The spirit of Jorge Luis Borges’s Pierre Menard hovers over the Muslim reaction to Spencer’s The Truth About Muhammad. Here is Robert, quoting the exact words of the Qur’an, hadith (carefully relying only on the most authoritative muhaddithin, Bukhari and Muslim), and Sira (relying just as carefully on early Muslim biographers of Muhammad and never on non-Muslim ones). But more of that anon.
And that is what maddens Muslim critics: that serene quotation from Muslim texts, Muslim authorities. When the very same texts and authorities are quoted, as they are all the time, by Muslim writers about Muhammad, they are fine, they are correct, no fault can be found by Muslims with them. What they cannot stand is that Infidels should dare to read, dare to quote, dare to write the exact same things, in a spirit not of blind and submissive worship, but in a spirit rather of inquiry into what Muslim texts teach Muslims about Muhammad -- about what he said, and what he did, and what he wished for, and what he counselled Muslims. For Muhammad is the great figure of Islam, the Perfect Model of Behavior, the Perfect Man in Every Respect, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil. Whatever he did, was right. Whatever he said was right, is right. Whatever behavior he exhibited, is model behavior.
Most of us are by now familiar with his marriage to nine-year-old Aisha. He first spotted her, and was "betrothed" to her, when she was six. And yet if one brings this up with Muslims, many of them attempt to deny her age. They will claim such things as "oh, she was actually nineteen" or "oh, no one knows her exact age" or "the texts are unclear." You can find all about this from the defectors from Islam -- in such books as Ibn Warraq's Why I Am Not a Muslim and at Ali Sina's site www.faithfreedom.org. They attempt to distract attention -- the Tu-Quoque part of the Taqiyya-and-Tu-Quoque, which long ago was alliteratively offered as a summary of Muslim propaganda techniques. Or they attempt to express amazement and surprise, and feign uncertainty ("I'll have to check on that"). If, however, you are sure of yourself and you hold your ground, and even dare to quote from the texts (quoting, say, the part about the little girl playing with her toys), if you adduce the evidence, then that embarrassed attempt at evasion becomes, suddenly, the fury it always was. Your Muslim interlocutor will reveal, under the smiles and wiles, quite soon and quite often, a hysterical rage.
And then you will be told, as well, that you are bringing this up for no good reason, you are merely interested in attacking Islam. And then there is the one final attempt to undo you: you are told that the parts about little Aisha are, in fact, being "taken out of context." And in this case the context is not words, but time: seventh-century Arabia. (Oh, there is plenty of "taking out of context," but it is all by apologists for Islam, as when they, and their good students such as Bush and Blair, quote 5.32 but not 5.33, thus changing the meaning of the passage entirely.) We are told that "in the context of the time" Muhammad's marriage to the nine-year-old Aisha conforms to generally accepted mating principles.
To this, of course, there are several answers. It is true that there were, and are, cases of child marriage outside the Western world. But these are cases, by and large, of arranged marriages (as in India). The "marriage" is between two children, and not consummated at once. And it is true that in the West, a boy in his late teens might be "betrothed" to a much younger girl -- royal houses were known to do this -- but the girl would be fifteen, or twelve, not six, and certainly not having sexual intercourse at nine years of age with a 54-year-old man. That was Muhammad's age when he consummated his marriage to Aisha.
And furthermore, when it is implied that "that was then, and this is now," then one has two replies to give. The first is that Muhammad is the Perfect Man. He is above criticism. What he did with Aisha is not merely for that time and that place. And second, Muslims now alive, or at least the truest of True Believers, have demonstrated this view most vividly. For when the learned Shi'a theologian Ayatollah Khomeini came to power, virtually his first act was to make sure the marriageable age of girls in Iran was lowered to nine years -- the very age of Aisha. Khomeini himself had been married to a ten-year-old, long ago, before the Shah had raised the age -- and he was determined to put it back in conformance with the practice of Muhammad.
The story of Aisha naturally sticks in minds, Muslim and non-Muslim. But there are so many other events in Muhammad's life. There is the decapitation of the hundreds of bound and helpless prisoners of the Banu Qurayza. There is the attack on the innocent and inoffensive Jewish farmers of the Khaybar Oasis, attacked purely for the loot -- property and women -- that the attacking followers of Muhammad could help themselves to. There is the assassination of the sardonic Asma bint Marwan, who said things that displeased Muhammad. There is the assassination of Abu Afak. There are the tales of this or that Muslim murdering a friend or relative who had not followed him into Islam. There is Muhammad's treatment of his uncle, who had been good to him. There are a dozen, two dozen, many dozens of examples.
