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
Sign in to follow this  
Cihad

Tahrirolvasyleh

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

[Moderators Note:  This post was deleted due to the following rule.  2a) Disrespect to any Mujtahid, Marja' Taqleed, or religious authority will not be tolerated whatsoever. ]

So it is Ok to abuse men who lived with and around the prophet(saws).

But not men who lived 1400 yrs after the prophet.

May Allah Guide All of Us.

COME ON. YOUR KIDDING.

Edited by Ali Imran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aslamo 3alikum,

This should be noted that according to sunnis: Umar the second Caliph married Umme Kulthum when she was approx. 4 years old ( A child)

So, if it is ok to do that, then why to criticize Agha Khomeini?

Ali Imran: Bro. Abusing is not allowed in Islam, doesn't matter whether you are abusing 1,2,3 or those 2 ladies ..

Cursing is something else...

ma'salama

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

salam..

So it is Ok to abuse men who lived with and around the prophet(saws).

But not men who lived 1400 yrs after the prophet.

May Allah Guide All of Us.

cursing or praising doesnt depend on the era ,period or the people around whome a person lived . It depends on his personal deeds..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This should be noted that according to sunnis: Umar the second Caliph married Umme Kulthum when she was approx. 4 years old ( A child)

So, if it is ok to do that, then why to criticize Agha Khomeini?

Salamon Alaykom,

From the beginning of this thread I made it clear that I don't mean to criticise Khomeini and to me these are Feqhi issues with no relation to Shia-mainstream debate.

However to sort out some facts:

1. If we are to go with the opinion of the mainstream Muslims then Umme Kolthum was 11 when married with Omar in 17 AH. She was born in 6 AH.

The idea that she was 4, is in fact the Shia argument as a basis to falsify such event.

Of course we cannot take benefit from both the above, if she was marreid with Omar then she was 11, if she was 4 at that time then she wasn't married.

2. I think the main problem on this issue in Tahrir. is not between Shia and manstream, it is between Islam and anti-Islamic groups.

Student

Edited by Student

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AsSalaamu Alaykum

Br. noted "This should be noted that according to sunnis: Umar the second Caliph married Umme Kulthum when she was approx. 4 years old ( A child)"

Info for our Sunni Br/sis

http://www.emamreza.net/eng/lib/ency/chapter5.a/6.htm

Who was Umm Kulthum the wife of Umar?

Fact 1

* Sunni Historical evidence shows that the marriage of Umm Kulthum and Umar

took place in the year 17 Hijri when Umm Kulthum was 5 or 4 years of age.

This would put her date of birth to 12 or 13 Hijri.

Sunni references :

- History of Abul Fida, vol I p 171

- al Farooq by Shibli Numani, vol II p 539

* Historical evidences show that Hazrat Fatima ( May Allah bless her )

passed away 6 month after the demise of his father, and thus her date of

death was in the year 11 Hijri, and that Umm Kulthum were born in the

year 9 Hijri.

Sunni reference: Sahih al-Bukhari, Arabic-English Version, Tardition 5.546

Shia reference: Anwarul Hussania, v3, p39

Then how is it possible for Umm Kulthum to be born after the death of

Hazrat Fatima (as) if the Sunnis claim that she was married to Omar in the

year 17 Hijri at an age of 4 or 5 years, that would put the date of birth

as 12 or 13 Hijri, which is long after the death of her mother?!

Fact 2

* Sunni historical evidence shows that Umm Kulthum (the wife of Umar) died

before 50 Hijri, since Imam Hasan (as), Abdullah ibn Umar and Sa'ad bin

Abi Waqs offered the funeral prayers. Also it is worthy to note that Imam

Hasan (as) was martyred in the year 50 Hijri.

Sunni references:

- Al Istiab by Ibn Abdul Barr Volume 2 page 795

- Tareekhe Khamees vol II p 318

- History of al-Tabri vol 12 p 15

But then other references show that Hazrat Umm Kulthum ( Blessings on her,

the daughter of Imam Ali and Fatima Az Zahra ) were present in Kerballa

during the year 61 Hijri. Long after the incident of Kerballa Hazrat Zaineb

binte Ali ( blessings on her ) died, then it was that Hazrat Abdullah bin

Jafer Tayyar were married to Hazrat Umm Kulthum binte Ali ( blessings on

her ).

There is no contradiction to the fact that before Umm Kulthum binte Ali (

blessings on her ), Hazrat Zaineb ( blessings on her ) were married to

Abdullah bin Jafer ( blessings on him ). Also it is true that till the year

61 Hijri ( incident of Kerballa ) Hazrat Zaineb were alive, and that Umm

Kulthum binte Ali were married after the year 61 Hijri to Hazrat Abdullah

bin Jafer.

But where does the contradiction lie ? With respect to the first

references, the lady married to Omar by the name Umm Kulthum died in the

year before 50 Hijri, as Imam Hasan ( as ) had offered her funeral prayers.

This leaves us to believe that the Umm Kulthum married to Omar were infact

some other lady and NOT the daughter of Imam Ali (as).

Sunni references :

- Roza tul Ihbab Volume 3 page 585

- Al Bidayah wa al-Nihayah

- Tareekhe Khamees Volume 3 page 318

Fact 3

* The Sunni scholar Ibn Qutaybah in his book " al Maarif " mentioned that

all the daughters of Imam Ali(as) were married to the sons of Aqeel and

Abbas with a few exceptions, but he did NOT mention the claim that Umm

Kulthum (May Allah bless her) were married to Omar. The exceptions were

for Ummul Hasan binte Saeed and Fatima.

Sunni reference: al-Maarif, Ibn Qutaybah, p 80

For those who claim that such marriage happened; kindly answer the

following questions

- What was the age for Omar at the time of the marriage ?

- When Omar died what was the age of Umm Kulthum ?

- Could you briefly state the names of the wives of Omar?

- Could you assert to the truthfulness of the character of the

person who narrated this story ? ( I am talking about Zubair

bin Bakar ) ?

- Do you know how many children were born of Umm Kulthum

with the marriage to Omar ?

Who was this Umm Kulthum then ?

It would be appropriate to mention the other wives of Omar at this

juncture, not only during his pagan days but also after embracing Islam.

His first wife was Zainab sister of Uthman b. Mazun. His second wife

was Qariba, daughter of Ibn Umait ul Makzami, and sister of the Holy

Prophet's ( saw ) wife Umm Salma ( May Allah be pleased with her ).

She was divorced in 6 A.H after the conclusion of the Truce of

Hudaibiya. His third wife was Malaika, daughter of Jarul al Khuzai,

who was also called Umm Kulthum, also she did not embrace Islam and

was divorced in 6 A.H.

On arrival at Medinah he married Jamila, daughter of Asim b. Thabit

who was high placed Ansari and had fought at Badr. Jamila first name

was Asia which the Holy Prophet ( saw ) changed to Jamila on her

conversion to Islam. Omar divorcd her also for some unknown reason.

Omar also had other wives namely, Umm Hakim, daughter of al Harith b.

Hisham al Makhzumi, Fukhia Yamania and Atika, daughter of Zaid b. Amr

b. Nafil.

Sunni reference : Al Faruq - Volume II by Shibli Numani English Translation

Pages 340 --> 343 Chapter XIX ( His Family )

It is worthy to note that the author, Shibli Numani has easily ignored the

daughter of the first Caliph, Abu Bakr. This would explain that truly Umm

Kulthum who was married to Omar was not the daughter of Imam Ali, as the

correct historical references show, but the daughter of Abu Bakr.

It is also worthy to mention the footnotes that have been included when

Shibli Numani claims about the marriage of Umm Kulthum binte Ali ( May

Allah be well pleased with her ) in the above chapter. Here I quote it word

by word

... There was another Umm Kulthum who had been his wife but

Historians make a clear distinction between the two ...

Now as a student of History I would like to pose the following questions:

- Who is this other Umm Kulthum that has been mentioned

in the historical references ?

