Talk:Islam and children/Archive 1

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 [] 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)

you guys are thinking of this as immoral. it wasen't immorral in those ages plus she led a very happy life. The Prophet was a very kind person. do you think that all childrens innocence will be preserved forever? some rather not being innocent for too long a time. there was nothing wrong about this marriage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.124.163 (talk) 00:24, 17 September 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)
 * I think the word slave means "slave of God" as in "servant of God" (that is one who serves God) - as indicated in the Koran (especially regarding to "slave woman") and I guess some Muslims interpret it as enslaving certain people, such as a man over his wife or women, giving this perception to many non-Muslims today. Islam does not allow concubines. The definition of concubine is "generally signifies ongoing, quasi-matrimonial relationships where the woman is of lower social status than the man or the official wife or wives." Islam allows a man to have four wives under the condition that he treats all his wives equally and that his present wife allows him to marry another (this is especially seen where a man is about to marry another woman) but it is not encouraged. --124.183.101.164 03:44, 9 October 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. Aaliyah Stevens 12:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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...


 * 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, [], 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 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, 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.  ITAQALLAH   10:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * also, what do you think about these two sections: Islam and children, Islam and children.  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:, and here , and here 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)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) 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 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)

Hypnosadist, I believe Khomeini is trying to say that it is a sin, but not punishable by humans; much like suicide, which is not a crime, but is still a sin. Also, I have checked the Persian text at homa.org and it clearly uses the Persian word for sin (ﮔﻨﺎﻩ).



(Verify it here)-- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  ♥  ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  04:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

REQUEST FOR COMMENT MADE - SLAVERY
See this edit. . 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)

What? Are we reading the same thing? What you quoted says that the girl's father or guardian may prevent her from marrying someone improper. It says nothing about choosing someone of which she doesn't approve-- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  ♥  ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  04:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

