First of all, I have no desire or need to take anything about Islam out of context. This is the tired old accusation that CAIR-types like to drag out whenever anybody in the West points out some of the objectionable material inherent in Islam. On the contrary, my goal is only to bring the truth into the light, to show the West how Muslims talk about Islam when they don't think the West is listening.
That being said, Loonwatch is being dishonest when they say that the Arabic word nikah, which they translated as 'marriage/betrothal', "does not mean sexual intercourse at all." The truth is, nikah can mean either 'sexual intercourse' or 'marriage.' (Need proof? Plug نكاح into Google Translate.) I concede that the Mufti could have meant marriage, but he also could have meant sexual intercourse. Translation is an art, not a science, and translators can and do argue over the correct translation of certain words and phrases. In this case, I went with 'sexual intercourse' because from the context, it seems clear to me that the Mufti is not just talking about signing a marriage contract without consummating it. Right after that statement he talks about how Muhammad not only married 'A'isha but then had sex with her when she was only nine years old, i.e. a prepubescent girl.
Also, the verse from the Qur'an directly preceding this statement talks about the 'iddah, or waiting period, for girls "who have not yet menstruated" [Qur'an 65:4]. The 'iddah is a waiting period prescribed for women, in which they have to wait a certain amount of time after their husband divorces them before they can remarry, primarily in order to determine if the girl is pregnant before she remarries. The interesting thing about the 'iddah is that it only applies to women with whom the marriage has been consummated: "O you who believe: When you marry believing women and then divorce them before you have touched them, no period of idda (waiting) have you to count in respect of them: so give them a present and set them free in a graceful manner" [Qur'an 33:49] [emphasis added]. Therefore when the Qur'an says that young brides who have not yet menstruated, i.e. prepubescent girls, have a waiting period to observe, it means that their husbands have already had sex with them. Thus, according to the Qur'an and the Sunnah and the Mufti's own explanation, it is permissible in Islam to marry and have sex with prepubescent girls. Regardless of whatever personal (and vague) advice the Mufti gives much later in his fatwa, the case is already closed per the Qur'an and Sunnah. In fact, the Mufti essentially admits this in the very next line of his fatwa: "Therefore the issue is fixed in the Qur'an and the Sunnah."
In any case, the entire translation is available below for all to read. See the original Arabic here.
Title: Is it permissible to restrict the age at which girls can marry?
Submitted by: Ahmad
Date: 24 Dec 2010
Question: What is your opinion of the calls from more than one Islamic country to prohibit girls from marrying before the age of eighteen? Which is nearest to Islam--these calls or not specifying a certain age for marriage? Is it correct that Islamic scholars permit the father to marry off his young daughter (I mean, a child)?
Answer: In the name of God, praise be to God, and prayers and peace be upon the prophet of God.
Scholars very nearly agree that it is the right of the father to marry off his young, immature daughter. This is owing to his authority over her, for as he is responsible for directing her and providing for her, he is also responsible for doing what he believes is in her interest on the issue of marriage.
Ibn Qudama in al-Mughni said: "No one but the father can compel a woman, or marry off a young girl, whether a grandfather or otherwise." This was spoken of by Malik, Abu-'Ubayd al-Thawri, and Ibn Abu-Layli. This was also spoken of by al-Shafi'i, except he said it of the grandfather, making him like the father, because he has the authority of a parent, including to compel her like the father.
Al-Hasan, 'Umar Ibn-'Abd-al-'Aziz, Tawus, Qatada, Ibn-Shirama, al-Awza'i, and Abu-Hanifa said: "No one but the father can marry off a young girl; but she has the choice if she has matured." All of them but Abu-Hanifa said: "None but the father can marry two children, for they have the choice if they have matured."
It is important for us to understand that it is not a duty for a father to give his young girl in marriage, but it is restricted to her best-interest. For it is not permissible unless he believes that her best-interest requires it, and God is his judge on that.
Concerning the best-interest, you might imagine, for example, that the girl has no brother, and therefore the father fears for what will happen after [he's gone], so he marries her off to a righteous man. Let us not forget that from old nothing was waiting for the girl except marriage. She was not in college or school, expecting to graduate therefrom. Therefore if her femininity has completed, and she has matured, then why wait?
Nor should we forget that the culture of the time was restricted, and it was predetermined that [the girl] would be given away at a young age. The situation was not as today, where a male or female child continues to stumble through reading and writing even beyond their tenth year.
At the time in which we see our children now, with the number of illiterates, they stay in school until their tenth year. It used to be that the child, male or female, would memorize the Qur'an before reaching their ninth year, and would memorize Arabic poetry and prose. This is the culture which is missing in the men of today, as well as in their children. It is also important that we understand that the scholars, while they permitted marrying off young girls, they forbade her husband from having intercourse with her until she could bear it, which [i.e. the age at which she could bear it] varies according to time, place, and environment.
The Noble Qur'an has also mentioned the waiting period [i.e. for a divorced wife to remarry] for the wife who has not yet menstruated, saying: "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" [Qur'an 65:4]. Since this is not negated later, we can take from this verse that it is permissible to have sexual intercourse with a prepubescent girl. The Qur'an is not like the books of jurisprudence which mention what the implications of things are, even if they are prohibited. It is true that the prophet (PBUH) entered into a marriage contract with 'A'isha when she was six years old, however he did not have sex with her until she was nine years old, according to al-Bukhari.
Therefore the issue is fixed in the Qur'an and the Sunnah. There is no jurisprudence without it being accused of being a 'male jurisprudence'!!! For a portion of the women in our day deny the jurisprudential efforts of scholars with the accusation that their masculinity leads them to jurisprudence which is in their best-interest, and against women. It appears that those who are led by this idea have the image stuck in their minds of a father or shaykh of a mosque, who would resort to religion. As this was his (description), it was not desirable. But this is not how it was, according to what was related by Allah Almighty: "But if the right is on their side, they come to him with all submission" [Qur'an 24:49]. Wherefore the history of jurisprudence is abounding [with examples] which dispel this mania, and this is not the place to lay them all out. But what can those who follow the Western feminist agenda say to this Qur'anic text, and to the marriage of the Prophet to 'A'isha (may Allah be pleased with her)!!!
If those who believed this were really seeking the public's best-interest, then why are they not satisfied with the age of puberty? Do doctors say that intercourse is harmful for the mature girl? It seems there is more to the issue than this, for they also call for the boy and girl to remain under juvenile law until this age (18), and that the penal code should not extend to them until they reach this age, no matter their crime. This call contradicts all of Islam, and not just jurisprudential rulings. Islam holds people responsible once they reach puberty. Does it make sense for the boy to be held responsible by Allah before the most important fate in this world and the next (the garden and the fire, Islam and disbelief), and not to be held responsible for the crimes which he commits in the world!! Do these have more concern for the people than does their Creator--Allah forbid!
Let us leave (the question) of intentions to the Lord of all hearts, despite its being revealed with evident characteristics. Does not an objective examination and observation of the number of cases in which a father has put his self-interest above his daughter's require us to say, "Do these cases represent a phenomenon which needs a binding law?"
The importance of this examination lies in the fact that if we create a binding law which prohibits marriage before a set date, inevitably there are those who will be harmed thereby. There is the girl who does not expect to graduate from a university because she does not study at all. Or there is the girl who shortened her path and confined herself to only middle school, and perhaps she missed the opportunity to marry during her studies because of this law?
Who will bear the sin of the girl who spends her lust on that which is forbidden, because she is forbidden from marrying before the legal age? Who will bear the sin of the civil marriages [i.e. marriages not performed according to Islamic law] of various types which are nothing but an agreement between a young man and girl to commit adultery? Criminalizing marriage before a certain age is a major reason for this phenomenon... We need to take a strong look at both the effects that will result from prohibition, and those that will result from allowing it, so that we can weigh the pros and cons. This in order to enable us to reach the appropriate solution, far away from 'feminine thought' or 'masculine thought'. The language of observation is that of numbers, and numbers do not add up differently for one sex over the other. [ellipsis in original]
I think it's important that I convey here the opinion of a jurist, a doctor on the question, that we may take from him something that will somewhat dispel the lying delusions in people's minds, in the name of the facts. This comes from the Encyclopedia of Medical Jurisprudence by Dr. Ahmad Muhammad Kan'an, chief of the infectious diseases section in the administration of primary health care in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia:
"It is permissible for the child to marry before puberty--whether male or female--and for his guardian to carry out the contract and marry him. It is not valid for the little boy to divorce his wife, whether it was done with reason or not. The Hanbalis are the exception to this, for they permitted divorce for him if it was done with reason, meaning the divorce... The waiting period for the little girl who has not menstruated is counted as three months, in accordance with the saying of the Most High: "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" [Qur'an 65:4]. [ellipsis in original]
It is no secret that marriage of children is not free from medical warnings, for their sexual organs are not yet equipped for intercourse. Children are also not prepared psychologically to engage in sexual intercourse, especially the little girl who tends to be physically harmed, especially if her husband is a large man! Sex with her could cause harmful psychological and physical complications which will accompany her throughout her life, and will influence her sexual future! For this reason, scholars are of the opinion that the child bride who cannot endure intercourse should not be delivered to her husband until she gets older and reaches an age where she can endure intercourse, even if the husband is wise and faithful, and has promised to not touch her, because perhaps an outburst of lust from within him could lead him to have sex with her and harm her. The opinion of the Hanbalis is that if she has reached nine years of age, then she can be given to her husband. This is based on the sound hadith that the Prophet (peace be upon him) "consummated the marriage with 'A'isha when she was a nine-year-old girl." However, if the girl is afraid for herself, then she has the right to forbid him from having sex with her. He may treat her as he would one who was menstruating, until she gets older and is ready for sex.
