February 06, 2006

Pimp My Fatwa

This is a post I did on my home blog back on May 10th of last year. If Mohammed being a child molestor isn't enough for some of you to see the rationale of our ridicule, and our right to portray images of him in an unflattering light, then maybe the notion of muta'a will. Mohammed is NOT a divine figure, he was a simple thug, a child molestor, and a pimp. If you can't handle the truth, that's your problem. Also, this is an old post, so some links may be expired. If you have a problem with that, I'll email you my home address and you can come burn down my embassy. Would you like to know something else? I could care less what 1 billion Muslims think. The truth hurts, don't it?

SC&A, ever concerned for my safety and well-being, may get me on the fatwa list even before Rusty and Jane.  He sent me a link to a link to a USA Today article concerning the Muslim practice of "pleasure marriages."   

BAGHDAD — In the days when it could land him in jail, Rahim Al-Zaidi would whisper details of his muta'a only to his closest confidants and the occasional cousin. Never his wife...

...The 1,400-year-old practice of muta'a— "ecstasy" in Arabic — is as old as Islam itself. It was permitted by the prophet Mohammed as a way to ensure a respectable means of income for widowed women...

Pleasure marriages were outlawed under Saddam Hussein but have begun to flourish again. The contracts, lasting anywhere from one hour to 10 years, generally stipulate that the man will pay the woman in exchange for sexual intimacy...

...A woman agreeing to a pleasure marriage that involves a one-time encounter might be able to count on about $100. For a muta'a that runs longer, she might be paid $200 a month, though the amounts vary widely and can depend on whether she has children.

So, in addition to being a child molester (I've read different accounts, one site said he married a 9 year old, another said six), Mohammed was a pimp.  A benevolent pimp to be sure, after all, who doesn't feel sorry for lonely, broke widows.  Of course, nowadays, the Koran is open to interpretation:

A turbaned Shiite cleric who issues wedding permits from a street-side counter in Sadr City says he encourages permanent marriages but gives the OK for pleasure marriages when there are "special reasons." The cleric, Sayid Kareem As-Sayid Abdullah Al-Mousawi, says he grants licenses for muta'a in cases where the woman is widowed or divorced, or for single women who have approval from their fathers.

That's right, you dads out there, convert to Islam and you too can be a pimp.  Pimp-daddy, if you will.  What the f**k, change your name to P. Diddy.

Is there an alternative?  Well, yes.  The treatment of Muslim women is well documented.  They can avoid the whole "pleasure marriage" route, do what they want, be irresponsible, get naked and throw down with whoever they want.

And be the victim of an honor killing.

Prostitution or death.  What a choice the Religion of Peace gives to its adherents.

Now I'll have to change the name.  The Religion of Peace and Big Pimpin' Page.  Has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?

Where's N.O.W. when you need them?  Does Code Pink have an opinion on this issue?

(At this time, Blogger appears to be down, I'll link to the blog SC&A pointed me too when it's back)

I was going to end there, but I went back to the article and decided to post this:

Most Shiite scholars today consider it halal, or religiously legal. Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the highest religious authority in Shiite Islam, sets conditions and obligations for muta'a on his Web site. ("A woman with whom temporary marriage is contracted is not entitled to share the conjugal bed of her husband and does not inherit from him ..."

First off, I thought Sistani was the highest authority in Iraq, not all Shiite Islam.  But, that's beside the point.  This is the guy we're always reading about who is apparently eager to see a free, secular Iraq borne from the ashes of tyranny.

And he's just a pimp.

Posted by: Vinnie at 07:40 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 715 words, total size 5 kb.

1 Here's my dilemma. a) I'm for the legalization of prostitution. b) I believe prostitution is immoral. So, this gets it 180 degrees backward! I want religious authorities to condemn prostitution and secular authorities to keep it legal. I don't want a state (like Iran) which legally outlaws prostitution but then comes up with essentially its equivalent, yet wrapped in the guise of relgion.

Posted by: Rusty at February 06, 2006 08:14 PM (JQjhA)

2 I believe that about 99% of what our government does is immoral and unconstitutional, but it mostly isn't illegal. Morality and legality rarely cross paths.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 06, 2006 08:49 PM (0yYS2)

3 IM: And all this time i thought that our laws were based on Christian morality...i think i better reread my year 11 legal studies textbook

Posted by: Matthew at February 06, 2006 10:23 PM (/LA+Y)

4 Matthew, originally they were based on Christian morality. Today, they bear little resemblance to one another. The laws these days are based on "do whatever you want because not only are all men equal, so are their ideas".

Posted by: Oyster at February 07, 2006 07:45 AM (YudAC)

5 Rusty, federally mandated legal prostitution would lead to more irresponsibility, more laws and more cost to taxpayers who don't "indulge". It would be one thing to say, "Go ahead, but you're on your own." But that's not what would come of it.

Posted by: Oyster at February 07, 2006 07:57 AM (YudAC)

6 Our laws, i.e., the Constitution, were more directly based on Enlightenment ideals than Christian morality, which is specifically evinced by the fact that in the entire Constitution, there is no mention of God, Jesus, or anyone else, and religion is only mentioned in that it may neither be promoted nor suppressed by the government. Now, this does not mean that Christian morals had no influence upon the men who wrote the Constitution, or the ideals of the Enlightenment, because I believe that a document like the Constitution, and its forebear, the Magna Carta, along with other important writings, such as those of Voltaire, Paine, and Locke, could have only been written by Christians in a Christian nation at that time, or perhaps any time, but also only in a Christian nation that was heir to the Greek and Roman, and to some extent Germanic and Celtic legal, moral, and philosophical traditions. My evidence for all this is the fact that alone in the world, it was the citizens of the Enlightened nations who did more to propel the world forward to a new age of Liberty than anyone else; indeed, they alone are responsible, and though those who were the most influential were generally not very religious, they could not have survived very long amongst any people other than Christians, because Buddhists could not have been motivated to fight for Liberty, and a muslim nation would have sent them to the headsman double quick. Such men as Voltaire, Franklin, Paine, Locke, Jefferson, et al, would not even have existed in any other place, because only in the West were people allowed to develop intellectually as they themselves saw fit. At least after the Catholic Church stopped burning them, but that's another argument.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 07, 2006 09:16 AM (0yYS2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
24kb generated in CPU 0.061, elapsed 0.2381 seconds.
119 queries taking 0.2265 seconds, 255 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.