The question/claim: "Q 65:4 assigns a waiting period (ʿidda) after divorce for 'women who have not yet menstruated' (wa-llāʾī lam yaḥiḍna). Since the function of the ʿidda is to establish that the womb is empty, this verse clearly presupposes sexual relations with pre-menstrual girls — i.e. child marriage. Worse, the classical majority (al-Ṭabarī, al-Qurṭubī, Ibn Kathīr) read it exactly that way. So doesn't the Qur'an legitimize child abuse?"
Context
- First, the text's limit: the Qur'an never states an explicit minimum marriage age or number. Classical rulings are built on the criterion of bulūgh (puberty) and the social norms of the era; "marriage with a child is permitted" is not in the wording of the verse but in an exegetical inference.
- Q 65:4 is not a standalone marriage-age verse but a post-divorce ʿidda regulation: three months for those past menstruation, and likewise for al-lāʾī lam yaḥiḍna ("those who have not yet menstruated").
- The debate over ʿĀʾisha's age at marriage, meanwhile, is a ḥadīth/historical matter, not a Qur'anic verse; the two must not be conflated.
Two readings
The dispute turns on "who are lam yaḥiḍna?" Without imposing one view, here are both by name:
- The classical majority (al-Ṭabarī – Jāmiʿ al-Bayān; al-Qurṭubī – al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān; Ibn Kathīr): reads the phrase (interpretation) as "pre-menstrual young girls." The rationale (interpretation): the ʿidda exists to verify an empty womb; it is only meaningful on the assumption of consummation; hence assigning an ʿidda to a girl who has not menstruated shows that relations with her were deemed possible. This reading operates through the medieval-fiqh distinction between ʿaqd (the marriage contract) and consummation: the contract is held permissible, while actual consummation is deferred to puberty.
- The classical tradition is not monophonic either: al-Ṭabarī and al-Qurṭubī also transmit, under the same verse, an alternative view — the phrase may point to adult women whose menses have stopped or been delayed for some reason (interpretation; verified via secondary sources, the critical Arabic edition line not directly seen).
- The Qur'an-centric / modern reading (Mehmet Okuyan / kuranokuyan.com line): rejects the inference that 65:4 permits child marriage. (interpretation) (1) the particle "lam" describes an ongoing state ("not menstruating at present"), not an innate or permanent lack of capacity; so the phrase also covers adult women who do not menstruate for medical/physiological reasons. (2) Q 4:6 sets a separate criterion of capacity for marriage: "test the orphans until they reach the age of marriage (bulūgh); if you perceive in them rushd (maturity/sound judgment), hand over their property." One who earns the right even to property only through rushd cannot be deemed fit, without rushd, for the heavier responsibility of marriage. (3) 65:4 already regulates the divorce ʿidda, so its addressee is already a married adult; the subject styled "woman (nisāʾ)" is by definition adult. This line centers consent in marriage (Q 4:19: "do not inherit women against their will"), non-harm, and the "mīthāqan ghalīẓan / solemn covenant" (Q 4:21).
Honest limit
The objection is not baseless and has a textual anchor that cannot be waved away: the classical body (al-Ṭabarī, al-Qurṭubī, Ibn Kathīr) predominantly read 65:4 as "pre-menstrual young girls" and explicitly drew the inference that "the ʿidda is meaningful only on the assumption of consummation." So it is historically false to say "the modern reading is the text's one true meaning, the classics simply erred." Yet these are equally true: (a) the Qur'an gives no explicit age and utters no number; the "child-marriage" ruling is the product of an exegetical inference (taʾwīl), not the verse's plain wording. (b) It also does not follow with certainty from the wording that "lam yaḥiḍna" must mean "adult physiological amenorrhea"; that too is a preference/interpretation. (c) The condition of rushd / age of marriage in 4:6 and the emphasis on consent form a strong Qur'anic basis for a minimum maturity. (d) The ʿĀʾisha debate is a ḥadīth/historical matter, not a Qur'anic verse. Conclusion: the text contains no binding command of child marriage; the classical inference reflects the era's norms; and the contemporary moral-legal standard (bulūgh + rushd + genuine consent + non-harm) excludes child abuse on every reading. Child abuse is legitimate on no reading.
Related articles
- How does the Qur'an regulate divorce (ṭalāq)?
- Is marriage obligatory in Islam?
- Does the Qur'an command polygamy? (4:3)
- How should a marriage be? — Qur'anic measures
Source: Qur'anic verses (M. Okuyan meal). Presented soberly and respectfully, with a text/interpretation distinction.