For our part, we counsel from the medical standpoint against marriage before puberty, at the least. Puberty is an innate indicator that the body has become ready for marital relations. Also the man, through puberty reaches the acceptable level of societal consciousness which helps him to create a family... Knowing that most of the existing laws in both Islamic and non-Islamic countries prohibit marriage before the age of adulthood, or 18 years. [ellipsis in original]
Again, we find that “The Translated” is being deceptive. He says:
ReplyDeleteThat being said, Loonwatch is being dishonest when they say that the Arabic wordnikah, which they translated as 'marriage/betrothal', "does not mean sexual intercourse at all."
Here’s what Loonwatch *actually* said.
“The word nikah here does not mean “sexual intercourse” at all.”
The following is a comment by Dawood:
Jack: Their not allowing my comments on their site severely limits any response to their inane assertions. The irony being that ‘Quotable Quotes’ proclaimed that he did not delete/edit any comments, yet the one clearly posted under my own name and linking Loonwatch did not get through the filter (I have a screen grab).
“Nikah” means sexual intercourse only if using Google translate as your Arabic “source”… which again shows their standard of Arabic ability. No reliable authority (emphasis on reliable) in the language connects “nikah” to sexual intercourse. I have consulted Lane’s Arabic Lexicon (the de-facto standard in Classical Arabic, pub. circa 1865-95 in 8 volumes), Hava’s Arabic-English Dictionary (pub. circa 1899), Hans Wehr (de-facto standard for Modern Standard Arabic, Al-Mu’jam al-Wasit (a well-respected Arabic-Arabic dictionary) and other resources, and all connect anything from the trilateral root n k h to marriage only. Lane is especially clear on the fact that it doesn’t refer to sexual intercourse – even in the pre-Islamic period. There is absolutely no mention of sexual intercourse whatsoever in any of them. I will post screen-shots if required, and if I can figure out how to attach them to comments.
The only recourse they may have is that the verb “nakaha” (نكح) (not “nikah” (نكاح) – for those who don’t speak Arabic, please look – there is another letter added which entirely shifts the meaning; it is no longer a verb) might be used colloquially in some dialects to mean sex with one’s spouse. Although personally, I have never heard it once.
Regardless of this, Al-Mutarajjam was translating a fatwa. A fatwa is an Islamic legal opinion, and fatwas are always written in formal (in this case Islamic) ‘legalese’, as most legal pronouncements are in all languages. This being the case, Islamic ‘legalese’ uses “nikah” to refer only to the marriage/marriage contract. The Mufti himself uses at least 2 terms in his fatwa to denote sexual intercourse, and neither of these are connected in any way to the root n k h. One is “yadkhul ‘alayha” (يدخل عليها lit. he enters into her), and the other is the term “wata’” (وطئ) (which literally means to mount).
There “rebuttal” by an anonymous commenter on SATV also has a number of other problems, which I will address if I have time. But once again, they are attempting to shift the discussion from the original topic – which was Al-Mutarajjam’s lack of Arabic ability and duplicity in cutting the fatwa for his own purposes – to the content of the fatwa itself which is an entirely different issue altogether (and not something I would imagine any Loonwatch readers would agree with anyway).
Hey Azwar,
ReplyDeleteThank you for the comment. As expected, you and Dawood continue to ignore everything in the fatwa, including the teachings in the Qur'an and the hadith from Muhammad, which make it very clear that Islam permits both sex and marriage with girls who have not reached puberty. Instead, you focus on my translation of one word, which you insist means 'marriage'. Of course you're right that it means marriage, but it can also mean 'sexual intercourse' or really denotes both 'marriage which is followed by sexual intercourse' (see "The New Encyclopedia of Islam", for example). Regardless of which of these meanings was intended, the purport of the fatwa is the same.
The problem with your whole argument is that everybody knows that Muhammad married a six-year-old, and then had sexual intercourse with her when she was nine. There it is, end of story! Now it must be made permissible for all Muslims, because Muhammad is the perfect example for all to follow. Then on top of that you have Qur'an 65:4 and 33:49--how can you refute this? Obviously you can't, which is why you try to shift the focus to a word you think I mistranslated.
respectfully,
al-Mutarjim
Azwar,
ReplyDeleteNo, Al Mutarjim was not being deceptive. It was Dawood and Danios who were deceptive by slipping in the word "here," without ever mentioning the fact that nikah can mean sexual intercourse or the contract permitting sexual intercourse. Not once do they admit this in their article. And your own quote of Dawood, from way down in the comment section some days later, has him claiming that nikah does not mean sexual intercourse (except perhaps, he suggests, as a very rare esoteric or colloquial meaning). Indeed, he mocks the idea, claiming that only Google Translate translates nikah as sexual intercourse.
An anonymous blogger emailed this to me, as he was unable to comment here due to technical difficulties (I'm not sure why):
ReplyDeleteAl-Mutarjim,
I see a poster "Azwar" has reposted Dawood's old comment, which appeared way down near the bottom of the Loonwatch thread about the nikah translation. I've examined most of Dawood's claims in that post, and most if not all of them are incorrect. If you didn't see it, Dawood posted a more recent comment on March 7 on SATV's blog in the 'Loonwatch and Defending Muhammad' thread, where he quoted a few of the sources and others, and contradicted his earlier claims, all the while refusing to acknowledge that his earlier claims were false. Not one of the sources he cites denies that nikah means sexual intercourse. If you follow the comments of "Anonymous2" there (that's me!), it turns out that Dawood was misrepresenting his sources. (In 3 out of the 7 of Dawood's sources, he claims mention only marriage. He erroneously takes that as evidence that nikah doesn't mean sexual intercourse in Islamic law. But there are other reasons why those sources might not have mentioned sexual intercourse. Besides, 4 out of his 7 sources do mention sexual intercourse. I haven't checked all of Dawood's sources, but I frankly would not trust what he says about them). Perhaps the most important of these was Lane's Lexicon, which does refer to sexual intercourse ("coitus"), contrary to what Dawood claimed. In any case, in that SATV thread and another, I've cited in total at least 15 different scholarly sources that define or describe nikah (or the root n-k-h) as meaning sexual intercourse, or the contract of legal sexual intercourse, or marriage as a contract for sexual intercourse.
I haven't figured out how to comment on your updated "nikah" fatwa thread yet, so I wasn't able to respond to Azwar. Anyways, here are
the SATV threads I was talking about, which you may or may not have seen.
http://staringattheview.blogspot.com/2011/03/loonwatch-and-defending-muhammad.html
http://staringattheview.blogspot.com/2011/03/missing-forest-for-trees.html
Azwar,
ReplyDeleteYou quote Dawood's comment, which was tucked away, way down near the end of the Loonwatch comment thread. I will provide a rebuttal here, if space permits...
Dawood: "“Nikah” means sexual intercourse only if using Google translate as your Arabic “source”… which again shows their standard of Arabic ability."
That's false. If you go to the Staring at the View (SATV) comment threads "Loonwatch and Defending Muhammad," and "Missing the Forest for the Trees," you will see that "Anonymous2" has quoted no less than 15 different scholarly sources showing that nikah means sexual intercourse or an Islamic legal contract permitting sexual intercourse. (And what does this tell us about Dawood's Arabic ability, or, perhaps, his honesty?)
Here's one:
20. “It’s name, ‘aqd al-nikah, literally means the contract of coitus, see Schact (1932b: 912)
Marriage on trial: Islamic family law in Iran and Morocco
By Ziba Mir-Hosseini
Dawood: "No reliable authority (emphasis on reliable) in the language connects “nikah” to sexual intercourse. I have consulted Lane’s Arabic Lexicon (the de-facto standard in Classical Arabic, pub. circa 1865-95 in 8 volumes), Hava’s Arabic-English Dictionary (pub. circa 1899), Hans Wehr (de-facto standard for Modern Standard Arabic, Al-Mu’jam al-Wasit (a well-respected Arabic-Arabic dictionary) and other resources, and all connect anything from the trilateral root n k h to marriage only."
This statement contains untrue and/or misleading elements. How can we trust Dawood when he makes such sweeping confident remarks that turn out to be untrue? According to a later post by Dawood over at SATV (not at Loonwatch!), he admitted that Lane and Hava did mention sexual intercourse. As for Wehr and the other source (Al-Mu’jam al-Wasit), Dawood doesn't actually quote these. However, even if we grant that they don't explicitly mention sexual intercourse, it would normally be understood that a nikah marriage contract is one that involves sexual intercourse. These latter two sources are thus ambiguous/uninformative on the issue and don't support Dawood's claims. Dawood's claim requires there to be no reliable sources that say nikah means sexual intercourse. His claim has already been shown false.
Dawood: "Lane is especially clear on the fact that it doesn’t refer to sexual intercourse – even in the pre-Islamic period."
In fact, as Dawood indicated on SATV (again, not at Loonwatch!), Lane's Lexicon does discuss the meaning of coitus (sexual intercourse) under n k h entries, and discusses different opinions on the matter. Nowhere does Lane say that nikah in Islamic law only means a marriage without sexual intercourse. But that's what Dawood's claim would seem to require.
Dawood: "There is absolutely no mention of sexual intercourse whatsoever in any of them."
Again, this is not correct, as Dawood himself later indicated on SATV. Yet Dawood is being extraordinarily stubborn about admitting this explicitly, and was still trying to argue that nikah, in the relevant sense here, meant marriage without sexual intercourse.
