Christian Science Monitor writer says Egypt's proposed "necrophilia law" is "utter hooey" because...he wants it to be

Fact-checking has increasingly lost major appeal to the MSM media starting from the mid to late eighties for a variety of reasons and is continuing well into this century as I have read a few months ago in

"Flat Earth News: An Award-winning Reporter Exposes Falsehood, Distortion and Propaganda in the Global Media" by Nick Davies, which is well worth the read as a media critique.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Flat-Earth-News-Award-winning-Distortion/dp/0701181451

I proceed on the assumption that with Islam anything is possible and then go from there. After all, as examples, if one is prepared to see the character of Mohammed as the most laudable of all human beings and believes that 72 virgins are waiting in Paradise for any man who dies for Islam, what wouldn't one accept on faith?

WHERE IS CSM's EVIDENCE!!

Firstly

The yuck factor, "those creepy Muslims" factor, the lulz factor for those with a sick sense of humor.

Rather it's that 'creeping Islam'!!

Or 'creeping Islamization' of weird and repressive Islamic laws - that seek to make second class citizens out of all non-believers.

Otherwise know as 'creeping Shari'a'!!

[In order for it to be of value they have to make it into a racist charge - you have to stop them right there. Because it is being used to silence people. In this case on the weird dalliances of Muhammad. ]

::

More in Islamic scripture it is recorded that the Prophet engaged in sexual intercourse with a 'deceased woman' - and some Muslims may feel that this should proudly be listed as one of things permitted in Islam.

If the CSM doesn't like an Islamic law then the whole 'understanding' thing is thrown out of the window!!

Correction the Moroccan fatwa - which allowed a man to sleep with his dead wife [the next time one died] was last year.

[If they know all of this stuff why aren't the printing it!! Don't want to look like.... or they are pro-shari'a!]

::

You see this sort of thing in the Guardian Comment section as well - they want to disprove something and they don't actually have proof themselves - then their argument become solely reliant on character assassination.

The Huff Post who should know better has been covered the story [read Bad HuffPo] - and the Daily Mail - what can you expect - and those lowly social-networking sites - unlike our pages at the CSM!!

::

The CSM is in actual fact expressing disbelief that Islam could include such things as instructions for how to sleep with dead people - and they might be also surprised to find that there are no restrictions on the practise as laid down by Shari'a law.

Which was the basis for the Moroccan fatwa.

Hadith: 'Intercourse with a dead woman'

"Egypt's parliament is considering passing a law that would allow husbands to have sex with their wives after death."

Gen 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

Mohammed .... believes that 72 virgins are waiting in Paradise for any man who dies for Islam, .....

Maybe some 'martyrs' for Islam would prefer a mix of dead and alive virgins, or maybe just have the whole lot stone cold!

Clowns!

It appears that white-washing of Islam has infected the Christian Science Monitor....

I believe this is the droid you're looking for (Amru Abdul Samea's article):

http://www.ahram.org.eg/878/2012/04/23/4/145276/219.aspx

By the way, it definitely does not say that the constitutionalists are actually considering such legislation. The phrase used is roughly "we have heard talk of" the marriage age being lowered to 14 and men being allowed to have sex with their wives six hours after death. There has also been "talk" of Israel making secret deals with Nile Basin countries to cut water off to Egypt, and the Copts planning a bloody uprising after the signing of the new constitution.

I can appreciate your frustration at this CS guy. Maybe Al-Arabiya should hire a better translator next time, and maybe CS should invest in someone who actually read the article. However, unfortunately for those looking for more reasons to hate the Salafis (like myself), this is just a rumor, nothing more.

"Egypt 'necrophilia law'? Hooey, utter hooey," by Dan Murphy

So, it's either Shari'a law, or Murphy's!

Murphy's a dhimmwit!

It doesn't really matter if they pass this law or not. The rules are there in their own filthy scriptures, which means that this dirty practice is allowed:

"Do not re-wash the deceased after having sexual intercourse with"
(Al-Sharwani v.1, p.163)

http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2010/03/necrophilia-in-islam-necrophilie-en.html

As I said before, the real sickness is that they could even consider talking about this subject and seriously considering Necrophilia as an option - any option.
I have often heard people describing Islam as "evil" and have often used this descriptor myself. Now, however, I see that this is not an exaggeration.
No doubt many Muslims will be horrified at this latest manifestation of their "faith" but the intrinsic reality is that it is their cult that spawned this latest outrage against basic human decency alongside all the other perversions they give credo to such as Honor killing, Stoning, Beheading, anti-Semitisim, Pedophilia, Homophobia, FGM etc. As they often tell us, Islam comes as a complete package and now it seems that Necrophilia is part of it.
What an evil and sick cult this is

Maybe the story is false. Certainly al-Ahram and al-Arabiya don't have spotless records for accuracy. But that can only be established by fact-checking

It's a bit like the current book about Mohammed - if he in fact didn't exist, why would the Arabs have made up such ugly stories about him, and then paraded it as the perfect mode of conduct?

*Nothing* this vile cult mandates would surprise me in the least. Shock me, revolt me, but never surprise !

Follow the progression of Murphy's thought. He first says that the chances of such legislation being voted on by the Egyptian parliament are zero. Then he says that it wouldn't pass, anyway. Then he says that he doesn't think anyone is even trying to get it passed. Evidence for his claim? None. He doesn't offer any. Then he claims that there is no evidence for the report in the first place.

By contrast, the al-Arabiya report is quite specific. It names Egypt’s National Council for Women (NCW) as mounting opposition to the measure, saying specifically that Dr. Mervat al-Talawi, head of the NCW, sent a message to the Egyptian People’s Assembly Speaker, Dr. Saad al-Katatni, complaining about it. It also names al-Ahram columnist Amro Abdul Samea, who wrote about the story.
...............................

