You might call it "Free sex for me, but not for thee." It's not prostitution if you call it "temporary marriage." Meanwhile, a man's other wife or wives will be sitting ducks for whatever venereal diseases hubby brings home, and may even end up getting blamed as a cover story.
And everyone knows that nothing strengthens the bonds of holy matrimony and the fabric of society like temporary polygamous unions contracted in secret. What could go wrong? An update on this story. "Iran rejects obligation to register temporary marriages," by Farshid Motahari for Deutsche Presse-Agentur, March 6 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):
Tehran (dpa) – The Iranian parliament rejected a draft bill Monday which would have obliged men to register temporary marriages, Fars news agency reported.The bill was aimed at increasing the rights of women who become the second or third wives of polygamous men, in a practice used to get around a religious ban on sex outside marriage.
Unregistered temporary marriages are those made by clerics – de facto only making the couple religiously legitimate – but without any written contract which could at least give some rights to the women.
The bill was rejected by a majority of deputies.
Temporary marriage – or Siqeh – is a highly controversial issue in Iran.
The supporters, mainly among clergy circles and religious people, say that it is a legitimate way to counter social immoralities.
But opponents term Siqeh as a legalized form of prostitution and a humiliation for women.
Sexual relations between unmarried couples are strictly prohibited in Islamic Iran and can lead to arrest and heavy cash fines.
Islamic law allows men to have four wives at the same time, while women are only allowed one husband.
Temporary marriage is virtually unheard of among modern Iranian families, but some traditional and religious families still turn to the practice.
High living costs and unemployment also drive some young people who cannot afford to get officially married to choose the Siqeh option.
Siqeh allows couples to live like husband and wife, but the bond is neither officially registered in identification cards, nor can children from these marriages obtain legal rights.
why is everyone here surprised? Like I said many times before, Islam is custome and tailored made for men!
M
Meanwhile, a man's other wife or wives will be sitting ducks for whatever venereal diseases hubby brings home, .........
Venereal diseases are Nature's Stuxnet! They are very damaging and can even be transmitted from floppy dicks.
Clowns!
(video) INDONESIA: Halal Sex (tourism) to Quran Chapter 4 Verse 24 “… agree Mutually (to vary it), …” (Mu’ta marriage, temporary)
http://newstime.co.nz/video-indonesia-halal-sex-tourism.html
Sanctioned Islamic hanky panky …
Everything to satisfy the need for Muslim men … 4 wives is not enough …
if marrying for only 48 hour to scratch an Islamic itch outside the original 4 marriages will do the trick … so that what they will do ………..….
And to think Muslim always put down western men and women when they have affairs outside of marriage …
What is the deference ...
It was reported that the former Ayatollah Khomeini went with a 4 year old girl in one of those temporary marriages!!
Sure, they don't want all that business on paper!!
::
There 2 is the minimum age.
Noted in Khomeini's own religious edit.
Mohammedan obedience to religious laws that go against everything we are!!
Just following orders.
Remember, we're the ones who are considered "decadent" by Muslims. Pot. Kettle. Black.
It's not prostitution if you call it "temporary marriage." Meanwhile, a man's other wife or wives will be sitting ducks for whatever venereal diseases hubby brings home, and may even end up getting blamed as a cover story.
And everyone knows that nothing strengthens the bonds of holy matrimony and the fabric of society like temporary polygamous unions contracted in secret. What could go wrong?
...................................
What indeed? Keep this in mind next time some idiot Muslim apologist goes on about the "sanctity" of the family in Islam...
More:
Tehran (dpa) – The Iranian parliament rejected a draft bill Monday which would have obliged men to register temporary marriages, Fars news agency reported.
The bill was aimed at increasing the rights of women who become the second or third wives of polygamous men, in a practice used to get around a religious ban on sex outside marriage.
...................................
I don't just worry about the man's "long term" wives suffering here—there's also the matter of the poor, pimped-out "temporary wives".