- Is she the same Umm Kulthum that was divorced ( Malaika

the third wife ) in 6 A.H ?

- We also know that there were ' two ' Umm Kulthum's as

Shibli Numani writes above, correct ?

- Or is she the same Umm Kulthum that is the daughter of

Abu Bakr ? If yes then why doesn't the author point out

so ? What is the clear distinction then ?

Here is the answer by from the historical documents:

After the death of Abu Bakr a daughter was born to him that was named Umm

Kulthum. Please refer to the following Sunni references to confirm this

fact.

Sunni references:

- History of al-Tabari Volume 3 page 50, Printed in Egypt

- Tareekhe Kamil Volume 3 page 121, Printed in Egypt

- Tareekhe Khamees Volume 2 page 267, Printed in Egypt

- Al-Isaba, by Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, Volume 3 page 27

Please also do bear in mind that Abu Bakr died in the year 13 A.H as

mentioned in the following Sunni book of reference

- History of the Caliphs by Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti, page 551

Translated into English by Major H. S. Barrett

This would imply that the original claim made by the first references I

gave for the age of Umm Kulthum at the time of marriage of 4 or 5 years

would stand correct. Since for Umm Kulthum binte Abu Bakr to be born in 13

A.H and married in 17 A.H would give her an age of 4 years.

Since Aisha was the elder sister of Umm Kulthum binte Abu Bakr, for this

reason Omar had sent for Umm Kulthum hand's to Aisha, and Aisha had

accepted this. Please refer to the following Sunni references

- Tareekhe Khamees Volume 2 page 267, Printed in Egypt

- Tareekhe Kamil Volume 3 page 21, Printed in Egypt

- Al Istiab by Ibn Abdul Barr Volume 2 page 795

Printed in Hyderabad Deccan

This leaves us no doubt to believe that Umm Kulthum who was the daughter of

Abu Bakr was married to Omar and not Umm Kulthum the daugher of Imam Ali

(AS) !!!

[ Apart from what I have disclosed above, there are many more discrepancies

for the claim that Umm Kulthum ( May Allah be well pleased with her ) were

married to Omar. I have not included them for the sake of brevity.]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salamon Alaykom,

Dear brother Anonymous

Thank you for the article.

I have read this article about two years ago and have also read the article in responce to that by the mainstream Muslims about a year ago.

In that article it is shown that the author of the article you pasted has misquoted from the sources at some parts and have used destorted sources at some other parts (in particular where he gives references about the age of Umme Kolthum being 4). The author then stresses that according to the mainstream the age of Umme Kolthum was 11. One needs to read the two articles to see the both sides of the coin before making his mind.

However this is not the subject of this thread and by pasting that article here in responce to your post I'm afraid the whole subject of the thread will be changed and this is not right.

Please note that the only reason I raise that point was to clarify something for the brother who was comparing the marriage of Umme Kolthum with the fatwa of Khomeini.

The brother was saying that according to the mainstream Muslims Umme Kolthum was only 4.

This is not a correct statement. A more correct statement is to say according to the Shia author of that article mainstream Muslims say that Umme Kolthum was 4.

But the Shia author is not true and the reason is discussed in details with references in that article.

The bottom line is that according to the conscious of the mainstream Muslims Umme Kolthum was 11 and therefore the comparison of the brother from the point of view of the mainstream Muslims is irrelevant.

Wassalam.

Student

Edited by Student

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salamon Alaykom,

Yes brother rest assured I have read that.

The author has provided 27 (!) objections to deny the marriage of Umme Kolthum with Omar. Reading the objections, to me by the same approach one can deny many facts: from the prophet hood of Muhammad (pbuh) to the existence of God. Actually by the same level of reasoning one can easily reject the historical events that Shia is interested in (Qadir, Kasa, etc.).

Reminds me of some of the objections that some of the Muslims make about Bible and then all of a sudden they find Christians use the same approach to object about Quran.

Ensha’Allah in future I will write something about this article. Not to prove that Umme Kolthum was married with Omar. But to show what would be the results like when people first accept an opinion and then try to justify it.

I certainly agree you, we're both adults and we can both come to our own conclusions.

HOwever as I said the subject of this thread is not about Umme Kolthum's marriage. So let's leave it here.

May Allah bless you and your respectful family.

Student

Edited by Student

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

brothers all

reminds me of an incident i narrated once before,

once when imam jaffar(as) was lecturing, he said pointing to a stick in his hand that the stick belonged to our holy prophet(pbuh&hhp)

someone prominent got up very quickly and started venerating and kissing the stick

imam jaffar(as) said look at the respect and love you have for the thing of the prophet(pbuh&hhp) which is lifeless, what about the ones which have his blood running through their veins

two lessons

not all who come to learn and are taught are the sincerest of thought and action

the imam admonished him by correcting him for he had been admonished before with regards to qiyas

conclusion

truth can never be denied or kept hidden

like the rasool(pbuh&hhp) is not noor but someone is zannoorane

ali(as) is not that important but to be associated with something of his signifies greatness

what will we come up with next?

the article so beautifully and logically dealt with the issue.

ws

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam Alaikum

This is a very long discussion, and I am not sure whether what I will write has already been mentioned, but I have noticed subject has also moved to the tale of the nikah between Umme Kulthoom and Umar.

I have just read the new article in answering-ansar.org about the nikah of Umme Kulthoom with Umar. In the ahadith Umar was meant to have 'touched' Umme-eKulthoom binte ali (a.s.) as a man does with his wife. The article quotes the following justification of Umar's actions from ibn Hajr al-Makki in 'Sawaiq', page 94:

"'Umar's actions of embracing and kissing Umme Kalthum are not haraam as she was underage and such actions are permissible as is not the case with an adolescent woman"

Whether Umme Kulthoom was underage or not is another matter, but ibn Hajr al-Makki, an authority for sunnis, has said something on the lines of what Imam Khomeini is purported to have said.

Before you sunnis get on the bandwagon and start insulting our Ulama, you should try reading what your own ulema said.

Wassalaam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's in there - the quote is provided here, I've seen similar narrations where he conjectured on matters of pre-pubescent marriage in his resalah towzih al masail. People who deny it are laymen who are disgusted by it because of their emotions, not because they saw any real proof against it...

The reference being used by the people who did that wiki is from a different print, the original is in 2 volumes and this is from the second volume (a working link was mentioned in another thread before Aliya "cleaned" it up).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can imagine every Nasibi monkey and pro-Bush Satanist jumping up and down with joy, hugging and congratulating each other, beholding baseless accusations such as this one against (the Iranian) Khomeini (ra).

The other thread that was cleaned up by sis Aliya was cleaned because it was derailed too much and I do not remember seeing a link there with your accusations about this.

However, this is the thread about the matter. So go ahead and post all links and scans here. :)

To say that Shia are hesitant of the truth is really laughable.

P.S.: I don't expect you to post authentic, believable sources btw, nor do I expect you to be able to prove it. Surprise me. @)

Edited by Ibrahim Nakhaee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's in there - the quote is provided here, I've seen similar narrations where he conjectured on matters of pre-pubescent marriage in his resalah towzih al masail. People who deny it are laymen who are disgusted by it because of their emotions, not because they saw any real proof against it...

The reference being used by the people who did that wiki is from a different print, the original is in 2 volumes and this is from the second volume (a working link was mentioned in another thread before Aliya "cleaned" it up).

(wasalam)

Yes, Sayyid Khomeini does say that, and this holds true for Sayyid Sistani etc.

For example, áÇ íÌæÒ æØÇÁ ÇáÒæÌÉ ÞÈá ÅßãÇá ÊÓÚ Óäíä æ ÃãÇ ÓÇÆÑ ÇáÅÓÊãÊÚÇÊ ßÇááãÓ ÈÔåæÉ æ ÇáÖã æ ÇáÊÝÎíÐ ÝáÇ ÈÃÓ ÈåÇ ÍÊì Ýí ÇáÑÖíÚÉ

Minhaj as-Saliheeen from Ayatullah Sayyid Ali al Sistani vol. 3, p. 10.

