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

A Deeper Look into the Thighing Fatwa

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

A baseless defence really with all due respect. The fact is that the scholars made such a filthy statement and fatwa. It doesn't matter how we try to explain it or if it's in theory or practice, it should never have been written as it only bring harm to the path of Ahlulbayt (as).

Quote

Ayatullah Al Muhaqqiq al Sheikh Muhammad Jamil humud Al Amili:

Thighing a baby girl/wife (Tafkheez):

Question: In the Name of Allah The Most Gracious The Most Merciful his eminence Ayatollah Al `Allamah Al Sheikh Muhammad Jamil Hammoud Al `Aamili - Long last his abundance. May the peace, bounties and blessings of Allah be upon you!

First of all, I wish from The Most High The Almighty this message of mine reaches you and that you shall be in the best of health and well being.

Secondly, while I spoke to one of my friends regarding the topic (Tafkheez) he conversed with me and began to discuss the topic being morally reprehensible and it's allowance is approximately unanimous near the contemporary Maraji` and just yet I was informed that those who speak of the opinion of permissibility of thighing a baby girl/wife is not specially Khomeini/Khameini rather it is an unanmious opinion then I was really amazed when the opinion of his eminence Sayyid Muhammad Hussaini Al Shirazi - May Allah have mercy on him - (my Marjah) was brought to my attention and he states it's permissibility and declares the absence of any obvious evidence (prohibiting it). So I halted in a state of confusion but then I corrected and declined his opinion that these are sexual practices between a married couple which are unacceptable to a sane individual and it incites repungance.

My question to you the eminent Sheikh about your opinion which reached me from the same person that you do not permit thighing a baby girl/wife basically, but my question is regarding the jurists how come they unanimously agreed on it's permissibility despite the absence of any evidence (or a definite evidence), and what evidences have they counted on, and how come this Ijma (general consensus) is upon a matter rejected by intellect outrightly?! Relate to me how come they do not condemn Tafkheez then permit Tafkheez and do they permit it dislikably for instance such as having intercourse with the wife from the back side (anus)? I request your eminence to answer in detail.

And we ask you to pray for us Mawlana and we pray to Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì to preserve you in future for the Islamic ummah.

Response;

Topic: Thighing a baby girl/wife (Tafkheez)

In the name of The High The Almighty. Praise be to Allah and Blessings be upon His Prophet and his pure Progeny peace be upon them all, Peace be upon you

I say: We indeed are extremely astonished on the claim of Ijmah (general cosensus) amongst the contemporary jurists, and it is an unwarranted claim having no reality, and lo! verily I am a jurists of this nation and we did not allow Tafkheez (Thighing) with a baby girl/wife because it is a contumelious deed and a beastly act disdained by wise men in every age and region as well as by beasts and wild creatures..!

And since the trusteeship of the trustee or the guardianship of the guardian (marriage) is only valid in case when it's in the favour of the baby girl/female and not in the interest of the guardian or the trustee and there is no advantage in it (the guardianship) regarding Tafkheez in defiance of her being incapable of Tafkheez so the case incurred is insupportive to what is being mentioned then who committed Tafkheez with a baby girl/wife and he did not attain the pleasue of takheez pertaining to penetrating her and she is deflowered then this will make him (the man) deserving of painful chastisement near the Lord of the lords and this is a unanimous matter (making a baby girl deflowered) with regards to it's prohibition and ugliness, in addition to that it will lead to the lifetime prohibition of the baby girl/wife for the one who married her (the child would become unlawful for the individual).

