Friday, May 25, 2007

From the "Say what?!" department ...

Dateline: May 25, 2007

Title: Al-Azhar Lecturer Suspended after Issuing Controversial Fatwa Recommending Breastfeeding of Men by Women in the Workplace.

You know, I am a man of the world. I fully and completely understand that the universe is not only stranger than we imagine, but stranger than we can imagine -- to quote Sir Arthur Eddington.

Some things, though, still have the ability to absolutely blow my tiny little mind -- such as the above-referenced article.

Doctor Izzat Atiyya, of Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt, has decided that the knotty problem of an Islamic woman working in private with an Islamic man not related to her can be easily solved by shari'a law: to wit, if she breastfeeds him, he then becomes a family member. According to his interpretation of shari'a.

*blink, blink*

Umm. Hmm. Uhh...

Wow. That's just ...

I can't add anything to that. I really can't. There simply are no words.

Read the analysis linked above for more mind-blowing quotes.

I'd like to thank Peter for sending me a link which will, no doubt, cause me to sit bolt upright in bed at three in the morning, babbling, "Do what??!!" at least once in the coming years.



Nancy said...

okay... That one made my eyebrows take a journey straight up to the hairline. I don't think they've come down yet.

phlegmfatale said...

Um, so she has to keep her head and face covered, but she can whip out the chow line? I suppose it makes as much sense as anything else they've come up with. Perverts.

Anonymous said...

Muslims have always been into kink. Muhammad married a six year old and I believe had intercourse with her when she was 9. The Koran tells them that they can't copulate with their mothers, sisters, daughters or married women unless they're slaves. Infidels or anyone else are fair game for copulation, consensual or otherwise.

Lots of interesting stuff in there if one cares to read it and it explains a few things.

Diane said...

A favortie quote: Dr. Atiyya also said: "The fact that the hadith regarding the breastfeeding of an adult is inconceivable to the mind does not make it invalid. This is a reliable hadith, and rejecting it is tantamount to rejecting Allah's Messenger and questioning the Prophet's tradition."

IIRC, the only women Muhammad considered "pure" were Sarah, his own wife and his daughter.

And we try to find (logical) reasons they do the things they do...

Anonymous said...

Sounds to me like he is a "breast man", and thinks he has found a way to justify it.

Anonymous said...

It certainly brings new meaning to the phrase "Got Milk?"

HollyB said...

And folks say I was weird for nursing my chirrens 'itl they weaned themselves...16mos for one and 22 mos for the other. I even thought the LaLeche Leaguers were a bit radical. Now we all look solidly mainstream!

And anon..."Got Milk?" LMAO!

Old NFO said...

Gotta love Islam.... They can bend the rules to fit ANY case they want to; regardless of the sanity or insanity of it. Thanks for the laugh!


Anonymous said...

My God. If you made this stuff up, you'd be accused of racism and bigotry and run out of town on a rail.

I really wish I didn't know what hadith, shari'a and djimmitude were.

I'm afraid I'm going to learn about a bunch of exciting new concepts I'd rather not have ever heard of before it's all over.


Matt G said...

LawDog, it could spice up your afternoon cuppa tea.

I believe you prefer the cup poured "milk first, then tea"?


Anonymous said...

Maybe THIS will keep them from blowing themselves to smithereens.


Talk about your mandatory retirement age for women. Or could you call it a "Mandatory Mammary Age"?

I'm going to get some coffee. Perhaps this Arab import will wash away the new imagery you've given me, LawDog.

Sabra said...

And now we have the only situation in which I would not breastfeed.

Anonymous said...

I heard a story of XIX century young cossak having affair with beautiful hiland girl. After being ambushed by her relatives, he stormed into village, teared coat on old woman and kissed her nipple. After that he became part of the "family". He saved his life and soon they married.

Anonymous said...

Do you get I mean have to do this every time you're alone?

Puts a premium on hiring a hot secretary I guess.

Holly o:) said...