I also worry about the children who result from these "unions". The father needn't support or even acknowledge such children.
Can you imagine being an unmarried single mother in a Shari'ah state?
A lot of these children wind up abandoned, abused, and exploited themselves—those that survive in the first place.
More:
The supporters, mainly among clergy circles and religious people, say that it is a legitimate way to counter social immoralities.
...................................
What crap. It is a way of *sanctioning* "social immoralities" by simply calling it something else...
off of topice but still relevant. I was watching an episode of to catch a predator. a 38 year old muslm egyptian married with an 8 year old daugher was chatting with a 13 year old girl and came to sting. after getting caught and confronted with his chat log, he siad: I am an egytian and muslim we do not do this!!!!!!
bull shit, it is sanctioned in the koran sex with girls 9 years and up!!!!!!! he face 15 years and possible deportation.
M
And these muzlum HYPOCRITES call the west decadent! This "temporary marriage" (gag!)is just plain whoring around, fully sanctioned by the holy pious clerics to give it the thinnest veneer of izlumic "honour".
What a bunch of demented twisted creeps!
It's not prostitution if you call it "temporary marriage."
Right! And of course, the imam who performs the ceremony isn't a pimp, either!
What's wrong with temporay marriages? No, it's not prostitution. Wearing red sandals is!
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2011/07/red-sandals-in-iran-des-sandales-rouges.html
Of topic, but .... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX8jo8wIIaU&feature=related
islam = serving nasty sex fiends for nearly 1,400 years
A form of temporary marriage - serial monogamy - is about to become the norm i Western societies. In America 50% of all marriages end in divorce and usually in remarriage.
"In the General Social Survey, a national survey of adults conducted biennially by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, the percentage of Americans who responded that it is “always wrong” for a married person to have sex with someone other than his or her spouse rose to 81 percent in 2008, from 73 percent in 1991.
Americans, however, were not becoming sexual prudes. During the same period, the percentage of people who responded that premarital sex is “not wrong at all” increased to 51 percent, from 41 percent. Rather, they were in the process of defining a new standard that is best described as *serial monogamy*. Under this emerging standard, Americans not only don’t allow open marriage, they don’t even allow open cohabitation. Although it’s acceptable to live with someone outside of marriage (and a majority of adults do so), having sex with someone else while cohabiting is still called “cheating”: it breaks the unwritten rules and often leads to the end of the relationship. It’s even more of a rule violation within marriage.
Serial monogamy allows individuals to have more than one intimate partner over their lifetime. But it also assumes that commitment is hard to maintain, that jealousy is still the green-eyed monster, and that outside sexual activity is a serious threat to a cohabiting relationship or to a marriage. In the context of 21st-century American culture, all of these statements are probably true. Which is why open marriage doesn’t work for most people and isn’t a lifestyle we should turn toward now."
(Quoted from article January 2012 by Andrew J. Cherlin, a professor of sociology and public policy at Johns Hopkins University, the author of “The Marriage-Go-Round: The State of Marriage and the Family in America Today").
islam was designed to serve muslim men, not God ...
"The supporters, mainly among clergy circles and religious people, say that it is a legitimate way to counter social immoralities."
Interesting, isn't it, that the "clergy" are behind this?
I wonder if the Pope will ever sanction polygamy, adultery and prostitution? The current Archbishop of Canterbury, maybe.....
And observe Ole Hartling, right on cue with a mass of specious moral equivalence, slily suggesting and snidely hinting that what is called 'serial monogamy' in the west is the same sort of thing as the wonderworld of Mohammedan perversion in which a man can have up to four 'wives' simultaneously (wives who may be as young as eight or nine years old), plus an unspecified number of 'what the right hand possesses' (which may include underage kidnapped and raped non-Muslim girls, and the kidnapped and raped WIVES of non-Muslim men), plus 'travellers' 'marriage' and 'mutah' or sigeh 'pleasure' 'marriage' which is basically sacralised prostitution or concubinage.
