Former Democratic Party head Howard Dean has caused a controversy with his remarks on Wednesday criticizing people who call the murderers in Paris “Muslim terrorists.” Dean certainly makes a strong point when he says “They’re about as Muslim as I am,” he said. “I mean, they have no respect for anybody else’s life, that’s not what the Koran says.” It is easy to forget that most Muslims are as appalled and outraged as non-Muslims by these horrific crimes. However, I do not agree that we have to adopt another verboten term. The fact is the “Muslim extremist” or “Muslim terrorist” refer to the motivation and self-identity of the killers not their adherence to the proper reading of Islam. I have used it in publication as the most accurate descriptive term for those committing these atrocities.
While Dean is getting a lot of heat over this, I think that this is a fair point to raise, even if you reject the suggestion.
Here is the exchange:
HOWARD DEAN: You know, this is a chronic problem. I stopped calling these people Muslim terrorists. They’re about as Muslim as I am. I mean, they have no respect for anybody else’s life, that’s not what the Koran says. Europe has an enormous radical problem. I think ISIS is a cult. Not an Islamic cult. I think it’s a cult.
BRZEZINSKI: Interesting, yeah. Hmm.
DEAN: And I think you got to deal with these people. The interesting thing here, is we talked about guns the last time in regarding the United States, regarding how guns get in the hands of the kind of people that kill the two police officers here two weeks ago.
France has tremendous gun control laws, and yet these people are able to get Kalashnikovs. So, this is really complicated stuff, and I think you have to treat these people as basically mass murderers. But I do not think we should accord them any particular religious respect, because I don’t think, whatever they’re claiming their motivation is, is clearly a twisted, cultish mind.
Obviously, these murderers were motivated by their view of Islam, even yelling “Allahu akbar” as they fired and screaming that they have “avenged” Mohammed for being put into cartoons. Obviously, some Muslims agree with such violent action given the murder of dozens of non-Muslims after the Danish cartoon controversy in 2006.
The fact is that we would refer to Hindu or Christian terrorists if a crime were committed in the name of their faiths. Referring, as Dean suggests, to all such terrorists as “mass murderers” denies specificity in reporting and commentary on these particular criminals. The use of “Muslim” in stories like those coming out of Paris is meant to add specificity and distinction in the description of these terrorists from other terrorists. Unfortunately, we live in a world filled with such individuals of various faiths including stories on “Hindu terrorists” and other faith-based attacks. After all, shouldn’t Guy Fawkes be referred to as a “Catholic terrorist” for his role in the Gunpowder Plot (meant to to blow up the House of Lords over the persecution of Catholics)? Fawkes was motivated by his religion even though most Catholics are appalled at the notion of destroying Parliament.
Dean’s point is still worthy of discussion. There is a danger that these extremists will be taken for representatives of their faith. After all, it was a Muslim police officer who was gunned down begging for his life on the street.
However, that point can be made clear in the context of coverage. Indeed, I often refer to such individuals as “Muslim extremists” to convey not just their motivation but their position on the fringe of their faith. The concern is to add yet another prohibited term added to what seems an ever-lengthening list.
Dean’s comments however do serve to force a legitimate debate over whether it is far to refer to such extremists by their faith. I would be more convinced if the murderers were not expressly acting in the name of their faith and simply happened to be Muslim. It would then be inappropriate in my view to call murderers who acted for other purposes (like personal or economic crimes) by their faith. Yet, here you have extremists who acted clearly in adherence to their own warped view of religion. Notably, the New York Times, USA Today, NPR, and other major publications continue to use the terms “Muslim terrorists” or “Muslim extremists.”
What do you think?
Paul, obviously you didn’t read the entire article you cited above. I know there is a concern, but the concern seems overblown. We won’t be seeing any widespread use of Sharia law in this country.
So now there is bit of a dilemma:
1- Killers were muslim…
2- Savior was muslim…
I wonder which speaks for islam!
http://time.com/3662696/muslim-man-hero-kosher-grocery-store-attack-charlie-hebdo-france/
I have followed this discourse with great interest…and again remind all of this very interesting 13 minutes done last year ( which I released earlier) that should put to bed many of the misconceptions & misperceptions. Now, as for po’s comment about who speaks for Islam, let me again tell him and all that anyone who kills, is not a person of faith…and all that these loser lowlifes were killers…and I will remind all that one of the victims was a Muslim and gave his life… We shall overcome..and I hope all of you who are not in Paris can join Avaaz’ Virtual March to join the People of France in solidarity…let’s help Avaaz reach the million mark:
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/march_with_paris_loc/?wbcIEab
Ha, lol, “mongering”. Autocorrect wants to keep saying “mothering”.
