Egypt women’s rights group: Egyptian men must not marry Syrian refugee girls
Posted by Ann Corcoran on January 24, 2013
If I’m reading this news correctly, one might conclude that Muslim men are following their new Shariah Constitution and must be taking child brides (something Mohammad himself did). The women’s rights group objects. What do you want to bet the women’s group isn’t going to survive the new Egypt.
Here is the story from bikya.news:
CAIRO: The Egyptian National Council for Women Rights (NCWR) condemned on Wednesday the phenomenon of Egyptian men marrying Syrian refugees.
Many Syrians have been recently displaced to Egypt due to the civil unrest in their home country, the number of registered Syrian refugees has reached 8, 858 according to the most recent updated data at the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).
The council said in a statement that these marriages are “crimes committed against women under the guise of religion, as some of the Islamic preachers encourage young Egyptian men to marry Syrian refugees.”
They justify these marriages as an altruistic gesture to save Syrian girls from their refugee status though in fact they are using their need for money, the dowry for these marriages usually does not exceed 500 Egyptian pounds.
A local newspaper published a story on Tuesday under the title “Hidden tragedies of Syrian marriages in Egypt” which reported that the phenomenon produced “brokers” for such marriages.
According to Syria’s personal status law the minimum age of marriage for girls is 16, whereas the law does not regulate this matter under Egypt’s new charter. [Big surprise! No restrictions on child brides---did you see that Hillary? Obama?---that Arab Spring sure was great!]
The council stressed that this behavior represents human trafficking, adding that “it conflicts with international conventions and human rights.” [But apparently not with the Muslim Brotherhood Constitution---ed]
Here is what Pamela Geller said yesterday in a post about the flicker of recognition by the New York Times about what the “Arab Spring” really is—an Islamic revolution!
…. two years after I warned of the fall of Qaddafi, the Times is finally reporting on the catastrophic consequences of Obama’s epic failed policy in Libya. They still use the the comical “Arab Spring.” It was never that. It was always an “Islamic revolution.” Always.
And of course, despite my dead-on reportage and prediction for Egypt and Libya and Israel, these useful idiots will never admit how terribly wrong they were and how right we were/are.
This is Obama’s chaos. He won’t own it, but he owns it. Party, on, Prez! Africa is burning, Infidels are dying and Michelle Antoinette is changing dresses.
And, Muslim men are free to marry little girls.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.