This is a guest-post by Tarek Fatah
****
The allegation that the Prophet Muhammad married Aisha in the year 624AD when she was only a nine-year old girl, is not new.
However, the fact this controversy has surfaced on rightwing blogs, is something that has caught a lot of Muslims by surprise. It was sparked by a lecture in Toronto where the former Muslim, Syrian-American Wafa Sultan claimed, “As a married man, Mohammed raped Aisha when she was nine; he was fifty-four.”
Wafa Sultan’s depiction of Prophet Muhammad as a child rapist seems to be a manifestation of her hatred of Muslims in general. She has no evidence of any rape having taken place nor does she have a record of Aisha’s age. However, what she does possess is a rage against her former faith that she expresses with wild abandon. In her book, A God who Hates, Wafa Sultan writes:
“Shouting has become their [Muslims’] hallmark and the main characteristic they use when they engage in conversation with someone whom they don’t agree with. Without it they have no sense of their own worth or existence; without it they have no sense eve of being alive. … On top of shouting their way through a conversation, they have acquired the habit of shrieking, and they take pleasure in hearing their own shrieks. They believe that the louder they shriek, the more they prove they are right. Their conversation consists of shouting, their talk is a screech, and he who shouts loudest and screeches longest is, they believe, the strongest. They fabricate disagreements so as to give themselves an opportunity to shout. They seek contradiction so that they can scream. … Islam canonized the Muslims’ desert nature, and from that moment on they were unable to acquire new ways of communicating with others.”
Just as Muslim anti-Semites denigrate Jews by claiming the ‘yahood’ have an incorrigible evil nature (fitra), Wafa Sultan too applies a similar diagnosis to describe the supposed unethical nature of the Muslim. She writes:
“The first moral question a person learns is the difference between the concepts of “yes” and “no” — in other words, the ability to decide what to accept and what to reject. … A Muslim lives his whole life and dies without ever having learned this lesson. Islamic culture has no clear concept of “yes” and “no.” The two opposites are confused in a way that makes Muslims’ behaviour incomprehensible to others who interact with them.”
After her Toronto speech, I protested her hateful language in an op-ed for the National Post. I was not alone in finding fault with Wafa Sultan’s logic or language. The Canadian Jewish Congress national president, Mark Freiman reacting to Sultan’s speech at the synagogue, told an Islamic conference in Toronto:
“…it is ironic that it was in a Jewish synagogue a short while ago that an ex-Muslim made the sweeping allegation that Islam as a faith was intrinsically incapable of political moderation or respecting the norms of secular society. The Jewish speakers at the event spoke up against this suggestion, but it is also appropriate tonight that I add my name and that of the Canadian Jewish Congress to the rejection of such irresponsible charges.”
Both Prof. Daniel Pipes and Avi Benlolo of the Friends of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre too spoke against the main premise of Wafa Sultan’s speech.
However, my critique of Wafa Sultan upset a lot of people. Dozens of rightwing anti-Muslim blogs were up in arms, calling me a wolf in sheep’s clothing and accusing me of defending child rape. It was if the floodgates of hate had been opened. The Jewish Internet Defence Force, reacting to my article, said:
“In reality, Islam is like a deadly, contagious disease. Once it invades the mind of its victim, it is capable of transforming him to a helpless pawn that has no choice but to execute what he is directed to do. Of the reported 1.3 billion Muslims in the world, millions are already trapped in the terminal stages of this affliction, while millions of others are rapidly joining them. The people enslaved with the extreme cases of Islamic mental disease are highly infectious. They actively work to transmit the disease to others, while they themselves engage in horrific acts of mayhem and violence to demonstrate their unconditional obedience to the dictates of the Islamic cult.”
I also earned the ire of Dr. Andrew Bostom, author of The Legacy of Jihad. Writing in Pajamas Media, Dr. Bostom took umbrage at my objection to Wafa Sultan’s anti-Islam speech inside a synagogue. Accusing me of Silencing the Jews, he claimed I was a bully, hateful and disingenuous. In an email message to me, Dr. Bostom suggested I was,
“a despicable taqiyya-mongering pile of excrement.”
Another ex-Muslim, the author Ali Sina wrote on his website:
“Tarek Fatah proves my point that there is no such thing as moderate Muslim … Every “moderate” Muslim is a potential terrorist. The belief in Islam is like a tank of gasoline. It looks innocuous, until it meets the fire. For a “moderate” Muslim to become a murderous jihadist, all it takes is a spark of faith.”
It seems all the Islam hating ex-Muslims were reading from the same hymn book. Their mantra: A Muslim cannot be a “moderate Muslim,” unless they renounce their faith.
Farzana Hassan, author of Islam, Women and the Challenges of Today, who has faced her fair share of death threats at the hands of Islamists, on learning about this controversy, asked the rhetorical question. “Should a moderate Muslim simply become a lackey who accepts every insult hurled their way?” She wrote:
“Moderate Muslims, reserve the right to defend any unwarranted criticism of either the founder of Islam or the faith. This is not to suggest that a great deal of the criticism is not justified. It is. Moderate Muslims, without hesitation, and at great risk to our lives, unequivocally condemn all atrocities committed in the name of Islam. We continuously work toward eliminating gender inequalities among Muslims including child marriages. Nonetheless, the charge against Mohammad as a child molester, however, is unjustified for the following reason: His relationship with Aisha was a loving relationship between two consenting adults. It is more than likely that Aisha was closer to being nineteen than nine at the time of marriage. This claim is supported by historical data that puts Aisha at least 15 at the time, though it is likely she was older.”