Po,
This constant fear of Sharia Law in the US is odd. WHO actually advocates for Sharia Law here? Why all the fear mothering about it?
Inga – we are constantly seeing Sharia law on this blog and concern about it being applied in the US has been a concern. Several states have passed amendments to their constitutions preventing Sharia law from being used in their state courts. Following is an article that deals with the issue. You will notice in the article that CAIR has been active in fighting those amendments.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/05/19/Under-the-US-Supreme-Court-Islamic-law-in-US-courts/64481368948600/
And I forgot to mention how odd is it that you mention shariah law and your muslim friends not wanting shariah law here in the US when NO ONE mentioned bringing it here!
Don Quixote…seeing imaginary evil then dedicating your life to fighting it.
Karen says:
And, no, not a single Muslim I have ever befriended in all my years would ever want extremism or Sharia Law here in the US.
—————————————–
There you go, Karen, with your “some of my friends are muslim” bit.
I have said it before, you break up the entirety of muslims into 2 groups, those you know and everyone else.
Once again, you have no right or standing to determine who is moderate and who isn’t. And please stop rehashing the same stories about your friend from here and there who exemplifies why that place is bad because of extremism.
Your obsession with shariah law is once again ridiculous and reflects your childish mind that sees the shadow of evil everywhere. How many times are we gonna go round about the meaning of shariah law?
Again, what is shariah law? Is it universal? IS Shariah law used and applied similarly everywhere? Who wrote shariah law? Who determines its application and extent?
You equate it to extremism, how fallacious is that?
Unless you can answer those questions, please spare us any other mention of shariah law. As usual, no debate on Islam goes on here without your running in with your shariah law banner, and your pretend muslim friends who are moderates.
Again, I repost my previous reply to you, as you seem to have skipped it. Please watch the attached link, perhaps from a non-muslim, you will be more likely to hear the point I am making.
1- They are in there because they are all framed (which I never said)
2- They are in there because they committed the crimes that brought them in (which I am suggesting and which says therefore that the issue is criminal rather than religious. This also therefore ties it to the American blacks who are over represented in US prisons for factors other than religion.)
3- They are in there because of religious themed crimes (which is not the case.)
My conclusion? The point i was trying to make? That the same social factors that confine american blacks in ghettos and keep them as an underclass, are the same social factors that keep French arabs in ghettos and keep them an underclass.
Now…now…before you go on shooting at the hip, research it…I speak French, visited often, have friends who live there, know the French culture and offer you this commentary from a qualified person. http://www.democracynow.org/2015/1/9/gilbert_achcar_on_the_clash_of
It is your choice however if you’d rather just stick with your favorite bogeyman, shariah law to explain everything…
po – I am not sure where you live, but blacks are not confined the ghettos. People live in areas where they can afford the rent or the mortgage. Or, where they feel comfortable.
Paul C. Schulte
I have no problem with that, as I said. Mary, the mother of Jesus, is traditionally thought to have been about 14 when she was impregnated by the Holy Spirit. I have not seen a great movement in the Roman Catholic Church to age her up to 21.
———————————
Paul
You brought the age of Aisha as a low blow. You know that is a point of attack against Muslims and brought it up rather slyly in the guise of making an argument (which you never made).
I responded that the report of her age was wrong.
You accused me of muslim apologetisizing
I responded that far from it, it is part and parcel of being religious, that one ought to question established narratives, especially when they conflict with reason (which, if the French killers had done, they would not have committed their massacre at charlie hebdo).
So you answer is now that I protest too much?
Here is a source:
What Was The Age of Ummul Mo’mineen Ayesha (May Allah be pleased with her) When She Married To Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him)?
Some people believe that Ayesha (May Allah be pleased with her) was nine years old at the time of her marriage with Mohammad (peace be upon him) was consummated.
The age of Ayesha (ra) has been grossly mis-reported in the ahadith. Not only that, I think that the narratives reporting this event are not only highly unreliable but also that on the basis of other historical data, the event reported, is quite an unlikely happening. Let us look at the issue from an objective standpoint. My reservations in accepting the narratives, on the basis of which, Ayeshas (ra) age at the time of her marriage with the Prophet (pbuh) is held to be nine years are:
Most of these narratives are reported only by Hisham ibn `urwah reporting on the authority of his father. An event as well known as the one being reported, should logically have been reported by more people than just one, two or three.
