.

.

IN THE NAME OF ALLAH, THE BENEFICENT, THE MERCIFUL
-------------- --------------- -------------- --------


"O you who believe! Be careful of your duty to Allah, and be with the truthful." [Noble Quran 9:119]

"If you obeyed most of those on earth they would mislead you far from Allah's way." [Noble Quran 6:116]

Return to the QURAN only - the complete and final STAND-ALONE Divine Message which also contains the authentic sunnah of the beloved Prophet Muhammad (SAAW)

-----------------

I bear witness that NONE is worthy of worship except ALLAH, He has NO partner nor partners, and I bear witness that Muhammad is the slave and Final Messenger of Allah.

--------


Zainabs Lounge blog tracker

Monday, October 28, 2013

Murder of Burmese Muslims - NO end in sight

Quoting Ray Downs:
"When most Westerners think of Buddhism, they think of smiling men with potbellies and inspirational quotes from Phil Jackson.  'Buddhist neo-Nazi' sounds like a contradiction in terms.  But in Burma, vicious anti-Muslim sentiment has been on the rise and Buddhist extremists are responsible for attacking Muslims and burning down their houses and mosques, a state of affairs that was largely ignored until Anonymous launched a Twitter campaign to teach the world about the genocide against the Rohingya people, the officially stateless Muslims who many believe will be massacred if the world does not respond." 

Since June 2012 over 100,000 Rohingya Muslims in Burma have been killed and almost 200,000 maimed and homeless.  Their houses have been burned and businesses destroyed.

The Muslim minority of Burma has been systematically targeted in which the Buddhist monks have been playing a leading role.  The reason for this mayhem is only the choice of faith of the minority.

It's been no different from Zionist apartheid.  Muslim businesses in Burma are required to display a badge to reveal their minority identity and exacerbate ethnic discrimination.  The indigenous Rohingya Muslims of Burma living in the western province of Rakhine since centuries are not allowed to acquire Burmese citizenship only because of their faith.  In 2012 the Burmese government announced it would hold a census in the near future but confirmed that the Rohingyas would be excluded .. even the word "Rohingya" would not be used.

A nationalist Buddhist political party called Rakhine Nationalities Development Party (RNDP) is directly at the helm of this genocide.  Recently the Burmese parliamentarians admitted that the RNDP had since long wanted to get rid of the Rohingya Muslims from the Rakhine province to make it totally Buddhist. In June 2012, the Burmese government and opposition gave them the green light.  Ever since then, the RNDP along with the radical Buddhist monks and the ruthless mobs have been planning and implementing ethnic cleansing against the minority Rohingya Muslims of Burma and orchestrating activities that can only be categorized as massive crimes against humanity.  Despite the endless ethnic cleansing, the federal government seems to find nothing wrong delegating power to the RNDP for handling the minority community. 


The Latest:

Genocide has been going on since mid last year periodically.  Recently, in the first week of October 2013, more than a 1,000 Buddhist rioters suddenly unleashed another phase of terror by attacking and torching Muslim homes and mosques.  Frightened and desperate, scores of Muslim women and children fled their homes and hid in forests of western Burma. 

The Burmese government is now rounding up its own minority citizens and forcing them into camps, better described as concentration camps. 

Security forces warned them that they wouldn't get any food if they continued living in their homes.  But after moving into the camps, the government has not yet supplied them with even a morsel of food.  Food supplies to Rohingya camps are coming only from donations and financial aid.  Malnutrition, disease and misery persist in these camps.  Those with sufficient financial means are rushing to leave the country, but unfortunately not all have the means to leave.  

These concentration camps run by the Burmese government and known as "restricted areas" are heavily guarded by armed security forces.  Journalists and medics are seldom allowed.  Food and medical aid from donors and private organizations are often not allowed to be delivered at the camps.  The guards are constantly spying on the Rohingyas inside the camps, watching ever move of theirs.  

Few of those Rohingyas who have decided to continue living in their homes or in the homes of their relatives are facing the threat of attack everyday.  Several have been stabbed to death.  To put it plainly, the Rohingyas have two choices - they either live in their homes and risk getting killed or live in the concentration camps which is the hub of starvation and disease. 

