…to marry girls under 16. The Prophet did it, so why can’t Muslim men? Afterall, they are only trying to live out the sunnah, or the way the Prophet lived. I do not make these claims, but yet another Muslim clown/cleric (the two are becoming synonymous) has claimed:
the marriage of nine-year-old girls was allowed by Islam as the Prophet Muhammad consummated the marriage to one of his wives when she was that age.
He derided criticism of his claims as “part of a secular attack against the Islamic nation and its theologians”.
Sheikh Mohamed Ben Abderrahman Al-Maghraoui has come under attack from the ulema in the region of Rabat, Morocco, for his statements and views. But this issue does not rest its hands there; rather it gazes across toward yet another Islamic country.
In Indonesia:
a wealthy Muslim cleric who married a 12-year-old girl and is reportedly planning to wed others aged seven and nine, a spokesperson said on Tuesday [...]
Widiyanto has been backed by some high-profile Muslim figures, including Hilman Rosyad Syihab, the deputy head of the Islam-based Prosperous Justice Party (PKS), according to the Detikcom online news service.
Islam allows for marriage regardless of whether a girl has reached sexual maturity, Syihab was quoted as saying.
“It is not a problem under Islamic law,” Syihab said.
What we can at least be assured about is our knowledge of it. We can glad in that we at least know these things are occurring, spurring our anger into action. The fact that other bodies of clerics are decrying these practices; that governments and police are investigating the violation, in Jacarta, of the “2002 child protection law for forcing or trading a child into sex and for marrying below the legal minimum age of 16.”
Such acts are abhorrent, yet fall under swift reappraisal from behind faith. “What would Muhammad do?” seems to be swan song for human sensibility. Down it goes, echoing into the chasm where reason would normally dwell.
But aside from this so-called “fringe” acts (no moderate, TRUE Muslim would do this would be the usual claims), we must wonder at the outright instigation toward this act. What else other than religion could justify such retardation of values? Where else would someone find himself in a position to say “God says I can” except behind faith, an eternal book that is the word of god, and being a leader of the faith. This is not some random Muslim, but a religious leader. Yet, why shouldn’t he make such claims? Yet again, I am not surprised, but I am shocked. And it proves yet again that with faith, anything is justified.
The old maxim of Ivan Karamazov is flipped on its head. It is not “Without god, anything is permitted”, it is rather “with god, anything is permitted”. Be it slavery, child abuse, child marriage, enforced sexual relationships with children or non-consenting women, murder, – you can find many places in the holy books to justify it. Afterall, I’m not stating this as something new or from “thin air”, I’m merely quoting this from what the clerics, priests and leaders say. They’ve told us why and how they are able to justify it. We must make a stand to show faith as not a virtue, as irrational and a plague to our species.
We can so easily toss it out and find respect and faith and happiness, behind all this silliness. We are better than this! We are worth it. It takes faith to not believe our worth; It takes reason to realise it.
I am, however, pleased that we are all, regardless of religion or faith, able to view this as abhorrent and stand against it. Let this be a mark next to faith’s name and a tick next to reason’s.
Comments
RSS
Digg!
Stumble
Tweet
More by Tauriq Moosa
- Within Liberty
- Our Generation Must Make Greater Strides
- What I Believe for the 21st Century – Tauriq Moosa
- Who Cares About the Stripper? – In honour of America’s 4th of July
- The Incoherent Spheres, or the Need to Be Understood
- Rise, Reason, Rise
- In Defence of Johann Hari
- No More Labels
- Anti-theist at a Christian Wedding
- What Are You Willing to Die For?
Author Tweets
tweets loading 
Tauriq its a weak argument.
You have singled out two instances of Muslim clerics suggesting this ‘isn’t a problem in Islam’ when you have also said that a larger array of Muslim clerics are in uproar about it. Thus in actual fact these two men are by your own definition not representative of Islam. Its like the other day when you cited the Anglican nutter priest who said that gay men should carry health warnings as representative of Anglicans when in fact he was one minority person who was condemned by almost all the the rest of the Church authorities. Would you condemn the entire medical profession because of Harold Shipman?
