| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
An update on this story. "Iran lawmakers reject proposal to ease polygamy," from the Associated Press, September 9:
TEHRAN, Iran: An Iranian parliamentary committee rejected on Monday government amendments to a bill that would have allowed men to take additional wives without permission from their first wife — a proposal that angered women and the country's top judicial official.
Under Islam, a man can have up to four wives, and countries around the Mideast allow polygamy. However, Iran is one of the few — along with Syria and Tunisia — that require the consent of the first wife before a husband can take another. Still polygamy is rare in Iran, where most people frown on the practice.
Critics said the government's proposal was an attempt to further enshrine its strict interpretation of Islam into law and charged it would have undermined women's rights. The outcry over the original bill had forced parliament last week to postpone a vote pending further debate.
Ali Shahrokhi, head of the parliament's judicial committee, said the committee restored a clause in the bill stipulating consent from the first wife for men seeking additional wives.
The government of hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad proposed amendments last year to legislation drawn up by the judiciary that was supposed to be a landmark bill to allow women judges for the first time since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. The bill also imposes prison sentences for men who marry girls before they have reached legal age.
... Which Khomeini promptly lowered to nine years of age upon taking power, after Muhammad's own example. More recent laws have ostensibly added a layer of oversight from the courts girls under 13, but there remains ample reason for the clause above for "legal age" protection to ring hollow.
The new bill will likely be put to vote in parliament next week....
Posted by Marisol at September 10, 2008 12:03 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Sonow they're suspended in midair in their giant leap backward. I wonder for how long?
Posted by: charlie![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at September 10, 2008 12:33 AM
Whatever. All kinds of crap that used to be "frowned upon" in the U.S. is now A-Okay. Pass the law and there will be horny guys eagerly looking to add to their sexual conquests, irregardless of whether they can financially afford to support all those extra mouths. As long as he's satisfied sexually, who cares if a wife or kid or two starve to death.
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at September 10, 2008 1:00 AM
"More recent laws have ostensibly added a layer of oversight from the courts [for] girls under 13 . . . "
And what kind of 'oversight' is that? Does it involve cell phones with cameras?
So sorry to be so flip, but the "most people frown on the practice" stuff about Iranians is hilarious. Most normal people also frown on women getting beaten like gongs on the street because they showed an inch of hair, but repeated evidence shows that while the Iranians may bleat about the mullahs, they continue to shuffle along obediently to the howling of the azhan.
Posted by: Marwan'sDaughter at September 10, 2008 3:05 AM
Beasty boy Ahmadinijad was pushing this. I suspect for dubious and nefarious reasons.
This ruling ruined his day I bet...
Posted by: duh_swami at September 10, 2008 9:52 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)