Phil Robertson from Human Rights Watch writes: "It’s been clear all along that Burmese government policy, at both the union and state level, is all about denigrating and destroying the Rohingyas’ self-realisation as a distinct ethnic group." 


Aung San Su Kyi - sympathizer of genocide, champion of hypocrisy and an outright disgusting woman! 
 
The genocide perpetrated by the Buddhists in Burma has been one of the most terrible since last year alongside the one in Syria.  Yet, in her recent interview with the BBC, Aung SanSu Kyi who is often portrayed as the face of democracy in Burma, refused to call this horrific mayhem 'ethnic cleansing.'  She also would not say that the minority Muslims of Burma were at all targeted.  Instead, she went on to emphasize that the Buddhist majority had faced "human rights violations" by its military.  Appalling statement!!  So, if the Burmese military mistreats the Buddhist majority, is that supposed to mean the Buddhist majority is justified to vent their murderous fury on the Muslim minority ??   Aung San Su Kyi was unable to make herself utter the truth glaring for more than one year that the Muslim minority of her country has been experiencing unprecedented suffering and injustice at the hands of the majority, the military and the opposition, that is, herself, for downplaying, rather evading the truth without an ounce of embarrassment.   

Emanuel Stoakes mentions in his article: "When asked to condemn the violence against the Muslims on the Today Programme, Aung San Suu Kyi demurred, equivocating with non-statements like, “I condemn hate of any kind.”





Bahraini Government's crimes against its own people going from bad to worse

A few days ago 17-year-old Ali Khalil al-Sabbagh was shot in his neck by Bahraini police at close range as he was walking home.  He was carrying no weapons and no explosives.  He was simply gunned down because he had earlier participated in peaceful protests against the Khalifa regime.  The misinformation circulated by the Western mainstream media was "A teenager was killed late on Tuesday in Bahrain when a bomb he was holding exploded in his hands while he was trying to carry out an attack. A firearm was found near the body."   Ali was labelled a "terrorist" by the Bahraini regime. Every single person who opposes Khalifa's dictatorship is stamped a "terrorist."  Torture, rape and violence have intensified horribly in Bahraini prisons.  Many peaceful protestors have died in custody.  Several doctors and nurses have been detained or have disappeared for fear of being witnesses to torture and murder by the security forces.  But the regime is getting away with all kinds of heinous crimes imaginable because governments of the US and UK are conniving willingly.

Quoting Finian Cunningham:  "In a speech earlier this year Barack Obama said 'And long after the current messengers of hate have faded from the world’s memory, alongside the brutal despots, and deranged madmen, and ruthless demagogues who litter history – the flag of the United States will still wave from small-town cemeteries to national monuments ..'  Well, the stars and stripes fly at the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet base in Bahrain, just a few kilometers from where young Ali al-Sabbagh was gunned down in cold blood by the Bahraini regime this week."


Complete story at:  "Bahrain regime waging war on own people" by Finian Cunningham.
http://tinyurl.com/kpa4r86





Participating in Ali Khalil al-Sabbagh's funeral.
Participating in Ali Khalil al-Sabbagh's funeral.

Sunday, October 20, 2013

Culture of child marriage in medieval Europe

Some 'uncomfortable' facts.  Child and teenage marriages in medieval Europe - common as a cup of tea.


John McLaughlin writes in his article MEDIEVAL CHILD MARRIAGE: ABUSE OF WARDSHIP?

" .. in 1396, Richard II of England was joined in marriage to young Isabel of France, who had been 7 years old when their engagement was announced the previous year in Paris. Not only was there no uproar; there was considerable happiness expressed over the assumed probability that this marriage would end the Hundred Years War then in one of its periodic states of truce between the two kingdoms. Peace was to be ensured by joining together this man and this little girl in marriage.

