Talk:Islam and children

Question

What if a child is adopted from small and has been considered like a child of the adoptive parents? Won't it be strange if the child marries a member of his/her adoptive family? Does anyone out there know the Sharia ruling on this matter? --Fantastic4boy 09:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Adopted child is never made a member of household. He is never inherit from the Guardian family. It is the duty of guardians to secure the property or wealth if the child is orphan, but other than that there is no ruling in Sharia, atleast to the best of my knowledge. For a more scholarly discussion, kindly see Mizan, Rights of Orphans. TruthSpreader^reply 13:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we change the article to Rights of orphans in Islam, as it will be much more appropriate. TruthSpreader^reply 14:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

No Original research?

What do you mean this article needs original research? The quotations from Quran itself is an original research citation to refer to the article. If the quotations are not from the Quran and being edited out, people would notice it and I wouldn't dare put them on the article. --Fantastic4boy 03:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

What you say the quran says is an interpration. If the quran says someting, quote a scholar who has your view. Unless the quran specificly says something, almost word for word, quoting the quran without a scholarly source is Origional research --Sefringle 04:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Some material

These would be a good addition:

According to Encyclopedia of Islam, Saghir article:

Mediaeval Islamic sources abound in accounts of loving, tender relationships between parents and children including close physical contacts. The Prophet Muḥammad is often shown as one who knew how to treat children properly. For instance, once he hastened to wash the dirty face of a child and kiss him instead of ʿĀʾis̲h̲a, who was unable to bring herself to do so, while on another occasion he remained prostrated in prayer longer than necessary so as not to disturb his grandson Ḥusayn who was riding on his back. According to one of the most revealing traditions in this regard, a caring father who in the middle of the night gets up to warm his children with his own clothes is more virtuous than a fighter in a holy war (ibid., ii, 41). No wonder, then, that Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn al-Ayyūbī [q.v.], the epitome of jihad, is also depicted as a loving father to his seventeen children.

there are a lot of things in that article which could be added. --Aminz 10:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

We could add something about Muhammad kissing a child I suppose. Arrow740 07:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Rename

I suggest we rename this article to "Islam and Children" (?) --Aminz 10:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

That is a good idea. It's more neutral. -- Karl Meier 18:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- Karl Meier 18:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Amazing? Ridiculous?

I have just had this opportunity to read this edit and summary from user Itaqallah [[1]] This is bad-faith censoring of referenced material of quite special relevance to what the nature of Islam really is in informing out conduct to children aged less than ten?

Excluding six year-olds from the scope of 'children'. Don't buy it. Some other agenda. Users tell me if i'm off base.

Perhaps also see his contribution history and tell me if you don't think he sets out to stalk and undo practically ALL the contributions I make on a defined range of articles. DavidYork71 15:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

i've had these articles on watch long before you joined wikipedia. the fact that i've had to undo a lot of your edits is because you seem to believe you can edit in contravention of wikipedia policy. evidently, you have ignored all previous notifications that numerous editors have given you. your comments indicate you are editing to present a particular POV, with a complete disregard for neutrality. calling Aisha a child, when it is disputed, is original research. ITAQALLAH 01:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I have seen Islamic sources that have defended Muhammads sexual relations with Aisha and alleged that 9 year old girls are not children. However, I haven't seen is any reliable (Islamic) sources that have alleged that a 6 year old girl is not a child. Could you please provide us with evidence, that makes it clear that there are reliable sources that dispute that Aisha was a child when she was only six years old? -- Karl Meier 12:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is a hadith and commentary: Narrated 'Aisha:

"I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13) (Sahih Bukhari 8.151)." Isn't it obvious that someone whose pursues the activity of 'playing with dolls' in front of her husband is a child? She was also playing on a swing with her friends when she was coralled away to be decorated and presented to him in marriage. And also he didn't take her home that day as it was inappropriate .. because she was a child. DavidYork71 22:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Child enslavement

A reference to enslavement of children born to a slave mother and a free man (not her owner) was tagged {dubious} by user Itaqallah before he had seen the language of the referenced source which is: 'The children of the marriage of two slaves ... (are slaves belonging to the woman's owner). If a free man marries a female slave not his own, the children become the property of the woman's master (author note: this is the case also if the children of a slave-girl are born of an irregular union ) .. the children of the married slave-girl (not an umm walad) will be slaves and belong to her owner, whether their father is a slave or a free. (and it goes on) If, the master takes his own slave for a concubines .. and she bears his children, she becomes umm walad and her children by him are free, though any children she may previously have borne another man are slaves and the property of her master' Levy p.79-80 DavidYork71 16:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

The history of the article over the last few days doesn't reflect very well on the participants in whatever this is a dispute over. Please try to work things out on this page or on a /Sandbox subpage instead of reverting eachother so much, and please mind WP:3RR. Picaroon 03:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Semiprotect request

Just had an IP unexplained major reversion - indiscriminate, excisions, stripping of references, no summary - from 72.88.162.57, and I note another five from a different source the previous day. I made the request. DavidYork71 19:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag

An NPOV tag is on the page with no discussion on talk, the only discussions here are not citing any POV. So I would be removing the tag until there is such a discussion so it doesn't sit there indefinately without some explanation on talk.DavidYork71 06:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Right.