Never mind that the 'religious authorities' in the Mohammedan world see absolutely nothing wrong with any of this - nor, for that matter, with wife-beating, and the double standard whereby a man can dump his wife like a used kleenex with a mere triple talaq, whereas all sorts of obstacles are placed in the way of a woman who wishes to divorce her husband even if his abuse is endangering her very life. Whereas religious authorities in the Christian/ post-Christian part of the world are firmly in favour of lifelong faithful monogamy, one man one wife, even if they also recognise that there are cases in which a couple need to be separated because one or the other partner is dangerous to the physical and psychological safety of their spouse and/ or the children, and that therefore divorce - with equal access to divorce for both men and women - is sometimes unhappily necessary.
Who cares?
Nothing you cite has any doctrinal religious sanction outside of Islam.
It's just another example of your OT relativistic moralism.
Yawn.
Oh, I was inncorrect, I forgot that 'PC/MC liberalism' is a de facto religion, so whatever doctrine it has for the moment would sanction Ole's serial plural marriages.
But we knew that already.
Really? ..comparing what some author espoused in his book to islamic LAW is a new low even for you. Becoming desperate, eh, troll?
State-Sanctioned, Islamo-Macho-Horniness.
A good book on temporary marriage in Iran:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=f1CzcNX-nVgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=law+of+temporary+marriage+in+shi&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MLBWT7rzLaft0gHr0K3ACg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=law%20of%20temporary%20marriage%20in%20shi&f=false
Law of desire: temporary marriage in Shi'i Iran. (1989). Syracuse University Press: Syracuse: New York.
Author: Shahla Haeri
Abdullah: "Hay, Fatima - how's it goin'? Lookeeng goood!"
Fatima: "Abdullah! How dare you! Don't you know my husband would become angry?!"
Abdulllah: "Which husband? The temporary one or the usual one?"
Fatima: "The usual. But lately, it's not been so usual, if you know what I mean."
Abdullah: "Uhhh...yeah, sort of, Fatima, I guess. Can I be another temporary - I mean, usual?"
Fatima: "Ummm...well, your new henna beard does look pretty cute. Ok. Let's get a room. But this is only temporary, remember?"
Abdullah: "SCORE!"
Fatima: "What?!"
Abdullah: "Nothing. Let's go, wifey-poo."
"A form of temporary marriage - serial monogamy - is about to become the norm i Western societies. In America 50% of all marriages end in divorce and usually in remarriage."
Serail monogamy is not the same as muta (temporary marriage). For starters, there is no "monogamy" in muta. The man can have 4 permanent wives and any number of temporary wives. This lopsided in favor of muslim men. In Western civilization and serial monogamy men and women have equal say. Secondly muta is usually an agreement reached in exchange for something. Meaning, the woman sells her body in exchange for something - money or goods. This is the classical definition of "prostitution".
So quit this idiotic moral equivalence.
You speak of serial monogamy, Ole Hartling, but increasingly I think you are culpable of serial moral equivalency thinking, as champ, dda and Tom Davis have already observed. You also referenced a source that maintains that "committment is hard to retain." Well, duh, almost anything worthwhile is difficult to sustain or retain, be it intellectual acuity, good physical shape or emotional well being. So the "committment is hard to retain" assessment is meaningless.
Moreover, and more to the point at hand, it could be argued, and I would argue such, that what is ultimately most romantic is total and exclusive committment to one other person. Is this sometimes difficult? You bet. But it could be contended, and I would be inclined to contend such, that to the extent that difficulty attends true romance, then to that extent true romance exists. The rest, excuses for temporary screwing (forgive my language) or activities along these lines, is ultimately a bankrupt endeavor, however much temporary excitement might relieve the individual of the boredom of life who hasn't figured out life's priorities smartly enough. After all, no one of sense and knowledge should ever lose sight of Arthur Schopenhauer's assessment of continued and unabated new sexual experiences, to wit, that such activity will eventually bring on ennui, and this in turn will produce yet anothter kind of depression.