"A social practice which entered the written record in the 12th century, but which seems to have had roots in the barbaric past, that extended from the royal abattoirs down to the lives of neighboring fishmongers and shop-keepers in medieval London, yet that seems to have received little more than passing notice in canon law beyond exhortation to limit it to age seven and ensure mutual consent of the parties ..... But still it is not even indexed in most contemporary discussions of medieval marriage and family life, from Barbara Hanawalt to James Brundage, GL Brooke to Frances & Joseph Giese, Ian MacFarlane to Georges Duby. It is not exactly passed over in their texts, when you read closely

" .... there is not a single book, not a single article, on the separate topic of medieval child marriage in contemporary scholarship, even where there are passing references in the middle of other discussions of medieval childhood, as in problems of medieval wardship.

"By 'child' in this context is meant a male or female human being above the age of 7 -- for either gender -- and below the age of 14 for males, and 12 for females. This follows medieval canon law, in recognizing these as the limits of infancy and puberty

"Thus, for example, when the Wife of Bath boasts of having had five husbands since the age of 12, she is not casting herself in the role of child bride, technically speaking, at least not in medieval terms. Lee Patterson's discussion of child marriage in Peter Beidler's lovely new edition of The Wife of Bath, is thus irrelevant to the present discussion, except as it relates to Richard and Isabel; Christine de Pisan, for example, was already aged 15 when she was 'given' to her husband, and therefore according to medieval definition an adult woman."



Rachelle Carter writes in Marriage in Medieval Times

"In the Middle Ages children were married at a young age. Girls were as young as 12 when they married, and boys as young as 17. The arrangement of the marriage was based on monetary worth. The family of the girl who was to be married gives a dowry,or donation, to the boy she is to marry. The dowry goes with her at the time of the marriage and stays with the boy forever (Renolds).   After the marriage was arranged a wedding notice was posted on the door of the church. The notice was put up to ensure that there were no grounds for prohibiting the marriage."



In 'Juana the Mad of Castille' J.N.W. Bos writes:

"Queen Juana I of Castile (1479-1555) .... was born on November 6, 1479, as the second daughter of Queen Isabella I of Castile and King Ferdinand II of Aragon.   At the age of 16, Juana was betrothed to Philip the Handsome of Austria (1478-1506), only son of the Emperor Maximilian I.  For Philip the attraction to the beautiful, dark haired Juana (to the left) was carnal and little more, but Juana became totally infatuated with her husband ..... his life mainly consisted of feasting, drinking and chasing women - and he had no intention to change his philandering ways. For Juana, however, only absolute togetherness would do. She was too young and inexperienced to realise that she expected too much from a politically arranged marriage."


Now, here's an interesting piece form a 'historian' blogger.

This blogger then tries to justify the child marriages by saying that this practice existed only among royals and other elites and not among middle or lower classes, a point already refuted by John McLaughlin.  The blog author writes "Church law forbade child marriage and allowed young brides and grooms to repudiate the marriage once they reached the age of puberty, which was officially set at 12 for girls and 14 for boys.   So, the most common age for a young woman of middle or low status to marry was from the age of 22 years old."   In the process the author acknowledges that rulers and aristocrats of medieval Europe did not respect the rule of law.  This is what happens when writers try to use a lie as a cover-up .... it simply brings up some other serious contradiction.

Now, marriages of noble and royal women were usually for political and dynastic consideration. So, at what age did a young noblewoman enter into marriage.  In Italy the average age for marriage was 17; in France it is 16 ; and in England and Germany 18 yo was the average age - all for first marriages. (Source: “Medieval Households” by David Herlihy, Harvard University Press, 1985).  However, the following examples are exceptions:

Bianca of Savoy, Duchess of Milan was married aged 13 (1350), and aged 14 when she gave birth to her eldest son, Giangaleazzo (1351).

Theodora Comnena was aged 13 when she was married King Baldwin III of Jerusalem (1158).

Agnes of France was 12 when, widowed, she was married to Andronicus Comnenus, Byzantine Emperor (1182).

St Elizabeth of Portugal was aged 12 when she was married to King Denis of Portugal and gave birth to three children shortly thereafter.

Caterina Sforza was betrothed aged 9, married aged 14, and gave birth aged 15.

Lucrezia Borgia was married to her first husband aged 13 and bore a son within a few years.

Beatrice d'Este was betrothed aged 5 and married aged 15.