• Coerced marriages are invalid in all schools of thought in Islam, as per the very famous hadith, and Saudi Arabia has harsh punishments for any family members who practice this, they call it a pre-Islamic pagan custom. For this article to claim otherwise is false.
• This article is full of inaccuracies, e.g. Hanafi view on Walis etc. It is well known that the Hanafi school does not require walis for post puberty girls.
• The problem is assumptions, original research, and sourcing all of the article from orientalist books, which get many thing wrong.
• This whole article needs to be revised, as it comes accros like Islam gives children no rights.
• There is no mention here of the rejection in Islam of the original sin and the notion that children can be sinners as in christianity & Torah, the concept that children are considered completely legally non-liable for any crime committed, because they are by default 'Masoom' (innocent) etc etc etc, there are so many more things...

Aaliyah Stevens 12:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that the article is somehow biased? There may be a few inaccuracies, and I have adjusted the tag according to that, but I don't see any major problems regarding the neutrality of the article, that can justify a POV tag. -- Karl Meier 19:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Just as you saw no major problems of bias with your abhorently POV Ramadan Riots article? This whole article uses selective quotes and as per above comments is biased towards potraying childrens rights as barely existant in Islam.

Orientalist sources unverified, translated, ancient, archaic and biased =

Juynboll (1910). Handbuch des Islamischen Gesetzes. Khalil bin Ishaq. Mukhtasar tr.Guidi and Santillana (Milan, 1919). Levy, Reuben (1969). The Social Structure of Islam. UK: Cambridge Univerisity Press. Sachau (1897). Muhammedanisches Recht.

• 1.I'm sorry but some if these sources are so old, they are clearly going to suffer from the orientalist bias that existed during the colonial era, or after.
• 2. Even if you believe they are acceptable, we need to verify them, not rely on editors possible spin on them
• 3. They need to be available in English rather than rely on editors translations Aaliyah Stevens 11:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Levy is the author writing (in English) in 1969 who is referring to the other earlier authors. He is a Cambridge University academic with an impressive resume of published work including some volumes specifically dedicated to the subject of the social structure of Islam. The article doesn't speak of children having 'no rights' when it canvasses the notion of childrens inheritance rights and the traditions favouring equality in financial gifts to offspring.DavidYork71 12:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Levy is still an orientalist by definition of the word, look it up in the article. Aaliyah Stevens 12:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Writing in 1969 is not the colonial era, when you consider that by that time all Arab and muslim countries had their independence with the British withdrawn from Palestine, Suez and even Aden before that date. And what is the 'orientalist bias' with which you slur his and others scholarship? It is the ability to survey societies and social histories from perspectives both within and without? Give them credit, in most cases, for having lived in and experienced the societies of which they write. Are there other sources you can cite, say, from within Saudi Arabia that deny the existence of slave markets and slave trading in the very shadows of the Kaaba (or in other discussed places) right up to the mid-1920s? Do share.DavidYork71 08:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I have retagged as an accuracy dispute because this is about a desire to verify sources cited in the work of an expert who is a professor in Persian language consulting works written or translated into German and Italian PLUS disputation about the following two points: 1. circumstances for permitting coerced marriages 2. whether and what kind of wali is required to negotiate a marriage in the hanafi school. This may best be resolved by putting dispute tags on just those two points as they're cited and referred to in the article until the disputer has her fair opportunity to conduct verification and/or present contradicting material.DavidYork71 16:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Form of government in Saudi Arabia

There has been controversy about categorising the KSA as a 'proclaimed Islamic government'. With reference to its Basic Law and the number of time that 'Islam', 'Shariah', 'Prophet' etc are invoked, [[2]], I hope it may be seen that this characterisation is apt. Also, Saudi Arabia has a Shura Council (Majlis as-Shura) and succession to the monarchy is determined by Shura to identify 'the son of the monarch who is most upright'DavidYork71 01:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That is not considered proper Shurah according to the Shariah. The sons of Abu-Bakr were not the only choice available for elections when he died as the first caliph. You have stripped all my quotes from the same constitution which sya clearly that the king has the final say, NOT the quran.Aaliyah Stevens 11:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes you put some quotes about the King of Saudi Arabia and his authority over judges and ministers etc, which I summarised somewhat similar to 'KSA is an absolute monarchy, which some muslims maintain is an unislamic form of government'. I propose it's only necessary to describe the King's authority over laws affecting children in the context of the present article. DavidYork71 12:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

And within the Saudi system the King is clearly restrained to "rule according to the rulings of Islam and shall supervise the application of Shari'ah." (Article 55, Saudi Basic Law). So he may not, for example, authorise muslims to lawfully consume alcohol; and he may not outlaw polygamy.DavidYork71 12:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

As in my quotes, the constitution clearly states that the King also determines the application of Shariah according to his own interpretation, and he is the ultimate authority on what is Islamic and what is not. The fundamental difference between Sunni and Shia was that Sunni's believed that Abu-Bakr the first Caliph, had authority over Ali because he was elected and approved by the community, same for the second and third Caliph. Ali won the fourth Shurah. Shia's argue that regardless of elections Ali was divinely appointed as the first Caliph.

The Sunni notion of legitimacy from elections only, clearly contradicts the notion of a monarchy, let alone an absolute monarchy. You can't reduce Shariah to banning of alcohol and allowing polygymy. Riba is charged and given in Saudi, which is clear-cut against the Quran as an example Aaliyah Stevens 13:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No election for a caliph has ever been free because Muhammed has said that the caliph may only be chosen out of his own tribe (the Quraysh). So the King of Saudi Arabia being chose from only the male offspring of Fahd amounts to not a lot of difference from that. It's Muhammed's example to make rules to keep his own tribe as the most powerful.DavidYork71

WorldNetDaily.com not a reliable source

This is a right-wing Christian web-site with a clear political agenda, selling T-shirts against communism and books about the bible.

