Defence of Tashayyu` – Relations with minor

This post was made exclusively to defend the maraja` in the accusation of Tawhidi about ‘thighing’ and relations with a minor. Although we could write a book in defence of this issue, we will try keep it as short as possible.

Tawhidi made the false claim that the maraja` – namely al-Sayed al-Khomeini – promoted thighing or relations with a minor. Unfortunately, this is a very low blow by Tawhidi, who has stooped to this to try and promote his own agenda.

Please note, this is only in regards to the attacks on the Shia. The Sunni school attacks need to be defended by their learned as we do not have sufficient knowledge on this. Yes, even in this topic the Sunni school have certain fatwas that can be interpreted the way Tawhidi is done, however we do not defend or attack these scholars as we have not investigated their position.

What you will see as a conclusion to these discussions, is we will prove that the scholars in fact do not allow this to be done. The following will be demonstrated:

In conclusion we can say the following:

  1. The statement Tawhidi read was not something that is to be acted upon without understanding its context and totality of the laws.
  2. The statement needs to be put along side other laws which will be mentioned, such as the `urf (societal understanding), the law of the land, the immorality it poses, the harm it may cause etc. Based upon all of this, it is clear that this would be something clearly forbidden in our day and age, and not promoted at all by our scholars, which will be soon proven.

We will now go through some important points that need to be established and explained.

Firstly, this is not something exclusive to al-Sayed al-Khomeini. In fact, many of the Shia scholars have agreed upon this including Sayed Mohammed al-Shirazi, and his brother and student Sayed Sadiq al-Shirazi (the current teacher and mentor for Tawhidi). If indeed Tawhidi was honest in his attacks, he would have attacked his own teacher first. Instead, he continues to promote him.

Secondly, this statement by al-Sayed al-Khomeini, and other scholars, is speaking in theory, and not in practice. These statements are in no way encouraging or implying that these things should be done. It is an intellectual jurisprudencial discussion. In fact, Tawhidi himself said in his lecture on taqlid and ijtihad ( that one is not supposed to act on everything that is written in the books of the scholars. Many things are mentioned in these books to say IF this were to happen, what are the rulings and consequences. This does not consider the ethical, moral, or societal restrictions and prohibitions – in which scholars would often outlaw many of these types of scenarios, as will be explained later.

Thirdly, this ruling is only if the various rules and restrictions have been considered and fulfilled. These have not been discussed in this particular ruling, but elsewhere in the book(s).

Fourth, what has been made clearly forbidden in the same paragraph Tawhidi referred to, is that any form of penetration or intercourse with a minor is forbidden.

Fifth, what was stated is that other types of pleasures are not forbidden with a minor that is married. The reason for this is not because there are any proofs – be it Qur’an or Hadith – that state that this is permissible. Rather, the scholars have concluded that there is no proof to say that it is forbidden, i.e. there is no ayah in the Qur’an or hadith that mentions this topic in specific. The hadiths only mention that there cannot be any sexual intercourse with a minor at all.
Does this mean that the scholars allow and encourage sexual relations with minors? Absolutely not. However, to be honest and consistent, they admit that there is no proof from the origins of the books that have reached us, that suggest it is outlawed.
However, they may (and will) be outlawed due to secondary reasons – which has not been mentioned in that particular paragraph that Tawhidi read out.

This was actually indirectly explained by Tawhidi himself. He spoke about smoking and how Nasir Makarim al-Shirazi (not to be confused with his teacher, Sadiq Shirazi who is from a different family) has outlawed smoking. Now, smoking has not been mentioned at all from the Qur’an or hadiths, thus – Tawhidi says that Naser Makarim al-Shirazi has “no idea about jurisprudence” because there is nothing prohibiting it. Tawhidi goes on to explain that there is another principle, however, that prohibits anything that causes harm to the body. Tawhidi says that smoking does not cause immediate harm to the body, while Makarim Shirazi believes it does. This has been explained in detail here. It is ironic that Tawhidi claims Makarim Shirazi has no idea about jurisprudence when clearly in this topic, Tawhidi shows ignorance.

Sixth, building on above, there is a core principle in Islam: “Everything that has not been made impermissible (by the Qur’an and Hadiths), is considered permissible.” As explained earlier, there is nothing that has reached us that suggest it is not permissible. This is why when Sayed al-Kho’i (and others) mention this in their explanations, they say (لعدم الدليل على الحرمة بل لعمومات جواز الاستمتاع) or similar, which means, due to the lack of evidence of its prohibition, rather it goes back to the general [principle] of permissibility of enjoyment [with the wife].
However, as mentioned and will be explained, they are generally prohibited with a minor on secondary reasons.

