Today we have two re-writes of older articles that seem very relevant today:
First, we will take the “Liberals” as well as the “Conservatives” to task for partisan hypocrisy…
Nowadays the word Liberal is often used as a pejorative; I often use it that way myself for good reasons.
Yet I am a moderate, and probably spend about 40% of the time cursing the idiocy of the Left, and 60% of it complaining and worrying about the Right (It is too bad there are not more real conservative minds in the Conservative camp these days.). Of the two the Conservatives tend to scare me a bit more but the Leftists in total power would be/ have been worse. But the actions of the radicals on either side do not condemn entire schools of thought to a mature mind. This should be remembered by pundits on both sides in this age of attack politics.
Lately a radically Conservative group has taken over almost all the political voice of conservative American Christianity. They have used their pulpit to propound, and pound in, their own view of history, and how Christianity has influenced the development of the United States as a nation.
They are not actually lying about the influence of the churches. The problem is that they have forgotten from just where in the Church all that influence came. Yes, it was those damn liberals every time!
In American history, every time the religious culture has had a profound positive influence (as judged by successive generations) on changes in society those influences have their roots in the Liberal-to-Radical churches. They most certainly did not come from the Conservative ones!
The Conservative Churches in every case have held the line with the status quo through history whether it was regarding the Revolution, slavery, child labor, workers rights, racial equality or now, gay rights. Yet the Conservative Churches of today want to shine their halos with the contributions made for the most part by the Liberal Churches of the past.
This activity is not unique to Christianity by any means. A Radical Conservative Jew will spend much energy telling you about Judaism’s amazing contributions to Western society, but will refuse to see that his brand of thinking never produced any of it. Find a Conservative Imam, and you will find a man eager to convince you that Islam has been an enormously positive contributor to civilization over the centuries. But if you remind him that blind faithfulness to Islam’s Conservative philosophy had nothing to do with the various periods of (heretically liberal) Islamic glory that he is polishing up for you to admire; he may even take offense.
In every case where religious and political power intermingle the things that modern world civilization would call progress has only come when the dominant Church(s) is(are) liberal to the point of being heretical (to the parent dogmas and doctrines), tolerant and more focused on understanding, accepting and spreading the “love behind the Law” rather than promoting a zero-tolerance attitude regarding adherence to the “Letter of the Law.”
But only stagnation and decay ensue when the Churches are conservative and cling to a memory, or fictitious ideal, of “the way it should be.”
It should be noted that Conservative religious thought can have a greatly positive influence on society but, that usually the effects remain chiefly negative.
Witness: the defense of slavery, and the stances of “Godly” preachers and priests against child labor laws, and minority civil rights laws.
Witness: the attempts at forced, coerced and violent conversions directed at any people of another religion that are under the influence of a politicized religion (theocracies, inquisitions, shari’a states).
We all admit that Conservatism isdesigned to be highly successful at keeping the wheels of a society turning. Who but a fool will deny that there is a true virtue most times in maintaining most of the status quo; Leftists take note of the qualifications and keep your straw men to yourselves – I am not Christian, and never have been a Republican, or supporter of either Bush.
But, it also must be admitted that Conservative governments and organizations have a poor track record when attempting to grease those wheels, to make accommodation for the fact that seems “odd“, “weird“, “different” to the average mind; whether the ideas are good ones or not!
When the going gets rough or to be a creative inspiration for the people who bear the main burdens of pushing the cart of civilization further, faster and safer than our ancestors ever believed it could go Conservatives can be of more a drag chain when they should be acting like the regenerative brakes that go with a hybrid engine.
Conservative ideology certainly does not allow real flaws in the basic social system to be changed without a protracted, and often ugly, fight with the liberal mindset who are busy finding things that are not really broken to make into really nasty situations with well-meaning new laws and more, and more, and more tension from enforcement, and less and less elbow room for the well-intentioned citizen just trying to get along and improve their lives.
Without a Liberal element in society, one that has enough influence to smack the current bosses on the head now and then but, not enough to dominate society a person lives in what is at best a well upholstered slave camp destined to fade into the dust of history.
Without a Conservative element at the core to give perspective and balance a people will… well, just look at the aftermath of every single revolution in the past – the American revolution was actually a colony revolt – it was an independently evolving, functioning society that broke away from the parent nation/culture rather than an indigenous movement to topple all the central power structures and replace them ad hoc with unproven or dis-proven but, “much better” institutions; not long after they succeed the real bloodshed is just beginning!
Who was it again that decreed with proven ‘Holy Authority‘ that all human problems can, and may, only be solved by a totally Left-wing or totally Right-wing ideology? When did admitting that your Party’s platform cannot solve all problems if followed by “good” people?
The voting public needs to take off their trendy, strait-jackets/sheep-outfits, grow up, and look at reality – of the real kind, rather than the oh-so-importantly-unimportant political sort – and then find the ideal solutions, not the solutions that serve your political tribe while walking over everyone else’s Lives’, Liberties, and frantic Pursuits of Happiness.
(HH here: The Arab Atheists Network has released a film entitled The Story of Women in Islam that is available on YouTube. It it in six parts. I am here embedding them interspersed with a transcript and my commentary.)
A female experiences disparagement in Islam from the moment of her birth. While a newborn male gets to have two sheep offered as a sacrifice of thanksgiving on his behalf, they offer only one on behalf of the female. Muhammad (570-632), the prophet of Islam, said, “Two sheep for the boy and one for the female” (see: The authentic of Al-Tirmidhi’s collection, Al-Albani, Hadith no. 1516). Islam also permits the father to marry off his daughter before she reaches adolescence. On the legally prescribed period of waiting (termed as `Iddah’) during which a woman may not remarry after being widowed or divorced in order to ensure no pregnancy occurred, the Quran says, “Such of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the prescribed period, if you have any doubts, is three months, and for those who have no courses (it is the same).” (65:4).
“Those who have no courses” that is, those who have not reached adolescence yet. Ubay Bin Kab, a close companion of Mohammad, said: “When the verse in Surat Al-Baqarah was revealed prescribing the `Iddah’ of divorce, some people in Al-Madinah said, `There are still some women whose Iddah has not been mentioned in the Qur’an. There are the little girls, the old whose menstruation is discontinued, and the pregnant’. In response, this verse was revealed: “Such of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses…” (See: Al-Mustadrak, by Al-Hakim. pp. 492-493. This narration is authentic according to Al-Hakim and Al-dhahabi.).
(HH here: let us not too lightly skip over the concept of ‘Iddah’. As the children of a marriage are considered the property of the husband it is important for the Muslim man to have a clear claim on any children his divorced former wife may carry. Make no bones about it, the sole purpose of that is to ensure his ability to come and take them from her after birth if he wishes. To be sure certain traditions allow the mother to keep her bebies until they reach some pre-determined “Age of reason” where the male is needed to ensure they get a “proper” upbringing.”
Throughout the ages, the Muslim commentators of the Quran confirmed this explanation of the verse. Here are quotations from the most notable of them. Al- Tabari (839-923) said, “This also includes the ‘Iddah’ of girls who have not menstruated yet as they are such little.. if divorced after being sexually consummated in marriage”.
Al-Baghawi (1045-1117) said, “Those little girls who have not reached menstruation age yet”.
Az-Zammakhshari (1074-1143) said, “They are those little girls”.
Al-Qurtubi (1204-1273) said, “She is the little girl”.