And Al Mirz `Ali Al Gharawi may Allah have mercy on him (the author of the famous book Al Tanqeeh fi Sharh Al `Urwatil Wuthqa) also as it appears from his expression in his treatise of Islamic laws the impremissibility of obtaining marital pleasure from a girl if she is not fit for marital pleasure along with emphasising on that the first to give a verdict of it (permissibility of Tafkheez wih a baby girl/wife) was the author of Al `Urwatil Wuthqa - Sayyid Muhammad Kazim Al Tabatabai who died in the 1337 year of Al Hijrah then after him the commentators of his book came to pass and all of them treaded on his path without lingering in this issue not even in the matter of precaution concerning woman organs onto which our noble traditions emphasize on, and there is nothing in our traditions which infers unto their claims rather the purpose of their attestations that tafkheez with a baby girl/wife is from the necessities of spousehood so if the spousehood by a marital contract is actualised to a girl the necessities of spousehood are also actualised from (the marital pleasures such as) kissing, and lustful touching and al tafkheez, it is a forbidden affair in our understanding of the traditions of the (Ahlulbayt) because the marital contract with a young girl as well as a baby girl/wife does not permit the engaged (husband) having sexual intercourse with his (baby) wife and neither tafkheez with a baby wife, so for a young girl the marital contract is verified without the completion of nine lunar years (of her age) if she is capable of this and she is perceptive to the notion of sexual intercourse but it is not correct to deflower her virginity and maidenhood provided that intercourse in a woman organ is also from the necessities of matrimony then what is the benefit of (such) a marriage when it is not verified for the husband to have sex with his wife?!

In a nutshell, there ought to be an incurred case suitable for sexual practices, as it is obligatory upon the guardian or the trustee (of a baby girl) to be faithful in their trusteeship and guardianship and it is unlawful for him (the guardian or trustee) to proceed independenly with regards to the organ of a baby girl and neither with her body making her a playhouse of tafkheez and what is beyond tafkheez from sexual acts and sexual thirst of the youth who commits tafkheez who then gets inflamed by the heat of semen and is set afire and then leaves no thigh, vagina, anus, rather any cavity in the body of a baby girl until he splits it open and burns, let alone that these acts even the beasts abhor and won't do it with their minors. (we seek refuge to Allah from the flipping out fantasies and slip of the tounge)

So are the men of religion of this day happen to be opining on the vile acts of the past and the present rather they did not even think about and imagine the people of Lot (a.s) O the Shi`a of Amirul Mu'mineen (a.s)?!!! (God) Save (His) slave `Ali `alayhi as salaam that he permits this to his Shi`a and (God) Save the jurisprudents of saintliness and piety from daring to defile the coverings of Allah by their analogies and likings!!!

Even if the (young wife) happens to be of an age deeming her fit for Tafkheez the condition is she must be having the awareness of sexual affairs concerning the matter of sexual intercourse and association for that we do not reject the saying (allowance) of Tafkheez and we do not wonder on it's practictioner but the affair of (Tafkheez with a baby girl/wife) is unacceptable legally and intellectually as we have elaborated in detail in some of our treatise(s) concerning this subject, and do not get decieved by the issue of verdicts by a group of contemporary (jurists) concerning the permissibility of tafkheez and hitherto we pronounce it's impermissibility such as others from the Imamiyyah (Twelver) jurists have also pronounced it's impermissibility like Shaheed Al Thani Al `Aamili (may Allah have mercy on him) where he prohibited all the sexual pleasures with a young girl (wife) who is not (islamically) adult yet and as Sahib Al Jawahir reported from him it includes the prohibition with regards to a baby girl/wife preferably in context of a young girl, as our classical scholars did not always began to discuss about everything, so talking about the issue - therefore - the subject (of tafkheez) does not exhibit general consensus, and even if it happens to be exhibiting general consensus it is not a legal evidence if it's not devotionally inclusive with the saying (hadith) of the Infallibles (a.s), and do not get decieved by majority for it's going be in hellfire, Allah The Almighty said ("But few of My servants are grateful!" 34:13) (" But those who have faith and work righteousness and few are they" 38:24) and remember the saying of Amirul Mu'mineen `Ali `alayhi as salaam (Truth is not recognized by men, recognize the truth then you will recognize it's people) and Allah is behind (our) intention(s), Peace be upon you.

http://aletra.org/subject.php?id=310

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
17 minutes ago, Al-Hussayni said:

A baseless defence really with all due respect. The fact is that the scholars made such a filthy statement and fatwa. It doesn't matter how we try to explain it or if it's in theory or practice, it should never have been written as it only bring harm to the path of Ahlulbayt (as).

Which parts were baseless ? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 7/8/2017 at 5:31 PM, Ali_Hussain said:

This was written by one of the brothers from the 'Exposing Tawhidi' facebook page. Scans are in the link.