However, this ruling is somewhat more complex than it seems which is why I don't recommend Shi`ahs and Sunnis to jump to emotional conclusions about fiqhi issues. Firstly, Shariah is an abstract concept which involves everything Allah (swt) wants from us. The legal aspect of the Shariah is only one part of it, and what we call "fiqh" is the human effort to derive rulings, thus what we know as "islamic law" is man-made and the reason why we have so many differing rulings.

This being said, we have plenty of Shi'i ahadith that differ on what the age of puberty is. Some say 9, some say 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 etc., they differ, and Khomeini and Sistani chose 9 (I believe based on the majority opinion, i.e. ijma`). However scholars like Saanei say 13-14, and others like Muhammad Ibrahim Jannaati say it is when she is physically and mentally mature (which is judged by the girl's own family). As for the non-penetration acts before the age of 9, this ruling is derived from the fact that we have no hadiths that prohibit this. Thus since there is a principle that everything is halal unless proven haram, they permit this act (although no hadith explicitly allows this).

However, there are also some maraja', like Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi who prohibit this (he's just an example, there are other maraja who prohibit it as well). This is based on the fact that in Shi'i usul al fiqh, we have a principle of no-harm, (qa'idah-yi la zarar). And according to Shirazi, this act causes harm, thus it becomes forbidden as a primary ruling (ahkaam al-awaliyyah) meaning that it becomes prohibited universally. However, this can also be applied as a secondary ruling (ahkaam al-thanawiyyah) by followers of Khomeini and Sistani arguing that if in particular cases, this causes harm to the girl, then it becomes haram as well.

This problem is not a Shi'i one however, Sunnis also have this problem and naturally like Shias, differ amongst each other. An example of Sunni ruling is this:

"Shaf'i and Malik have said; The limit of having sex with a small girl is based upon her physical capacity to do so, and this varies from girl to girl. They never gave any specific age for this, and this is correct" (meaning that the age of when you can penetrate the girl is if you're able to physically do the act, regardless of how old she is).

Al-Majmu' Sharh al-Muhaddib vol. 19 p. 343

You can see similar stuff in Hanbali law as well, see Bada'i al-Fuwa'id of Sheikh ibn al Qayyim p. 603.

Obviously you can't universalize this to all of Sunni law, there are hundreds of different opinions out there on this issue. My point was that this is a problem in both Shii and Sunni camps, and in both camps we have more 'acceptable' rulings.

Edited by Hezbullahi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Shaf'i and Malik have said; The limit of having sex with a small girl is based upon her physical capacity to do so, and this varies from girl to girl. They never gave any specific age for this, and this is correct" (meaning that the age of when you can penetrate the girl is if you're able to physically do the act, regardless of how old she is).

Al-Majmu' Sharh al-Muhaddib vol. 19 p. 343

You've completely deprived it of context, those fatawa were mentioned about sexual acts when puberty arrives and the point being made by Imaam Nawawi (rah) was that the age of puberty, her "physical capacity", differs from girl to girl. This isn't the same as the fatawa of Khomeini and Sistani on non-penetration acts prior to puberty, this is the question of when puberty is reached since sunna' don't have nass for it being 9 or 11 or 12, etc. I don't see how you can even compare the two, while one (Khomeini-Khameni) is on the question of sexual acts prior to puberty and the other (madhahib) is on when puberty sets in.

I have not yet seen the quote from Bada'i al-Fuwa'id, but may I ask if you have? Because if you were to ask me if I had seen the quote from Khomeini, I could assure you and present the link. Yet I fear you're just blindly copying those claims without even having examined them for their truthfulness...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You've completely deprived it of context, those fatawa were mentioned about sexual acts when puberty arrives and the point being made by Imaam Nawawi (rah) was that the age of puberty, her "physical capacity", differs from girl to girl. This isn't the same as the fatawa of Khomeini and Sistani on non-penetration acts prior to puberty, this is the question of when puberty is reached since sunna' don't have nass for it being 9 or 11 or 12, etc. I don't see how you can even compare the two, while one (Khomeini-Khameni) is on the question of sexual acts prior to puberty and the other (madhahib) is on when puberty sets in.

I have not yet seen the quote from Bada'i al-Fuwa'id, but may I ask if you have? Because if you were to ask me if I had seen the quote from Khomeini, I could assure you and present the link. Yet I fear you're just blindly copying those claims without even having examined them for their truthfulness...

The ruling I quoted was just an example. The context is that, if you are able to penetrate the girl at the age of 4-5, then you can do so (depending on the girl, and the size of the guy). The context is that, as the words say, "there is no specific age for this". There is no mention of bulugh. But really, I am not here to argue about this. My point is that the ruling Khomeini, Sistani gave is popular amongst Shia and Sunni and I'm shocked that as a Sunni, you don't know this.

I can post a lot of disgusting things from Sunni books about little girls too. For example, in Bida'i al-Fawa'id: ""It was narrated by Ahmed that a man came to him that feared that he would release his water (semen) while he was fasting. Ahmed says: " What I see is that he can release the water without ruining the fast, he can masturbate using his hands or the hands of his wife, If he has a "Ammah" (i.e. slave girl) whether be it a girl or a little child, she can masturbate for him using her hands, and if she was a non-believer, he can sleep with her without releasing (his semen), if he released it in her, it becomes impermissible".

As for the other quote, this is something I had searched years ago, I'd have to go back to the original work and look for it. But really it isn't necessary, the only point I'm trying to make is that this kind of stuff about little girls is available in both shii and sunni law books. I find it unfair that you try to demonize Shias for something which the Sunni fuqaha themselves accept. Not all of course (just like amongst the Shia), but it is present.

post-4-1223888434_thumb.png

post-4-1223888445_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course you can, your brothers at Answering-Ansar have went to great lengths to post out of context narrations.

The ruling I quoted was just an example. The context is that, if you are able to penetrate the girl at the age of 4-5, then you can do so (depending on the girl, and the size of the guy). The context is that, as the words say, "there is no specific age for this". There is no mention of bulugh.

It takes guts to defend a position on a text you've never read in your life. That rubbish is definitely not the context, that particular source was used in a lecture some time ago and you've just completely ripped it out of it's context for polemical purposes. And there most certainly is mention of bulugh - the narration that was being discussed was the marriage of Bibi Aisha (ra). You've quite easily brought the tiny-print page scan from as-sharh, please do bring the page scan from the book by Nawawi (rah) if you have even an iota of honesty in your veins.

But really it isn't necessary, the only point I'm trying to make is that this kind of stuff about little girls is available in both shii and sunni law books. I find it unfair that you try to demonize Shias for something which the Sunni fuqaha themselves accept.

No, the problem is that I've personally seen the narration from Khomeini from texts which I've personally read - and this is definitely his position (as confirmed by yourself). You on the other hand borrow claims from internet apologists and pass them off as knowledge of your own. Anyways, that rivayah from Imaam Ahmed (rah) is not madhab - and doesn't comply with the statements in the earlier part of the text also from Imaam Ahmed (rah). It's funny that you want to quote Imaam Ahmed (rah) without even knowing his madhab (and the different riwayat) - in any case, I know for a fact from Hambali ulema that this statement is not madhab and the riwayah is just recorded (the same way various narrations are recorded in any book without a check for authenticity which is done by the ulema later). The proof will be if it's chain is valid and since the scan you provided doesn't give us the chain to Ahmed (rah), I will go bring the scan/link of the definiciency in that one (inshaAllah). While on the other hand, the statements from Khomeini and Khameini are accepted for their muqalids. What you're doing is taking, in one case, an out-of-context narration which you abused, and in another case, a riwayah that isn't even madhab - and has quite literally no implications for anybody (except some 12er kids online who want to laugh at Sunna').