It is quite strange that no one from Medinah, where Hisham ibn `urwah lived the first seventy one years of his life has narrated the event, even though in Medinah his pupils included people as well known as Malik ibn Anas. All the narratives of this event have been reported by narrators from Iraq, where Hisham is reported to have had shifted after living in Medinah for seventy one years.
Tehzibu’l-tehzib, one of the most well known books on the life and reliability of the narrators of the traditions of the Prophet (pbuh) reports that according to Yaqub ibn Shaibah: “narratives reported by Hisham are reliable except those that are reported through the people of Iraq”. It further states that Malik ibn Anas objected on those narratives of Hisham which were reported through people of Iraq. (vol 11, pg 48 – 51)
Mizanu’l-ai`tidal, another book on the narrators of the traditions of the Prophet (pbuh) reports that when he was old, Hisham’s memory suffered quite badly. (vol 4, pg 301 – 302)
According to the generally accepted tradition, Ayesha (ra) was born about eight years before Hijrah. But according to another narrative in Bukhari (kitabu’l-tafseer) Ayesha (ra) is reported to have said that at the time Surah Al-Qamar, the 54th chapter of the Qur’an, was revealed, “I was a young girl”. The 54th surah of the Qur’an was revealed nine years before Hijrah. According to this tradition, Ayesha (ra) had not only been born before the revelation of the referred surah, but was actually a young girl (jariyah), not an infant (sibyah) at that time. Obviously, if this narrative is held to be true, it is in clear contradiction with the narratives reported by Hisham ibn `urwah. I see absolutely no reason that after the comments of the experts on the narratives of Hisham ibn `urwah, why we should not accept this narrative to be more accurate.
According to a number of narratives, Ayesha (ra) accompanied the Muslims in the battle of Badr and Uhud. Furthermore, it is also reported in books of hadith and history that no one under the age of 15 years was allowed to take part in the battle of Uhud. All the boys below 15 years of age were sent back. Ayesha’s (ra) participation in the battle of Badr and Uhud clearly indicate that she was not nine or ten years old at that time. After all, women used to accompany men to the battle fields to help them, not to be a burden on them.
According to almost all the historians Asma (ra), the elder sister of Ayesha (ra) was ten years older than Ayesha (ra). It is reported in Taqri’bu’l-tehzi’b as well as Al-bidayah wa’l-nihayah that Asma (ra) died in 73 hijrah when she was 100 years old. Now, obviously if Asma (ra) was 100 years old in 73 hijrah she should have been 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah. If Asma (ra) was 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah, Ayesha (ra) should have been 17 or 18 years old at that time. Thus, Ayesha (ra), if she got married in 1 AH (after hijrah) or 2 AH, was between 18 to 20 years old at the time of her marriage.
Tabari in his treatise on Islamic history, while mentioning Abu Bakr (ra) reports that Abu Bakr had four children and all four were born during the Jahiliyyah — the pre Islamic period. Obviously, if Ayesha (ra) was born in the period of jahiliyyah, she could not have been less than 14 years in 1 AH — the time she most likely got married.
According to Ibn Hisham, the historian, Ayesha (ra) accepted Islam quite some time before Umar ibn Khattab (ra). This shows that Ayesha (ra) accepted Islam during the first year of Islam. While, if the narrative of Ayesha’s (ra) marriage at seven years of age is held to be true, Ayesha (ra) should not have been born during the first year of Islam.
Tabari has also reported that at the time Abu Bakr planned on migrating to Habshah (8 years before Hijrah), he went to Mut`am — with whose son Ayesha (ra) was engaged — and asked him to take Ayesha (ra) in his house as his son’s wife. Mut`am refused, because Abu Bakr had embraced Islam, and subsequently his son divorced Ayesha (ra). Now, if Ayesha (ra) was only seven years old at the time of her marriage, she could not have been born at the time Abu Bakr decided on migrating to Habshah. On the basis of this report it seems only reasonable to assume that Ayesha (ra) had not only been born 8 years before hijrah, but was also a young lady, quite prepared for marriage.