Seventh, it is extremely important to note that this does not imply in anyway that it is marriage between an old man and a minor. Rather it is speaking about a marriage of a minor which may be with a young boy also. Again this is all speaking about the theory and not necessarily about it being a reality that happens. This is important as Tawhidi seems to imply that this is regarding a very old man with a baby, and also implies that this happens on a regular basis, which is not true.

Eighth, there is an established principle that if any marriage would result in harm, or immorality, then that marriage would be forbidden and void! This is discussed later.

Now, let us see what the scholars have said about this allegation that Tawhidi has mentioned. Instead of going to scholars that Tawhidi is against or hates, we will use the scholars that Tawhidi loves and respects.

The first is the nephew of Sayed Sadiq al-Shirazi, Sayed Murtadha al-Shirazi. Tawhidi often praises and speaks about him, such as here and here:

السؤال: من الذرائع التي يشنع بها علينا في أعلام العامة والنواصب ما جاء في بعض رسائل علمائنا العملية : من جواز الزواج من الرضيعة وجواز الاستمتاع بها كالتقبيل وغيره ،  فكيف نرد على هؤلاء؟ ثم ما هي الضرورة  لذكر ذلك في الرسائل العملية؟
الجواب: هذا الكلام جار في عالم  الثبوت والصحة والإمكان  لا في عالم الواقع والأفعال الخارجية فانه ليس  كل ما ذكره العلماء في كتبهم ورسائلهم وقالوا بجوازه  قد تم فعله  بالضرورة  ، بل قد يذكر للمثال أو لبيان المسألة أو غير ذلك  ، هذا من جانب.
ومن جانب آخر:  أن هذا  الزواج – على فرض وقوعه خارجاً – لا بد من أن تتوفر وتكتمل شروطه  الشرعية ، التي منها رضا ولي أمرها  مع وجود الغبطة والمصلحة لها بذلك الزواج ، فإذا كان هذا الزواج بغير رضا ولي أمرها  أو كان فيه  أذى أو مفسدة على الصغيرة  فلا يجوز ولا يصح .
ثم انه لا توجد آية أو رواية تنهى عن الزواج بالرضيعة ؛ وهذا ما أراده العلماء من ذكر هذا الكلام في هذه المسألة ، وبما أنه لا يوجد إشكال في المقام  فعلى المعترض أن يأتي بدليل يمنع ذلك إن أراد الاعتراض

Question: From the accusations that are put on us from the scholars of the general Muslims (Translator note: The Sunnis against the Shia) and those who bear enmity to the ahl al-bayt is what is within some of the jurisprudencial books of our scholars, being the permissibility of marriage with a minor and to engage in sexual relations with it, such as hugging and other things – so how do we respond to them? And what was the necessity in mentioning this in our jurisprudencial books?

Answer: This discussion takes place in the realm of establishment, validity, and contingency, and not in the realm of reality and/or practical actions. Not everything that is mentioned by the scholars in their books proving permissibility is necessarily established as something able to be acted upon. Rather, it is mentioned as an example or evidence for a point or another reason. That is from one perspective.
Another perspective is that this marriage, presuming it is even a practical thing, must fulfill and complete the jurisprudencial conditions, from it being the acceptance of the guardian of her affairs, with the necessary condition of felicity and benefit for her (the minor) in that marriage. If it is established that this marriage does not have the acceptance of the child’s guardian, or in it there will be any harm or immorality upon the minor, then it is not permission and it (the marriage) is void.

Furthermore, there is no existence of an ayah (of the Qur’an) or narration (from the hadiths) that forbid the husband from (enjoying) the minor, and this is what the scholars desired when mentioning this discussion in that point, and since there does not exist any problem in this position, then it is upon the objector to provide evidence that prohibits it if he wishes to object.

You can find this on the official page of Sayed Murtadha al-Shirazi (here).

Unlike Tawhidi, Sayed Murtadha al-Shirazi shows some intellectual honesty and discusses the fatwa, and instead of denying and calling it barbaric etc. he shows that indeed the scholars did not encourage or give actual permissibility for this.

Another example of a scholar whom Tawhidi loves, that has spoken and defended this is Sayed Sadiq al-Rohani. This Grand Ayatollah is one whom Tawhidi claims has given him license as a religious authority. See below:


You will notice that there is no link to actually see the license. This is because Tawhidi has explained in one of the videos that he will only release them after the Grand Ayatollah dies. Why? In Tawhidi’s words, because if he releases them they will be imprisoned and tortured by the Iranian regime.