It is not just Islam-haters who have a stake in reaffirming the myth that Muhammad had a child bride. The fact is that throughout Islamic history, many a caliph and mulla has committed pedophilia and then justified the act by invoking the supposed tradition of Muhammad in consummating a marriage with a nine-year old girl. Even today in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan, Muslim girls have been given away by their fathers, brothers or uncles to middle-aged men with no sense of guilt or shame, since they are told their very own beloved Prophet had sanctioned child marriage.
As far as men and women who consider Islam the enemy of human civilization, the story of Muhammad and Aisha is one that can be trusted to generate intense hatred towards the Muslim community. It does not help that instead of denouncing child marriages, the Islamists and the orthodox clergy of Islam continue to defend the practise as Islamically permissible, legal and honourable. The fact that a four-year old girl walks into Yemeni court asking for a divorce from her aging husband does not awaken these supposedly holy men to the crime being committed in the name of Islam. These men undoubtedly commit statutory rape when they force themselves onto these children.
It is in the vested interest of both Islam-haters as well as Islamists to continue to uphold the myth that Muhammad married a nine-year old Aisha. To the former, it is the juiciest scandal with which to deride Islam and Muslims, while for the Mullahs, it is a license to sanction pedophilia and child rape for themselves and their patrons.
This begs the question: How do people like Wafa Sultan or the Islamists claim to know for a fact that the age of Aisha was nine when her marriage to Muhammad was consummated? There are no birth records from the time and there is not a single piece of physical paper that can be traced back to seventh century Arabia that mentions the age of Aisha. In the absence of hard evidence, we have two choices:
- We rely on medieval hearsay and gossip that has unfortunately seeped into Islamic literature, the Hadith and Sharia law, or;
- We calculate the age of Aisha based on actual agreed upon indisputable chronology of events.
While the Islamists and Wafa Sultan rely on medieval gossip, I have chosen to make a rational estimate of Aisha’s age based on acknowledged historical timelines.
Most medieval Islamic history books were written 200-300 years after the advent of Islam and it is true that all of them state emphatically that Aisha was only nine when she became Muhammad’s bride. However, all of them rely on, and quote, one single individual as the source of this information. His name was Hishām ibn Urwah, a prominent narrator of sayings of the Prophet (the Hadith), who died in the year 756AD. He was Aisha’s great-grand nephew, who first suggested that his great-grand aunt was only nine-years old on the day of her wedding, 125 years after the said event.
Prior to his utterance, a century after the fact, there is no mention or reference to the age of Aisha. Hisham bin Urwah lived and taught in Medina for 70 years, yet no one else—not even his famous pupil Malik ibn Anas—reported Aisha’s age. It is no coincidence that the growth of harems of the Abbasid caliphs mushroomed to hundreds of wives and concubines–many young girls– at the time the sharia law based on bin Urwah’s report, legalized child marriage.
Instead of relying on the words of bin Urwah as so many Islam-haters and Islamists do, I suggest we look at a few facts that prove that Aisha’s age on the day of her wedding could not have been lower than 14 years of age.
The historian al-Tabari informs us in his treatise on Islamic history that the father of Aisha, Abu Bakr had four children and all them were born before the year 610AD, the year of the advent of Islam. If, as is generally accepted, Aisha became Muhammad’s bride in the year 624AD, then she had to be at least 14 years of age, if not older on the day of her wedding.
Other calculations based on historical events place Aisha as old as 20 when she was became a bride. Ibn Hisham, the historian, reports that Aisha accepted Islam quite some time before Umar (the second caliph). This means she must have been at least a young girl in the year 610. Assuming she was five years old when Abu Bakr and his family converted to islam, the information puts the age of Aisha at 20 or more at the time of her marriage with Muhammad was consummated in 624AD.
Furthermore, most Islamic historians agree that Asma, the elder sister of Aisha, was ten years older than her. It is also reported that Asma died in 683AD at the ripe age of 100. If this is true, then Asma would have been 31 years old at the time of Aisha’s wedding with Muhammad in 624 and the bride would have been 21.
Of course, these facts do not suit either the Islam-haters or the Mullahs who sanction child marriage. Had the medieval caliphs or their court appointed clerics in the 8th century accepted these timelines, it would have taken away their right to fill their harems with young girls of their choice.
My critics may argue that I am juggling the dates to validate my thesis, but where is the evidence that suggests my timeline of historical events is wrong? If the critics of Islam argue that there needs to be a reformation in Islam, then why would we not err on the side of an argument that could end child marriages in the Muslim world? In the absence of any documentary evidence that Aisha was nine years old when she became Muhammad’s bride, why cling to to the gossip of one man, ibn Urwah, who served the courts of the caliphs. These were the very people who trampled all over Islamic doctrine by governing as hereditary kings and building empires on the backs of slaves.
However, if one hates Islam and Muslims with the ferocity and vengeance of Wafa Sultan, then it will be difficult to them her believe that the relationship between Muhammad and Aisha was one of love and adoration, not one between a rapist and his victim. There is little evidence to suggest that any rape victim has ever fallen in love with her a rapist.
