this would be hilarious if it weren't such black humor. it is one of
those truly remarkable stories you find in supermarket tabloids like
the national enquirer. what appears to have happened:
1. mohammedan man marries new wife, possibly for the nth time
2. new wife may be considerably younger than man, possibly close to
son (22) in age, as mohammedan men tend to marry women often much
younger than them, around 15-19 being a popular age (quite scientific
actually: women are most fertile in their teens and early 20s)
3. new wife and son become chummy; no evidence of hanky-panky so far as is known
4. man talaqs and divorces new wife (for unknown reasons)
5. new wife leaves man's home, and is now ex-wife, and thus
ex-stepmother (i conjecture that she was kicked out of the man's home,
isn't that what happens to talaqed wives?)
6. son runs off and marries ex-stepmother (as conjectured above, she
is probably close to his age)
7. mullahs claim #6 is rape
this is most interesting. even though man divorced woman and she's a
free agent, someone marrying her is considered rape? i suppose it's
because it's the quasi-son doing it. but then, why is it rape? why
isn't it quasi-incest? do we deduce there are no prohibitions against
incest in mullah lore?
consider this in light of the previous mullah judgment that an old man
raping his daughter-in-law (there is no argument about the rape, all
parties agree it happened) automatically made her his wife, and thus
(step?) mother to his son, who was her lawfully-wedded husband. so
that was not rape, it was acceptable behavior, although some might
call it incest.
conclusion: if man rapes woman, it's not rape, it has to be accepted.
if man marries divorced woman, it's rape because she is still her
how very orwellian! rape is not rape. marriage is rape.
also how very convenient for middle-aged men! not so convenient, alas
for young men (which is why they have to seek the 72-virgin-path). not
at all convenient for women, but then who cares about them? certainly
not all the usual suspect sob-sisters such as shabana and teesta.
middle-aged man taking young man's property (in this case, woman) is
fine. young man legally taking middle-aged man's former property (ie.
woman) is not fine. so there are fiddly rules about how older men have
property rights that extend beyond their formal relinquishment of
that is, i can see this extended to: if middle-aged mohammedan man
sells you a goat, he still has rights over the goat, and he has the
right to come back and take it from you any time he pleases.
lo, verily is it said that it's good to be a middle-aged mohammedan man!
i do expect a large number of middle-aged non-mohammedan men to
convert to mohammedanism any day now. especially those who have
luscious daughters-in-law. and lo, who can blame them?