EXPOSING TAWHIDI Exposing the pseudo-scholar, known as Tawhidi.

JUNE 26, 2017 by EXPOSINGTAWHIDI

Defence of Tashayyu` – Relations with minor

CONTRADICTIONS, HATRED, SECTARIANISMLEAVE A COMMENT

This post was made exclusively to defend the maraja` in the accusation of Tawhidi about ‘thighing’ and relations with a minor. Although we could write a book in defence of this issue, we will try keep it as short as possible.

Tawhidi made the false claim that the maraja` – namely al-Sayed al-Khomeini – promoted thighing or relations with a minor. Unfortunately, this is a very low blow by Tawhidi, who has stooped to this to try and promote his own agenda.

Please note, this is only in regards to the attacks on the Shia. The Sunni school attacks need to be defended by their learned as we do not have sufficient knowledge on this. Yes, even in this topic the Sunni school have certain fatwas that can be interpreted the way Tawhidi is done, however we do not defend or attack these scholars as we have not investigated their position.

What you will see as a conclusion to these discussions, is we will prove that the scholars in fact do not allow this to be done. The following will be demonstrated:

In conclusion we can say the following:

The statement Tawhidi read was not something that is to be acted upon without understanding its context and totality of the laws.The statement needs to be put along side other laws which will be mentioned, such as the `urf (societal understanding), the law of the land, the immorality it poses, the harm it may cause etc. Based upon all of this, it is clear that this would be something clearly forbidden in our day and age, and not promoted at all by our scholars, which will be soon proven.

We will now go through some important points that need to be established and explained.

Firstly, this is not something exclusive to al-Sayed al-Khomeini. In fact, many of the Shia scholars have agreed upon thisincluding Sayed Mohammed al-Shirazi and, and his brother and student Sayed Sadiq al-Shirazi (the current teacher and mentor for Tawhidi). If indeed Tawhidi was honest in his attacks, he would have attacked his own teacher first. Instead, he continues to promote him.

Secondly, this statement by al-Sayed al-Khomeini, and other scholars, is speaking in theory, and not in practice. These statements are in no way encouraging or implying that these things should be done. It is an intellectual jurisprudencial discussion. In fact, Tawhidi himself said in his lecture on taqlid and ijtihad (https://youtu.be/bejq947ciPs) that one is not supposed to act on everything that is written in the books of the scholars. Many things are mentioned in these books to say IF this were to happen, what are the rulings and consequences. This does not consider the ethical, moral, or societal restrictions and prohibitions – in which scholars would often outlaw many of these types of scenarios, as will be explained later.

Thirdly, this ruling is only if the various rules and restrictions have been considered and fulfilled. These have not been discussed in this particular ruling, but elsewhere in the book(s).

Fourth, what has been made clearly forbidden in the same paragraph Tawhidi referred to, is that any form of penetration or intercourse with a minor is forbidden.

Fifth, what was stated is that other types of pleasures are not forbidden with a minor that is married. The reason for this is not because there are any proofs – be it Qur’an or Hadith – that state that this is permissible. Rather, the scholars have concluded that there is no proof to say that it is forbidden, I.e. there is no ayah in the Qur’an or hadith that mentions this topic in specific. The hadiths only mention that there cannot be any sexual intercourse with a minor at all.

Does this mean that the scholars allow and encourage sexual relations with minors? Absolutely not. However, to be honest and consistent, they admit that there is no proof from the origins of the books that have reached us, that suggest it is outlawed.

However, they may (and will) be outlawed due to secondary reasons – which has not been mentioned in that particular paragraph that Tawhidi read out.

This was actually indirectly explained by Tawhidi himself. He spoke about smoking and how Nasir Makarim al-Shirazi (not to be confused with his teacher, Sadiq Shirazi who is from a different family) has outlawed smoking. Now, smoking has not been mentioned at all from the Qur’an or hadiths, thus – Tawhidi says that Naser Makarim al-Shirazi has “no idea about jurisprudence” because there is nothing prohibiting it. Tawhidi goes on to explain that there is another principle, however, that prohibits anything that causes harm to the body. Tawhidi says that smoking does not cause immediate harm to the body, while Makarim Shirazi believes it does. This has been explained in detailhere. It is ironic that Tawhidi claims Makarim Shirazi has no idea about jurisprudence when clearly in this topic, Tawhidi shows ignorance.