Ibn Kathir (1302-1373) said, “The same for the young, who have not reached the years of menstruation. Their `Iddah is three months like those in menopause. This is the meaning of His saying: “and for those who have no courses”.
Al-Mahali and As-Syyouti (1445-1505) both said, “for how such young they are”.
Al-Alousi (1802-1854) said, “Those little girls who have not got their menstruation period yet”.
As Mohammad reached 52, Abu Bakr got his daughter, Aisha, married off to him when she was only 6 years old. Mohammad began having sexual relations with her when she was just 9. This is what Aisha says as recoded in “Al-Bukhari’s authentic”, the second authoritative book in Islam next to the Quran, “The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. My mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became Allright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, ‘Best wishes and Allah’s Blessing and a good luck.’ Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age.” (See: Al-Bukhari’s authentic vol.3 p.66). Muslim jurisprudents unanimously agreed on having the little girl being married off. Ibn Abdul Bur (978-1071) says, ” Jurisprudents have unanimously agreed that a father is entitled to marry off his little girl without consulting her as Aisha herself was married off to the Messenger of Allah when she was six years old.” (See: Al Tamhid vol. 19 p. 98).
Ibn Battal (died 1057) said, “A little girl is unanimously permitted to marry an adult even if she is in the crib” (See: Fat`h Al-Bari by Ibn Hajar, vol. 9 p. 124).
Ibn Al-Monther (856-931) said, “All known jurisprudents have unanimously agreed that a father’s marrying off his firstborn daughter is permissible as long as he gets her to be married off to an acceptable man. In fact, as a father he is allowed that in spite of her reluctance and refusal”. (See: Al-Moghni by Ibn Qudama, vol. 9 p. 398).
Ibn Qudama (1146-1223) said, “A father is entitled to marry off his little girl undisputedly since Abu Bakr Al Sidiq married Aisha off to the prophet while she was 6 years old without asking her permission” (See: Al Kafi by Ibn Qudama, vol. 4 p. 243).
A husband is entitled to have sexual intercourse with his wife, a little girl though she may be, as long as her body is capable of enduring sexual intercourse, even if she has not reached adolescence yet. If she, however, is not capable of enduring this intercourse, he is allowed to sexually enjoy her without having intercourse. Al-Kharshi (died 1101) said, “His saying ‘and it is possible to have sex with her’ has a reference to the fact that there is no specific age, which will vary from one person to another, and this does not necessitate been adult as it is the case with man, for if she endured intercourse, then she is enabling the man to receive full sexual pleasure”. (See: Sharh Mukhtassar Khalil, Al-Kharsahi, section on “marriage”, chapter on dowry).
Al Zali`yye (died 1343) says, “They varied on specifying the age, some said, she could be nine years of age. What is true is it has nothing to do with age but it has everything to do with the ability to endure sexual intercourse, as a fat, large woman would endure sexual intercourse, though she may be young of age” (See: Tabyeen Al-Haqa’eq, book of divorce, chapter on divorce alimony).
And this is what happened with Aisha. Her family fattened her up before sending her off to her wedding with Mohammed. Aisha said, “My mother was giving me fattening recipes in order to prepare me for the Messenger of Allah, and she got nowhere until I began eating cucumber until I got fattened very well” (See: The authentic of Ibn Maja’s collection, Al-Albani. vol. 3 p. 131). This would lead Al-Sarakhsi (died 1090) to comment on this story related by Aisha stating, “This in itself is a proof that a little girl is permitted to be wedded with her husband if she is fit for men, for she was in her wedded with him while she was 9 years old. so she was young as it appears. In a Hadith it is mentioned that they fattened her and when she got fat she was sent off to her wedding with the Messenger of Allah”. (See: Al-Mabsoott by Al Sarakhsi, vol. 4 p. 213).
(A video clip of Dream Channel by Sheikh Farahat Al Sayyed Al Manji of Al-Azhar).
Sheikh Al Manji says: “There is no evidence in Islam for specifying marriage age. Just upfront, in Islam there is no set specific age for marriage.
Interviewer: From this I gather you agree.
Al Manji: Yes.
Interviewer: You are confirming that Fatwa (previously mentioned in the show).
Al Manji: I am not confirming that Fatwa, I am simply telling you that she can bear marriage, that is, bear sexual intercourse.
Interviewer: At what age can a girl endure “marriage”?
Al Manji: I actually don’t know, but let me tell you, there is a girl who could be 15 years old, bubbly though she may be, yet she is not good for anything and knows nothing. Also there might be a girl who is just 10 years of age and look at her! She is so big and tall, to give you an example. What does it all depend on? Well, it all depends on where she is raised.
Interviewer: So it has nothing to do with age?
Al Manji: No, Islamic Law didn’t specify age.
Interviewer: There is a girl who is 9 years old and she is so big and tall, could she get married?
Al Manji: Of course yes. Why not?
Interviewer: Call us at this number… as I am not really in the mood. Your honor the Sheikh this is so hard to accept. 9 years of age and gets married? This is…….
Al Manji: yes, 9 years old and getting married. And I said, as long as she can bear a man. I am speaking to you in light of the Islamic Law. This Law “Sharia” is what really matters.
In one of the largest Islamic sites on the Internet specialized in giving fatwas (religious authoritative verdicts) www.islamweb.net , a fatwa entitled “Sexually Enjoying the Little Girl of a Wife- Legally Islamic View” said, “There is no problem or issue in kissing the little girl of a wife lustfully and thighing (rubbing the penis against her thighs) and so on, even if she cannot bear sexual intercourse. Muslim jurisprudents have shown that the foundation lies in man’s being able to sexually enjoy his wife if he wants to as long as there is no harm. This included his masturbating with her hands, fondling her and kissing her and so forth”. http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/Fatwa/ShowFatwa.php?lang=A&Id=78529&Option=FatwaId
In another fatwa entitled “Sexually Enjoying the Little Girl of a Wife”, it stated, “There is no harm in ejaculating between the thighs of this little girl who cannot afford to bear intercourse and it might harm her, as long as such ejaculation is without sexual penetration. Muslim jurisprudents have shown that the starting point in all of this and what really matters the most is that the man is permitted to sexually enjoy his wife in any manner he wants as long as there is no harm.” http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/Fatwa/ShowFatwa.php?Option=FatwaId&lang=A&Id=56312
Shiite Muslims are not any different. Imam Khomeini (1902-1989), leader of Islamic revolution in Iran, said in his book “Tahrir Al Wasilah” (vol. 2 p. 221) the following: “A wife should not receive sexual intercourse before she is fully nine years old, be this marriage permanent or temporary. But for all other forms of pleasure, as in lustful touch, embrace or thighing (rubbing the penis against her thighs), there is no problem in them, even if she is a little suckling baby”.
Shiite scholar, Al-Ayrawani, says that to receive sexual pleasure from the suckling baby is unanimously agreed upon by Muslim jurisprudents, be they Sunnis or Shiites.”
(HH here: Take note that all of the verses and ahadith quoted are from authoritative sources. As we will see futher on in the video the major Islamic sources are NOT in disagreement on this subject at all.)
Enquiring person: “Mr Imam Khomeini has mentioned in his book Tahrir Al-Wasilah a matter: ‘A wife should not receive sexual intercourse before she is fully nine years old, be this marriage permanent or temporary. But for all other forms of pleasure, as in lustful touch or embrace, there is no problem in them, even if she is a little suckling baby’. We hope that the Sheikh would expound on the last paragraph. Please go ahead our mullah”.