If one is consumed by the hate of Muslims, logic and reason is least likely to influence someone like Wafa Sultan. She makes little secret of the fact that she considers the world’s one and half billion Muslims as people suffering from a disease that she wants to treat. Such is her contempt for Muslims, as a physician, Sultan told a Jewish fundraiser in LA that “I have 1.3 billion patients.” Her remarks were so offensive that one of the attendees, Rabbi Stephen Stein later wrote in the LA Times, he had to walk out of the fund raiser. Not only does she consider all 1.3 billion Muslims as suffering from a disease that needs treatment, her disdain for Muslims crosses all thresholds of rational discussion. Demonstrating her contempt for Muslims, she rails in her book:
“God placed donkeys and mules at Muslims’ disposal, while the West gave them mastery over new forms of transportation …”
So deep is her hatred of her heritage, she suggests we Muslims were a primitive peoples before the arrival of the Europeans and Americans. She writes:
“Before oil was discovered in the Gulf states, Muslims lived in primitive existence. Then, in the twinkling of an eye, the modern world descended upon their campsites, disfigured their world with palaces, high-rises, cars, and technology, and threatened the unchanging silence of their environment. …When people make an overnight transition from the Stone Age to the age of the airplane and the Internet, it is inevitable that they should undergo some kind of internal struggle in the process, and find themselves subject to depression and other psychological ills, specially when they continue to cling desperately to the teachings and social structure of their former environment. Muslims ran before they had learned to crawl, and tried to climb a ladder they had not even reached.”
Zeroing in on her own Arab community, Sultan claims:
“When an Arab revokes his agreement he justifies himself by insisting that he had never agreed in the first place, as he had not said yes, but had merely smiled and nodded his head. This ambiguity means that Muslims’ relationship with others are capricious and uncertain, and this has made it hard for people to trust them. People who cannot differentiate between yes and no and can express neither unambiguously have a confused notion of concepts in general.”
I have lived in the Arab world and among Arabs for a decade. I admit, there is much they can be criticized for. However, not even the Arabs’ worst enemy would accuse them of being uncultured or inhospitable. On the contrary, one could argue the hospitality of the Arab is their saving grace. Their poetry, their language and their generosity has charmed the likes of Moshe Dayan and Amos Oz. Yet, so blinded is Wafa Sultan with her hatred of the Arab, she told the Toronto Jewish Tribune that it was only when she came to the USA that she learned to say “Thank you” or “excuse me.” The Jewish Tribune quoted her as saying:
“I practised medicine for nine years in Syria. Believe it or not, I learned how to say thank you [only] when I came to America. For the first time. Because you have to thank Allah and Mohammed, nobody else. I learned how to say please, how to say excuse me.”
Perhaps I as a Pakistani-Canadian could teach Wafa Sultan how to say, “Shukran” (Thank you) or “Min Fadlaq” (please) or maybe her hatred of the Arab has caused her to be deaf to these words, since they are the two most oft-repeated words one hears in an Arab capital or village. However, if her loathing for the Arab is couched in cultural disdain, her contempt for the non-Arab Muslim is blatant. She does not consider non-Arab Muslims to be true muslims. In her eyes, if the Arab is an inferior being, the Pakistani is worse, not even worthy of the Islam she hates.
Mehnaz M. Afridi is Professor of Judaism and Islam at the Antioch University in Los Angeles. The Pakistani-American academic recounts a talk at a Jewish Temple where she shared the head table with Wafa Sultan. She told me, “I had the inopportune moment to present at a Jewish Temple in Los Angeles with Wafa Al-Sultan. We were asked to show similarities between Judaism and Islam, and I did. I was the first presenter, she was second and gave a talk on how awful Islam was and how I was not a real Muslim because I am South Asian [of Pakistani descent]. Her beef with Indo-Pakistani Muslims was that we have ‘mangled’ the Islamic message to make it appear more positive.”
In her book, Wafa Sultan dismisses non-Arab Muslims, claiming,
“a Christian born and brought up in Jordan is more Islamic in his behaviour and way of thinking than a Pakistani Muslim.”
At the 2006 LA fundraiser where rabbi Stein staged a walkout, he recalls Wafa Sultan’s racist attitude towards non-Arab Muslims. He writes:
“Then this provocative voice said something odd: ‘Only Arab Muslims can read the Koran properly because you have to speak Arabic to know what it means — you cannot translate it.’ Any translation is, by definition, interpretation, and Arabic is no more difficult to accurately translate than Hebrew. In fact, the Hebrew of the Bible poses many more formidable translation problems than Arabic. Are Christians and Jews who cannot read it ill-equipped to live by its meanings?”
If Wafa Sultan was against child marriage in medieval Islam, then perhaps she should have also dealt with the institution of child marriage in Jewish laws of the same period, since her speech was made in a synagogue and her audience was primarily Jewish.
Wafa Sultan should also have considered the Talmudic Jewish traditions on child marriage that too permitted child brides. Not being an expert on Jewish law on child marriage, I had to rely on the Jewish Encyclopedia. I also requested two rabbi friends of mine to help me with this area One expressed his regrets, saying he was not an expert in the area, but my other friend acknowledged that although it is possible for marriages to be arranged in childhood, but no physical contact can happen before the age 13.
The Jewish Encyclopedia had more details. According to it, rabbis reckon “the age of maturity from the time when the first signs of puberty appear , and estimated that these signs come, with women, about the beginning of the thirteenth year, and about the beginning of the fourteenth year with men. From this period one was regarded as an adult and as responsible for one’s actions to the laws of the community. In the case of females, the rabbinic law recognized several distinct stages: those of the “keṭannah“, from the age of three to the age of twelve and one day; the “na’arah“, the six months following that period; and the “bogeret“, from the expiration of these six months. In the case of males, distinction was made in general only between the period preceding the age of thirteen and one day and that following it, although, as will be seen below, other stages were occasionally recognized.”