Sixth, building on above, there is a core principle in Islam: “Everything that has not been made impermissible (by the Qur’an and Hadiths), is considered permissible.” As explained earlier, there is nothing that has reached us that suggest it is not permissible. This is why when Sayed al-Kho’I (and others) mention this in their explanations, they say (لعدم الدليل على الحرمة بل لعمومات جواز الاستمتاع) or similar, which means,due to the lack of evidence of its prohibition, rather it goes back to the general [principle] of permissibility of enjoyment [with the wife].

However, as mentioned and will be explained, they are generally prohibited with a minor on secondary reasons.

Seventh, it is extremely important to note that this does not imply in anyway that it is marriage between an old man and a minor. Rather it is speaking about a marriage of a minor which may be with a young boy also. Again this is all speaking about the theory and not necessarily about it being a reality that happens. This is important as Tawhidi seems to imply that this is regarding a very old man with a baby, and also implies that this happens on a regular basis, which is not true.

Eighth, there is an established principle that if any marriage would result in harm, or immorality, then that marriage would be forbidden and void! This is discussed later.

Now, let us see what the scholars have said about this allegation that Tawhidi has mentioned. Instead of going to scholars that Tawhidi is against or hates, we will use the scholars that Tawhidi loves and respects.

The first is the nephew of Sayed Sadiq al-Shirazi, Sayed Murtadha al-Shirazi. Tawhidi often praises and speaks about him, such as here and here:

السؤال: من الذرائع التي يشنع بها علينا في أعلام العامة والنواصب ما جاء في بعض رسائل علمائنا العملية : من جواز الزواج من الرضيعة وجواز الاستمتاع بها كالتقبيل وغيره ،  فكيف نرد على هؤلاء؟ ثم ما هي الضرورة  لذكر ذلك في الرسائل العملية؟

الجواب: هذا الكلام جار في عالم  الثبوت والصحة والإمكان  لا في عالم الواقع والأفعال الخارجية فانه ليس  كل ما ذكره العلماء في كتبهم ورسائلهم وقالوا بجوازه  قد تم فعله  بالضرورة  ، بل قد يذكر للمثال أو لبيان المسألة أو غير ذلك  ، هذا من جانب.

ومن جانب آخر:  أن هذا  الزواج – على فرض وقوعه خارجاً – لا بد من أن تتوفر وتكتمل شروطه  الشرعية ، التي منها رضا ولي أمرها  مع وجود الغبطة والمصلحة لها بذلك الزواج ، فإذا كان هذا الزواج بغير رضا ولي أمرها  أو كان فيه  أذى أو مفسدة على الصغيرة  فلا يجوز ولا يصح .

ثم انه لا توجد آية أو رواية تنهى عن الزواج بالرضيعة ؛ وهذا ما أراده العلماء من ذكر هذا الكلام في هذه المسألة ، وبما أنه لا يوجد إشكال في المقام  فعلى المعترض أن يأتي بدليل يمنع ذلك إن أراد الاعتراض

Question: From the accusations that are put on us from the scholars of the general Muslims (Translator note: The Sunnis against the Shia) and those who bear enmity to the ahl al-bayt is what is within some of the jurisprudencial books of our scholars, being the permissibility of marriage with a minor and to engage in sexual relations with it, such as hugging and other things – so how do we respond to them? And what was the necessity in mentioning this in our jurisprudencial books?

Answer: This discussion takes place in the realm of establishment, validity, and contingency, and not in the realm of reality and/or practical actions. Not everything that is mentioned by the scholars in their books proving permissibility is necessarily established as something able to be acted upon. Rather, it is mentioned as an example or evidence for a point or another reason. That is from one perspective.

Another perspective is that this marriage, presuming it is even a practical thing, mustfulfill and complete the jurisprudencial conditions, from it being the acceptance of the guardian of her affairs, with the necessary condition of felicity and benefit for her (the minor) in that marriage. If it is established that this marriage does not have the acceptance of the child’s guardian, or in it there will be any harm or immorality upon the minor, then it is not permission and it (the marriage) is void.