As also Wniversities sell their own merchandise and publications. In either case is that something that compromises the ability to report circumstances in a foreign countries that are independently verified and that the governments of those countries would rather see ignored or suppressed? And if their comments proved too unfair to communists we would balance with the communist viewpoint (or report the relevant government denial - as has been done)DavidYork71 15:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The point is it violates wikipedia policy on credible, reliable, sources for information. Aaliyah Stevens 17:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is about Islam. The sources need to clearly show how the news reports etc. relate to the Islamic faith.Bless sins 19:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

i agree completely. it also constitutes OR to misuse two seperate sources to forward an assertion supported by neither. it appears to be an attempt to politicise the article. as such, i have removed the section. ITAQALLAH 00:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Quranic views on slavery

See the following websites for further information on slavery in Islam:

• Quranic verdict on Slavery
• Muhammad the Abolisionist: Slavery in the Quran

In the sites above, it demonstrates that slaves are to be freed, and that In Islam, the term "slave" could also refer to "slave of Allah" (Abdullah), meaning one who serves God. It is not what the Western people would typically view as being whipped around, be treated like animals and machines, as well as not getting fed well & having no good rest.

Furthermore, to my knowledge, as stated in the Koran, Muslims are not allowed to own slaves. So, I'm really confused here - if such slavery is forbidden in Islam, why does the act of slavery still exist in a number of Muslim countries like Sudan? I'm curious whether slavery is really just a cultural or religious thing? So what is the real definition of slavery in Islam as compared to that of non-Muslims? --Fantastic4boy 02:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Read the article. Arrow740 02:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Silence is Consent

Abu Hurayrah reported that the Prophet said: "A non-virgin woman may not be married without her command, and a virgin may not be married without her permission; and enough permission for her is to remain silent (because of her natural shyness)." [Al-Bukhaari, Muslim & Others]

Aa'ishah related that she once asked the Prophet : "In the case of a young girl whose parents marry her off, should her permission be sought or not?" He replied: "Yes, she must give her permission." She then said: "But a virgin would be shy, O Messenger of Allaah!" He replied: "Her silence is [considered as] her permission." [Al-Bukhaari, Muslim, & Others]

Hanafi and marriage walis

Aaaliyah has said above that it is 'well known' that the Hanafi school does not require a wali for marriage. This article [3] states: "In Hanafi Madhhab the consent of a wali is not a must-condition for the marriage of a girl who has exceeded the age of puberty."

As it is child (pre-puberty) marriage we are talking about, where a wali must be involved (even for Hanafi) I would see no reason now for not removing the dispute tag.DavidYork71 09:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

slavery

the slavery section is a pretty much a copy-paste of another tendentious, poorly written section, and adapts the context conveniently although i doubt that Levy is even referring to child slaves in these passages. ITAQALLAH 00:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The section can be rewritten. It seems there might some reliable sources on this topic here. --Sefringle 02:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

we're talking about the jurisprudence of Islam and slave children. ITAQALLAH 02:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Levy establishes that the enslavement of children under Islam occurs either by their being taken captive from military action or by their birth from a slave parent (except if their father is the master of their mother). He describes the legal disabilities of slaves (eg. with respect to inheritance, property, etc) as they apply to slaves generally - male, female, adult, child, married, nonmarried.DavidYork71 18:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

so, can we simply regurgitate all that Islam has to say about human beings and their rights and so on, under the premise that it is also inclusive of children? we should restrict our source usage to those who are actually talking of chidren in Islam. anyone who wants to find out the general rules applying to all slaves may refer to Islam and slavery, as the section already indicates. ITAQALLAH 18:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Certain things about slavery and the status and treatment of slaves covered in the Islam and slavery article would have no application and be not relevant to children. For example, the mukataba has no relevance because a child slave has no capacity to negotiate terms of its release with its master until it attains its majority. So here we report the things that do or may have relevance to the circumstances of children, and particularly those things which are a result of Islam such as child marriage, susceptibility to concubinage, birth into slavery, status as property, exclusion of inheritance etc. DavidYork71 18:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

that involves subjective original research as to what one thinks is relevant and isn't relevant. as i stated, we should stick to representing the sources explicitly. whatever Levy says about children we may include. whatever he does not, we leave out, else we could simply relate the contents of the whole book as also indirectly referring to children too. and as i also said: to employ this assumption that most Islamic edicts must also apply the children would be equally inappropriate for the rest of the article. ITAQALLAH 19:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Levy at no point excludes children in his treatment of slaves, their condition and legal status, etc. Anything he says about slaves generally applies particularly to child slaves also, including all the points related under 'child slavery' in the article.DavidYork71 19:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Surely enslavement is one of the circumstances, particularly affecting children under Islam, that is significant enough to deserve some specific mention and treatment in an article titled as the current one.DavidYork71 20:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Levy probably doesn't exclude children in 95% of the discussion he conducts in his book. yet, there is no reason to include those aspects. yes, children and slavery should be covered, by that i refer to the umm walad material which is at least relevant. the rest is extraneous and not explicitly relating to children. ITAQALLAH 20:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Levy doesn't exclude children in -any- of his discussion of the treatment of slaves and he acknowledges that included among slaves are enslaved children, either born into slavery or enslaved along with their parent(s). A further significance of each of the listed points underlying the importance of their inclusion is what they reveal about the standards of Islam compared with standards of civilisation that we would find expressed (for example) here, and hereDavidYork71 02:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

you are employing negative proof and original research. please do not misrepresent sources. ITAQALLAH 08:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

surely you're not claiming that exclusion of inheritance applies to slaves but just not to child slaves. And if you are, then let's see your evidence.DavidYork71 09:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

produce the passage where Levy is discussing inheritence for child slaves. as far as we know, there is none, you are merely employing original research assumptions, which as i argued is faulty per your failure to assume the same for all other subjects discussed by Levy in his book. ITAQALLAH 09:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