These are *all* sources Dan Murphy could have checked.

Perhaps this is just an attempt by Al Ahram to make their adversaries look bad.

But—unless Al Arabia is making the whole thing up out of whole cloth, it appears that actual "liberal" Egyptians are taking this story *quite* seriously.

I also note that Murphy doesn't address the other aspect of the story at all—that of child marriage. Surely he isn't claiming that child marriage in the Muslim world—especially in Islamizing states—is "utter hooey" as well? This phenomenon is *well documented*.

More:

Maybe the story is false. Certainly al-Ahram and al-Arabiya don't have spotless records for accuracy. But that can only be established by fact-checking, not by wishful thinking, which is all that Dan Murphy offers here. The whitewash of noxious elements of Sharia is universal in the mainstream media, and when these noxious elements cannot be ignored, as in this case, it is a shame to see a staff writer for a respected publication simply waving them away without the slightest bit of evidence instead of confronting them honestly. A shame, but not a surprise.
...............................

No, indeed. A lot of civilized Westerners simply cannot believe that Muslims believe what they believe—in child rape, in slavery, in endless war against the Infidel—so they simply stick their heads in the sand and choose not to believe it at all.

Meanwhile, though, here's Salon acting as though Dan Murphy has *proven* that this story is not only inaccurate, but a supposed deliberate lie spread by "the right":

"Two stupid lies the right spread this week"

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/27/two_stupid_lies_the_right_spread_this_week/singleton/

And I'm afraid Dan Murphy has appeared to be in a certain amount of denial vis-a-vis Islam before, such as when he noted it was "surprising" that the Salifists had done so well in elections in Egypt:

"...voting in the first round of Egypt's parliamentary elections confirms something that was long generally assumed, but unproven: that the Muslim Brotherhood, through its new Freedom and Justice Party (FJP), is the most potent popular political force in Egypt...

"More surprising is how well the Salafi Al Nour party is doing. Salafis are members of an ultraconservative branch of Islam who seek to emulate the early followers of the prophet Muhammad, and while they have much common ground with the Muslim Brotherhood, they are also far more extreme. They'd like to bring their strict version of sharia, or Islamic law, to public life...

"When Mubarak was pushed out in February, a lot of my middle-class and wealthy Egyptian friends in Cairo were convinced that their voices were going to be major ones in Egyptian politics. Sure, the Brothers were powerful, but they thought their influence was frequently overstated. Since the Brothers had been the only real opposition to Mubarak, with the ability to organize around mosques and their network of charities, it was natural for dissatisfied Egyptians to rally around them. But now, with more freedom for all kinds of social currents to organize, their influence would likely be dampened."

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2011/1201/Upshot-of-Egypt-elections-Islamists-are-here-to-stay

An update on this here.
http://mideasti.blogspot.ca/2012/04/anatomy-of-hoax-and-media-credulity.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+MeiEditorsBlog+MEI+Editors+Blog&m=1

is it true? maybe, maybe not but what is interesting is to where and why this topic actually surfaced.

To the where: This story achieved international coverage because The first suggestions of a “farewell intercourse” piece of legislation was reportedly first mooted as early in 2011, after a Moroccan cleric Sheikh Abdul-Bari Zamzami suggested sex remained legitimate even after death, whether with a man or a woman. SO who is this so called "marginal" Sheikh Abdul-Bari Zamzami? Sheikh Abdul-Bari Zamzami (b. 1943 in Tanger, Moroccois) is a member of Moroccan Religious Scholars League. He studied jurisprudence at the hands of his father, the sheikh Muhammad Zamzami. In 1976, he moved to Casablanca where he became the khatib (a person who delivers the sermon (khutba) of the Yusufi Mosque, the Muhammadi Mosque and other mosques. He is one of the founding members of the International Union of Muslim Scholars. As of 2009, he is the khatib of famous Al-Hamra Mosque in the old Casablanca. SO NOT SO MARGINAL AS WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE!

In turn now we have to question where this Shiek derives his fatwa from. Zamzami claims in his infamous video that he draws it from existing fatwa/understanding? Unwilling to touch on the real basis these understanding is the difficult account from a book called "Kanz Al Umal" (The Treasure of the Workers), in the chapter of "The issues of women", authored by Ali Ibn Husam Aldin, commonly known as Al-Mutaki Al-Hindi. He based his book on the hadiths and sayings listed in "Al-Jami Al-Saghir," written by Jalal ul-Din Al-Suyuti.

Narrated by Ibn Abbas:

"I (Muhammad) put on her my shirt that she may wear the clothes of heaven, and I SLEPT with her in her coffin (grave) that I may lessen the pressure of the grave. She was the best of Allah’s creatures to me after Abu Talib"… The prophet was referring to Fatima , the mother of Ali.

"The Arabic word used here for "slept" is "Id'tajat," and literally means "lie down" with her. It is often used to mean, "lay down to have sex." Muhammad is understood as saying that because he slept with her she has become like a wife to him so she will be considered like a "mother of the believers." Surprised? whether you wish to believe it or not this story has a credible basis to its origin in 2011 and the basis of its discussion. However the chances of being enacted are next to none unless the govt is looking to commit international suicide.

What is wholly ignored in this story and i believe so INTENTIONALLY by sensationalising the above headline and then discrediting it without real discussion or investigation; is that this bill is actually seeking for the legal age of marriage to be lowered to 14 and abolishment of women's rights to education and employment. Imagine if that was the actual headline! THIS IS THE more probable bill to be ENACTED, CHILD MARRIAGE AND FEMALE SUBSERVIENCE under Islamic law. So do tell! my apologist where do u stand now?