Mehdi Hasan is a Shia Muslim who is not only a television. presenter, but also a journalist who regularly writes about the excesses of Islam. He’s decried the Islamic death penalty for apostasy as well as suicide bombing, sharia law, and Muslim political expansionism. That, of course, gets him in trouble with his co-religionists. He’s a brave man.
His latest piece in the New Statesman, “British Muslims should stand up and say it; there is nothing Islamic about child marriage,” will get him in more hot water, but this is exactly the kind of thing that “moderate” Muslims should be writing. Unfortunately, I don’t think it will work.
Hasan’s piece is based on an investigative report by ITV (documented in a program called “Forced to Marry”) in which undercover reporters contacted 56 British mosques, posing as a Muslim mother and father wishing to marry off an underaged daughter of 14. (The legal age of marriage in Britain is 16.)
Surprisingly, 18 of the mosques—32%—said it would be no problem. (Remember, this is in Britain.) Their stance was, of course, based on the Muslim tradition of child brides, one I thought was hallowed by the religion because Muhamed was said to have married a six-year old and had sex with her three years later.
The imam of a mosque in Manchester was secretly recorded as saying that performing such a marriage would “not be a problem”. An imam in Birmingham, despite being told that the girl didn’t want to get married, could be heard saying: “She’s 14. By sharia, grace of God, she’s legal to get married. Obviously Islam has made it easy for us . . . We’re doing it because it’s OK through Islam.”
. . . Frustratingly, many Muslim scholars and seminaries still cling to the view that adulthood, and the age of sexual consent, rests only on biological puberty: that is, 12 to 15 for boys and nine to 15 for girls.
Nine to fifteen!
But according to Hasan, there is actually nothing in Muslim law or tradition sanctioning child brides. This was a surprise to me:
As is often the case, there is no single, immutable “Islamic” view. As Usama Hasan, a reform-minded British Muslim scholar and former imam, argues: “There was a rival view in Islamic jurisprudence, even in ancient and medieval times: that emotional and intellectual maturity was also required, and was reached between the ages of 15 and 21.” The latter view, he tells me, “has been adopted by most civil codes of Muslim-majority countries for purposes of marriage”.
The Quran does not contain a specific legal age of marriage, but it does make clear that men and women must be both physically mature and of sound judgement in order to get married. It is also worth clarifying that Prophet Muhammad did not, as is often claimed, marry a child bride named Aisha. Yes, I’ll concede that there is a saying in Sahih Bukhari, one of the six canonical Hadith collections of Sunni Islam, attributed to Aisha herself, which suggests she was six years old when she was married to Muhammad and nine when the marriage was consummated. Nevertheless, there are plenty of Muslim historians who dispute this particular Hadith and argue Aisha was in reality aged somewhere between 15 and 21.
. . . Ififi al-Akiti, an Oxford-based theologian trained in traditional Islamic madrasas across south Asia and North Africa, tells me that the vast majority of classical scholars throughout Muslim history agreed on a minimum marriage age of 18 – two years older, incidentally, than secular Britain’s current age of consent.
Well, I’m a bit worried that the dispute about that particular hadith is manufactured to get the right results, but it doesn’t matter, for there are other Islamic customs that, while not appearing in the Qur’an or hadith, have become religious tradition, like the wearing of headscarves or burqas. Something doesn’t have to be in holy scripture to acquire a religious patina. Eating fish on Friday, or not eating matzos on Passover that take more than 18 minutes to make, are post facto interpretations of what God wants, not clear dictates of the Old or New Testaments, or even the Talmud.
The problem with Islam is that, unlike the other Abrahamic religions, interpreting its scriptures as metaphorical is a no-no, making it harder to overturn customs supposedly sanctioned by the Qur’an or hadith. That’s the reason Hasan tries to show that child marriage is not Qur’anic, for if Muslims recognize that, they’ll have a reason to stop it.
But even if child brides were approved by the Qur’an in pure and straightforward language, the practice would still be be wrong. We’re more enlightened now than we ere in the sixteenth century, and the taking of child brides is now recognized, at least by enlightened people, as child abuse.
Sadly, it’s easier to convince Muslims that something is not Qur’anic than that it’s simply wrong, as any evil supposedly sanctioned by the Qur’an or hadith becomes law merely by its inclusion in scripture. That’s why, for example, Reza Aslan tries to show that Mohamed and the practices he dictated were basically okay (and much less malevolent than we think), because they’re based on a “proper” reading of the Qur’an. Aslan was not interpreting Muslim scriptures metaphorically, but by (supposedly) showing that those scriptures had been misread. (Granted, there’s a thin line between “metaphor” and “misreading”.)
