|
02 March 2011 By Dawood and
Danios We recently published an article
criticizing the anti-Islam website known as Translating-Jihad.
The owner of this website, Al-Mutarjim
(the blogger formerly known as Al-Mutarajjam),
parades around as a qualified and reliable Arabic
translator. Our article questioned his Arabic
language skills, and we showed that he can't even
translate the word "translator"–which he kept as his
user name for months on end. For an entire year, he
was calling himself The Translated (Al-Mutarajjam)
instead of The Translator (Al-Mutarjim)…he only
changed it after we pointed out the error (and then he
scrambled to cover up his mistake). Al-Mutarjim issued a rebuttal.
The gist of his response is that he made a mistake
("so what?") but that doesn't change the fact that his
translations are accurate. He argued that we are
focusing on this "minor mistake" because we can't deal
with the substance of his translations. Al-Mutarjim
challenged us (emphasis added):
Translating
Jihad I started this blog in winter
2010 to expose the violent, intolerant, and
totalitarian doctrines of Islam. It is common to hear
these doctrines expressed candidly by Muslims when
they are speaking to other Muslims in Arabic, but it
is not so common to hear them expressed freely by
Muslims speaking to Western audiences. A perfect example of this comes
in a fatwa posted on the Arabic-language section of
Islamonline.net, which was founded by Muslim
Brotherhood leader Yusuf al-Qaradawi, regarding the
Prophet Muhammad having intercourse with his
prepubescent wife ‘Aisha. An excerpt of my translation
follows:
…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. A fatwa on the same topic on the
English side of the site smooths over this
uncomfortable bit of Islamic history: As for the Prophet's condition
before this marriage, it clearly explained what we've
said that it was a purely sublime aim and purpose that
motivated him to marry `Aisha. That's why the marriage
was not consummated until sometime after the
emigration to Madinah, when she had reached maturity.
The author of the [LoonWatch]
article which calls me a fraud was unable to refute
this translation, or any of my other translations.
He spent hours on my site over several days,
scrutinizing every piece of it. If he could have
refuted any of them, he would have. I take pride in my
work, which is to produce accurate translations
exposing the violent and intolerant doctrines of Islam
to the English-speaking audience. I
invite all to come and scrutinize my work. We are delighted to accept Al-Mutarjim's
challenge. The only reason that [Dawood] did not
criticize this translation before was that Al-Mutarjim
had disabled comments after [Dawood] refuted him. Al-Mutarjim
says that [Dawood] "was unable to refute this
translation, or any of my other translations…" Well
yes, since Al-Mutarjim disabled commenting, it was not
possible to post rebuttals! [Danios], on the other
hand, has been M.I.A. from the LoonWatch site for
several months and just returned. But now that Al-Mutarjim has
challenged us, we are but compelled to expose him.
Al-Mutarjim, remember how you said in your response
that you never received any formal schooling to learn
Arabic? Well, sit back and relax, because you are
about to get some schooling today. In his response to us, Al-Mutarjim
has claimed that the Arabic version of IslamOnline.net
permits sexual intercourse with prepubescent girls,
whereas the English version misleadingly avoids
mentioning this. As proof, Al-Mutarjim claims that
the Arabic fatwa on IslamOnline says "it
is permissible to have sexual intercourse with a
prepubescent girl." This line is
critical to Al-Mutarjim's claim, so surely he
translated it correctly, right? In fact, Al-Mutarjim's
translation is completely fraudulent. The proper
translation of this line is actually as follows: "and
from this verse we take the permissibility of
betrothal/marriage (nikah) with prepubescent girls."
