The Arab Spring is turning into a horror movie:
Egypt’s National Council for Women (NCW) has appealed to the Islamist-dominated parliament not to approve two controversial laws on the minimum age of marriage and allowing a husband to have sex with his dead wife within six hours of her death according to a report in an Egyptian newspaper.
The appeal came in a message sent by Dr. Mervat al-Talawi, head of the NCW, to the Egyptian People’s Assembly Speaker, Dr. Saad al-Katatni, addressing the woes of Egyptian women, especially after the popular uprising that toppled president Hosni Mubarak in February 2011.
She was referring to two laws: one that would legalize the marriage of girls starting from the age of 14 and the other that permits a husband to have sex with his dead wife within the six hours following her death.
The controversy about a husband having sex with his dead wife came about after a Moroccan cleric spoke about the issue in May 2011.
Zamzami Abdul Bari said that marriage remains valid even after death adding that a woman also too had the same right to engage in sex with her dead husband.
Well, at least there’s gender equality in that regard.
via The Daily Mail, which also reports that large segments of the Egyptian population are incensed:
TV anchor Jaber al-Qarmouty slammed the notion of letting a husband have sex with his wife after her death under the so-called ‘Farewell Intercourse’ draft law.
He said: ‘This is very serious. Could the panel that will draft the Egyptian constitution possibly discuss such issues? Did Abdul Samea see by his own eyes the text of the message sent by Talawi to Katatni?
‘This is unbelievable. It is a catastrophe to give the husband such a right! Has the Islamic trend reached that far? Is there really a draft law in this regard? Are there people thinking in this manner?’
But it’s the Islamic supremacists who dominate the new Egyptian parliament , and they’re the ones writing the laws. The Muslim Brotherhood and other, even more rigorous, Salafist parties want to reestablish the “pure” Islam of the early years, the time of Muhammad and his companions.
“But, surely,” you ask, “Islamic texts don’t condone having sex with corpses?”
Bear in mind that the Qur’an says Muhammad’s life is an eternal example for all who want to be good Muslims:
Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah. — Qur’an 33:21
And while lying with the dead isn’t in the Qur’an, it is presented as something Muhammad did in canonical Islamic texts:
It was late in the night, yet Fr Botros was not done cataloging his findings regarding the prophet’s “sexual” habits (these shows are an hour and a half long). So, when he moved on to a hadith depicting Muhammad lying next to a dead woman in her grave, as well as pointing to hadith categories called “intercourse with a dead woman,” I happily turned off the satellite and called it a night—till this moment, as I am (somewhat reluctantly) revisiting my notes to prepare this report. (from “Part Two”)
The hadiths are collections of the words and deeds of Muhammad and are considered essential to the proper interpretation of the Qur’an. I urge you to read the whole article to see a side of the Islamic prophet not usually mentioned before “infidels.” Just be prepared to say “ew” a lot.
Thus the proposed Egyptian “farewell intercourse” law is right in line with that “beautiful pattern of conduct.”
Meanwhile, as opposed to the fake, risible “war on women” meme the Democrats have been pushing to talk about anything but their record, there is a very real war on women being pushed in lands where Islam dominates, often by other women:
According to the Egyptian website Youm 7, Azza al-Jarf, a female Member of Parliament representing the Muslim Brotherhood’s “Freedom and Justice Party,” is trying to abolish several laws currently enjoyed by Egyptian women—including preventing them from divorcing or even separating from their husbands, because “the man has the authority and stewardship” (see Koran 4:34); mandating that fathers must circumcise their daughters; and trying to get the Egyptian educational system to ban the teaching of the English language—on the grounds that it is an “infidel” tongue—while separating boys and girls in classrooms and forcing girls to wear the hijab.
In other words, the party of pure Islam is trying to impose an “individual mandate” to mutilate one’s daughter and leave her in pain for the rest of her life.
Name me an Arab country, and I’ll recite a litany of abuses fueled by a toxic mix of culture and religion that few seem willing or able to disentangle lest they blaspheme or offend. When more than 90 percent of ever-married women in Egypt—including my mother and all but one of her six sisters—have had their genitals cut in the name of modesty, then surely we must all blaspheme. When Egyptian women are subjected to humiliating “virginity tests” merely for speaking out, it’s no time for silence. When an article in the Egyptian criminal code says that if a woman has been beaten by her husband “with good intentions” no punitive damages can be obtained, then to hell with political correctness. And what, pray tell, are “good intentions”? They are legally deemed to include any beating that is “not severe” or “directed at the face.” What all this means is that when it comes to the status of women in the Middle East, it’s not better than you think. It’s much, much worse. Even after these “revolutions,” all is more or less considered well with the world as long as women are covered up, anchored to the home, denied the simple mobility of getting into their own cars, forced to get permission from men to travel, and unable to marry without a male guardian’s blessing—or divorce either.
The author herself has horrifying personal experience of this.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: how any woman, unless naively ignorant or harboring a deep-seated need to be a slave, could ever willingly become Muslim is beyond me.
UPDATE: Allahpundit is skeptical. And not unreasonably so.
UPDATE II: Dan Murphy at the Christian Science Monitor is scornful of the reports regarding the “Farewell Intercourse” law. For the record, if this is shown to be not true I’ll post a correction in a new post.
(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)