The LiveJournal writes

"When the Austrian-born Archduchess Marie Antoinette was married off at age fourteen to France's future king -- crowned Louis XVI in 1774 -- her overriding duty was to give the kingdom an heir."



And finally, as Wikipedia mentions, tracing the history of marriage in ancient Greece

"For most of European history, marriage was more or less a business agreement between two families who arranged the marriages of their children. Romantic love rarely, and even simple affection was not considered essential.  In fact at some times, too much affection in a marriage was considered a sin.

"In Ancient Greece .... Men usually married when they were in their 20s or 30s  and expected their wives to be in their early teens.

"Married Greek women had few rights in ancient Greek society and were expected to take care of the house and children.

"In the 12th century, aristocrats believed love was incompatible with marriage and seeked romance in adultery."


The above are just a few examples of the culture of child marriage in Europe.  As we keep rummaging through the history of that region, we come across plenty more.
 



 

Monday, October 14, 2013

Ulema / hadith confusion on fasting on 9th Zil Hajj

The 9th day of the month of Zil Hajj is the final stage of Hajj, the day when the beloved Prophet (SAW) delivered his final sermon in Makkah from Mount Arafat.  The 10th of Zil Hajj is observed as Eid-al-Adha.

Though the Noble Quran commands us to fast only during the 30 days of the month of Arafat, if someone wants to volumtarily keep nafl fasts on certain other days, it's a good form of additional worship.   The day of Arafat is one of those auspicious days when nafl fasting could be a good idea.  But if one is not inclined to fasting on this day, all one needs to do is not to fast and be silent.  Unfortunately, different ulemas and hadith narrators have said different things on this issue, as a result of which fasting on the Day of Arafat has ended up becoming a controversial issue .. some saying 'yes' and some 'no.'

Check this out:

Imam Shafii said, "Fasting is recommended for those who are not on Arafat on the day of Arafa; as for hajjis, in my opinion, it is better for them to eat than fast because they need strength for prayer on Arafat ."

Imam Ahmad said, "If a person is strong enough to fast on Arafat, he can; if he eats it is alright because it is a day that one needs strength."

Abu Hurayra narrrates:
"The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) prohibited fasting on Arafat on the day of Arafa."

Ibn Umar said: "The Messenger of Allah, Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman did not fast on the day of Arafa; therefore, I do not fast, either."

Imam Malik and Imam Thawri preferred fasting.

According to other hadiths, Abdullah Ibn Zubayr and Hazrat Aisha tended to fast.

Ata said, "I will fast in winter; I will not fast in summer.”

Qatada said, "There is no drawback to fasting on Arafat unless it makes a person too weak to pray (dua).

Besides, I've also heard some of our scholars saying that fasting on this day is only permissible for those who are not on Hajj.

Then again, someone in Facebook made the following assertion:
"If hajj is on hot days and the weather on the day of Arafa is very hot, it is better not to fast; however, if hajj is on cool and short days, one can fast."

Saturday, October 12, 2013

Is White Phosphorus legally allowed for use as weapon?

Lately it was staggering to hear more voices than expected, dismissing Israel's use of white phosphorus to be a violation with assertions that "international law permits the use of White Phosphorus."  Let us take a closer look and dig deeper into the trickery behind this cold-blooded claim.

WHAT IS WHITE PHOSPHORUS?
 It is a property of chemical elements commonly called an allotrope.   However, practically that provides no logically reason not to include it in the category of chemicals because as an allotrope its destructive capacity is just as much (or more) as any other element that is officially recognized as a chemical with all its compounds.  White Phosphorus is highly flammable upon contact with air causing deep burns right down to the bones.  It's excessively  toxic.  Inhalation of WP causes severe liver damage that's often fatal, and a serious disease called phossy jaw which affects the jaw bone and eventually leads to serious brain damage.  Surgical removal of the affected jaw bone is necessary despite being a very difficult, painful and disfiguring process otherwise it will lead to organ failure and certain death.