A ketannah was completely subject to her father’s authority, and her father could arrange a marriage for her, whether she agreed to it or not; similarly her father could accept a divorce document (get) on her behalf. If however the father was dead, or missing, the brothers of the ketannah, collectively, had the right to arrange a marriage for her, as had her mother. In the Talmud, there is inconclusive debate about whether the na’arah should be treated like the ketannah in relation to marriage, or whether she should have the freedom to marry as she wished, like the bogeret.
In mediaeval times, cultural pressure within Jewish communities lead to most girls being married while they were still children – before they had become a bogeret. Boys too, were under cultural pressure; several Talmudic rabbis urged that boys should be married as soon as they reach the age of majority. Indeed, anyone unmarried after the age of twenty was said to have been cursed by God; rabbinical courts frequently tried to compel an individual to marry, if they had passed the age of twenty without marriage. In the middle ages, many rabbis tried to abolish child marriage altogether; this, however, was due to their distaste for mi’un. Effectively, child marriage became nearly obsolete in Judaism; in modern times, it is an extremely rare event, as most areas with large Jewish communities have national laws against it.
Now, if it is okay for the Jewish community to abandon child marriage despite evidence that it was permitted and practised in medieval times, then why is the standard set differently for Muslims? Even if I were to concede–and I do not– that Muhammad married a nine-year old, isn’t it more important that we work–both Jew and Muslim–to end this practise? However, it seems this does not fit the agenda of either the Islam-haters or the Islamists.
The Hollywood screenwriter and television producer Kamran Pasha (of Sleeper Cell fame) who has authored a brilliant fictional novel about the life of Aisha, Mother of the Believers, told me that in his research for the book, he had concluded that Aisha was at least in her early teens when she became Muhammad’s bride. However, he chose to confront the critics head on. In the author’s note to his fascinating novel, Pasha writes:
“In my novel, I have chosen to directly face the controversy over Aisha’s age by using the most contentious account, that she was nine at the time she consummated her wedding. The reason I have done this is to show that it is foolish to project modern values on another time and world. In a desert environment where life expectancy was extremely low, early marriage was not a social issue–it was a matter of survival.”
As Islam-haters pummel the Muslim community with insults and mockery, our reaction feeds that hate. We burn books, threaten cartoonists or make a laughing spectacle of ourselves for the rest of the world. We simply refuse to indulge in retrospection and reflection. We refuse to discard the ossified books of the Hadith that justify so much that is wrong in the Islamic world and which contributes to so much shame and embarrassment.
Muslim scholars are caught in their own predicament. Most are willing to concede that historical timelines suggest Aisha could not have been aged nine when she became Muhammad’s bride. However, if they were to admit this flaw in the Hadith books, they would be opening a pandoras box. How many more laws of sharia, based on the hadith, are lies and need to be discarded? In the academia too, few Muslim scholars wish to be ostracized by the well-funded mosque establishment of North America– the only likely place that could host a reformation in Islam.
Too much is at stake for the Islamic establishment to admit that Prophet Muhammad was not the husband of a child bride. They would rather see their leader mocked then to admit to the fallibility of the Hadith literature. Until that happens, Islam-haters will continue to have a field day. For the rest of us Muslims–moderate, liberal, secular or progressive, call it what you may–the challenge is simple: Retain the Hadith literature for historical value as texts from our common history, but no more than that. We need to detach ourselves from the man-made laws and traditions of the medieval world and step into the 21st century, like the rest of humanity, as believers in the strict separation of religion and state and universal human rights where all men and women are equal, irrespective of relgion or race. If we don’t, then we better be prepared to be be mocked with derision as stragglers in the caravan who are slowing down the progress of all humanity.
****
Tarek Fatah is author of The Jew Is Not My Enemy: Unveiling the Myths that Fuel Muslim Anti-Semitism to be published by McClelland & Stewart in October this year. His first book, Chasing a Mirage: The Tragic Illusion of an Islamic State (Wiley 2008) was shortlisted for the prestigious Donner Prize.
28 Comments
I think this is a really important and well-written piece. However, a number of quibbles:
Child-marriage is fairly characteristic of nearly every pre-modern society around the world, where the institution of marriage is not seen as the confirmation of a love-match between two consenting people; but is, mostly, a means of cementing relationships between different families, clans, tribes, parts of the same family – in all, social units – usually for economic or political reasons. Child-marriage is attested in pre-Islamic Arabia (and is still common there). Given the strategic value of marrying into ‘Aisha’s family for Muhammad and the known existing culture of child-marriage for exactly such purposes, there are good grounds for assuming that this marriage contract was precisely between an adult and a small child. Whether the marriage was immediately consummated or not, is not directly the issue (and note, sexual consummation is not a central to the confirmation of marital status in Islam as it is in Western traditions).
On shrieking, shouting and general barracking and Islam: Actually, I have some sympathy for Wafa Sultan’s perspective here.