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)
 * see Talk:Islam_and_children.  ITAQALLAH   23:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we have to ask help from the Persian helpdesk at wikipedia, from people who are not biased in any way. This is a great book and all its quotes should be included in Wikipedia.--Matt57 19:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "This is a great book and all its quotes should be included in Wikipedia", no they shouldn't: see wikibooks.org, and that's only if the book is free of copyright. a translation is needed, from a reliable source.  ITAQALLAH   22:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I didnt really mean the whole book should be quoted, only the relevant parts of course.--Matt57 23:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't understand why some of you are bent on including this quote. This quote does not have any legal (or fiqh) value for over 90% of the Muslims and does not represent Islam????? and since the article is about 'Islam and Children', not about what Muslims or leaders of Muslim countries say about children I vote to remove this quote. Smus 22:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I vote to keep it. It is very significant in the number of children who are abused by the policy.  We are well aware about the ongoing battle between Shia and Sunni; it is not uncommon to hear Sunni say that "Shia is not true Islam" ... but some think Muhammad himself engaged in the practice of thighing with little Aisha between 6 and 9, before the marriage was consummated. --ProtectWomen 22:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * By your nick I implied that you want to "Protect Women", but you are trying to provide religiuos justification for something which is inappropriate in this day and age. (Although that justification is a clear misrepresrentation)Smus 09:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The life expectancy of women in the middle ages was around 30 years, u can't expect women to wait for 20 years in thier life to get maaried, ppl everywhere yes everywhere married early, they matured early, they handled responsibility early 13-14 year boys and even younger girls were expected to handle the responsiblities that today 30 even 40 year old ppl don't handle. The age mentioned it the quote is not valid today by today's standard, children mature quite late nowadays (by mature I mean both physically and mentally), hence even if the quote is valid, it does not hold a legal value, as it specifies an age where in Islam a specific age does not hold meaning, it may hold some meaning for that time and place where it was said but it does not hold nay meaning outside that region or time becoz conditions vary. By this I am not at all implying " "Shia is not true Islam" ... "I am just saying that this quote does not respresent the Islamic aspect of dealing with children. Hence, i strongly suggest that this quote be removed and placed in some other article. Smus 23:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "but some think Muhammad himself engaged in the practice of thighing with little Aisha between 6 and 9, before the marriage was consummated. --ProtectWomen 22:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)" I highly doubt this, but you are entilted to your views.Smus 09:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Tahrir-ol-vasyleh
Might be helpful. Merbabu 17:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * the first quote is not from a reliable source, and is especially suspect considering the editor who first inserted it (DavidYork71) and the polemical purpose of homa.org. as shown above, the translation may not be accurate in wording or meaning. until it can be properly verified, the article should omit this 'quote'.  ITAQALLAH   23:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, than please translate it for us. You do say on your user page that you speak the language it was origionally written in. Or you can trust FayssalF's translation.--Sefringle 01:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * i don't see any place on my user page where it says i speak Arabic fluently. did you consult Aaliyah Stevens's translation/comments?  ITAQALLAH   13:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Your second from top userbox says you speak Arabic. Either 1. you speak Arabic, or 2. you should remove that userbox so it is clear that you do not.--Sefringle 23:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * so one can only 1) know Arabic fluently or 2) not know any Arabic at all? what about being in the middle, as my user box indicates??  ITAQALLAH   23:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My mistake. Wasn't reading carefully enough. Sorry. I just assumed that someone who speaks Arabic at an intermediate level had some level of fluency. --Sefringle 23:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * no problem at all. to err is to be human.  ITAQALLAH   23:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Aliyah is a convert to Islam. If I brought a translation from a Wikipedia user, you would say its not RS. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Aaliyah's translation is not RS, and i'd say the same for FayssalF's or the other translations offered. the reason DY requested a WP users translation was to get a better idea of whether the homa.org trans. was accurate, which as you can see above is not the case.  ITAQALLAH   15:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Aliyah also purposely mislead people here as a user above said: "Except Aaliyah has said 'play' in place of 'kissing'" - the point is, we need an RS. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Assume good faith Matt, there is no evidence to suggest anyone is purposefully misleading here, except of course homa.org. indeed, we need a RS, like an academic and recognised publisher. i'm also not certain as to whether ProtectWomen verified that she actually possesses or consulted the hard copy (for the 'thighing' quote) itself.  ITAQALLAH   15:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Aliyah mislead people by translating "kissing" to "playing". How can I assume good faith? Alright, I'll AGF: I guess it was a computer bug. I've had that virus on my computer too which changes the word "kissing" to "playing". I hope they find a cure for it. You can verify Protectwomen's entry by buying that wonderful book yourself. We need this book badly. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Itaqallah, please see WP:V--Sefringle 23:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * ... which says "In principle, readers should have the opportunity to verify for themselves what the original material actually said, that it was published by a credible source, and that it was translated correctly." the first highlighted criteria hasn't been met, it's not a reliable source. the second highlighted criteria is disputed. the section actually refers to translating a piece oneself, not relying on an unreliable translation from a website - which is what you are currently restoring.  ITAQALLAH   23:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It also says,

Therefore, when the original material is in a language other than English:

