Posted on 07/04/2012 12:18:07 PM PDT by Ben Barrack
It’s common knowledge that former Congressman Anthony Weiner has had trouble suppressing his sexual appetites but if one of those appetites is the rape of his wife – Huma Abedin – his mother-in-law shouldn’t object, according to the standards of a group she endorses.
Saleha Abedin, Weiner’s mother-in-law, is not only a leader of the Muslim Sisterhood but she has endorsed the mission of the International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child (IICWC), which includes the acceptance of marital rape. This became apparent when her name appeared on the list of participants of the Islamic Conference for The Islamic Uprising.
Here is a screen shot from the Rabita Trust website that has since been scrubbed. It highlights Saleha’s membership with IICWC...
(Excerpt) Read more at shoebat.com ...
So Hilary’s lesbian assistant was raped by that weasel Weiner? Somehow I missed this. Are they still married? How the hell did she ever see that guy and say, “Yes, this is the guy for me.” She’s not a bad looking muslim but still.
Weiner boy was also born a Jew - what does does Huma’s mama think about that?
Not saying Huma was raped by Weiner. Just saying that, according to her mother’s positions, marital rape is acceptable.
Weiner is Mossad. Huma is C.I.A.
Any evidence?
Wouldn’t be surprised. Didn’t Monica Blewinsky’s parents forgive him, practically the next day I believe.
Re: Wouldn’t be surprised. Didn’t Monica Blewinsky’s parents forgive him, practically the next day I believe.
“Bubba” that is.
I read in the NY Post that Weenie is now a stay at home Dad and Huma is on the road 80% of the time with Hildabeast.
If he’s raping anybody, it’s likely the nanny.
Weiner sent some lewd pictures of himself to women not his wife. He’s indisputably a dirtbag.
But for you to imply — by your headline — that he’s a RAPIST?
You’re not helping the cause of pushing back on radical Islam by such irresponsible, unconscionable posts.
I imagine Huma’s mother is proud of the job her daughter is doing at the very tip of the jihad spear.
“I imagine Huma’s mother is proud of the job her daughter is doing at the very tip of the jihad spear.”
Yes, the circumcised tip.
You obviously didn’t read anything BUT the headline.
I implied no such thing.
Speak after you know what you’re talking about.
Before getting overly self-righteous about this issue, it might be appropriate to remember that in the USA until quite recently many states did not allow for prosecution of rape charges against a spouse. In fact the last state to remove this exemption was NC, in 1993.
Under common law and indeed just about all western law codes it was not possible for a man to rape his wife, based on the belief that marriage constituted by definition an agreement to engage in sexual relations. Changes in this regard have been quite recent, almost entirely since the 50s.
Are you serious?
According to Huma’s mother, she is personally OK with marital rape not just on principle but must, by extension, be OK with it in the case of her daughter... to a Jewish husband.
As a leader in the Muslim Sisterhood, Saleha has allowed her daughter to marry a Jew for the purpose of a higher calling. Her own stances necessitate that she must also be ok with that Jewish husband raping her daughter, if he were to choose to do so.
What does that have to do with your point?
...and I’m hummus :-)))
Well, let’s see.
The notion that it should be legally impermissible for a husband to have sexual relations with his wife against her will is a very recent phenomenon, less than 100 years anywhere, and less than 20 years in some parts of the US.
So acting like this is some sort of perversion unique to Islam is silly.
BTW, the link in your article is that Mom is a member of some Islamic group. Unless she signed a specific statement to that effect, it is inappropriate for you to say that “According to Huma’s mother, she is personally OK with marital rape.”
She is a Muslim, and this is the standard Muslim position, but that’s a far cry from stating that she has personally endorsed it.
BTW, blog-pimp much? Or does your own site have rules prohibiting you from posting the entire article to FR?
Before getting overly self-righteous about this issue, it might be appropriate to remember that in the USA until quite recently many states did not allow for prosecution of rape charges against a spouse. In fact the last state to remove this exemption was NC, in 1993.
Under common law and indeed just about all western law codes it was not possible for a man to rape his wife, based on the belief that marriage constituted by definition an agreement to engage in sexual relations. Changes in this regard have been quite recent, almost entirely since the 50s.
I’ll respond when you’re actually coherent.
I read the article.
And in the accompanying headline, you imply Weiner is a rapist.
Try selling any other interpretation of that headline to an educated jury of native English speakers.
It’s shameful. Surprised the moderator hasn’t pulled this thread.
Weiner for President 2016: Let him do to the country what he’s been doing to Huma.
Let me simplify, since this is apparently so complicated.
1.) I never said or implied Weiner is a rapist. The headline is about Huma’s mother condoning the behavior, regardless of Weiner’s actions.
2.) Huma’s mother is a leader in the Muslim Sisterhood (how about you ask yourselves why she has no problem with her daughter marrying a Jew?)
3.) Huma’s mother supports IICWC, a group that supports marital rape (just like anyone who supports planned parenthood must support abortion)
4.) Therefore, how is Huma’s mother not a hypocrite if she has a problem with her daughter being raped by Weiner?
You people are having a difficult time with logic today.
“Does Anthony Weiner’s Mother-in-Law Support his Raping her Daughter?”
Are you not a native speaker of English?
“...his raping her daughter.”
“Does... support” is the present tense, not the conditional. That means the raping, a gerund, has happened. The sentence means it is the case now. You are saying the rape is over and done with.
If you had inserted the adverb “potentially” in from of the gerund “raping,” your meaning would be clear.
Or if you had said “Would” — the conditional, making it speculative, instead of “Does,” you would sound less like a malignant community organizer bent on smearing people.
You obfuscated on purpose, and now you’re sore that people who know what they’re talking about in matters of syntax and grammar are calling you on it.
Let it go. And you should voluntarily pull this stupid thread.
You’re arguing Syntax while the White House has been infiltrated?
That’s like arguing with a fireman who says, “Get out, the house are on fire.”
Wake up.
Would these “headlines” make you feel better?
“Anthony Weiner’s mother-in-law: Feel free to Rape my wife”
“Does Anthony Weiner’s mother-in-law condone the rape of her daugter?”
“If Anthony Weiner raped his wife, would his mother-in-law object?”
You’re splitting hairs and you know it.
Would these “headlines” make you feel better?
“Anthony Weiner’s mother-in-law: Feel free to Rape my daughter”
“Does Anthony Weiner’s mother-in-law condone the rape of her daughter?”
“If Anthony Weiner raped his wife, would his mother-in-law object?”
You’re splitting hairs and you know it.
If you like toothy, scrawny horse faces, she meets the criteria.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.