More on that law that lets Iranian men marry and fuck their own adopted daughters, from the Guardian.
Parliamentarians in Iran have passed a bill to protect the rights of children which includes a clause that allows a man to marry his adopted daughter and while she is as young as 13 years.
In a bill to protect the rights of children? How…paradoxical.
To the dismay of rights campaigners, girls in the Islamic republic can marry as young as 13 provided they have the permission of their father. Boys can marry after the age of 15.
In Iran, a girl under the age of 13 can still marry, but needs the permission of a judge. At present, however, marrying stepchildren is forbidden under any circumstances.
As many as 42,000 children aged between 10 and 14 were married in 2010, according to the Iranian news website Tabnak. At least 75 children under the age of 10 were wed in Tehran alone.
Oh, they’re just sex-positive, that’s all. Sex is good, so it’s a kindness to make it possible for children to have it.
Shadi Sadr, a human rights lawyer with the London-based group Justice for Iran, told the Guardian she feared the council would feel safe to put its stamp of approval on the bill while Iran’s moderate president, Hassan Rouhani, draws the attention of the press during his UN visit to New York.
…
According to Sadr, officials in Iran have tried to play down the sexual part of such marriages, saying it is in the bill to solve the issue of hijab [head scarf] complications when a child is adopted.
An adopted daughter is expected to wear the hijab in front of her father, and a mother should wear it in front of her adopted son if he is old enough, Sadr said.
Oh good god. See what that’s about? Women aren’t allowed to ditch the hijab when any males are around unless they are close relatives – so the thinking here is that adopted children aren’t relatives. A thought pregnant with possibilities for cruelty and exclusion. Thank you, religion.
That law is, like, five kinds of gross.
Well, the perfect exemplar of the religion was kinds of gross and the religious laws simply reflect this. Like with the mormons and polygamy. All kinds of bullshit justifications to ensure the men in charge have their supply of sex slaves, the younger the better.
Adoption in Islam is forbidden*, so the article is misleading. Islam only allows foster care, that’s where the hijab issue comes from, though that rule is lifted if the child was breastfed by its foster mom. With real adoption there would be no issue.
*Why is it forbidden? Mo had an adoptive son named Zaid. He married Zaid to his (Mo’s) first cousin Zainab. One day Mo came to their house and caught a glimpse of Zainab not properly dressed and got horny. (Zaid immediately offered to divorce Zainab.) Since marriage between a man and his daughter-in-law was taboo, Mo came up with the rule that adoption is illegal. Zaid became unrelated to him and so he could marry Zainab, his first cousin. (Also the reason why Moslems see no wrong with marrying first cousins, as Mo could do no wrong.)
Anoia @3
While I’ve not had a chance to read the Q’uran in its entirety or in its original language, a lot of the material I have read related to it seems to suggest that a lot of religious laws were come up on the spot due to Muhammad getting horny.
Woody Allen anybody.
Disgusting.
Why do they have this dire need to marry children? Is there some mysterious shortage of grown women in Iran?
This isn’t really restricted to Iran, of course. This is a particularly blatant example, but it’s based on attitudes that still exist in the Western world. At least two:
1) Men’s problems are more important than women’s problems.
If something affects women, then it’s very difficult to deal with, will cost too much money, might have unforeseen effects; better put it in committee for a decade or two and then we’ll deal with it, if we remember.
If something affects men, suddenly it’s a national emergency, extra funds will be found to deal with it, experts enlisted to solve the problem as quickly as possible; screw whether this will cause problems down the line, a man is being inconvenienced.
2) Children are property.
Parents’ rights are held as hugely important; it’s absolutely inconceivable for the state to step in in anything but the most extreme cases. Who cares if daddy is diddling all seven of his kids; it would be obscene government overreach to tell him to stop.
But children’s rights? Ahh, who cares. They’ll get rights when they grow up. Even in those cases where children’s rights are considered, it’s often just a cover for pushing the parent’s rights all over again.
E.g. anti-vaxers, religious apologists or opponents of sex-ed will often talk for hours about the children – think of the children, what about the children, you can’t do that to the children – but a bit of attention will reveal that the real focus is to protect the parent’s right to decide for their children.
And both these issues really boil down to the same essential core: The rejection of the humanity of a certain group of people.
The fact that adoption is forbidden by Islam is itself disgusting and hateful. It just means that children who are unlucky enough to have no parents simply have to go through life with no parents, period, end of story. That’s loathsome.
As for why the dire need to marry children – it’s not quite that – it’s a dire need for men to marry little girls. Why that? I assume it’s the obvious, which I mentioned in the post – little girls are tight. They make great sex toys. Or maybe it turns out in practice that they don’t, but that’s got to be the thinking.
Maybe Warren Jeffs could explain it, if only he weren’t in prison.
“As many as 42,000 children aged between 10 and 14 were married in 2010. . .”
Don’t they mean “girls” rather than children here? This isn’t about children. It’s about little girls. Just like that Warren Jeffs business.
Sickening.
I think that this is no more than the truth. Whatever happens “in practice”, the lust predominates, at least till the thirst is slaked. Any suggestion of female sexuality, even the mere fact of a child’s potential to be a woman, is enough for the powers of association to work on. Mo’s behaviour endorses the authority of lust, even while the demand of total submission to Allah forbids even the possibility of interest in anything which isn’t their outrageous, capricious, monstrous idol. Very scary minds, these people must have. Lustful and guilty, dominant and submissive, beset with guilty associations on every level of normal human intercourse, they cannot possibly know or understand how to think intelligibly about anything.