This excuse only accounts for part of your censorship. Arrow740 09:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

see WP:CIVIL. ITAQALLAH 09:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

In your most recent revert, about 10% of the material was sourced to Levy. You removed well-sourced, clearly topical material. I could just as easily remove all apologetics from Ghamidi, Maududi and the like, claiming (more correctly than your analagous claim about Khomeini) that "they don't speak for Islam." Arrow740 09:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

As I've said on my user page, feel free to make an RfC to see if you can find someone who might agree with you that what applies to slaves generally somehow doesn't apply to slaves that are child slaves. Or you might even be able to cite a source that supports you.DavidYork71 09:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

it seems you aren't actually following the discussion. Khomeini is an 'ayatollah', and he speaks for a minority (i.e. Shia). ITAQALLAH 09:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You perception is wrong again. His pronouncements are much more notable and influential than those of the other authorities we use extensively. Arrow740 09:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

try responding to my comment. he speaks for Shi'ites. ITAQALLAH 09:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

'Grand Ayatollah' is about the most senior muslim theological source you can find. And Khomeini has to be one of the most influential muslim theocrats in the last several centuries. If you can find a comparably senior and influential source to balance against him, good luck and do share. Just that I've never found a muslim theologian to come on the record condemning sexual maneuvres involving nine year old girls. Need we ask why?DavidYork71 10:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

actually, you are using dubious quotes from Khomeini to POV-push against Islam, as you did on the recently deleted Islam and bestiality article. this is tendentious and disruptive editing, and i'd recommend you stop. ITAQALLAH 10:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Levy states (at p.76-7) 'Persons already in slavery were regarded merely as chattels, and Islamic legislation provides for their sale and purchase as for any ordinary good, with certain restrictions in the case of female slaves who have borne children by their masters and of these children themselves.' So he only recognises an exception for the children who were born of an umm walad slave and her master. In relation to inheritance he recognises no exceptions in his statement 'Similarly no slave may inherit property, even if he or she (for example an umm walad) is to be freed on the owner's death.' So exclusion from inheritance and status as chattels both apply to child slaves who are not born of an umm walad and her master. If you have a source that holds contrary, as I said above, do share.DavidYork71 09:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

DavidYork, these is your own original research deductions. the umm walad material, as we have confirmed, is relevant. the rest however, is not, and you refuse to demonstrate consistency in the matter by applying the same flawed reasoning to the rest of Levy's book. ITAQALLAH 09:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

There is simply no basis for concluding that child slaves are excluded. If there is, lets see your source. Do you have any? One? Where a certain class of child slave is excluded, Levy has taken care to say so (see excerpt above). I'm quite open to you including any evidence to the contrary, if its found to exist.DavidYork71 10:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

are you aware of the fallacy of negative proof? we relate what sources explicitly, representing them accurately. Levy does not mention children in these instances. your assumption is original research. you are also unwilling to address the implications of your approach, in representing the whole of Levy's book as indirectly applying to children. ITAQALLAH 10:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

He does mention children, explicitly, at the places where he takes care to say that certain categories of them are excluded from the application of the general rule. If you maintain that children in general are excluded from the general rule unless specifically included then bring forward your supporting source(s). It is not how Levy exposes the matter.DavidYork71 10:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

he does not relate children explicitly in relation to slavery. when he's talking about jurisprudence related to children, he seems to mention them explicitly. and you have not proven this assertion about his excluding children in areas. it is, however, irrelevant. you are misusing sources to forward information that is not factually verifiable. see WP:V and WP:OR. ITAQALLAH 10:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a copy of Levy (1969). The interpretations of what specific pages are being argued over?Merbabu 10:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC) See if you can confirm that p.110 is referring to marriage of a 'minor' under Hanafi rites. Also from p.76 onward dealing with 'legal disabilities of slaves' and other matters see if any class of child slaves are excluded other than those who are the offspring of a slave and her masterDavidYork71 11:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Islam and children#Child Slavery, in that list, is Levy explicitly referring to the jurisprudential rulings relating to children? it seems to be a copy-paste (with tweaks) of this: Islam and slavery#Legal disabilities and dispensations of slaves. ITAQALLAH 10:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

also, what do you think about these two sections: Islam and children#Adult-child paedophilia, Islam and children#Children.27s rights under proclaimed Islamic government in Saudi Arabia. ITAQALLAH 10:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Clearly relevant.--Sefringle 02:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

wasn't particularly asking you, Sefringle, but as you did comment: explain how they are relevant. ITAQALLAH 07:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Children's rights under modern islamic governments are relevent to assessing and describing contemporary interpretations and implementations of Islam with respect to children. Adult-child paedophilia is relevant to an aspect of islam affecting children ie. their permissibility as sexual objects and to what degree (if any) their sexual integrity is protected.DavidYork71 07:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