According to a narrative reported by Ahmad ibn Hanbal, after the death of Khadijah (ra), when Khaulah (ra) came to the Prophet (pbuh) advising him to marry again, the Prophet (pbuh) asked her regarding the choices she had in her mind. Khaulah said: “You can marry a virgin (bikr) or a woman who has already been married (thayyib)”. When the Prophet (pbuh) asked about who the virgin was, Khaulah proposed Ayesha’s (ra) name. All those who know the Arabic language, are aware that the word “bikr” in the Arabic language is not used for an immature nine year old girl. The correct word for a young playful girl, as stated earlier is “Jariyah”. “Bikr” on the other hand, is used for an unmarried lady, and obviously a nine year old is not a “lady”.
According to Ibn Hajar, Fatimah (ra) was five years older than Ayesha (ra). Fatimah (ra) is reported to have been born when the Prophet (pbuh) was 35 years old. Thus, even if this information is taken to be correct, Ayesha (ra) could by no means be less than 14 years old at the time of hijrah, and 15 or 16 years old at the time of her marriage.
These are some of the major points that go against accepting the commonly known narrative regarding Ayesha’s (ra) age at the time of her marriage.
Neither was it an Arab tradition to give away girls in marriage at an age as young as nine or ten years, nor did the Prophet (pbuh) marry Ayesha (ra) at such a young age. The people of Arabia did not object to this marriage, because it never happened in the manner it has been narrated.
po – while I appreciate your defense, you make a claim that I was attacking Aisha, which I never was, except that she was a little young to be instructing after the death of the Prophet. The attack you think I was going to make, I was never going to make.
Now, could you supply a link for your source?
When I think of peaceful, moderate Muslims, a friend’s father comes to mind, who told me Mary was an honored figure in the Qu’ran. His faith buoyed him in times of trouble. He had great faith in Allah to see him through. He left Iran because he was tired of the extremism, and having to bribe everyone from your trash collector to your postman, all day long, just to function. He didn’t want to raise his kids where he felt is wasn’t safe for them, and in an environment of hate. He was strictly a-political.
When his daughter’s teenage friend was terrified about her upcoming return to India, where she was going to be forced to marry a much older man, he offered to let her live with them in the US. She declined, because she could not lose her family.
He, and others like him, exemplify the good in Islam, and the way it can be peacefully practiced, just like any other faith.
Po:
“You link 3 different sources each making a case against something no one said.
Did I say anyone was framed?”
Actually, you said:
Karen, re my herded in ghettos comment earlier?
““This prison is majority Muslim — as is virtually every house of incarceration in France. About 60 to 70 percent of all inmates in the country’s prison system are Muslim, according to Muslim leaders, sociologists and researchers, though Muslims make up only about 12 percent of the country’s population.”
Sounds familiar?
Yes, US blacks!
Asrethey driven by religion too?
Unless the French muslim prisoners are just all guilty of trying to avenge the cartoons!”
You remarked that the high prison population of Muslims was evidence of being “herded into ghettos” just like “US blacks.”
So I asked you if you thought they were framed, and I remarked that you failed to ask WHY there is a large population of Muslims in jail. The implication is that you believe they are there unfairly.
I also included links showing that there is a huge rate of forced or coerced conversion to Islam in prison, which also contributes to those high numbers.
So, basically, as per usual, you complain every time anyone condemns violence done explicitly in the name of extremist Islam. I, as per usual, condemn violent, extremist Islam while supporting peaceful, moderate Islam, as well as free speech. Then you complain that it’s all unfair that they are labelled “Muslim” as if it is an unrelated attribute. Which is demonstrably false.
You just don’t like when Islam is criticized, whether it’s gays being killed under Sharia Law, or extremist Muslims killing people. NO criticism is allowed, or you call me an Islamophobe or question my intelligence. I consistently condemn violent extremism, and support peaceful Islam. You consistently complain that I’m an Islamophobe. That’s a pretty common tactic and a spurious argument that fails to address the facts, resorting to juvenile name-calling.
That’s fine. You have the right to be perfectly unreasonable in your free speech.
And, no, not a single Muslim I have ever befriended in all my years would ever want extremism or Sharia Law here in the US. One girl I know was arrested for wearing nail polish, and riding in a car with her male cousin, because he had a different last name than hers. Her father had to bribe a judge with a HOUSE to get her out of jail. So, no, amazingly, she would likely oppose brining that nonsense here to the US.
Aridog
Po….although I am willing to talk with and speak to local Muslims where I live, truthfully, I do not think the violent jihadists have done much study of the Koran or any Hadiths.
————————————–
Agree with you there, they do selective quoting to justify everything. Every quote in the quran that urges violence does it in a structured manner of laying out reason (oppression), process ( how, in self-defense) and option (if you forgive, it is better in the sight of God).