(continued from above. Note: I posted as "Anonymous2" on SATV)
ReplyDeleteDawood: "I will post screen-shots if required, and if I can figure out how to attach them to comments."
Why not post all of the evidence that has been presented on SATV, and let readers decide? Why not post a new article or a revision to the old one, addressing what relevant points and materials Al Mutarjim, SATV, and "Anonymous2," have presented in reply?
Dawood: "The only recourse they may have is that the verb “nakaha” (نكح) (not “nikah” (نكاح) – for those who don’t speak Arabic, please look – there is another letter added which entirely shifts the meaning; it is no longer a verb) might be used colloquially in some dialects to mean sex with one’s spouse."
Again, that is misleading, at best. Anonymous2 at SATV has quoted Islamic scholars stating that nakaha refers to sexual intercourse, and one of the sources cites an example of n k h in the Quran (2:230) that implies sexual intercourse in marriage. (That's because in that particular scenario, the wife who wants to return to a previous husband from whom she previously divorced must marry another man and consummate the marriage first before returning to remarry the first husband). Here is one source:
"...as the Almighty says, "Until she marries a husband other than him," (2:230) and so it is known from this that nakaha is used for intercourse between any man and woman."
The Risala of 'Abdullah ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani (310/922 - 386/996) A Treatise on Maliki Fiqh (Including commentary from ath-Thamr ad-Dani by al-Azhari)
Dawood: "Although personally, I have never heard it once."
Anecdotal, subjective, and moot in light of the overwhelming evidence that has now been brought forward.
Dawood: "Regardless of this, Al-Mutarajjam was translating a fatwa. A fatwa is an Islamic legal opinion, and fatwas are always written in formal (in this case Islamic) ‘legalese’, as most legal pronouncements are in all languages. This being the case, Islamic ‘legalese’ uses “nikah” to refer only to the marriage/marriage contract."
Misleading. The evidence shows that scholars describe nikah as either the marriage contract or the contract permitting sexual intercourse. And the nikah in question involves sexual intercourse. In light of 65:4, regarding the mufti's statement "...we can take from this verse...", the sexual intercourse is assumed to have already taken place.
Dawood: "...that The Mufti himself uses at least 2 terms in his fatwa to denote sexual intercourse, and neither of these are connected in any way to the root n k h. One is “yadkhul ‘alayha” (يدخل عليها lit. he enters into her), and the other is the term “wata’” (وطئ) (which literally means to mount)."
Invalid argument; irrelevant. First, 65:4 all but guarantees that the mufti was referring to marriage with sexual intercourse. (His mention of Muhammad and Aisha guarantees it). Second, the fact that there may be more than one word for sex hardly proves anything. There is also more than one word for marriage. So what?
Dawood: "There “rebuttal” by an anonymous commenter on SATV also has a number of other problems, which I will address if I have time."
What problems? Dawood hasn't adequately addressed Anonymous2's points or evidence. Dawood has simply dismissed it all and stubbornly adheres to his previous position no matter how much contrary evidence is unloaded in front of him!
(final section, continued from above)
ReplyDeleteDawood: "But once again, they are attempting to shift the discussion from the original topic – which was Al-Mutarajjam’s lack of Arabic ability and duplicity in cutting the fatwa for his own purposes – to the content of the fatwa itself which is an entirely different issue altogether (and not something I would imagine any Loonwatch readers would agree with anyway)."
Not true. Anonymous2 addressed both the translation issue and the issue of the excluded material. (The content of the fatwa is relevant though, too). Moreover, Al Mutarjim himself has now addressed these issues in the above translation. Dawood and Danios veered off of the narrow topic of the translation and presentation of the fatwa onto the broader issues which comprise most of their article.
Clearly, Dawood and Danios must retract their previous article and their false allegations and post a new revised article for their readers that explains fully the controversy and the meaning of the word nikah. It should be educational.
You don't know Arabic and that has been proven. I could use google translator if I wanted a computer imperfect translation too. Now in regards to marrying and sex. The fatwa, which I don't support, does state you can marry but not have sex until puberty. Regarding Muhammad, Aisha did have her period by the time they had sexual intercourse. Also, the age of Aisha is disputed amongst scholars. Since it is a non-religious hadith it does not need a strong chain to be put into the hadith books. Other Hadiths by Aisha would logically dispute her age of 6 and 9 at the time of marriage. For instance Aisha remembers her fathers migration to Ethiopia, if the marriage age were correct she would have been less than a year old at that time. Also, she was at the battlefield helping injured troops at Uhud. She would be 11 if she were 9 at consummation. Considering Muhammad did not allow boys younger that 16 or 17 to come to the battle to fight I highly doubt he would let his wife who is supposedly 11 come to aid the troops on the battlefield.
ReplyDeleteJoe,
ReplyDelete1. Google translate does not produce coherent translations of Arabic passages into English.
2. There is no evidence to support these allegations against Al Mutarjim's translation of the fatwa. On the other hand, it is now established that Dawood and Danios lied to and misled their readers (see above).
3. You wrote: "The fatwa, which I don't support, does state you can marry but not have sex until puberty."
In the crucial sentence, it says "nikah," which in this context means marry and have sexual intercourse (see above). It doesn't say that men can not have sexual intercourse with a prepubescent girl. Rather, it says that according to the Qur'an (65:4) and Sunnah it is permissible to have sexual intercourse with a prepubescent bride, but that in light of medical and other concerns, it is not advisable at this particular time.
3. The key problem with your above post is that you ignore 65:4, and its implications, and the hadiths, and commentaries, concerning it.
4. You write: "Regarding Muhammad, Aisha did have her period by the time they had sexual intercourse."
First, what evidence do you have for that? Second, the hadith indicate that she was 9 at the time of the consummation, so no matter whether she has started puberty (very early!), 9 years old is still too young, and what Muhammad did is still very morally wrong.
5. You write: "Also, the age of Aisha is disputed amongst scholars."
Among which scholars? Western apologists who have no say in what happens in Islamic countries? Besides, making reference to a "dispute" doesn't tell us the extent of the disagreement, which side has more evidence, what the majority of Muslim scholars in the Muslim world believe about the issue, and so on. Besides, you are stuck with the problem of Qur'an 65:4.
(to be continued)
(completing reply to Joe, from above)
ReplyDelete6. You wrote "Since it is a non-religious hadith it does not need a strong chain to be put into the hadith books."
I'm not sure what exactly you are talking about, and I'm not sure that you know what you are talking about. Yes, there is always the question of whether any particular hadith is sound, if that is the essence of your point. However, there are numerous hadiths mentioning Aisha's age (including from Aisha herself), and her age is mentioned in Tabari, and others. If you want thorough discussions refuting the apologetics about Aisha's age, see these sources (the first is a pious Muslim, the other two are Islam critics).
a) Texts By Shaykh Gibril F. Haddad
http://mac.abc.se/home/onesr/d/aam1_e.pdf
http://mac.abc.se/home/onesr/d/aam2_e.pdf
at the website
http://www.livingislam.org/tgfh.html
b) Sam Shamoun (shows an extensive compilation of evidence)
http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/prepubescent.htm
c) Silas (addresses the apologetic claims, as well as modern health science issues)
http://answering-islam.org/Silas/childbrides.htm
7. You wrote: "Other Hadiths by Aisha would logically dispute her age of 6 and 9 at the time of marriage."
I've seen these lines before made by western apologists. They use highly elaborate indirect chains of inferences of the "house of cards" variety that aren't well-supported by the direct statements in the hadith, and are inconsistent with other inferences, and are contradicted by clear evidence that directly reports Aisha's age. (See Haddad's rebuttal to these arguments. Haddad himself, btw, seems to think Aisha had reached puberty by 9 years of age).
Ok, First let me address the age. I have no problem with Aisha being 9 years old but I am stating a conflict that scholars have noted for well over 800 years. The 7th century of the common era is a different time and marriage was very common at young ages. Now in regards to Aisha having her period by the time she was nine no I don't have physical evidence but it does happen even today. Also, since it is forbidden in Islam to have sex before a woman has her period logically Muhammad wouldn't have had sex with Aisha until she menstruated for the first time.
ReplyDeleteSecond, what does 65:4 have to do with anything? It is a verse of the Quran that has to do with divorce and the time that must be between marriages, 3 menstruation cycles or until the woman has had her child. So what that has to do with anything is beyond me.
Loonwatch posted a response (March 18, 2011) to the above article and translation by Al Mutarjim. From my view, there is nothing major that is new in the article, since Dawood posted his comment on SATV (see the "Loonwatch and Defending Muhammad" thread). Dawood and Danios are, for the most part, maintaining the position they took in their previous article a few weeks back (see the link provided by Al Mutarjim in the article above), where they made unsubstantiated allegations against Al Mutarjim. I believe that Dawood and Danios are being dishonest in this dispute over the translation. To start, in response, I would like to post the evidence to support my view that Al Mutarjim's translation is correct. Once I've posted the evidence, I will then address the key issues in the debate, including an examination of Dawood's and Danios' dubious methods throughout this process.
ReplyDeleteAyah (Verse) 65:4 "And (as for) those of your women who have despaired of menstruation, if you have a doubt, their prescribed time shall be three months, and of those too who have not had their courses*; and (as for) the pregnant women, their prescribed time is that they lay down their burden; and whoever is careful of (his duty to) Allah He will make easy for him his affair."
ReplyDelete*Some translations say "have not yet" menstruated.