I have the misfortune to live under the PA systems of (at least) three different mosques – so I get to listen to the khutbah from three different directions in fine detail and great volume from the comfort of my living room (even with the windows shut). Generally, these sermons are a concerto of rising hysteria, feigned emotion, screaming and shouting. They are marked by, principally, anger and lack of control – not calm and reflection upon the theme. The congregation is barracked, cajoled, informed of the certainties of damnation should they do X, Y, or Z – or fail to do A, B, or C.
To an extent this is a result of traditional Islamic pedagogy – which, let us be frank, is hardly student centred in its ethos, is deeply didactic and intensely intolerant of opposing views. Based in memorisation skills and the parrot-like repetition of the teacher’s views, this culture of unthinking, herd-like submissiveness continues to blight the education provision of most Arab countries to this day – with students unwilling to venture their own ideas, witlessly demanding to be spoon-fed instructions and firmly believing that the acme of intellectual activity is the memorisation of age-old, unchallenged dogma and its repetition in a manner which will brook no opposition.
On the allegedly two most common words in spoken Arabic, “please” and “thank you” – I am afraid the author is simply talking out of his hat. Spoken Street Arabic is fairly brusque and one simply does not hear people Shukran-ing and in response Afwan-ing politely to one another down the suuk. “Please” is an unknown quantity in a culture which prides itself in its massive aversion to such things as the queue and love for the shoulder barge and talking over of one another. This does not mean that these items are not implied – there are plenty of other ways of being polite. Egyptians and Syrians are not especially known for their politeness, however (especially the former, who are infamous even amongst the Arabs for their argumentativeness).
In all, however, an excellent article.
When Wafa Sultan took on an Islamist on Al Jazeera TV a few years back she did a wonderful job. I am sorry to hear that she would waste her time and talents discussing what Mohammed did or didn’t do 1400 years ago instead of taking on the people who claim to be acting in the name of Islam when they perpetrate evil. All religions are flawed, and some more than others, but not all athiests are good, peacable folk and not all theists are evil.
Back in 19c Poland, my great-grandparents married when she was either 9 or 11, and he was 14. They were distant relatives, and according to the Jewish custom of the day, they each lived with their respective parents until she was 17.
Wafa Sultan may hate Islam but her supercilious contempt for South Asians, muslims in particular, is completely demonstrative of attitudes that are endemic in Arab culture and second nature to most Arabs. She might be an ex-muslim, but she also shows that it ain’t so easy becoming ex-Arab.
Excellent, passionately argued, and very well-researched article by Tarek Fatah. It definitely deserves wider distribution.
However, South Asian Muslims certainly are, especially back in the subcontinent.
This doesn’t mean that there aren’t numerous rude Asian Muslims (Anjem Choudary is a particularly obvious British example that comes to mind), in the same way that there are also numerous rude Sikhs and Hindus (along with numerous polite Sikhs and Hindus, of course).
Nevertheless, in terms of subcontinental society and – especially – history, Muslim culture in that part of the world is particularly renowned for “adab”, ie. manners and etiquette, especially when it comes to various influential cultural aspects deriving from the historical aristocratic/courtly elite. The emphasis on politeness and courtesy was (and is) considerable, to say the least. People with an understanding of the elaborate decorum frequently associated with “chaste Urdu” (and, historically, Farsi before that) will particularly appreciate what I am talking about.
It’s very clear that Dr Sultan is projecting her own disgruntled perceptions of Arabs onto Muslims from elsewhere, although her refusal to regard South Asian Muslims as “real Muslims” certainly speaks volumes about her own prejudices. It also explains her sweeping, highly generalised dismissal of Muslim societies as being “primitive” until they came into contact with the West, which of course ignores a thousand years of Indian history and the fact that during the peak of the Mughal era in particular India was the wealthiest and most powerful region in the world. Not to mention the eagerness of large numbers of Europeans – especially the most capable and successful members of the East India Company – to embrace Indian Muslim culture for 200 years, until the start of the 19th century. I expect Dr Sultan would also casually dismiss that fact, given her attitudes towards the subcontinent — ironically a region which (as a whole) has more Muslims than anywhere else on the planet.
2oo years in the case of the British, I should add. Some other European groups such as the Portuguese had been there for longer.
Oh, I think you mistake the Arab sense of their innate pride as Arabs over everyone else for some sort of anti-South Asian animus on the part of Arabs.
Incidentally, why should anyone wish to become an ex-Arab?
Oh, I think you mistake the Arab sense of their innate pride as Arabs over everyone else for some sort of anti-South Asian animus on the part of Arabs.
Tell that to the migrant labourers and professionals from Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Pakistan and India working in the middle east.
Incidentally, why should anyone wish to become an ex-Arab?
I’m not saying anyone should. My point is that it is relatively easier to be an anti-muslim and attack dodgy Islamic customs, but cultural prejudices are more difficult to relinquish especially if they have become second nature, as is the Arab attitudes towards blacks and south asians. But particularly the attitude that south asian muslims or Iranian muslims are not real muslims is widespread in the middle east and it is curious that Wafa Sultan who is an ex-muslim reinforces these cultural prejudices rather than counter them. It shows how she has managed to exit Islam without leaving behind her cultural Arab baggage.
Dawood
I was making an observation, not an approval of Arabs’ generally over-heightened sense of their own self-importance.
That is not so. What is widely held is the belief that such people are a sort of Muslim underclass.
This has an extraordinarily ancient back story. The earliest Arab Muslims were tribal and as they spread Islam beyond Arab lands came into contact with no-Muslims, who were allowed to enter into relations of clientship (association with the tribes of the Muslim Arabs).