this is another example of your inserting of your own subjective judgements into articles. "... under modern islamic governments are relevent to assessing ...", no, 'Islamic' is an adjective you added. it doesn't matter whether it calls itself a Sharia state or a bastion of freedom and democracy. this page relates to children and their status in Islamic jurisprudence and thought. it is simply an example of political presentism aimed at skewing the article. "Adult-child paedophilia" is a judgemental, biased epithet coined by yourself, demonstrating that you are using such quotes to disparage Islam. most Muslims (85%+) don't regard Khomeini with any religious authority, so why does it belong here? ITAQALLAH 07:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Even if it's a viewpoint adhered to by one-in-seven muslims, that's still an islamic viewpoint of significance that warrants reporting. And it originates from a reliable source - which is to say, his own writings. Can there be many other Islamic theologians who speak with that much authority for a section of the muslim community? If you dislike 'Islamic' as a descriptor of the current systems of governance and justice in Saudi Arabia, you could replace it with 'sharia' but my understanding is they're happy with the use of either term interchangeablyDavidYork71 08:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Khomeini is the definition of a notable SHIA ISLAMIC source and is notable in an article about islamic law. "Adult-child paedophilia" is redundent only paedophillia is needed.Hypnosadist 08:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

"you could replace it with 'sharia' but my understanding is they're happy with the use of either term interchangeably" - just because they call themselves it doesn't mean they are, in the same way they may call themselves 'democratic'. the article should make clear that Khomeini is representing Shi'ism. ITAQALLAH 08:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, regarding your tag removals: yes, every sentence is cited. almost none of them talk about child slaves, DavidYork has applied his own assumptions and misrepresented the source. please refer to the above discussion, and restore the tag indicating that there is ongoing dispute. ITAQALLAH 08:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Levy covers slaves, child and adult - male and female - married and unmarried, exempting certain classes of child slaves from his treatment only as and where appropriate. There are no special rules applying to child slaves and not applying to adults; that is apparent throughout Levy's treatment and I don't think the section as its written goes anywhere near to suggesting otherwise. DavidYork71 10:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• DavidYork, as you attributed a passage to Khomeini, can you verify that you possess and had looked at the source: "Ayatollah Khomeini in Tahrirolvasyleh, Fourth Edition, Darol Elm, Qom"? 08:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The remarks of Khomeini can be verified here: [4], and here [5], and here [6]DavidYork71 09:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

homa.org and 'neocons.townhall.com' (lol) are not reliable sources. they are partisan sources aiming to disparage Khomeini. ITAQALLAH 09:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

His same comments, again attributed to the same source (ie. his own published writings)[7]DavidYork71 09:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

yet another partisan polemic source quite obviously regurgitating what others have promulgated on the internet. see WP:CITE (and WP:CITE#Say where you got it) and WP:RS. i take it you have no authoritative source relaying this quote. ITAQALLAH 10:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Aisha according to Central Mosque

Interesting link [8] hope this helps. Hypnosadist 11:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Submitted for quality and importance ratings

to WikiProject Islam assessment department. Any wikipedian who has not worked on the article may give their rating. DavidYork71 17:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me...

...or is much of this article a horribly written propaganda piece? Ibn Shah 03:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

indeed it is, and it requires a thorough rewrite. ITAQALLAH 08:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Arabic to English translation

Arabic original مسألة 12 : لا يجوز وطء الزوجة قبل إكمال تسع سنين ، دواما كان النكاح أو منقطعا ، و أما سائر الاستمتاعات كاللمس بشهوة و الضم و التفخيذ فلا بأس بها حتى فى الرضيعة ، و لو وطأها قبل التسع و لم يفضها لم يترتب عليه شى‏ء غير الاثم على الاقوى ، و إن أفضاها بأن جعل مسلكى البول و الحيض واحدا أو مسلكى الحيض و الغائط واحدا حرم عليه وطؤها أبدا لكن على الاحوط فى الصورة الثانية ، و على أي حال لم تخرج عن زوجيته على الاقوى ، فيجري عليها أحكامها من التوارث و حرمة الخامسة و حرمة أختها معها و غيرها ، و يجب عليه نفقتها مادامت حية و إن طلقها بل و إن تزوجت بعد الطلاق على الاحوط ، بل لا يخلو من قوة ، و يجب عليه دية الافضاء ، و هى دية النفس ، فإذا كانت حرة فلها نصف دية الرجل مضافا إلى المهر الذي استحقته بالعقد و الدخول ، و لو دخل بزوجته بعد إكمال التسع فأفضاها لم تحرم عليه و لم تثبت الدية ، و لكن الاحوط الانفاق عليها مادامت حية و إن كان الاقوى عدم الوجوب .