Think romantic, Ole Hartling, because novel sex again and again, yet another error of youth, is a losing strategy long term. Count on it.
You also referenced a source that maintains that "committment is hard to retain." Well, duh, almost anything worthwhile is difficult to sustain or retain, be it intellectual acuity, good physical shape or emotional well being. So the "committment is hard to retain" assessment is meaningless.
Well put, Wellington
I find it interesting that we began to have more trouble retaining committments to our marital partners at the same time we began to have trouble retaining a committment to our civilization. No coincidence, I am sure.
Thank you, Dumbledore's Army, Tom Davis, Champ, David Dowse, Janaki, and Wellington—good posts all. Ole Hartling's unending and false moral equivalence just gets more ridiculous all the time.
Yeah, I'd like to see commitment to marriage improve overall in the West. But to compare marriage in the West—where, typically, two partners love each other and at least *want* the union to last—with cynical Mu'ta "marriages" is ludicrous.
For instance, one very popular instance of Mu'ta "marriage" is for a Muslim to set up a "spouse" at a pilgrimage site, and to contract the "marriage" for the length of the pilgrimage.
To meet the demand, of course, Mullahs set up with a stable of "marriageable" girls right near the shrines. If this isn't prostitution, I don't know what is.
This would be like a partier calling his long-weekend bender with a hooker in Vegas a "marriage"—and his spree a "pilgrimage".
The clergy support mutah because they take a pimp fee for facilitating this prostitution. It is a major source of some imam's income. The top dozen ayatollahs hold "khumus" wealth of from $200 million to $2 billion. Basij animals strike break for ayatollah owned companies. They also enforce the Rafsanjani family's Pistaccio monopoly, and suppress critics of the ayatollah's worker grinding factories.
Yet BHO refuses to attack the ayatollahs. He begs them to accept lame UN demands, and refuses to admit the absolute futility of his prostrating before the followers of his spouse and child abandoner of a father, who belonged to the same cult as the ayatollahs.
I've had pious a Muslim pontificate about all the sex, drugs, and rock'n'roll in he West. I was assured that there is no prostitution or adultery in the Islamic paradises. No paedophilia either!
I am tired of this. I'm tired of the ridiculous lies, the hate, the violence, the sheer stupidity of Islam.
I want my country and my culture back. I want to not have to worry about barbarians in my neighbourhood. I want to start shipping Muslims out of the civilized countries. Can I get an AMEN?
Watch your back. It looks like the buzzards are circling again.
Islam is all about saving (Muslim male) face and shirking consequences/responsibility for (male) actions. If such (sexual) unions were registered, there would be a list holding men responsible and/or showing how women are used, abused and thrown away in Islamic society. That would not be good PR for jihadists whose empty rhetoric claims Islam will clean up the "immorality" of the West.
You glibly wrote: 'I personally advocate the freedom of adults to choose any sexual experience they desire free of incrimination or legislation.'
Oh dear, you missed 'paedophilia', your prophet's favorite tipple.
And as for the secular West being hypocritical, Islam's obscene 'child brides are OK 'cos it's Sunna schtik' is as immoral as you can get when it comes to sex.
At least paedophilia is illegal in the secular, civilized West.
Your a clown!
Fayzal reveals just how sick and perverted he truly is, and I'm surprised that he didn't include sex with animals on his list (he probably just forgot). And I think that he's going for the shock-and-awe factor here 'cause he seems to crave negative attention. Thank God that this evildoer lives on the tip of Africa; although I do feel sorry for his neighbors. Little do they realize that they have a sexual predator like Fayzal living so close. Lock your doors! ..and keep Fayzal away from small children, your wife, and animals, too. Hopefully the FBI will zero-in on this sexual predator.
Fayzal,
"Therefore if the Iranians are choosing one form or another to express themselves sexually good luck to them."