The word nikah here does not mean "sexual intercourse"
at all. In fact, the mufti issuing the fatwa says
the exact opposite: namely that although a girl may be
betrothed when she is prepubescent, no sexual
intercourse ought to occur until (1) at least after
she passes puberty and (2) she can
physically bear it without any harm to her. To understand the duplicity of
Al-Mutarjim's claims, let's review: Al-Mutarjim claims
that the fatwa says that it is permissible to have
sexual intercourse with prepubescent girls, but in
reality the fatwa actually says that sexual
intercourse may occur only after
puberty and once the female can bear it
without any harm to her. Quite simply, the fatwa says
the exact opposite of what Al-Mutarjim claims! Here is the original Arabic:
فيؤخذ من الآية جواز نكاح البنت قبل
البلوغ" which Al-Mutarjim translated as: we can take from this verse that
it is permissible to have sexual intercourse with a
prepubescent girl. When it
actually translates as: and from this verse we take the
permissibility of betrothal/marriage (nikah) with
pre-pubescent girls. Al-Mutarjim's dishonest
translation becomes even more apparent when we look at
the rest of the fatwa. But first, let's look at the
way his blog, Translating-Jihad,
translated the fatwa: Fatwa: "It is Permissible to
Have Sexual Intercourse with a Prepubescent Girl".
(This is the original blog post that Al-Mutarjim was
referring to in his response to us–the one we
supposedly couldn't refute.) Notice how he uses ellipses (…)
everywhere. As with other authors in the anti-Islam
blogosphere, the use of ellipsis is of strategic
importance, purposefully placed to mislead the reader
and to superimpose false meanings onto the text. Al-Mutarjim's
translation is under 400 words long, whereas the
actual fatwa on IslamOnline is just under 2,000
words. In other words, his "translation" is less than
1/5th the actual length of the fatwa. The other
4/5ths of the fatwa is tactfully hidden within the
ellipses. Most troubling is the fact that Al-Mutarjim
hid the mufti's final verdict regarding the issue,
which directly contradicts Al-Mutarjim's claims. So what exactly did Al-Mutarjim
hide inside those ever so helpful ellipses? The following key part was
mysteriously not translated by Al-Mutarjim:
.
ومن المهم كذلك أن نعرف أن
الفقهاء وإن أجازوا تزويج الصغيرة فإنهم
منعوا زوجها أن يطأها حتى تطيق الوطء ،
وهذا يختلف باختلاف الأزمنة والأمكنة
والبيئات. And it is important for us to
know that even
though the jurists approved betrothing a child [before
puberty], they prevented her husband from having
sexual intercourse with her until she could bear it,
which differs according to the time, place, and
environment. Al-Mutarjim's deceit becomes
quite clear from this! The fatwa states that sexual
intercourse before puberty would not be proper as it
would bring great harm to the female. It says (editor's
note: we've broken down the English
text into two paragraphs just for ease in reading,
though in Arabic it appears as one paragraph):
ولا يخفى بأن زواج الصغار لا يخلو من
محاذير صحية ، لأن أجهزتهم
التناسلية لا تكون مهيأة للجماع بعد ،
كما أن الصغار لا يكونون مهيئين نفسياً
لممارسة الجنس ، وبخاصة البنت الصغيرة
التي يغلب أن تتضرر جسدياً ولاسيما إذا كان
زوجها رجلاً كبيراً ! فقد يسبب جماعها
مضاعفات نفسية وجسدية سيئة ترافقها طوال
حياتها وتؤثر في مستقبلها الجنسي !
ولهذا ذهب الفقهاء إلى أن الزوجة الصغيرة التي
لا تحتمل الوطء لا تُسلَّم إلى زوجها
حتى تكبر وتصبح في سـن تتحمل فيه الوطء ، حتى
وإن كان الزوج عاقلاً أميناً وتعهد ألا
يقربها ، لأن هيجان الشهوة فيه قد يحمله على
وطئها فيؤذيها It is clear that the marriage of
children has health concerns, because their
reproductive organs are not ready for sexual
intercourse yet, nor are they emotionally prepared for
sexual intercourse, especially the female child who
will most likely be physically damaged. This is
especially if her husband is an old man! Sexual
intercourse might cause negative physical and
emotional ramifications that would stay with her for
the rest of her life and affect her sexual future!