Sheikh Ayrawani: In fact, this issue is one of the things that our Shiite jurisprudents, have all unanimously agreed upon. They (Sunnis) also have it in their books, it’s not belonging to us (Shiites) only. Now, suppose a man wants to get married to a little girl, to marry her permanently. What do you think? Let us now leave aside temporal marriage. I am here talking about the permanent kind of marriage. It is permitted for a man to marry off his daughter of 5 years of age to a man. Question: is that permitted or not permitted?. All Muslim jurisprudents agree and see no problem with that whatsoever. The father has every right to marry her off to a man. He is her custodian. Within the bounds of interest that is perfectly normal. The father is entitled to marry her off without any prohibition. Let us suppose that she is just two years of age. Or let us even say she is just one year old. There is not the least problem in that. By marrying her, she becomes lawful ‘halal’ for the husband (to do whatever he wants to her). Now, you tell me, can the husband kiss her or no?. Well, there is not the least problem in that since this little one is his own wife and therefore no problem at all.”
An adolescent woman experiences disparagement at the first sign of her becoming an adult woman, which is the beginning of menses. Scientifically speaking, menstruation is normal blood that passes due to the fall of the arterioles that multiplied to from a layer in the uterine wall so that the expected fertilized egg be attached to and fed by. Due largely to the ignorance of the people of the old days, there is wide misunderstanding on the nature of menses, a number of cultures and religions dealt with the menses as unclean and imposed demeaning rituals for the woman in her menstrual period. Islam is one of these religions. The Quran says (2: 222), “And they ask you about menstruation. Say: it is a hurt and a pollution: So keep away from women in their courses, and do not approach them until they are clean.” In Islam, a woman in her time of menstruation is not permitted to pray or fast. Muhammad said as recorded in “Al-Bukhari’s authentic” (vol. 2 p.45), “Isn’t it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?..This is the deficiency in her religion.”
Now that she is an adult woman, she is put on equal footing with the donkey and the dog insofar as abolishing the prayer of a Muslim male if she would just pass in front of him. Mohammad said as recorded in “Muslim’s authentic” (vol. 2 p.60), the third authoritative book in Islam next to the Quran and “Al-Bukhari’s authentic”, “A woman, a donkey and a dog disrupt the prayer”.
In Islam, a woman is of a lesser mind than the man, and so her testimony in financial dealings is only worth half his, according to the Quran (2:282), “and get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men (available), then a man and two women, such as you choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them (two women) errs (by forgetting), the other can remind her”.
Muhammad said about women as recorded in “Al-Bukhari’s authentic” (vol. 1, p. 115), “I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you (women). A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you.” The women asked, “O Allah’s Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?” He said, “Is not the witness of two women equal to the witness of one man?” They replied in the affirmative. He said, “That is from the deficiency in her intelligence.”
Women cannot provide witness in the case of felonies and penalties. They cannot give witness without a man except in matters which men should not be exposed to. Ali Bin Abi Talib (Muhammad’s cousin) said, “Women’s witness is not permitted in the case of divorce, marriage, felonies and blood”. (See: Abdul Razzaiq’s collection, vol. 8, pp. 329-330).
Ibn Al Munther (856-931) said: “Muslim jurists have unanimously agreed on the literal reading of this verse in that they permitted women’s testimony alongside that of men. They limited this to finances and debts. But they said that her witness is not allowed in the case of felonies and penalties. They didn’t reach agreement on the position of her testimony in marriage, divorce, genealogy and loyalties. While the majority prohibited it, the Kufis permitted it. Muslim jurists have also agreed on accepting their testimonies without a man in matters which men should not be exposed to such as menstruation and the giving of birth”. (See: Fat`h Al-Bari by Ibn Hajar, vol. 5 p. 266).
(Quran 4:5) “To those fools do not give away your property which Allah has made for you a (means of) support”.
Ibn Kathir (1302-1373), the most notable Quran commentator, says: “`The ‘fool’ is the ignorant, simple-minded person who has little knowledge in areas of benefit and harm. This is why, according to the majority of the scholars, Allah used the term foolish to include women and children, when He said (4:5) “To those fools do not give away your property which Allah has made for you a (means of) support”. (See: Ibn Kathir’s Tafsir vol. 1 p. 290, Sura 2 verse no. 13).
(Quran 2:228) “men have a degree (of advantage) over them (women)” Ibn Kathir (1302-1373) commentated: “men are in a more advantageous position than women physically as well as in their mannerism, status, obedience (of women to them), spending, taking care of the affairs and in general, in this life and in the Hereafter”.
(Quran 4:34) “Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property”.
Ibn Kathir commentated: “meaning, the man is responsible for the woman, and he is her maintainer, caretaker and leader who disciplines her if she deviates. ‘because Allah has made one of them to excel the other’, meaning, because men excel over women and are better than them. This is why prophethood was exclusive of men, as well as other important positions of leadership. The Prophet said, ‘People who appoint a woman to be their leader, will never achieve success.’ Al-Bukhari recorded this Hadith. Such is the case with appointing women as judges or on other positions of leadership. A man in himself is superior to the woman and he bestows favour upon her always. For these reasons it is suitable that he is appointed her maintainer”.
A female in Islam is allotted half of what a male gets in inheritance. (Quran 4:11) “Allah directs you regarding your Children’s (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females”.
A woman is also an image of devil as recorded in “Muslim’s authentic” (vol. 4, p. 129), that the prophet “saw a woman, and so he came to his wife, Zainab, as she was tanning a leather and had sexual intercourse with her.He then went to his Companions and told them: a woman advances and retires in the image of a devil, so when one of you sees a woman, he should come to his wife (for sex), for that will repel what he feels in his heart.”
After adolescence, it is an obligation for the woman to cover her body in front of men who might not be “Maharem” (ie. Father, siblings, sons, uncles and nephews), or a spouse. In our age, Muslims claim that the veil was sanctioned out of guarding modesty and morality and also so that a woman will not entice a man. But historical facts from Islamic sources reveal that the veil was originally sanctioned as a classifying law to separate slave girls, who would be captives of war, from free women. The veil verse says, (33:59) “O Prophet! say to your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers that they let down upon them their over-garments; this will be more proper that they should be recognized and not annoyed”. “more proper that they should be recognized” which means their being recognized as free women and not slave girls. Throughout the ages, the Muslim commentators of the Quran have backed up this interpretation.
Al-Tabari (839-923) says, “To draw their cloaks close round them helps them in not being identified by anybody passing by so that they might know that these are not slave girls, thus harassing them”.
Al-Baghawi (1045-1117) says, “This verse was revealed in the case of those adulterers who would chase in Al-Madinah after women who might have to go outside to use the bathroom. At first they would wink at the woman, and if she keeps silent they keep following her, but if she rebukes them, they would leave her alone. They were only seeking after slave girls, and yet it was hard for them to identify a free woman from a slave girl since they all dressed alike, dressed in some kind of cover. They complained to their husbands and it got mentioned to the messenger of Allah and thus the verse was revealed”.
Az-Zamakhshari (1074-1143) says, “In the beginning of Islam, women who were following their customs dressed immodestly. Young men would go out in the fields and palm lots at night in order to chase after slave girls going to bathroom. They would try to sexually harass a free woman under the pretext that she might be a slave girl, and so they were ordered to change their attire from that of the slave girls by wearing cloaks, quilts, and covering both heads and faces”.