I am now officially grossed out. Ew!

Anonymous said...

Does she actually have to be lactating? The hadith wasn't clear ...

Library-Gryffon said...

I think I read that the "scholar" has recanted, and now says that he misread the hadith, and all she has to do is give the guy some of the breast milk, she doesn't actually have to nurse him. Still . . . .

ERnursey said...

And to think that they view Americans as immoral.

sig94 said...

Thus the lactating sport burqa bra.
These people gotta be hitting the hash hookah a bit too much.

And how much of a hit do you have to take before you're family? Less than a mouthful and you're just a third cousin? An in-law?

Anonymous said...

If it is just a matter of breast feeding the guy to become part of the family...why not let the 85 year old grandma do the honors. Should still make the guy part of the family and she would only have to lift her burka a little off the floor to expose herself.

Anonymous said...

You know, the craziest thing in this vein that I can think of that, say, the Catholics have done was to declare that Capybara are a fish, and therefore able to be consumed during lent.

But this is just downright stupid.

Anonymous said...

OK from the top this sounds stupid, but after moments of consideration, I have a few women in my office I would not mind adopting me.........Maybe I am crossing the line, but Sarah in accounting could feed a factory................

Ok this lack of general cognitive thinking is why they are more then willing to strap a bomb to themselves and go blow themselves up.

Anonymous said...


Slight misinterpretation.

The official language of the Catholic Church is Latin, including ALL Canon Law.

The prohibition against meat on Friday during Lent (used to be EVERY Friday) is actually a prohibition against "carnis".

"Carnis" means warmblooded, land-dwelling animal meat, including birds.

Stuff that lives primarily in the water (mammal or not, bird or not) is NOT technically "carnis".

When the conquistadores got to Venezuela, they noticed teh locals eating this giant water rat. The Spaniards wrote back to Rome (in Latin, since it was an official document), and said basically, "It lives in the water, even though it has fur and not scales. Can we eat it?"

Having nothing further to go on than that description, the Vatican decided it was something like a seal (which wasn't "carnis", either), and granted the dispensation. And it's never been recinded.

However, even if it WAS recinded, there is ALSO a Canon Law that preserves local customs of long-standing nature. So long as your dioceses OPENLY does something without being ordered to stop for a certain period of time, the Canons specifically protect that custom (which is why Eastern Catholic priests can marry even though they answer to the Pope; their "local custom" of priestly celibacy is a "local custom" of the WESTERN Catholic Church).

The only exception is if your "local custom" violates "dogma" (those beliefs considered "essential" to Catholicism; like belief that Jesus is the Son of God is a "dogma"). The Lenten fasting and abstinence customs aren't "dogma" -- they're simply Church discipline, like the rules that say Latin Rite priests cannot marry.

Anonymous said...

This shows why we should NOT try to "reason" with these people. There's just nothing there to reason with.

Someone here mentioned about the guy being a breast man, and figuring out a way to get it. Okay, maybe we should be glad the person wasn't a butt man??

I think I'm going to be like nancy and LD for awhile on this one. The eyebrows are up, and I'm going to be going, "Say what?? Do what??" in the middle of my sleep. This is just disgusting, and it poses many questions, too. What happens if a woman isn't lactating?, etc. Good grief, and people practice this religion in our own country.

Anonymous said...

So, let me get this straight. It's easier for Muslims to force a woman to let a man breastfeed off of her, so they can work together in private, versus just issuing a fatwa saying that it's okay for men and women to work together in private. The end of the world will not come if Omar and Haifa, who are not related, but need to work in private together, do so.

Of course, according to the good Dr., she should only have to breastfeed him for that to happen. Can you believe they actually had to have a meeting about this, and debate it?? These people are sick. There is something seriously wrong with them, and people are okay with them taking over the world? I don't know about you, but it makes me think twice.

Anonymous said...

Anon, the following graphic should be helpful:

Where you should be: ☻
Where you are: ☺
The Line: |


Unknown said...