--Sefringle 00:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Where sources are directly quoted, published translations are generally preferred over editors performing their own translations directly.
 * Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation.
 * indeed, and the published translation should be published by a press of repute (in the same way that any source we use should be authoritative), as opposed to a website with no fact checking facility or no pedigree. that is what is currently being restored.  ITAQALLAH   00:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you prefer we use FayssalF's translation?--Sefringle 00:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Right of Education
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)
 * I dont know what you're trying to say. Wikipedia is not a place for discussion or personal opinions. You can add all the above though, if you can find reliable sources, i.e. WP:RS --Matt57 23:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Differences between Shiites and Sunnis
This article blends both Shiite and Sunni Islam. For example, Khomeini's quotes don't matter much to Sunnis. In addition, the wording around the quotes implies that they are binding. The wording needs to be changed to clarify that it's not Islamic law (at least not Sunni law). Saziel t c 23:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is Khomeini's word put in as to appear as law? The article doesn't even mention that it isn't. Saziel t c 10:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You can bring a WP:RS to say that Khomeini is a Shia etc. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Khomeini Quote
Why is Khomeini's quote representative of what Shia Muslims think? And khomeini is only a shia scholar who are minorities in Muslim world. It is giving undue weight. --Aminz 06:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * While I am not against putting it somewhere else on this page, it certianly is relevant and needs to remain somewhere in this article. Do you have a better idea of where it should go?--Sefringle 06:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * On Khomeini's quotes. I think we have a place for that. Even then we should check the quote for its correctness and quote other possible relevant quotes as well. --Aminz 06:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sefringle, if I find a random quote from some random scholar on some random topic where would you fit it in wikipedia? --Aminz 07:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Who and what is the quote? It fits where it is relevant, if it is relevant? There also needs to be some proof that they are a scholar. Secondly, Khomeini is no random scholar.--Sefringle 07:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * it seems people are ignoring the fact that a) the translation is not from a reliable source b) the attempted translation made by editors here resulted in significant differences in the wording and meaning of the text. thus, unless and until it is reliably verified, it does not belong here.  ITAQALLAH   13:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * no, not significant differences, only small differences. But then again, as I said earlier, if you don't trust the translations of that source or the translations from the other editors, and since you say on your user page that you speak the language the quote is written in, translate the quote for us, but do not delete it. -Sefringle 22:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * review this section, Sefringle. the source homa.org is not reliable. lastly, what part of this comment need i clarify for you?   ITAQALLAH   13:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I didn't notice you added the comment after I made my last one.--Sefringle 03:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Aminz, we can mention all that if you have a RS to back it up, otherwise your personal opinion that Khomeini's view is a minority view and doesnt need to be included is of no consequence. Khomeini is a notable figure in Islam and ofcourse his quotes must be included. It doesnt matter if he said the most horrible things about Children. His views belong in this article.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree with Matt57. Khomeini is a highly notable Islamic figure and his views and opinion on the subject must included in the article, as they are clearly important enough to be included. That some might be embarrassed about his opinions is entirely irrelevant. -- Karl Meier 21:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * you may strongly agree with Matt57, and i may strongly agree with you upon that point too. his notability is a red herring here. what we have been discussing, and the pretext for its removal, is the fact that we agree that there are no reliable, academic sources for this translation, and considerable reason to believe that homa.org is not only unreliable but has produced an inaccurate translation. please refer to the substantial discussion above concerning this.  ITAQALLAH   13:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Its not a red herring. We just need RS for the translations. There's a book but it costs $40 and it might have some material. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like the page number for the thighing quote, and then the book should attribute it to the original source. MomoShomo 21:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

hmm you guys are embarressed by he quote? the us isen't openminded. this kind of marriage has happened over the ages and is perfectly right. i don't see anything wrong because he also said sodomy with a baby was wrong but not little sexual kissing and thiging —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.100.126 (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Introduction
The introduction is inappropriate for Wikipedia. No other proper articles begin "This article discusses ..." - it is rather passive. Something like:

"The Islamic religion has special rules with regard to ..."

would be more appropriate. Jake the Editor Man 20:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Age of marriage
Here is a full quote from EoI. I think it resolves everything:

"Restrictions on child-marriage are intended to prevent the harmful social implications of premature marriage. Distinction has been made to this end between an age of competence for marriage and a minimum age below which marriage is never possible, the parties being presumed to be under puberty. Most Middle Eastern countries have followed the precedent set by Ottoman family law in prescribing the age of competence for marriage: eighteen for a boy and seventeen for a girl. Marriage below these ages is permissible, however, on proof of sexual maturity (see below). Simultaneously, traditional s̲h̲arʿī (and Ottoman family law) age limits (nine for girls, twelve for boys), below which no claim of sexual maturity will be heard (in effect, minimum ages for marriage), have been raised: fifteen or sixteen for a boy, and between thirteen and sixteen for a girl. In Egypt (1923, 1931) no distinction is drawn between puberty and competence for marriage. Prescribed ages for marriage are eighteen for a boy and sixteen for a girl. Marriage below these ages is not permissible (nor registered—see below, viii) even on proof of sexual maturity. In the Sudan (1960) a pre-pubescent girl at least ten years old may be given in marriage with the consent of the court where there are grounds for anxiety about her morals. Adolescents having reached the prescribed ages of puberty but not of competence for marriage may marry in the interim period of two or three years (irrelevant under Ḥanafī law), subject usually to the marriage guardian's consent and always to the court's permission. In Israel the “good defences” (physical maturity and the guardian's consent) against a charge of contravention of age-of-marriage legislation were abrogated (1950), but simultaneously a district judge was empowered to permit the marriage of a girl who was pregnant or had given birth or, since 1960, had reached the age of sixteen. Ottoman family law concerning marriageable age has directly affected the validity of marriage. Marriage in violation of the provisions pertaining to the age of competence to marry and the conditions concerning permission to marry is deemed irregular (fāsid) with no legal effects before consummation. In North Yemen, the marriage of a boy (not a girl) below fifteen is not valid. Laws in other Middle Eastern countries evade this issue. Courts, however, tend to validate such marriages retroactively once the parties reach puberty. Other devices intended to enforce reformist restrictions on child-marriage are prohibition of registration of any union in which the parties have not reached thelegal ages for marriage (Egypt, 1923; Kuwait; Israel, 1950), preclusion of courts from entertaining any matrimonial cause whatsoever in such marriages, i.e. the marriage is valid but not effective (nāfid̲h̲) (Egypt, 1923, 1931), and rendering the parties liable to statutory penalties (Jordan, Iran, Lebanon, Israel)."

