topic of Salafism as a cult v Salafism as a methodology.
  18. https://www.al-Islam.org/inquiries-about-Shia-Islam-Sayyid-moustafa-al-qazwini
  • Create New...