Ok, we can all agree that Pat Robertson was a dork of stellar magnitude, and the Phelps Family are supernovae in that particular area called theocracy.
That said, before we submerge a crucifix in urine let’s give the Abrahamic tree a second look, and examine the fruit it has borne.
The Jews never had a drive to spread over the Earth. Their scriptures taught them that certain lands were given them by God; so they took them, enough said, this was 6,000 years ago after all. But after that they lost any territorial ambitions. But, the Persians and Romans proceeded to push them this way and that; being rather fanatical, they pushed back. After the destruction of the 2nd Temple and the Judean Diaspora the centuries have seen Judaism become a religion withdrawn into itself. Having lost the arrogance of the Temple but retained the Love of God and intellectual tradition they became a creative yeast in their host cultures.
The Jews never expected to take over the world; at most they expected, and some maybe still expect that the world will join them. Not by the sword, but by the Love of God. One of the best aspects of the Jewish religion is its focus on the Love of God and a Love for God in each moment of a person’s life.
But along came Jayzus!
Things started out ok, Yesuah merely echoed and extended the teachings and philosophy of Hillel. It expanded organically and gently; converting mostly people otherwise considered “unworthy” of membership in one of the more respectable religions, then into the idle upper-class (often by way of religiously adventurous wives discontent with being the ornament on a rich man’s arm.
But then Paul and Constantine came to deal the Judaic Chrestians, and then, later, the mild original “Greek”, a double death-blow of politicization.
After several centuries of defending themselves from the fanatically imperialistic Islam Christianity began to model all sorts of the worst of the Islamic “innovations” in religion and took on an expansionist, aggressive attitude of its own.
But, it is inherent in a religion mostly based on the teachings of Jesus that every now and then people would remember what their religion was supposed to be about. Christianity may have done much more good during those periods than it did evil during its more cognitively-dissonant times.
Since the Enlightenment the swings of the pendulum between arrogant fanaticism on one hand, and humble servitude to God on the other seem to have gotten gentler. Christianity also seem centered more and more toward the liberal side of the equation; i.e. Fred Phelps, not Qaradawi.
Christianity may one day even manage to have more people who follow it for the right reasons than fools-in-lambs-clothing who use religion in unhealthy ways, or merely for social reasons.
Christianity has a core in its teachings and scripture that is there for all to see; one of Love. It today can be, and always has been, a potentially dangerous religion (I.e. Fred Phelps, Torquemada) but is not inherently so by the structure and teachings of its chief scriptures.
I do think that, despite the quantum jump that The Enlightenment enabled in society’s evolution, Christianity has shown a definite tendency to speed humanity’s growth due to the focus of many of the faithful being on Jesus’ ministry rather than the “died for your sins” part.
Now, about Islam.
Islam teaches much about peace and love. There are verses equal to any in the other Abrahamic writings. I will not comment here about those who feel it was the work of someone passingly familiar with both religions. But Pat Robertson did get one thing right; Islamic theology IS inherently aggressive.
The Islamic scriptures consist of three parts:
The Qur’an, the Sunnah –basically a biography of Mohammed’s life, and the ahadith – stories about Mohammed from people who knew him. If you read it all it is clear that there can only be peace when everyone has submitted to Allah.
Even the most fanatical religion tends to mellow over the years; people are basically families, people who want to live and work and laugh and have the space to find God before they die. Even individuals attracted to a “religious” life for evil reasons can be shocked to learn that Love of God and Love BY God can blossom in their hearts; that is the core of any religion.
Islam unfortunately is working uphill in the all so human battle against hubris while trying to find truth. But, by having such an aggressive set scriptures; by having so much to draw from that feeds the darker hungers of man, Islam will, I believe spend more time orbiting around radical aggression before submitting finally to that peace and love that is God, is Allah.
Islam is inherently dedicated by its self-declared scriptural doctrine to naturally one day rule the world by TAKING control of it and forcing Dar al-Harb(‘House of War’) (Non-Muslim controlled regions) into Dar al-Islam(‘House of Islam); then all people will be free, in the Islamic view, to “choose” the “right” religion.
Sadly, it is not hard to justify all sorts of atrocities on infidels (non-Muslims) with the Qur’an; by contrast there are very few Samaritans or Philistines around for Jews or Christians to use their scripture as an excuse to start a pogrom against.
In Islam it does not matter that reformist Imams do not support something. In fact it is literally forbidden in Islam to use your ‘conscience’ as a guide in a religious dilemma; the only proper way to get an answer is to ask the proper authority, and then submit to the “truth.”
In Christianity, the violent books and verses are all somewhat shielded by being in the OT and considered to be superseded by the Love of Jesus when any conflict occurs. Islam does not have a NT to mellow its hard edges, though it does recognize the concept of abrogation (what a prophet says later is ‘rock’ to the ‘scissors’ of any earlier pronouncements or doctrines).
This makes “insulting” Islam dangerous at times in the modern world of high tech, and horrific weapons that you can make in your garage.
I mostly find it sad that the bulk of Muslims are not more vocal about denouncing their radical Brethren in both the private and the public arena. It is every person in the world’s duty to restrain the fundies of all aggressive religions until they grow up. Until a religion’s devout – highest clergy to clueless souls just born in it – recognize to their core’s that it is ok to DIE because of your religion but, that it is NEVER anything but evil to use religion as an excuse to KILL, that religion should be watched, and kept on a leash in polite company.
Islam has yet to show that it can stay grown up. They are younger though, lets give them time…but, keep the rolled up newspaper ready to smack their noses if they sh*t on the rug. We have too many permanent stains from Christianity and its messes; AND the Islam’s’ earlier messes. Of course Christianity STILL pees on the floor now and then. We just have to be patient and rub their noses PROMPTLY in their messes; but, we don’t have to worry about them eating the neighbor’s cat anymore.
I am not too PC to call a club a club (well, I can’t say spade anymore can I?); religion can be very wonderful but, people need to get over their BS and realize that the basic code of ethics that most religions have can also be formulated by simple common sense and an understanding of psychology and social dynamics. Go read a little about Neuro-Linguistic Programming and such. Real secular morality is what the world needs, not the Fascist pretend kind, only then can religion truly flourish; when we get over all this bickering on who is actually the only ones in touch with the “ONLY source of Morality™”; which they cannot even prove exists.
Faith is the problem; submission to something you do not feel yourself is the problem. Beliefs have reasons, sometimes bad ones but, reasons that can be ‘reasoned with’; faith has no reason therefore the most reasonable argument does no good, your head still rolls on the floor.
Have faith in Jesus of Mohammed; I will Believe in Bugs Bunny!
Sincerity, what is it and how do we identify it from bald-faced lies and zealous ignorance? In two ways Virginia, in two ways; analyze what they say and compare it to all available facts; and judge them by their fruits, one of the most useful concepts to come out of Judeo/Christianity.
It is never more important to identify real sincerity than when the speaker claims a religious moral high-ground. Most religious traditions cherish a core principal of truth and honesty; a self-serving lie perverts the most noble cause at its very core – *Living* this belief distinguishes the true clergy of God, no matter their faith.
Unfortunately the extremes of the religious/partisan/tribal spectrum believe the opposite; so sure are they of the holiness of their cause that eventually any lie will come to be seen as sanctifying, instead of perverting, when applied in any fashion that can be rationalized as in service to “The Cause.”
To be sure, this trait is not confined to religious bigots, there are political movements on the Left, and Right, who share this same “holy” zeal for their vision of “how things must be.”
Here is a piece from the Great Falls Tribune in Montana that straddles both the religious and the political art of faking complete sincerity.
Part of Islamic teachings is mutual respect and acceptance, according to Hussam Ayloush, a speaker at the Islam in America symposium in Bozeman in February and a Muslim-American from Anaheim, Calif.
Why would anyone hold a symposium on Islam in America in Bozeman, Montana (pop < 30,000)? Maybe so no-one undesired is likely to show up and attend to what is actually said?