Translation "A man can marry a girl younger than nine years of age, even if the girl is still a baby being breastfed. A man, however is prohibited from having intercourse with a girl younger than nine, other sexual acts such as foreplay, rubbing, kissing and sodomy is allowed. A man having intercourse with a girl younger than nine years of age has not committed a crime, but only an infraction, if the girl is not permanently damaged. If the girl, however, is permanently damaged, the man must provide for her all her life. But this girl will not count as one of the man's four permanent wives. He also is not permitted to marry the girl's sister." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DavidYork71 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Translation 2 It is prohibited to have intercourse with a wife before completing 9 years, be it an uninterrupted marriage or not. Other acts such as foreplay, rubbing, kissing are fine even w/ a baby girl. If one has a relation w/ a girl before 9 while preserving her virginity he would be committing a sin and if the girl, however, loses her virginity, he is prohibited to have an intercourse w/ her for the rest of their lives while providing for her all her life. But this girl will not count as one of the man's four permanent wives and will not inherit from him. He also is not permitted to marry the girl's sister. However, he must compensate her even if she get married to another (i.e. soul compensation / Diyya). If she is would not be married she has to be paid half of the man's compensation plus the mandatory gift (mahr) she was due to receive when getting married. However, if he marries her after she is 9 he is not obliged to pay the Diyya but advisable to provide her a living as long as she is alive though it is not an obligation. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The first translation has gross unforgivable inaccuracies, no where does it say he may sodomise her. However, the gist of both them is correct. The essence of it's argument is that there is no minimum age for marriage, yet there is for any form of penetration (completion of 9 years). Here is my quick attempt:

Issue 12: It is not permissible to penetrate ones wife (NB: this word includes all penetration.) before the completion of 9 years, be it an uninterrupted or sporadic(i assume he is alluding to the shia mutah) marriage. As for other things like touching, rubbing and play, there is no harm (on him) in such acts even if she is still of the breastfeeding age; if he doesn't penetrate her before her ninth year yet has relations with her without harming her, no measures result in the preponderant view, but he has definitely sinned. If he harms her in any way, or penetrates her, then touching her becomes permanently prohibited for life (yet only in the safer view for the second category mentioned). In any case, she doesn't automatically leave the marriage through such acts (in the stronger view) and so the rules pertaining to inheritance, the prohibition of a fifth wife and the prohibition of marrying her sister, and other rules, continue to apply. In such case he is obliged to spend on her as long as she is alive, even after divorce, indeed, in the safer view, even if she remarries after her divorce, this view is not devoid of strength. Compensation for the harm is obligatory upon him, and it is equivalent to the compensation for murder/manslaughter (see Qisas). If she was a free girl, then she is owed half the compensation (see diyya) than of a killed man in addition to her dowry (mahr) that she deserved by virtue of the marriage contract and his subsequent intercourse with her. If he penetrated his wife after completion of nine years and physically harmed her (in sex) she doesn't become prohibited for him, and no compensation is due, however, the safer stance is to offer her maintenance as long as she is alive, even if the stronger view is that it isn't obligatory.

Sorry, for the confusing english at times. It appears as if khomeini is commenting on someone elses views, and arguments. It is not necessrily his own. Aaliyah Stevens 19:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

So I will remove the 'sodomy' reference and the 'verify' tag from this quote on the article page. Special thanks to Aaliyah and Fayssal for your expertise. Something was gained by verifying this.DavidYork71 23:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be better if we could find a reliable copy already translated.--Sefringle 02:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

unfortunately: we cannot seem to find one. hence it should be removed. ITAQALLAH 12:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, it cannot be that difficult to translate this quote. Why is there no agreement? Who is lying/distorting the quote?--Sefringle 03:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It is up to you to figure out who is lying (though nobody is lying/distorting). My mother tongue is Arabic and it is up to you to trust my translation or not. I am already being trusted as an admin anyway. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Once again, much thanks to you Fayssal and I certainly didn't doubt your translation or censor the quote from the article.DavidYork71 15:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your trust David. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Does not condone sexual behavior with children

I have neatened my translation. The problem is that he appears to be saying that if a man/boy plays with the girl, kisses her etc before 9 without harming her, or without penetrating her in any way, then it is a sin, but a sin of no legally enforceable punishments (possibly due to no physical evidence). However if he penetrates a girl before the age of 9, or harms her in any way before 9 then:

• 1. the man/boy would be considered guilty of murder or manslaughter with the laws of Qisas and diyya applied on him,
• 2 He would never be allowed to touch the girl again in her life
• 3 The marriage contract however is not automatically broken (but can be), so the normal restrictions of marriage on him like not marrying her sister, or marrying a fifth wife, etc continue to apply if and until the marriage ends
• 4 He is still obliged to pay her mahr, even when the marriage ends
• 4 He is obliged to support and maintain her financially for life, whether she marries another man or not, even if/when she is remarried.

He then says that if the man/boy harms the girl in sex aged 10+ then he should also maintain her for life, although he talks of two legal opinions on this, arguing the case to pay, even if some may consider the other opinion stronger.

The translation in the article should be completely removed. Although I don't agree with him (being Sunni), he seems to be talking about the views of others on the burden of evidence in such cases and the legally enforceable punishments in such cases. He has in no way condoned sexual relations with a girl below the age of 9, which in his view is at least a sin - if not punishable by law. 9 is the age the people's views he is reviewing, consider the age of being Baligh.

Aaliyah Stevens 10:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Translation 3

It is prohibited to have intercourse with a wife before she turns nine, be it an uninterrupted marriage or not. other acts such as foreplay, rubbing and kissing are fine even with a baby girl! If one has a relation with a girl before she is nine years old while preserving her virginity, he would be committing a sin. However, if the girl loses her virginity, he is prohibited to have an intercourse with her for the rest of their lives while providing for her all her life. And this girl will count as one of the man's four permanent wives and will inherit from him. He also is not permitted to marry the girl's sister.