Ibn Al-Jawzi (1114-1201) said, “’should be recognized’ means their being recognized as free women”. Al-Qurtubi (1204-1273) said, “Before this verse was revealed, a woman of the household of believers would go outside to use the bathroom and some perverts would try to harass her thinking that she is a slave girl. She would scream and he goes away. They complained to the prophet and this verse was revealed for that reason”.
Ibn Kathir (1302-1373) said, “means, if they do that, it will be known that they are free, and that they are not slaves or whores.”
Al-Mahali and As-Syyoutti (1445-1505) both said, “ ‘more proper’ that is they are closer to be ‘to be recognized’ i.e. that they are free women ‘and not annoye’ that is, by sexually harassing them unlike the slave girls, as they are not covered in their faces and getting harassed by hypocrites”.
Al Alousi (1802-1854) said, “ ‘Adna’ means closer to ‘to be recognized’ that is being set apart from the slave girls who were vulnerable to being sexually harassed”.
Ummar Bin Al-Khattab, a prominent companion of Mohammad and second successor (caliph) to him, used to beat a slave girl if she wore the veil. Anas Bin Malik, a companion of Muhammad, said, “Omar saw a slave girl of ours wearing the veil, he struck her and said to her: “Don’t be dressed like free women” (See: Ibn Abi Shaiba’s collection, vol. 3, p. 127). Anas Bin Malik also said: “A slave girl went on into where Omar Bin Al-Khattab was sitting. She had a dressed that she used for a veil. Omar asked her, “Have you been freed?”. She said, “No”. He said, “What then is the veil for? Move it away from your head, for the veil is to be on the heads of free women”. She tarried and Omar got up to her and struck her on her head with a rod until she moved it away from her head”. (See: Ibn Abi Shaiba’s collection, vol. 3 p. 128).
Anas Ibn Malik also said, “slave girls of Omar were waiting on us with their hair being uncovered and their breasts shaking”. (See: As-Sunnan Al-Kubra by Al-Bayhaqi, vol. 2 p. 321). This narration is authentic according to Al-Albani. (See: Hijab Al-mar;a Walibasuha Fe Al-Sala, Ibn Taymyyah p. 43 , checked by Al-Albani). Al Bayhaqi said, “These narrations about Omar Bin Al-Khattab are authentic”. (See: As-Sunnan Al-Kubra by Al Bayhaqi, vol. 2 p. 321).
For a slave girl what parts in view of another male is the same thing that a male should not show in front of another male, and that stretches from the navel to the knees. Mohammad said, “When one of you marries off his female servant to his slave or to his employee, he should not look at her private part below the navel and above the knees.” (See: The authentic of Abu Dawood’ collection, by Al-Albani, vol. 2, p. 523). That means if a slave girl gets married, she changes status as far as her owner is concerned in that he is no longer allowed to see more than what is between the navel and the knees, and this is what has been established by most Muslim jurisprudents. Al-Nawawi (1233-1277) said: “Man’s private parts would be what is between his navel and knees, and the same goes for the slave girl. But a free woman can show only her face and hands”. (See: Minhaj Al-Talibeen by Al-Nawawi, p. 105).
Al-Maqdisi (1160-1227) says, “A slave girl’s privates are the same like man”. (See: Sharh Al-Umdah, p. 65).
Al-Dardeer (1715-1786) says, “private parts for a man is his male organ and buttocks, and for the slave girl it is the same”. (See: Al-sharh Al- Sagheer, vol. 1 p. 285).
In the history of Islam, slave girls were being sold in the markets, stripped naked and men would check them out in any form they wanted to. If Ubdallah Bin Omar Bin Al-Khattab, a companion of Mohammad, wanted to buy a slave girl, he would place his hand on her buttocks, take a look at her legs, belly, put his hand between her breasts and then shake her. (See Abdul Razzaq’s collection, vol. 7 p. 286. and see also As-Sunnan Al-Kubra by Al-Bayhaqi, vol. 5 p. 537).
Ali Bin Abi Talib, Mohammad’s cousin and the fourth caliph, was asked about the slave girl being sold. “Is it permissible to look at her legs, buttocks, and her belly?”. He replied, “No problem with that. No prohibition. She was not made to stand except to be checked out as a bargain” (See Abdul Razzaq’s collection, vol. 7 p. 287).
Abdullah Bin Masood, a prominent Quran scholar and a close companion of Mohammad, said in relation to the slave girl being sold, “If I touch her or a wall, I don’t care; it is all the same to me”. (See Abdul Razzaq’s collection, vol.7 p.287).
In Islam, a man is entitled to marry up to 4 wives. Yet he has an unlimited number of slave girls that he is entitled to have sex with. A woman, however, has nobody but her own husband.
(Quran 4:3) “marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice (between them), then (marry) only one or what your right hands possess”.
(Quran 23:5-6) “And who guard their private parts, Except with their wives or what their right hands possess,- for (in their case) they are free from blame”.
(comments on the last verse) Al-Tabari (839-923) says, “ ‘what their right hands possess’ refers to the slave girls.”
Al Baghawi (1045-1117) says, “This verse is specific of men as evidenced in his saying ‘or whom their right hands possess‘, since that a woman isn’t allowed to sexually enjoy her own slave.”
Az-Zamakhshari (1074-1143) says, “what is meant is that they guard their private parts at all times except in the case of their marrying or having slave girls”.
Ibn Al Jawzi (1114-1201) expounds, “ ‘But who ever seeks’, that is, he actually sought after, ‘beyond that’ referring to wives and slave girls.”
Ibn Kathir (1302-1373) says, “and do not approach anyone except the wives whom Allah has made permissible for them or their right hand possessions from the captives”.
Al Mahali and As-Soyyoutti (1445-1505) both said: ” ‘what their right hands possess’ ” referring to slave girls.”
Al-Aloussi (1802-1854) says, “what is meant is whatever slave girl their right hand has owned. Note that Allah used the word ‘what’ in describing who they are instead of the word ‘whom’. This signifies that they are objects, articles of merchandise for sale. Or signifies that they are considered non-sentient beings because of their femininity which points to their lacking brains in reasoning. Women’s being non-sentient is quite obvious whether they be Circassian, Roman or anything like that. But how obvious would it be if they be Negro or from any black ethnicity?, I swear that if they supposedly aren’t belonging to the animals class, then they aren’t far from belonging to it. The verse is specific to men, since that women unanimously aren’t permitted to have sex with their slaves”.
(Quran 4:24) “Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those which your right hands possess”.
It’s recorded in “Muslim’s authentic” (vol. 4 p.170) that “at the Battle of Hanain Allah’s Messenger sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah’s Messenger seemed to refrain from having sex with married captive women. Then Allah sent down regarding that: ” Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those which your right hands possess ” (i.e. it’s lawful to have sex with them when their ‘Idda’ period came to an end).”
Ibn Kathir says in his commentary: “you are prohibited from marrying women who are already married, ‘except those which your right hands possess’, meaning, except those whom you acquire through war, it’s allowed for you to have sex with such women after making sure they are not pregnant. The verse was revealed for this case.”