With that said, “part of Islamic teachings is…”? That is about as vague as you can get. A part? A large part? A powerful part? How about a dominant part? We will let that one go for now…
“Some Muslims disagree with American policies, Ayloush said, but that doesn’t mean they hate Americans.”
Disingenuous, thy name is partisan! “Some” can be read as most according to virtually all polls I have seen, whether by US-based, Judeo/Christian religious, or Muslim news agencies!
As to the “hate American policies[sins]” bit, sorry, the Christians use that one too; what they hate is America’s Un-Muslimness, and that means hating non-Muslim Americans; just as a radical Christian who hates homosexuality hates the gays, not just “their sin.”
“There are lines by the thousands in Muslim countries for visas to come to America,” he said. “People are proud to visit here. There’s no shame — it’s the opposite.”
MSU Adjunct Professor Thomas Goltz has spent years traveling in Muslim countries. “I have never, not once, felt uncomfortable going around the Muslim world because they were Muslim,” he said.
This is probably because Goltz is known for uncritically pro-Muslim, and anti non-Muslim, statements and articles:
Goltz’ remarks were in response a question from the audience on how to convince Armenians of Nagorno-Karabagh to stay within the “current boundaries of Azerbaijan.” Goltz, who teaches at the Montana State University, replied: “By building a forward-looking democracy you will be able to let the garlic-growing Armenians beg to join you (Azerbaijan).”
… Goltz accused Armenians of perpetrating “ethnic cleansing” in Khojaly and said the Armenia argument that the Khojaly operation was a necessary pre-emptive and defensive measure to relieve Nagorno-Karabagh’s capital Stepanakerd from relentless shelling from Khojaly was “nonsense”.
The most dramatic moment of the lectures occurred when Aris Babikian from the Armenian National Committee of Canada (ANCC) successfully refuted two controversial statements by Goltz.
At the Newsmaker Breakfast lecture, Aris Babikian, executive director of the ANCC, confronted Goltz and mocked him for his “command performance of misrepresentation and revisionism.” Babikian exposed Goltz’ hypocrisy by pointing out that the American journalist had “conveniently forgotten to mention the Sumgait, Baku and Maragh massacres of Armenians by Azeris… and that had it not been for the Russian Navy 230,000 Armenian inhabitants of Baku would have not survived.”
Ayloush explained that al-Qaida is so unwanted in Muslim countries the terrorist organization must hide. “Eight out of 10 victims (of al-Qaida) are Muslim,” he said. “Every political leader has spoken out against (them).”
Of course, to be fair he would have mentioned that BEFORE most of their victims were Muslims support for al-Qaida in the Muslim world was much, much higher… but that has nothing to do with anything, right?
This next bit is so outrageous that I am going to take it piece by piece:
“Jihad” is a term used to describe “inner struggle” and striving for the sake of God, according to Ayloush. It is “not holy war,” Ayloush stresses.
The inner struggle means controlling one’s passions and avoiding vices.
Here Ayloush is being at best sloppy and rash, and at worst a completely disingenuous dispenser of bovine produced fertilizer. Doesn’t he understand that to tell such easily refutable lies helps his cause in the uncommitted hearts NOT ONE BIT? Here is a piece that brings together some interesting quotes from the Quran:
“Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them):
thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom. (47:4)This one states the goal of the fighting in terms that also make clear that the war is religious:And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. (8:39)And this one establishes that he warfare is against the People of the Book, that is, Jews and Christians:
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (9:29)”
Back to the article…
Arabic has no word for “holy war,” and the phrase was developed as a way to translate the word “crusade,” a Latin word and Christian idea.
Stunningly untrue: the Crusades began only after 300 years of ISLAMIC military aggression against Byzantium and the Holy Land (mostly Christian at the time), including the attacking and enslaving of pilgrims as a “religious right and duty.” Only a mind that thinks that when Muslims murder it is sanctified by God can think that the Crusades taught MUSLIMS how to fight a holy war!
The Quran surfaced about 1,400 years ago, Kia said, and there are no verses about the United States because the country did not yet exist.
The United States has gone to war in Afghanistan and Iraq because of those countries’ policies, not religion. They just happen to have a majority Muslim population, according to Kia.
And? So? What does that have to do with anything? The Koran, Hadith, and especially the Sharia’a, clearly deny the right of humans to create their own laws and institutions; this puts traditional Islam squarely AGAINST everything that Western societies, including America, are based on.
The Sept. 11 attacks were committed by a minority group of extremist Muslims affiliated with the terrorist organization al-Qaida, which has small networks all over the world.
And Muslims danced the world over, wherever they were more than a tiny percentage of the population! Can anyone tell me of any event involving the murder of over three thousand people that would bring out huge numbers of Christians, Jews, Hindus, Shinto, Buddhists or Neo-Pagans out to dance in joy? Such compassion! Such a peaceful outpouring of warmth and sympathy!
Christians have committed acts of terror both present-day and throughout history.
That is nice Professor, but we live NOW; tell us about the thousands murdered every day by Christians – shows us the yearly toll of thousands of Fellow Christians (but not Christian enough), and non-Christians who offend by merely BEING non-Christian. Show us where they live closer than your great-great-great-grand mother’s lifetime! You remind me of a Mafia Don excusing 30 murders committed in a year to consolidate his power because thuggish cops killed two people randomly over ten years.
In defense of a political movement that attitude is sad; in defense of a religion is it disgusting.
“The irony is that Christianity fought its holy war against Islam in the middle ages,” Kia said. “There was a Christian ‘holy war,’ there was a Christian ‘jihad.’”
You keep beating that horse, but it will never get up and run… how is it ironic that only after 300 years of murder, raid and military assault culminating in closure of access (at peril of life and freedom) to pilgrims the Christians FINALLY took up arms, and came and kicked some butt to take that formerly CHRISTIAN land back? Jihad is only bad if it is Christians? (note that I have not addressed, and certainly not defended, any excesses of the Christians involved; we are just addressing motives for now)
There are terrorist organizations throughout the world. A full list of designated groups can be viewed at http://www.state.gov/s/ct/list/, and a list by country at http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/terrorist-groups.cfm.
I am not going to spend a huge amount of time breaking down the numbers of dead by the religion of the murderers; go here and look for yourself at how utterly stupid this argument is:
The country with the largest Muslim population is Indonesia.
And also the country with one of the fastest growing Islamist problems!!!
And that concludes our lesson in how to be truly sincere at *appearing* to be Morally Superior to your opponent.
Less than 20 percent of the 1.6 billion Muslims (according to a Pew study in 2009) in the world are Arab, Ayloush said. “It’s a religion,” he said. “Not an ethnicity.”
And let us not forget it; I don’t expect to hear Ayloush calling anti-Islamist groups racists!
Once again I am posting a blog that the hard-core Rightists will just not be able to swallow without gagging. But then again, the true Leftists will reject what I say as well, so I guess that I am still fulfilling my mission; pissing off those who need to be pissed off; example: that thing in the Bible about the motes and beams is especially true in politics and organised religion.
The unreconstructed Leftist will be puzzled at why a “rabid Islamophobic” like The Heretic Crusader should DEFEND a practice of Islam. The answer is really quite simple, I don’t. The Islamic practice is to treat women as chattel property. To be Muslimah is to be bought, and sold, and hoarded. To orthodox Islam a woman is only fulfilled if she daily, unfailingly and willingly makes a classic 1950′s housewife look like a libertine whore; her “desire” is to be a domestic animal fully trained to care for a husband’s sex, food and house; incidentally caring for children and lastly, herself; this mindset in an orthodox Imam’s eye makes her “holy“!
When the customs of veiling, and purdah, and child marriage, and the absolute authority of the husband are considered the issue of polygamy becomes incidental.
In traditional Christian marriages there are certainly many opportunities for abuse. This is no reason to ban marriage, or parenting for that matter, though it is clearly in the children’s interest not to be subject to the possibility of abusive parents using religious authority to do evil to their kids; or yours for that matter.
On top of all of that, traditional Islamic reasoning also says that humans attempting to judge the morality of Islamic rules is not valid; it is to be obeyed, not interpreted; which is the very reason that system is so susceptible abuse.