Furthermore, there is no existence of an ayah (of the Qur’an) or narration (from the hadiths) that forbid the husband from (enjoying) the minor, and this is what the scholars desired when mentioning this discussion in that point, and since there does not exist any problem in this position, then it is upon the objector to provide evidence that prohibits it if he wishes to object.

You can find this on the official page of Sayed Murtadha al-Shirazi (here).

Unlike Tawhidi, Sayed Murtadha al-Shirazi shows some intellectual honesty and discusses the fatwa, and instead of denying and calling it barbaric etc. he shows that indeed the scholars did not encourage or give actual permissibility for this.

Another example of a scholar whom Tawhidi loves, that has spoken and defended this is Sayed [Muhammad] Sadiq al-Rohani. This Grand Ayatollah is one whom Tawhidiclaims has given him license as a religious authority. See below:

You will notice that there is no link to actually see the license. This is because Tawhidi has explained in one of the videos that he will only release them after the Grand Ayatollah dies. Why? In Tawhidi’s words, because if he releases them they will be imprisoned and tortured by the Iranian regime.

Let us assume this is correct – then there would be no doubt that Sayed [Muhammad Sadiq] al-Rohani would not defend Sayed al-Khomeini about this issue. Right? Let’s see what he has to say:

استفتاء: أود بالحقيقه الاستفسار عن مدى صحة الكلام التالي هل صحيح بأن آيت الله الخميني أباح وحلل التمتع بالرضيعه دون سن التاسعه ؟

الكلام الذي جاء في كتاب تحرير الوسيله للإمـــام ؟

جواب: بإسمه جلت أسمائه

الولي وهو الأب والجد له الولاية على إجراء العقد على الصبي والصبية مشروطاً بوجود المصلحة او عدم المفسدة، واما التمتع بالصبية قبل البلوغ بالدخول فمن المحرمات الأكيدة، وبغير الدخول فإن ترتب عليه مفسدة وضرر فلا يجوز، وأما ما في تحرير الوسيلة فتدبروا فيه، ولا أظن أن يكون السيد أفتى بجواز الدخول أو التمتع بغير الدخول مع ترتب المفسدة .

Question: Is it true what is ascribed to the Grand Ayatollah al-Khomeini in the permissibility of enjoyment of the minor that has not reached over the age of nine? It is what has been discussed in the Imams book Tahrir al-Waseelah (EXPOSING TAWHIDI NOTE: the book Tawhidi presented)

Answer: The guardian, which would be the father and/or grandfather that have guardianship over the formalities of the marriage of the minor (boy or girl), is bound by the jurisprudencial law that demands that there exists a benefit and no possibility of immorality for the ones being married.As for enjoyment with a minor before the age of maturate by penetration, then it is absolutely forbidden. As for other than penetration, then (by definition of Islamic law), if that entails immorality or harm to her, then it is not permissible. As for what is in Tahrir al-Waseelah (EXPOSING TAWHIDI NOTE: The book of Sayed al-Khomeini that Tawhidi presented), then ponder on it! I do not have any suspicion that the Sayed [al-Khomeini] would make a fatwa of penetration or enjoyment without penetration while it constitutes any sort of immorality.

You can find this statement on the official website of Sayed [Muhammad Sadiq] al-Rohani here.

Please note that [Muhammad Sadiq] al-Rohani has exactly the same statement in his books as Sayed Khomeini, and does not explain it as above – however, this shows that when we go into the details on if it can be acted upon, the answer is not as we initially read and what Tawhidi states!

If only, Tawhidi, you had the intellectual honesty as these scholars – who also have the academic knowledge to speak about these issues, unlike you.

The scholars here have clearly stated that the moral condition of that point was not discussed – while if you include the moral dilemma within it, this action would be forbidden! In fact, it is clear that even fortwo adults who want to marry, if the marriage will put either into harm or immorality then it is also forbidden!

In our day and age, the western society deems such acts as immoral and in many cases against the law. Because of this, all of our scholars, including Sayed al-Khomeini, would deem anything mentioned by Tawhidi as forbidden and outlawed.

