"In Shi'ite Islam, Muslim males can take temporary wives for periods ranging from a few hours to several decades," writes Robert Spencer of Dhimmi Watch. Isn't that special?
In Iran, Khadijeh Shahla Jahed, the temporary wife of soccer star Nasser Mohammad Khani, is likely to be executed for murdering Khani's wife, Laleh Saharkhizan. This Telegraph story (thanks to jonascot) calls Khadija the "mistress" of Nasser, but way down in the story we discover that that is not quite what she was.
Temporary wife? That's right. In Islam Unveiled I discuss this phenomenon, which Shi'ites defend as founded upon the Qur'an and a command of Muhammad. Iranian men can enter into marriage with women for a specified period: a week, a month, or just a weekend or a single night. "Temporary wives" proliferate in holy cities where lonely seminarians congregate.
As we've wondered recently here and here about Western moral relativists, how can these men live with themselves? Also, why are women so stupid?
Update: "It's being seen as completely confessional, totally honest, the whole story," Ms. Hendra said. "It's not the whole story. By not saying anything, I felt I was being complicit in it. This book is an erasing of what happened to me. I want people to understand these things don't go away."
In the new best-selling book Father Joe, Tony Hendra recounts his 40-year friendship with a wise Benedictine monk whom he credits with salvaging his soul and enabling him to accept God's love. Throughout the book Mr. Hendra, a noted satirist, appears unstinting in his contrition, exhuming his recurrent failings as a husband and father and his wayward indulgences in alcohol and drugs.
But when Jessica Hendra, his 39-year-old daughter from his first marriage, read the book recently, her reaction was stunned anger. Unmentioned in the narrative, she said, is the far darker story of how her father sexually molested her when she was a child and consistently discounted the devastating effect on her.
Once again, how can these men live with themselves? When you think of these gals that are used as props in the men's fantasies and then discarded, you have to wonder. These are not honorable men.
The comments and the corresponding question by Sissy Willis of "how can these men live with themselves" in using women as pawns in their own strategic fantasies/battles/operations, it's obvious that they have been conditioned to do so since they were young. It is a part of the male superiority advantage of male dominance. From the beginning of time, boys have borrowed money from sisters, or had them keep a secret from parents, to prevent potential problems. From that opportunism, it is a short step to the other side of the line of using women in complicity without even thinking about whether it is appropriate, harmful, or detrimental. Without sisters to do the coverups, it is friends, or occasionally, a parent (male or female). The style is not unique to Muslims, or any nation. On the other hand, women typically try to prevent having to cover up at all for their own wrongdoing by overcompensating and being meticulous and scrupulously honest. The gulf created between men and women is wide and some think, growing. Therefore, to "play" a male against a female to produce "evidence" is often a very effective method of eroding those alliances to penetrate the complicity. It is a common method by parents, as well as prosecutors and others who seek to examine and reveal weaknesses, if any, a.k.a., strip through to the reality of whatever information is being sought and to understand the true nature of the circumstance. Probably practiced significantly by those associated with FBI, CIA, investigators, etc. In answer to the question of how can these men live with themselves? The answer therefore is very well because it works, and do it because they can.
Posted by: Pat r | July 01, 2004 at 11:38 AM
Dear Pat r,
Whoa. "You've come a long way, baby." Remember that one?
How on earth can you equate the barbarity of the mideastern treatment of women to anything we do here in the west? There is no equating the public beatings, murders, honor killings, and so on, ad nauseum, with most accepted male/female interractions in America.
Yes, there are men who are scum. Yes, there are women who are scum, as well. But to try and put the two societies side by side for comparison is way off the charts of reason.
Recently feminism came on the scene and changed alot of things, alot of repression; alot of attitudes. It's both good and bad, and there has been a backlash; but overall it's been good. It is evolving, continuously evolving. The same cannot be said for the Muslim world. No evolution, no change.
It has always blown my mind that America's feminists sit by and quietly condone the continued humiliation of the Muslim woman. Is it more important to "beat Bush" than to work for the freedom of repressed women?
Let's hear your outraged cries of anger against a repressive society that denies ALL women the most BASIC rights. No vote. No going out unless completely covered. No driving ...hmmmm...No interaction with males. Or females, unless specifically granted permission. No fun. No life, other than serving your man. Or men; it's entirely up to your husband/owner. No way out of the slavery imposed upon you by an antiquated culture based on B.S.
When I hear your voices raised against that disgusting facet of Muslim life, I may even begin to listen to your message. Until then, you have no credibility with me.
Posted by: rick | July 01, 2004 at 04:53 PM