Like any other value system, Islam is subject to contradictions and double-standards. Check out the ludicrous value systems of Republican Americans who think abortion and adultery are appalling crimes but that a leader who invades another country is not immoral. And a lot of these Republicans are not religious nuts. Check out how Marxists used freedom for women from marriage to justify sleeping with several women at once and never committing to them, leaving them to bring up babies alone. Don’t believe me? Research H G Wells and his set in the Fabian Society, or even how Marx and Engels behaved…
Besides which, the age of consent for marriage and sex is different all over the world both now and in the past. We in the West find these things abhorrent. Yes, Mohammed married Aisha when she was barely a teenager but do we know if he slept with her? In Ancient Rome and Greece girls were married off at about the same age, if a little older. In Shakespeare’s day it was the same. Juliet is barely 14 when she meets Romeo. Meanwhile levels of child abuse in almost every country in the world is shockingly high – and most of it unrelated to religious belief or lack of it.
Most Muslims, by your own admission, condemn this sort of thing. Sorry, Tauriq. I’ve been hugely impressed by almost all of your articles but this is a bad argument.
Fair enough and good point.
My central gripe was that it is in line with faith to do such things, under its guise. I specifically mention the other members who do not agree, to highlight an important aspect: Even the clerics can’t have agreement on god’s word. how is average person? hm… perhaps I should have voiced that. Perhaps it will be a future article. Appreciate your honesty and in depth analysis.
I do not think that Tauriq was saying that all Muslims think that. He used it as more of a bridge to his statement rather than a support.
I also think that your argument about young teenage girls being married off cannot be compared to a 9 or 11 year old that has not reached puberty. Although it is only a few years, there is a huge difference.
Also, of course there are double standards in Islam. That wasn’t the point of the argument, which Tauriq already explained.
Tauriq
Gracioulsy accepted – and apologies if I sounded aggressive and rude! But I will say that this is the contradiction inherent in the static vs dynamic view of Scripture. When religions were still vital, the ambiguities in Scripture were accepted and acknowledged and the source of vigourous and productive debate. The rigidity and stupidity we associate with religion now is to do with their lack of vitality. When a religion – or indeed any value system – becomes absolutist it becomes ridiculous and virally prone to hypocrisy and double standards. But its not unique to religion. What bigger contradiction can there be than Socialist/Marxist/Communist movements suppressing freedom of speech in the interests of a just Utopia and believing they can create a Republic of Peace and Harmony through violent revolution? And so on and so on…
On the other hand, one has to decide whether one wants religions to be absolutist or not. If the fact that Imams can disagree is a sign of weakness then one has to logically conclude that a value system with no complexities or room for interpretation is a good thing. Then one becomes an enthusiast for Absolutism, which I understood was the problem most Atheists have with religion. If one thinks that it is a GOOD thing that there is debate within religion, then the fact that Imams can’t have an agreement should be lauded as a good thing. See my point?
Sami
>I do not think that Tauriq was saying that all Muslims think that. He used it as more of a bridge to his statement rather than a support.
I didn’t say that Tauriq said that all Muslims think like that. I was saying that the article seems to take the two paedophile Imams as more representative of a dangerous trend in Islam than the majority who are opposing them. The argument that ‘with God everything is permitted’ is not borne out by this. In fact the evidence in the articles suggests the opposite ie that for most Muslims these Imam’s behaviour is NOT permitted. Indeed, if there is something most of us have a problem with in Islam it is that TOO MUCH is not permitted with no reason given other than God doesn’t like it.
>I also think that your argument about young teenage girls being married off cannot be compared to a 9 or 11 year old that has not reached puberty. Although it is only a few years, there is a huge difference.
There is indeed a huge difference, but the point I was trying to make is that ages of consent and notions of what constitutes an underage girl are not universal and never have been. I myself feel the idea of marrying a girl of 9 or 11 abhorrent, let alone having sex with one. I am a Westerner and believe 16 is a good age to draw the line, but would still raise eyebrows if a much older man attached themselves to a 16 year old. And yet 100 years ago in Victorian England it was normal in genteel society for a man in his 30s to marry women of 16-18. Indeed it was viewed as desirable.
All this is very creepy and sounds like I am justifying underage sex etc. I am not. I am just asking for a historically accurate view of Mohammed’s behaviour. What may have been culturally acceptable then is not now. Do we know if Mohammed married Aisha because he was a Muslim or because it was normal in Arabia at the time? Its quite an important question. Mohammed himself didn’t think Islam should stay rigid and gave advice and instituted mechanisms to ensure it evolved with the times, just as Judaism did with the Old Testament. Muslims who think all the values of the Koran are to be slavishly adhered to with no discussion or questioning are actually falling far behind the standards expected and asked for. And far behind the behaviour of their ancestors.
THere are major problems with Islam. I am just asking for us to understand them rather than charge at them from a position of prejudice and superficial understanding.
tauriq, one of your weaker arguements…this seems more like the behaviour of people using religion as an excuse to do something they want to do…but i’d rather talk to you about it personally than on this forum
I’m not sure why it’s been perceived as a weaker or different argument than ones I’ve stated before? It’s no different – religious leaders able to justify their views using religious texts. I’m not exactly sure why its being viewed as my justifying anything. It really is nothing new. However, I brought it up to highlight the latest developments in religious hypocrisy, to keep us aware of faith’s inherent incompatibility with today’s world (perhaps in the “Western” sense, to be more specific).
Religious hypocrisy in two instances, though, Tauriq. See what I mean? You can look at any value system in the world and find hypocrisy. Unless the vast majority of a value system are practising hypocrisy its unfair to drag the whole system through the mud. We would have to shut down the entire democratic world in that case! How many of our leaders are actually practising transparency, morality and the ideals of liberty, freedom and protection of the human race they say they are?
In this instance, these two schmendricks are being denounced by most Muslims. That’s actually a big score for Islam, its seems to me. Hence its a weak argument!
We’re only challenging you because all your other posts are so good!
Here’s some ammunition for you, though: these Muslim clerics who think that because Mohammed married Aisha at the age of 9, do they know what Aisha went on to become for Islam? Because of her closeness to the Prophet for such a long time, she became the first expert historian on him and was respected as a great authority and teacher. People came from far and wide to consult her on spiritual matters and learn first hand about Mohammed.
Now, I wonder if these Imams are going to treat these young girls like that? ie as spiritual authorities who are to be treated with reverence and admired as scholars and minds on the same level as men?
Further, are they aware that another of Mohammed’s wives was a rich merchant who married Mohammed when he had nothing? She was another highly intelligent, literate, independent woman.
Now, if they are not prepared to treat women in this way in imitation of Mohammed, why are they entitled to treat them as wives and women in any other way? Now THAT is a double standard and hypocrisy which should put them to shame.
And for more ammo – just look into Vatican shares in contraception companies, links to the Mafia and connections to extremely unsavoury and violent South American political regimes. On a scale of one to ten, the RC Church is way out there in terms of hypocrisy, one far outstripping two ignorant Imams with no geopolitical influence.
Check out the high level of child-abuse and paedophilia among the Catholic Clergy. They never justify it biblically like these Imams, but they do cover it up. The current Pope has only recently admitted it happens and is to instate ‘checks’ to root out paedophiles and homosexuals before they get ordained. He would be better off abolishing the Vow of Celibacy and allowing the clergy to marry. There is no scriptural justification for a celibate clergy and it didn’t come in as a doctrine until the Middle Ages. Now THAT is fraud and hypocrisy and lies!
And given the many references by Christ to the sanctity of childhood and children (he says that should anyone harm so much as a hair on one of these ‘little ones’ it would be better for them that they should never have been born), child abuse in the Catholic Church is a particuarly outrageous obscenity…
And some more ammo:
This from the last sermon Mohammed gave to his followers before he died. You may like to challenge reactionary male Muslims with it. If it was okay for Mohammed, it should be okay for them:
“O People, it is true that you have certain rights over your women, but they also have rights over you. Remember that you have taken them as your wives only under God’s trust and with His permission. If they abide by your right then to them belongs the right to be fed and clothed in kindness. Treat your women well and be kind to them, for they are your partners and committed helpers. It is your right and they do not make friends with anyone of whom you do not approve, as well as never to be unchaste…”
How does that square with the Taliban, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah and your two Imams above?