The interesting thing is that only islamophobes and islamists read the quran and the hadith out of context.
Approximately 1/5 the Jewish population has fled Paris since last year due to sharply riding anti-semitism. This latest terrorist attack on a Kosher market led police to ask that all Jewish stores close temporarily.
They must all be Islamophobes.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2903600/Every-single-French-Jew-know-left-Paris-Editor-Britain-s-Jewish-Chronicle-claims-people-fleeing-terror-hit-French-capital.html
Po….although I am willing to talk with and speak to local Muslims where I live, truthfully, I do not think the violent jihadists have done much study of the Koran or any Hadiths. I’d bet you right now that is one of the things I discover…or re-discover if you will. Terrorism was and always will be about power, first and the rest is excuse made from less than whole cloth. My viewpoint is colored by my experience…and that tells me that terror is a tactic for gaining power…I’ve seen it in action. I’ve lost friends due to it. I’ve yet to see any positive results from terrorism. Never-the-less, “realpolitk” makes temporary allies of those who’d otherwise be killing each other. Including us. Those who conquer their own populations, by terrorist atrocity as often as not, and set out to attack the world are seeking one thing, only one thing, pure unadulterated power. The purported basis for it, whether political, economic, or religious, is bunk. Therefore threading the needle on what is or should not be offensive is difficult. My approach is to ask, then shut up and listen. Commenting only after my associates have said their piece.
If Obama and his minion administration could try that approach they might make more sense. However, they are hardly known for their ability to listen. And it shows.
Haha, Paul, then you are just like the fundamentalists of every side…orthodox Jews, fundamentalist Christian, Saudi wahabism…
Regarding earliest sources, where in the quran does it say that Aicha was 6 years old?
The simpler way is to prove that I am making it up as I go is to offer your own sources, contrast them with mine and show why yours are more reliable than mine. You do that, i’ll buy you lunch… humus?
po – you have yet to offer a source of any kind. However, we both know that dating Aisha is subjective which is why there is a traditional range from 6-7 on the marriage and 9-10 on the consummation. The latter date is based on the probably onset of menses.
I have no problem with that, as I said. Mary, the mother of Jesus, is traditionally thought to have been about 14 when she was impregnated by the Holy Spirit. I have not seen a great movement in the Roman Catholic Church to age her up to 21.
Paul, what is PC history and what seeking relevant understanding?
One can see one’s faith as passed down and stop there, or one can review the legacy and clean it up of its baggage.
It is happening in every faith, all across the globe… it is a necessity and a duty.
Most Muslims are now praying with their arms folded across the chest because the study of the hadith and other documents seem to strengthen that case against the ones praying with their hands down. IS it PC history or is it necessary, normal process?
po – I am a firm believer in going to the original source, however I am opposed to making things up just so they look better.
Paul
you may have the ability to research, but spending an hour online does not, a great researcher make you.
I never claimed there is a new consensus, I say that Islam is being combed through by Muslims themselves to clean it off the cultural.
As most modern muslims would not understand beating a woman, most would not understand marrying a 6 year old child, legitimately. Several generations ago, in many arab and african communities, it was normal.
Hence the parsing through the records, some available online, most not 🙂
po – I do not have a problem with marrying a 6 year old at that time. It is a cultural thing. However, I do abhor PC history. And changing her age just so people feel better about it is just bad history.
Ari, BFM
I think Muslim terrorist is tainted. Although I am sure it was a valid way to refer to those among Muslims who commit acts of terrorism, It is now a charged combination that rather than differentiate between the terrorists and the non- terrorists, further frames terrorism as a muslim thing.
It has now dog whistle qualities, like those covert terms that speak of blacks and jews.
Part of the issue, again, is its lack of universality. The fact that we do not refer to any other religious terrorism per the name of the faith makes” muslim terrorism” stand out as part and parcel of the faith.
I still think that islamic/muslim terrorism is valid AS LONG AS we use the same format to label EVERY instance of religious extremism.
Another option is actually jihadist. I understand, BFM, your interlocutor’s discomfort with it, but there are 2 jihads, the internal/greater one that supports Islam (striving against one’s self to master one’s basest instincts and be a better human being ), which is what a great majority of Muslims are embarked upon, and the lesser/ external jihad that is either fighting oppression like the Taliban, or aggressive warring like ISIS.