I dislike “metaphorizing” because it’s simply a weaselly way to save scripture that’s been shown as either scientifically wrong or immoral by modern standards. It’s intellectually dishonest, for it allows one to cherry-pick whatever you like as God’s will, and write off the rest as meaning something other than what it seems. Still, metaphorizing has worked to our favor by allowing some liberal Christians to approve gay marriage, equality of women, and so on.
But metaphorizing won’t work with Islam. The Qur’an is fundamentally a barbaric and straightforward document, and there’s no liberal tradition of metaphorical interpretation. The only way to stop the scripturally-based excesses of Islam is to either outlaw them or try, as many of us are doing, to show that the religion is silly, manmade, and, like all faiths, deserves to be tossed in the dustbin of outmoded beliefs.
h/t: Grania
Be careful with compliments for Mehdi Hasan, Jerry. He wouldn’t have many for ‘cattle’ like you …
So much for moderate Islam.
Now that is the money quote of all time. Thanks.
TRy googling “Question time, Mehdi hassan and daily mail”
The man’s a “sophisticated” fraud!
“Be careful with compliments for Mehdi Hasan, Jerry.”
I agree. Hasan interviewed Dawkins on AlJazeera TV a few months ago and he’s as hard-core as most Muslims I know.
Heck, he even stated that he takes the story of Mohamed’s night journey to heaven on horseback literally.
But I agree with Jerry —– Muslims pick and choose what to believe through their interpretation of scripture.
Can’t they see that all they’re doing is moving closer to secularism at every instance where they ditch the medieval baggage in Islam?
If I am not mistaken, wasn’t Muhammed’s first wife, the wealthy widow who he originally worked for something of a “cougar”? At least I am under the impression that she was older than him.
“Cougar”…lol 🙂
Careful…that would geat you beheaded in most Muslim countries!
Here’s a debate/interview he did with Dawkins not too long ago:
(http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/general/2012/12/2012121791038231381.html)
I must admit that I’m not too impressed with this guy.
Sometimes I wish Islam had a (reasonable) pope to lay down the doctrine.
On the other hand, if it had a pope, it would be possible for matters to backfire. Imagine what would have happened if someone like bin Laden had been the islamic pope?
Well, I did say reasonable. 🙂
Many parts of the Bible can be given a “spin” to sound good to modern ears, but the genocides of the Canaanites and the punishment of the children who made fun of Elijah’s baldness so God had them mauled and eaten by a bear and the Book of Revelation are FUBAR.
It’s always amazed me that a sect of a Xtian religion can spend a great deal of effort “debunking” the Babble-inspired beliefs of another sect (using their own cherry-picked set of Babble verses, of course), and then go on to simply substitute their own brand of Babble-inspired, “corrected” nonsense: Jehovah’s Witnesses are particularly good at this. The deadly rift between Shia and Sunni Muslims is another.
Some level of interpretation must always be done. There simply is no “one single clear” way to read these texts. So this is kind of like what Churchill said about government: the interpretation you strive for is probably the very worst interpretation…except for all the others.
Since we have to do some interpretation, wha we should be aiming for is basing it on principles of good scholarship and research. To use a biblical example: both higher criticism and fundamentalist literalism lead to “mere interpretations” of what the bible means. Neither is pure (because we can’t get ‘pure’), both have aspects of metaphorizing. Nevethertheless, higher criticism is generally considered a lot more rigorous and academically justified. To most scholars, it’s the one that is the very worst biblical interpretation, except for all the others.
I’ll bet good money that fundamentalist literalism would have gotten much higher approval than modern theological scholarship, if you could somehow present both views to the first council of Nicea.
While all statements must, necessarily be interpreted, this doesn’t mean all interpretations are equally accurate. There’s a reason you don’t try to read your local taxation laws -metaphorically-, and it’s no less dishonest, just less punishable, when you apply it to supposedly holy texts.
“There’s a reason you don’t try to read your local taxation laws -metaphorically.”
Spot on! Every thought we have is metaphorical of that which we are thinking about. However, the consequences of those thoughts, our actions, are literal in every respect.
Sent my daughter an article about an 8 yr old that died when her marriage to a 40-something year old was being consummated. I commented “This religion is horrible. It not only allows but approves of men committing child abuse.” To which my daughter simply answered, “And who do you think invented the religion?”