However, he must compensate her even if she gets married to another(i.e. soul compensation- Diyya). If she is not a slave, then she has to be paid half the man's compensation plus the mandatory gift( mahr) she was due to recceive when getting married. But if her marries her after she is nine, he is not obliged to pay the Diyya but is advised to provide her a living as long as she is alive although it is not an obligation. By unknown, unregsitered person — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.71.158 (talk • contribs)

This is almost a copy and paste of translation 2!!! -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

I've been following this edit warring since the time of my participation above (translation) and i noticed that the main problem is not the content but the title itself. When we talk about Islam and children we should focus on the Islamic teachings w/ got authority (Qur'an and verified hadiths). If we have to talk about Khomeini view than we have to do it at Muslims and children instead. If this won't work than i suggest you make sure that authoritative views be separated from other views and practices (i.e. Saudi Arabia, etc...) -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The context of Khomeini's book is he's writing of Islam as an expert on Islam, indeed as a religious authority for the Iranian muslims. They're not his personal views unrelated to Islam (it wouldn't seem he ever had any views of that description, anyway). The relevance of the quote is it's describing the limits of child sexuality and permissions for sexual/pseudosexual behaviours with children - all with respect to the guidance provided from the ethical system of Islam. So with that in mind, its relevance and importance to the subject matter of the article should hardly be something that's contestable, should it?DavidYork71 12:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The majority of the translation versions we have accumulated on this quote (four now) express 'foreplay, rubbing, kissing' with the pre-9yearold as allowed, but intercourse in the same context is an infraction though not a crime. So what is included in the article should reflect that for the sake of fairness to the original source.DavidYork71 12:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Here a comment I left on one of the user pages: You advocated to include children's rites in Saudi Arabia, it is inappropriate for two main reasons:

1. Saudi Arabian laws forbid raising hands on children by any public servents that includes teachers in schools, that is the reason maybe that their children are very unruly. 2. The article is about treatment of children according to Islam, now even if saudi arabia claims to adhere to islamic priniciple, if it voilates it , or it adhers to it does not merit its inclusion in this ariticle, u can satrt a new article: Treatemnt of children in Muslim countries and include it there if u want.

You also included some stuff on slavery in the article, plz move that to the main article Islam and Slavery. Hope we can reach an understanding regarding this. Smus 10:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I would submit that the significance of slavery (in the Islamic context, of course)needs some explanation in the article -ie. what it means to personal rights and dignities of the enslave. This is because Islamic child slavery woul be quite a rare, unusual, and poorly understood subject to a majority of readers.DavidYork71 12:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nayan_Nev" Smus 11:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

To David... The structure of the article as it is now is just confusing. It gives the reader a general view w/o mentioning that some views and practices are not general to Muslims (a minority view in most cases / read Mudawana for other aspects about mariage). As i said above, my suggestion is the following:

• Qur'an
• Hadith and Sunnah
• Other views (including Mudawana, Khomeini, Saudi Arabia & al) -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say this is an WP:AGF transgression against the efforts of other wikipedians particularly in regard to translation. All translations affirm the concept 'Other acts such as foreplay, rubbing, kissing are fine even w/ a baby girl.' Except Aaliyah has said 'play' in place of 'kissing', but then after on this talk expresses that kissing is OK (see above). So there really can be no dispute. Certain erotic behaviour with these children is 'OK'.DavidYork71 03:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE DON'T MISREPRESENT WHAT I SAID, OR MY TRANSLATION! Both translations say that even non-penetrative relationships before 9 are a SIN I quote from above:

• 1 "foreplay, rubbing, kissing are fine even w/ a baby girl. If one has a relation w/ a girl before 9 while preserving her virginity he would be committing a sin"

• 2 "things like touching, rubbing and play, there is no harm (on him) in such acts even if she is still of the breastfeeding age; if he doesn't penetrate her before her ninth year yet has relations with her without harming her, no measures result in the preponderant view, but he has definitely sinned."

Although it appears like a contradiction; that in one breath he says kissing etc is "no harm", or "are fine", then straight after he says it is a sin: what he is referring to WRT no harm or being fine or OK, is with regards to judicial punishment which he is safe from, but he categorically states that such acts are still sinful. The whole section should be removed until this is resolved Aaliyah Stevens 14:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree this should come out and on to the talk page while we work out what we want to do. This seems to me a dispute based on mis-understanding, what i understand Khomeini to be saying is that rubbing etc is a sin(a moral violation) but not punished by the courts if "no harm". If there is "harm" then the court should award the victim a life long support order (western terminology) equal in value to his wives living standard. Am i right in this? Also what is "harm", is it a black eye or what. Also is the "harm" representing a ballance of evidence? Hypnosadist 18:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

REQUEST FOR COMMENT MADE - SLAVERY

See this edit. [9]. The editor there has said that the source on slavery (Levy) is not referring to children. This is false. Levy acknowledges the ways children are enslaved and does not exclude them in his treatment of the rights and disabilities of slaves (except certain child slaves at other points not relevant). So please provide reviews of what sort of coverage of the rights and disabilities of slaves would benefit the article here. I am saying the material is apt because we must not assume the average reader has any knowledge about the significance of slavery to children in Islam. Inheritance, concubinage, marriage rights, dowry all have relevance to enslaved children. Or you might disagree. 18:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

you assume that every time Levy talks about slaves he must be referring to child slaves. this is a totally false assumption, one reason being that unlike normal slaves, children are not baligh. when Levy is talking about child slaves, he makes it quite clear, and so these parts have been kept. we have no need for original research. ITAQALLAH 20:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

now you're saying that he exempts children in a blanket way from his treatment but you don't have a reference .. so slave children have an inheritance right, but then that disappears as soon as they become adult. It's preposterous and you've never been able to support it with any reference.DavidYork71 22:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

that's a straw man argument, DavidYork. when Levy is talking about slave children, he refers to them quite explicitly. there is thus no basis for making sweeping assumptions. ITAQALLAH 23:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