In fact, one of the same scholars who Tawhidi mentioned, Makarim Shirazi (again not to be confused with his teacher Sayed Sadiq Shirazi, who is from another family), has clearly stated this when we personally asked him this question in 2014.

Question: For the issue of Thighing with infant (kissing and touching them after marriage, despite not age of puberty) – what is the opinion of ayatollah naser makarem? Can you also please provide reasoning? jazakallah

Answer:

If a person contracts marriage with an immature girl with the consent of her guardian, it is haram to have sexual intercourse with her before she has completed her nine years, and it is not allowed as an obligatory precaution even after she has completed her nine years if she is not ready physically.Nowadays, it is not to their advantage and it is not permissible as an obligatory precaution.

Again, as we see here, any sort of marriage that would be harmful to a female, even if she is an adult but not physically ready or capable, then it would be forbidden!

Tawhidi, why didn’t you mention all of this?

In conclusion we can say the following:

The statement Tawhidi read was not something that is to be acted upon without understanding its context and totality of the laws.The statement needs to be put along side other laws which have been mentioned, such as the `urf (societal understanding), the law of the land, the immorality it poses, the harm it may cause etc. Based upon all of this, it is clear that this would be something clearly forbidden in our day and age, and not promoted at all by our scholars as has been made clear.

The irony is he then goes on to speak about many other fatwas that “don’t make sense”, yet he was only recently promoting fatwas of his teacher and mentor Sayed Sadiq Shirazi (which he still supports and refuses to denounce) like this!!

Why didn’t you share this in your “what the fatwa” episode? lol.

Aside from all this, we may even look into other religion scriptures and books and show how certain books stated that even Prophets had young wives etc. However, this is beyond the scope of our discussion, but we wonder if Tawhidi would ever attack the other religions about their books, such as the Jews?

https://exposingtawhidi.wordpress.com/2017/06/26/defence-of-tashayyu-thighing/

Salaam brother,

Have you actually read any of the risalah or text where this is mentioned?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 7/12/2017 at 5:24 PM, shiaman14 said:

Salaam brother,

Have you actually read any of the risalah or text where this is mentioned?

مسألة 8 : لا يجوز وطء الزوجة قبل إكمال تسع سنين، دواماً كان النكاح أو منقطعاً، واما سائر الاستمتاعات كاللمس بشهوة والتقبيل والضم والتفخيذ فلا بأس بها،

http://www.Sistani.org/Arabic/book/16/858/

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 8 months later...
  • Advanced Member
On 7/16/2017 at 2:38 PM, Sumerian said:

مسألة 8 : لا يجوز وطء الزوجة قبل إكمال تسع سنين، دواماً كان النكاح أو منقطعاً، واما سائر الاستمتاعات كاللمس بشهوة والتقبيل والضم والتفخيذ فلا بأس بها،

http://www.sistani.org/arabic/book/16/858/

Wait wait wait..hold on.. Is this serious?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
10 hours ago, MohammadAli1993 said:

Wait wait wait..hold on.. Is this serious?

it is only allowed when they are couples & they are Halal to each other  but woman is under 9 years old.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I am so confused right now. I researched a little on this, and found alot of scholars relating this to the Prophet (pbuh) and his wife Aisha. From what I've read, the Prophet deems this permissible but I dont think the things I've read are reliable or even trustworthy. But i did find that Ayatoallah Khomeini said this :" Ruling # 12: It is not permission to have intercourse before (her) being 9 years old, be it in nikah (permanent marriage) or temporary marriage. And as for all other pleasures such as lustful touch, embracing, and thighing (ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺨﻴﺬ), there is no problem in it even with a suckling infant. " in  Tahreer al-Waseela vol. 2 . 

Is this actually halal?????

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Okay, apparently the Khomeini fatwa is falsifiable and wrong, but i cant find anything in relation to other shia scholars and thighing. And the matter still stands that there is tons of (sunni evidence) that suggests the Prophet (pbuh) clearly agreed with this. Does anyone have any valid unquestionable evidence to show that this is actually halal/haram in shia islam? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 4/8/2018 at 6:13 PM, Amira00 said:

Okay, apparently the Khomeini fatwa is falsifiable and wrong, but i cant find anything in relation to other shia scholars and thighing. And the matter still stands that there is tons of (sunni evidence) that suggests the Prophet (pbuh) clearly agreed with this. Does anyone have any valid unquestionable evidence to show that this is actually halal/haram in shia islam? 

