News
Muslim Women in Thailand Slam Polygamous Doctor Promoting 3 Additional Wives
A group of Muslim women in southern Thailand are protesting a doctor for advertising marital services online to help local Muslim men find up to three additional wives.
The women claim that such polygamous matchmaking violates the Koran’s example.
Dr. Waemahadi Wae-dao, a physician and former MP from the predominantly Muslim southern border region, dismisses criticism of his fee-based matchmaking services.
He claims to be well-meaning and to be assisting in the matching of men with wives in accordance with the Islamic philosophy that enables Muslim men to have up to four wives.
Dr. Wae, who has four wives, began offering his services by promoting them on his Facebook profile.
The plan was to eliminate secret extramarital affairs and assist both parties in finding suitable Muslim mates in southern Thailand.
In some areas of Thailand’s deep south, women are predominantly impoverished and insurgency-ridden areas bordering Malaysia.
For each successful match, he charges men 12,000 baht (about $315 USD).
“This has resulted in several internet criticisms, both polite and nasty.” But I don’t really care. “I consider them ridiculous,” he told BenarNews.
Imams, or Muslim teachers, are required to execute such marriages since a man under Islamic law can marry up to 4 women as long as he can provide for and support each of his wives and children.
Dr. Wae’s practices are out of date in today’s world, according to Anchana Heemina, president of the Thai NGO Duay Jai (With Heart).
“He is considering religious considerations as well as the requirements of those who wish to marry more than one person.”
“However, he overlooks the reasons why marrying four women were permitted in the past in comparison to the reality of these concepts in today’s situation,” she says.
Polygamy (multiple wives) is only encouraged in the Islamic religion when it comes to “oppressed or orphaned among women.” She believes that marrying more than one woman can bring impoverished assistance.
“If we follow all of the guidelines of Islam, widows and destitute women should be chosen regardless of their looks, shape, or education, which is improbable, she said.”
Muslim Men Marrying for Lustful Reasons
Wae’s matchmaking service, according to Anchana, requires women to describe their status, education, attractiveness, height, and weight “as if they are competitors in a competition for the men to choose from.”
She and five other women interviewed by BenarNews in the Deep South said they were against males marrying four wives, noting that many men’s primary reason is that Prophet Mohammad permitted it.
According to the women, many of these men are unable to provide financial support to the women and their children they are marrying in accordance with the Prophet’s teachings.
Habsoh, a 17-year-old unmarried woman in Pattani province, said social media, particularly Dr. Wae’s personal Facebook posts, are attracting attention to something that has been buried for years.
“Muslim men are seeking lust rather than following the Prophet’s good example.” The Prophet’s method is flawless. “It was excellent, without a doubt,” she stated.
“These men foolishly choose to have four wives under the guise that Islamic law permits it, although they bear no responsibility for any of their wives or children.”
“They do not adequately financially support, or even give time and love equally,” she claimed, saying that some men with many wives “force their women to work to support them.”
She claimed that there had been numerous occurrences like this in her community.
“The heavily pregnant lady must work in the rubber plantation and raise young children while the father of the family lives carefree,” Habsoh explained.
The doctor’s Multi-step Love Program
Dr. Wae, who previously represented a legislative constituency in Narathiwat province, said he began marketing his “matchmaking business” this year after the COVID-19 outbreak subsided.
He said he watched people trying to find mates while working as a physician, politician, businessman, and social worker in many parts of the country, so he decided to discover a remedy for lonely hearts.
He stated that he had received applications from almost 1,700 persons. Many of his clients are men looking for their first wives, but about 170 of them are looking for additional spouses.
“One, according to Islam, men and women cannot live together without marriage; two, there is a significant number of unmarried women aged between 27 and 35; and three, men were having difficulty finding nice ladies to marry,” Dr. Wae explained.
He stated that he had devised a multi-step plan that includes finding a couple with “matching chemistry” and introducing them to each other; organizing a video call between the two in the presence of staff; scheduling a meeting with the couple and a chaperone; making a formal marriage proposal, and organizing the wedding.
“Some issues they’ve run into are that there are more women than men, and sometimes the women aren’t comfortable with polygamy,” Dr. Wae explained. “The dispute originates from misunderstandings and negative experiences with reckless, careless, and unjust men.”
When reporters spoke with the matchmaker earlier this month, two Muslim wedding ceremonies for couples he had paired were planned for the coming weeks. Both grooms are already married.
Abdul, a Yala province native who requested that his last name not be used, claimed he had two wives but that his affection for each was not equal.
“My solution is to keep the two apart. “If that happens, a war will erupt,” Abdul said. He admitted that it is not always possible for a guy to provide fairly and equally for all of his wives. “There can never be equal affection for both,” Abdul explained, “but I want to be with both.”