WHITE PHOSPHORUS - EXPLOSIVE OR A CHEMICAL WEAPON?  WHEN WAS IT TERMED AS A 'CHEMICAL WEAPON?'
US intelligence assessment had characterized WP as a "chemical weapon"  after the first Gulf War in 1990 when the US Army used WP as well as depleted uranium in Iraq.  Prior to that, it is alleged that Saddam Hussein had  used WP on the Kurds in the late 1980s which he acquired from the US.  After the 2003 preemptive invasion of Iraq, the US troops used WP more 'generously' than ever before in various Iraqi cities namely Fallujah.  More than a dozen US soldiers stationed at Fallujah described how they were ordered to prepare WP for use as a weapon.  Consequently, after the destruction of Falluhah, films and still photos taken by eye witnesses describe "anomalous," rather completely abnormal looking corpses with melted or caramelized skins making them totally unrecognizable. 

The use of WP against civilians as a weapon is prohibited.  For this reason the US government took a long time to reluctantly acknowledge that they had used WP in Iraq because it's banned for use as weapon.  More on that later.

IS WHITE PHOSPHORUS REALLY ALLOWED FOR USE AS A WEAPON WITH A CATEGORICAL 'YES' BY INTERNATIONAL LAW?
The answer is a simple NO.  Contrary to the assertions of pro-war lobbies and their patrons that WP is permissible for use is misleading because it's simply not true.  Use of WP in all civilian sectors around the globe is totally banned.  Its use against military targets neither contains an official 'yes' nor 'no,'  and the decision to have it outlawed altogether by the Chemical Weapon Convention (CWC) has been under debate since 1997.  However, Israel's more frequent and continued used of WP since the last decade has stalled the decision to officially ban it.  In plain terms, Israel makes its own rules, tells the international law to shut-up and approve, and the international law says 'yes.'   This is misconstrued by the sheeple and bigots claiming "Israel is going inline with international law."  The international law hasn't been able to officially ban WP by a treaty because of Israel's continued use of it.  Needless to say, Israel has been using WP only  on civilian targets.   Thus, the ludicrous fuss which is helping to ignore a conclusive ban on WP in favor of Israel is through a game of words.  WP being an incendiary and highly inflammable, kills by burning and not by the impact of its explosion.  Therefore, the international law is trying to use that information to interpret WP as an explosive instead of a chemical weapon even though it is hugely toxic and poisonous in addition to being inflammable.  Though this shouldn't create any obstacles for not banning it, yet considering the mentality of the international community, it's categorizing WP as an explosive and not a chemical weapon which serves the political purpose of Western powers retaining the right to devastate civilian targets during preemptive wars.

THE REASON WHY WHITE PHOSPHORUS WILL NEVER BE OFFICIALLY BANNED.
Israel had used WP mercilessly against the Gazans in 2008 and then again in November 2012.  The results were devastating and despite the silence of the media, the story became an important agenda for discussion globally.  Consequently phoney assertions became necessary to dupe the world that Israel did not breach international conventions.  Its urgency was exacerbated when in August 21, 2013 the unfounded accusations on the use of "chemical weapons" hurled against President Assad felt insignificant to much of the world compared to the memories of those horrific images of badly disfigured corpses in Gaza.  Thereafter, several news outlets including Britain's 'Observer' stated that WP used by IDF in Gaza in 2008 was "not a chemical weapon as understood by the Chemical Weapons Convention" and its use is in itself "not in breach of  international conventions."  Western government and their lackeys that include various academics and rightist analysts welcomed such statements.  Several self-hating Muslims residing in the West have also been merrily singing the same tune, with blatantly callous insinuations and ignoring the gimmick behind it. That being said, all further considerations and careful analysis on something as abnormally lethal as WP have been blocked.

The follow-up statement by Jerusalem Post on September 8, 2013 was particularly nauseating and matchlessly manipulative;  quote:  "Israel won a small battle against creeping attempts to equate its use of white phosphorous in Gaza to Syrian President Bashar Assad’s use of chemical weapons, when The Observer in Britain issued a correction on the matter on Sunday."

WHAT EXACTLY IS THE STATUS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW IN THE N.W.O.? 
HAS IT PROVEN  ITSELF TO BE UNASSAILABLE?
Is the international community's silence, rather connivance, at Israel's random use of WP enough to legalize its use?  Just how many times has the international law placed Israel above accountability regardless of all its heinous crimes? 