As for the other quote, this is something I had searched years ago, I'd have to go back to the original work and look for it

Really? Funny, I wonder why I've seen it as part of a repeated campaign by 12ers long ago. And you wouldn't need to "look for it", you've mentioned the page number - shouldn't take so much time considering it's something that you yourself searched years ago.

Edited by MohammadMufti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(wasalam)

Really? Funny, I wonder why I've seen it as part of a repeated campaign by 12ers long ago. And you wouldn't need to "look for it", you've mentioned the page number - shouldn't take so much time considering it's something that you yourself searched years ago.

I just looked for the reference of my quote (which I had saved years ago) and it led me to the same scan page which I provided you with. In fact, the page number is exactly it if you check.

No, the problem is that I've personally seen the narration from Khomeini from texts which I've personally read - and this is definitely his position (as confirmed by yourself). You on the other hand borrow claims from internet apologists and pass them off as knowledge of your own. Anyways, that rivayah from Imaam Ahmed (rah) is not madhab - and doesn't comply with the statements in the earlier part of the text also from Imaam Ahmed (rah). It's funny that you want to quote Imaam Ahmed (rah) without even knowing his madhab (and the different riwayat) - in any case, I know for a fact from Hambali ulema that this statement is not madhab and the riwayah is just recorded (the same way various narrations are recorded in any book without a check for authenticity which is done by the ulema later). The proof will be if it's chain is valid and since the scan you provided doesn't give us the chain to Ahmed (rah), I will go bring the scan/link of the definiciency in that one (inshaAllah). While on the other hand, the statements from Khomeini and Khameini are accepted for their muqalids. What you're doing is taking, in one case, an out-of-context narration which you abused, and in another case, a riwayah that isn't even madhab - and has quite literally no implications for anybody (except some 12er kids online who want to laugh at Sunna').

What you just said makes absolutely no sense. This is a FIQH book, and ibn al-Qayyim is making a legal argument. If you read fiqh books, they always "narrate" what other scholars, or the prophet say in regards to an issue, and then they add little comments and the legal point is made. This isn't a hadith corpus, these are carefully selected narrations that are used to make fiqhi arguments.

If you read the bottom of it says (this is a rough translation, please correct me if I'm wrong): "And I (ibn al-Qayyim) say: the outward meaning of Ahmad is that intercourse is permissible, because he (Ahmad) made it permissible for this man to break his fast and eat. And if such a thing happens during her menstruation, intercourse is not allowed at all. If such a case happens, it is allowed for him to ejaculate (through masturbation), but not through intercourse".

If you notice, he is not refuting the hadith nor does he have a problem with it, he is just making an extra comment on Ahmad ibn Hanbal's opinion and is thus making a fiqhi argument with it which is the classical style of making islamic legal arguments (i.e. to give backing to a position, or to source it with a higher authority etc.). So your comment is really off. Secondly, just because you belong to a certain school of thought (hanafi, maliki etc.) doesn't mean that everyone within that school agrees with each other. They are distinct as a school because they use different methods of usul al-fiqh. Yes, there are certain positions that a certain school will have consensus (ijma`) on, however they tend to differ on many rulings. This is nothing bad, Shi`i ulema are the same way. But it saddens me that you as a sunni don't know this basic piece of information regarding your sect.

Anyways, I will give you an example of what Sunni fuqaha have said in regards to allowing the marriage of girls who are suckling babies, and allow kissing, snuggling, using their (the girls) hands to masturbate them, and to put their penises in between their thighs (and masturbating there) or putting it near their anus (and masturbating there but it is of course haram to penetrate there though, because you become cursed).

Here is just a little example:

ßÊÇÈ ÇáãÛäí áÇÈä ÞÏÇãÉ

ÇáÌÒÁ ÇáËÇãä _ÇáÕÝÍå120

http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/library/Books...15&ID=5563#

" æåæ ÙÇåÑ ßáÇã ÃÍãÏ , æÝí ÃßËÑ ÇáÑæÇíÇÊ Úäå , ÞÇá : ÊÓÊÈÑà , æÅä ßÇäÊ Ýí ÇáãåÏ . æÑæí Úäå Ãäå ÞÇá : Åä ßÇäÊ ÕÛíÑÉ ÈÃí ÔíÁ ÊÓÊÈÑà ÅÐÇ ßÇäÊ ÑÖíÚÉ . æÞÇá Ýí ÑæÇíÉ ÃÎÑì : ÊÓÊÈÑà ÈÍíÖÉ ÅÐÇ ßÇäÊ ããä ÊÍíÖ , æÅáÇ ÈËáÇËÉ ÃÔåÑ Åä ßÇäÊ ããä ÊæØà æÊÍÈá . ÝÙÇåÑ åÐÇ Ãäå áÇ íÌÈ ÇÓÊÈÑÇÄåÇ , æáÇ ÊÍÑã ãÈÇÔÑÊåÇ . æåÐÇ ÇÎÊíÇÑ ÇÈä ÃÈí ãæÓì , æÞæá ãÇáß , æåæ ÇáÕÍíÍ ; áÃä ÓÈÈ ÇáÅÈÇÍÉ ãÊÍÞÞ . æáíÓ Úáì ÊÍÑíãåÇ Ïáíá , ÝÅäå áÇ äÕ Ýíå , æáÇ ãÚäì äÕ ; áÃä ÊÍÑíã ãÈÇÔÑÉ ÇáßÈíÑÉ ÅäãÇ ßÇä áßæäå ÏÇÚíÇ Åáì ÇáæØÁ ÇáãÍÑã , Ãæ ÎÔíÉ Ãä Êßæä Ãã æáÏ áÛíÑå , æáÇ íÊæåã åÐÇ Ýí åÐå , ÝæÌÈ ÇáÚãá ÈãÞÊÖì ÇáÅÈÇÍÉ . ÝÃãÇ ãä íãßä æØÄåÇ , ÝáÇ ÊÍá ÞÈáÊåÇ , æáÇ ÇáÇÓÊãÊÇÚ ãäåÇ ÈãÇ Ïæä ÇáÝÑÌ ÞÈá ÇáÇÓÊÈÑÇÁ , ÅáÇ ÇáãÓÈíÉ , Úáì ÅÍÏì ÇáÑæÇíÊíä . "

----------------------------

Check out what ibn Hajar says:

ßÊÇÈ " ÝÊÍ ÇáÈÇÑí

ÈÔÑÍ ÕÍíÍ ÇáÈÎÇÑí "

http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display...m=4691&doc=

" íÌæÒ ÊÒæíÌ ÇáÕÛíÑÉ ÈÇáßÈíÑ ÅÌãÇÚÇ æáæ ßÇäÊ Ýí ÇáãåÏ"

-------------------------------------------------------

ßÊÇÈ ÝÊÍ ÇáÞÏíÑ ááÓíæØí Ýí

ÇáÌÒÁ ÇáËÇáË - ÇáÕÝÍå 457

http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/library/Books...=23&ID=1901

" æÅÐÇ ÊÒæÌ ÇáÑÌá ÕÛíÑÉ æßÈíÑÉ ÝÃÑÖÚÊ ÇáßÈíÑÉ ÇáÕÛíÑÉ ÍÑãÊÇ Úáì ÇáÒæÌ ) ; áÃäå íÕíÑ ÌÇãÚÇ Èíä ÇáÃã æÇáÈäÊ ÑÖÇÚÇ æÐáß ÍÑÇã ßÇáÌãÚ ÈíäåãÇ äÓÈÇ "

---------------------------------------------------------------

ÇáÅãÇã ÇáÚáÇãÉ ãÍíí ÇáÏíä Èä ÔÑÝ Çáäææí ÇáÏãÔÞí

- ÑæÖÉ ÇáØÇáÈíä - ÇáÌÒÁ : ( 4 ) - ÑÞã ÇáÕÝÍÉ ( 379 ) :