The initial conflict between the ‘Umayyids and ‘Abbasids was a result of the abuse of this relation between Arab tribal patrons and non-Arab clients. The early support for the ‘Abbasids mostly came from non-Arab areas of the Caliphate, The clients were second-class in comparison to the Arab tribals who dominated the ‘Umayyid Caliphate. The ‘Abbasid revolution originally pivoted around the discrimination of the non-Arab clients by the Arab tribal elites. Questions of religious identity trailed in the wake.
Iranians were initially a widely Sunni people (indeed Tajiks, who are Persian speakers, still largely are – Pamiri minorities are chiefly Ismaili, incidentally). Transference to Shi’a Islam came about partially as a marker on the part of the Iranian elite, indicating their independence from Arab neighbours and their individual identity as Iranian.
I have written elsewhere of Arab racism – so your implication that I am denying this woeful feature of Arab culture is misplaced and mistaken.
Incidentally, for right or wrong, the general impression that Arabs have of South Asian Muslims is that they try too hard – to the point of fanaticism. This, of course, entirely ignores the long history of moderation in South Asian Islam – but we are not writing of facts here, but impressions held of people by others.
Arabs, quite understandably if tactlessly, like to take ownership of Islam – on the simple grounds that it emerged in Arab lands, with an Arab Messenger, giving the message in Arabic.
As an aside, one might point out that a considerable minority of Arabs are not Muslims, of course.
No, it is not curious at all. Unless you confuse her religious identity with her ethnic identity, as you appear to be doing. One remains an Arab, whether one is Muslim, ex-Muslim or never Muslim. Being an Arab has nothing to do with being of one or any religion.
Personally, I find the notion of Arab cultural “baggage” mildly and curiously offensive – as if it is something that one can, would or should dump as undesirable. It is not.
One remains an Arab, whether one is Muslim, ex-Muslim or never Muslim. Being an Arab has nothing to do with being of one or any religion.
Sorry, you’re bringing up the same misreading again and I have said nothing to suggest such a thing. The confusion is on your side, best re-read what I wrote because I’ve already explained my point.
Personally, I find the notion of Arab cultural “baggage” mildly and curiously offensive – as if it is something that one can, would or should dump as undesirable. It is not.
Yeah right, because Arab contempt for South Asians is such a marvellously attractive aspect of Arabic cultural baggage, it should be retained at all costs and should never be regarded as undesirable, no?
I think the issue of Mohammad and Aisha arises in the context of the literalism of modern Islam. If it is possible to relativise Mohammad’s marriage, which would not be morally acceptable today, surely we can also relativise other aspects of Islam, Quran and Hadith, and say that all that is problematic in Islam as a religion, in terms of how aspects of it clash with modern ethics and individual conscience, we can just say they were of their time, and these precepts can be ignored or discarded.
This then opens up Islam to a less literal interpretation, more like modern Christianity, in which texts are read in context, a liberal reading is possible, because Mohammad’s life was lived in a different era.
However, some Muslim literalists then say this denies the ‘eternalism’ of Islam, that it is literally the word of God forever, immutable and unchangeable, so you have a clash of perspectives inside Islam on how to look at the religion.
Abu Faris on the Spittoon regarding Arabs:
Abu Faris on Harry’s Place regarding Arabs:
What can be said of someone who finds the comments on Arab racism made by others “mildly and curiously offensive” but nothing remotely “mildly and curiously offensive” when he slags off their “stupid countries”?
“Incidentally, for right or wrong, the general impression that Arabs have of South Asian Muslims is that they try too hard – to the point of fanaticism.”
+++++++
I too have heard this said before. It does ignore the spectrum of worship in subcontinental Islam, but at its root it has to do with an idea that South Asian Muslims have some kind of anxiety complex as Muslims regarding Islam, which might have something to do with them being from a culture that is multi-religious as much as other things. This is the view held by some Arabs, and is of course, always a generalised view.
“What can be said of someone who finds the comments on Arab racism made by others “mildly and curiously offensive” but nothing remotely “mildly and curiously offensive” when he slags off their “stupid countries”?”
A Guardian reader?
i’m not about to get into this argument over arab cultural baggage, but it does seem to me that the first quote attributed to abu faris was about arabs and the second one was not specifically – and, actually, the second is really about the political culture of countries dominated by islamist fundamentalist discourse, so i don’ t think it’s as contradictory as all that.
as for the original argument, i personally would go so far to say that the “muhammad was a paedophile rapist” is the counterpart argument of the “israel is a nazi apartheid state committing genocide against the palestinians” trope that has sadly become such a widespread meme. both are notable for their attempts to push as many buttons as possible in the modern psyche as much as they are wilful, bigoted and disgusting libels.
you could probably apply this to the likes of grievance-politics islamists and their fellow-travellers, but it is certainly an awful calumny to attempt to ascribe it generally to muslims. i am somewhat encouraged that even so right-wing a figure as daniel pipes spoke against it.
this is the first i’ve ever heard of this “jewish internet defence league” (although i think i got accused of being a member of it yesterday by one of the israel=nazis brigade) but from this comment they sound like a bunch of right-wing nutters .