The article is about a specific type of marriage contract that is unfair to or discriminates against women and children.
I recommend that you read up on temporary marriages. This does not mean that they have an extra choice of sexual relationship that westerners don't have. Iranians don't have all the free choices you list. Homosexuals for example are put to death. Muslims in Iran are permitted what their current Shia twelver version of Islam permits, nothing more.
If people were free in Iran, they wouldn't have to have "temporary marriage" to have premarital sex or sex outside of permanent marriage. It is an unnecessary contract which mainly benefits the Islamic authorities.
You mention polygamy. Islam allows for polygamy (indeed, polygyny), but does not allow polyandry. Thus it does not allow free choice to everyone. With approximately 50/50 sex ratios, if one man has 4 wives, that means three other men would have no wife. What happens to those extra single men? They contribute to more societal instability than would be the case were they married. Polygamy produces offspring that also reduce the genetic diversity of the population, which is not healthy.
Polygamy allows some Muslim males much more choices than any of the females have. A Muslim man can have four wives, and each of those wives in turn has 1/4 (one quarter) of a husband's time and attention. Also, whereas the Muslim male can marry Muslim and non-Muslim women who are considered "of the Book" or equivalent (e.g., Zoroastrian in Iran), under Islam a Muslim woman can only marry a Muslim man.
A major problem of polygamy goes beyond the issue of free choice for the adults involved in a polygamous arrangement when there are children involved. Children with two parents (monogamous relationship) have one father to attend to each of them and meet their needs. But in polygamous families, the larger number of children of multiple wives have only one father to attend to each of them and their needs. In fact, polling indicates that the majority of women and children of polygamous Muslim families have many complaints and would rather be in families having a monogamous relationship between the two parents.
Fayzal Mahamed wrote:
Nor does Buraq,if she were a girl between 9-12 years, be concerned that Prophet Mohamed would be having sex with her because Mohamed is dead and gone.
.................................
Well, yes—but his appalling legacy lives on. One of the first thing the Ayatollah Khomeini did upon coming to power in Iran was reduce the age of marriage for girls to *nine* in honor of the vile actions of the "Prophet" Muhammed.
And would that it were just Iran. Child "marriage"—really, *child rape*, is rife all over the Muslims world:
"Yemen: 2nd child bride hospitalized with genital injuries"
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/04/yemen-2nd-child-bride-hospitalized-with-genital-injuries.html
"Canada: Muslim child brides on the increase"
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/03/canada-muslim-child-brides-on-the-increase.html
"8-year-old girl seeks divorce in Yemen"
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/04/8-year-old-girl-seeks-divorce-in-yemen.html
There are many more stories.
Two other points to note: firstly, Fayzal Mahamed considers the rape of 13-year-old girls perfectly fine. Most of us in the civilized world would still consider such girls to *be children*.
Also note his sneering query as to whether Buraq is a tween girl. His implication is that if one is not a child at risk from Muslim abuse that one has no business decrying child rape—or even referring to it.
Fayzal Mahamed *is wrong*. It is exactly caring adults who should be standing up for the protection of children. If Fayzal Mahamed had any sense of decency he would understand this.
In your glib, slippery way, you wrote: 'Nor does Buraq,if she were a girl between 9-12 years, be concerned that Prophet Mohamed would be having sex with her because Mohamed is dead and gone.'
Mo is dead and gone but his example as the 'ideal man' -- Insaan-e-Kaamil, means that child brides can be found all over the Islamic world. And even in civilized countries, too!
That means the trail of physical damage to the child, the loss of blood, the fear and pain and mental torment can be directly attributed to your paedophile 'prophet' and his example.
And your moral equivocation with priests fails in the sense that they are subject to punishment under secular law, whereas in Islam, having sex with a little girl is seen as just fine because Mohammed did it, the 'ideal man'!!
You're a clown!