Why should polygamy be a crime? KEYSAR TRAD
October 2, 2009
In a liberal society such as Australia, it should not be a crime to have more than one wife, argues Keysar Trad.
IN JUNE last year, Triple J’s current affairs program Hack ran an item on plural relationships. The ABC’s youth broadcaster interviewed me about polygyny, a form of polygamous marriage in which a man has more than one wife at the same time. A bisexual couple were also interviewed.
To my surprise, I was reported on the ABC’s respected current affairs program AM the next morning. Without speaking to me again and after seeking comments from the Attorney-General’s office, AM ran the line: “Undeterred Keysar Trad says he’s hoping to find another wife to join his family. To do so, he says, would be to honour his first wife.”
No such comment had aired on Hack. The media then spent more than a week mocking the practice of a husband having two or more wives simultaneously. No one took issue with the bisexual relationship, which involved one man and his female partner, who also had a relationship with another woman.
Did he say it? Did he not? Who knows, but note that he said that the comment never “aired“, not that he never said it off the air; who knows?
It is central to my points though, that Mr. Trad has conflated a heterosexual man having two women )told by their religion that they are his servants, sex slaves and less than him, in brains and judgment, in the eyes of God) and a relationship say, between a man and 2 bisexual woman; to have a second woman in that situation is truly being fair to the woman. That kind of marriage would be completely different from the traditional Islamic ideal of “honoring” a wife by marrying a younger woman to relieve her of chores, and some of the “burden” of sex.
At the end of an interview on 2UE, Mike Carlton declared that, as a Judeo-Christian nation, we marry one person for life. After a pause, he added that we just have lots of affairs on the side.
In Western society, the “other woman” in an affair is stigmatised. She faces significant pressure to keep the relationship secret to protect her man because modern society frowns on plural heterosexual relations. If she fell pregnant, society – including her partner – could place great pressure on her to have an abortion.
The mistress in an affair should have rights. She needs to be protected if she decides to end the relationship because the man refuses to live up to her expectations and leave his wife.
I am not sure just where Mr. Trad (good name that for a traditionalist) got his impressions. Films from the 60′s maybe? In my experience that while he is right that Western society is monogamous mainly as an offshoot of Church influence his analysis of our sex lives is far from accurate.
First off, he seems to completely miss out on the idea that the woman’s goal may not be the man’s divorce and marriage to her. As to the pressure for an abortion, that is unlikely to be decided mainly on that basis. The woman’s desire to have or not have that man’s baby is far more likely to control her final decision; he has no legal say in it, a concept that Mr. Trad surely finds incomprehensible. On top of that, the power a woman has to cause trouble in the man’s life, both social and legal, give her the upper hand against all but true bounders.
The problems are not what Mr. Trad imagines, they are more involved with the fact that affairs are NOT committed relationships but flings. I am not going to condemn a responsible fling by a persistently deprived spouse but, the subject is marriage not sex as I recall. Let us move on.
The Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, must have been paying attention. A few months later, he introduced legislation granting rights to the second woman so that she could also share the assets of her married lover.
The problem of deception, however, does not go away. Why in the liberal 21st century must we live a lie in relationships? And why do we continue to maintain a facade that monogamy is a perfect institution, when studies consistently reveal that most men admit to having affairs? Monogamy is great, but it is clearly not for everybody.
More cultural misunderstanding here. The legislation merely recognizes a fact; a long term lover has a share in one’s interests. In the U.S. we call it palimony and it is applied when a relationship is long term and stable. It especially applies where a financial burden has been assumed by one or both of the parties in either direction. The issue is Interdependence. Children are always the legal responsibility of both genetic parents.
Islam openly acknowledges this fact of human nature and stipulates a regulatory framework for plural relations. But modern Western society, suspicious of all things Islamic, fails to recognise the qualities of Muslim marriage and family.
Whoops, I have to step in on that little gem. “Islam acknowledges” which “fact of human nature“? That men are horny dogs and are happiest with a cooking, cleaning sex slave at home who thinks she will go to hell if she does not lick the pus from his nose? (That last was a quote from Mohammed about a wife’s duties by the way in one semi-reliable collection of the acts of Mohammed)
The regulatory framework that us Westerners are so suspicious of is known as Sharia. It commands that woman are worth half what a man is and, that she must cover herself except for face and hands lest she “Tempt” some pious man into raping her. It legalizes the rape of an unwilling wife, and sets down in no uncertain terms the rules for having sexual relations with a prepubescent WIFE.
No thanks Mr. Trad, the concept of multiple marriage is not the problem here, the problem is the systematic subjugation of the female by the Islamic, now how did you put it, Regulatory Framework Acknowledging Certain Facts of Life.
Seeing how well it has worked in Islamic lands I hope Mr. Trad forgives us if we give it a pass for now.
Legally enforceable monogamy was introduced by Emperor Justinian in the year 534. Justinian himself kept a courtesan as a mistress. He married her after the death of his wife, Euphemia, and only after he convinced Justin, his predecessor, to change the law so that senators could marry actresses and courtesans.
Ahh, good old Justinian. A superstitious fool who took credit for every victory because of his prayers but, almost lost the empire from ignoring military readiness in favor of those same prayers. If not for a man named Belisarius there would have been no Constantinople left for the Muslims to invade and occupy.
Yet another tribute to the “One Truth” idiots, and their ability to deny any reality while clinging to their possession of “rightness“.
Justinian is said to have criminalized plural unions under the influence of St Augustine, though Augustine clearly stated in his treatise on marriage that having several wives is not “contrary to the nature of marriage”. Yet like other church fathers, Augustine preferred celibacy, or monogamous marriage if one could not be celibate.
Well it seems that Mr. Trad is well versed in Church history, but it is unclear that this information either supports or denies polygamy. Mr. Trad seems to be making that case that it was solely the Church Fathers that came up with the idea. This is simply untrue as the Romans had abandoned multiple wives centuries before this time. Indeed it was likely the influx of Eastern culture that flooded the Empire that caused the subject even to come up by Justinian’s time.
And to me this all is beside the point. Marriage is for the economic and emotional stability of parents and children, anything more than that is a fringe benefit. Every other aspect of a marriage can be had without the relationship being one. We marry to have a partner, a friend, someone to have our back and someone to give ours to. A person to dedicate our energies to making happy even when we find it hard to want to make ourselves happy. This is the job of a spouse, to live every moment knowing you are not alone, knowing that what you do is important to one you love. It is also putting more than one person to the task of building a home and prosperity no matter how the labor is divided.
Over the years, I have counseled adulterers from different faith backgrounds. I never tried to punish, hurt or expose them. I tried to guide them to mend their ways. I tried to help them understand that sex outside marriage was neither in their best interests nor in the best interests of society. If they were married, I did my best to ensure that their marriage remained safe and stable. Had they been in plural unions that conformed to the Islamic regulatory framework, such relationships would not have been adulterous, but divinely sanctioned unions.
Now all of that except the building of a home can be had, with a little more effort and trouble, by a “couple” that is not married or living together. But when we start talking about children that stability and those shared resources become much more important. It is possible for a single parent to raise a fine child. But it is horribly hard on that parent.
We marry to build in the material world and to never be alone in the adventure of life and to give the best environment for our children. It is not because God told us to, it is because we are at our best when we are not alone.
Wow, I love it when an Islamist hangs himself with his own words; it makes my job easier. From his words I get the impression that he includes non-married, but sexually active, people as “adulterers“.
Not a word about the effect on the spouse, merely an admonition to be “safe” and “stable“. What does he tell them? Always use a condom and do not get caught? Given that both the Koran and ahadith say that a lie told to keep the peace is condoned; does he advise against coming clean if caught?
But the part that is the real zinger is how he tells them all that if they only were Muslim they could have their cake and eat it too. Given that there is no stigma to casual divorce (when initiated by the man at any rate) in Islam, it is quite possible for a man who can afford it to marry the regulation four wives, and simply divorce any that become unattractive or stop “pleasing” him in any way. (Heff, have you ever thought about just converting?) He can then find another to marry (buy) and refill his quota.