From that perspective I can kind of understand. And as I stated before,
it's nowhere near as nutty as this Muslim idiot.

Even though the Catholic stance on the Capybara makes no sense from a biological sciences standpoint, it does make sense from a cultural one.

Anonymous said...


A LOT of the "crazy rulings" the Vatican has are somewhat like this.

If you get to the original issue, understand the original context, and follow the original reasoning, it tends to be a valid logic chain. (Doesn't mean it's always CORRECT. . . but that's why canon also perscribes that if verified facts contradict traditional interpretations, FACTS rule, since God doesn't lie to us. Had Galileo been able to PROVE his theories, he would have walked. He couldn't, so he took a plea deal.)

Another good example is "Why no meat on Fridays in Lent?"

First off, it originally was no meat on ANY Friday, or any day during Lent.

Secondly, it's not that meat is, in and of itself, sinful. It's that abstaining from meat is supposed to be a sacrifice, so you are less focussed on "worldly" matters and more on God.

Third, it's a sacrifice that hits the RICH without punishing the poor. What poor Dark Ages farmer can afford to EAT his livestock? He MIGHT eat meat once a week, if he has chickens. But the RICH (who are more likely to be seduced by worldly pleasures) eat meat ALL the time -- abstaining is far more of a reminder to them than to the peasants who aren't missing it anyway.


Anonymous said...

All this talk about suckling and titties dun gots me horny. I gots to go find me a ho.

Anonymous said...

Does any of this really surprise you anymore? Seriously. These idiots blow themselves up, decapitate the innocent(ie.Richard Pearl), and vow to destroy; in 'self-defense', any that fail to profess Allah as their savior. This while obviously completely re-writing the quran(lack of respect denotes lower case lettering) to suit the needs/desires of the moment.

Our nations cowards(ie. Murtha, Conyers, Clinton, Pelosi, Leahy, etc., etc., etc.) continue to blame us for this war as we are war-mongers not paying the appropriate respects or courtesies to a "backward-assed" religion and people. PC and cowardice will destroy this country long before these non-bathing, boobie sucking, hadje loving perverts will.

Che Guevara, Nitche, Pol Pot, Sun Tzu, and many other gorilla warriors all taught of destroying the enemy from with in. Look at our's more divided(socio-politico-eco-ideological) than ever before and our leaders are striving for greater dissension amongst the masses.

hadje-arabic slang for a male sex slave(typically in their early teens) to be used when the need; no pun intended, comes up. Hadje's are usually kept by men in the higher echelon as a means to illustrate their power and position.

Rick (aka Geodkyt)....The discussion is about the abhorrent and obtrusive hadith and not about a comment made in jest to justify an opinion. Thank you for the unwarranted lesson on Catholocism, stick to the topic if you would. Basically...shut up.

Anonymous said...

This is something I've wondered about for some time now:
Can a good Muslim be a good American?

Theologically - no. Because his allegiance is to Allah, the moon god of Arabia.

Religiously - no. Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah except Islam (quran, 2:256)

Scripturally - no. Because his allegiance is to the five pillars of Islam and the quran.

Geographically - no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca , to which he turns in prayer five times a day.

Socially - no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.

Politically - no. Because he must submit to the mullah (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and Destruction of America , the great Satan.

Domestically - no. Because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (quran 4:34).

Intellectually - no. Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.

Philosophically - no. Because Islam, Muhammad, and the quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression.

Spiritually - no. Because when we declare "one nation under God," the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as heavenly father nor is he ever called love in the quran's 99 excellent names.

Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist.
Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic

Therefore after much study and deliberation....perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. They obviously cannot be both "good" Muslims and good Americans. Call it what you's still the truth.
If you find yourself intellectually in agreement with the above statements, perhaps you will share this with your friends. The more who understand this, the better it will be for OUR country and OUR future.

The war is bigger than we know or understand. It is now a religious war continued from the days of Richard the Lion Heart and Saladin.