Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia: Girls are ready for marriage at 10.

Announcements Posted on
    • 23 followers
    Offline

    (Original post by Perseveranze)
    I strongly doubt you understood what I said or the context in which I said it. I mentioned it was apart of Philosophy, a systematized method of separating right and wrong (in elaboration, behavior wise).

    Ethics is apart of/or is also known as a moral philosophy. So it's like a branch off the field of morality. To say it has nothing to do with it is absurd and inaccurate.

    Here's your dictionary definition;

    1. Moral principles that govern a person's or group's behavior.
    2. The moral correctness of specified conduct.
    You didn't understand my question, I said define the word ethics "accurately". I could very very easily pick holse in the definitions you gave. So, perhaps answer what I asked?
    • 24 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by S-man10)
    You didn't understand my question, I said define the word ethics "accurately". I could very very easily pick holse in the definitions you gave. So, perhaps answer what I asked?
    Are you going to keep asking me, or are you going to actually say something yourself?

    I gave you the meaning of the word in its accuracy, in the context it was used (both by me and against me) and in my understanding of it. The answer was given in the first post.

    Since you seem to have a contradictory approach to what the actual word means (ie. Wiki, dictionary etc.), I'm interested in seeing exactly what you deem the "accurate" definition of ethics is. Do not keep beating around the bush.
    • 11 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Perseveranze)
    1. It's not a "fatwa". It's a famous scholar relaying what the consensus of the classical scholars regarding just one of the requirements of a Islamic marriage.

    When they say; "no harm must be caused", examples of such are; the persons body isn't capable for having intercourse, the person may have HIV or some disease that would harm the potential spouse, the person may be mentally insane etc. Quite versatile and allows scholars to do itjihad based on any future problems that may arrive.

    And this is the beauty of the Shariah. Barely a century ago, a 10 year old could get married in the UK/USA. No mental/puberty/maturity etc. With Islamic Shariah, there is no fixed age, but rather through the divine decree, clear cut requirements for a Marriage to hold valid.

    2. The scholar is relaying one aspect of the marriage requirements. Amongst the other requirements is mental maturity.

    This is based on the word in the Qur'an known as "bulugh al nikah", which means "age of marraige" in regards to orphans and their capabilities of handling their finances. We know this is referring to mental maturity because the Qur'an talks about "testing to see if Orphans have reached bulugh al nikah, by seeing if they are ready to handle their own financial assets";

    {وَابْتَلُواْ الْيَتَامَى حَتَّىَ إِذَا بَلَغُواْ النِّكَاحَ فَإِنْ آنَسْتُم مِّنْهُمْ رُشْداً فَادْفَعُواْ إِلَيْهِمْ أَمْوَالَهُمْ...} {Test the orphans, so that if they have reached the age of procreation* (Balaghu Al Nikah), and if (you) discerned from them sound judgement then deliver to them their fortune} Quran: Al Nisaa (The Women) 4:6, p. 77

    In simplistic terms; being able to handle your own financial assets = mental maturity in Islam, and the age in which you can consent to marriage and complete stage 2.
    I find that rather an interesting way to measure maturity :lolwut: And of course, what about that factor of women not being thought able to handle their own finances in Islam, or half as able as a man?

    Also, 4:6

    'And test the orphans [in their abilities] until they reach marriageable age. Then if you perceive in them sound judgement, release their property to them. And do not consume it excessively and quickly, [anticipating] that they will grow up. And whoever, [when acting as guardian], is self-sufficient should refrain [from taking a fee]; and whoever is poor - let him take according to what is acceptable. Then when you release their property to them, bring witnesses upon them. And sufficient is Allah as Accountant.' Sahih International

    'Make trial of orphans until they reach the age of marriage; if then ye find sound judgment in them, release their property to them; but consume it not wastefully, nor in haste against their growing up. If the guardian is well-off, Let him claim no remuneration, but if he is poor, let him have for himself what is just and reasonable. When ye release their property to them, take witnesses in their presence: But all-sufficient is Allah in taking account.' Yusuf Ali

    Yeah, marriage, not procreation. You are using the terms interchangably in order to prove they mean the same thing. This is not good form.
    • 23 followers
    Offline

    (Original post by Perseveranze)
    Are you going to keep asking me, or are you going to actually say something yourself?