“I know the first wife is in tears, but she has to go along with it since the Muslim religion permits it.” She must come to terms with it, he said”
Thai Muslim Islamic leaders Restrict Marriage Age
Thailand’s Islamic governing council has enacted new legislation in 2018 requiring religious committee approval for weddings involving minors under the age of 17.
The lawsuit followed a backlash earlier this year over an 11-year-old Thai girl who married a 41-year-old Malaysian man, prompting calls in both nations for tougher anti-child marriage legislation. According to reports, the girl was returned to Thailand from Malaysia and placed in the custody of Thai social welfare personnel.
In Thailand, Muslim children of any age could previously marry with permission from their parents, but now youngsters under the age of 17 must additionally seek approval from an Islamic committee, which will determine whether the marriage is proper.
Wisut stated that the policy went into force on December 4, 2018, after Sheikhul Islam, Thailand’s senior Muslim leader, signed his consent.
According to human rights campaigner Angkhana Neelaphaijit, the regulation does not have the force of law and carries no penalties for those who violate it.
For family matters and inheritance, Muslims in Thailand’s four southernmost provinces follow Islamic law. However, there is no minimum age for marriage. In the Buddhist-dominated country, three of the four provinces have Muslim majorities, while the fourth has a sizable Muslim community.
Thai law, which applies throughout the country, states that the minimum legal age for marriage is 17, though courts may allow younger people to marry if there is a good reason. However, the reasons are not specified in the law.
According to Angkhana, Thailand’s Islamic leaders’ new move is a beginning in the right way, but more work is needed to preserve people’s rights.
“It is a good thing that the Sheikhul Islam Office has introduced this policy, but we must also try to achieve an agreement with religious leaders on what we can do to penalize violators,” she said.
Angkhana further stated that because Thailand’s four southern provinces apply Muslim Islamic law for family matters, a legal loophole has permitted a boom of Malaysian males travelling to southern Thailand for second or third weddings, owing to the lack of scrutiny compared to what they face at home.
“The issue is that in Malaysia if a Muslim man wants a second or third wife, he must seek approval from a court.” But there is no such regulation in Thailand, and no one checks whether a man is wealthy enough to support a family,” she explained.
A recent report indicates that since Trudeau’s announcement of his gun buyback program four years ago, almost none of the banned firearms have been surrendered.
The federal government plans to purchase 2,063 firearm models from retailers following the enactment of Bill C-21, which amends various Acts and introduces certain consequential changes related to firearms. It was granted royal assent on December 15 of last year.
This ban immediately criminalized the actions of federally-licensed firearms owners regarding the purchase, sale, transportation, importation, exportation, or use of hundreds of thousands of rifles and shotguns that were previously legal.
The gun ban focused on what it termed ‘assault-style weapons,’ which are, in reality, traditional semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that have enjoyed popularity among hunters and sport shooters for over a century.
In May 2020, the federal government enacted an Order-in-Council that prohibited 1,500 types of “assault-style” firearms and outlined specific components of the newly banned firearms. Property owners must adhere to the law by October 2023.
Trudeau’s Buyback Hasn’t Happened
“In the announcement regarding the ban, the prime minister stated that the government would seize the prohibited firearms, assuring that their lawful owners would be ‘grandfathered’ or compensated fairly.” “That hasn’t happened,” criminologist Gary Mauser told Rebel News.
Mauser projected expenses ranging from $2.6 billion to $6.7 billion. The figure reflects the compensation costs amounting to $756 million, as outlined by the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO).
“The projected expenses for gathering the illegal firearms are estimated to range from $1.6 billion to $7 billion.” “This range estimate increases to between $2.647 billion and $7 billion when compensation costs to owners are factored in,” Mauser stated.
Figures requested by Conservative MP Shannon Stubbs concerning firearms prohibited due to the May 1, 2020 Order In Council reveal that $72 million has been allocated to the firearm “buyback” program, yet not a single firearm has been confiscated to date.
In a recent revelation, Public Safety Canada disclosed that the federal government allocated a staggering $41,094,556, as prompted by an order paper question from Conservative Senator Don Plett last September, yet yielded no tangible outcomes.
An internal memo from late 2019 revealed that the Liberals projected their politically motivated harassment would incur a cost of $1.8 billion.
Enforcement efforts Questioned
By December 2023, estimates from TheGunBlog.ca indicate that the Liberals and RCMP had incurred or were responsible for approximately $30 million in personnel expenses related to the enforcement efforts. The union representing the police service previously stated that the effort to confiscate firearms is a “misdirected effort” aimed at ensuring public safety.
“This action diverts crucial personnel, resources, and funding from tackling the more pressing and escalating issue of criminal use of illegal firearms,” stated the National Police Federation (NPF).
The Canadian Sporting Arms & Ammunition Association (CSAAA), representing firearms retailers, has stated it will have “zero involvement” in the confiscation of these firearms. Even Canada Post held back from providing assistance due to safety concerns.