Ibn Kathir's commentary on 65:4 (see tafsir.com)
""The `Iddah of Those in Menopause and Those Who do not have Menses
Allah the Exalted clarifies the waiting period of the woman in menopause. And that is the one whose menstruation has stopped due to her older age. Her `Iddah is three months instead of the three monthly cycles for those who menstruate, which is based upon the Ayah in (Surat) Al-Baqarah. [see 2:228] The same for the young, who have not reached the years of menstruation. Their `Iddah is three months like those in menopause. This is the meaning of His saying;
(and for those who have no courses...) [...]"
Ibn Kathir then goes on to cite hadiths that refer to the rules of 'iddah and divorce for those who are too young to menstruate. Al Jalalayn, Ibn Abbas, Al Wahidi, and others agree on this.
Maududi's commentary (available online at englishtafsir):
Note 13 (for verse 65:4). "Here, one should bear in mind the fact that according to the explanations given in the Qur'an the question of the waiting period arises in respect of the women with whom marriage may have been consummated, for there is no waiting-period in case divorce is pronounced before the consummation of marriage. (Al-Ahzab: 49). Therefore, making mention of the waiting-period for the girls who have not yet menstruated, clearly proves that it is not only permissible to give away the girl in marriage at this age but it is also permissible for the husband to consummate marriage with her. Now, obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Qur'an has held as permissible."
The 'iddah, continued...
ReplyDeleteLaw of desire: temporary marriage in Shi'i Iran (1989) Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, New York
By Shahla Haeri
p. 46, excerpts from the chapter on Permanent Marriage
“The purpose of observing ‘idda is twofold: First, to make sure the woman is not pregnant by the man who has divorced her, and second, to “purify her womb,” tathir-i rahim, for the next man who might be marrying her.”
“The obligation to keep ‘idda, like the payment of brideprice, depends on the accomplishment of the penetration. Keeping ‘idda is not required where marriage has not been consummated.”
“Those under the age of nine likewise are exempt from abstinence, regardless of whether or not consummation has taken place. In all these categories, the assumption is that a possibility of pregnancy is remote, and therefore a mixing of parentage is prevented.”
“Purity of womb—or its pollution—is religiously meaningful insofar as the separation of potential paternal genes is concerned. A woman past menopause, therefore, does not pose a threat to men by getting their seeds mixed up.”
From Al-Sistani (Iraq, Shia), which shows some variation in the rules:
"Divorce » Iddah of Divorce
2519. A wife who is under nine and who is in her menopause will not be required to observe any waiting period. It means that, even if the husband has had sexual intercourse with her, she can remarry immediately after being divorced.
2520. If a wife who has completed nine years of her age and is not in menopause, is divorced by her husband after sexual intercourse, it is necessary for her to observe the waiting period of divorce. [...]
2524. If a woman who has completed nine years of age, and is not in menopause, contracts a temporary marriage, for example, if she marries a man for a period of one month or a year and the period of her marriage comes to an end, or her husband exempts her from the remaining period, she should observe Iddah. If she sees Haidh, she should observe Iddah for two periods of Haidh, and cannot marry again during that period.
But if she does not see Haidh, then she should refrain from marrying another man for forty five days. And if she is pregnant, she should observe Iddah till the birth or miscarriage of the child, or for forty five days and as a recommended precaution, she should wait for whichever period is longer. [...]"
testing...looks like I'm having problems with disappearing posts on Blogger again.
ReplyDeleteI will try to come back later and post the rest of the material.
The 'iddah, continued...
ReplyDeleteThe Risala of 'Abdullah ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani (310/922 - 386/996) A Treatise on Maliki Fiqh (Including commentary from ath-Thamr ad-Dani by al-Azhari)
"33.1e. No 'idda if the marriage has not been consummated.
A divorced woman whose marriage has not been consummated has no 'idda.
33.2 'Idda for widows
The 'idda for a free woman who is widowed is four months and ten nights, whether a child or adult, consummated or not, Muslim or kitabi. For a slave girl who is partially free it is two months and five days, except in the case of an older woman whose period is delayed. Then she waits until the doubt is removed. As for the one who does not menstruate because of youth or old age and her marriage was consummated, she cannot marry until three months after the death of the husband."
The 'iddah, continued...
ReplyDeleteA Textbook of Muslim Personal Law, by David Pearl, p. 54
“The need to observe an ‘iddah period is linked closely with the Islamic notion of consummation, and it is interesting to note that no ‘iddah period is required when a marriage, dissolved by a talaq, has not been consummated. However, as we have seen, Islamic law does not demand definitive evidence of the sexual act [...]”
“If the marriage has not been “consummated” in the extended sense explained above, no ‘iddah period is necessary on divorce; thus the wife on divorce can immediately remarry. Otherwise, she has to observe an ‘iddah period of three menstrual cycles (or 3 months in the case of a woman who does not menstruate or whose menstruations are irregular) before she can remarry.”
Definitions
ReplyDeleteFrancis Joseph Steingass 1992
A comprehensive Persian-English dictionary: including the Arabic words and phrases to be met with in Persian literature (1892)
p. 1421
“A نکاح nikāḥ (v.n. of نکح), Marrying; matrimony, marriage; conjugal intercourse; a dowry; [nikāḥ (ʻaqdi nikāḥ) bastan (par- dāḵẖtan, kardan), To marry, take a wife;--ḥujjati nikāḥ, A marriage-contract signed by a judge;--muʻāhadaʼi nikāḥ, A marriage-contract;--nakkāḥ, One who marries many wives, a polygamist; potent in venery.”
[American Heritage Dictionary
Venery 1. Indulgence in or pursuit of sexual activity. 2. The act of sexual intercourse.]
Francis Joseph Steingass (1882) English-Arabic Dictionary
“COITION mujama’a-t; nikah; nik.”
“MARRIAGE ziwaj; zija-t; nikah. –(demand in marriage) hatab, yahtub”
“MARRY (take in marriage) tazawwaj, yatazawwaj; ta’ahhal, yata’ahhal. –(given in marriage) zawwaj, yuzawwij.”
A Dictionary of Andalusi Arabic, by Federico Corriente (1997) p. 539
ReplyDelete“{NKH}: VA yankah nakah nikah nakih mankuh k to have sexual intercourse || nantakah antakaht to be possessed sexually || nastankah istinkah k to solicit for sex || (‘uqdat an)nikah IQ nikah AL nicah GL nikahun marriage, wedlock | nikahun muharramun incest | MT ‘aqd nikah marriage contract || VA mankahah prostitute || mankuhah + at sexually possessed (of a woman) || IQ manakih wedded women.”
An English and Arabic Dictionary, by Joseph Catafago (1858) p. 298
“nikah, Matrimony, marriage. Congressus venereus.”
Arabic-English dictionary for the use of students (1899)
J. G. Hava
p. 796 (noted as 789, at archive.org) n k h words:
“To marry a. o. to."
"To ally by marriage."
"Marriage-contract; formula of marriage."
"Marriage. Marriage-contract."
"Conjugal intercourse."
"Polygamist."
"Married (woman)."
"Women, wives.”"
definitions
ReplyDeleteThe New Encyclopedia of Islam, which is available online:
NIKAH
Literally the act of sexual intercourse, nikah is the term by which marriage is referred to in the Qur'an. Islamic law defines nikah as a civil contract whose main function is to
render sexual relations between a man and woman licit. Any sexual relations outside the nikah contract constitute the crime of zina (illicit sexual relations) and are subject to
punishment. In practice, nikah is enacted in a ceremony intertwined with religious symbolism and rituals such as the recitation of al-Fatiha, the first verse of the Qur'an, usually performed by religious functionaries, although Islamic law does not positively prescribe any service.
See also Marriage.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bousquet, Georges Henry. "La Conception du Nikah selon les Docteurs de la Loi Muslamane." Revue Algerienne. (1948): 63-74.
El Alami, Dawoud. Marriage Contract in Islamic Law. London: Graham & Trotman, 1992.
Maghniyyah, Muhammad Jawad. Marriage According to Five Schools of Islamic Law. Tehran: Department of Transliteration and Publication, Islamic Culture and Relations Organization, 1997.
Ziba Mir-Hosseini
definitions
ReplyDeleteVoices of Islam: Voices of life : family, home, and society
By Vincent J. Cornell.
Excerpts from Chapter 3, Marriage in Islam, by Nargis Virani, p. 59
"Allowable sexual relations in the Qur’an are designated by the term nikah, which connotes both marriage and intercourse (Qur’an 2:221, 230, 232, 235, 237; 4:3, 6, 22, 25, 127; 24:3, 23, 33, 60; 28:27; 33:49, 50, 53). Marriage prevents sexual frustration and the temptation to sin (Qur’an 24:32)."
“TERMS FOR MARRIAGE IN ISLAM
Among Muslims, the most commonly used term for marriage is nikah, which literally means “sexual intercourse.” As a legal term, nikah denotes the situation resulting from a contract entered into by a Muslim man and a Muslim woman, which legitimizes cohabitation and sexual intercourse between the signers of the contract in the eyes of God and their co-religionists.”
p. 60 [...] “In Muslim countries where Arabic language and culture predominate, marriage is referred to as zawaj, literally, “pairing.””
definitions
ReplyDeleteE.J. Brill's First Encyclopaedia of Islam 1913-1936 By M. Th Houtsma
p. 912, “NIKAH (A.), marriage (properly: sexual intercourse, but already in the Kur’an used exclusively for the contract). Here we deal with marriage as a legal institution; for marriage customs see ‘URS. [...]” (J S Schacht)
Marriage on trial: Islamic family law in Iran and Morocco,
by Ziba Mir-Hosseini
20. “It’s name, ‘aqd al-nikah, literally means the contract of coitus, see Schacht (1932b: 912)”
[Note: I've rechecked my E.J. Brill source, and it says "contract", as above, whereas Dawood is quoting "contract of marriage". But note how Mir-Hosseini's phrasing, in reference to the same source, differs from Dawood's, and supports the "contract of coitus" definition of nikah.]