    I gave you the meaning of the word in its accuracy, in the context it was used (both by me and against me) and in my understanding of it. The answer was given in the first post.

    Since you seem to have a contradictory approach to what the actual word means (ie. Wiki, dictionary etc.), I'm interested in seeing exactly what you deem the "accurate" definition of ethics is. Do not keep beating around the bush.
    I didn't claim to know the meaning of the word accurately, and as such since you claimed to know, I asked you to define it. I claimed I could prove to you that the dictionary definition of ethics and your understanding is woefully inadequate, or rather, full of misunderstanding.

    Ethics has nothing to do with morals, since if it were, everyone would be ethically right -- even two completely opposing actions. It is not at all accurate as you say, even given the context. The definition of the word isn't accurate since I asked for an accurate definition in its entirety i.e. usable in all contexts, not in just a single context.

    (Original post by Perseveranze)
    I strongly doubt you understood what I said or the context in which I said it. I mentioned it was apart of Philosophy, a systematized method of separating right and wrong (in elaboration, behavior wise).

    Ethics is apart of/or is also known as a moral philosophy. So it's like a branch off the field of morality. To say it has nothing to do with it is absurd and inaccurate.

    Here's your dictionary definition;

    1. Moral principles that govern a person's or group's behavior.
    2. The moral correctness of specified conduct.
    The first fundamental mistake here is mixing up morals and ethics, as both are different. Morals is merely an agreement between the masses as to which thoughts and therefore actions are right or wrong, usually coming from a figure of authority.

    To simply demonstrate this, it is enough to look at adults and children and the "generation" gap, when both claim that "my moral code is right". A child will be raved among his peers for doing an action which is thought to be something incredible. Similarly, an adult would look down upon that action as being stupid and wrong. Child says it is right, adult says it is wrong.

    Now to switch the roles, adult does something incredible and is raved between his peers. As the child sees him, he thinks what a terrible human being. Adult says right, child says wrong.

    Since you are taking about right and wrong, who is right and wrong here? And therefore who is ethical here?
    • 22 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Perseveranze)
    x
    (Original post by S-man10)
    x
    Both of you have gone off topic. But I will inform you, from the perspective of someone who studies this topic, that you both make valid and invalid points.

    To go into this discussion would take too much of my time as it is a field that has many different ways to think about the world that it's basically impossible to fit many of them in here. I would say that you should begin exploring from moral objectivity and subjectivity.

    To go back to what S-man said originally about the fact that there are so many divided opinions on a religion that claims to be a monolithic truth.

    I welcome you to humanity. Unfortunately for us, we are creatures who can interpret anything so as to suit our own views, needs, desires etc. Islam says the Qur'an is flawless. It is the people who are flawed. Flawed people will make mistakes. That does not mean the religion is flawed. It's not that hard to grasp now is it? :rolleyes:
    • 23 followers
    Offline

    (Original post by Qaz25)
    Both of you have gone off topic. But I will inform you, from the perspective of someone who studies this topic, that you both make valid and invalid points.
    In a way, yes, this is a bit off-topic, but it does directly pertain to what the Grand Mufti has said. Oddly surprising that Perseveranze has chosen to quote wikipedia rather than the Quran (which he continuously defends), on the subject of ethics....

    also, please point to me where I make invalid points and I'll be happy to address them.

    To go into this discussion would take too much of my time as it is a field that has many different ways to think about the world that it's basically impossible to fit many of them in here. I would say that you should begin exploring from moral objectivity and subjectivity.
    Oh I wasn't taking about morals, I was taking about ethics which is different. Perseveranze chose introduce morals in the ethics equation.

