…but only when the court finds it beneficial.
I can think of no situation on earth where it would be beneficial to marry your own child, adopted or not. Is this kind of thinking really compatible with Western Civilization?
In my mind it is no more compatible with our society then the backwoods rednecks and hillbillies who marry their sisters. We have laws against incest in this country. It is true that an adopted child is not a blood relative, but the parent-child relationship is still a sacred bond in most cultures and this is just sick.
Radio Free Europe reports:
Iran’s vice president for women’s issues and family affairs, Shahindokht Molaverdi, says she is planning to take action against a newly passed law that allows adult caregivers to marry their adopted children or stepchildren.
The law was passed by Iran’s parliament on September 22 and approved by the Guardians Council in early October, despite widespread criticism. The Guardians Council is in charge of vetting all of parliament’s bills before they can become law.
A footnote in one of the articles of the legislation that is supposed to protect the rights of children and adolescents has been the main cause of the controversy.
The footnote says adult caregivers can marry non-blood related children who are in their custody if it is demanded by the country’s Welfare Organization and if a court rules that it would be beneficial to the child.
Why would any child welfare organization demand that an adopted parent marry their child?
This is one of those things that my Mom used to talk about. She used a highly technical term — “bumfuzzled.” I don’t understand this. I can’t even begin to comment on what I don’t understand.
It reminds me of an old college friend who decided that he was gay later in life. He and I were talking and he said he had a problem. At the time I was still trying to process through my feelings, and prove myself the bigger man, so I went “Dr. Phil” on him and told him to lay it on me.
To this day his response still makes my head hurt. He said, “Dean, I am in love with my boyfriend’s husband.”
What??? I understand triangles but what kind of weird geometry was this? Boyfriend’s husband? Do such things exist?
That was in the late 80s when there was no such thing as same-sex marriage.
Bumfuzzled. That’s all I can say.
Jerry Springer could do one heck of a show with guests from Iranian Parliament just as he could have done with my old friend at the time of his dilemma.
I don’t need to do a show about either. I am too simple-minded to get to the pyschological root of this type of thinking. I don’t really understand it and don’t want to.
Where I come from we just simply call people like this perverts.
But where I come from we don’t have social welfare organizations and courts ruling in favor of the perverts.
Wait a second… Maybe we do. 🙁
Actually as sick as this is, there is some precedent from the life of Muhammad to not only marry an adopted child, but also for an incestuous marriage. Muhammad married his cousin who just happened to be his adopted son’s ex-wife.
Zaynab bint Jahsh was Muhammad’s cousin, being the daughter of one of his father’s sisters. In Medina Muhammad arranged the widowed Zaynab’s marriage to his adopted son Zayd ibn Harithah. Caesar E. Farah states that Muhammad was determined to establish the legitimacy and right to equal treatment of the adopted. Zaynab disapproved of the marriage, and her brothers rejected it, because according to Ibn Sa’d, she was of aristocratic lineage and Zayd was a former slave.Watt states that it is not clear why Zaynab was unwilling to marry Zayd as Muhammad esteemed him highly. He theorises that Zaynab, being an ambitious woman, was already hoping to marry Muhammad; or that she might have wanted to marry someone of whom Muhammad disapproved for political reasons. According to Maududi, after the Qur’anic verse 33:36 was revealed, Zaynab acquiesced and married Zayd.
Zaynab’s marriage was unharmonious. According to Watt, it is almost certain that she was working for marriage with Muhammad before the end of 626. “Zaynab had dressed in haste when she was told ‘the Messenger of God is at the door.’ She jumped up in haste and excited the admiration of the Messenger of God, so that he turned away murmuring something that could scarcely be understood. However, he did say overtly: ‘Glory be to God the Almighty! Glory be to God, who causes the hearts to turn!'” Zaynab told Zayd about this, and he offered to divorce her, but Muhammad told him to keep her. The story laid much stress on Zaynab’s perceived beauty and Muhammad’s supposedly disturbed set of mind. Nomani considers this story to be a rumor. Watt doubts the accuracy of this portion of the narrative, since it does not occur in the earliest source. He thinks that even if there is a basis of fact underlying the narrative, it would have been subject to exaggeration in the course of transmission as the later Muslims liked to maintain that there was no celibacy and monkery in Islam. Rodinson disagrees with Watt arguing that the story is stressed in the traditional texts and that it would not have aroused any adverse comment or criticism.
Muhammad, fearing public opinion, was initially reluctant to marry Zaynab. The marriage would seem incestuous to their contemporaries because she was the former wife of his adopted son, and adopted sons were considered the same as biological sons. According to Watt, this “conception of incest was bound up with old practices belonging to a lower, communalistic level of familial institutions where a child’s paternity was not definitely known; and this lower level was in process being eliminated by Islam.” Muhammad’s decision to marry Zaynab was an attempt to break the hold of pre-Islamic ideas over men’s conduct in society. The Qur’an,33:37 however, indicated that this marriage was a duty imposed upon him by God. It implied that treating adopted sons as real sons was objectionable and that there should now be a complete break with the past. Thus Muhammad, confident that he was strong enough to face public opinion, proceeded to reject these taboos. When Zaynab’s waiting period was complete, Muhammad married her. An influential faction in Medina, called “Hypocrites” in the Islamic tradition, did indeed criticize the marriage as incestuous. Attempting to divide the Muslim community, they spread rumors as part of a strategy of attacking Muhammad through his wives. According to Ibn Kathir, the relevant Qur’anic verses were a “divine rejection” of the Hypocrites’ objections. According to Rodinson, doubters argued the verses were in exact conflict with social taboos and favored Muhammad too much. The delivery of these verses, thus, did not end the dissent.
The prophet Muhammad reminds me a little bit of the prophet Obama. It seems like both could and can do whatever they want(ed) and the people around them find justification.
I write about these things not because I really care to tell people in Iran how to live their lives. I write about these things because they are coming to America sooner than you think. As long as we keep bending over backwards to honor the religious freedom of Muslims, we move closer to a society that is overrun by their unique forms of perversion.
If we put an American twist on this then someday we will have Fathers marrying their Sons and Mothers marrying their Daughters. And we can’t really discriminate against those who weren’t adopted. Let’s make it legal for blood relatives too.
You think that’s beyond belief?
Look around. How much of what is going on would have you have considered “beyond belief” just a few short years ago?
It is not just Iran that is sick. It is our own country.
We live in a place and time where following Biblical principles makes you a bigot and PETA doesn’t care how many gerbils are harmed as long as gay men have fun.
What is wrong with this picture America?