--Aminz 07:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Shia View
This section doesn't give any reliable sources, as per WP:RS, the given references are not satisfactory, one of the reference is www.homa.org which holds a critical point of view of Kohmeni and it could be just a mud slinging website. The other is www.al-shia.com which is either in arabic or persian which cannot be verified by many of the editors. As of now I have removed the content until we find a reliable source for it.  &#327;ë&#359;&#924;&#466;&#324;&#287;ë&#343;  Peace Talks 10:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Why shia view section is removed
I fully understand that wikipedia is not censored and it also not a democracy, but as per wikipedia policies, thighing quote from some book doesn't cite reliable sources, so in essence it violates many of wikipedia's policies.

see No_original_research
 * It violates WP:OR no original research policy, it is an established fact that we cannot quote from primary and secondary sources and advance a theory.
 * 1) It introduces a theory or method of solution;
 * 2) It introduces original ideas;
 * 3) It defines new terms;
 * 4) It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;
 * 5) It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
 * 6) It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
 * 7) It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.

Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and biographies of living people.
 * It violates WP:RS, the sources are not reliable to present such a controversial opinion. see WP:REDFLAG
 * 1) Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known.
 * 2) Surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reliable news media.
 * 3) Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended.
 * 4) Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.


 * It violates Verifiability, some of the references are not verifiable
 * 1) see Verifiability
 * 2) see Verifiability

As per all of the above the Shia view section was removed.  &#327;ë&#359;&#924;&#466;&#324;&#287;ë&#343;  Peace Talks 12:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please note that after Netmonger reverted to a version created by an indefinitely banned user, Netmonger has been acting as a meatpuppet for this user ever since.


 * Netmonger engaged in some incivil discourse on his talk page by first telling me that I "seemed so blind" then finishing off the comment by saying "Dumbness is the greatest blindness" . This argument was based on Netmonger's inability to see that he had in fact deleted the "thighing" quote - referenced from a book published by Bantam Books.   I tried several times to alert Netmonger to his misunderstanding, but he chose (as he would say) to remain "blind".