    I welcome you to humanity. Unfortunately for us, we are creatures who can interpret anything so as to suit our own views, needs, desires etc. Islam says the Qur'an is flawless. It is the people who are flawed. Flawed people will make mistakes. That does not mean the religion is flawed. It's not that hard to grasp now is it? :rolleyes:
    I'm actually not sure if you are being sarcastic here. Otherwise this seems quite oxymoronic.

    And flawless? Well, I could go into much more detail and point out the very basic flaw in the Quran as it neglects to state the most fundamental of things, but thats a different story for another day.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Miu-Miu)
    Link - Not the Daily Mail.


    "

    Things to keep in mind:


    1. The Grand Mufti is the highest official of religious law in a Muslim country. This is not a poor country bumpkin waging war against Israel for taking his land. This is a man who has studied his religion for decades amongst other prominent scholars. Is he "misunderstanding" his religion? Okay, I can accept that the Prophet might have married Aisha for political reasons. She might have matured earlier and gone through puberty faster.


    That was 7th Century Arabia and those things happened in the East and West. FINE! This, however, is 2012. Little girls do not need to be sex dolls and housewives to elderly Saudi men.


    2. There are zero Muslim protests over this. Zero. People were beheaded, embassies were set on fire and entire streets pillaged and looted over a cartoon. The rape of little Muslim girls by adult men? Not a peep. Where is your outrage? Why aren't you screaming at the top of your lungs?



    Opinions plz.



    Just another in the example in the endless list of reasons for which cultural relativism is bull****.


    **** anyone that condones this. I hope they all get forced into a life of servitude and sexual abuse themselves.
    • 22 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by S-man10)
    In a way, yes, this is a bit off-topic, but it does directly pertain to what the Grand Mufti has said. Oddly surprising that Perseveranze has chosen to quote wikipedia rather than the Quran (which he continuously defends), on the subject of ethics....

    also, please point to me where I make invalid points and I'll be happy to address them.
    How do you mean quote the Qur'an? Don't think the Qur'an gives a definition for ethics. It gives the moral code to live by which makes up the Islamic system of ethics that is followed by every Muslim and is believed to be the perfect ethical system by Muslims.

    But like any ethical system, there are those who propose their own moral opinions in order to satisfy their own feelings, desires, wants etc. Nearly all Muslim scholars on this topic throughout time have mentioned puberty as being the minimum age for marriage. However, the age of puberty and maturity differs among the female population across the world. For example, kids I've met in the sub-continent are a lot sharper, more aware of what is going on in the world, and speak more like adults from an earlier age (seen through experience) compared to the children raised from second-gen families here. So the Mufti is wrong to give an age as there is no proscribed age and it all depends on the individuals involved as to whether they are mature enough (for example, if they are yet to fully understand the Islamic principles of marriage, then they cannot be mature enough). This is why age restrictions are stupid in a legal system. You can drive when you are 17, but this does not necessarily mean you are mature enough to do so. Age is but a number. Biology works differently for each of us.

    Oh I wasn't taking about morals, I was taking about ethics which is different. Perseveranze chose introduce morals in the ethics equation.
    Your view that 'ethics has nothing to do with morality'. Wrong. Morality has a lot to do with ethics. It's not a coincidence that many of the categories of ethical behaviour relate to terms with 'moral' in them (e.g. Moral Relativism, Moral Realism etc.). In fact, read David McNaughton's book called 'Moral Vision: an Introduction to Ethics'. It's an excellent starting point.

    If anything, I think you are being quite pedantic on this distinction between 'ethics' and 'morality'. Yes there is a slight distinction. But they are not completely separate topics as you seem to believe. Morality is part of ethics (as a subject) because each individual writer on the topic has his own moral opinions. But ethics is the philosophical thinking behind the morality. Some suggest that ethics is the reflection on moral beliefs that we constantly strive to improve.