- ÇáËÇäíÉ : íÌæÒ æÞÝ ãÇ íÑÇÏ áÚíä ÊÓÊÝÇÏ ãäå ¡ ßÇáÇÔÌÇÑ ááËãÇÑ ¡ æÇáÍíæÇä ááÈä æÇáÕæÝ æÇáæÈÑ æÇáÈíÖ ¡ æãÇ íÑÇÏ áãäÝÚÉ ÊÓÊæÝì ãäå ¡ ßÇáÏÇÑ ¡ æÇáÇÑÖ . æáÇ íÔÊÑØ ÍÕæá ÇáãäÝÚÉ æÇáÝÇÆÏÉ Ýí ÇáÍÇá ¡ Èá íÌæÒ æÞÝ ÇáÚÈÏ æÇáÌÍÔ ÇáÕÛíÑíä ¡ æÇáÒãä ÇáÐí íÑÌì ÒæÇá ÒãÇäÊå ¡ ßãÇ íÌæÒ äßÇÍ ÇáÑÖíÚÉ.

http://www.al-eman.com/Islamlib/viewchp.as...&SW=%E6%C7%

--------------------------------------------------

- ÇÈä ÚãÑ ÇáÌÇæí ÇáÔÇÝÚí - äåÇíÉ ÇáÒíä

- ÇáÌÒÁ : ( 1 ) - ÑÞã ÇáÕÝÍÉ ( 334 ) :

- æÎÑÌ ÈÇáÊãßíä ÇáÊÇã ÇáÊãßíä ÛíÑ ÇáÊÇã ßãÇ ÅÐÇ ßÇäÊ ÕÛíÑÉ áÇ ÊØíÞ ÇáæØÁ æáæ ÊÜãÊÚ ÈÇáãÞÏãÇÊ ¡ íÞÕÏ ÈÇáãÞÏãÇÊ ÇáÃãæÑ ÊÓÈÞ ÇáæØÁ ßÇáÊÞÈíá æÇáÖã æÇáÊÝÎíÐ æÛíÑåÇ ãä ÇáÇÓÊãÊÇÚÇÊ

----------------------------------------------------

ÃÈæ ÇáãäÇÞÈ ÇáÒäÌÇäí - ÊÎÑíÌ ÇáÝÑæÚ Úáì ÇáÃÕæá

- ÇáÌÒÁ : ( 1 ) - ÑÞã ÇáÕÝÍÉ ( 192 - 193 ) :

- ãÓÃáÉ 10

ÇÎÊáÝ ÇáÚáãÇÁ Ýí ãæÑÏ ÚÞÏ ÇáäßÇÍ ãÇ åæ ÝÐåÈ ÇáÔÇÝÚí Åáì Ãä ãæÑÏå ÇáãäÇÝÚ ÃÚäí ãäÇÝÚ ÇáÈÖÚ æÇÍÊÌ Ýí Ðáß ÈÃãÑíä … æÐåÈ ÃÈæ ÍäíÝÉ Åáì Ãä ãæÑÏå ÇáÚíä ÇáãæÕæÝÉ ÈÇáÍá æÍßãå ãáß ÇáÚíä æÇÍÊÌ Ýí Ðáß ÈÃãæÑ ÃÑÈÚÉ ÃÍÏåÇ …... æËÇäíåÇ : Ãäå áæ ßÇä ÇáãÚÞæÏ Úáíå ÇáãäÇÝÚ áÜãÇ ÕÍ äßÇÍ ÇáØÝáÉ ÇáÑÖíÚÉ .

--------------------------------------

ÍÇÔíÉ ÇÈä ÚÇÈÏíä Ì 3 Õ 111 :

æÍÇÕáå Ãä Ýí ÍÑãÉ ÇáÑÖíÚÉ ÈáÈä ÇáÒäì Úáì ÇáÒÇäí æßÐÇ Úáì ÃÕæáå æÝÑæÚå ÑæÇíÊíä ßãÇ ÕÑÍ Èå ÇáÞåÓÊÇäí ÃíÖÇ æÅä ÇáÃæÌå ÑæÇíÉ ÚÏã ÇáÍÑãÉ æÅä ãÇ Ýí ÇáÎáÇÕÉ ãä ÃäåÇ áæ ÑÖÚÊ áÇ ÈáÈä ÇáÒÇäí ÊÍÑã Úáì ÇáÒÇäí ãÑÏæÏ áÃä ÇáãÓØæÑ Ýí ÇáßÊÈ ÇáãÔåæÑÉ Ãä ÇáÑÖíÚÉ ÇáÒæÌ áÇ ÊÍÑã Úáì ÇáÒæÌ ßãÇ ÊÞÏã Ýí Þæáå ØáÞ ÐÇÊ áÈä ÇáÎ ..

------------------------------------------

- ãÍãÏ Èä ÇáÔÑÈíäí - ãÛäí ÇáãÍÊÇÌ -

ÇáÌÒÁ : ( 3 ) - ÑÞã ÇáÕÝÍÉ ( 182 ) :

ÊäÈíå :

Þæáå áÇ ØÝáÇ ÞÏ íÝåã Ãäå áÇ íÔÊÑØ Ýí ÇáÒæÌÉ Ðáß Èá æØÄåÇ ãÍáá æÅä ßÇäÊ ØÝáÉ áÇ íãßä ÌãÇÚåÇ æÈå ÕÑÍ Ýí ÃÕá ÇáÑæÖÉ

-------------------------------------------------

- ÝÞå ÇáÃÓÑÉ ÇáãÓáãÉ - ÇáäßÇÍ

- ÇáÍÞæÞ ÇáÒæÌíÉ - ÇáÅÓÊãÊÇÚ æÂÏÇÈå (380)

ÑÞã ÇáÝÊæì : 23672

ÚäæÇä ÇáÝÊæì : ÍÏæÏ ÇáÇÓÊãÊÇÚ ÈÇáÒæÌÉ ÇáÕÛíÑÉ

ÊÇÑíÎ ÇáÝÊæì : 06 ÔÚÈÇä 1423

æáãÒíÏ ÇáÝÇÆÏÉ ÊÑÇÌÚ ÇáÝÊæì ÑÞã 13190 æÇáÝÊæì ÑÞã 3907

ÇáÓÄÇá

Ãåáí ÒæÌæäí ãä ÇáÕÛÑ ÕÛíÑÉ æÞÏ ÍÐÑæäí ãä ÇáÇÞÊÑÇÈ ãäåÇ ãÇåæ Íßã ÇáÔÑÚ ÈÇáäÓÈÉ áí ãÚ ÒæÌÊí åÐå æãÇ åí ÍÏæÏ ÞÖÇÆí ááÔåæÉ ãäåÇ æÔßÑÇ áßã¿

ÇáÝÊæì

ÇáÍãÏ ááå æÇáÕáÇÉ æÇáÓáÇã Úáì ÑÓæá Çááå æÚáì Âáå æÕÍÈå ÃãÇ ÈÚÏ:

ÝÅÐÇ ßÇäÊ åÐå ÇáÝÊÇÉ áÇ ÊÍÊãá ÇáæØÁ áÕÛÑåÇ¡ ÝáÇ íÌæÒ æØÄåÇ áÃäå ÈÐáß íÖÑåÇ¡ æÞÏ ÞÇá ÇáäÈí Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã " áÇ ÖÑÑ æáÇ ÖÑÇÑ " ÑæÇå ÃÍãÏ æÕÍÍå ÇáÃáÈÇäí.

æáå Ãä íÈÇÔÑåÇ¡ æíÖãåÇ æíÞÈáåÇ¡ æíäÒá Èíä ÝÎÐíåÇ¡ æíÌÊäÈ ÇáÏÈÑ áÃä ÇáæØÁ Ýíå ÍÑÇã¡ æÝÇÚáå ãáÚæä.

æáãÒíÏ ÇáÝÇÆÏÉ ÊÑÇÌÚ ÇáÝÊæì ÑÞã 13190 æÇáÝÊæì ÑÞã 3907

æÇááå ÃÚáã.

http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/Fatwa/ShowFat...;Option=FatwaId

--------------------------------------------

As you can see, this kind of stuff like marrying suckling children etc. is not restricted to Shii law, it also exists in Sunni law so please stop demonizing something which your sect accepts as well.