this is a well-constructed slur to get you going and coming – only a muslim who denounces islam is worthwhile and anyone who doesn’t toe this line is simply a big fat beardy liar. we are of course familiar with the islamist version of this (“anyone who doesn’t hold islamist positions isn’t a real muslim”) and three or four different jewish versions:
1. “real jews have black hats, beards and consider israel a satanic, illegitimate entity” ( (c) neturei karta)
2. “the only decent jews are those who criticise israel whenever possible and don’t do anything too jewish” ( (c) the kind of arty people who take out ads in the guardian)
3. “the only real jews are the ones settling the land and prepared to give any arabs that get in their way a good kicking” ( (c) the kind of people who think that netanyahu is a decent prime minister)
4. “all jews really take their orders from the israeli embassy” ( (c) the islamist peanut gallery)
oh deary deary me. this particular old chestnut is a favourite of both neo-nazis and extreme islamists; some rather better information can be found here:
http://talmud.faithweb.com
now, a lot of the law about this stuff is about what happens in the event of a divorce *after* betrothal and *before* marriage proper, which are two different ceremonies which nowadays are both done during the wedding. basically, if you’re betrothed, you are married for the purposes of some things (divorce payouts, alimony and division of assets, not being able to marry anyone else) but not for others (physical consummation) – therefore, the term “married” in english may refer to the *first* status (‘erusi) or the *second* status (nisu’i), because the concept of “betrothal” does not have the same status in jewish law as an engagement does in, say, british law. both require some kind of documentary release and financial settlement before the woman is free to marry someone else. the talmudic argument tends to be about how old a woman has to be before she can:
a. break a betrothal made by her father
b. break an betrothal made by herself
c. divorce her husband and keep the entire specified divorce settlement
and so on and so on. in some cases physical consummation can affect the situation, but sometimes not.
now, it’s been a year or two since i studied some of these laws but i do remember that a ketannah, if she doesn’t want to get married, is best advised to wait until she becomes a na’arah, repudiate the betrothal and, incidentally, by so doing, emancipates herself from her father as well, whilst keeping the “ketubah” payout specified for an abandoned betrothal. after she becomes a bogeret, i think she is also emancipated from her father.
it is worth mentioning in this context, incidentally, that jewish law also forbids rape within marriage – the wife must always be willing – also, that the wife may divorce her husband for anything from bad breath to poor performance in the sack, but this is not an available option for the husband. also, while we’re at it, the discussions in the talmud sometimes alleged to be allowing paedophilia are in fact about establishing the level of financial compensation in the unfortunate event of the rape of a child, as well as the age at which a boy can be halakhically held culpable for sexual activity. at no point does anyone suggest that it is ok for an underage (i.e. pre-signs of puberty) girl to be raped – everyone has always known that’s wrong!
b’shalom
bananabrain
I don’t see a contradiction either just double standards.
You really do have a bit of a chip on your shoulder about Arabs, don’t you, Dawood? How very South Asian of you?
That’s because you can’t see the difference between a people and the politics of a country. That is because you are either an idiot, or a troll.
Dawood
Can I ask exactly what your problem is with the Guardian – a newspaper I suspect you might find a little challenging to read?
And wht the assumption that anyone who reads it is immediately some sort of enemy of mankind?
You really are coming across as not very bright recently. First, there was that ludicrous gaff where you claimed that Armenians were Muslims, now this sub-literate goonery about the Guardian as you work your tongue ever so firmly up Faisal’s bum without – evidently – really understanding the point of his criticisms of the Guardian. So, you witlessly just adopt it as a bark and follow around your master, wagging your stupid tail, panting and licking your own balls.
Woof woof, Dawood, Woof woof. Play catch, you utter twat.
That’s because you can’t see the difference between a people and the politics of a country. That is because you are either an idiot, or a troll.
Ok, let’s accept it is perfectly legitimate to use offensive language about Arabs when discussing the questionable aspects of their politics.
And perhaps you’re right that we should be careful about generalising entire peoples, even when discussing questionable aspects of their cultures.
But your use of phrases like “Muslim shithole” and “fuck their stupid countries” goes well beyond criticism of political systems and is actually criticism of the people.
Funny how these phrases are not even slightly “mildly and curiously offensive” when you use them.
And I see you have now resorted to throwing personal insults at me for having this pointed out to you. Nice.
“You really do have a bit of a chip on your shoulder about Arabs, don’t you, Dawood? How very South Asian of you?”
Tell that to the migrant labourers and professionals from Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Pakistan and India working in the Arabian Gulf.
Furthermore, I’m not the one using phrases like “Muslim shithole” and “fuck their stupid countries” when discussing Arabs. Perhaps it’s your own chips on your own shoulders you should be concerned about.
“You really do have a bit of a chip on your shoulder about Arabs, don’t you, Dawood? How very South Asian of you?”
Bit of a contradictory statement. Accusing a South Asian of generalising Arab racism against South Asians, by using a generalisation of South Asians.
“A modest Talmudic scholar from Jaffa, I would rise to his defense in the name of our Jewish tradition. Far from being a sinner, Muhammad (peace upon him) acted according to the letter and spirit of our holy faith. Biblical Jacob fell in love with Rachel, 7, and brought forth a line of saints including Mary, mother of Christ.
Talmud stipulates the permitted age of marriage for girls at three years and one day. It brings us a dialogue worthy of Boccacio that took place in Sephoris of Galilee. A Roman princess Justine, daughter of Emperor Sever son of Anthony asked Rabbi Judah the Prince, the greatest spiritual and legal authority of Jews in post-Biblical period, what is the permitted age of marriage and cohabitation.