    Two basic forms are subjectivist and objectivist. Now someone who believes that the Qur'an is the word of God will believe that there are objective moral values. That is, it is part of the way the world is. Therefore, no matter what our own personal moral opinions are, if they go against the general ethic portrayed in the Qur'an, then they are wrong opinions.

    A subjectivist, on the other hand, would say that there are no right or wrong moral values (however, this can be split further into those who believe there are some things which are wrong due to their nature or the way they affect societies functioning).

    In your example, you would need to inform us of the action being done for us to understand whether it is moral or immoral (according to our religious, personal or communal beliefs). You can't just say one thinks it's right and the other thinks it's wrong because the debate is based on the action itself not the opinions of those involved.

    Obviously this is an extremely basic view of ethics and morality and very simplistic too and may have some errors I warn you. I am currently in revision mode for other modules so not really concentrating when ethics is involved

    I'm actually not sure if you are being sarcastic here. Otherwise this seems quite oxymoronic.

    And flawless? Well, I could go into much more detail and point out the very basic flaw in the Quran as it neglects to state the most fundamental of things, but thats a different story for another day.
    I would love an explanation on this. Have a few inklings as to what you may be referring to though.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iqbal007)
    At least give the hadith?

    If your a Muslim, you stick by Islam, their is no lower sub groups, no such thing in Islam, the other thing is that the Taliban are no where near close to Islam, they are essentially a group of farmers, high cultured, etc men trying to use Islam as a shield, in reality when you compare it to Islam it's so easy to see the huge differences between the two................it's also the same with these 'sharia countries' because there is none, closest thing to anything sharia related was the Ottoman empire a century ago and even they were far off.
    ottomans didnt operate sharia, there are plenty of historians that have recorded how they applied secualr institution to remove the influence of islam, changed laws that islam would require etc. As regards the OP, this isnt a cultural or sub divisional practice, becasue we knw muslims have always married what we would consider children, mohammeds marriage to 9 year old aisha being the most famous islamic pratice for example.ac
    • 16 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Age of consent isn't a well-defined, objectively determined, number. It's a matter of culture, tradition, and what society is generally used to.

    Bolivia's "age of consent" begins at puberty, regardless of actual age. On the other hand, the age of consent in Tunisia is 20. That's a very wide range. So I don't know why people are so surprised that someone from the other side of the world has a different idea to them as to what an appropriate age of consent should be. The age of consent in the UK is 16, and British people might look at Tunisa and say "They have to wait until their 20?! That's so harsh!", while Boliva and Saudi Arabia are saying exactly the same thing about the UK. British people might look at Bolivia and Saudi Arabia and say "They're having sex aged 10 and 11? How immoral!" While Tunisia is saying exactly the same thing about the UK.

    It's also fallacious to think that your idea of an appropriate age of consent is somehow "the right one". Deciding on the age of consent is not like counting the number of apples in a basket.
    You have your idea of an appropriate age of consent, not because you sat down and mathematically/scientifically worked it out, but because someone told you that's what the age of consent is in your jurisdiction, and now you're used to it. Someone else who is used to something else may have a different idea of the appropriate age of consent - but there's no reason why you are any more "right" than him.

    At the extremities (e.g. if a country sets the age of consent so high that most women have reached menopause at that age, and so nobody can have children) then yes, we now have an objective basis when we say that this isn't appropriate. But in general, it simply has to be accepted that just because you consider one thing to be "normal" doesn't make you more right than someone who considers something else to be "normal".
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Age of consent isn't a well-defined, objectively determined, number. It's a matter of culture, tradition, and what society is generally used to.

    Bolivia's "age of consent" begins at puberty, regardless of actual age. On the other hand, the age of consent in Tunisia is 20. That's a very wide range. So I don't know why people are so surprised that someone from the other side of the world has a different idea to them as to what an appropriate age of consent should be. The age of consent in the UK is 16, and British people might look at Tunisa and say "They have to wait until their 20?! That's so harsh!", while Boliva and Saudi Arabia are saying exactly the same thing about the UK. British people might look at Bolivia and Saudi Arabia and say "They're having sex aged 10 and 11? How immoral!" While Tunisia is saying exactly the same thing about the UK.