And that is why the
majority of jurists say that the child wife who cannot
bear sexual intercourse must not be given to her
husband, until she is grown and is of
age in which she could bear sexual intercourse, even
if the husband was intelligent and trustworthy and
promised not to touch her, since the force of the
sexual need in him might compel him to have
intercourse with her and harm her. Oh, how convenient that all of
this was removed from the Translating-Jihad
translation! And yet Al-Mutarjim has the gall to say
to us: The author of the [LoonWatch]
article which calls me a fraud was unable to refute
this translation, or any of my other translations. He
spent hours on my site over several days, scrutinizing
every piece of it. If he could have refuted any of
them, he would have. I take pride in my work, which is
to produce accurate translations… The mufti asks:
إذا كان من يريدون ذلك يبحثون حقا عن
المصلحة العامة فلماذا لم يكتفوا
بسن البلوغ؟ وهل
يقول الأطباء : إن وطء البالغة مضر بها؟ If they really were looking for
public interest, then why not suffice with the age of
puberty [as the minimum age for sexual intercourse in
marriage]? And do doctors say that intercourse with a
girl that had reached puberty brings harm to her? This is a rhetorical question he
is asking, and he means to say that sex after puberty
is not harmful. (This is where the mufti is sadly
mistaken, but the point is that the fatwa does not at
all permit sexual intercourse with prepubescent girls,
as Al-Mutarjim claims.) The IslamOnline mufti argues
that puberty ought to be the absolute minimum age for
sexual intercourse. In his concluding paragraph, the
mufti issues his final verdict:
ونحن بدورنا ننصح من الوجهة الطبية بعدم
الزواج قبل البلوغ على أقل
تقدير؛ لأن البلوغ مؤشر فطري يدل على أن
الجسم أصبح مهيأً للمعاشرة الزوجية ، كما
أن الإنسان بالبلوغ يصل إلى درجة مقبولة
من الوعي الاجتماعي الذي يساعده على تكوين
الأسرة .. علماً بأن معظم القوانين
المعمول بها في البلدان الإسلامية وغير
الإسلامية تمنع الزواجَ قبل سِنِّ
الرُّشْدِ ، أو سنِّ ثماني عشرة سنة
. In view of medical grounds,
we admonish against
marriage before puberty at the very least,
because puberty is an intuitive sign which indicates
that the body is ready for marital intercourse, and
because humans at puberty reach an acceptable degree
of social awareness that would help them in forming a
family unit, especially since most applied laws in
Islamic countries and non-Islamic countries prohibit
marriage before the age of puberty or before the age
of eighteen. Amazing how the mufti's
conclusion did not appear anywhere in Al-Mutarjim's
translation! All of this hidden in those magical
ellipses. As we stated before, Al-Mutarjim
deceitfully translated the fatwa as follows: we can take from this verse that
it is permissible to have sexual intercourse with a
prepubescent girl. which should
read: and from this verse we take the
permissibility of betrothal/marriage (nikah) with
prepubescent girls. Not only does the mufti forbid
sexual intercourse before puberty, he also speaks
against marriage before puberty (even if the married
couple abstain from intercourse). The IslamOnline
mufti explains that the permissibility to betroth
prepubescent girls is a thing of the past, due to the
societal needs of a time gone by. The mufti argues
that hundreds of years ago, the vast majority of
people were illiterate. Without schooling in the way,
it was the norm for early marriage to occur. But
today, most people are educated for several years, and
early marriage would interrupt this. Therefore, it is
not proper to betroth/marry off a child. Says the
mufti (again, not translated by our dishonest Translating-Jihad
translator):
ولا
ننسى كذلك أن الثقافة وقتها كانت محدودة، فقد كان
بمقدورها أن تحيط
بها في سن صغيرة، ولم يكن الحال كما هو
عليه الآن من أن الولد ذكرا، أو أنثى يظل
يتعثر في القراءة والكتابة حتى يجاوز
العاشرة. And we should not forget also
that the culture at the time was quite limited, and so
she could easily be familiar with it [i.e. get to know
everything she would need to know for adult life] at a
young age, and things were not the way they are now,
in which the child, male or female, remains stumbling
through schooling [lit. reading and writing] beyond
the age of ten. In another IslamOnline fatwa–also
in Arabic–it says:
ومعنى هذا … أن زواج الصغار جائز من حيث
الأصل، ولكن قد يمنع من باب
المصلحة ، والسياسة الشرعية. The meaning of this [is that] the
marriage [note: betrothal, not sexual intercourse] of
youngsters is permissible in terms of theoretical
principle; however, it may be better to prevent it so
as to guarantee the well-being of the community and
[conformity with] Islamic societal policies He argues that although there is
a theoretical permissibility, in actuality it would be
harmful in today's day and age. Therefore, it would
go against the maslaha
(public welfare), and the ruler is
permitted in Islam to ban it and ought to do so. And the fatwa concludes: We admonish against marriage
before puberty at the very least. The original fatwa, mistranslated
by Al-Mutarjim, concludes that betrothal/marriage and
sexual intercourse ought not to be initiated until at
least after puberty. Yet, if one were to
read Al-Mutarjim's translation of the fatwa, one would
get a completely different understanding of the text.