- Three years and one day, – replied the Rabbi. – What is the age for childbearing,
- persisted the Princess. – Nine years [i], – he replied.
- I was married at six, and gave birth at seven, – she reflected with great regret, – so I wasted in vain three excellent years of my young life.
Muhammad’s wife, Aisha, wasted six years of her young life, as she was wed at nine. Thus, the Prophet demonstrated great prudence, also in full accordance with our Jewish teachings. Our holy Rabbis permitted very early marriage, but they were not absolutely sure that three-year old girls are sufficiently ripe. They taught: proselytes and pedophiles delay the Coming of Messiah and Kingdom of Heaven.
Who are the pedophiles in this context, asked the Talmud. They have to be persons of legitimate but objectionable behavior, and therefore, not the sodomites (as they deserve death by stoning) nor masturbators (they merit watery grave). It is those who marry girls before the nubile age of nine. Thus, the Prophet is above suspicion according to our Jewish law.”
http://shamir.mediamonitors.net/december162001.html
NO. they permitted early *betrothal*, but NOT consummation. “sufficiently ripe”? eurgh. you can’t possibly have a reputable source for this, because it isn’t true. perhaps you’d like to give me the talmudic reference? or perhaps you’d like to tell me what the aramaic term for “paedophile” actually is?
or have you just copy-and-pasted from stormfront?
b’shalom
bananabrain
Mr Tarek Fatah,
This is an interesting article on a perennial topic. To my mind the real issue here is not a child marriage which occurred back in the 8th century because, as a little research will show, such marriages were a widespread and accepted practice at the time not only in the Arab/Semitic world but also in Western Europe and Asia.
The real issue here is the modern world’s response to that particular marriage, and a corollary issue to this is why other marriages are being ignored – and by that I refer not only to contemporaneous child marriages other than Muhammad’s, but primarily also to Muhammad’s first marriage to Khadijah.
I would like to ask Mr Fatah a question. If it’s true that, as he says:
then why is it that in those very same countries fathers are SO antagonistically against marrying their sons off to older women, let alone one who is 15 years older and twice previously divorced?
Could it be that most so-called muslims do not actually follow the Prophet’s tradition at all, but only pay lip-service to half learnt ahadith only when it suits their agenda, and IGNORE other ahadith which don’t suit them?
And if this is true, then can these muslims who you refer to (the ones who exclusively want to marry their boy to younger, much younger, girls) really be called Muslims? Can the screeching screaming, screeching Muslims who Wafa Sultan refers to (the Prophet never screamed or screeched) really be called muslims? Can what passes as Islam today really be called Islam?
“Islam began as a stranger, and it will end as a stranger”
[A predictable attempt to rebut this comment would go along the lines of: "just because it was a widespread practice at the time it does not excuse it". This is a somewhat emotional appeal which pre-supposes that it was a crime that needs someone to excuse it. It already ignores the facts of what was happening in the world at the time. I might be a commentator but am no educator, so I will leave it to others to educate themselves about this and will not be drawn into discussion about it].
As a ‘keffur” my only problem with Islam is this: Guided by the Koran, and thus guided by Mohammad, it’s author, millions of people, thru the centuries, have been maimed, blinded, tortured, stoned, hacked apart, and, of course, murdered. I believe that fact should make every Muslim re-consider his “faith.” And the fact that “most Muslims” don’t do these things does not excuse the fact that MANY do. I heard of a girl, recently, 13 years old, who was stoned to death, under “sharia law,” for “the crime against Islam of wearing lipstick and dressing in a Western fashion.” I later went on a pro-Islamic website where her brutal death was celebrated, by an Imam…he was saying, “I’m SOOO happy today…” and he went on to explain that he was “happy” that, notwithstanding the criticism of “unbelievers,’ the little girl was stoned to death…….that’s quite enough for me…..if Muslims can’t see evil in this…..I give up.
Hell! On those who say the our prophet muhammad (p.b.u.h) did such thing. It is the thinking of those people who are going to hell definetly they will go their.they will be payed by allah for their every deed they do, i am not angry with them even i feel pitty for these bull shit people. Who think that their comments wil degrace or even lower the place of our belove. He is pure was pure and loving for all of us. He was the sun who was allah’s most beloved. And mine too. You are barking dog’s may allah degrace those who try to degrace us. What u say just go on saying , our allah wil show u how was he and what was his place , but i wil gv u a memo that i you people are loser. Despite having a lot of möney or pleasures u r so poor beacuse god has make u kafir’s you wil go to that hell . May all show u the right path the path of islam. I love crist but i lot my prophet more than my parents. I cn cut down my head for my god. May allah save me from shatan’s. By .
Hell! On those who say the our prophet muhammad (p.b.u.h) did such thing. It is the thinking of those people who are going to hell definetly they will go their.they will be payed by allah for their every deed they do, i am not angry with them even i feel pitty for these bull shit people. Who think that their comments wil degrace or even lower the place of our belove. He is pure was pure and loving for all of us. He was the sun who was allah’s most beloved. And mine too. You are barking dog’s may allah degrace those who try to degrace us. What u say just go on saying , our allah wil show u how was he and what was his place , but i wil gv u a memo that i you people are loser. Despite having a lot of möney or pleasures u r so poor beacuse god has make u kafir’s you wil go to that hell . May allah show u the right path the path of islam. I love crist but i lot my prophet more than my parents. I cn cut down my head for my god. May allah save me from shatan’s. By .