Is it just me, or do any of my readers out there see the problem for the woman in this “Regulatory Framework” that is so praised as a solution to the perversions of our Western sexual practices?
Australian law has maintained the Justinian facade that a marriage is one man and one woman, and that every other relationship must be kept secret. Under Australian law, bigamy attracts penalties of up to seven years’ imprisonment. On the other hand, polygamous marriages conducted overseas are recognized under family law for the purpose of property settlements.
Here is where Mr. Trad and I very slightly cross paths. I see no reason that a man and two women, or two women, or two men, or three women and two men, should not contract a “marriage” with all the legal rights and duties implied by Western customs. My diversion with Mr. Trad’s Islamic model is that I feel all parties in such marriages should be equal under the law and that no party under 18 may be entered into such contracts.
There is also a new factor that the West needs to confront. I feel it is unconstitutional for us to use the law to say someone cannot marry because of religious “law“.
What then do we do to prevent either Christians, Jews, Mormons or Muslims from marrying wives kept ignorant and then imprisoned in the home (and burka) away from eyes that can see signs of abuse and neglect?
When a couple marry in a Christian church, it indicates they want their marriage to be governed by the rules of that church. The same applies for unions conducted under Muslim rules. For a marriage to be valid under Islam, it requires the consent of both parties, at least two witnesses and a dowry paid by the groom to the bride as a gift for her to use as she pleases.
As I see it, to preserve our traditions and especially the Constitution we must allow the marriages (subject to the above limits on age and coercion) and do what we do already about radical Mormons and Christians (and I believe a few Jews), we keep an eye open for abuses and act if there is cause. This is all that is done for any spouse or child in any abusing family. Society can only apply fair rules and hope the facade of the evil cracks before they harm the innocent. But is that not what we have ALWAYS been limited to in a civil society?
If a woman in a traditional marriage shows signs of abuse someone hopefully sees it and does something. It is not just to try to apply a tighter control on ANY social group than that. But it is certainly in our rights as a society, in my opinion, to see to it that NO legal relationship shows the stigma of abuse. It is NOT in our right to say how many people are involved in that family absent those stigma.
Yeah? So? I have read the Sharia marriage rules; the payment is seen to “purchase“ the man’s right to “enjoy” the woman’s vagina. No, I am not being crude, it really is THAT blatantly put.
Further, until the man has had a chance to “enjoy” the woman’s vagina, he is not required to pay her. However if he has the opportunity, but fails to “enjoy” his possession, he must pay her, and get his jollies later.
Any children of this marriage are seen as the property of the man; at best the divorced mother might get to keep them ‘til they hit puberty.
Further the divorced woman is supposed to get all her property returned to her but, this rarely happens unless her family is strong enough to force the issue. Many times a husband simply coerces his wife into signing her assets “freely” over to him sometime before he casts her off.
Islamic marriage is no solution for the issues of sex outside of marriage either. The Koran, ahadith and all Sharia are clear that having sex with non-Muslim “possessions of the right hand” is a perfectly acceptable method of dealing with what Mr. Trad calls Human Nature. Islam treats these women, and the children that might result, as non-entities; useful to legally slake the lust of a “moral” Muslim man. This is new “morality” that will save the ‘decadent’ West?
There is no requirement for such a union to be “legally” registered with a secular body that does not recognize the clauses in a Muslim union. Plural relations of this nature that take place in Australia are treated like de facto relationships and are not registered. This keeps them outside the ambit of the nation’s criminal and marriage laws. Such unions are not considered adulterous because they follow the rules of an Islamic union. They are not secret and they carry no stigma under God.
Not secret, except from the law and anyone who might report abuses you mean. This article is starting to read like a Dah’wah (Religious recruiting) aimed at adulterous, wife beating pedophiles wishing to sanctify their illegalities in the name of God by becoming Muslims.
According to this a Muslim marriage is ONLY concerned with obeying Sharia rules, and is outside the jurisdiction of mere human laws. If I take him at face value, and I have no reason not to, and look at what Sharia says about marriage, then he is promoting the idea that a man can come home from work and take his wife from her cooking to have sex with her in any fashion he likes. He can then beat her (lightly) if she has refused to obey his whims after verbal admonitions (telling her that God will only love her if she does what her husband desires) and an short period “making” her sleep apart from his no-doubt desirable bod.
Sharia tells the devout Muslim man that he is not allowed to cause physical (what about emotional) harm to his “wife” if she is “not yet able to bear intercourse” from being too young in body. It does allow him to do ANYTHING else with her, or make her do things for him, to the same effect as “enjoying” her vagina “properly” so long as his “play” does not result in this physical harm.
Had enough yet? This is all as mainstream in Islam as “For Richer and for Poorer, in sickness and in health, etc.” is in the West.
Yes, marriage needs to be reformed but, allowing traditional Islamic forms to spread in the West would be a very bad thing to this Moderate Jeffersonian.
This is not to say that people are actively encouraged to enter such unions. Islam stipulates very strict equality in the treatment of wives. If a man cannot treat his wives equally, the Koran says he should have only one. Monogamy is the norm in Muslim communities. However, men who are capable of supporting more than one partner equally are advised to be open, honest and accountable in their relationships and to treat their wives fairly.
Mr. Trad, Oh! Mr. Trad! You left a part out!!! The Koran says that if he can’t treat more than one WIFE fairly he should only have one WIFE and whatever other sex partners he likes that are “possessions of the right hand.” This has been interpreted by various scholars as meaning anything from sex slaves to any non-Islamic prostitute. The exact limit depends on your school of Islam, and the opinion of your Imam.
Islamic sex in and of itself (as in old school Christianity and Judaism) is seen as a defilement in and of itself. The only question a Muslim man need concern himself with is whether it is ALLOWED for him to have sex with this woman or that.
Since he is forbidden to marry a non-Muslim then by Islamic law the woman has no rights and is no threat to his marriage bed. Any children are either abandoned as bastards to her or, adopted and raised Muslim; the choice is the whim of the man.
There is nothing in Islam to prevent a “devout” man from being highly adulterous by Western standards; it all depends on how and who he has sex with as to whether it is a sin or not.
I fail to see, Mr. Trad, how this would HELP any of the issues that we face here in the West.
Yes, polygyny may lead to jealousy. We are all human. But in a caring and sharing world where we become euphoric when we give to those in need, sponsor orphans and provide foster care, the ultimate in giving is for a woman to give a fraction of her husband’s time and affection to another woman who is willing to share with her. It is a spiritually rewarding experience that allows women to grow while the husband toils to provide for more than one partner.
Well, I can see this argument having some validity, but only as much as it has when applied to men. I want to see anyone, Christian or Muslim or whoever explain how it is o.k. for a man to have two wives who share him but not o.k. for one woman to be shared by two men. Explain without resorting to “God told me so” arguments that is. Personally I see no problem with either one if all agree and especially if the two same sex partners are highly bisexual. In that case in fact it almost becomes required to have the third for a stable relationship without huge tension, or sex outside the marriage occurring regularly.
In most cases, the husband ends up providing separate accommodation. The women can agree to share dwellings – it’s entirely up to them. Many men in Western society complain about their mother-in-law or a “nagging” wife. If his wife and in-laws were difficult, would he seek more of the same? The willingness of a man to take on another wife is in fact a form of praise to his first wife.
Oh really? “You know dear, you are so un-troubling, and your parents are so nice to me; I know it is only for your sake that they are not nasty slobs when they visit.
In tribute to your skills at wifely things I shall marry 15 year old Tasha. I am quite willing to chance that she will not live up to your example but, I am sure that you are so good that I must be blessed by God in my marriages.”
Is this the logic Mr. Trad? Just who allowed you to pull THAT one from their emotionally constipated rectum?
And have you addressed how the issue of wealthy old men who can afford to A) bribe parents into agreeing to the marriage, and B) keep separate households for 4 wives, affects the chances of Salim on the Street to get married before he is past 50; assuming he is wealthy by then?