In every search engine starting with Google, all you need to do is to type only two words - "Israel human" - and the complete code "Israel human rights violations" pops up in a second.  

Israel is undoubtedly the ONLY country where a minor child below age ten can be imprisoned for up to 20 years for throwing a stone.  Palestinian children and teenagers are commonly used as human shields.  Human rights bodies have repeatedly accused Israeli military and police of inflicting systematic torture in the most degrading manner imaginable to children between the ages of 5 and 15.  According to a recent UNICEF report, many Palestinian children under detention are "beaten to pulp" by Israeli soldiers.  Not once have the makers of international law spoken up.   

It's even worse with female prisoners who are  subjected to sexual harassment, blackmail, psychological and verbal abuse without exception .... there hasn't been a single interrogation that hasn't turned violent. As stated by Ehteram Ghazawneh, the coordinator for prisoner rights group, "there is no proper court or trial system, it’s all for show."  The international law couldn't care a rat's tail.  

Discrimination against non-European Jews goes beyond the grave.  Black semite Jews are not allowed to bury their dead in Ashkenazi cemeteries. The international law has no problems with any of that. 

It's mandatory for Ethiopian female Jews to use controversial contraceptives with long-term negative health affects to curb the population growth of  black Jews.  The silence of international law makers has been deafening. 

Daycare centers of black Jewish children are strictly segregated from those of white Ashkenazi Jews.  The international law refuses to call it apartheid. 

Palestinian homes where families have been living for generations are demolished with a ten-minute notice.  With the ever-growing numbers of Israeli settlers moving to occupied land, demolitions are like a cup of tea.  The international law isn't bothered. 

Gross physical mistreatment of elderly Palestinian farmers, burning / bulldozing their farmlands, spewing sewage water and skunk spray on Palestinian homes and streets are common occurrences.  Not once have the international law makers chided Israel. 

International law couldn't make it more obvious that it's sole duty is to protect and promote Israel's crimes against humanity and the use of White Phosphorus is one of them out of MANY. 

 

WP explodes at the target.
WP explodes at the target.

Sunday, October 6, 2013

Does Islam allow marriage with adopted daughter?




Recently a bill was passed in Iran allowing male guardians to marry their adopted girls aged 13 and below, if the court decided it was in the interest of the girl.  If this bill is approved by the country's Guardian Council, it will become law.  The Guardian Council is a 12-member council in Iran which wields immense power.  No legislation can be accepted without its approval.  To put it briefly, this law is anti-Quranic.  It amounts to promoting the concept of incest.  A very disgusting scenario indeed.   Be it Shiias or Sunnis, neither can resist acting outright despicable because of their dependency on the distortions of Hadith.

I repeat, this practice is totally against the Quran.  It comes entirely from the corrupted Hadith. 

Relevant details of which are explained as follows.

First check Verse 33:5 of the Glorious Quran from Surah Al-Ahzab.

"Proclaim their real parentage. That will be more equitable in the sight of Allah. And if ye know not their fathers, then (they are) your brethren in the faith, and your clients. And there is no sin for you in the mistakes that ye make unintentionally, but what your hearts purpose (that will be a sin for you). Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful." (33:5) Al-Ahzab - Noble Quran.


The same law applies to adopted daughters. The verse clearly portrays a platonic, non-sexual relationship based on mutual coordination, help and affection similar to one's dealings with their own children within a household. Neither are adopted sons non-mehram (or marriageable) for the women who adopt them nor the adopted daughters non-mehram (or marriageable) for the men who adopt them.

Now let us check Verse 4:23 of Surah An-Nissa.  This verse mentions a complete list of all female relationships with which marriage is forbidden.  You can look up the entire verse on your own.  Below we will quote only a specific part of Verse 4:23 that is connected with this topic.


"Forbidden unto you are your ........ and your foster-mothers, and your foster-sisters ......" (4:23) An-Nissa (Noble Quran).  Translation: Muhammed Marmaduke Pickthall.
 