Law of desire: temporary marriage in Shi'i Iran (1989) Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, New York, by Shahla Haeri
ReplyDeletep. 30 (regarding both permanent and temporary marriage)
“An Islamic marriage is defined as “that type of contract, ‘aqd, which gives ownership, tamlik, over intercourse, vaty, not like buying a slave girl whose ownership entitles her master a right to intercourse” (Hilli SI, 428).”
Islam, A concise introduction Dennis Roberts
ReplyDeletep. 143 “The Arabic word for marriage and sexual intercourse is the same: nikah.”
Muslim women in changing perspective, by Talat Ara Ashrafi
p. 51
“According to Muslim Law, ‘Nikah’ is a contract of union between two strangers of opposite sexes which legalizes their sexual intercourse and mutual co-existence and imposes certain duties on and confers certain rights upon the two partners.”
Sharia – The Islamic Law, by Corinna Standke
“In Islam, marriage is a civil contract which legalizes sexual intercourse and pregnancy.”
Sexual ethics and Islam: feminist reflections on the Qur’an, hadith, and jurisprudence
Kecia Ali
“Nikah, the term used by jurists for the marriage contract, literally refers to sexual intercourse, so closely is marriage linked to sex.”
The Nigerian Legal System: Public Law, by Charles Mwalimu
ReplyDeletep. 542 “Marriage under Islamic law in Nigeria is known by its Arabic name, Nikah or joining together, the same meaning as sexual intercourse…”
p. 673 “Under the Maliki code applicable in Nigeria the word Nikah signifies “the contract of marriage for the legislation of sexual intercourse…”
The Muslim family : a study of women's rights in Islam
Tove Stang Dahl
p. 52 “The legitimate form of sexuality is therefore an outcome of marriage - nikah (the concept nikah means both marriage and sexual intercourse).”
Sexuality in Islam
Abdelwahab Bouhdiba, Alan Sheridan
"Nikah and unconsummated marriage are mutually exclusive. Abstinence of a hundred and twenty days is a maximum not to be exceeded in any circumstances. Sexual intercourse is one of the pillars of nikah."
Women and international human rights law: Volume 3
Kelly Dawn Askin, Dorean M. Koenig
“In the medieval treatises, marriage was known as nikah, referring to licit sexual intercourse, and the marriage contract was understood as an agreement permitting the husband sexual access to the wife in return for his commitment to pay ...”
Studies in Modern Islamic Law and Jurisprudence
ReplyDeleteOussama Arabi
p. 150
“In the Muslim normative universe, love and sexual emotions between the sexes ought to acquire a lawful form, a fact which is echoed in Islamic law where legal sexual intercourse (nikah) could only be in the form of a contract (‘aqd): “Legal union according to the Law is the contract of marriage (al-nikah fi’l shar’ ‘aqd al-tizwij). Sexual intercourse (wat’), without a contract, is illegal intercourse (safah, laysa bi-nikah).”
Fundamentals of Ijtehad, by Muhammad Taqi Amini
"[...] Imam Abu Hanipha [...] argues that the verse uses the word Nikah and it literally means the ‘union’ therefore it means ‘sexual intercourse’ [...]"
Muslim women in law and society: annotated translation of al-Tahir al Haddad
ReplyDeleteal-Ṭāhir Ḥaddād, Ronak Husni, Daniel L. Newman.
p. 182
2 Marriage in Islam
235 “The Arabic word for marriage is zawaj or nikah, the latter being derived from the verb nakaha (‘to have sexual intercourse’): cf. Qur. II: 230. Nikah is also used to denote the marriage contract (cf. ‘aqd, ‘aqd qiran).”
The Risala of 'Abdullah ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani (310/922 - 386/996) A Treatise on Maliki Fiqh (Including commentary from ath-Thamr ad-Dani by al-Azhari)
ReplyDeleteExcerpt (quoted as it appears at Bewley):
Chapter 32: On marriage, divorce, remarriage, 'Dhihar'-repudiation, vows of celibacy within marriage, mutual cursing (li'an), 'Khul'-'divorce, and suckling
"[These are eight things. The first, marriage, is the root and rest are consequences. Each has a linguistic meaning and usage which we will mention in its proper place. Marriage (nikah) linguistically means intercourse and is used as a metaphor for the contract. In technical usage, it is actual for the contract and metaphorical for intercourse. It is used in custom to mean to mean intercourse as the Almighty says, "Until she marries a husband other than him," (2:230) and so it is known from this that nakaha is used for intercourse between any man and woman. Marriage in the sense of intercourse is only permitted in the Shari'a by one of two matters: the contract of marriage or ownership by the words of the Almighty, "those who guard their private parts – except from their wives or those they own as slaves, in which case they are not blameworthy." (23:5-6)"
Law of desire: temporary marriage in Shi'i Iran (1989) Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, New York, by Shahla Haeri
ReplyDeleteChapter Permanent Marriage: Nikah, page 33-34
“Throughout the centuries, virtually unchanging language is used to define the Shi’i institution of marriage. Hilli (SI, 428), the thirteenth-century scholar, defines a contract of marriage as “that type of contract which ensures domination over the vagina, buz’, without ownership, milkiyyat,” as in the case of a slave girl.1 Hilli’s ambivalence regarding similarities between a contract of sale and of marriage is underscored by yet another of his definitions of nikah. On the one hand, he suggests that “marriage is a kind of ownership” (517), but on the other, he argues, an ‘aqd [marriage] and ownership, milkiyyat, do not mix” (446), meaning that a man may have intercourse with his own slave girl but he may not marry her—unless he first sets her free.2 He can, however, marry another man’s slave girl. Note that Hilli’s distinction is not between the existence or lack of ownership, but between what I call a “complete ownership,” as in the case of owning a slave girl, and a “partial ownership,” as in the case of a contract of marriage. Although legally this injunction makes it unlawful for a man to own his wife completely, it allows him to own part of his wife’s body and, consequently, the right to control her activities. In the tradition of his predecessors, Jabiri-Arablu, a contemporary scholar, after giving several interpretations of the term nikah, concludes that “nikah is a contract for the ownership, tamlik, of the use of [the] vagina” (1983, 175)."
continuing from Haeri...
ReplyDelete“[…] Hilli…writes that nikah is a “sort of ownership” and that it is “similar to the [contract of] sale,” on the other hand he emphasizes that “the purpose of the exchange of the vagina, mu’avizih-i buz’, is reproduction and recreation, and not just financial exchange” […]
“The ambivalence regarding classification of the definition of the contract of marriage is underscored by the confusion surrounding the definition of the term nikah itself. Emphasizing its literal meaning, some have interpreted it as intercourse, vaty.4 Others, stressing its contractual and obligational aspects, have referred to it as an ‘aqd, a contract. Citing Sahib-I Javahir, Murata writes: “For the Sunnis nikah means intercourse, and since marriage implies intercourse, then the word nikah has been used in the contract” (1974, 2). In contrast, Murata continues, Raghib maintains, “Intercourse is not the meaning of nikah because of its shamefulness, qubh, but that it is used as an analogy for that [intercourse]. Therefore the real meaning of nikah is ‘aqd, contract” (see also Jabiri-Arablu 1983, 174-75; Farah 1984, 14; “Nikah” 1927, 912).”
[…] “Noting the diversity of opinions, Langarudi, a contemporary Iranian Shi’i scholar […] argues [...] “intercourse is the raison d’etre of marriage” (5)
“Likewise, Imami defines nikah as a “legal relationship, created between a man and a woman as a result of a contract that permits them to enjoy each other sexually” (1971, 4:268)”
Dawood and Danios claim that the use of nikah to mean sexual intercourse is obscure. The above evidence indicates that that is not the case. Further evidence can be found simply by looking at popular Muslim websites. For example, I easily found this on a website "Online Muslim Matrimonial":
ReplyDelete"Islamic Marriage (Nikaah) Handbook for Young Muslims, Muslim Wedding and Marriage Guide"
[...]
“A. Importance of sex in marriage.
In Islam, marriage is not restricted to a platonic relationship between husband and wife, nor is it solely for procreation. The Islamic term for marriage, "Nikah" literally means sexual intercourse. So why has Islam provided extensive rules and regulation regarding sex? This was because Islam has fully understood that sexual instincts cannot and must not be repressed. They can only be regulated for the well being of human beings in this life and for their success in the hereafter.”
http://www.ezsoftech.com/omm/handbook.asp
There is also this item from the area of Arabic literature, about Shaykh Nafzawi (my bolding added):
ReplyDeleteEssays in Arabic literary biography, Volume 2
By Roger M. A. Allen, Joseph E. Lowry, Terri DeYoung, Devin J. Stewart
al-Nafzawi (fl. ca 1380 – 1440)
by Lois A Giffen
p. 309 “Shaykh al-Nafzawi is known to the world only through his book, al-Rawd al-‘atir fi nuzhat al-khatir (The Perfumed Garden of Sensual Delight […]) […] a work of practical instruction on the successful conduct of sexual relations in marriage and concubinage.”
p. 310, and p. 311, [according to the author, Shaykh al-Nafzawi was] “likely a qualified scholar in Maliki religious law.”
p. 312 “The thousand-year history of Arabic literature on erotology, meaning here prose books and essays on erotic love, sexuality, the relations of the sexes, and coition (sexual intercourse), began as early as the ninth century. […] Their writers tend to approach the subject either (1) as authors of adab literature combining discussion of coition, or coitus (bah, jima, nikah) with entertainment, (2) physicians writing on coitus to advise on preservation of health and treatment of difficulties or disease or (3) theologians and jurists writing with a concern for lawful indulgence of the sexual instinct, and the ethics and etiquette of sexual intercourse. There is often some crossover in approach and coverage. Whether or not they were educated in medicine, writers of adab-style books dealing with coition may offer information on the techniques of successful sex, preservation of health and handling sexual problems. Al-Nafzawi is one of these.”