What Muslims claim to be the privileges of Mohammad is the fact that he could marry more than 4 wives. Anas Bin Malik, a close companion of Mohammad, said as recorded in “Al-Bukhari’s authentic” (vol. 1 p.110), “The Prophet used to visit (for sex) all his wives in one night and he had nine wives at that time.”
As for the slave-girls of Mohammad, the Quran says, (33:50) “O Prophet! surely We have made lawful to you your wives whom you have given their dowries, and what your right hand possesses out of what Allah has given to you as prisoners of war”.
Ibn Kathir says in his commentary, “means, the slave-girls whom you took from the war booty are also permitted to you. He owned Safiyyah and Juwayriyah, then he manumitted them and married them, and he owned Rayhanah bint Sham`un An-Nadariyyah and Mariyah Al-Qibtiyyah, the mother of his son Ibrahim; they were both among the slave-girls”.
Muslims’ many raids resulted in capturing many women, which multiplied the number of slave-girls in Muslim lands. Ali Bin Abi Talib, Mohammad’s cousin and the fourth caliph, passed away while he had 19 slave girls in his property. (See: Abdul Razzaq’ collection, vol. 7 p. 288).
At the end of the first century of Islamic era, Musa Bin Nusair conquered Morocco. Ibn Kathir says in his history on this regard:
“Plenty of pretty boys and pretty women were taken as captives. And sent off to the caliph, 40, 000 heads, which is fifth of what he captured. . . when he went entered upon the caliph in Damascus he came along with 30,000 of captives, not to mention what we already listed. This was fifth of what he captured in the last raid which he launched into the lands of Morocco.” (See: Al Bidaya wa Al-Nihayyah, vol. 12 p. 629).
The caliph of Abbasid period, Harun Al Rashid, a very well-renowned caliph for the Abbassaid State which ruled the Muslims for 5 centuries, had in his house 4,000 slave-girls. (See: Al Bidaya wa Al-Nihaya, Ibn Kathir, vol. 14 p. 49).
(A video clip from Iqra Channel in a show entitled “Before You are Judged” by Basma Wahba)
Basma: Well, now, folks, I have now 2 of the giants of Al-Azhar Islamist scholars. They are required to refute this allegation, that Islam encourages slavery and the companions of the Prophet were sexually enjoying whatever their right hands possessed. How shall we respond to that?
Jamal Qutub: whoever doesn’t like it can bang his head against the wall.
Mabrook: I have a very small question. Do you believe that the Quran is the Word of God?. Or it is the same like Hadith which some are authentic and some are questionable?
Basma: I am Basma Wahbah a believer.
Mabrook: I am asking Ms. Basma in the same way I am asking any of the people watching the TV show now.
Basma: We are indeed believers.
Mabrook: This is not the point. We are trying to objectively discuss an issue now. What does objectivity here mean? It means, I ask people if they believe that the Quran is the Word of God? A person might say, yes and there is no corruption in the Quran. He might quote for me the verse in the Quran “We have revealed the Book and we are guarding it. Great! Is everybody fully at peace that it is the Word of God? Yes! Then read from surat Al-Nissa (“women” chapter). I read “marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice (between them), then (marry) only one or what your right hands possess”. Do I have any right to abolish such a verse? What do I do about it now? Erase it with an eraser? In order to make it a beautiful religion and I defend it, I do this to the Quran?. And this was the first question.
Basma: I am a believer. How do I answer (the allegation)? How do I answer?.
Mabrook: (islam) is not accused so no need to answer. My religion is God’s Word. It says “Or what your right hands possess”. In surat Al-Muminin, (sura 23), it begins with saying, “Successful indeed are the believers. Who are humble in their prayers,…..” until he said” “And who guard their private parts, Except with their wives or what their right hands possess,- for (in their case) they are free from blame. But whoever seeks to go beyond that, these are they that exceed the limits.”. Having read this, how shall I answer? I simply say, “This is my religion”.
Basma: So, in brief, you have no answer.
Mabrook: No! We have a world!.
Basma: This is how our religion works and if anyone doesn’t like it he can bang his head against the wall.
Basma: what if somebody we meet at the street is asking, we can’t reply? I just want to know. I really want to know.
Jamal Qutb: What do you want to know?
Basma: I want to know.
Jamal: We are telling you that the Quran is there and this verse is not abrogated.
Basma: Sheikh Jamal, May I frankly say something to you? I want to frankly tell you that 90% of Muslims including me don’t know what the point is in this verse saying “or what your right hands possess”.
Jamal: you don’t need to know.
Basma: And we frankly can’t stomach this verse.
Jamal: you don’t need to know.
Basma: what do you mean “I don’t need to”? Is that a reasonable answer sheikh Jamal?.
Jamal: Of course, all Muslims don’t need to…..
Basma: I come to ask you a question and you tell me that I don’t need to know?
Jamal: is there a wise person in the world who would claim to express the divine wisdom that god knows?. Is there anybody in the world Dr Mabrook who would know how to express divine wisdom in these verses? .
Mabrook: only god would.
Basma: This is not about divine wisdom, this is about human liberty.
Jamal: No everybody is free with himself.
In Islam, a woman cannot marry without the approval of her ‘Walee’, that is, the man in charge of her as a father or a brother. Mohammed said, “whichever woman gets married without the approval of her ‘Walee’, her marriage is abolished” (See: The authentic of Ibn Dawood’s collection, Al-Albany, vol. 1 p. 584).
Regarding the wife’s status in marriage in Islam, Mohammad says, “If one of you marries a woman or buys a slave, he should say: ‘O Allah, I ask you for the good in her, and in the disposition you have given her; I take refuge in you from the evil in her, and in the disposition you have given her.’ When he buys a camel, he should take hold of the top of its hump and say the same kind of thing.” (See: The authentic of Ibn Dawood’ collection, Al-Albani, vol. 1 p. 601).
And also Mohammad says: “If I were to justify a person to prostrate after anybody other than God, I would have commanded the woman to prostrate after her husband. I swear to my lord, a woman cannot fulfill the obligation of her Lord until she has fulfilled the obligation of her husband, and even if he calls her for sex while she is on the back of a camel, she would never refuse him”. (See: The authentic of Ibn Dawood’ collection, Al-Albani, vol. 2 p.121).
Mohammad said, “Three are there whose prayers do not get any further than their ears. A rebellious slave until he comes back to his owner, a woman who would go to bed and her husband is indignant at her, and the leader of a people that they are loathing to have for a leader.” (See: The authentic of Al-Tirmidhi’s collection, Al-Albani, vol. 1 p. 209).
Muhammad said, “If any woman asks her husband for divorce without some strong reason, the odor of Paradise will be forbidden to her”. (See: The authentic of Ibn Dawood’ collection, Al-Albani, vol.2 p.17).
(A video clip from Iqra Channel by Dr. Ghazi Al-Shimari, Saudi expert of family affairs. Translated by Memri TV)
Ghazi: The prophet said: “If I were to order anybody to bow before anyone, I would order the wife to bow before her husband”. The husband’s rights are very great. Therefore, according to a reliable Hadith, a woman said: “Oh Prophet of Allah, I will not marry before you tell me what my husband’s rights from me are.” The prophet said: “Do you really want to know?” she said: “yes”. He said: “if pus or blood comes out of your husband’s nose and you lick it up, you still will not have observed all his rights”. The rights of the husband are great, and a wife must observe them.