Show me proof that the Fatwa was false. I'll send you a website which states that Sistanis even agreed with Thighing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 4/8/2018 at 5:59 PM, Amira00 said:

I am so confused right now. I researched a little on this, and found alot of scholars relating this to the Prophet (pbuh) and his wife Aisha. From what I've read, the Prophet deems this permissible but I dont think the things I've read are reliable or even trustworthy. But i did find that Ayatoallah Khomeini said this :" Ruling # 12: It is not permission to have intercourse before (her) being 9 years old, be it in nikah (permanent marriage) or temporary marriage. And as for all other pleasures such as lustful touch, embracing, and thighing (ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺨﻴﺬ), there is no problem in it even with a suckling infant. " in  Tahreer al-Waseela vol. 2 . 

Is this actually halal?????

If that is Halal then I'm seriously thinking those who are sitting in HIGH ranks and consider themselves as Ayatullah's are sick individuals. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Please someone who can read arabic translate this for me. 

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
 

Edited by MohammadAli1993
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 4/12/2018 at 4:44 PM, MohammadAli1993 said:

Please someone who can read Arabic translate this for me. 

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
 

That's the translation of what I posted but in Arabic: Ruling # 12: It is not permission to have intercourse before (her) being 9 years old, be it in nikah (permanent marriage) or temporary marriage. And as for all other pleasures such as lustful touch, embracing, and thighing (ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺨﻴﺬ), there is no problem in it even with a suckling infant. " in  Tahreer al-Waseela vol. 2 . 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
31 minutes ago, MohammadAli1993 said:

Show me proof that the Fatwa was false. I'll send you a website which states that Sistanis even agreed with Thighing. 

I just read in multiple sites that it's false, I'm not sure though. I haven't found any solid proof

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
31 minutes ago, MohammadAli1993 said:

Btw I don't think this is a reliable website, it's sunni (they could just want to misrepresent Shiasm or they might just be misinformed) have you found anything directly from the Ayatollah Sistani?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 minute ago, Amira00 said:

Btw I don't think this is a reliable website, it's sunni (they could just want to misrepresent Shiasm or they might just be misinformed) have you found anything directly from the Ayatollah Sistani?

No I haven't that's why I'm asking for NT someone who can read arabic to translate it. Because there are many Fatwas from different Marajas that state one can bind a Temporary contract with a girl below the age of 9. Taking pleasures from her is permissible e.g touching kissing etc but intercourse is HARAM due to her not being ready (Bodily and Mentality). 

So if one can take pleasures from a underage girl then anything is permissible other than the MAIN THING. which includes Thighing. 

Someone correct me if I'm wrong. Am I being lied to or is this actually real. Did our Maraja really permit such teachings? 

I'm very troubled 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
3 minutes ago, Mansur Bakhtiari said:

Islamic VIrtues is an anti-islamic site lol, it's kind of obvious.

Be it Islamic or anti Islamic. Can someone please translate the Arabic. Tawhidi even shows these fatwas and reads and translates them exactly to what the website has translated it to

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
4 minutes ago, Amira00 said:

I think I'll try send an email to Sistani or his management group or whatever and ask if this is actually real.

I actually think it's real but I want to be wrong. Or else..... :cry:

Edited by MohammadAli1993
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 4/12/2018 at 4:44 PM, MohammadAli1993 said:

Please someone who can read Arabic translate this for me. 

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
 

@Amira00's translation is right, it's "Ruling # 12: It is not permission to have intercourse before (her) being 9 years old, be it in nikah (permanent marriage) or temporary marriage. And as for all other pleasures such as lustful touch, embracing, and thighing (ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺨﻴﺬ), there is no problem in it even with a suckling infant." 