Oh, Mr. Trad, do you think about how limiting multi-partner marriages to multiple women for one men will affect the ratio of single young men to single young women? Are you in fact thinking about anything, but how cool it would be to have God tell you that if you can afford it you can be Hugh Hefner, as long as you follow a few simple, and morally undemanding, rules?
While Islam sanctions polygyny, it does not condone threesomes. Islam also does not permit polyandry, a form of relationship in which a wife takes more than one husband. There are many reasons for this. Some are medical, some relate to paternity. Others pertain to the sexual proclivities of the different genders. The sex therapist Bettina Arndt, promoting her book Sex Diaries, outlined the merits of women saying “yes” more often to sex with their husbands. If Arndt’s research is reflective of a greater portion of the population, a monogamous relationship leads to reduced interest in sex among women and a perpetual state of conjugal frustration among men.
What planet is this man from again? As far as I can tell Islam regards a married threesome (or one with sex slaves) as not forbidden (haram) but simply not recommended. So, do it if you really like, but pray extra afterward when you are making yourself clean again before God.
As far as the rest of it goes, I would imagine that worldwide there are as many frustrated and unfulfilled wives as there are similar husbands; I would like to see how Mr. Trad would view sex if he got a chance to make love with a woman who had not had her clitoris cut off, and been, at the least, programmed from birth to regard sex as for his enjoyment only.
What a lack of joy to be in bed with any woman who believes her own desires are a sign of evil and only by performing like a shameless whore her husbands every desire can she be sexually “healthy.”
If men in monogamous relations are not satiated, by its very nature polyandry creates an overwhelming burden for a woman in long-term relationships.
Again, I think Mr. Trad is still living in the Middle East. In the West we realize that it is the men more often cannot keep up after a certain age. But then again, if Western men were sleeping with women who are “circumcised“, and treated like dogs that can cook and clean and screw, Western women also might be a tad less than horny from time to time.
Who someone marries first is an accident of history. If a man who has an affair had met his mistress before his wife, he may have married her. Why maintain the facade that is the Justinian doctrine of monogamy knowing it has failed as a social experiment?
Mr. Trad here forgets his own emphasis on the idea that a man should not marry more wives than he can be “fair” to. Is it at all fair to marry a woman, then marry another that is a “real” love?
Can you imagine being that first woman so “honored“? But this fits in with the Modern Muslim, and old-school Judeo-Christian, view that a woman is a burden instead of a prize and partner.
And let us not forget that even if the man admits that he cannot be fair to the first wife when he meets his “true love” he can simply do what a Western man would do; get a divorce and remarry; the difference is that in the West a man, or a woman, will think twice and thrice before taking this step because of the legal and social ramifications; ramifications that are absent for the most part in Islam with its easy marriage and divorce for men only.
A man can have multiple girlfriends. Why not formalize that into a commitment for life? Why should “bigamy” be a crime?
Well, generally any man with “multiple girlfriends” does not really have a true emotional attachment to any of them. For the girls to marry him would be to chain themselves to a “master” who’s heart is not engaged.
Is the total focus in Islam on only the man coming clear yet? Can we ”reform marriage” in the West by taking two steps backward, or is Mr. Trad just rationalizing in the dark?
Keysar Trad is president of the Islamic Friendship Association of Australia. He will deliver a speech on why polygamy and other Islamic values are good for Australia at the Festival of Dangerous Ideas at the Opera House today.
Wow, if that is the best he can do in making Islamic polygamy attractive to Western minds, I would love to hear about the other “values” he commends.
In contrast to most religions of the world, in particular Christianity and Judaism, Islam has not yet gone through a modernization process. While Christians and Jews have managed throughout their history to reconcile religion with freedom, Muslims have not. Why is that?
Before the Industrial Revolution, the Christian Puritans were in charge in their societies. Monks in England and France used to roam the streets and force people to go and pray exactly like the Mutawas (morality police) in today’s Saudi Arabia.
Religious conviction was the basis for pristine political handling. Kaiser Wilhelm launched World War I under the premise, “Gott ist mit uns“ (God is with us).
In old times, followers of Catholicism, … believed that their set of moral rules were superior to all others, prescribed by God, and enforced by punishment, and wanted everybody to observe and impose these rules. By failing to do so, people offend the divine being and corrupt society. For believing so, they waged religious wars.
Die-hard Lutherans attacked Calvinists in Berlin and murdered thousands of them. In the streets of Paris, Catholics killed more than 3,000 Huguenots.
During and after the Industrial Revolution and state building, people in England began to feel of themselves as English before feeling themselves as Protestants, and in France people thought of themselves as French, first and foremost.
In the Arab and Muslim world at large, there is no similar story to be told. The golden ages (700-1300) were followed by five centuries of Othman rule, characterized by despotism, abject backwardness, and poverty. The majority of Arabs thought of themselves as Muslims in the first place. Arab states did not exist until European colonial powers created these states by drawing arbitrary borders on the map.
During the golden ages, the Muslim empire stretched form Spain to Indonesia – an empire that encouraged learning, tolerated critical scholars, translated and preserved scientific books. After that, as the West began rising to establish societies based on personal, scientific and religious freedom, the Arab-Muslim civilization slipped into retreat.
Historians tell the story of Mirza Abu Talib. After visiting the House of Commons in London and hearing that it was debating penalties for criminals, he was amazed and later told his friends back home that the English did not have Sharia therefore they were enacting their own laws. “How stupid!” Abu Talib commented.
Since then, Arabs and Muslims have been about where Europe was in the 11th century, lacking national history, political and economic development in the way to democracy, and reconciliation of religion and freedom. After independence in the 20th century, especially during the Cold War, they were ruled by authoritarian regimes, tolerated by the democratic West for geopolitical considerations,
Fundamentalist Muslims rediscovered Islam in the 20th century. Hassan Al Banna established the Muslim Brotherhood in the late 1920s as the “only” path for development and social justice. He preached that Islam was the solution and there was no better law on earth than the Sharia which comprises both the Koran and Hadeeth. Al Banna stressed that Shari’s contained a vast collection of sacred laws, which prescribed how Muslim should live their mundane and religious life.
In modern history, while the majority of Christians and Jews ignore atrocious passages in the Bible and Talmud, in particular those that denigrate and discriminate against women, and interpret them in historical contexts, fundamentalist Muslims subscribe to each and every atrocious passage in the Koran and Hadeeth as sacred laws. Check out such passages from the Bible and Koran at the end of this article.
While Christianity and Judaism went through a modernization process and “civilized” their own religions, as Rolf Schieder put it, Islam has never gone through such a process, neither in the golden ages nor in modern times. Efforts to do so are choked before they are born. Influential religious establishments like Al Azhar and Wahabism oppose any reform or modernization. They adamantly adhere to both the Koran and Hadeeth as sacred scriptures, which can not and must not be re-interpreted. Critical interpretations are dismissed as blasphemy, and their “perpetrators” are persecuted as heretics.
However, except for Saudi Arabia, all Arab states have, to a great extent, ignored the Sharia as a source of legislation and adopted Western laws.
Even the rule of the Turkish leader Mustafa Kemal Attatürk did not witness any efforts to modernize Islam. Attatürk focused on transforming Turkey into a modern secular state. By doing so he simply marginalized Islam, but did not push for its modernization. Enlightened Muslim scholars were not available in Turkey at the time.
In light of the fact that the majority of influential Arab “Ulama” (Islam theologians) are nowadays conservative, who rarely read a book other than the Koran and Hadeeth and relevant works, as well as lack of a modern independent economy, and the fact that more than 50% of the population is illiterate and jobless, living in abject poverty, no serious successful efforts have been made to reform Islam – i.e. modernize it. Fundamentalist fatwas (edicts) dominate the religious scene in Arab and Muslim world.