And the scholars of Islam, that is those who wrote and studied before the great Curtain of Correctness Descended, knew all this and wrote about it. But the Thoughtcrime laws now being instituted in Europe and considered in America would make sure that the Curtain surrounded us on all sides, that we were enveloped in a Universal Darkness, unable to see things clearly, unable to fight for our own civilizational legacy. This would be a suicidal imposition of self-censorship that would go even farther than the voluntary self-censorship born of fear and confusion and a mistaken belief as to how to deal with what, some now realize, is a hideous problem created, quite unnecessarily, all over the Western world. For the political elites and the media, whose duty it is to instruct and to protect the populace, have instead been careless, almost criminally negligent -- in France, in Great Britain, in Germany, in Spain, in Sweden, in Norway, in Denmark, in the Netherlands, in Canada, in the United States, everywhere. They have neglected and refused to investigate the nature of Islam, and have instead relied on pieties and Articles of Faith. The piety, in an impious age, is that Islam Is A Religion Like Any Other, and In Any Case, "Religion" Is a Good Thing. That is what George Bush appears to think. There is a variant on this: Religion Is Not A Good Thing When It Can Be Identified With, Say, the White Western World, But Otherwise It Is A Good Thing. And still a third version is this: Whenever Islam Appears to Clash With Any Other Faith, It Is The Fault Of That Other Faith. This last version is applied to Christianity in the Sudan, Nigeria, Indonesia, and all over the Middle East and North Africa, as well as in sub-Saharan Africa and in Europe. It is applied also to Judaism (or to Jews), or to Hinduism (or to Hindus) in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indian-controlled parts of Kashmir, India itself, parts of Indonesia, Malaysia, or to Buddhism (or to Buddhists) in Thailand, or with the few remaining Buddhists in the Chittagong Hills of Bangladesh, or even with those monumental witnesses to an evanished Buddhism of Afghanistan, the Bamiyan Buddhas. Whenever conflict occurs, the non-Muslim Western world has schooled itself to find excuses for, or even to take sides with, the Muslims as "victims" or as "misunderstood" or as "having a point." Or, at the very least, everyone is too polite to notice that their behavior, in too many places, over too many centuries, has been too remarkably similar, from Spain to East Asia, over 1300 years, not to be based on the same promptings and ruled by the same laws -- laws about Jihad, and the subsequent subjugation and mistreatment of all non-Muslims.
And now Everyone Has An Opinion About Islam: Ian Buruma, Martha Nussbaum, Christopher Hitchens, the local college president, the local congressman, the officer corps of the military, the staff of NPR. But very few wish to wait until they have studied the texts and the history. They prefer to utter their opinions which they have formed or half-formed or not really formed coherently at all, on the basis of hunch or emotional inclination, or a desire not to be seen as intolerant (the worst crime of all, the Crime which Cannot Be Forgiven), or simply of what must be, what has to be.
The Thoughtcrime Bill in America would undoubtedly have that famous chilling effect just at the moment when people are trying to wake up (putting one in mind of Milton's "Methinks I see a puissant power...." from his great argument against prior censorship, "Areopagitica"). It must be vetoed. Bush has a lot to answer for, with his business about the wonderfulness of Islam, his entrusting serious matters to the “public diplomacy” of Karen Hughes, his beginning what one hopes is a short-lived “tradition” of Iftar Dinners, his ignorance about the nature of Iraq. Not least is the way in which many in his Administration allowed themselves to be misinformed and manipulated -- early on by Shi’a in exile who were intent on having the Americans remove Saddam Hussein, and now, in the end game, by Sunni rulers in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan who are just as intent on having the Americans remain in order to protect the Sunnis and promote their interests in Iraq.
Those who oppose the policy in Iraq are weaker than they should be, because they are tongue-tied about Islam. Their case is overwhelming. How can they hope to point out that the expenditure of men, money, materiel, and morale in Iraq is in truth a hideous nonsensical squandering, because the goals set by the Administration would -- even if they were attainable (and they are not) -- do nothing to weaken the Camp of Islam and Jihad? Instead, they are based on remarks and views (such as Bernard Lewis’s atrocious “either we bring them freedom, or they will destroy us”) that do not withstand even cursory inspection.
