When following the news from Iran, it is often hard to tell the difference between a news story and a really good joke. The latest story on the Islamically correct lifestyle, according to the Iranian government, involves a study that found that young Iranians were having sex, even homosexual sex, in rising numbers. The 82-page report, issued by Iran’s parliamentary research branch, is alarmed at the findings and recommends that the government push for the use of “temporary” marriages that may last no longer then the tryst itself. It is something akin to a Vegas marriage for good Muslims. Marry, have sex, and then divorce. You are happy. The Mullah is happy. Everyone is happy.
The report found that a surprising 80 percent of females acknowledged having premarital sex. These women admitted to entering romantic relationships as early as middle school and, perhaps the most surprising of all, 17 percent of all respondents identified as homosexual. You have to remember that two-thirds of the population of Iran is under the age of 35.
The solution to premarital sex? The sigheh. No, not a sigh after sex. A sigheh before sex. It is a temporary marriage that can last anywhere from one tryst to years. Under the Sharia law followed in Iran, a Muslim man can have up to four legal wives. However, you can have up to 99 of the temporary marriages. So the way to get rid of premarital sex is to make it marital sex. Problem solved. Sigh.
The problem is that some women complain that they have been forced into a sigheh, which can be a cover for a type of Islamically-correct form of prostitution.
However, the mullahs of Iran are more concerned about converting defiant sex into devout sex for the millions of young Iranians. Same one-night stand of course but we can call it a one-night marriage.
65 thoughts on “A Sigheh Before Sex: Iranian Government Discovers Young Iranian Are Having Sex . . . Proposes “Temporary” Marriages To Make It Islamically Correct”
Great limerick there, Squeaky! When I was in the Carabean in 2010 I had a similar title on a small cruise boat, most all limericks about those seas.
You do speak for me when you comment about Islam erroneously.
I do speak for davidM when I speak about Christianity erroneously.
I do speak for you when I speak about agnostism erroneously.
po – you only speak for yourself when you talk about religions. You speak for me only if you give me permission to speak for me or try to give meaning to my words that are not there.
When I comment on Islam correctly or erroneously, I never speak for you. I speak about Islam. Unless you are Islam I cannot speak for you.
My point, Paul, is that with speech comes responsibility. You speak out of a position of authority (professor of comparative religion), and the related assumption of knowledge, and with that, comes the duty to measure twice and cut once.
When your facts are wrong, you affect not only me but all Muslims, because the erroneous information you offered and thus helped disseminate, becomes something that informs actions and ideas, the repercussion of which may affect one or many.
in that, you speak of me and about me, and who knows where that would lead…? Especially when you so clearly reveal a bias in a us vs them dichotomy.
po- I have taught Comparative Religions, I am not a professor of Comparative Religions, just to clear that up. However, you speak of disagreeing with imams and scholars. Do they or you not affect all Muslims by taking your stands? You state that they are sometimes factually wrong. You even discuss that you are in the minority of the group holding your view on the beating of women. Who then affects whom? Who really is to say who is right or wrong? What or who is to say that you are not wrong in this perception?
I mean, Paul, we can go on into philosophy and morality and what is what, and is up down or right left and perception and subjectivity vs objectivity…etc.
The nature of humanity it to take position against ideas and opinions that we disagree with. That is the currency that supports human commerce.
Being right or being wrong is less the issue than speaking out of knowledge and out of good intent. A deceptive intent is worthless, and knowledge is always worthwhile even when the conclusions it births aren’t.
I never challenge knowledge unless it is not factual, nor do I blame conclusions when informed by knowledge. I blame false knowledge and I blame deceptive conclusions and I blame speech that is not based on knowledge.
Who then affects whom is less the issue than is your speech knowledgeable and of good intent? If so, good, if not then I challenge your speech and your right to speak of that.
It is no different from you and anyone else. That is, again, the currency that drives the commerce of ideas.
po – in this country we have free speech, even if it is wrong. I listen to politicians all the time who are lying, Harry Reid comes to mind immediately. He has a right to say what he wants even if his intent is evil.
Which brings up another issue. Who is to judge what is good and what is evil intent? For Harry Reid, when he lies, his intent is for the good of the Democratic Party. His intentions therefore are for what he believes are the greater good. For Republicans, his intent is evil, since he is trying to make sure Republicans do not get elected.