On 7/16/2017 at 8:38 AM, Sumerian said:

مسألة 8 : لا يجوز وطء الزوجة قبل إكمال تسع سنين، دواماً كان النكاح أو منقطعاً، واما سائر الاستمتاعات كاللمس بشهوة والتقبيل والضم والتفخيذ فلا بأس بها،

http://www.Sistani.org/Arabic/book/16/858/

Issue 8: It is not allowed to have intercourse with the wife before her being 9 years old, be it permanent marriage or temporary marriage, and as from all other pleasures such as lustful touch, embracing and thighing, there is no problem in it.

Basically the same wording.

On 7/9/2017 at 6:30 AM, Al-Hussayni said:

 Hmm, Sheikh al-Amili has some good articles and books etc but I hear some scholars criticize him. So from what I understand reading the exposing Tawhidi article vs that of Sheikh al-Amili some scholars have allowed it because of no clear prohibition while others have disallowed it because it's a vile act.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 4/12/2018 at 4:36 PM, MohammadAli1993 said:

If that is Halal then I'm seriously thinking those who are sitting in HIGH ranks and consider themselves as Ayatullah's are sick individuals. 

 

On 4/8/2018 at 11:59 AM, Amira00 said:

Is this actually halal?????

Guys, please don’t accuse them of anything , age of marriage is almost the same in all Abrahamic religions , here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_marriage

ketannah (literally meaning "little [one]") was any girl between the age of 3 years and that of 12 years plus one day;[78] she was subject to her father's authority and he could arrange a marriage for her without her agreement.[78]

rather, twelve years old is merely the age at which a girl can herself decide to get married. before that, however, her father can have her married off, without her permission.

God did not put any limitation on the age other than age of menstruation:

Qur'an 65:4

And those who no longer expect menstruation among your women - if you doubt, then their period is three months, and [also for] those who have not menstruated. And for those who are pregnant, their term is until they give birth. And whoever fears Allah - He will make for him of his matter ease.

just in Christianity they don’t have these laws because of problem with not having of “injeel” (no untouched bible).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 4/12/2018 at 10:58 PM, Arminmo said:

Guys, please don’t accuse them of anything , age of marriage is almost the same in all Abrahamic religions , here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_marriage

ketannah (literally meaning "little [one]") was any girl between the age of 3 years and that of 12 years plus one day;[78] she was subject to her father's authority and he could arrange a marriage for her without her agreement.[78]

rather, twelve years old is merely the age at which a girl can herself decide to get married. before that, however, her father can have her married off, without her permission.

God did not put any limitation on the age other than age of menstruation:

Qur'an 65:4

And those who no longer expect menstruation among your women - if you doubt, then their period is three months, and [also for] those who have not menstruated. And for those who are pregnant, their term is until they give birth. And whoever fears Allah - He will make for him of his matter ease.

just in Christianity they don’t have these laws because of problem with not having of “injeel” (no untouched bible).

Sorry brother but are you really justifying Thighing????? Marriage with children ok but seeking pleasures from them? Really 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
22 minutes ago, MohammadAli1993 said:

Marriage with children ok but seeking pleasures from them?

You do marry someone just to go library everyday with her or pleasure also exist in it?!

Edited by Arminmo
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

America's child marriage problem

Child brides in USA

4 years girl marriage with 32 years old man

https://youtu.be/QeO4QdRDLow

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
22 minutes ago, Arminmo said:
45 minutes ago, MohammadAli1993 said:

from them?

You do marry someone just to go library everyday with her or pleasure also exist in it?!

Edited 21 minutes ago by Arminmo

What is has contradiction with Rational thinking & Quran is prohibited in shia islam so we can't rely on a weak hadith or bad understanding of a Fatwa because Maraji are fallible persons so sometimes they may be make mistake.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
4 minutes ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

What is has contradiction with Rational thinking & Quran is prohibited in shia islam so we can't rely on a weak hadith or bad understanding of a Fatwa because Maraji are fallible persons so sometimes they may be make mistake.

Sorry bro but how on earth can you bring up such a Fatwa to begin with. What is the basis for it. And please don't bring the excuse of 'Maraja aren't Infallible so they will do mistakes' nobody ever claimed their are Infallible plus this is beyond a mistake. Its PEDOPHILIA

is this what Islam has come to? We claim to be followers of a Pure Progeny and filth like this exists? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...