    It's also fallacious to think that your idea of an appropriate age of consent is somehow "the right one". Deciding on the age of consent is not like counting the number of apples in a basket.
    You have your idea of an appropriate age of consent, not because you sat down and mathematically/scientifically worked it out, but because someone told you that's what the age of consent is in your jurisdiction, and now you're used to it. Someone else who is used to something else may have a different idea of the appropriate age of consent - but there's no reason why you are any more "right" than him.

    At the extremities (e.g. if a country sets the age of consent so high that most women have reached menopause at that age, and so nobody can have children) then yes, we now have an objective basis when we say that this isn't appropriate. But in general, it simply has to be accepted that just because you consider one thing to be "normal" doesn't make you more right than someone who considers something else to be "normal".
    10 is too young and still biologically a child, however you want to dress it up
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
    10 is too young and still biologically a child, however you want to dress it up
    Wikipedia disagrees with you, as do quite a lot of other people on this forum...
    • 9 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    Urgh the Muslims in this thread throwing the cultural relativism card around to make ****ing children seem okay makes me sick.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by squishy123)
    Wikipedia disagrees with you, as do quite a lot of other people on this forum...
    what you dug up from wikipedia doesnt say a 10 year old girl is not a child, in fact the opposite

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puberty...anges_in_girls

    puberty is not completed till after 10.

    So the other people on this forum and you, are wrong.. yet again.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
    what you dug up from wikipedia doesnt say a 10 year old girl is not a child, in fact the opposite

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puberty...anges_in_girls

    puberty is not completed till after 10.

    So the other people on this forum and you, are wrong.. yet again.
    It seems you are very confused. Let's start from the beginning, shall we?

    (1) What's the difference between a GIRL and a WOMAN?

    If you get this right, you get 10 bonus points.
    • 9 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SEHughes)
    All this talk of girls maturing at younger ages in the past - where's the evidence?
    There is none. It is in fact the reverse. Girls have been entering puberty earlier and earlier as time has went on due to ever-increasing abundance of resources. You have Western Civilisation, secularism and capitalism to thank for that.
    • 16 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
    10 is too young and still biologically a child, however you want to dress it up
    In your opinion.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    In your opinion.
    Yes, and it just happens to be right, unless you are now arguing that you would be perfectly happy for you 10 year old sister to get married and start having sex - all in mindless defense of 1300 year old backward superstitions and traditions.
    • 16 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
    Yes, and it just happens to be right,
    Well, you would say that. It's your opinion.

    unless you are now arguing that you would be perfectly happy for you 10 year old sister to get married and start having sex
    Many people have been, and would be perfectly happy for that to happen.
    • 41 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
    ottomans didnt operate sharia, there are plenty of historians that have recorded how they applied secualr institution to remove the influence of islam, changed laws that islam would require etc. As regards the OP, this isnt a cultural or sub divisional practice, becasue we knw muslims have always married what we would consider children, mohammeds marriage to 9 year old aisha being the most famous islamic pratice for example.ac
    Read my post
    "closest thing to anything sharia related was the Ottoman empire a century ago and even they were far off."

    Yet they also tried to implement some form of Islam, like the Caliphate.

    You can't just use that as the basis for an argument for such a thing, many Muslim's out there don't even trust the Saudi scholars for good reason. In Islam you are 'allowed' from puberty to marry, but that comes with conditions, even though this exists, Muslims decide to marry far later as it's their right to do so.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?

    this is what you'll be called on TSR

  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?

    never shared and never spammed

  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide the button to the right to create your account

    Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: June 2, 2013
New on TSR

Student crowdfunds degree

Graduate raises £26,000 online for Masters course

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.