Since the internal jihad is rarely referred to, no one says, I am going into the greater/internal jihad, the only time one refers to doing jihad is in the case of the second group.
That, however, brings up another issue, which is that jihadist does not differentiate enough between the various forms of islamic extremism…whether one is fighting back an invasion or oppression (like some groups in Syria and like the Taliban when we formed and used them against the Russians), or one is a US supported militia that commits horrors against other groups, like the Shia brigades in Iraq….) or ISIS…
Karen S
Here is an article about the Muslim gangs in the UK, who force conversions or bribe inmates to convert in exchange for protection:
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3913/uk-muslim-prison-population
The salient point, that Po failed to ask, is are Muslims disproportionately arrested because they are framed, or because they commit a disproportionate amount of crime. If so, why?
Too many people fail to ask why, and just assume racism based on the numbers.
I live in CA. We expect to have higher rates of black arrests where there are black gangs, and higher rates of Latino arrests where there are Latino gangs and Mexican cartels. That’s not racism. That’s reality. People are not allowed to break the law because the prisons have already reached a certain quota of inmates with equivalent ethnicity.
——————————————–
AS usual, Karen, you go out of your way to frame the subject being discussed in the worse light possible, while claiming that you are not doing that. I wonder how your many, many muslims friends feel about you? Or perhaps they do not know this side of you.
You link 3 different sources each making a case against something no one said.
Did I say anyone was framed? You jumped out of your seat to pen a reply, 3 replies that have nothing to do with my comment.
Again, with friends like you, those muslims you know have no need for enemies.
My point,again, is that there are factors other than religion at play. If a disproportional number of Muslims are in the French prisons, it says:
1- They are in there because they are all framed (which I never said)
2- They are in there because they committed the crimes that brought them in (which I am suggesting and which says therefore that the issue is criminal rather than religious. This also therefore ties it to the American blacks who are over represented in US prisons for factors other than religion.)
3- They are in there because of religious themed crimes (which is not the case.)
My conclusion? The point i was trying to make? That the same social factors that confine american blacks in ghettos and keep them as an underclass, are the same social factors that keep French arabs in ghettos and keep them an underclass.
Now…now…before you go on shooting at the hip, research it…I speak French, visited often, have friends who live there, know the French culture and offer you this commentary from a qualified person. http://www.democracynow.org/2015/1/9/gilbert_achcar_on_the_clash_of
It is your choice however if you’d rather just stick with your favorite bogeyman, shariah law to explain everything…
Paul C. Schulte
po – because of you I am familiar with hadith and frankly it is like working with the Shroud of Turin. Tradition agrees with me. A few modern apologists agree with you. Remember, po, you are just learning this stuff. Easy to go down the wrong track. 😉
————————————-
Are you actually quoting islamic tradition to make you point now Paul? 🙂
Islamic tradition also interprets the verse as beating your wife, which, if you know the Quran, goes against everything god says about how to treat women.
If we go with the patriarchal, arabic culture, 1500 centuries old interpretation, we are called backward and undeveloped. If we reinterpret the texts and consensus based on modern light and the quran itself we are said to be apologists! One can’t win if one is Muslim.
Glad to to hear that unlike I, still learning this stuff, you, Paul, have mastered it.
po – unlike you, I am a pretty good researcher. There is no new consensus. There are a few scholars who think she was older, most think she was between 9 and 10 when the marriage was consummated. Actually, the tradition is pretty good and seems to have historical basis.
Scholarship is always a funny (peculiar) thing. There is a scholar who thinks there is a woman in The Last Supper mural. That does not make him correct. Generally, almost all other scholars think he is an idiot.
Bigfatmike…I will post my results in the comments in the future. My first instinct is go ask those I don’t know so well, which is how I will approach it. The semantics of terminology may be a bit hard to grasp technically, for some, but the responses will tell the tale usually. Communication can always be improved if you try…and the best way to that is to simply ask others what they think, most of the time they will expound, and you just listen, since you have shown real interest in their mind set. That said, Arabs are not Asians so I may not get the responses I hope for…more learning to do then.
I imagine by now, those with any military background have figured out that I was a rather notorious “gone native” individual in the two vastly different Asian cultures I worked with in those days. It had its benefits when a confidant warned you of impending attack. At times I was also utilized to go out and find the “AWOL’s” and bring them in, by coaxing, without formal apprehension or charges. We just did not have enough forces to not at least try. Worst punishment for those who repeat offended was assignment to work as “mess pigs” at a base camp or field mess when offered. 🙂