Even Islam experts like Muhammad Arkoun, Muhammad Iqbal, Malik Bin Nabi, Muhammad Talbi, Falzur Rahman, and Ali Bulac, who are portrayed, at least in Western academic circles, as modernists/reformists, have not dared touch on atrocious passages in the Koran as unacceptable and irrational in the 20th century. They highlight those passages in the Koran which preach mercy and peace and ignore those passages which explicitly incite to hatred and violence.
…Attatürk’s experiment … failed. Islamists in Turkey are increasingly gaining more ground, and Turkey is getting more Islamic conservative than ever.
Islamism is spreading very fast although, in practice, the fundamentalist project is void and has an Achilles heel. Its followers ignore the fact that the golden era flourished because of its openness to other cultures and tolerance. The utopian dream of establishing a Muslim state, Muslim Umma, (global nation) as it existed in the golden era, is wishful thinking in an increasingly sophisticated world. Apart from a headscarf, sex-segregation, and suicide bombing, the Islamists have nothing substantial to offer.
In fact, it was the same kind of radical Muslims who contributed to the collapse of the golden era when they slammed the door shut in the face of applying reason and independent thought.
In reality, Islamist fundamentalists fear free debates and freedom of expression through which they would be exposed. What remains is violence, the only “argument” they possess.
In the meantime, Islamists have succeeded in intimidating the West and recruiting apologists. The Danish caricatures of Muhammad, comments by the Pope in Germany, and withdrawing Mozart’s Idomeneo opera are just a few examples.
The West is facing an unprecedented conundrum. While it is upholding freedom of expression as a priceless and indispensable value, it is passively watching how Islamists are intimidating by killing and maiming, and advancing their destructive theocratic intolerant agenda, also in Western communities.
The Islamists’ strategy is very clear. They divide the world into “we and they” and back it propagandistically with Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations.” They blame “them,” the West, for the spread of poverty in the Muslim world. …
Still until today, while the West decries the dismal human rights in China, Russia, and Zimbabwe, it ignores the abysmal human rights in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan.
After 9/11, Samuel Huntington’s concept of “Clash of Civilizations” was hijacked by both Islamists and some non-Muslims. The truth of the matter is, such a clash does not exist. The clash is rather between Islamists and the rest of the world. However, those Muslims who are disappointed by the West for supporting Arab totalitarian regimes also tend to approve of this clash.
The majority of Muslims across the globe are ordinary people. Some of them are very religious and some are less religious. However, due to the fact that over 50% of the Muslim population is illiterate and in view of the fact that the Koran is written in old Arabic, very few of them actually understand this book. Besides, several studies indicate that only 10% of men and 5% of women read the Koran.
Hence the majority of Muslims remain unaware of the atrocious passages in the Koran and Hadeeth. They only know what their imams and religious leaders tell them about Islam. Muslims who are aware of these passages act like enlightened Christians and Jews; they ignore them or privately interpret them within historical contexts.
Basically, the core of the problem lies in Saudi schools and madrassas in Muslim communities which teach hatred, discrimination and violence against women and non-Muslims. In some of these schools, teenagers are urged to memorize the Koran from cover to cover. The content and language of the scripture are praised as unique and divine. Students at these schools become easy prey for local militants who once in a while drop by to recruit terrorists.
Verses like 89 of Surah 4 which says, “Slay the enemy wherever you find them” becomes a powerful tool for justifying the unjustifiable.
Modernizing Islam must come from the bottom of the population pyramid. The struggle for modernization must be fought on two fronts: on the economic front and on the medial informational one.
Economic development, jobs, literacy, normal schools, and medical care would make the difference and make people oppose radical Islamists. Freedom of expression would back this process. An economically independent citizen, even with a modest level of education, is usually rational. Until then, the tunnel is long and thorny. This project is costly, but promising. All efforts must be invested in it. It is worth it if the world wants to establish peace and prosperity everywhere. It must be established everywhere in an increasingly globalized world.
However, realistically speaking, neither the Arab and Islamic regimes nor their religious establishments would, at present, allow any reform of Islam in a democratic and free climate. That implies self-suicide for both. Therefore, reforming Islam will have to wait yet for two to three decades until this becomes a tangible reality.
Passages from the Bible
THE REASON BEHIND PAINS OF DELIVERY
God said to Eve when she tempted Adam, “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing, in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you.
MENSES IN THE BIBLE
When a woman has a discharge of blood which in her regular discharge from her body, she shall be apart seven days. And WHOSOEVER TOUCHES HER SHALL BE UNCLEAN until the evening. And every thing that she lies upon in her SEPARATION shall be unclean. Every thing also that SHE SITS UPON SHALL BE UNCLEAN. And whosoever touches her bed shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening. And whosoever touches anything THAT SHE SAT UPON SHALL WASH HIS CLOTHES, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening.
And if it be on her bed, or any thing whereon she sits when he touches it: he SHALL BE UNCLEAN UNTIL THE EVENING. And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him: he shall be unclean seven days, and all the bed WHEREON SHE LIES SHALL BE UNCLEAN.
And if a woman has an issue of her blood many days out of the time of her separation, or if it run beyond the time of her SEPARATION: All the days of the issue of her uncleanness shall be as the days of her SEPARATION, she shall be unclean. Every bed whereon she lies all the days of her issue shall be unto her as the bed of her SEPARATION, and whatsoever she sits upon shall be unclean, as the uncleanness of her SEPARATION.
And WHOSOEVER TOUCHES THOSE THINGS SHALL BE UNCLEAN and shall wash his clothes and bathes himself in water, and he BE UNCLEAN UNTIL THE EVENING. But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean. And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest to the door of the meeting tent.
POSTPARTUM IN THE BIBLE
If a woman conceives, and bears a MALE CHILD, then she shall be unclean seven days.. But if she bears a FEMALE CHILD then she shall be unclean two weeks.
AFTER AN INTERCOURSE
If a man has an emission of semen, he shall bathe his whole body in water, and be unclean until the evening. Every garment and every skin on which the semen comes shall be washed with water, and be unclean until the evening.
[Levi. 22:17] WHEN THE SUN IS DOWN HE SHALL BE CLEAN.
If a man lies with a woman and has an emission of semen both of them shall bathe themselves in water, and be unclean until the evening.
REJOICE WITH THEM !!
REJOICE WITH THE WIFE of your youth. Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; LET HER BREASTS SATISFY YOU AT ALL TIMES.
We have a little sister, and she has no breasts. What shall we do for our sister on the day when is spoken for? I was a wall, and MY BREASTS WERE LIKE TOWERS.
WOMAN’S VEIL IN THE BIBLE
[1 Corin. 11:5]
But any woman who prays and prophecies with her head unveiled dishonors her head – it is the same as if her head were shaven, for if a woman will not veil herself then she should cut off her hair. But if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil. JUDGE FOR YOURSELVES; is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? (It seems that Christians are unaware of the obligation of the veil in the Bible, which made me put their verses in this book, and for those who attack the veil in Islam should notice these verses of their own Bible, and notice also this verse “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get.)
WOMAN IS NOT THE GLORY OF GOD
[1 Corin. 11:7]
For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man, for man was not made for woman, but woman from man, neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.
[1 Tim 2:11-14]
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
SILENCE IN CHURCHES
[1 Corin 14:34]
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to
speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
WOMAN IS EVIL !
The leaden cover was lifted, there was a woman sitting, and he (the angel) said: this is wickedness.
GOD MAKES PEOPLE FALL IN ADULTERY
God said to Am-a-zi’ah “You say, prophesy not against Israel and drop not your word against the house of Isaac?
Thus the Lord says: YOUR WIFE SHALL BE AN HARLOT in the city and your sons and your daughters shall fall by the sword.”
They have rejected the word of the Lord. Therefore I WILL GIVE THEIR WIVES UNTO OTHERS.
“For the greatness of your iniquity are your skirts discovered, AND YOUR HEELS MADE BARE. I will discover your skirts upon your face, that your shame may appear I have seen your adulteries, and your neighings the lewdness of your whoredoms.”
HIDE WOMAN’S VOICE !