Let us assume this is correct – then there would be no doubt that Sayed al-Rohani would not defend Sayed al-Khomeini about this issue. Right? Let’s see what he has to say:

استفتاء: أود بالحقيقه الاستفسار عن مدى صحة الكلام التالي هل صحيح بأن آيت الله الخميني أباح وحلل التمتع بالرضيعه دون سن التاسعه ؟
الكلام الذي جاء في كتاب تحرير الوسيله للإمـــام ؟
جواب: بإسمه جلت أسمائه
الولي وهو الأب والجد له الولاية على إجراء العقد على الصبي والصبية مشروطاً بوجود المصلحة او عدم المفسدة، واما التمتع بالصبية قبل البلوغ بالدخول فمن المحرمات الأكيدة، وبغير الدخول فإن ترتب عليه مفسدة وضرر فلا يجوز، وأما ما في تحرير الوسيلة فتدبروا فيه، ولا أظن أن يكون السيد أفتى بجواز الدخول أو التمتع بغير الدخول مع ترتب المفسدة .

Question: Is it true what is ascribed to the Grand Ayatollah al-Khomeini in the permissibility of enjoyment of the minor that has not reached over the age of nine? It is what has been discussed in the Imams book Tahrir al-Waseelah (EXPOSING TAWHIDI NOTE: the book Tawhidi presented)

Answer: The guardian, which would be the father and/or grandfather that have guardianship over the formalities of the marriage of the minor (boy or girl), is bound by the jurisprudencial law that demands that there exists a benefit and no possibility of immorality for the ones being married. As for enjoyment with a minor before the age of maturate by penetration, then it is absolutely forbidden. As for other than penetration, then (by definition of islamic law), if that entails immorality or harm to her, then it is not permissible. As for what is in Tahrir al-Waseelah (EXPOSING TAWHIDI NOTE: The book of Sayed al-Khomeini that Tawhidi presented), then ponder on it! I do not have any suspicion that the Sayed [al-Khomeini] would make a fatwa of penetration or enjoyment without penetration while it constitutes any sort of immorality.

You can find this statement on the official website of Sayed al-Rohani here.

Please note that al-Rohani has exactly the same statement in his books as Sayed Khomeini, and does not explain it as above – however, this shows that when we go into the details on if it can be acted upon, the answer is not as we initially read and what Tawhidi states!

If only, Tawhidi, you had the intellectual honesty as these scholars – who also have the academic knowledge to speak about these issues, unlike you.

The scholars here have clearly stated that the moral condition of that point was not discussed – while if you include the moral dilemma within it, this action would be forbidden! In fact, it is clear that even for two adults who want to marry, if the marriage will put either into harm or immorality then it is also forbidden!

In our day and age, the western society deems such acts as immoral and in many cases against the law. Because of this, all of our scholars, including Sayed al-Khomeini, would deem anything mentioned by Tawhidi as forbidden and outlawed.

In fact, one of the same scholars who Tawhidi mentioned, Makarim Shirazi (again not to be confused with his teacher Sayed Sadiq Shirazi, who is from another family), has clearly stated this when we personally asked him this question in 2014.

Question: For the issue of Thighing with infant (kissing and touching them after marriage, despite not age of puberty) – what is the opinion of ayatollah naser makarem? Can you also please provide reasoning? jazakallah

  1. If a person contracts marriage with an immature girl with the consent of her guardian, it is haram to have sexual intercourse with her before she has completed her nine years, and it is not allowed as an obligatory precaution even after she has completed her nine years if she is not ready physically.
  2. Nowadays, it is not to their advantage and it is not permissible as an obligatory precaution.


Again, as we see here, any sort of marriage that would be harmful to a female, even if she is an adult but not physically ready or capable, then it would be forbidden!

Tawhidi, why didn’t you mention all of this?

In conclusion we can say the following:

  1. The statement Tawhidi read was not something that is to be acted upon without understanding its context and totality of the laws.
  2. The statement needs to be put along side other laws which have been mentioned, such as the `urf (societal understanding), the law of the land, the immorality it poses, the harm it may cause etc. Based upon all of this, it is clear that this would be something clearly forbidden in our day and age, and not promoted at all by our scholars as has been made clear.

The irony is he then goes on to speak about many other fatwas that “don’t make sense”, yet he was only recently promoting fatwas of his teacher and mentor Sayed Sadiq Shirazi (which he still supports and refuses to denounce) like this!!


Why didn’t you share this in your “what the fatwa” episode? lol.

Aside from all this, we may even look into other religion scriptures and books and show how certain books stated that even prophets had young wives etc. However, this is beyond the scope of our discussion, but we wonder if Tawhidi would ever attack the other religions about their books, such as the Jews?

Tawhidi, you are a fraud and a liar.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s