(A video clip from Iqra Channel by Sheikh Muhammad Al-Munajid. Translated by Memri TV)
According to Islam, a wife needs to comply with her husband’s desires in bed. The prophet Muhammad said: “If a man calls his wife to fulfill his needs. She must come, even if she is by the stove.” According to the Al-Tarmizi tradition. The prophet issued a severe warning to any wife who rebels against her husband in bed. The prophet said: “If a man invites his wife to bed and she refuses, and he is angry at her, the angels curse her until she wakes up in the morning.” This tradition was mentioned in the collections of Al-Bukhari and Muslim. God is aware of men’s needs. He knows that a man my have just come home, and maybe he desires something or maybe he saw something. He knows what this need is, and this is why he ordered the wife to consent to her husband even if she is by the stove, even if she is baking she must consent to him. Moreover, the prophet Muhammad said to the woman: “Compare yourself to him, he’s your paradise and your hell.” Imam Ahmad passed this on in his true Hadith. The wife must consent to her husband’s wishes and obey him. The wife in the west is not obliged to do so. Moreover, a wife can be raped by her husband there. They claim that if he has sex with her against her will – this is rape!, they consider this rape. They claim she must be willing. They claim that she must want it.”
(A video clip from Al-Majd Channel by Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Fuzan. Translated by Memri TV)
This is why the prophet said: “When a man calls his wife to fulfill his needs, she must go to him, even if she is busy with the oven”. Imagine this: There is fire in the oven, and she wants to bake bread. But even if she’s busy with this work that cannot be neglected, when he calls her, she must leave the oven and go to her husband. Another Hadith says: “She must go to him even if she is on the back of a camel”. She must go to him even if she is riding.
The Quran permits a man to beat his wife if she did not obey him, or even if he feels that she might not obey him, that is before the disobedience might occur. (Quran 4:34) ““As to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them”. Ibn Kathir says in his commentary, “meaning, the woman from whom you fear ill conduct with her husband, such as when she acts as if she is above her husband, disobeys him, ignores him, dislikes him, and so forth.”
(A video clip from Mercy Channel by Sheikh Al Khatib. Translated by Memri TV)
One of the husband’s rights is to discipline his wife if she is disobedient. What does the “disobedience” mean?. Disobedience is to leave the house without the husband’s permission, to refuse to obey the husband in bed, to speak to the husband impolitely, or to do the opposite of what he likes. All these are forms of disobedience.
Mohammad said, “Hang the whip up somewhere so that the people of the household might see it; it is discipline to them” (See: The authentic of Al-Jami Al-Sagheer Wa Ziyadatuh, Al-Albani, vol. 2 p. 744).
(A video clip from Qatar TV. Friday sermon. Translated by Memri TV)
(The Koran says: ) “and beat them.” This verse is of a wondrous nature. There are three types of women with whom a man cannot live unless he carries a rod on his shoulder. The first type is a woman who was brought up this way. Her parents ask her to go to school and she doesn’t – the beat her. “Eat” – “I don’t want to” – they beat her. So she became accustomed to beatings, she was brought up that way. We pray Allah will help her husband later. He will only get along with her if he practices wife beating. The second type is a woman who is condescending towards her husband and ignores him. With her, too, only a rod will help. The third type is a twisted woman who will not obey her husband unless he oppresses her, beats her, uses force against her, and overpowers her with his voice.
In Jordan, one of the Arab open countries where they achieved the highest Arab percentage in eliminating illiteracy, a survey conducted by the National Council for Family Affairs in 2002, has revealed that 83% of women have supported man’s right to beat his wife if she is found to have done anything that shows her being unfaithful to the husband. 60% of women have voted for the husband’s right to beat the wife if she burnt the food in cooking, and 52% have voted for a man’s beating his wife if she did not obey his commands. This is what Islam does to women in society.
Death and the Afterlife
In Islam, whoever kills a soul willfully is to be also murdered. The family of the murdered one have the right to give up punishment and ask for the blood money. This compensation could be the judgment in cases of unintentional killing as road accidents. In Islam, the blood money paid for the killing of a woman is half the sum paid for the killing of a man. Imam Shafe`ee (767-820) said, “Be it in old or recent times, I do not know of a verdict except that woman’s blood money is half the one of the man” (See his book Al-Om, vol. 7 p. 261).
Ibn Abdul Bar (978-1071) said, “Jurisprudents of Islam have agreed that woman’s blood money is half that of a man” (See: Al-Tamhid by Ibn Abd al Bar, vol. 17, p. 358). Al Kasani (died 1191) said, “Woman’s blood money is worth half the one of the man, as the companions of the prophet unanimously have established, in that it is related by Omar, Ali and Ibn Masood and Zayd Bin Thabit (companions) that they said in relation to woman’s blood money that it is indeed half that of the male. No one among companions objected to them, so it’s unanimously agreed. And since a woman in inheritance and testimony is on half merit of the male, so her blood money is on the same status” (See: Bada`ee Al Sana`ee vol. 7 p. 254).
In the Shiite sect, if a woman is murdered and her family asked for the penalty (killing the murderer), they have to pay to the family of the man who committed the murder half of his blood money. Al-Kulainy recorded in Al-Kafi (the first authoritative Hdith collection according to Shiites) (vol. 7 p.299) that Jaafar Al-Sadiq (699-765), one of the 12 Infallible Imams of Shiites, said in relation to a man who murdered his wife on purpose, “If her family wishes to kill him then they have to pay his family half of his blood money. But if they wish, they can take half of the blood money.”
After a woman dies, the greater likelihood is that she is going to Hell. Muhammad said as recorded in “Al-Bukhari’s authentic” (vol. 1 p. 1), “O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the inmates of Hell-fire were you (women).” They asked, “Why is it so, O Allah’s Apostle ?”. He replied, “You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands.”
Muhammed also said as recorded in “Muslim’s authentic” (vol. 8 p. 88), “Amongst the inmates of Paradise the women would form a minority”.
But if she is fortunate and she gets into Paradise she is facing the fact that a man will have in addition to his wives from this world his other wives from paradise, the wide-eyed virgins (Houris). The Quran says (44:54), “and We will wed them with Houris pure, beautiful ones.”
Regarding the men of paradise, Mohammad said as recorded in “Al-Bukhari’s authentic” (vol. 2 p. 434), “Everyone of them will have two wives”.
Moreover, The ‘Shaheed’ (martyr) is married to 72 virgins of the wide-eyed Houris. Thus says Mohammad. (See: The authentic of Al-Tirmidhi’s collection, Al-Albani, vol. 2 p. 240).
But as for a woman, in Paradise, she has none but her husband of the world where she lived previously. The Quran says regarding the wives of these men in paradise, “And with them shall be those who restrain the eyes, having beautiful eyes” (37:48). Ibn Kathir said in his commentary, “means, chaste females, who will not look at anyone other than their husbands”.
And Mohammad also said, “A woman (in paradise) is to the last of her husbands.” (See: The collection of authentic Hadith, Al Albany, vol. 3 p. 275). Hudhayfah Bin Al-Yaman, a companion of the Prophet, said to his wife, “If you wish to be my wife in Paradise, don’t re-marry after I die, for a woman in paradise is for the last of her husbands, and so Allah has prohibited the wives of the prophet to re-marry after him because they are his wives in paradise too” (See: As-Sunan Al-Kubra, Al-Bayhaqi, vol. 7 p. 111).
This is the story of woman in Islam: injustice and disparagement from the moment of her birth and to no end, even in the alleged Paradise.