Fayzal Mahmed wrote:
Gravenimage wrote : "Two other points to note: firstly, Fayzal Mahamed considers the rape of 13-year-old girls perfectly fine. Most of us in the civilized world would still consider such girls to *be children*."
Reply - I repeat my sexual philosophy:
"I personally advocate the freedom of adults to choose any sexual experience they desire free of incrimination or legislation. Therefore monogamony, polygamy, gays, lesbians, temporary marriages, permanent marriages, adultery, swingers, anal sex, masochism, masturbation, kama sutra, oral sex, adultery, single partners, multiple partners - all is fine with me."
How you Gravenimage arrived at the formulae that I consider it fine to rape 13 year old girls is beyond me.
........................................
You taunted Buraq that you would not have sex with him if he were a girl between the ages of 9-12. It is logical to assume that you consider anyone over that age to be fair game:
"So if Buraq is a girl between the ages of 9-12 she does'nt have to be concerned that I would be having sex with her because my sexual philosophy precludes me having sex with children."
Here in the civilized West 13-year-old girls are still considered children, and adults having sex with them is statutory rape.
GI performs surgery:
"You taunted Buraq that you would not have sex with him if he were a girl between the ages of 9-12. It is logical to assume that you consider anyone over that age to be fair game", by way of responding to FumbleFizzle, who said...
"So if Buraq is a girl between the ages of 9-12 she does'nt have to be concerned that I would be having sex with her because my sexual philosophy precludes me having sex with children."
GI says, and cuts...
"Here in the civilized West 13-year-old girls are still considered children, and adults having sex with them is statutory rape."
___________________________________________________________
thxgi :))
If you think that child marriage is NOT common practice in muslim countries, you are grossly mistaken.
Do your own Google search for the statistics. Here are just a few articles to further your understanding:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/articles/women-in-islam/the-tragedy-of-child-marriage-and-pedophilia-in-the-muslim-world/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/25/middle-east-child-abuse-pederasty
http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2011/10/02/sharia-law-has-led-to-the-legislation-of-child-marriage-in-6-countries.html
A very informative article:
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Contemporary_Pedophilic_Islamic_Marriages
Check out the percentage of child brides in Afghanistan:
http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1079316.html
There are many, many more articles detailing this subject. Obviously, you are ignorant as to the facts of this matter.
Finally, when the Ayatollah Khomeini came to power in Iran, he LOWERED the marriageable age of girls to nine in emulation of the "prophet" mohammed. Khomeini himself took a ten-year-old as a wife and once had a one-night "temporary marriage" to a four-year-old, who could be heard screaming throughout the night by her family.
http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2007/01/ayatollah-khomeinis-fling-with-four.html
To quote Khomeini's writing:
"A man can marry a girl younger than nine years of age, even if the girl is still a baby being breastfed. A man, however is prohibited from having intercourse with a girl younger than nine, other sexual acts such as foreplay, rubbing, kissing and sodomy is allowed. A man having intercourse with a girl younger than nine years of age has not committed a crime, but only an infraction, if the girl is not permanently damaged. If the girl, however, is permanently damaged, the man must provide for her all her life. But this girl will not count as one of the man's four permanent wives. He also is not permitted to marry the girl's sister."
Also from the article:
Another technique used by Muslim men is called "thighing". The child's legs are pressed together and the abuser inserts his penis between the thighs of the little boy or girl. As this was how Mohammed had sex with his wife, Aisha, from the time she was six years old the practice, of course, was approved of by Ayatollah Khomeini who in his Little Green Book asserted "It is not illegal for an adult male to 'thigh' or enjoy a young girl who is still in the age of weaning; meaning to place his penis between her thighs, and to kiss her."
We here at JW are wise to the pervasive evils of the practice of islam. Your taqiyya will not fool anyone here.
Listen to this imam trying to justify sex with a "baby wife":
http://barenakedislam.com/2011/04/27/discussion-with-a-muslim-about-how-to-sexually-enjoy-your-baby-wife/