Al-Mutarjim is wholly unreliable, completely
dishonest, and indubitably fraudulent. This topic–minimum age of
marriage in Islam–is a hefty one and one which [Danios]
will write on in the future. Unfortunately, many
misconceptions circulate the internet regarding this
issue. For example, it is commonly assumed that
traditional Sharia dictates that the consummation of
marriage may take place at puberty, and that the onset
of puberty is considered to be menarche (the start of
a female's menstrual cycles). This is not true.
Traditional Sharia did not dictate a specific age of
the consummation of marriage and only dictated that a
"woman may be able to bear it (i.e. sexual
intercourse)" without any harm coming to her from it.
Prof. Suad Joseph of U.C. Davis writes on p.57 of the Encyclopedia
of Women and Islamic Cultures: From cases that were brought to
court we learn that muftis and qadis would ensure that
the minor girl was able to "endure" intercourse (tutiq
al-wat'). This explains why there was no
need to mention to mention a "minimum age" [of
consummation of marriage]: It was the girl's physical
appearance ("plump and boxom") that signaled whether
the marriage could be consummated without undue harm
[to the female]. In other words, consummation of
marriage was to be permitted only if the female's body
had developed, undergoing pubertal changes such as the
development of breasts and other womanly features.
The very dictum regarding a minimum age of marriage is
exactly opposite of what is commonly assumed about
Islam: it requires the female to have the body of a
woman, not a child. Islamic jurists abstained from
specifying a specific age, as they reasoned that
different girls matured at different ages. Instead,
they argued that each case should be judged
individually on a case by case basis. Furthermore,
clerics point out that the average age of puberty can
vary from one generation to another and from one
location to another. It should of course be noted that
we here at LoonWatch don't agree with the mufti's
fatwa and find many things objectionable in it.
However, what Al-Mutarjim and the other Islamophobes
do is pretend that the IslamOnline mufti's opinion is
the only one in the Islamic world. In fact, many
Islamic clerics have argued that the age of marriage
ought to be eighteen, regardless of any other
factors. Even in the ultraconservative Saudi Arabia,
there are clerics like the prominent Mohsen al-Obaikan
and the Justice Minister Mohammed al-Eissa (both links
are from none other than IslamOnline) who are pushing
to ban marriage below the age of eighteen. These clerics argue that Islam
does not specify a specific age for marriage, but
rather leaves it up to each society and generation to
adjust it according to the needs of the time. More
specifically, a female may not be married (and
certainly may not engage in sexual intercourse) "until
she could bear it, which differs according to time,
place, and environment". These quoted words appear in
the same IslamOnline fatwa that Al-Mutarjim translated
(if we can call it a translation), except that these
other clerics would argue that a girl who is
post-pubertal but still young would not be able to
"bear it (i.e. sexual intercourse)". Indeed, the
medical evidence is overwhelming that such marriages
are harmful to girls. Since the only requirement
under Islamic law for ascertaining a minimum age of
marriage is that no harm come to the female, the
conclusion then is that marriage ought to be
prohibited before eighteen years of age. Furthermore,
they argue that instead of issuing such rulings on a
case by case basis (which has a large potential for
abuse by forceful men), the government should pass a
general law, since generally it is harmful for a
female to marry before the age of eighteen. Their opponents–both Islamic and
anti-Islamic–would argue that it would not be
permitted in Islam to place an arbitrary age of
marriage like this, since the Islamic scriptural
sources do not seem to mandate it. How can Muslims
prohibit what God didn't? However, the more
reform-minded Islamic clerics argue that a temporal
ban is permitted in Islam. They argue that Islam
leaves the question wide open so that each generation
and society can adjust the minimum age of marriage to
their needs. Therefore, it might make sense to ban
marriage under the age of eighteen in the modern day
United States, but it may not have been appropriate
for a pre-industrial society on the remote outskirts
of Africa one hundred years ago. If times change
again, then the age can be adjusted as well, either up