For example, in numerous places he says that a slave bride loses her mahr to her master. You're saying that that doesn't apply when the slave bride is also a child. But does he say that - no. And do you have any other source at all that can back that up - also no.DavidYork71 14:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

"You're saying that that doesn't apply when the slave bride is also a child" did you read my previous response? see straw man. i'm not saying that, i'm saying there's no basis for assuming that he does include minors, else he would explicitly mention them, as he does elsewhere in his book. ITAQALLAH 16:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Given that Mohammed married a girl at age 6, I think we can safely assume that children are included unless explicitly excluded. NN 17:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

non sequitur. it has nothing to do with Levy or his narrative on slaves. ITAQALLAH 22:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

http://www.islam101.com/sociology/parchild.htm

A few comments about this as a source for one of the early sections:
Why's the author claim himself or herself as 'Dr' but in brackets? Isn't that what No first name, writing in 1919, and from Sugar Land, Texas. Try your best to find out any more about him and his academic reputation, publication, gender, associations etc - I can't. What book is it from or the title of the publication? Or maybe just what website did it first appear on when it was uploaded to the internet in 1919?
Various tradition/sayings/hadith are report. No citations for any. From which collection? Narrated by or through who? Translated by who?
'The best of you is one who gives a good education to his children'. I was stumped finding that one on the USC compilation or elsewhere. Help please.
Also this author (brackets in) his own or a translator's interpolations habitually. I would really be embarrased to be quouting from the Bible and putting qualifications on the sayings of or stories about Jesus in that way.DavidYork71 07:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC) Here's some hadith: for example '

I don't think that Islam101.com is a reliable source--Sefringle 08:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

DavidYork, please stop manipulating sources to forward a POV. this edit comes across as egregious POV-pushing. ITAQALLAH 12:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think David is manipulating anything, it is a rather tendentious allegation. What I see is David raising reasonable doubts about a source. NN 17:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

do you see the emotive descriptions such as "assault their children", or "may not speak or act assertively in defending their dignity" explicitly articulated in the source, or will you concede these are tendentious manipulations of the source committed by DavidYork? ITAQALLAH 22:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/humanrelations/womeninislam/marriage.html#consent

I've seen this source used under 'forced marriage' to justify that forced marriage of a child is unlawful for 'all four sunni madhhabs'. Wrong. The source says this:

It may sometimes happen that in her immaturity or over-zealousness, a girl may want to marry a man about whom she has distorted information or who does not possess good character or who lacks proper means of livelihood. In such a case, it is better, or rather incumbent upon the girl's father or guardian, that, in the wider interests of the girl, he restrains her from marrying such a worthless man and finds a suitable person to be her husband.

So for Maliki, it is OK for a father to choose a spouse for the daughter that is not a person she chooses.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayan Nev (talk • contribs)

Ayatollah quote

Who removed this quote, and why?--Sefringle 03:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you add it back in? Arrow740 05:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

We went to a bit of a trouble to have it verified. Are there any subsequent pronouncements of the same or other Grand Ayatollah's qualifying it?DavidYork71 12:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I've resupplied it now with pic.DavidYork71 13:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

as shown here, the factual accuracy of the translation and its meaning you keep inserting is disputed. the image you inserted, with a caption apparently misrepresenting Khomeini's position, is calculated defamation. ITAQALLAH 15:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

We do not owe respect to the dead. We only owe them the truth. See above that FayssalF are AaliyahStevens are among those who have been able to examine and understand the quote in its source language.DavidYork71 05:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

that's not a response to my comment.. AS has actually disputed the accuracy and connotations that have been derived from the quote. your edits go against WP:NPOV. ITAQALLAH 16:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

How so?--Sefringle 23:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

'Right of Education for Children' vs 'Islam Commends Educating Children'

There was no formal schooling 1400 years ago in the Arab desert, but it developed within a few decades of Prophet's demise {citation need}. You can't expect Prophet Muhammad to say to the bedion who cam to him to accept Islam that if u wanna accept Islam then the kid who helps u out with your animals can't do it anymore, furthermore he has to be seperated from you and sent to formal school which may or maynot be hundreds of miles away. He just emphisiszed and made it compalsory obtain education both secular & religious (there has been no distinction between both of these). The sahaba later on conducted class which included fiqh, arabic litrature, mathematics,etc. Umar made some sylabus, later on the concept of Madrasah develped.

In addition, children matured quite early in those days, e.g. 14 year son of zaid was given a command of armies by the Prophet which had his ederly companion in 60s or 70s in it too. Similarly, early age of marriage is always there to be commented. You can see numerous examples from that time that teenagers were considered full adults and were given such responsiblities. Smus 18:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Regrding the implications of these, it vary's from region to region, but I have seen many muslim parents intreprete these teachings as giving education and accepting the financial burdens till college (bachelors), but it varies with region and resources.Smus 20:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

To say that the child has a right to an education (presumably enforceable against their parents), then bring forward any authentic hadith which states that it is not allowable for a parent to put a child to work rather than to school and any age of the child's development. I can't find one. Represent Islam and the hadith correctly. Islam's standard of civilisation fall's short of upholding such a right. All that can be said is that education is commended. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.135.34.252 (talk) 06:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC).