No Child Marriages...Ever!

In the Name of God, the Subtle, the Loving

Usually, nothing coming out of Saudi Arabia surprises me. Yet, this story shocked me to the core. According to a report by CNN, a Saudi judge recently refused to anul the marriage of an 8 year old girl to a 47 year old man. The annulment petition was brought by the girl's mother, and the judge dismissed it because, she "is not the legal guardian of the girl," according ot the mother's lawyer Abdullah al-Jutaili.

The girl's father arranged the marriage in order to settle his debts with the man. But - let us all breathe a sigh of relief here - the judge asked for a pledge from the husband that he would not consummate the marriage until after she reached puberty. After she reaches puberty, the judge ruled, the girl will have the right to request a divorce. Until then, it seems, she is property of a man almost 6 times her age.

Christoph Wilcke, a Saudi Arabia researcher with Human Rights Watch, told CNN: "We've been hearing about these types of cases once every four or five months because the Saudi public is now able to express this kind of anger, especially so when girls are traded off to older men." Zuhair al-Harithi, spokesman for the Saudi-government run Human Rights Commission, also said: "The Human Rights Commission opposes child marriages in Saudi Arabia. Child marriages violate international agreements that have been signed by Saudi Arabia and should not be allowed."

Thankfully, the child has been able to divorce her husband and end this nightmare.

Yet, I think child marriages should be opposed because they are not appropriate at all. I am the father of an 8 year old daughter, and to do such a thing would never cross my mind in a million years. Now, some may retort: "Well, your Prophet did it with A'isha!"

Not so fast: there is a difference of opinion as to the age of A'isha (r) when she married the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Even so, at that time, it was not uncommon for girls of 9-15 to be considered adults and enter into marriage. Furthermore, not one of the Prophet's bitterest enemies made an issue of his marriage to A'isha, which means that it was not considered to be out of the ordinary at that time. Moreover, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, it is suggested that the Virgin Mary was around 12 years of age when she gave birth to Christ (pbuh).

Times, however, have changed. In our time and culture, to marry an 8 year old girl to a 47 year old man is repugnant, and I am confident that the overwhelming majority of Muslims across the world would agree with me.

The fact that this man had to marry his baby daughter to a 47-year old man to pay off debts is problematic in and of itself. This is almost as if the girl was property and not a human being. And it is not clear from the story whether the father did this willingly or was pressed to give up his daughter by the man. The 47-year old creditor should have been charitable and either forgive his debt or grant the debtor forbearance, rather than taking his 8-year old daughter as "payment." This smacks of the days of old, before Islam graced the Arabian peninsula. Islam calls on creditors to be charitable to their debtors who cannot pay. Taking a young girl from her father as payment for a debt is, it seems to me, the ultimate form of "riba," or usury.

More importantly, however, is the issue of the marriage of the 8-year old to the 47 year old in the first place. This should never be allowed to occur, and I believe Islam says so. Marriage in Islam - unlike Catholicism, for example - is not a sacrament; it is a legal contract between a man and a woman. With this contract, the man and woman enjoy certain benefits and are bound by certain legal requirements. If the marriage does not work out, it is legally broken by divorce and settled between the parties. As in any contractual arrangement, both parties to the contract must be legally competent to enter into such an arrangement. Few would argue that the 8 year old girl in this case is legally competent to enter into a contract of marriage.

Some may counter that the contract is actually between the girl's guardian and the man. That is true, but the woman in question must agree to be married to the man in question. When I got married, the cleric refused to conduct the ceremony until he asked my wife specifically whether she agreed to marry me. Did anyone ask the girl whether she wanted to be married? Would she understand - at the tender age of 8 - what it even means to get married? Think about your own 8 year old daughters, sisters, nieces, cousins, etc: would they understand what it means to get married?

Marriage is an important religious tradition in Islam, and the Prophet (pbuh) did encourage us to get married, but it is, at its essence, a legal agreement, and as such, both parties must be legally competent to enter into such an agreement.

Say the girl was 12 and had already passed puberty, does that make her legally competent? Say she was 15 years old: does that make her legally competent? Could she buy a home on her own? Could she buy a car on her own? Could she even get a credit card? Could she even get a job? The answers to these questions are most probably "no," because she is not legally competent to do those things, even though she may have passed puberty. So, how could she be married off to a man that could just as well be her father?

Passing puberty is when one is religiously accountable for their deeds, as understood by most in Islam. But, that does not mean that pubertal teens are legally competent to enter into contractual agreements. In the United States, the age of legal competence is 18 (although it can be argued that even 18-year olds may not be mature enough). Something similar should be instituted for marriage in the Muslim world, as appropriate for each culture, so that such abuses are avoided. There should be re-evaulation of what marriage is, and who is competent enough to enter into such a life-changing agreement.

Marriage is a wonderful thing, and I would not have been what I am today without having married my wife. Yet, when misused and miscontrued, it can be an instrument of terror and anguish. It is high time for a new paradigm when it comes to marriage, so that no more 8 year old girls get married to 47 year old men anywhere else in the world: whether it be Muslims or otherwise. Marriage is a legal contract, and as such, it must be entered into by two legally competent parties. Otherwise, you can get ugly messes such as this.

God, Faith, and a Pen on Twitter

In the Name of God, the Subtle, the Loving

I am now on Twitter! Follow me and get all my blog posts here.

Yeah, I know, it took me a while...but better late than never.

God bless,

Hesham A. Hassaballa

Does Islam Need A Reformation?

In the Name of God, the Subtle, the Loving

In the wake of the recent pirate attacks on American ships in the Indian Ocean, and the implication that Al Qaeda is behind the pirates (a dubious claim at best), I heard progressive radio host Thom Hartmann speak about whether Islam needs a "reformation," similar to that in Judaism and especially Christianity. In fact, he has posited this question to a number of Muslim callers on guests on his show in the past few days: "Is it time for a reformation in Islam?"

Indeed, given the often terrible news about Islam, it is understandable why this question would even be raised in the first place. When people see constant references to vicious barbarity - beheadings, suicide bombings, public flogging, "honor killing," and the like - all done overtly in the name of Islam, it is only natural to wonder whether Islam itself is the problem. Yet, as tempting as it is to apply the Christian experience as analogy, it is a flawed premise from the very beginning.

The Protestant Reformation was a movement, begun in the 14th and 15th centuries, to reform the Catholic Church. It sought to change various beliefs and practices that were fundamental to the Church at the time, such as purgatory, particular judgment (the judgment of a soul immediately after death), devotion to Mary, devotion to the saints, most of the sacraments, mandatory celibacy, and the authority of the Pope. In England, the divorce of the Church of England from Rome was started by Henry VIII, after he was denied an annulment from his wife by Pople Clement VII. Again, a new church was started in reaction to "wrong" beliefs in the Catholic Church.

There is no such corollary in Islam. All of the barbarity that is done in the name of Islam is a deviation from the fundamental beliefs, principles, and traditions of Islam. Extremism in the name of Islam is nothing new to the faith: it began soon after the death of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) with the Kharijites, who ended up killing the fourth Caliph Ali ibn Abi Talib (r). After the Kharijites came the Hashasheen, or "Assassins," who were Islam's first "suicide terrorists." They terrorized the Muslim populace for decades. Now, we have the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Yet, throughout Islam's history, these extremists have always been a tiny fringe minority who follow a clearly heretical belief system which is rejected by the overwhelming majority of Muslims. The Islamic mainstream has always endured and eventually won out against the extremists. Today, there are a small group of people who want the world to think that Muslim extremists are somehow the "mainstream," especially since these extremists cite scripture as justification for their actions. Yet, only a criminal mind could cite the Qur'an to justify the murder of innocent people having lunch at Sbarro's; or worshipping at a mosque on Friday; or buying fruit at the market. Just because a terrorist says "the Qur'an says so" does not make it the truth.

Let us take suicide terrorism as an example. Everything about it violates Islam and its principles. The Qur'an says: "And do not take a life that God has made sacred, except for just cause" (17:33). In no way, shape, or form could the taking of innocent life be considered "just cause." Moreover, suicide is a grave sin:

"And spend for the sake of God, and do not invest in ruin by your own hands. And do good, for God loves those who do good" (2:195).

"And do not kill yourselves, for God has been merciful to you" (4:29).

Thus, no matter how many verses someone may cite in justification, the crime of suicide terrorism is completely out of the Islamic mainstream. It is clearly a deviation from the Islamic norm, completely rejected by the overwhelming majority of Muslims. If Islam needed a "reformation," that would mean that suicide terrorism against "non-believers" is part of Islamic belief and needs to be "expunged" in the interest of bringing Islam into the 21st century. But, the truth is, suicide terrorism has never been part of Islamic belief; it has always been an ugly deviation.

This does not mean, in any way, shape, or form, that a good number of Muslims are not in need of reformation. On the contrary, there needs to be a wholesale reformation of Muslims on a number of fronts. Yet, whenever we see Muslims acting like barbarians, they are betraying the principles of Islam, they violate the letter and spirit of the faith.

If every Muslim everywhere had kept to the principles of Islam, there would be no suicide terrorism; there would be no beheading of people in front of a banner saying "There is no God but God, and Muhammad is His Messenger"; there would be no "honor killing." Sadly, however, these things do happen, and it is because Muslims have strayed from the straight and narrow path of Islam.

So, to answer Thom Hartmann's question: no, Islam does not need a "Reformation." But a whole lot of Muslims do.

Circle Peg In A Square Hole - Updated

In the Name of God, the Subtle, the Living

As the drama and tension between the wretched Somali pirates and the American captain continues, there is something that I must mention with respect to this whole issue of Indian Ocean piracy. As is quite obvious, many of these pirates are Muslim. This is despicable, even if they are, as described by Robert Kaplan in his op-ed as:

Somali pirates are usually unemployed young men who have grown up in an atmosphere of anarchic violence, and have been dispatched by a local warlord to bring back loot for his coffers. It is organized crime carried out by roving gangs. The million-square-miles of the Indian Ocean where pirates roam might as well be an alley in Mogadishu. These pirates are fearless because they have grown up in a culture where nobody expects to live long. Pirate cells often consist of 10 men with several ratty, roach-infested skiffs. They bring along drinking water, gasoline for their single-engine outboards, grappling hooks, ladders, knives, assault rifles, rocket-propelled grenades and the mild narcotic qat to chew. They live on raw fish.

Thankfully, there is no mention that their motivation is "jihadism." They are criminals, plain and simple.

And I do share his concern that Al Qaeda neo-Kharijites might learn their techniques to attempt terrorist attacks against Western targets. That is why other crews should learn to be as bold as the American crew in this case: they fought off their attackers. I think crews should be armed, ready to defend themselves against thugs on the seas.

These pirates show that Muslims (as sad as it makes me) can be criminals without being terrorists. Not all crimes committed by Muslims are motivated by a desire to "kill the infidels." Not that taking a crew hostage to make millions of dollars is any nobler a motivation. Far from it, but don't put "jihadism" in where it does not belong.

By the way, these pirates are fit the classic description of muharibun, or those who seek to corrupt the earth. Their punishment in the Qur'an is very severe, indeed, and they should be fought against with all our might. We should not stand by and let these thugs make international shipping either more dangerous or more expensive for the rest of the world.

**UPDATE**

The captain of the American ship that was attacked by Somali pirates has been rescued by American Special Forces and is now safe in U.S. custody.

According to ABC news,

With a one of the four pirates who had been holding Capt. Richard Phillips, 53, on a lifeboat negotiating his release on board the U.S.S. Bainbridge, special forces in the area saw Phillips move to the side of the lifeboat to relieve himself, a senior U.S. official told George Stephanopoulos, ABC News' chief Washington correspondent.

At that point, forces saw their opportunity and killed the other three pirates on the lifeboat, the source told Stephanopoulos.

The special forces were on the scene and authorized to take action "in extremis" as a result of President Obama's approval of a recommendation from his top military advisers on Friday, Stephanopoulos reported.

I am so proud of my country and my President. That should be a lesson to all pirates: you don't mess with the United States. Furthermore, this should be a wake-up call to deal with this situation comprehensively, so as not to encourage further piracy in the future.

Great day for the country, great day for the world.

"Support Your Brother"...

In the Name of God, the Subtle, the Loving

The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was reported in a famous Hadith, found in both Bukhari and Muslim, to have said, "Support your brother, whether oppressor or oppressed." On the face of it, this is nothing radical. In fact, this statement is an old Arab adage, the ultimate manifestation of blind and ignorant tribalism. Indeed, wars between the Arabs were routinely fought when tribes would defend its criminal members to the death.

Knowing the Prophet (pbuh), however, the Companions questioned him further. They told him that they understood that an oppressed person should be supported. Yet, how can they support their brother who oppresses others? This seemed a bit strange to them. The Prophet (pbuh) answered: "By preventing him from oppressing others."

This is nothing short of revolutionary. In fact, it turns the old Arab adage on its head.

When you see your brother, or fellow tribesman, or countryman, or President, or Country do wrong, the best thing you can do is to prevent him from doing wrong. "Friends do not let friends drive drunk," the saying goes. The same is true with oppression: "Friends do not let friends oppress others."

This means that if your fellow tribesman commits a crime, then you must stop him, not defend him to the death. It is the fulfillment of the Divine command: "Believers! Stand up firmly for justice, as witnesses to God, even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be (against) rich or poor; for God can best protect both." (4:135) Indeed, the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) once said that if his daughter Fatima committed a crime, he himself would punish her.

This is the Islamic standard: no one is above the law; no one can get away with oppression; we do not defend criminals in our midst, rather, we call them out and punish them. Alas, this standard has all but disappeared from the Muslim world.

Case in point, the recent Arab Summit in Qatar. Arab leaders rejected the International Criminal Court's (ICC) recent indictment of President Omar Al Bashir of Sudan. At the end of the summit, a joint statement read: "We stress our solidarity with Sudan and our rejection of the ICC decision."

Now, on a purely pragmatic level, no one expected that Arab leaders would endorse the ICC indictment. If they were to do that, they would put themselves in a vulnerable position, as many of them are brutal dictators with their own proverbial skeletons. President Assad of Syria said that those who had "committed massacres and atrocities in Palestine, Iraq and Lebanon" should be arrested first. That is completely irrelevant to the issue of Darfur.

Darfur, remember, is the region in Western Sudan where government backed militias are fighting against rebels. An estimated 300,000 people - Muslims - have been killed by, get this, fellow Muslims. And the Muslim world has done nothing. Nay, they have stood by the alleged architect of the massacre and genocide in "solidarity."

"Support your brother"...

Indeed, there are other alleged war criminals who remain free, and there very well may be a political motive to the ICC indictment against Al Bashir. Yet, again, that is irrelevant. If Muslims today held to the principles of their faith; if they followed the way of their Prophet (pbuh), they would have stopped the genocide in Darfur long ago. They would have made "peace between your two (contending) brothers and fear God" as the Qur'an (49:10) commanded.

Moreover, it must be said that the West did prosecute some of its own alleged war criminals -Slobodan Milosevic, for instance - the victims of whom, remember, were Muslims. The Muslim world has failed to follow suit.

Indeed, if more people followed the Prophetic wisdom of supporting an oppressive brother by stopping his oppression, our world would be a much better place. Yet, this sort of tribalism abounds in our world today, and it is truly a sad commentary on the state of humanity.

Yet, one would have thought that the self-proclaimed followers of the Last Prophet (pbuh) would indeed follow his example. One would have thought.