or down. In essence then, the fact that
Islam does not specify a specific age for marriage is
a blessing and part of the leeway given to the people
by the Merciful God. The permission to marry before
the age of eighteen is not a requirement (i.e. a
female is not obligated or commanded to get married at
this time; it is not sinful for her to postpone
marriage until she is older); therefore, it would not
be forbidden to issue a temporal ban on it, in order
to fulfill one of the higher ethical objectives of
Islamic law, i.e. the right of a female to obtain
happiness, the removal of harm, etc. Indeed, not
placing such a restriction–in an attempt to maintain
rigid fidelity to the letter of the law–would end up
destroying the spirit of the law. By prohibiting
marriage before the age of eighteen, the ruler is
upholding the higher objective of the Sharia in an
ever changing time. Such a restriction would only be
prohibited if the ruler were to argue that this is a
divine and immutable law, instead of a temporal and
adjustable one. Mohammad Hashim Kamali writes on
p.227 of Shari'ah Law:
An Introduction: Government decisions are not
always based on legal text [scriptural texts and
fatawa] and principle. Legal text as well as political
and economic considerations, custom and even
exceptional conditions all play a role and constitute
the premises of decision-making. Siyasah
shar‘iyyah aims at securing benefit for
the people and efficient management of their affairs,
even if the measures so taken are not stipulated in
the [religious] text…It also enables the state to
change the operative rules, law and policy as the
conditions of the society may demand. He concludes on p.229: Essential harmony with the spirit
of the Shari‘ah
may at times even justify a certain departure from its
letter. Heavy stuff, right? Not for
wikipedia-educated "experts on Islam", no doubt. The fact is that amongst the
religious establishment in Islam, there is a lively
debate about what the minimum age of marriage should
be. The IslamOnline website itself gives two differing
opinions on the issue. A questioner asks the site: Recently, we have heard about
some Muslim countries issuing laws stating a minimum
age for marriage. Is there a minimum age for marriage
in Islam? Is enacting such laws permitted? The fatwa site responds: As far as the issue of enacting
laws specifying the minimum age of marriage
, this issue is subject to debate
among Muslim scholars. Some of them say that the ruler
cannot enact such a law, while others say the ruler is
entitled to issue such laws as long as the public
interest of the society is maintained. They give both opinions by two
separate clerics; the second opinion, by the former
Head of the Al-Azhar Fatwa Committee, rules: I think that enacting some laws
to specify the age of marriage
as done by some governments, is a good
step. However, these governments should take into
consideration all the circumstances relating to the
subject and specific to the society. Obeying the ruler
in following such laws is surely an obligation so long
as they bring about benefit to the whole society. The fatwa concludes: Based on the above fatwas, it can
be said that the issue of enacting laws specifying the
age of marriage is governed by the public interest of
the Muslim society taking into consideration the Shari`ah-based
objectives in this regard. In other words, it is permitted
to enact laws specifying the minimum age of marriage
as eighteen. One might be bothered by the fact
that there exists no shortage of clerics who think
it's OK for really young girls to get married, and
that's a legitimate gripe that we share. But it would
be dishonest to say that no other views exist in the
Muslim world. Many Islamic clerics think otherwise,
and most Muslims in general would never marry their
daughters off at a young age. The last point is the
most relevant, since–contrary to what Islamophobes and
conservative Muslims believe–Islam is not limited to
its religious establishment, which–like other
religions–is generally far more conservative than the
lay follower. Had Al-Mutarjim limited his
website to the criticism of fundamentalist, extremist,
and/or ultraconservative Islam, we'd have no problem
with his site. But to place all of Islam–and all
Muslims–into one box, is just not right. It's just
not honest. Not only are there other views about this
topic in the Islamic world, there are other views on
the topic even on the IslamOnline website itself! If
the website itself is not a monolith, then why would
one think that the entire Muslim world is?
