The New York Times on Tuesday ignited a wave of backlash after revealing a framed photograph of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman displayed inside the New York City mansion of convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
The article, which takes readers inside the late convicted paedophile’s seven-storey Manhattan home, features surveillance cameras positioned above his bed and in adjoining rooms, taxidermied animals, and provocative artwork, including a sculpture of a bride clutching a rope suspended from the ceiling in the atrium.
The criticism escalated as people connected the image to long-standing allegations of Gulf-Israeli collaboration.
Sam Youssef, author and editor of American and International Affairs, asked: “Do you now understand why Arab rulers kneel to Netanyahu and the Mossad?”
It’s illegal to have sex outside of marriage in Saudi Arabia and while there is no age of consent, you must be 18 to marry. It’s not like he would break the rules.
Well, you’re not going to believe this but there are temporary marriage contracts available that can be as short as an hour.
Why do people need an hour long marriage? Beats me…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikah_mut'ah
That’s a Shi’a practice. The Saudi royals aren’t Shi’a; they belong to a rabidly anti-Shi’a Sunni sect, the Wahhabis. The Saudis routinely murder and terrorize members of the Shi’a minority in the Eastern Province.
The reason for temporary marriage is generally “try before you buy” during marriage negotiations. It’s a loathsome practice but not relevant to the slimy deeds described here.
Wahabis are mostly their own sect. They also fight Sunnis. They primarily fight Sunni’s actually. Wahabis believe that they are the only correct sect and all Muslims should be killed.
That’s a Shiaa thing and in Saudi Arabia Shiaa are being persecuted. There are plausible reasons for this practice to exist, e.g. being in a committed relationship and wanting to get married properly but for whatever reason not being able to get married currently. Prostitution is not a plausible reason, even though it’s common practice to use it as way to "legalize“ it.
That’s a novum for me, thanks for that bit of info.
Royal family? Rule? They are the rule.