Paul, what would make it a science? A codified curriculum?
Regarding your second point, this is what I said:
“And I have yet to see you, Paul, show any complexity in your answers, some of which I have addressed, some I haven’t. And you and Karen speak as experts on the subject, because you leave no doubt in your answer and conclusions that you do know what you are talking about, which suggests some level of expertise.
So I am not dismissing your knowledge of Islam based on your not being Muslim, I am because you are speaking on my behalf and of me whenever you speak on Islam without taking care not to put me in a box. I react the same way when any imam or any scholar derives a conclusion or asserts a fact that my knowledge tells me is either too simplistic or just wrong.”
By the way, Karen Amrstrong, one of the foremost scholars of Islam, is not Muslim.
po – science requires using the scientific method, something you are not doing here, according to your own explanation of your process. According to you, your own thinking process outweighs the thinking process of any imam or scholar you disagree with.
I have never spoken for you. Where have I spoken for you?
Paul, it is neither science nor art. Though it is referred to as the Islamic sciences, it is a curriculum taught as any other one. Traditional as well as modern islamic colleges teach it, and while the latter consecrate it with a degree, the former give one an itijad, a permission to, in turn, teach. So it is a science just as any other western degree is a science, it is an education until it becomes a science.
I am not engaged in any of such formal Islamic education, I am western educated and Islamically educated,and doing what one may call self-directed studies. So I read all the texts and do the exercises and the research, but am not getting a degree out of it, obviously, unless I give it to myself.
You may see it as my thinking process outweighs the one of any imam or scholar I disagree with, or you can say that, as I am sure you have experienced, you do sometimes disagree with the work of one of your colleagues because the facts are either wrong, or the conclusions are.
For example, regarding the verse dealing with women. At first glance it suggests one can beat his wife. My understanding of Islam being that one cannot beat his wife, I did the research that confirms my thinking that the suggested method is to seek intercession and judgement from someone in authority (like marital counselling) which puts me at odds with the thousands of scholars current and past who understood it as beating.
My thinking process doesn’t outweigh theirs, from the fact of what the Quran says, I just derived a different conclusion and meaning.
And Davidm, were I you, I ‘d just worry about Christianity and leave Islam to the Muslims. you are under siege too, based on the many posts you penned in defense of your faith.
And Paul, who is that “we” you talk about in “I think we can play that game, too. Muslims cannot discuss Christianity because they do not read Latin?”
Are you agnostic or Christian? Either way by taking one side against the other, you are showing bias, which disqualifies you from speaking honestly about the other.
And tell that to Reza Aslan, who just wrote a best selling book on Jesus.
only problem, Squeek, it is not in the quran. Then again, what’s new?
Another problem, Karen S, it is not in the shariah law as there is no Shariah Law. Again, there are shariah laws depending on the cultural bedrock…what is shariah law in one place isn’t in another. You and Paul would benefit us all by ceasing and desisting speaking as authorities of all things Islam.
po – being Muslim does not make one an expert on the subject.
Wow, am not sure how to respond to that, Paul.
True, though not being a Muslim makes one very much less likely to know more about Islam than a practicing Muslim.
It does take some cojones for one to speak of something one knows but little, and thirdhand, and in bits and pieces (the only ones they deem relevant, jihad, shariah law…rinse and repeat!
po – as an agnostic, I knew more about Catholicism than did my mother who practiced her faith. I think it is condescending to try to deflect criticism by claiming people are less knowledgeable, so therefore they cannot know anything.
All I have heard for you is that I am wrong because I am not Muslim. I have not seen proof from your end that you are right. We have not seen you put your credentials on the table so that we know you speak from any level of authority.
I have taught Comparative Religions and Islam was one of the religions I taught. I am not an expert and I do not put myself out to be an expert. However, I do have a passing knowledge of the religion, as I do of several major religions.
Paul wrote: “I think it is condescending to try to deflect criticism by claiming people are less knowledgeable, so therefore they cannot know anything.”
I have been told repeatedly by different Muslims that I cannot discuss the Quran because I do not know the Arabic language. There is no translation in English that is suitable so that I can really understand it. I’ve even tried using a parallel translation with the arabic for them and English for me, but it still won’t work. My take is pretty much like yours seems to be. I assume they have no good answer to the passages I bring up, so their response is that only an Arabic speaking person could understand what it really means.
david – the problem is that an Arabic speaking person will put the same twist on it that comes with their particular teaching and background. Theologians rarely agree, especially on the small parts.