Jewish and
Christian Views In his response to us, Al-Mutarjim
reveals himself to be a religious wing nut: …This country and its
constitution were founded by the hand of God, and that
it was His destiny for His children that we should be
free to worship Him according to the dictates of our
consciences… Being familiar with the teachings
of Christ and the influence of His Holy Spirit, I was
able to discern between the light of the gospel of
Jesus Christ and the darkness of these sacred texts of
Islam. With this knowledge, I resolved to work to
expose this darkness, in order to defend this country
and its inhabitants, and also to open the eyes of
those already enslaved by Islam… I know that the Lord has given me
a gift to be able to learn Arabic. I do not understand
all the purposes of the Lord, but I do believe that He
has a purpose for me in this work. So I will press on,
and continue to work tirelessly to help the
non-Arabic-speaking audience understand what Islam
really teaches. Surprise, surprise–another
leading Islam-basher just happens to be either a
hawkish Zionist Jew or a fervent Christian
proselytizer! But of course Robert Spencer will
reassure us that his being Catholic has absolutely
nothing to do with his criticisms of Islam. This,
even though Spencer has penned the proselytizing book
entitled Religion of
Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't.
That Spencer and Al-Mutarjim are Christian
proselytizers is ignored in an attempt to portray them
as neutral "analysts" and "terrorism experts". It is a bit troubling that Al-Mutarjim
thinks the Holy Spirit divinely inspired him to become
a bigot. But, since he invoked the Judeo-Christian
tradition, and because in his response he specifically
compared the "light" of Christianity to the "darkness"
of Islam ("I was able to discern between the light of
the gospel of Jesus Christ and the darkness of these
sacred texts of Islam")–it seems completely fair and
fitting to apply the same standards he uses against
Islam to the Judeo-Christian tradition he exalts. As
I stated in my previous article, Islam is hardly the
only religion that has "uncomfortable" traditional
opinions. Both the Torah and Talmud permit
child marriage of girls, which includes sexual
intercourse. If Al-Mutarjim will cite the IslamOnline
fatwa site, let us cite a Jewish "fatwa" site. Rabbi
Naftali Silberberg of AskMoses.com
(which boasts that it is the "world's most popular
Jewish website") issued the following religious
verdict:
What is the minimum age of
marriage according to Jewish law? …Technically speaking, a girl may
be betrothed the moment she is born, and married at
the age of three. A boy may betroth and marry at the
age of thirteen. Following the example of Al-Mutarjim,
we could leave it at that, using our ellipses as
strategic weapons of misinformation. However, unlike
Al-Mutarjim and Translating-Jihad, we're honest–so
we'll fill in what the website is actually
saying: There is the technical rule, and
then there is the proper, practical, and wise thing to
do. The Talmud, too, agrees that technically according
to Torah law a girl can be married at a very young
age, but the rabbis imposed a prohibition on such an
unwise practice. And here's what we hid in the
ellipses: Our Sages state that it is
forbidden for one to marry off his daughter until she
is an adult and says ‘this is the one I want to
marry.' Under Jewish law (Halacha), a
female becomes an "adult" at puberty, estimated to be
twelve years of age: the same website, AskMoses, says:
"a girl is considered to reach adulthood at 12." When
we consider that IslamOnline says that Islamic law
requires the consent of the female for marriage, we
find that the traditional (and now orthodox) views in
Judaism and Islam are virtually identical–both
websites (AskMoses and IslamOnline) say that
technically marriage before puberty is permitted (keep
in mind that unlike Al-Mutarjim's claim, IslamOnline
still forbids sexual intercourse), but practically it
(marriage) must be done after puberty. JewFaq.com
says: "The minimum age of marriage
under Jewish law is 13 for boys, 12
for girls; however, the kiddushin
can take place before that, and often did
in medieval times." The kiddushin is the equivalent
of the nikah; according to the same website, it means
that the "woman is legally the wife of the man." Al-Mutarjim's own religion,
Christianity, is hardly any better. The Catholic
Encyclopedia states: The marriageable age is fourteen
full years in males and twelve full years in females,
under penalty of nullity (unless natural puberty
supplies the want of years). Although we do not claim to be
experts of Christianity, the words in parenthesis seem
to mean that a girl can be married off before the age
of twelve if she goes through puberty before that
("natural puberty supplies the want of years"). Prof.