(HH here: Frankly I didn’t have the stomach to go and comment on all the things that I would have liked to address. This film makes me very tired. Please do note however how the chanted verses relate supposedly God Given FACT OF REALITY that the rest of us see as child abuse and obscenity. By hallowing the Quran as the actual, factual and only word of God they sidestep all moral restraints and logic. The religion that supposedly takes the ban on Idolatry the most seriously has completely idolized and declared sacrosanct the words of a disturbed warlord. Now take a deep breath and go hug your wife, girlfriend, husband, son or daughter.)
Female Genital Mutilation on British Turf
By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, March 20, 2009
Latest reports indicate that approximately 500 girls a year have their genitals mutilated in Britain.
It may come as no surprise to the knowledgeable political and cultural observer that the poor victims of these crimes are not from Christian or Jewish families, nor from Hindu or Buddhist ones. They are to be found predominantly in Muslim households. And being Muslim is a status that gives the victims, and all future victims, the unfortunate distinction of being part of a group that society can’t help, because the lib-Left has made sure that the Muslim culture can never be criticized and, therefore, that its sufferers can never be protected or saved.
Fact: female circumcision is illegal in Britain. But this doesn’t mean that British law enforcement is doing anything about this crime that Muslim communities are perpetrating against their little girls.
The reality: five hundred girls’ genitals are mutilated every year in Britain. Not one arrest. Not one incarceration.
You think protecting little girls’ genitals is more important nowadays than protecting oneself from the charge of being Islamophobic? Think again.
Islamic women haters, therefore, are reigning free in Britain. Enraged at even the thought of female sexuality, the self-appointed guardians of Islamic purity make sure to obliterate the clitorises of little girls before the girls begin to get the concept of their own human agency and the magic of love. In a fascistic effort to deny women even the possibility of personal happiness, individuality and sexual satisfaction, these mutilators start cutting girls at the age of seven or eight—before their menstrual periods begin—so that their sexuality will be amputated forever.
Despite its gruesome terror, this crime is widely practised throughout world, for it is a crucial ingredient of Islamic gender apartheid and is known as female genital mutilation (FGM). Its ideological premise has been carefully constructed: a girl’s genital area is dirty and unacceptable. How much is amputated varies among cultures. In Egypt only the clitoris is amputated; in countries like Sudan the woman-haters are not so kind. In a savagery called infibulation, the girl’s external genital organs are completely removed: the clitoris, the two major outer lips (labia majora) and the two minor inner lips (labia minora). In Sudan, the term used for this is tahur—which means “cleansing” or “purification.”
(HH: Call me what you will but it seems to me that this ALONE is grounds for the U.N. to basically invade and take over Sudan and put it right. Imagine the institutionalized HORROR female children are subjected to daily in Sudan and Egypt etc.Of course it is not going to happen that way. Currently the U.N. would probably DEFEND the practice. The OIC certainly would.)
More than 130 million women living today have been subjected to this horrifying practice, and more than two million girls are assaulted by it each year. That is more than five thousand girls every day. Many girls lose their lives during FGM, which is often done with broken glass. Most victims suffer from chronic infection and pain for the rest of their lives. The mutilation robs women of their ability to enjoy the fullness of their sexuality and, therefore, the fullness of their lives. Approximately 75 percent of women cannot achieve orgasm without clitoral stimulation; thus, the possibility of sexual satisfaction has been obliterated for millions of women in the Muslim world.
(HH: The loss of sexuality is horrific, but it is the absolutely inhuman torture of the procedure and the Attitude the girls are subjected to. You are a thing a dirty dirty thing but can be made “useful” if we mutilate what God gave you. I shudder and want to scream, cry and hurt someone at the same time. These are little girls!!!!!! )
The Muslim communities who practise FGM will not easily abandon their barbarity. The Egyptian government, for example, banned FGM in 1996, but an Egyptian court overturned the ban in July 1997. The problem is that the clitoris mutilators point to traditional teachings that sanction FGM. Islamic tradition, for instance, records the Prophet Muhammad emphasizing that circumcising girls is “a preservation of honor for women.” A legal manual of the Shafi’i school of Islamic jurisprudence, ‘Umdat al-Salik, which is endorsed by Al-Azhar University of Cairo — the oldest and most prestigious university in the Islamic world — states that circumcision is obligatory for both boys and girls.
(HH: Here we have the exposure of a lie by the hard Left. It is NOT mainly Pagan Africans that do this. The vast majority of these mutilations, by numbers, are committed by Muslims.)
Underlying this brutality is the obvious belief that the sexual mutilation of women will help keep the structure of Islamic gender apartheid in place. Keeping FGM legitimized and institutionalized is one of the most effective means to keep women subjugated and caged. The assumption is that amputating the clitoris will kill the woman’s sexual desire and thereby reduce the chances that she will ever toy with the notion of self-determination.
(HH: The funny bit is that the Islamic apologists will tell you the same thing but in different words. Those poor darling girls must be cherished and kept clean and since they can’t be chained up or watched all the time the HUMANE Islamic solution is to make them incapable of following their natural evil tendencies. THAT is the party line from the Imams.)
Thanks to the Left’s policy of multiculturalism, where no value can be said to be worse or better than any other (except, of course, if American society and culture is the subject of discussion), (HH: That is a very succinct way of describing the philosophy of the Far Left.) FGM is now being widely practised on Western territory. A study estimates that 66,000 women living in England and Wales have suffered FGM, most of them before emigrating from their home country. More than 7,000 girls in Britain alone, meanwhile, are at a high risk of being victims of the crime. At present, we know that more than 500 girls in Britain are being mutilated every year.
(HH: If your response to THAT number is not outrage and a feeling of THIS MUST NOT CONTINUE then turn in your humanitarian badge and accept your demonic hypocrite I.D.!)
This horror show demands a certain question: Where are the leftist feminists in the West crying out in opposition to this crime against their sisters being carried out on their own shores? In what pages, in what demonstrations, are they denouncing the theology that serves as an inspiration to this crime and calling it to account? Where are the Women’s Studies Departments on Western campuses demanding that Islam be confronted on these grotesque elements of misogyny? Where are the columnists of the Nation Magazine, the supposed leader of the humanitarian Left, repudiating this practise and the texts on which is based?
The Left’s cries of indignation are not to be heard because admitting the inferiority of an adversarial culture might very well legitimize Western civilization, a recognition that no leftist can allow if he hopes to retain his identity and social belonging.(HH: Again VERY succinctly put!)That’s why the leftist forces in our society do their best to excuse FGM with the tired old mantra: it’s not only Muslims that do it – as if inaction to save human beings from evil is somehow justified because a sin might exist somewhere else.
Hypothetical question: if we could have saved the Jewish inmates from Auschwitz before they were gassed, would it have been right to abort the rescue operation upon discovering that someone, somewhere, in some other place, said or did something anti-Semitic?
Yes, there are non-Islamic parts of Africa whose cultural traditions also dehumanize women and practice FGM. But Muslims are the principal religious group that practices this sexual violence against women. In Egypt, 97 percent of girls are circumcised. And there is no greater revolting image than the smug leftist turning his back on these victims because a non-Muslim somewhere sliced the genitals off of a little girl. How does this self-satisfied inhumanity save the Muslim girls who will be mutilated in the future?