I should be back this evening to post the argument against Dawood's and Danios' March 18th article.
ReplyDeleteRebuttal to Dawood and Danios
ReplyDeleteIn their most recent article (March 18, 2011) about Al Mutarjim's full translation of the published fatwa, Dawood and Danios (D and D) present dictionary and encyclopedia definitions of the word nikah, which they take to support their claim that nikah can only mean marriage, not sexual intercourse, in the context of the fatwa in question.
The most obvious problem is that their sources do not actually deny that nikah means sexual intercourse. Even if we grant that the (brief!) Wehr and Al Mawrid translational dictionaries do not, anywhere, define nikah as anything other than "marriage", the obvious question that ought to arise here is whether there are other translational dictionaries that do define nikah as sexual intercourse. As one can see from the evidence I've posted above in this thread, there are at least five (5) other translational dictionaries that do define nikah as meaning sexual intercourse.
The other thing about translational dictionaries is that they tend to be very brief. Even so, at least two of my above-cited translational dictionaries are very brief, and do include sexual intercourse for nikah.
The brevity of the translational dictionaries is a problem for D and D. For them to convincingly rule out that nikah means sexual intercourse (or to put it as a very rare and obscure meaning), they'd have to cite more, and more comprehensive, dictionaries, that did not contain a meaning of sexual intercourse for nikah. Also, to really prove their case, they'd have to get some kind of direct statement denying any significant usage of nikah as sexual intercourse. They have failed to provide any of this.
While their crude attempt here seems to me to be an obvious example of folly, it is perhaps useful to illustrate how it so. I have an English-French, French-English dictionary, which like most such translational dictionaries is very brief in terms of the number of words listed beside each entry. I ask whether the French word mariage (marriage) means matrimony in English. I open the book, look at the translation, and find that the English word "matrimony" does not appear beside the French word mariage. I find another such dictionary and the same result occurs. I therefore conclude that mariage does not mean matrimony! Now, anyone can see that this exercise is absurd, but this is essentially what D and D have done.
(to continue)
(continuing...)
ReplyDeleteThe next source they cite is Al-Mu‘jam al-Wasit which they claim is a popular and authoritative Arabic-only dictionary. For the sake of argument, and not knowing much Arabic, I will accept that they have searched the book in an exhaustive manner and found no instances where nikah meant sexual intercourse, or other terms for sexual intercourse meant nikah. (If they haven't done this exhaustive search, though, they ought to). To that, again, I say "So what?" I have cited five dictionaries, and at least 15 other scholarly sources, including from fiqh, all indicating that nikah (or n-k-h words) mean(s) sexual intercourse, and in Islamic law nikah is the contract permitting sexual intercourse. The Arabic dictionary they cite simply doesn't address the issue.
Lane's Lexicon is their next source. In fact, Lane's Lexicon does mention coitus (sexual intercourse) under two different entries for n k h word usages. Lane notes that the n k h word for "he married" also means, according to Ibn Faris (IF), "and others," that "it signifies coitus; and coitus without marriage; and marriage without coitus". Lane in that part is talking about the different uses of the word and the different opinions on the uses.
ReplyDeleteOriginally, in a comment (see posted by Azwar at the top of the present comment thread) at Loonwatch Dawood denied that Lane's Lexicon mentioned anything about nikah or any n-k-h word meaning sexual intercourse. Later, in a SATV thread, Dawood admitted that it mentioned sexual intercourse only as a "tropical" (i.e., figurative, metaphorical, non-literal, unusual meaning) of n k h. He repeated this false claim again in the March 18 article with Danios.
In fact, what Lane says is that there are different opinions on the meanings, and on what he calls tropical versus proper uses, and it seems that he is referring to both marriage and sexual intercourse. In addition, for another n k h entry, Lane notes, for the phrase someone who marries often, the apparent meaning is someone "vehement in coitus"! Note that this is consistent with some of the dictionary and other sources I've cited above.
ReplyDeleteI think it is clear that Dawood has misrepresented Lane's Lexicon. I provide the link here (in the next post) so that others readers may judge for themselves.
Link to Lane's Lexicon, n k h
ReplyDeletehttp://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume8/00000102.pdf
In any case, the sheer cumulative weight of the relevant and critical evidence I've presented from scholarly sources in above comments shows that D's and D's attempt to marginalize and ridicule the use of the word nikah for sexual intercourse is simply not sustainable.
(continuing with short comments because longer ones seem to disappear on Blogger)...
ReplyDeleteTheir next source is "the Encyclopedia of Islam (2nd Edition)". D and D claim that it states that "while “sexual intercourse” is a meaning, “in the Kur’an [it is] used exclusively for the contract of marriage.”" D and D then interpret this to support their argument, claiming "Wherever the word nikah is used in the Quran, it means the contract of betrothal/marriage–-not sexual intercourse."
I have reason to doubt that their quote is accurate. Here's my quote of what is apparently the same ultimate source (which I have now triple-checked):
E.J. Brill's First Encyclopaedia of Islam 1913-1936 By M. Th Houtsma
p. 912, “NIKAH (A.), marriage (properly: sexual intercourse, but already in the Kur’an used exclusively for the contract). Here we deal with marriage as a legal institution; for marriage customs see ‘URS. [...]” (J S Schacht)
As I noted above, Ziba Mir-Hosseini interpreted this ultimate source as follows:
20. “It’s name, ‘aqd al-nikah, literally means the contract of coitus, see Schacht (1932b: 912)”
I am inclined to accept Mir-Hosseini's interpretation over Dawood's.
I also don't believe D's and D's interpretation of the Qur'an is correct. Normally, marriage in the Qur'an means a marriage intended to involve sexual intercourse. Indeed, Muhammad urged his followers to get married and to not be celibate. When nikah refers to marriage, it refers to a marriage with sexual intercourse in most cases. I find it hard to believe that Schacht would get this wrong, so I suspect it is a misinterpretation by D and D. That is, I don't believe Schacht meant "exclusively" for marriage where sexual intercourse does not occur and is not expected. Anyways, my sources indicate that nikah in the Qur'an normally connotes both marriage and sexual intercourse (see above). One verse, 2:230, has been cited in my sources, quoted above, to show this is certainly the case for an n k h word in it.
At this point I have a question for Dawood about sources: What happened to Motzki and Hava? Dawood cited both of these sources in the SATV thread ("Loonwatch and Defending Muhammad"), and mentioned Hava in that comment way down at the bottom of the Loonwatch thread (see quoted at the top of the present thread). Originally, Dawood denied that Hava said anything about sexual intercourse for n k h words. Then on SATV, he let trickle out that in Hava's n k h section "a subsidiary meaning may be intercourse." That is misleading. There is no "may be" about it. Hava mentions "conjugal intercourse," and I'm not sure why Dawood thinks this is a "subsidiary meaning."
ReplyDeleteAnd Motzki clearly mentioned sexual intercourse. Dawood quoted Motzki in the SATV thread:
"In the Qur'an, marriage is, first of all, the favored institution for legitimate sexual intercourse between a man and woman"
See, Encyclopaedia of the Qur'an 2, 3:276 ["Marriage and Divorce"]
In light of this, what can Dawood possibly be thinking when he claims that nikah is used in the Qur'an "exclusively" for the contract of marriage and not for sexual intercourse? He is uttering nonsense!
And why doesn't any of this appear in D's and D's March 18 article? (I could as well ask them why any number of the readily-available sources I've cited do not appear anywhere in their article. I suspect they are cutting out information that would mess up the simple neat and tidy story they are trying to sell their readers.
In sum, D's and D's argument from their few select sources, that the use of nikah to mean sexual intercourse is only an obscure and rare usage, simply doesn't hold up. I have presented far better and more abundant evidence to the contrary.
ReplyDeleteNext I turn to the issue of the translated word nikah in the context of the critical sentence in the fatwa in question. D and D (March 18) quote Al Mutarjim as follows:
"I concede that the Mufti could have meant marriage, but he also could have meant sexual intercourse."
They then reply (my emphasis):
"No, he couldn’t have. If Al-Mutarjim had not used ellipses (…) everywhere to mask the fatwa’s real meaning, he would have noted this immediately above:"
They then quote one of the parts where the mufti cites the opinion of jurists:
"And it is important for us to know that even though the jurists approved betrothing a child, they prevented her husband from having intercourse with her until she could bear it [lit. intercourse], which can differ according to the time, place and environment."
D and D then use that statement, and others like it in the fatwa, to try and read back into the mufti's statement about the Qur'an, where the mufti says "we can take from this verse..." (65:4). The problem with D's and D's interpretation is that the mufti, in the critical sentence and in the sentences immediately after it, distinguishes between what the Qur'an says and what other sources, like the Hadith and Islamic fiqh, say.
(to continue)
Note that, according to the evidence I've cited above, verse 65:4, pertaining to the waiting period for divorced females before they can remarry, involves an 'iddah period of three months for girls who are too young to menstruate. That means in the verse it is assumed that sexual intercourse in the marriage has already taken place.