[1 Corin. 14:34]
The woman should keep silence in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is any thing they desire to know let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
[1 Timo. 2:9]
Woman should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly attire but by good deeds.
WOMAN FOR THE MAN
[1 Corin 11:5-10]
But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovereddishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.”
HOW TO RESCUE HER HUSBAND
When men fight with one another, and the wife of the one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him, and puts out her hand seizes him by the private parts, then you shall cut off her hand; your eye shall have not pity.
MARRIAGE BY FORCE !!
If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead shall not be marries outside of the family to a stranger; her husband’s brother shall go into her, and take her as his wife.
WHAT IF HE REFUSES ?
And if the man does not wish to take his brother’s wife then his brother’s wife shall go up to the gate of the elders, and say, “My husband’s brother refuses to perpetuate his brother’s name in Israel.. Then the elders of his city shall call him.
And if he persists.. Then his brother’s wife shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, and pull his sandal off his foot, and spit in his face; and shall answer and say: So it shall be done to the man who does not build up his brother’s house. And the name of his house shall be called in Israel THE HOUSE OF HIM THAT HAD HIS SANDAL PULLED OFF.
And I find more bitter than death the woman who is a snare, whose heart is a trap and whose hands are chains. The man who pleases God will escape her, but the sinner she will ensnare….while I was still searching but not finding, I found one upright man among a thousand but not one upright woman among them all”.
KILL WOMEN, CHILDREN, ANIMALS !!
And the Lord said, “Go through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have you pity. SLAY UTTERLY OLD AND YOUNG, BOTH MAIDS AND LITTLE CHILDREN, AND WOMEN.
And the Lord said unto Moses, “Avenge the children of the Mid’-an’ites.. They warred against the Mid’-i-an’ites, as the Lord commanded Moses, and they slay all the males. And they took all women as captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods. And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire.
Moses said, “HAVE YOU SAVED ALL THE WOMEN ALIVE? NOW KILL EVERY MALE AMONG THE LITTLE ONES, AND KILL EVERY WOMAN that has known a man by lying with him, but all the young girls who have not known a man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves.
Joshua said to the people of Israel, “The Lord has given you the city (of the Canaanites).. all silver, and gold, and vessels of brass and iron, are consecrated unto the Lord: They shall come into the treasury of the Lord. The people utterly DESTROYED ALL THAT WAS IN THE CITY, BOTH MAN AND WOMAN, YOUNG AND OLD, AND OX AND SHEEP, AND ASS, WITH THE EDGE OF THE SWORD.
KILLING, KIDNAPPING, SLAVERY
So the Canaanites have dwelt in the midst of E’phraim to this day, but become slaves to do forced labour. (see also Joshua 17:13 and Judg. 1:30)
The congregation of Benjamin sent twelve thousand of their bravest men, and commanded them, “Go and smite the inhabitants of Ja’-besh-gil’ead with the edge of the sword; also the women and the little ones. Every male and every
woman that has lain with a male YOU SHALL UTTERLY DESTROY.
And they found among the inhabitants four hundred YOUNG VIRGINS who had not known a man by lying with him; and they brought them to the camp of Shiloh, which is the land of Canaan. And Benjamin returned at that time, and they gave them the women whom they had saved alive of the women of Ja’besh-gil’ead, but they did not suffice for them.
STEALING WOMEN !!
And they commanded the Benjaminites, saying:”Go and lie in wait in the vineyard, and watch, if the daughters of Shiloh go out to dance in the dances, then come out of the vineyard and seize each man his wife from the daughters of Shiloh. And the Benjaminites did so, and took their wives from the dancers whom they caught.
KILL THEM AND TAKE THEIR PROPERTIES
When you draw near to a city to fight against it, offer terms of peace to it. And if its answer to you is peace and it opens to you, then all the people who are found in it SHALL BE FORCED LABOUR FOR YOU AND SHALL SERVE YOU.
But if it makes no peace with you, then you shall besiege it, .. YOU SHALL PUT ALL ITS MALES TO THE SWORD, BUT THE WOMEN AND THE LITTLE ONES, the cattle and every thing else in the city all its spoil, YOU SHALL TAKE AS BOOTY FOR YOURSELVES; AND YOU SHALL ENJOY THE SPOIL OF YOUR ENEMIES.
Passages from the Koran
Literally, the Koran says the following about the Jews, Christians, and other “unbelievers”:
“O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.” (Sura 5, verse 51).
“And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah DESTROY them; how they are turned away!” (Sura 9, verse 30).
“And the Jews will not be pleased with you, nor the Christians until you follow their religion. Say: Surely Allah’s guidance, that is the (true) guidance. And if you follow their desires after the knowledge that has come to you, you shall have no guardian from Allah, nor any helper.” (Sura 2, verse 120).
“And KILL them (the unbelievers) wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.” (Sura 2, verse 191).
“Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah, but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully; and Allah makes you cautious of (retribution from) Himself; and to Allah is the eventual coming.” (Sura 3, verse 28).
“And guard yourselves against the fire which has been prepared for the unbelievers.” (Sura 3, verse 131)
“And when you journey in the earth, there is no blame on you if you shorten the prayer, if you fear that those who disbelieve will cause you distress, surely the unbelievers are your open ENEMY.” (Sura 4, verse 101).
“O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).” (Sura 9, verse 123).
“Surely We have prepared for the unbelievers chains and shackles and a burning fire.” (Sura 76, verse 4).
“O you who believe! if you obey a party from among those who have been given the Book (The Jews and Christians), they will turn you back as unbelievers after you have believed.” (Sura 3, verse 100).
“And their taking usury (interests on money) though indeed they were forbidden it and their devouring the property of people falsely, and We have prepared for the unbelievers from among them a painful chastisement.” (Sura 4. verse 161).
“Surely Allah has cursed the unbelievers (Jews, Christians and followers of other faiths) and has prepared for them a burning fire.” (Sura 33, verse 64).
“And whoever does not believe in Allah and His Apostle, then surely We have prepared burning fire for the unbelievers.” (Sura 48, verse 13).
Does Allah discriminate? The Koran says:
“You are the best of the nations raised up for (the benefit of) men; you enjoin what is right and forbid the wrong and believe in Allah; and if the followers of the Book had believed it would have been better for them; of them (some) are believers and most of them are transgressors.” (Sura 3, verse 110).
Therefore, what does the Koran say about those who turn their back to Islam and commit apostasy?
“They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them (the unbelievers) friends until they flee (their homes) in Allah’s way; but if they turn back, then seize them and KILL them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.” (Sura 4, verse 89).
Now, what does the Koran say about women? Here are also some quotations:
“Men are superior to women because Allah has made so. Therefore good women are obedient, and (as to) those (women) on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and BEAT them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.” (Sura 4, verse 34).
“And as for those who are guilty of an indecency from among your women, call to witnesses against them, four (witnesses) from among you; then if they bear witness confine them to the houses until death takes them away or Allah opens some way for them.” (Sura 4, verse 15).
According to the Koran, a woman’s testimony is worth half of that of a man.
O you who believe! when you deal with each other in contracting a debt for a fixed time then call in to witness from among your men two witnesses; but if there are not two men, then one man and two women from among those whom you choose to be witnesses, so that if one of the two errs, the second of the two may remind the other.” (Sura 2, verse 282).
As far as sex is concerned, women are sex objects, according to the Koran. They must be ready for intercourse any time the husband wishes so.
“Your wives are a tilth for you, so go into your tilth when you like, and do good beforehand for yourselves, and be careful (of your duty) to Allah, and know that you will meet Him, and give good news to the believers.” (Sura 2, verse 223).
During menstruation, however, men should keep away from women; they are filthy. The Koran says:
“It (menstruation) is a discomfort; therefore keep aloof from the women during the menstrual discharge and do not go near them until they have become clean; then when they have cleansed themselves, go in to them as Allah has commanded you; surely Allah loves those who turn much (to Him), and He loves those who purify themselves.” (Sura 2, verse 222).