Cathy Yandell confirms this, saying on p.37 of Carpe
Corpus that although twelve years old was
the general rule, "if one is capable of carnal
cohabitation before this age, marriage is permitted."
A Christian man who married underage girls avoided
punishment if he already had sexual relations with
her, this fact proving that her body was in fact
mature enough for marriage.
Child
Marriage: A Muslim-Only Problem? Our opponents will quickly switch
their argument to "well, nowadays Jews and Christians
no longer engage in child marriage, whereas Muslims
still do." Then, they'll reproduce a few stories of
child marriage in the Islamic world. Yes, it is true
that child marriage is a major problem in many parts
of the Muslim-majority world. Yet, it is hardly a
Muslim-only problem. According to UNICEF, forty
percent of the world's child marriages occur in
Hindu-majority India. Traditional Hindu texts permit
marriage of girls at the age of seven or eight.
Should we now demonize Hinduism? But you will find
that the anti-Islam bashers will single out Islam and
Muslims alone, which is what prompted our series
entitled "What if they were Muslims?" Meanwhile, only 5% of child
marriages take place in the Middle East and North
Africa combined.
On the other hand, double this number (10%) of child
marriages take place in Latin America and the
Caribbean (where the majority of inhabitants are
Christian, not Muslim). Over 91% of child marriages
take place in South Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin
America, the Caribbean, East Asia, and the Pacific.
Even if we account for the fact that there are some
Muslim majority regions in South Asia and Sub-Saharan
Africa, it would hardly be the case that child
marriage would be a Muslim-only problem. It is a
global problem, and tied to poverty and lack of
education. Religion is a lesser factor. As always, our anti-Islam
opponents wish to compare Europe, the U.S, Canada, and
Israel–all part of the "First World"–with the
impoverished "Third World" Muslim countries in South
Asia and Africa. Yet, it would be far more reasonable
to compare Christian parts of Africa with the Muslim
majority world (or alternatively to compare the
Christian-majority parts of Africa with the
Muslim-majority parts of Africa). Once we do this, it
seems that the matter has less to do with religion and
more to do with socio-economic factors. But the truth
is that the Islam-bashers who speak about Islam and
child marriage have absolutely no interest in actually
saving girls from child marriage; rather, they just
want to exploit the suffering of these girls to
further their hateful agendas and use it to score
proselytizing points, giving Team Jesus one more
point against Team Muhammad.
Conclusion Al-Mutarjim's translations are
dishonest, deceitful, and fraudulent. We've shown
that he completely manipulated the fatwa on
IslamOnline, purposefully misleading his audience to
further his pro-Christian anti-Islam agenda. He
entitled the fatwa as "It is Permissible to Have
Sexual Intercourse with a Prepubescent Girl", even
though the fatwa
says the exact
opposite. Al-Mutarjim's translation
could not
possibly have been more dishonest and misleading. What makes this truly remarkable
is the fact that he chose to use this particular
translation of his in his response to us, taunting us
by saying we are "unable to refute this translation"
and challenging us by "invit[ing] all to come and
scrutinize my work." This religious wing nut was
dense enough to give us an absolute freebie by posting
such a dishonest translation when he challenged us. We
didn't even need to search. For this, we should thank
him. Certainly, it is a horribly
fraudulent translation, and had Al-Mutarjim actually
been in academia, our critique of his "translation"
would have ended his career. He would rightfully be
condemned to the academic waste bin along with
plagiarists, cheats, and frauds. But even in the
internet world–which unfortunately sets a very low bar
for "expert"–we think Al-Mutarjim is done for. No
amount of damage control can repair his reputation
after this article is published. His translation is
just too
dishonest, misleading, and fraudulent. Or would
Al-Mutarjim have us believe that his
fraudulent translation of the IslamOnline fatwa is
simply a case of a fatha
instead of a kasra? |
Add Comments