V.4:23 forbids marriage with foster mother and foster sister. The same law applies in the case of foster father and foster brother.  Adoption is a still closer bond than foster relationship as it confirms permanent guardianship.  Hence, if marriage isn't allowed between foster parents and foster children, there's NO way it can ever be allowed between adopted parents and adopted children.  I reiterate, these rules have been acquired from the very corrupted institutions of Hadith and Shariah which have nothing to do with the Quran. 

The Hadith-following translators have played their old trick by wrongly translating Verse 4:23 in order to keep it compatible with Hadith.  In their translations, along side the words "foster-mothers" and "foster sisters" they have mentioned in brackets 'those who have suckled you' and 'those who have been suckled by the same nurse as you,' respectively  .... thus introducing the concept of guardians marrying adopted daughters.  

To explain this more clearly, we need to remind you of a specific false hadith which claims that breast feeding establishes a mehram or platonic relationship between a man and woman.  It claims that if a man is breast fed by a woman other than his mother at any period in life (shocking as it may sound, Hadith allows breast feeding of adult men), she becomes mehram or unlawful for marriage to him.  According to the same false idea, the hadith also propagates that if two non-related male and female are breast fed by the same nurse during their childhood, they become mehram or unlawful for marriage to each other later in life.  This is simply a hadith fabrication.  It is not endorsed by the Quran nor does medical science confirm that mere breast feeding by an outsider changes the biological setup by creating motherly or sisterly relations.   Yet, the hadith followers have used this gimmick to promote marriage between a man and his adopted daughter by mistranslating Verse 4:23, claiming that foster mothers and foster sisters are unlawful for marriage only if the foster mother has breast fed that man or that man and his foster sister were breast fed by the same woman during childhood.  By this, the Hadith implies that if the issue of breast feeding (or suckling) does not exist, then that man can marry his foster mother or his foster sister.  From the same perspective, the Shariah legalizes marriage between adopted daughter and the man who adopts her.   Filthy, downright shameful and totally un-Quranic !!

As mentioned, an adopted child is even closer to its guardian than a foster child. While foster carers look after children on behalf of someone else which may not be a permanent arrangement, in adoption the man or woman who adopts a child becomes the permanent legal guardian. A legal guardian who gives their word to care for the child as a parent cannot take back their word, deciding to become a sexual partner. That would amount to violation of a promise, sexual abuse and gross injustice to the child. No girl in the world, after knowing that the man who adopted her and cared for her as a biological father since she was a baby, would ever desire sex with him as a teenager or a grown woman, unless she is abused and compelled. 

The reason why the Quran mentions the term "foster" and not "adopted" in Verse 4:23 is because in the 7th century adoption centers didn't exist as they do today. If a child became orphaned, they would generally be taken over by other households or extended families, close friends or neighbors.  Often an orphan child would be transferred to three or four different homes by the time they reached age 18.  That made them foster children rather than adopted children by definition. However, there is no practical difference in relationships between a foster home and an adopted home as far as the child is concerned. And marriage between foster relationships is plainly forbidden (Haram) in the Quran.  Precisely the same law must apply in adopted relationships. That goes without saying.

Look at it this way:  You adopt and raise a little girl from the time she is one, two or three years of age.  You assume the role of a caring and responsible dad for more than a decade.  Would you be able to marry her by the time she is 13 or 14 or 15?  Even if she 18 or 19?  After looking upon her as a daughter since she was a toddler, will your fatherly instincts change when you view her as a teenager approaching womanhood just because you know that she is not your biological daughter?  If yes, then there is something seriously not right with you!  

There is another truth that is being intentionally ignored by the Hadith and Shariah crowd.  The Quranic values and principles completely clash with the idea of marriage of underage girls. The institution of marriage and its responsibilities have been articulately highlighted in the Quran. Marriage is categorically portrayed as an accountable pledge that brings with itself the duties of raising a family, managing a household, managing family relationships, inheriting and handling the husband's assets. It's not humanly possible for a minor girl aged 13 or under to understand such issues, let alone tackle them.  For more details on marriage of underage girls not endorsed by the Quran, please read our earlier post "The Noble Quran does NOT mention marriage of underage girls."