Pimp your mosque!

This sounds a lot like the old temple prostitution in the early centuries of Christianity.

Source: Pajamas Media

Gold dome of Imam Reza's shrine, Mash'had

Gold dome of Imam Reza's shrine, Mash'had

Pious pilgrimage just got more exciting at Imam Reza’s shrine in Iran, where for a reasonable fee (see price list below) a mullah can join any eager pilgrim in holy matrimony of “temporary marriage” with his choice of a lovely, fully hijabed, and properly veiled prostitute for a period between 5 hours to 10 days. Pedophiles welcome: girls as young as 12 years of age are standing by. Not to worry, the mullahs got them covered: all “temps” under 14 must show a written consent from their fathers or male guardians (no doubt on advice from the recently fired, now freelancing ACORN specialists).

We are not making this up.

According to a document obtained by Planet-Iran.com, the mullahs are doing it not for the money (what’s a 5% pimp cut for a holy shrine?), but out of the noble desire “to elevate the spiritual atmosphere, create proper psychological conditions and tranquility of mind” of “those brothers who are on pilgrimage to the shrine.” Verily, what true believer can maintain tranquility of mind and not succumb to sexual yearning while away from his other wives for nearly a week? No pious man should have to suffer such inhumanity.

Here’s how it works. The mullah performs a ceremony that sanctions the “morality” of the relationship for a period specified in the “prenuptial agreement” (not more than 10 days, minimum charge 5 hrs) — in direct proportion to the size of the “bridegroom’s” wallet. When the “godliness” of their prepaid romance expires, the “honeymooners” descend from the moral high ground to get an easy, Sharia-compliant divorce.

Read the entire article on the Pajamas Media website.


  1. George Michalopulos :

    Isn’t it ironic? Islam, which is supposed to be an Abrahamic faith, may really be reverting to its pagan roots. For all the sins committed within the Church, it never sanctioned prostitution. What flabbergasts me is the apparent willingness of so many Christian theologians to make nice with Islam. Why the lack of confidence?

  2. Scott Pennington :

    Temporary marriages are a Shiite practice. Sunnis do not have fixed term temporary marriages and they constitute ca. 85% of Muslims. The practice is actually even controversial within Shiism.

  3. George Michalopulos :

    Scott, you’re right, it’s not normative within the Sunni branch, but even here, they’ve developed fiendishly clever ways to evade the “four wife maximum” rule. Men with harems are allowed to temporarily divorce their most recent wife and take a temporary one. And of course, the maximum is also evaded by taking concubines who are not “wives.”

    In Judaism of course, polygamy was rather more restricted but even so, the prerogative for divorce belongs solely to the husband. Basically, what this tells me is that Jesus’ strictures regarding divorce were clearly divinely inspired in that He did not do the “sensible” thing. His maximalist teaching must have been a scandal to the Jews who heard it for the first time.

    • Scott Pennington :


      You’re right, of course. There is another point to be made here at the risk of being accused of defending Islamic practices: Islam tends to view procreation as an unmitigated good. The more children the better. Traditionally Christianity held this view too. You will search in vain for any Christian church that accepted contraception before 1930. But because Islam was in a constant state of warfare for much of its early existence, polygamy was seen as beneficial since the ration of females to males was high. Essentially, monogamy would have led to the waste of potential fertility.

      Modernity in the West has changed the view that children are an asset so desirable that you can’t have too many, even for many of the Orthodox. In an age when most young people graduate from high school and a great many go to college or beyond, it seems preemptory in a way to stress early marriage and childbearing since it is perceived to cut off opportunities. In the old world, as in many places today, a persons life was pretty much predictable at birth. They are born into a particular class, the culture is patriarchal. If they are female, they will get married as soon as possible after entering puberty. Since children are seen as an asset rather than a liability, there’s no reason to wait past the time that God and nature ordained for girls to be able to conceive.

      This attitude causes a great amount of consternation in the West. We should be honest enough to admit though that “early” marriage was the norm in the early Church and many centuries thereafter. It is hypocritical (and I’m not accusing you of this, George) for modern westerners to criticise this stuff in Islam when it was normal in Christianity too.

      Polygamy is another matter, as is temporary “marriage”.

      • George Michalopulos :

        Scott, agreed. Totally correct about pre-industrial concepts of marriage and procreation. Sad to say, I’m not sure that our views of late marriage, long adolescence, few children is any better. I don’t begrudge the Moslems of their view of procreation, just their view of women as chattel. Even in Christian societies of old, when girls were married off after puberty, the insistence upon “one man, one wife, for all time” could only have happened because Jesus mandated nothing less than that. That’s one of the reasons that liberalism (the good kind) arose only in the West.

  4. Wesley J. Smith :

    Well, there were the sales of indulgences in the Medieval Catholic Church that permitted a rich man to have, say, adultery with the milkmaid free of eternal consequence, by paying to be covered by the holiness and excess virtues of saints. As I understand the practice, the CC was thought to have the key to a treasure chest of saintly virtue that the Pope and bishops could dole out to others, which they did for a price. But then, that abuse (which helped fund the current St. Peter’s) led to Luther. I don’t see a Muslim Luther.

  5. George’s comment about liberalism as native solely to the Christian West is important; Islam is by nature illiberal, an ideology for the enslavement of women and everyone the powerful Muslim man targets.

    The Islamic practice of ‘temporary marriage’ throws light onto the implicitly cruel and sensual character of Islamic morality – cruel to women and sensually gratifying for men. To quote Wm. Blake, “the lust of the goat is the glory of God” – the goat being the Muslim male. “Rent-wives” and other chattel of the ‘Umma are the objects of a Muslim male sexual pride and concupiscence untrammeled by religious scruple. Rather, male lust is exalted (the paradaisal promise of the 72 virgins for the shahid) while female desire is murderously proscribed. If a man falls into temptation at the sight of a woman, she is to blame, liable to death. These are all the pernicious works of an ideological system which guarantees the opposite of freedom. Women are slaves of men and men of their own base passions, which they are not expected to be able to master. They are only expected to externalize the guilt to place blame upon women.
    I wonder about the personal fate of Islamic ‘rent-wives’: their sexual activity is sanctioned, but precarious. I imagine they are subjects of mixed desire and revulsion, liable to be judicially murdered by fickle and conflicted men who hold power over them.
    The silent non-judgment of the Western hand-wringers is as usual in regard to Islam, stunning.

    • George Michalopulos :

      Fr, you raise some very interesting points. When presented as you do in such a clear manner, I can’t help but think that the picture you paint is essentially no different from modern secular liberalism. Both don’t believe in free will (this is what Darwinism is after all) and both seek to make allowances for concupiscence. Liberalism does this by mandating contraception for children in schools, the establishment of gay clubs (after all, one can’t help it if he/she is homosexual), and of course, abortion on demand, even up to the point of infanticide. Personal responsibility and accepting the actionns of one’s moral choices are completely absent from both these worldviews.

    • Fr. John’s logic suggests why Islam reacts with violence when dealing with homosexuality. If externalizing blame and placing guilt upon women is the order of the day by those leading Islam, the entire category of ‘gay man’ is comparable to a mental explosion in one of those ‘infinity mirrors’.

      On a bad day Christianity accepts the person while looking for restraint in behavior that, if followed, results in effects even the most determined secularist must appreciate: longer, healthier life and less disease spread.

Care to Comment?