The consultant previously assessed that retailers are sitting on almost $1 billion worth of inventory that cannot be sold or returned to suppliers because of the Order-In-Council.
“Despite the ongoing confusion surrounding the ban, after four years, we ought to be able to address one crucial question.” Has the prohibition enhanced safety for Canadians? Mauser asks.
Illegally Obtained Firearms are the Problem
Statistics Canada reports a 10% increase in firearm-related violent crime between 2020 and 2022, rising from 12,614 incidents to 13,937 incidents. In that timeframe, the incidence of firearm-related violent crime increased from 33.7 incidents per 100,000 population in 2021 to 36.7 incidents the subsequent year.
“This marks the highest rate documented since the collection of comparable data began in 2009,” the criminologist explains.
Supplementary DataData indicates that firearm homicides have risen since 2020. “The issue lies not with lawfully-held firearms,” Mauser stated.
Firearms that have been banned under the Order-in-Council continue to be securely stored in the safes of their lawful owners. The individuals underwent a thorough vetting process by the RCMP and are subject to nightly monitoring to ensure there are no infractions that could pose a risk to public safety.
“The firearms involved in homicides were seldom legally owned weapons wielded by their rightful owners,” Mauser continues. The number of offenses linked to organized crime has surged from 4,810 in 2016 to a staggering 13,056 in 2020.
“If those in power … aim to diminish crime and enhance public safety, they ought to implement strategies that effectively focus on offenders and utilize our limited tax resources judiciously to reach these objectives,” he stated.
Related News:
Millennials in Canada Have Turned their Backs on Justin Trudeau
Millennials in Canada Have Turned their Backs on Justin Trudeau
Google is so closely associated with its key product that its name is a verb that signifies “search.” However, Google’s dominance in that sector is dwindling.
According to eMarketer, Google will lose control of the US search industry for the first time in decades next year.
Google will remain the dominant search player, accounting for 48% of American search advertising revenue. And, remarkably, Google is still increasing its sales in the field, despite being the dominating player in search since the early days of the George W. Bush administration. However, Amazon is growing at a quicker rate.
Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding
Amazon will hold over a quarter of US search ad dollars next year, rising to 27% by 2026, while Google will fall even more, according to eMarketer.
The Wall Street Journal was first to report on the forecast.
Lest you think you’ll have to switch to Bing or Yahoo, this isn’t the end of Google or anything really near.
Google is the fourth-most valued public firm in the world. Its market worth is $2.1 trillion, trailing just Apple, Microsoft, and the AI chip darling Nvidia. It also maintains its dominance in other industries, such as display advertisements, where it dominates alongside Facebook’s parent firm Meta, and video ads on YouTube.
To put those “other” firms in context, each is worth more than Delta Air Lines’ total market value. So, yeah, Google is not going anywhere.
Nonetheless, Google faces numerous dangers to its operations, particularly from antitrust regulators.
On Monday, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that Google must open up its Google Play Store to competitors, dealing a significant blow to the firm in its long-running battle with Fortnite creator Epic Games. Google announced that it would appeal the verdict.
In August, a federal judge ruled that Google has an illegal monopoly on search. That verdict could lead to the dissolution of the company’s search operation. Another antitrust lawsuit filed last month accuses Google of abusing its dominance in the online advertising business.
Meanwhile, European regulators have compelled Google to follow tough new standards, which have resulted in multiple $1 billion-plus fines.
Pixa Bay
Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding
On top of that, the marketplace is becoming more difficult on its own.
TikTok, the fastest-growing social network, is expanding into the search market. And Amazon has accomplished something few other digital titans have done to date: it has established a habit.
When you want to buy anything, you usually go to Amazon, not Google. Amazon then buys adverts to push companies’ products to the top of your search results, increasing sales and earning Amazon a greater portion of the revenue. According to eMarketer, it is expected to generate $27.8 billion in search revenue in the United States next year, trailing only Google’s $62.9 billion total.
And then there’s AI, the technology that (supposedly) will change everything.
Why search in stilted language for “kendall jenner why bad bunny breakup” or “police moving violation driver rights no stop sign” when you can just ask OpenAI’s ChatGPT, “What’s going on with Kendall Jenner and Bad Bunny?” in “I need help fighting a moving violation involving a stop sign that wasn’t visible.” Google is working on exactly this technology with its Gemini product, but its success is far from guaranteed, especially with Apple collaborating with OpenAI and other businesses rapidly joining the market.
A Google spokeswoman referred to a blog post from last week in which the company unveiled ads in its AI overviews (the AI-generated text that appears at the top of search results). It’s Google’s way of expressing its ability to profit on a changing marketplace while retaining its business, even as its consumers steadily transition to ask-and-answer AI and away from search.