The use of “age of consent” in the article is an error.
The correct term is “marriageable age” which in the UK is 16, but only with parental permission, otherwise it’s 18.
There is no equivalent in Islam to “age of consent” in secular law, because premarital sex is absolutely forbidden and often harshly punished (if you’re a woman). So the glib attempt to make liberal Islam seem more progressive than British secular law is disingenuous, ignorant, or both.
“post facto interpretations of what God wants” is possibly seen in all religions of the world. No god is likely to have laid down rules on how festivals should be celebrated or how marriages or funerals should be conducted. These have surely evolved later according to the conveniences of the people in places where these practices started.
In the US, most states allow underaged people to legally marry if they have the permission of parents and, in some cases, a judge. This is why cults like the FLDS go off and start their own settlements – so they can install their own local officials and get the decisions they want. Here are some interesting facts about the marriageable age in the US:
• The state with the lowest defined legal
age for marriage is Massachusetts, where,
with parental and judicial consent it is
12 for girls and 14 for boys.
• In seven states (Arizona, California,
Colorado, North Carolina Ohio, Washington
and West Virginia), there is no statutory
minimum age, making it theoretically
possible for an infant marriage to take
place
• In Texas, a 14-year-old girl can marry
without parental or judicial permission
provided she has been previously
married and is divorced or widowed.
• In states in which the marriageable age
for males and females differ, the
permissible age for girls is always lower.
• Four states (Indiana, New Jersey, North
Carolina and Pennsylvania) allow underage
marriage exceptions if the bride is
pregnant. The laws do not specify if the
groom is arresteded, given the de
facto evidence of statutory rape.
• In the US, twenty-one states allow legal
marriage to someone who is below the
normal age of consent. These marriages
would be legally recognized by states that
do not allow this.
That last item brings up an interesting point – that one could be liable to prosecution on federal charges of possessing child pornography for having an intimate picture of one’s own spouse.
Regarding age of consent:
• Worldwide, the age of consent ranges from
a low of 12 to a high of 21. In the US,
it ranges from a low of 14 to a high of 18.
• In the US, the average age of consent is
16. In 26 red states, it ranges from 14½
to 15; in 22 blue states from 16¼ to 16½;
in 5 purple states, it ranges from 16¼
to 17.
• Only one state, Arkansas, has differing
ages of consent for straight and gay sex
– if you’re gay, it’s eighteen. If not,
it’s sixteen with a close-in-age
exemption of fourteen.
• Of all the countries in which any sex
outside of marriage is illegal, only one,
Bolivia, is not Islamic.
A pregnant underage bride is evidence of statutory rape, but the pregnancy is not necessarily evidence against the groom, which is what would be relevant for a statutory rape charge.
The supposition is based on paternity testing, which, under the circumstances, is a reasonable expectation.
I remember hearing that some teenagers had been charged with possession of child pornography after exchanging “intimate” photos of each other as a couple, so the bit about spouses being vulnerable the same way is not much of a stretch.
Someone in NSW Australia was charged under child porn laws for having pictures of Bart Simpson having sex with Lisa, and that similar charges can apply in the US.
That is absurd.
Who the deuce is supposed to be the offended part?
As this Wikipedia article points out at least one of those prosecutions was considered justified because the defendant also had some real kiddie porn as well.
As for me, I much prefer kitty porn. I don’t think anyone’s ever been arrested for having pictures of LOLcats.
That certainly changes the circumstances so I’m glad they busted him.
I prefer some good ol’ fashioned one-on-one action. Dreadfully boring, I know.
“Yes, I’ll concede that there is a saying in Sahih Bukhari, one of the six canonical Hadith collections of Sunni Islam, attributed to Aisha herself, which suggests she was six years old when she was married to Muhammad and nine when the marriage was consummated.”
Jerry – You were wise to be suspicious of Hasan’s attempt to downplay “a saying” in “one of” the Hadiths. In fact, the assertion that Aisha was married at 6 and deflowered at 9 is actually found in 5 separate sayings in the Sahih Bukhari, as well as 5 additional sayings in two other Hadiths (3 in the Sahih Muslim and 2 in the Sunan Abu Dawood).
…
I’ll give him credit for trying to change the opinions of Muslims but trying to claim that anyone who disagrees with Islamism is an islamophobe is a nonsense as is his contention that child brides are caused by the sect followed by the Saudis.