Women, according to the Koran, are, in general, unclean creature. After a Muslim has washed and prepared himself for prayer, he should not touch a woman. Therefore, “pious” Muslims never shake hands with women.
“O you who believe! do not go near prayer until you have washed yourselves; and if you have touched women, and you cannot find water, betake yourselves to pure earth, then wipe your faces and your hands; surely Allah is Pardoning, Forgiving.” (Sura 4, verse 43).
In case of inheritance, a woman inherits half of the portion a man inherits:
“They ask you for a decision of the law. Say: Allah gives you a decision concerning the person who has neither parents nor offspring; if a man dies (and) he has no son and he has a sister, she shall have half of what he leaves, and he shall be her heir she has no son; but if there be two (sisters), they shall have two-thirds of what he leaves; and if there are brethren, men and women, then the male shall have the like of the portion of two females; Allah makes clear to you, lest you err; and Allah knows all things.” (Sura 4, verse 176).
And what kind of punishment does a thief get, according to the Koran, regardless how much they steal?
“And (as for) the man who steals and the woman who steals, cut off their hands as a punishment for what they have earned, an exemplary punishment from Allah; and Allah is Mighty, Wise.” (Sura 5, verse 38).
Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world that uses the Koran as its day-to-day law for all kinds of disputes and crimes. It is the Shari’a (Islamic law). For Islamists and conservative Muslims, Shari’a is the constitution and law that must prevail everywhere. They argue, what is better than the law of Allah which He, via the Engle Gabriel revealed to the Prophet Muhammad 1400 years ago?
King Abdullah, the absolute monarch of Saudi Arabia, said on a televised speech August 27, 2008, “We do not need democracy, we do not need political parties, we do not need Western human rights, we do not need their freedom of speech. What we need is the Koran. It regulates our life perfectly. It is the best legislation in the history of mankind, it is the word of Allah. There is nothing better than Allah’s law.”
The “Hadeeth”, a collection of statements and comments which Prophet Muhammad allegedly made during his life time is also full of atrocities. Here is a sample:
“A woman came to the Prophet and admitted that she had committed adultery and thereafter became pregnant. The Prophet summoned her husband and all people of Median (in Saudi Arabia). He said, ‘This woman committed adultery. Therefore, after she delivers her innocent baby, all of you are going to stone her to death. This is Allah’s verdict.’ After she delivered her baby she was stoned to death in the center of the town.” (Narrated by Muslim, (a close contemporary follower of Muhammad), cited by Khoury, The Koran, p. 550).
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Dr. Sami Alrabaa, an ex-Muslim, is a professor of Sociology and an Arab-Muslim culture specialist. He has taught at Kuwait University, King Saud University, and Michigan State University. He also writes for the Jerusalem Post.
(HH here: Say what you will of my tact but here are three very pithy songs that put things in perspective.)
For more go to Patrick Henry Songs
I started looking at Hot Air’s Blogging the Koran and decided to read the original Slate: Blogging the Bible first. That was yesterday afternoon! It is now 10:00PM. The writer, David Plotz (yes, that IS his real name) is fantastic. Here is a small sample of his comments:
“Koheleth begins by deploring the “solitary individuals,” who spend all their time working but have no one to share their wealth with. This flows into the following glorious passage:
Two are better than one, because they have a good reward for their toil. For if they fall, one will lift up the other; but woe to one who is alone and falls and does not have another to help. Again, if two lie together, they keep warm; but how can one keep warm alone?
This is an out-of-fashion sentiment for our individualistic era—like something from a Swedish government pamphlet, circa 1975. But my God! It’s phenomenal! Let’s talk about the killer line of the passage: “How can one keep warm alone?” My all-time favorite Slate article is this 1997 essay about marriage by the late Herb Stein, written right after the death of his wife. Stein described watching couples walk by the sidewalk cafe where he was sitting. He asked why the wives were important to their husbands.
First, she is a warm body in bed. I don’t refer to their sexual activity. That is important but too varied for me to generalize about. I refer to something that is, if possible, even more primitive. It is human contact. A baby crying in its crib doesn’t want conversation or a gold ring. He wants to be picked up, held, and patted. Adults need that physical contact also. They need to cuddle together for warmth and comfort in an indifferent or cold world.
When I read Stein’s article 10 years ago, I wept, imagining him with no one to cuddle with anymore. And I almost cried at this passage from Ecclesiastes, thinking of all those who don’t have someone to keep them warm in bed.
The chapter closes with a smack at the ostentatiously religious: “Be not overeager to go to the House of God.” The implication, if I read the surrounding verses correctly, is that the prayers and offerings of fools are worthless. ”
Find the rest HERE! Warning! It is addictive!
The Blogging the Koran was a bit too partisan for my taste. I would like to see a true moderate Muslim do the job over.
Wow! I just finished watching this video from “peace”tv. The intro and “commercials” are rather distrubing but, the main lecture is by a man who could be considered as close to a moderate as devout Muslims get.
It is a long vid but it is worthwhile to watch the whole thing. This is the Jerry Fallwell of Islam not the Rev. Phelps! Watch it all and consider if there might be a problem to the West.
Here we have a pretty good overview of the whole U.N. “blasphemy” issue.
From the Washington Post a little piece by Eboo Patelan who brings us together so others can drive us apart.
“There is a foreign element threatening America. He believes the Qur’an promotes violence.”
In other words, he has actually read it, and understands the Islamic concept of Abrogation
“He creates videos of Muslims committing terrorist acts and hopes mainstream media plays them.”
No, he COMPILES videos made by Muslims promoting terror and films of Muslims committing terror then compares that to the texts that the Muslims mentioned above who promoted and committed the terror say is the REASON they committed terror. IS this too hard a concept for Mr. Patel?
“He is committed to the clash of civilizations — Islam vs. the West.”
My take on it is that he just wants the Muslims to stop clashing against our civilization; he could care less what they do in their own lands.
“Britain, our primary ally, denied him entry, claiming he was a threat to public order. “
Nice touch there, a simple statement cum indictment that totally ignores the fact that the "threat to public order" represented by Mr. Wilders in Britain was the result of a threat by the only Muslim member of the House of Lords to rally 10,000 Muslims to physically prevent Mr. Wilders from entering Parliament! But, Wilders is the threat, not the Muslims to Mr. Patel!
“Now he wants to come here. This foreign element does not speak Arabic. He does not pray five times a day. He does not have a beard. He is not even a Muslim. He is Geert Wilders, a Member of Parliament from a right-wing party in the Netherlands.”
I am still waiting for someone to tell me what makes this man so "right Wing". He speaks in defense of freedom of religion, against anti-Semitism, against people who are against LBGT and women’s rights. Sounds like a Moderate Liberal to me!
“Why he’s so interested in amplifying Osama bin Laden’s message that Islam promotes violence and division I don’t know.”
Yes you do Mr. Patel! He wants to bring to light the fact that the best financed and most influential voices in Islam today are the most extremist. i.e. Saudi, Wahabi influenced madrassas and mosques. Bin Laden remember? He wants to STOP the spread of THAT version of Islam and give the moderates of the religion the space to reform it from within; instead of fear for their lives from the moment they reveal they are TRULY moderate.
“And why he’s being invited to screen his offensive film Fitna in the ornate LBJ room in the U.S. Capitol confuses me too. My friend Keith Ellison, an African-American Congressman from Minnesota and a Muslim, compared it to screening the horribly racist film The Birth of the Nation in the White House.”
Hmm, the film I KNOW OF as The Birth of The Nation is not a compilation of actual films, statements and acts made by those whom the film attacks! The last time I looked it was not a collection of accurate news accounts of the activities of blacks and their own justifications for violence and crime! This kind of extreme hyperbole is not accurate nor useful in this situation. Shame on you Mr. Patel!
“A lot of people are mad about this. But I don’t think this is the time to get mad. I think this is the time to think strategy, and to remember core American values.”
… Read the rest if you have a strong stomach or enjoy un-spinning the distortions of someone who surely is evil or evilly ignorant.
“Please e-mail On Faith if you’d like to receive an email notification when On Faith sends out a new question.”