ReplyDeleteWhat the verse implies, then, is contrary to the interpretation D and D want to impose on the mufti's "we can take from this verse" sentence. Ignoring the implications of 65:4, and indeed ignoring 65:4 entirely!, D and D argue that, in light of other statements in the fatwa advising against sexual intercourse with prepubescent girls, the mufti can only have meant that marriage, not sexual intercourse, is "permissible" from the "verse".
But D's and D's interpretation makes no sense, because the verse assumes that sexual intercourse has already taken place. If the mufti only wanted to refer to a marriage contract without sexual intercourse, why would he choose a "verse" that mentions a three-months 'iddah period, and thus implies that both marriage and sexual intercourse have already occurred?
Indeed, the mufti not only personally recommends against sexual intercourse before puberty, but also recommends against marriage before puberty. But it would be incorrect to take these other recommendations from the mufti and claim, from them, that he "takes the verse" 65:4 as not permitting marriage with prepubescent girls.
With that said, I will offer an alternative interpretation which accounts for the implications of the "verse" (65:4) and the other statements in the fatwa. I think what the mufti was saying was that the "verse" 65:4 implies that it is in theory permissible to have sexual intercourse within marriage with a prepubescent girl according to the Quran,
ReplyDeleteBUT
the Quran as the mufti says is "unlike the books of jurisprudence" that discuss the implications of things in detail,
SO
we (being he and other Muslim scholars) turn to additional sources such as the Hadith, which says that Muhammad waited for about three years to have sexual intercourse with child bride Aisha until she was 9 (it's not fully clear whether the mufti thinks she had reached puberty at that early age)
AND
Islamic jurists who suggest that the husband must wait until the wife can physically bear intercourse, i.e., at least until she is at puberty,
AND
in light of medical and other considerations, advise against intercourse until the wife is at least at puberty.
Such decisions are often a compromise between the ultimate authority of the Qur'anic text--which is often unreasonable and unworkable--and the Hadith, and past legal precedents, and real concerns for peoples' health and well-being, and concerns about how the opinion expressed will be received by others.
But the mufti doesn't seem willing to declare sexual intercourse with prepubescent girls to be haram (forbidden), nor does he recommend penalties for men who do it. He is probably inhibited by the Qur'an (esp. 65:4) and what it implies. As Maududi said about the "verse": "Now, obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Qur'an has held as permissible."
Some remaining issues I will briefly address before (hopefully!) wrapping this up:
ReplyDeleteDespite all their wild allegations and smear campaign, and their vicious manner, one can extract out of Loonwatch's initial article on the nikah fatwa a valid point: Al Mutarjim should have included the mufti's concluding personal opinion admonishing against sexual intercourse with prepubescent girls. To his credit, Al Mutarjim has addressed the issue, and has indeed provided a translation of the entire fatwa. Al Mutarjim's translation shows that the mufti's comments were much more ambivalent than Loonwatch had suggested. And Loonwatch clearly excluded material that would have conveyed a very different impression to their readers. Even in their second article (March 18) about this fatwa, Loonwatch still has not addressed 65:4, for example. In other words, Loonwatch has committed sins of omission far more serious than any they had alleged against Al Mutarjim.
I posted this previously on SATV in response to Loonwatch's previous (February 26th) article, but many of the points still apply to the new (March 18th) article about the fatwa.
ReplyDeleteIn Al Mutarjim's translation, the mufti said that sexual intercourse with "prepubescent" girls was "permissible" (in light of verse 65:4 and Muhammad's conduct). In their counter-claim, D and D claimed that the mufti said "the exact opposite." But D's and D's claims about what the fatwa says differ in important ways from their translation of it.
The "exact opposite" of "permissible" is forbidden. D and D claim that the mufti forbade sexual intercourse with prepubescent girls. But in their translation, the mufti himself doesn't say that he forbids it. Rather, what the mufti says, in their translation, is that he "admonishes" against it out of concern that it could harm the girl. It is possible for some action to be permissible but admonished against (or warned, advised, cautioned, recommended against). It is possible that the mufti thinks it's permissible according to Islamic scripture for a man to have sexual intercourse with a prepubescent wife, even if the mufti advises strongly against it due to concerns about harm to the girl. Admonishing against something is not the same as forbidding it.
(Continuing the above)
ReplyDeleteThe "exact opposite" of prepubescent is postpubescent. D and D repeatedly claim that the mufti forbade sexual intercourse until at least "after puberty," clearly implying after puberty is complete (postpubescent). But in their translation, the mufti puts the advised or "admonished" minimum age at least "at puberty." There's a big difference between "at puberty" and "after puberty." "At puberty" can mean any time within the several years of its duration, from its onset to its completion. At the beginning of puberty is a girl and by the end of it is, at least physically, a young woman.
I will very briefly address a few remaining issues with the next few posts and then leave this topic.
ReplyDelete-D and D mention the importance of "legal" terminology in translating fatawa. However, the evidence here shows that sexual intercourse is a defensible choice of translation of nikah in this case.
-Despite their mention of the importance of legal terminology, D and D tend to use the word forbid/forbade very loosely. In fact, the mufti never declared sexual intercourse with prepubescent wives to be haram, forbidden. He merely advised against it.
D and D (March 18) argue and imply that the mufti believes Aisha "passed through" puberty at 9 years of age, and that the marriage was consummated "after puberty". This is all highly unlikely, since puberty takes several years. The evidence that Aisha had even started puberty is suggestive but not clear, though often assumed. It is not clear exactly what the mufti believes about this, though it is reasonable to suggest he believes that she had at least started puberty. (In any case, the mufti's statement about 65:4 remains).
ReplyDeleteThe issue of the minimum (numerical) age for sexual intercourse is an important one, but the jurists, and even D and D (February 26th) seem to think the lack of a minimum age is a good thing, as long as the girl is ready to "bear" intercourse. A problem here is that some jurists and scholars seem to think girls are ready to "bear" it at quite young ages, even in some cases before the age of nine.
Some girls go through puberty at a very young age, even though they should not be having intercourse at that age. Yet the mufti's emphasis on "puberty" as the minimum (biological) "age" is dangerously vague. The mufti himself cites nine years of age as acceptable, presumably if the girl has reached puberty. This again highlights why the mufti could have improved matters by clearly recommending "after the completion of puberty" as the minimum age (i.e., late teens). But he did not do this.
ReplyDeleteThe issue of other kinds of sexual contact besides intercourse as such was not addressed explicitly in the fatwa or by D and D. However, it is reasonable to suspect that the mufti opposes this for the same reason he opposes cohabitation before puberty. Yet this issue should have been addressed by the mufti, because the talk about "bearing it" etc. may lead some to suggest permissibility of other kinds of sexual contact with prepubescent girls. That is, the mufti should have clearly prohibited it.
Here are more dictionary results, in English, French, and Italian. They all yielded sexual words for the Arabic script of nikah نكاح :
ReplyDeleteFrench
Arabic-French
(Sakhr)
acte sexuel , conjungo , mariage
Dicts.info
نكاح putain
Sensagent
نكاح (v.)
avoir des rapports (V + ensemble), avoir des rapports sexuels (V + ensemble), avoir des relations sexuelles (V+avec+qqn (distributif);V (distributif : ils V = il V avec l'autre);V + ensemble), baiser (V+qqn;se+V (réciproque (distributif));V + ensemble;argotique;vulgaire;homme), besogner (vulgaire;V+qqn), connaître, coucher (V+avec+comp (V+ensemble);V+avec+qqn (distributif);V + ensemble;populaire), coucher avec, culbuter (vulgaire;V+qqn;argotique), être intime avec (V + ensemble), faire l'amour (V (distributif : ils V = il V avec l'autre);V+(à=avec)+qqn;V + ensemble;homme), niquer (vulgaire;V+qqn;V + ensemble;argotique)
Italian
ReplyDeleteDicts.info
نكاح cazzo
Sensagent
نكاح (v.)
andare a letto con (maschio), avere rapporti sessuali (maschio), avvitare, compiere il coito (maschio), congiungersi carnalmente (maschio), copulare, fare all'amore (maschio), fare l'amore, fare l'amore con (maschio), fottere (triviale;maschio), scopare (triviale;maschio), svitare, trombare, unirsi carnalmente (maschio)
English
ReplyDeleteSakhr
matrimony , marriage , splice , wedlock
Wordreference.com
Incest n (sex with close relative)نكاح ذوي القُربى matrimony n (marriage)زواج، قران، نكاح حالة شخصية ضرب من العاب الورق hand job n slang (masturbation of the penis)نكاح اليد I can't believe you gave him a hand job in his car!
Sensagent
translations
نكاح (v.)
bang, bed, be intimate, bone, bonk, do it, eff, engage in coitus (literary;old;man), fuck (coarse;man), get it on, get laid, get off, go to bed with (man), have a go at it, have intercourse, have it away, have it off, have sex (man), have sexual intercourse (man), hump, jazz, know, lie with, love, make love (man), make out, roll in the hay, screw (coarse;man), sleep together, sleep with (man)
Re: Dawood's citation of Al-Mawrid, in a comment in a thread under his and Danios' most recent (March 16*) article on this subject, he wrote:
ReplyDelete"...the first thing you do when you are unsure of how to render a word accurately is look in a relevant dictionary. 9.9 times out of 10 Hans Wehr or Al-Mawrid are the dictionaries of choice for contemporary Arabic, which as you saw above relate “nikah” and anything from its trilateral root to marriage."
He provides no evidence whatsoever as to why Al Mawrid and Wehr are more relevant than others here; nor does he support his "9.9" times out of 10 claim. I find it hard to believe that professional translators 99% of the time use only one or both of just those two sources. (And what about Arabic-French, Arabic-Italian, etc.?) Moreover, in this case we already know that those two sources are inadequate for addressing the question at hand. The inadequacy of those sources is, of course, precisely why Dawood used them and not the others that do mention sexual intercourse.
However, even if we accept his (highly improbable!) claim as true (re 9.9 out of 10), it is not suitable evidence, for the reasons I've described above (viz. brevity etc.)
But we can't accept Dawood's claim as true, even for argument's sake, because his own evidence shows that it is false! His own source, Al-Mawrid, doesn't stop at mentioning marriage under nikah; it also mentions incest! Note to Dawood: Incest is not marriage. What do incest and marriage have in common? Sexual intercourse.
The deception that Dawood tried to pull off here was the old "Who are you going to believe: me, or your own two lying eyes?" He tried to pull that one on me previously, too, in a thread at SATV.
So down goes another one of Dawood's sources. We can write that one off too as misrepresentation. The only one he's left with is the very brief entry from Wehr, and possibly Al-Mu‘jam al-Wasit, though the latter would certainly need to be searched fully as I suggested previously.
*Note: In the above posts I refer to Loonwatch's March 18th article on this subject of translation. It was apparently March 16.
As for Wehr, it turns out that when we check the original Arabic-German dictionary upon which the Arabic-English version is based, we find that Wehr did in fact mention sexual intercourse under nikah. Here it is (available online at Google Books; my emphasis):
ReplyDeleteArabisches Wörterbuch für die Schriftsprache der Gegenwart: Arabisch-Deutsch
By Hans Wehr 5. Auflage
p. 1313
نكاح "nikah pl. ‘ankiha Heirat, Eheschließung; Ehevertrag; Ehe; (ehelicher) Beischlaf"
...which translates as follows:
"Marriage, marriage/wedding ceremony, marriage contract, marriage, (marital) sexual intercourse"
I have verified that that is the correct translation of Beischlaf using seven different German-English translation dictionaries; all seven of the ones I checked had sexual intercourse, coitus, etc.
I'm going to address a few remaining issues from Dawood's and Danios' article (March 16) on the nikah fatwa.
ReplyDeleteAs I indicated above, D and D falsely claimed that Lane's Lexicon referred to sexual intercourse as only a "tropical" (as opposed to "proper"--see LL) sense of the word nikah. They are knowingly hiding additional information from their readers that contradicts this "tropical" claim. In his post on SATV, Dawood posted this next quote, which he never posted in full in any Loonwatch article or comment (my emphasis):
"Marriage (properly, sexual intercourse, but already in the Kur'an used exclusively of the contract of marriage..." (Dawood cited that as "Encyclopaedia of Islam 2, 8:26 ["Nikah"]")
(Also note that, on another issue, I have addressed this quote, and have refuted D's and D's denial of the "contract of coitus" view, above).
This reference refers to nikah as "properly" referring to sexual intercourse. It does not describe it as an unusual or "tropical" meaning. Note again that this full quote did not appear in D's and D's March 16 article. I can imagine how that might have caused problems for their "it's tropical" argument! Here's what they quoted instead, where they carefully removed the word "properly" [my brackets]:
" [Schacht] notes in the Encyclopedia of Islam (2nd Edition) that while “sexual intercourse” is a meaning, “in the Kur’an [it is] used exclusively for the contract of marriage.”
Yes, "a meaning," but a proper, not a "tropical" meaning. Note also that other of my sources above describe sexual intercourse as a "literal" (not only figurative) meaning of the word nikah.
-----
(to continue)
D and D also cited the Arabic-only dictionary, Al-Mu‘jam al-Wasit, to which I do not currently have access. But they failed to show that nikah was not listed under entries for words for sexual intercourse. I therefore examined that question myself using online Arabic dictionaries. Sure enough, at least two of the three words/terms Dawood cited from the fatwa as signifying sexual intercourse were defined with nikah or vice versa. (One of the three, meaning "enter," seemed too general to pin down). Meanwhile, these dictionaries equate nikah (marriage) with intercourse--which is precisely what I'd read in the scholarly sources cited in this thread.
ReplyDeleteالنِّكاحُ: الوَطْءُ، والعَقْدُ لَهُ. "Marriage: intercourse, and [the] contract."
النُكاحُ: الوَطْءُ، وقد يكونُ العقدَ. "Marriage: intercourse, and may be the contract."
These examples can be found here (search with النِّكاحُ or نكاح ):
http://www.baheth.info/
Another sexual intercourse word cited by D and D was this (I've removed the "al-"): جماع
Just for fun, and to address the word usage-popularity versus obscurity issue, I checked Arabic Wikipedia to see what turned up. Here's what I saw when I searched nikah:
نكاح
نكاح (توضيح)
اذهب إلى: تصفح, البحث
* زواج
* جماع
END QUOTE
Nikah was "disambiguated" into marriage (zawaj; literally "pairing," "joining") and sexual intercourse (jima'). This is basically like looking up nikah in a popular dictionary and seeing "marriage, sexual intercourse." This further indicates that sexual intercourse is a well-recognized meaning of the word. In addition, when you check the definition for zawaj, it is defined, in part, as "conjugation":
الزواج في اللغة العربية يعني الإقتران
"Marriage in the Arabic language means conjugation..."
The point here though is that nikah means marriage and sexual intercourse, as practically all of my other sources cited above have indicated.
In another very weak argument, D and D claimed that the word nikah couldn't mean sexual intercourse because the Book of Marriage (Nikah) in the Sahih Muslim hadith collection and the Book of Marriage (Nikah) in the Reliance of the Traveller would each be relabeled "Book of Sex." I had to laugh at the inappropriateness of their examples, because both of those books are extensively preoccupied with sexual matters. One can just read those sources online (Reliance of the Traveller can be accessed at Muhaddith; Sahih Muslim is easy to find) to verify how much they deal with sex, private parts, looking or touching private parts/or not, virginity, fertility, chastity, sexual desire, waiting periods and menstrual periods, etc. The Sahih Muslim Book of Nikah even talks about Muslim jihadists having sex with slave and captive women.
ReplyDeleteThe website WikiIslam has some articles about Aisha's age at the time of consummation. Some of the hadiths they cite suggest that Aisha did not enter puberty until much later than the apologists usually claim.
ReplyDeletehttp://wikiislam.net/wiki/Pedophilia_in_the_Qur%27an#cite_note-EB-1
also claims Aisha did not reach puberty until much later
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Aisha_and_Puberty
also
http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Versions/065.004.html
In those links I came across this quote from Tabari, re Qur'an 65:4:
“The interpretation of the verse "And those of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the 'Iddah (prescribed period), if you have doubt (about their periods), is three months; and for those who have no courses (i.e. they are still immature) their 'Iddah (prescribed period) is three months likewise". He said: The same applies to the 'idaah for girls who do not menstruate because they are too young, if their husbands divorce them after consummating the marriage with them.”
Tafsir Al-Tabari, 14/142
One of the interesting things about the fatwa is that throughout it the mufti himself consistently uses z-w-j words for marriage or marry, etc. Conspicuously, as far as I can tell, the mufti himself only uses nikah in the "we can take from this verse..." [65:4] statement. Why would the mufti use z-w-j throughout the fatwa to refer to marriage, but then use nikah--which can mean either sexual intercourse or marriage or both--specifically in reference to 65:4? Isn't it reasonable to believe that the mufti knows about the implications of 65:4, how the three-month 'iddah period is used when sexual intercourse is assumed to have already taken place? Isn't it reasonable to suggest that the mufti deliberately used the word nikah there, instead of z-w-j, to reflect the full implications of 65:4? If the mufti himself only meant marriage and not sexual intercourse, as D and D claim, then why didn't he just use z-w-j to avoid the ambiguity?
ReplyDelete(Note that the doctor he quotes later in the fatwa also cites 65:4 but in that particular context the doctor uses z-w-j for marriage).
Lastly, D and D seem to have taken liberties in their partial translation, including in the final paragraph. In that final paragraph are ellipses indicating that the version of the fatwa on IslamOnline is itself a redacted version. In any case, whereas Al Mutarjim correctly preserved the ellipses, D and D removed them and wrote in their own interpretation, placing a comma and adding "especially." Their manipulation made it look like the mufti was leaning in the direction of agreeing with the 18 years of age minimum age limit for marriage. However, that is misleading because in the fatwa the mufti himself argued against setting (numerical) legally binding age limits.
On the issue of instances of n-k-h in the Qur'an which imply not only marriage but sexual intercourse, here is another example:
ReplyDelete24:3 Ibn Kathir "[...] The Zani marries not but a Zaniyah or a Mushrikah; and the Zaniyah, none marries her except a Zani or a Mushrik. Such a thing is forbidden to the believers.) Here Allah tells us that the Zani (male who is guilty of illegal sex) does not have intercourse except with a Zaniyah (female who is guilty of illegal sex) or a Mushrikah (female idolator), meaning that no one would go along with him in this action except a sinful woman who is also guilty of Zina, or a Mushrikah who does not think it is unlawful.[...]"
Likewise the Hilali and Khan translation, with its extensive bracketed and parenthetical insertions throughout, which are based on hadiths and tafsirs, write: "The adulterer marries not but an adulteress or a Mushrikah and the adulteress none marries her except an adulterer or a Muskrik [and that means that the man who agrees to marry (have a sexual relation with) a Mushrikah (female polytheist, pagan or idolatress) or a prostitute, then surely he is either an adulterer, or a Mushrik (polytheist, pagan or idolater, etc.) {...and so on}"
While most translations just say "marry," some translations do say "sexual intercourse" or "sexual relations" (Sher Ali, Amatul Rahman Omar, Maulana Muhammad Ali) or make a note of this meaning.