On a more personal level, I'd also like to kindly ask you to discuss with less hostility and name-calling, I am not here to fight with you so please keep it to a level where we can have a mutual learning experience in a friendly way.

(wasalam)

Edited by Hezbullahi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(1) In the first source you were clearly dishonest, the nature of the narration was obviously after bulugh and it was after the mention of Bibi Aisha (ra) and her reaching at age nine. If within the next few days I find the 'Arabic text, than I'll even post your clear distortion of the text for your own goals inshaAllah.

(2) In the second one (from Imaam Ahmed (rah)) you were also dishonest. It's in the section of Masturbation, "ãä ÎÇÝ Ãä ÊäÔÞ ãËÇäÊå ãä ÇáÔÈÞ Ãä ÊäÔÞ ÃäËíÇå áÍÈÓ ÇáãÇÁ Ýí Òãä ÑãÖÇä ÝÅäå íÓÊÎÑÌå ÈãÇ áÇ íÝÓÏ Õæã ÛíÑå " (which is the maslah it deals with, not child marriage...). Amma Taflah is used for slave girl (it doesn't mean she hasn't reached bulugh - context of Taflah determines it's meaning - one of the reasons tuwlaab study with their teachers and not from Answering-Ansar...) and we have from Zaad ul Maad written by Ibn Qayyim (rah) (see the section on Marriage with wives and the next one) that sexual acts are only after she is baligh (and when that is depends on the girl) - and he goes on about this after the talk on Bibi Aisha's (ra) marriage. So you took the fatwa completely out of his (rah) context.

In fact, the later part which you translated should have been the clarification for you since our ahadith record this exact same matter ("thighing" when a woman is in menstruation - not when she is underage as Khomeini/Khameini permitted). But it's only from your personal falsehood that you changed the meaning of the narration to comply with your love for pedophilia. In clear refutation of your claim, the full problem is dealt with in al Mughni

(3) As is typical of an Answering-Ansarite, you mentioned a bunch of completely irrelevent narrations and fatawa concerning early marriages. They don't matter because I never denied "íÌæÒ ÊÒæíÌ ÇáÕÛíÑÉ ÈÇáßÈíÑ ÅÌãÇÚÇ æáæ ßÇäÊ Ýí ÇáãåÏ". In fact, before your sister Aliyah "cleaned up" the thread which was causing doubts in the hearts of Shi'a because of this very same fatwa from Khomeini - I mentioned the marriage of Umar ibnul Khattab (ra) to Umm Kulthum bint 'Ali (ra) prior to her puberty. That's inconsequential - what matters here is if the Fuqaha allowed sex prior to bulugh (and they didn't) and going past your deceptive defense of this position of Khomeini/Khameini, you have no substance. There is a world of difference between a sexless marriage with a child (which was not uncommon) and pedophilia - and only a person grossly sick in the head is incapable of recognizing this difference in order to justify the later. These are useless - as Sheikh Salih al Munajjid (rah) said clearly - which ironiclly is essentially mirrored by Ibn Qayyim (rah) whom you falsely accused in 2, "áÇ íáÒã ãä ÊÒæÌ ÇáÕÛíÑÉ ÌæÇÒ æØÆåÇ ¡ Èá áÇ ÊæØà ÅáÇ ÅÐÇ ÕÇÑÊ ãÄåáÉ áÐáß º æáÐáß ÊÃÎÑ ÏÎæá ÇáäÈí Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã Úáì ÚÇÆÔÉ ÑÖí Çááå ÚäåÇ ."

On a more personal level, I'd also like to kindly ask you to discuss with less hostility and name-calling, I am not here to fight with you so please keep it to a level where we can have a mutual learning experience in a friendly way.

How can there be a mutual learning experience when you clearly have no intention to learn but to make false accusations against the fuqaha in order to defend these verdicts of your scholars? If you had qualified your statement, or not defended your false claim on Nawawi's (rah) text with such surety (though you haven't even seen the original text) - than the case could be made for a goal of "mutual learning experience in a friendly way". But you've shown that your intentions are anything but; instead, you just wanted to defend your scholars and were willing to slander mine falsely (based on your "learning" from apologists whom we've shown several times to be liars). You can sugar-coat a lie all you want, but that won't make it friendly for any rational person with enough intellect to see through it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First lame excuse was made by Mufti: "...... It was not a Madhab of Imam Ahmad of getting masturbated by small slave girl, but only a Riwayat....."

But when his lies were made clear, then came with another lame excuse: "....... Ibn Qayyim says at another place that sexual acts are only after she is baligh...."

  1. We are not interested if Ibn Qayyim at one place noted what Fiqh Fatwa was from Ahmad bin Hanbal, and what he writes at other place.
  2. Also quote complete text of Ibn Qayyim in Zaad-ul-Maad, where according to you he is denying sexual act before balugh. (You are not trustworthy and thus always good to check the original Text of Ibn Qayyim, while it may be from sexual act he is reffering only to penetration before balugh)

Any how, what Ahmad wrote that could not be denied by bringing such lame excuses. Ahmad is clear about Amma Taflah . A "Taflah" is "child" and a "Baligh" woman could never be said "Taflah" in terms of Fiqh Issues.

Edited by zainabia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First lame excuse was made by Mufti: "...... It was not a Madhab of Imam Ahmad of getting masturbated by small slave girl, but only a Riwayat....."

But when his lies were made clear, then came with another lame excuse: "....... Ibn Qayyim says at another place that sexual acts are only after she is baligh...."

  1. We are not interested if Ibn Qayyim at one place noted what Fiqh Fatwa was from Ahmad bin Hanbal, and what he writes at other place.
  2. Also quote complete text of Ibn Qayyim in Zaad-ul-Maad, where according to you he is denying sexual act before balugh. (You are not trustworthy and thus always good to check the original Text of Ibn Qayyim, while it may be from sexual act he is reffering only to penetration before balugh)

Any how, what Ahmad wrote that could not be denied by bringing such lame excuses. Ahmad is clear about Amma Taflah . A "Taflah" is "child" and a "Baligh" woman could never be said "Taflah" in terms of Fiqh Issues.

Actually I have to add here more about the Mufti's lies and "Hiding of Complete Truth".

What Ahmad wrote was: "....ÝÇä ˜Çä áÀ Çãۃ ØÝáۃ Çæ ÕÛیÑۃ ÇÓÊãÊی ÈیϪÇ...."

Mufti concealed the word "ÕÛیÑۃ

And complete translation is: "Bida'i al-Fawa'id: ""It was narrated by Ahmed that a man came to him that feared that he would release his water (semen) while he was fasting. Ahmed says: " What I see is that he can release the water without ruining the fast, he can masturbate using his hands or the hands of his wife, If he has a "Ammah" (i.e. slave girl) whether be it a girlØÝáۃ or a little child ÕÛیÑۃ , she can masturbate for him using her hands....'

And Allah's curse upon those who hide the Truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(2) In the second one (from Imaam Ahmed (rah)) you were also dishonest. It's in the section of Masturbation, "ãä ÎÇÝ Ãä ÊäÔÞ ãËÇäÊå ãä ÇáÔÈÞ Ãä ÊäÔÞ ÃäËíÇå áÍÈÓ ÇáãÇÁ Ýí Òãä ÑãÖÇä ÝÅäå íÓÊÎÑÌå ÈãÇ áÇ íÝÓÏ Õæã ÛíÑå " (which is the maslah it deals with, not child marriage...). Amma Taflah is used for slave girl (it doesn't mean she hasn't reached bulugh - context of Taflah determines it's meaning - one of the reasons tuwlaab study with their teachers and not from Answering-Ansar...) and we have from Zaad ul Maad written by Ibn Qayyim (rah) (see the section on Marriage with wives and the next one) that sexual acts are only after she is baligh (and when that is depends on the girl) - and he goes on about this after the talk on Bibi Aisha's ra.gif marriage. So you took the fatwa completely out of his (rah) context.

In fact, the later part which you translated should have been the clarification for you since our ahadith record this exact same matter ("thighing" when a woman is in menstruation - not when she is underage as Khomeini/Khameini permitted). But it's only from your personal falsehood that you changed the meaning of the narration to comply with your love for pedophilia. In clear refutation of your claim, the full problem is dealt with in al Mughni

(3) As is typical of an Answering-Ansarite, you mentioned a bunch of completely irrelevent narrations and fatawa concerning early marriages. They don't matter because I never denied "íÌæÒ ÊÒæíÌ ÇáÕÛíÑÉ ÈÇáßÈíÑ ÅÌãÇÚÇ æáæ ßÇäÊ Ýí ÇáãåÏ". In fact, before your sister Aliyah "cleaned up" the thread which was causing doubts in the hearts of Shi'a because of this very same fatwa from Khomeini - I mentioned the marriage of Umar ibnul Khattab ra.gif to Umm Kulthum bint 'Ali ra.gif prior to her puberty. That's inconsequential - what matters here is if the Fuqaha allowed sex prior to bulugh (and they didn't) and going past your deceptive defense of this position of Khomeini/Khameini, you have no substance. There is a world of difference between a sexless marriage with a child (which was not uncommon) and pedophilia - and only a person grossly sick in the head is incapable of recognizing this difference in order to justify the later. These are useless - as Sheikh Salih al Munajjid (rah) said clearly - which ironiclly is essentially mirrored by Ibn Qayyim (rah) whom you falsely accused in 2, "áÇ íáÒã ãä ÊÒæÌ ÇáÕÛíÑÉ ÌæÇÒ æØÆåÇ ¡ Èá áÇ ÊæØà ÅáÇ ÅÐÇ ÕÇÑÊ ãÄåáÉ áÐáß º æáÐáß ÊÃÎÑ ÏÎæá ÇáäÈí Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã Úáì ÚÇÆÔÉ ÑÖí Çááå ÚäåÇ ."

Firstly, my intention was not to demonstrate this passage by ibn al-Qayyim as a reference to sexual acts before puberty during marriage, it was to demonstrate that regardless of the girl being married (and in this case, a slave-girl), having a pre-pubescent (although many girls become pubescent years after the age of 9) girl masturbate a grown man whether she is 2 or 3 is allowed.

Secondly, when ibn al-Qayyim was referring to menstruation, he was referring to the wife of the man in question, and not the little slave girl. I.e., if he's too much in heat and needs to mate, he can break it by sleeping with his wife, or having a slave-girl masturbate him. If his wife, or any menstruating girl (including a female slave) is in her period (the saghirah i.e. little slave girl is excluded because she doesn't have periods), then he has to settle with her hands only as well.

Thirdly; obviously you did not read all the quotes properly and understand. Additionally, as sister zainabia showed, you omitted the word "saghirah" and kept on insisting on your stubbornness and hiding facts, or you just simply don't know the meaning of these basic words.

Anyways, here is the technical definition of one who is saghir/saghirah according to your encyclopedias and dictionaries of fiqh:

ÇáÕÛÑ:

áÛÉ: ãÃÎæÐ ãä ÕÛÑ ÕÛÑÇ: Þá ÍÌãå Ãæ ÓäÉ Ýåæ: ÕÛíÑ¡ æ ÇáÌãÚ: ÕÛÇÑ¡ æ Ýíå ÃíÖÇ: ÇáÃÕÛÑ¡ ÇÓã ÊÝÖíá¡ æ ÇáÕÛÑ ÖÏ ÇáßÈÑ¡ æ ÇáÕÛÇÑÉ ÎáÇÝ ÇáÚÙã¡ æ ÇáÕÛÇÆÑ: ãä ÕÛÑ ÇáÔíþÁ Ýåæ: ÕÛíÑ¡ æ ÌãÚå: ÕÛÇÑ.

æ ÇáÕÛíÑÉ: ÕÝÉ¡ æ ÌãÚåÇ: ÕÛÇÑ ÃíÖÇ¡ æ áÇ ÊÌãÚ ÕÛÇÆÑ ÅáÇ Ýí ÇáÐäæÈ æ ÇáÂËÇã.

æ ÇÕØáÇÍÇ: ÇáÕÛÑ: åæ æÕÝ íáÍÞ ÈÇáÅäÓÇä ãäÐ ãæáÏå Åáì ÈáæÛå ÇáÍáã.

Rough translation: al-sighar - in technical [fiqhi] terms, is the description of a human from the moment of his birth until he reaches puberty.

Source:

ãÚÌã ÇáãÕØáÍÇÊ æ ÇáÃáÝÇÙ ÇáÝÞåíÉ¡ Ìþ2¡ Õ: 370

ãÍãæÏ ÚÈÏ ÇáÑÍãÇäþ

You can also find the same definition here:

ÕöÛóÑñ ÇáÊøóÚúÑöíÝõ : 1 - ÇáÕøöÛóÑõ Ýöí ÇááøõÛóÉö : ãóÃúÎõæÐñ ãöäú ÕóÛõÑó ÕöÛóÑðÇ : Þóáøó ÍóÌúãõåõ Ãóæú Óöäøõåõ Ýóåõæó ÕóÛöíÑñ ¡ æóÇáúÌóãúÚõ : ÕöÛóÇÑñ . æóÝöíåö - ÃóíúÖðÇ - ÇáúÃóÕúÛóÑõ ÇÓúãõ ÊóÝúÖöíáò . æóÇáÕøöÛóÑõ ÖöÏøõ ÇáúßöÈóÑö ¡ æóÇáÕøõÛóÇÑóÉõ ÎöáóÇÝõ ÇáúÚöÙóãö . æóÇÕúØöáóÇÍðÇ : åõæó æóÕúÝñ íóáúÍóÞõ ÈöÇáúÅöäúÓóÇäö ãõäúÐõ ãóæúáöÏöåö Åáóì ÈõáõæÛöåö ÇáúÍõáõãó . ( ÇáúÃóáúÝóÇÙõ ÐóÇÊõ ÇáÕøöáóÉö ) : ÇáÕøöÈóÇ : 2 - íõØúáóÞõ ÇáÕøöÈóÇ Úóáóì ãóÚóÇäò ÚöÏøóÉò ãöäúåóÇ : ÇáÕøöÛóÑõ æóÇáúÍóÏóÇËóÉõ ¡ æóÇáÕøóÈöíøõ ÇáÕøóÛöíÑõ Ïõæäó

ÇáúÛõáóÇãö ¡ Ãóæú ãóäú áóãú íõÝúØóãú ÈóÚúÏõ ¡ æóÝöí áöÓóÇäö ÇáúÚóÑóÈö : ÇáÕøóÈöíøõ ãõäúÐõ æöáóÇÏóÊöåö Åáóì Ãóäú íõÝúØóãó . æóÚóáóì åóÐóÇ ÝóÇáÕøöÈóÇ ÃóÎóÕøõ ãöäú ÇáÕøöÛóÑö

http://feqh.al-islam.com/Display.asp?Mode=...amp;Diacratic=0

Edited by Hezbullahi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the definition you yourself mentioned,

ÇáÊøóÚúÑöíÝõ : 1 - ÇáÕøöÛóÑõ Ýöí ÇááøõÛóÉö : ãóÃúÎõæÐñ ãöäú ÕóÛõÑó ÕöÛóÑðÇ : Þóáøó ÍóÌúãõåõ Ãóæú Óöäøõåõ Ýóåõæó ÕóÛöíÑñ , æóÇáúÌóãúÚõ : ÕöÛóÇÑñ . æóÝöíåö - ÃóíúÖðÇ - ÇáúÃóÕúÛóÑõ ÇÓúãõ ÊóÝúÖöíáò . æóÇáÕøöÛóÑõ ÖöÏøõ ÇáúßöÈóÑö , æóÇáÕøõÛóÇÑóÉõ ÎöáóÇÝõ ÇáúÚöÙóãö . æóÇÕúØöáóÇÍðÇ : åõæó æóÕúÝñ íóáúÍóÞõ ÈöÇáúÅöäúÓóÇäö ãõäúÐõ ãóæúáöÏöåö Åáóì ÈõáõæÛöåö ÇáúÍõáõãó . ( ÇáúÃóáúÝóÇÙõ ÐóÇÊõ ÇáÕøöáóÉö )

i.e. size or age both

The meaning depends on the writter/orator's own style and the context in which they are writting, something routinely ignored by you guys while you rip narrations from sahiheen out of context as well. In the case of Ibnul Qayyim (rah), the understood meaning is petite size - when a woman is small and so (even after buloogh) sex is avoided. Doesn't mean a child...