We know that it doesn’t. But alas, this is only another chapter of a long dark story – the story of the Left, with its hands drenched with complicity in human blood, sacrificing human beings on the altar of utopian ideals.
[Editors’ note: Jamie Glazov’s new book, United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror, provides an analysis of the Left’s silence about Islamic gender apartheid. To order a copy, click here.]
(HH here: too bad the BBC is not as quick to jump on non-Christian transgressions against sense and compassion.)
From the BBC
Cardinal Re said the attack on Brazil’s Catholic Church was unjustified A senior Vatican cleric has defended the excommunication in Brazil of the mother and doctors of a young girl who had an abortion with their help.
The nine-year-old had conceived twins after alleged abuse by her stepfather.
Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re told Italian paper La Stampa that the twins “had the right to live” and attacks on Brazil’s Catholic Church were unfair.
(HH: but this goon in robes can’t see that twins in a NINE year old just might be a serious health risk to the girl? This decision is worthy of a Saudi Imam!)
It comes a day after Brazil’s president criticised the Brazilian archbishop who excommunicated the people involved.
Brazil only permits abortions in cases of rape or health risks to the mother.
Doctors said the girl’s case met both these conditions, but the Archbishop of Olinda and Recife, Jose Cardoso Sobrinho said the law of God was above any human law.
He said the excommunication would apply to the child’s mother and the doctors, but not to the girl because of her age.
(HH: This man needs to be removed from the Church not given approval by the Vatican. Any good points the Pope got for his stand against Bishop Williamson just went right out the window and a few more besides! This is just disgusting.)
Cardinal Re, who heads the Roman Catholic Church’s Congregation for Bishops and the Pontifical Commission for Latin America, told La Stampa that the archbishop had been right to excommunicate the mother and doctors.
Life must always be protected, the attack on the Brazilian Church is unjustified
Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re
“It is a sad case but the real problem is that the twins conceived were two innocent persons, who had the right to live and could not be eliminated,” he said.
(HH: How is this man less of a pedophilic control freak than Mohamed? Why doesn’t he just convert to Islam and move to Sudan! If the Pope doesn’t reverse this there is going to be a HUGE backlash. Opposition is one thing, excommunication is another.)
“Life must always be protected, the attack on the Brazilian Church is unjustified.”
The abortion was carried out on Wednesday.
Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, himself a Catholic, said on Friday that he regretted what he described as the cleric’s deeply conservative attitude.
“The doctors did what had to be done: save the life of a girl of nine years old,” he said.
The girl, who lives in the north-eastern state of Pernambuco, was allegedly sexually assaulted over a number of years by her stepfather, possibly since she was six.
The fact that she was four months’ pregnant with twins was only discovered after she was taken to hospital in Pernambuco complaining of stomach pains.
Her stepfather was arrested last week, allegedly as he tried to escape to another region of the country.
He is also suspected of abusing the girl’s physically handicapped 14-year-old sister.
Dr Ghayasuddin Siddiqui
Commentary The Times
10 December 2008
Child protection legislation may as well not exist for Muslims who operate and teach at some of Britain’s 1,600 or so madrassas, or Islamic schools. For such people, who either consciously flout the law or are completely ignorant of it, beating children is not a form of abuse but a method of enforcing discipline.
It may surprise many people to find that, unlike schools and other institutions dealing with children, madrassas are not subject to government regulation. The situation is compounded as even many mosque-run madrassas are not registered with anyone.
A recent survey by the Charity Commission found that 11per cent of mosques in London were unregistered. Travel north to the Midlands and that figure mushrooms to 70 per cent. But even the registration of mosques is limited in the type of protection that it offers children, because, while registration ensures random checks by the commission, it does not ensure the regulation of madrassas within the mosques.
Only two years ago my organisation, the Muslim Parliament, published a report to highlight the problem of child abuse in madrassas, including the mentality that holds such abuse as a taboo subject that is best kept quiet. We said then that too many members of the community seemed more interested in protecting it from embarrassment than in ensuring the wellbeing of innocent and voiceless children.
The report highlighted that up to 40 per cent of madrassas exclude uncooperative pupils, and its estimate of 15-20 cases a year of sexual abuse was considered an understatement. Those parents whose children are abused remain silent for fear of being ostracised by their community or stigmatised by mainstream Britain.
Many local safeguarding children boards have begun to engage the faith and voluntary sector and have organised workshops and training courses in their respective areas. However, it seems that these activities have been attended by only a handful of mosque and madrassa organisations.
In the absence of a national register of mosques and madrassas, it is difficult to say what percentage of them have taken advantage of these provisions and have gone on to put in place child protection policy and procedures in their own madrassas. I am not sure how many madrassas have even done Criminal Record Bureau checks on staff who routinely deal with children.
Sadly for the 200,000 children in Britain who attend madrassas, however, the situation will not improve and may even get worse unless new laws are introduced to ensure that every madrassa is regulated by a government body. Such laws could force the closure of madrassas in breach of the Child Protection Act. Until then, children who attend madrassas, whether those connected to mosques or one of the many makeshift varieties operating from people’s homes, will remain at significant risk of physical and sexual harm.
– Dr Ghayasuddin Siddiqui is head of the Muslim Parliament of Great Britain.
Adam Graycar, of the Rutgers Institute on Corruption Studies, explains that what is really unusual about this tale is the scale of the corruption. First the judges received monetary rewards for sanctioning the building of a new private-sector prison in their area. Second, they were paid for closing a county-funded prison nearby. And, then, of course, they offered up the “juvenile delinquents” for the benefit of the owners of the new jail.
Feb 26th 2009 | NEW YORK
From The Economist print edition
The judges are going to jail, …
EARLIER this month, two judges in Pennsylvania’s Luzerne County admitted sentencing thousands of children to jail in return for kickbacks from a prison-management company. Judges Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan received a commission for every day they sent a child to private juvenile detention centres run by Pennsylvania Child Care and a sister company. The pay-offs came to $2.6m over seven years.
Hillary Transue, who is 15 and faced Mr Ciavarella without a lawyer, was sentenced to three months because she constructed a fake MySpace page ridiculing the assistant principal at her high school. Her case led to the judges’ downfall; children have a constitutional right to a lawyer, …
This is not really news to me. While living in New Orleans I saw what police and judicial corruption really was. Growing up in Southern California I just wasn’t prepared for what I witnessed. At the time the city sheriff had managed to convert the city jail into an actual “prison”. This meant that people could end up spending up to two years at this facility and the city (read, sheriff) got paid for each prisoner each day. The “prison” had virtually no educational or communal facilities. By all reports tiers of 44 or so inmates with a small common area with benches sat around and talked, played chess or watched a single TV or fought, day after day. Anyone who was arrested an unable to make bail ended up here along with those who could not afford a lawyer. Court appearances will follow after court appearance until they plead guilty to a charge selected by the city. I have seen reports of inmates playing this dance, with the judges in full cooperation, for over a year before finally being released without charge. Not many have that kind of patience and after being sent back a few times will change their plea, receive time served and be released. The amount of tax money wasted on this while actual, violent criminal are released to make room for new warm bodies is stunning. The money New Orleans has made on this atrocity of a “jail” is staggering. IT is a common policy in New Orleans to arrest a poor local or tourist, hold them overnight then release them with no charge after getting “court costs” from them. If you ever visit the deep South in general or New Orleans in particular, NEVER argue with the cops. It just doesn’t pay…..you.