Google has long used a single catchphrase to defend itself against opponents who claim it is a monopoly abusing its power: competition is only a click away. Until recently, that seemed comically obtuse. Really? We are going to switch to Bing? Or Duck Duck Go? Give me a break.
But today, it feels more like reality.
Google is in no danger of disappearing. However, every highly dominating company faces some type of reckoning over time. GE, a Dow mainstay for more than a century, was broken up last year and is now a shell of its previous dominance. Sears declared bankruptcy in 2022 and is virtually out of business. US Steel, long the foundation of American manufacturing, is attempting to sell itself to a Japanese corporation.
SOURCE | CNN
(VOR News) – A ruling that prohibits emergency abortions that contravene the Supreme Court law in the state of Texas, which has one of the most stringent abortion restrictions in the country, has been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. The United States Supreme Court upheld this decision.
The justices did not provide any specifics regarding the underlying reasons for their decision to uphold an order from a lower court that declared hospitals cannot be legally obligated to administer abortions if doing so would violate the law in the state of Texas.
Institutions are not required to perform abortions, as stipulated in the decree. The common populace did not investigate any opposing viewpoints. The decision was made just weeks before a presidential election that brought abortion to the forefront of the political agenda.
This decision follows the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that ended abortion nationwide.
In response to a request from the administration of Vice President Joe Biden to overturn the lower court’s decision, the justices expressed their disapproval.
The government contends that hospitals are obligated to perform abortions in compliance with federal legislation when the health or life of an expectant patient is in an exceedingly precarious condition.
This is the case in regions where the procedure is prohibited. The difficulty hospitals in Texas and other states are experiencing in determining whether or not routine care could be in violation of stringent state laws that prohibit abortion has resulted in an increase in the number of complaints concerning pregnant women who are experiencing medical distress being turned away from emergency rooms.
The administration cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in a case that bore a striking resemblance to the one that was presented to it in Idaho at the beginning of the year. The justices took a limited decision in that case to allow the continuation of emergency abortions without interruption while a lawsuit was still being heard.
In contrast, Texas has been a vocal proponent of the injunction’s continued enforcement. Texas has argued that its circumstances are distinct from those of Idaho, as the state does have an exemption for situations that pose a significant hazard to the health of an expectant patient.
According to the state, the discrepancy is the result of this exemption. The state of Idaho had a provision that safeguarded a woman’s life when the issue was first broached; however, it did not include protection for her health.
Certified medical practitioners are not obligated to wait until a woman’s life is in imminent peril before they are legally permitted to perform an abortion, as determined by the state supreme court.
The state of Texas highlighted this to the Supreme Court.
Nevertheless, medical professionals have criticized the Texas statute as being perilously ambiguous, and a medical board has declined to provide a list of all the disorders that are eligible for an exception. Furthermore, the statute has been criticized for its hazardous ambiguity.
For an extended period, termination of pregnancies has been a standard procedure in medical treatment for individuals who have been experiencing significant issues. It is implemented in this manner to prevent catastrophic outcomes, such as sepsis, organ failure, and other severe scenarios.
Nevertheless, medical professionals and hospitals in Texas and other states with strict abortion laws have noted that it is uncertain whether or not these terminations could be in violation of abortion prohibitions that include the possibility of a prison sentence. This is the case in regions where abortion prohibitions are exceedingly restrictive.
Following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which resulted in restrictions on the rights of women to have abortions in several Republican-ruled states, the Texas case was revisited in 2022.
As per the orders that were disclosed by the administration of Vice President Joe Biden, hospitals are still required to provide abortions in cases that are classified as dire emergency.
As stipulated in a piece of health care legislation, the majority of hospitals are obligated to provide medical assistance to patients who are experiencing medical distress. This is in accordance with the law.
The state of Texas maintained that hospitals should not be obligated to provide abortions throughout the litigation, as doing so would violate the state’s constitutional prohibition on abortions. In its January judgment, the 5th United States Circuit Court of Appeals concurred with the state and acknowledged that the administration had exceeded its authority.
SOURCE: AP
SEE ALSO:
Could Last-Minute Surprises Derail Kamala Harris’ Campaign? “Nostradamus” Explains the US Poll.
-
News3 years agoLet’s Know About Ultra High Net Worth Individual
-
Entertainment2 years ago
Mabelle Prior: The Voice of Hope, Resilience, and Diversity Inspiring Generations
-
Health3 years agoHow Much Ivermectin Should You Take?
-
Tech2 years agoTop Forex Brokers of 2023: Reviews and Analysis for Successful Trading
-
Lifestyles2 years agoAries Soulmate Signs
-
Movies2 years agoWhat Should I Do If Disney Plus Keeps Logging Me Out of TV?
-
Health3 years agoCan I Buy Ivermectin Without A Prescription in the USA?
-
Learning2 years agoVirtual Numbers: What Are They For?