Imagine that one day someone passed a law that said, “As of last week, there can be no more laws passed!” This act itself would have to be considered an act of law if it was followed, and in so doing, it would contradict its own ruling, since it came after the cut off time for the passage of law. This is the sort of deficiency of commonsense that has gone relatively unchallenged in the Ummah until the modern age… Perhaps it is not so much that it has gone unchallenged as it is something that would – in former times – provoke a death sentence from the dissidents who stepped up and challenged the illogical system.

Within the Shi`a world there is a similar, yet slightly different, problem; this problem is the `Usuli system of Marja`iyyah. In the Marja` system, a person attends a Hawza institution until they have learned to parrot their scholastic predecessors to such a point that these predecessors confer a diploma of sorts upon them that says now they are able to pass fataawat on subjects as mujtaahidoon. The trouble is that in order to get this, they must tow the “party” lines. They are not going to get very far if they are challenging the status quo, or engaging their teachers, or the so-called `ulemaa’ about truly critical issues. They have two options, they can assimilate or they can get kicked out of Hawza. Though this will certainly be challenged by proponents of this recently `Usuli marja` system, I challenge the reader to cite an example of one dissident Hawza student who ever went on to be granted such a diploma. By dissident, it should be noted that I do not mean “radical,” I mean challenging issues on everything from the infallibility of the Ahlu-l-Bayt (to such an insane extent that many question whether or not they even needed to learn how to control their bladders as children, learn to walk or talk!), to the permissibility of child molestation or “thighing” (mufakhathat), of nursing infants that a man has “married.”1

1Two versions of this disgusting fatwah follow: http://www.wilayah.ir/ar/library/books/tahrir/tahrir25.php
مسألة 12 : لا يجوز وطء الزوجة قبل إكمال تسع سنين ، دواما كان النكاح أو منقطعا ، و أما سائر الاستمتاعات كاللمس بشهوة و الضم و التفخيذ فلا بأس بها حتى فى الرضيعة ، و لو وطأها قبل التسع و لم يفضها لم يترتب عليه شىء غير الاثم على الاقوى ، و إن أفضاها بأن جعل مسلكى البول و الحيض واحدا أو مسلكى الحيض و الغائط واحدا حرم عليه وطؤها أبدا لكن على الاحوط فى الصورة الثانية ، و على أي حال لم تخرج عن زوجيته على الاقوى ، فيجري عليها أحكامها من التوارث و حرمة الخامسة و حرمة أختها معها و غيرها ، و يجب عليه نفقتها مادامت حية و إن طلقها بل و إن تزوجت بعد الطلاق على الاحوط ، بل لا يخلو من قوة ، و يجب عليه دية الافضاء ، و هى دية النفس ، فإذا كانت حرة فلها نصف دية الرجل مضافا إلى المهر الذي استحقته بالعقد و الدخول ، و لو دخل بزوجته بعد إكمال التسع فأفضاها لم تحرم عليه و لم تثبت الدية ، و لكن الاحوط الانفاق عليها مادامت حية و إن كان الاقوى عدم الوجوب .

When I first published this article over a decade and a half ago they made sure to try to scrub this from the Internet… unfortunately for them they didn’t scrub hard enough – this filth will not come out no matter how hard you try to scrub.

http://web.archive.org/web/20050307222840/http://www.wilayah.ir/ar/library/books/tahrir/tahrir25.php

Can be found here as well: http://www.seestani.com/books/menhaj/03/menhaj1.html
مسألة 8 : لا يجوز وطء الزوجة قبل إكمال تسع سنين، دواماً كان النكاح أو منقطعاً، واما سائر الاستمتاعات كاللمس بشهوة والتقبيل والضم والتفخيذ فلا بأس بها، ولو وطئها قبل اكمال التسع ولم يفضها لم يترتب عليه شيء غير الاثم على الاقوى، ـ والافضاء هو التمزق الموجب لاتحاد مسلكي البول والحيض أو مسلكي الحيض والغائط أو اتحاد الجميع ـ ولو افضاها لم تخرج عن زوجيته، فتجري عليها احكامها من التوارث وحرمة الخامسة وحرمة اختها معها وغيرها، ولكن قيل: يحرم عليه وطؤها ابداً. إلاّ أن الاقوى خلافه، ولا سيما إذا اندمل الجرح ـ بعلاج أو بغيره ـ نعم تجب عليه دية الافضاء، وهي دية النفس ان طلقها، بل وإن لم يطلقها على المشهور، ولا يخلو عن وجه، وتجب عليه نفقتها ما دامت مفضاة وإن نشزت أو طلقها، بل وإن تزوجت بعد الطلاق على الاحوط.

Here’s the cached page they tried to keep  you from seeing:

http://web.archive.org/web/20080107180451/http://www.seestani.com/books/menhaj/03/menhaj1.html

The following is the translation of the first fatwah, the second is pretty much the same: “It is not permissible to have sexual intercourse with one’s wife that hasn’t reached nine years of age, be it permanent or temporary marriage. But there is no problem with all other pleasures such as lustful touch, embracing, and rubbing again the thighs, even with a suckling infant. If he does have sexual intercourse before nine years of age and does not penetrate, there is no penalty, but he has committed a sin. If he does penetrate causing the vagina and urethra openings to be one, she will become forever haraam for him. Although this is as a precautionary measure. And it is more probable that her status as his wife is not removed. And the rulings of inheritance, and the prohibition of a fifth wife or marriage to her sister applies. He is also responsible for her maintenance as long as she is alive, even if he divorces her and even if she marries someone else after his divorcing her as a precautionary measure. And he is liable for blood money for the penetration and the amount is equivalent to that of an individual. If she is a free-woman, the amount is half that of a man, plus the dowry that she became entitled to through the `aqd and penetration. If he penetrates his wife after the age of nine (causing the same damage as quoted above) , she does not become haraam to him and there is no evidence that blood money is liable, but as a precautionary measure, he should maintain her as long as she is alive, although it is more probable that this is not obligatory.”