 * Finally, Netmonger's true agenda is apparent in his motivation for not accepting a translation from Dr. Parvin Darabi (a former Muslim). It disgusts me to have to link to such bigotry, but Netmonger's bias against the source is because he thinks she is gay: .--ProtectWomen 17:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)--ProtectWomen 17:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The homophobia expressed in that diff is really out of line. Arrow740 17:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, anyone can twist the words the way they want, my dispute with protectWomen is not with regard to the diff posted here, it is this diff that is in violation of Verifiability policy. I have a right to hold my own opinion, if somebody is gay, if that is the truth there is nothing wrong in saying it. I have no issues with gay people, it is there choice.  &#327;ë&#359;&#924;&#466;&#324;&#287;ë&#343;  Peace Talks 18:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want to believe that all gays simply choose to be gay, that says something about your beliefs. Arrow740 19:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Netmonger, of course you have issues with gay people:
 * 1) you believe it is a choice ( it is not ) 
 * 2) you cited her sexuality as a reason for not allowing her translation. With disgust, I will quote you again "this no way is a reliable source...by an Islamophobic gay women.[sic]".
 * Also, your use of the word "Islamophobic" is completely meaningless. I'm aware of the way many muslims feel about apostates. But the fact is, Darabi is from Iran & is a former Muslim, so calling her "Islamophobic" doesn't make sense.  Islam is a system of personal BELIEFS...ideas.   Unlike sexuality, a belief system IS a choice.  Anyone reserves the right to reject Islam (or any other religion)-> doing so does not make one "phobic" of that religion.
 * Darabi is from Iran, can read and write fluently in English and FARSI, the language of the the Ayatollah's book "Tahrir-ol-Masael"
 * Please stop wasting our time with your homophobic bigotry. --ProtectWomen 19:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * May be I am homophobic (this actually amounts to a personal attack), thats your point of view and I respect that, the point is I dont give a Fuck of what you guys think of me, I dont have problem with you people, and I dont know you. And this talk page is not to discuss about me, its to discuss the article, so the point is I removed those contents because it is not WP:RS, if you prove otherwise with proper explanation, instead of trying to define whether I am homophobic or not it would be more productive, now who is wasting whose time?  &#327;ë&#359;&#924;&#466;&#324;&#287;ë&#343;  Peace Talks 05:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You'll get blocked very quickly if you continue to use language like "I dont give a Fuck of what you guys think of me", alright. So calm down there. --Matt57
 * Matt57 is right. We don't really want to see you get blocked.  Please calm down, take a few breaths. Perhaps drink a nice hot tea and watch the sunset.  It can be very relaxing. --ProtectWomen 07:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You'll get blocked very quickly if you continue to use language like "I dont give a Fuck of what you guys think of me", alright. So calm down there. --Matt57
 * Matt57 is right. We don't really want to see you get blocked.  Please calm down, take a few breaths. Perhaps drink a nice hot tea and watch the sunset.  It can be very relaxing. --ProtectWomen 07:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

(talk•contribs) 12:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC) There were 3 sources given for the quote: Only source 2 is unreliable, and that is there just to provide a translation. If you disagree with the translation, then maybe you can correct it, if you know arabic. See WP:V. You can't really verify the source if you don't know Arabic, so we have to use the translation above or the one here There is enough sources here to prove there are reliable sources.--Sefringle 06:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Ayatollah Khomeini in Tahrirolvasyleh, Fourth Edition, Darol Elm, Qom
 * 2) http://www.homa.org/Details.asp?ContentID=2137352748
 * 3) http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/tahrir/tahrir25.htm#a4 Original(in Arabic)


 * The burden of providing reference is not on me, it is on the editors who are adding them please see Verifiability, Khomeni is not considered a Islamic scholar by majority of the Muslims, he is a self proclaimed "spiritual" leader who doesn't know a bull about Islam, and his book is not peer reviewed (no one dare knowing the dictator he was!!), so it is not a reliable source, could anyone give reference from one of the Sahihs? or the Quran? please read Reliable_sources and regarding my statement that warrants a block please see WP:FUCK.  &#327;ë&#359;&#924;&#466;&#324;&#287;ë&#343;  Peace Talks 13:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's where you are wrong. He most certianly is a scholar, and his views should be reflected within the article. Your bias is that you think he doesn't know Islam. That is irrelevant to this article. But you really haven't responded to my comment. And WP:FUCK is an essay, not a policy or guideline.--Sefringle 05:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Source 35(#http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/tahrir/tahrir25.htm#a4 Original(in Arabic)) doesn't exist. Source 34 is merely a book without mentioning which part of that book.I have the books I can't see anything like thighing or something. It seems more like a propaganda.

Unprotected
After further checking up to the history, I'm inclined to agree with ProtectWomen that protection is unnecessary. The main question is whether we should count on a reliable source in Arabic, or a non-reliable source in English, to provide a valid translation of Khomeini's own view. Regardless of the guideline for quoting sources in languages other than English, the basic solution to this would be removing the non-reliable source and adding "(roughly translated from Arabic)" above the quote. This will allow the readers to correct the quote without having to count on a non-reliable or professional translation.

And to avoid further conflict — because Khomeini is often regarded a Shia Muslim spiritual leader, his thoughts may represent the Shia view on the issue, despite personal state of controversiality and disagreement upon. I will not, however, resist if quotes from other Shia Muslim leaders could be found and added to the article. Michael as 10 16:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Michaelas, thank you for your earnest attention to this matter, and effort to find a solution --ProtectWomen 07:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight
Khomeinis views are given waay to much space here, remebering that this is a general article. --Striver - talk 08:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * His views are relevant to the article. If you can think of an appropiate summary that does not remove any content, please suggest it. Or, you can add sources that present new views; both would lower the percentage of the article dedicated to Khomeni's views.-- Sef rin gle Talk 20:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Khomeini's opinion belongs on his page.

An unsourced qouote
I have removed this bit:

as an unsourced quote, per WP:V. It was later reinserted by User:Smus without any useful edit summary.

Any comments? --  Wasell ( D ) 03:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No? Well, out it goes then. --  Wasell ( D ) 18:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * seems to have been taken from . i did a quick search for it, and found it here too.  ITAQALLAH   18:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

fringe minority view from publication that apparently doesn't cite its original source
firstly, there's no need to play coy - the intent and purpose of the quote is polemical and to draw ridicule.

this 1985 publication from Bantam Books seems to be out of print, its reputation on Islamic topics is unknown, the compiler's competence in Islam is unknown, the "quotes" themselves come from unknown/uncited sources according to an owner.

the focus is also tangental, hardly related to the topic of the section (when the age of marriage/intercourse is), and offers undue weight towards a minority Shi'ite view (one quote from Khomeini about the age of marriage is sufficient coverage), and is clearly tailored to serve an agenda. let's be sensible, and not make the bias so overt.  ITAQALLAH  19:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A supposed anonymous "owner" of the book is not a reliable source. Its a quote related to children, so whats the problem? The concept of Thighing is not a minority concept in Islam, e.g. (links to other RS are also included in this link. Search for "thigh"). "mufa’khathat literally translated means "placing between the thighs"" - so whats making you doubt the veracity of this quotation? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * someone who has actually seen the book verifies that no actual sourcing information about where these quotes came from is given - as said above we know too little about the publication's authoritativeness for us to label it a reliable source. secondly, Khomeini's opinion about the age of marriage has been provided - this nonsense on "thighing" is thus redundant. lastly, if you want to show me some third party RS's (i assume you know what this means given some of the recent edit conflicts you have been in) verifying that mainstream Islamic opinion condones sexual acts with prepubescents (and it doesn't) - please feel free to do so- polemical websites aren't reliable sources.  ITAQALLAH   21:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added another source now, which is the original source. Its from his own book. Make sure to search for "thigh" on that link I gave you. There's a lot more of this information that can be added to this page and its not because of ridicule, but its extra information that is relevant. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * be honest in where you got the source from - which is that nonsense polemical website. you haven't responded to the above argument - irrespective of the quote's accuracy or otherwise, Khomeini's minority views have already been given in the form of a blockquote. i did search for "thigh", and it only proves to me that a) the source is desperate in forwarding a crankish agenda, and b) you are using the website to POV-push.  ITAQALLAH   21:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * to summarise my points of contention:
 * the extract is being used to favour a partisan agenda and to give undue weight to strange minority views condoning "thighing" with prepubescents (this has nothing to do with the general topic of thighing, which the partisan source attempts to raise as a red herring).
 * Khomeini's minority view about the age of marriage and sexual acts has already been covered quite substantially. there is no precise rationale justifying the inclusion of this strange quote ("extra information" is vague and unhelpful pretext).
 * the above points presume the attribution to Khomeini is accurate, though the sourcing currently provided is either primary (i.e. it's significance has not been demonstrated by third party reliable sources) or inadequate.  ITAQALLAH   22:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Dont call a website "nonsense polemic" just because it is using the religion's owns scriptures and documentation to draw conslusions which make a lot of sense but with which you dont agree with. Already been covered? I dont see any mention of the word "thigh" in this article. If you click on the link I gave you, it gives links to several other websites from Muslim scholars. I will verify this thighing quote myself later. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * it is pure nonsense, Matt57. please understand what is being discussed here: the issue is not the general act of thighing, which is not the scope of this argument. the partisan tract discusses general material on the act "thighing" (such as what is discussed in primary texts, or on this "islamweb" website). however, this has nothing to do with "thighing of prepubescents" which is what you are claiming widspread support for, and what the polemical website tries to establish under the futile premise that Aisha was prepubescent. it doesn't matter whether you verify the quote or not, the above contentions sufficiently demonstrate why the passage is not warranted here.  ITAQALLAH   18:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Prester John and Matt57, aside from what Itaqallah said, you can not use this alleged quote from a primary source directly. Secondary sources however mention the range of views and explain them properly. In the first place, polemical websites are not reliable sources of information. --Aminz 19:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * absolutely, the significance of the passage must be demonstrated by a secondary reliable source. that is yet another reason why this passage does not merit inclusion, along with the above-mentioned contentions.  ITAQALLAH   19:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

ItaqAllah, Aisha was 6 years old when Muhammad "thighed" her. If you read the quote from the Muslim scholar cited in AI:
 * As for the prophet, peace and prayer of Allah be upon him, thighing his fiancée Aisha. She was six years of age and he could not have intercourse with her due to her small age. That is why [the prophet] peace and prayer of Allah be upon him placed HIS [MALE] MEMBER BETWEEN HER THIGHS AND MASSAGED IT SOFTLY, as the apostle of Allah had control of his [male] member not like other believers.. (caps as in the original text)

Another Fatwa from "Dr Ahmad Al-Hajj Al-Kurdi" says a man can ejaculate between the legs of a prepubescent girls (also cited in AI). There's a lot more. Read the other Fatwas and sources mentioned on that page. So all of this shows that thighing is not a "minority" tradition. Its obviously mentioned in many places in Islam. It has been done by Muhammad in the past and it has been approved by current scholars as well. I could do a more detailed analysis of this page on AI (again if you think AI is not an RS, the sources it cites are still RS) but this should make the point clear that thighing is not something to be ignored in Islam. Many sources mention this. The point is again: in Islam, thighing (placing the male member between a young prepubescent girl's legs) is not a minority tradition. It has been widely reported and approved. I will verify the original quote from Khomienie's book Tahrir ul Vasila and see if I can put it back in, while mentioning these various Islamic scholars who approved the practice. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * all i see is you quoting a polemical source, which itself quotes sources of dubious or unknown reliability (can you tell me more about who "Ahmad Al-Hajj Al-Kurdi" is? you haven't even shown how/why these other sources conform to WP:RS), to forward a tendentious agenda. you haven't responded to the above contentions, and you won't get far with original claims of approval within mainstream Islam. consider resuming this dispute when you have some actual third party reliable sources.  ITAQALLAH   15:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Removing primary sources
As per comments from Itaqallah and Aminz, I removed some primary source usage from this article. If we want to apply this policy, we should apply it uniformly and consistently. Thoughts? This is not a POINT edit by the way. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * fine by me. will you agree that other quote from Khomeini should be removed too, since the source provided is primary (and homa.org etc. arent reliable sources)?  ITAQALLAH   15:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Matt, that doesn't mean you can remove citation templates linking to verses which have had their relation to the topic verified by the Encyclopedia of the Qur'an article (do you see at the end?). now that would be WP:POINT.   ITAQALLAH   15:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * in this edit, you have removed part of a quote from the EoQ which cites some verses (note it's in blockquote). please restore it.  ITAQALLAH   15:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Which quote are you talking about? Both of those removals were primary source usage. Leaving all this aside, I think maybe this is a time to decide to what extent primary sources can be used. They're not forbidden actually (WP:PSTS). What do you think? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 16:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * hold on... so now you are back-tracking when you realise that the Khomeini-cruft is in jeopardy? or were you trying to provoke a reaction and prove a point in your removal of primary sources? as a general rule, using primary sources is fine if its connection connection has been verified by a secondary reliable source. that applies to usage of all primary source material, whether it be a primary source selection of Khomeini's quotes, or passages from the Qur'an. the only exception, as per policy, is when its relevance and accuracy is undisputed.
 * also, you removed part of a quote from EoQ in the first part of this edit, which itself cited the primary source in this instant.  ITAQALLAH   16:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh Ok I see. Restored the quote now. Thanks. Please watch out for primary source usage which is drawing conclusions etc. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 19:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)