I think we can play that game, too. Muslims cannot discuss Christianity because they do not read Latin.
Paul, imagine you studying for years to earn your degree, then as a professor, doing all the added learning and training and specialization in order to sustain your skills and knowledge, and then have a graduate student challenge your knowledge of your subject,and claim also to be just as qualified as you are based on his having taught a couple of classes!
The most obvious sign of ignorance of Islam, is one’s willingness/ability to answer anything with one sentence. Knowledge of it requires knowing the complexity of Islamic jurisprudence on its own, its rules and processes, especially when multiplied by the different schools and philosophies.
Therefore the first answer to a question about Islam is usually a question, and it is “according to whom?” The quran? the sunna? the madhabs? the consensus? the practices? which era?
My Islamic education is based on the daily practice, on the daily research, in the quran, the sunnah, the hadith, the scholars, the learned, the civilians, the wondering and the pondering, the debating, the books of wisdom, the classes, in history, in linguistics, in grammar, in philosophy…etc. And the more I learn, the more complex of a science I know it to be.
And I have yet to see you, Paul, show any complexity in your answers, some of which I have addressed, some I haven’t. And you and Karen speak as experts on the subject, because you leave no doubt in your answer and conclusions that you do know what you are talking about, which suggests some level of expertise.
So I am not dismissing your knowledge of Islam based on your not being Muslim, I am because you are speaking on my behalf and of me whenever you speak on Islam without taking care not to put me in a box. I react the same way when any imam or any scholar derives a conclusion or asserts a fact that my knowledge tells me is either too simplistic or just wrong.
po – what you are describing is the study of an art, not a science. I have never spoken on your behalf, so please do not speak on mine. BTW, a fact is a fact. If the imam or scholar asserts a fact that is wrong, it is an opinion. And given your cogent defense of your background, who are you to disagree with them?
“We’ are all who are not Muslim.
Not impressed by the lack of rigorous scholarship in Aslan’s book. Here is a review.
Art…science…. Would you please restate your comment, Paul? I am not sure I know what you mean.
Regarding Reza’s book, there were mostly glowing reviews. To offer of the few that counter it isn’t very honest. The scholarship is impeccable, though you may disagree with his conclusion. 1/3 of the book is solely bibliography.
po – you described your process for studyism and described it as a science. But the process you described makes it more of an art.
Don’t you think a review by a scholar who knows the subject more thoroughly (Catholic) [using your thinking], know more about the subject than Reza?
This isn’t the Perry thread. Try again.
Human decency is in short supply.
That was a limerick–not an Elizabethan sonnet.
Elaine – I know that the one above is a limerick, but if you have been reading carefully, Squeeky did the sonnet on the Perry thread.
Well, sometimes poetry is supposed to make you uncomfortable, Like Ginsberg’s “Howl.” Sooo, just view me in that light.
You call it an Elizabethian sonnet. I call it a moral outrage, but what’s in a name?
mespo – enjoy your vacation. An Elizabethan sonnet is a form. It has no particular subject matter.
Thank you all!!! FWIW, I went ahead and did the Elizabethan Sonnet on the Perry thread.
I second, and BRAVA, Squeeky.
I am raising a motion to have Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter elected to the ceremonial post of blog Limerick Laurate.
Is there a second?
On the basis of the last limerick, I vote yes.
Brava, Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter
OK, this should be fun!
Chic of Araby???
An Irish Poem by Squeeky Fromm
In three days did a girl from Iran,
Go and marry her forty fifth man!
When asked to tell why,
She just winked her eye,
And said, “Look in the Holy Koran!
Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter
how about some Irish verse?
A Studs paradise…
Karen, I absolutely remember that and what I remember most was the look on the idiots face when the audience howled in laughter.
Remember when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said at Columbia University that there were no gays in Iran?
I’ve been reading about Muslim “temporary marriages” for years. It is a terrible source of sex trafficking in places like India, where young, poor girls are sold by their families into a series of “temporary marriages” which is just a loophole in Sharia Law that allows Muslim men to have premarital sex. The girls get forced into it against their will, wait hand and foot on these guys for 2 weeks, and are his slave, and then they have to start all over again with a new one.
As always, women and girls get unfair treatment.
Comments are closed.