Secondly, when ibn al-Qayyim was referring to menstruation, he was referring to the wife of the man in question, and not the little slave girl. I.e., if he's too much in heat and needs to mate, he can break it by sleeping with his wife, or having a slave-girl masturbate him. If his wife, or any menstruating girl (including a female slave) is in her period (the saghirah i.e. little slave girl is excluded because she doesn't have periods), then he has to settle with her hands only as well.

That's your own deliberate manipulation of the text. The very fact that he discusses menstruation and periods is evidence of the context which you are forced to deny in the fabricated translation you are using to defend your Khomeini/Khameini and their fatawa. This is well-known principle of both 12er [besides Khomeini/Khameini and perhaps others] and Sunna' scholars of distinguishing 2 stages before sex - balagha and also the physical ability of a baligh to have sex. These two are treated as different categories in fiqh. Something you keep ignoring with your deceptive translation.

Thirdly; obviously you did not read all the quotes properly and understand.

Hmm, let me see. I read his words in the context in which he states them, necessitating the period/menstruation for the smaller sized girl - and the context of other texts by the same author, while you rip them out of context and have to force your own interpretation on them even though you haven't a day's worth of study in our madhab under any reputable scholar or institution. You haven't even read the fiqh book in question (or the other one you quoted - and quite possibly any books of Sunna' fiqh) and yet you have the audacity to feign knowledge of the texts (in one case even to the extent that you were calling me out when you have never in your life seen the other quotation unlike me...)

First lame excuse was made by Mufti: "...... It was not a Madhab of Imam Ahmad of getting masturbated by small slave girl, but only a Riwayat....."

Kadhab, there are a hundred contradictory riwayaat from al Imaam (rah). That's why they aren't treated unless one is shown to have arjah. If you had even an ounce of understanding of our madhab, and al Imaam's (rah) own request to his students to not compile his fatawa - than you would understand why his riwayat didn't reach us (and those that did were often counter-statements)...

Secondly, I said it's not madhab, just a riwayah. Again, if you had any basic understanding of our madhahib than you would know that the muqallid only acts on what is considered madhab. There can be a hundred different positions, but the muqallid doesn't have the choice of picking which one to follow - he follows the one position (or from two or so positions) that we call "madhab". I pointed that out because even if some scholar made the error of conjecturing on a topic that common sense would've solved for them before even touching the texts - than it wouldn't be applicable to any muqallid today because that isn't the position we follow on the matter (the position that Hanbali muqallids follow from sham to gulf is that there is no sexual act with minors). I was only mentioning that because even if such a position existed (which thus-far as shown doesn't) than it would not matter and it wouldn't present harm to any innocent child. On the other hand, Khameini does have muqallids in the modern day and his fatawa concerning children ARE relevant to those children who will be put in such a situation because of him and Khomeini.

Any how, what Ahmad wrote that could not be denied by bringing such lame excuses. Ahmad is clear about Amma Taflah . A "Taflah" is "child" and a "Baligh" woman could never be said "Taflah" in terms of Fiqh Issues.

Your ignorance of colloquial use is not my problem. In fact, you go on to expose yourself because you just made your arguement on an indecent polemical basis and in the second post you said, "

And complete translation is: "Bida'i al-Fawa'id: ""It was narrated by Ahmed that a man came to him that feared that he would release his water (semen) while he was fasting. Ahmed says: " What I see is that he can release the water without ruining the fast, he can masturbate using his hands or the hands of his wife, If he has a "Ammah" (i.e. slave girl) whether be it a girlØÝáۃ or a little child ÕÛیÑۃ , she can masturbate for him using her hands....'" You shouldn't have added more, it shows your own disgusting nature and your own lying because even if we use your baatil translation - ammah tafla would need to be understood as meaning "Slave girl" and not "Slave pre-pubescent girl" so as to distinguish it from ao saghirah (i.e. la baligh child in your translation).

So you went from "Ahmad is clear about Amma Taflah . A "Taflah" is "child" and a "Baligh" woman could never be said "Taflah" in terms of Fiqh Issues." to "Mufti concealed the word "ÕÛیÑۃ ... If he has a "Ammah" (i.e. slave girl) whether be it a girlØÝáۃ or a little child ÕÛیÑۃ". lol, sad.

When I get access to the other book you cited (inshaAllah by next week) than I will expose you fully from that one as well for what you both are - inshaAllah.

Edited by MohammadMufti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You made quite a big post about the meaning of what a saghirah is,

but here is the core:

ÇáÊøóÚúÑöíÝõ : 1 - ÇáÕøöÛóÑõ Ýöí ÇááøõÛóÉö : ãóÃúÎõæÐñ ãöäú ÕóÛõÑó ÕöÛóÑðÇ : Þóáøó ÍóÌúãõåõ Ãóæú Óöäøõåõ Ýóåõæó ÕóÛöíÑñ , æóÇáúÌóãúÚõ : ÕöÛóÇÑñ . æóÝöíåö - ÃóíúÖðÇ - ÇáúÃóÕúÛóÑõ ÇÓúãõ ÊóÝúÖöíáò . æóÇáÕøöÛóÑõ ÖöÏøõ ÇáúßöÈóÑö , æóÇáÕøõÛóÇÑóÉõ ÎöáóÇÝõ ÇáúÚöÙóãö . æóÇÕúØöáóÇÍðÇ : åõæó æóÕúÝñ íóáúÍóÞõ ÈöÇáúÅöäúÓóÇäö ãõäúÐõ ãóæúáöÏöåö Åáóì ÈõáõæÛöåö ÇáúÍõáõãó . ( ÇáúÃóáúÝóÇÙõ ÐóÇÊõ ÇáÕøöáóÉö )

i.e. size or age both

The meaning depends on the writter/orator's own style and the context in which they are writting, something routinely ignored by you guys while you rip narrations from sahiheen out of context as well. In the case of Ibnul Qayyim (rah), the understood meaning is petite size - when a woman is small and so (even after buloogh) sex is avoided. Doesn't mean a child...

I quoted this in a encyclopedia of fiqh, if you actually paid attention (or knew arabic properly) you would see that when the person is talking about Þóáøó ÍóÌúãõåõ Ãóæú Óöäøõåõ Ýóåõæó ÕóÛöíÑñ it is talking about what it means in the language itself, however, when you talk about it in TECHNICAL terms in FIQH, which is when it says æóÇÕúØöáóÇÍðÇ then it has a specific meaning, and that is from birth to puberty i.e. åõæó æóÕúÝñ íóáúÍóÞõ ÈöÇáúÅöäúÓóÇäö ãõäúÐõ ãóæúáöÏöåö Åáóì ÈõáõæÛöåö ÇáúÍõáõãó

If you actually take your time and read some of those links I gave you, you will notice that under every entry, they always start with the linguistic meaning, and then they go and give you the technical legal meaning of the word. Last time I checked, ibn qayyim is talking about fiqh, and not poetry. If it was a topic other than fiqh, then we could debate.

Now please, since you are mufti, can you please tell me the difference between an ammah who is tiflah and one who is a saghirah?

Edited by Hezbullahi

Share this post


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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...