Having made so many mistakes, the Administration still has not been paying attention to the need for pedagogy, the need to say things aright, or at least to asymptotically approach the truth. It has made mistakes of definition (not a “war on terror”) that have been prompted by, and have helped in turn to promote, mistakes of comprehension and mistakes of execution. Not that this or that mistake in Iraq would in the end have changed the essentials -- which are, to wit, that the removal of the regime insured that power would be transferred to the Shi’a Arabs, that the Sunni Arabs would never acquiesce in such a loss of power, and the Shi’a Arabs would never give the Sunni Arabs what they demanded in their attempt to hold onto far more economic and political power than they have any right to claim. This is at the top. Lower down, in the military’s officer corps and especially among those who have served in Iraq, there is an awareness, however inarticulate it remains, that something is crazily wrong with how the Administration is betting on something happening in Iraq that will somehow ease the Jihad. Yet at the serene level of generals, the generals are so fixated on the “mission” that they do not dare to question the “mission” itself. They deem it ultra vires, beyond their pay grade, whatever that grade may be – when in fact it is only they who can stand up to the President and his hallucinatory advisors and tell them, or tell the public, or tell their colleagues, that the “mission” makes no sense if the goal is, as it should be, to weaken the Jihad.
The Jihad will not be weakened if, all over the Western world, thoughtcrime legislation is permitted to pass. It must not.
Hugh, I presume "The Thoughtcrime Bill" you are referring to is HR 1592, the Senate has a version also. I know of no Senate or House bill with "thoughtcrime" in the title, or "thoughtcrime" in the text. Can you help me find one. I think you screwed up a wonderful essay.
Mr Fitzgerald, I value your scholarship, you writing, however referring to HR 1592 as The Thoughtcrime Bill is wrong. It is not a thought crime bill in the sense that Holocaust Denial laws are thoughtcrime laws. This is a bill that enhances punishment for real crimes against persons. It does not even apply to property crimes.
Please, read my comments http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/016297.php#comments
if I am wrong, tell me where.
The Senate version is S. 1105, just in case anybody wants to study it.
The word "thoughtcrime" was used by Robert in the original piece, and of course it was an allusion, meant to be taken as such, to "1984." Obviouslly the word is used to show that the kind of thing it is intended to punish is not merely an act, but to suppress the kind of thoughts that might prompt any such act.
I did not read the bill. I relied on the following in the comments originally put up about the bill:
"The Senate now must consider its version of the bill, known as S. 1105.
If passed, the law would allow the Attorney General to provide federal assistance to local law enforcement to aid investigations of crimes motivated by '...prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin...' of the victim."
I do not see why such legislation is needed, and I worry that the phrase above, about crimes prompted by "prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin" implies that a Great Effort will be put into eliminating "prejudice based on...religion" and we all know what, in today's context, that means: it means that Islam, incorrectly described merely as a religion, when it is, much more importantly, a Total System that includes a Politics and a Geopolitics, will receive new solicitousness, and those already fearful -- all over the government -- and in the media, and in ordinary life, of stating home truths about Islam, will simply not do so.
A wild surmise? A fantasy? What has happened all over Western Europe? What has happened in our press, television, radio? What government officials speak perfectly openly and straightforwardly about the Jihad, or about the passages in the Qur'an that can rightly be called Jihad-verses? What happened to those pastors in Australia in their first trial? (They are now appealing). What do you see going on around the Infidel lands -- open and free discusssion of Islam as a belief-system, or something else?
Perhaps this bill is not dangerous. But the phrase I quote above is certainly one that, here and now, gives pause. A pregnant pause -- pregnant with worry.
The justification for saying that the bill prosecutes "thought crime" is that an added punishment occurs if the motivation for the crime is hate for a protected class. If the court adds a year to your sentence because you had an opinion, that year is punishment for an opinion, not for what you did.
I don't think there is any other justification for the phrase "thought crime"; and yes, Europe's laws are worse.
Please clarify if I've missed something.
Perhaps someone will further consider the consequence of attacking someone who is a member of two protected classes; for example, a muslim trans-sexual.
This law cannot suppress thought no more than laws can suppress bank robbery or child pornography. Nearly every criminal commits the crime in the full belief that he or she will get away with it. Some criminals are driven by such acute primordal urges, that I believe they do not care about being caught.
I still believe calling this bill a thoughtcrime bill is misleading and misdirects the criticism. It is disappointing to see such great eloquence expended in the wrong direction.
It is not yet a crime in the US to insult Islam.
There is a local firearms store with an indoor handgun range. There is a sign over the entrance that says photographs (portraits) are not allowed to be used as targets. It is OK for a store owner to make a rule such as that, but if a law endorsing that kind of prohibition were to be proposed, then I will be really, really concrened. That would be a "thoughtcrime law;" HR 1592 is not.
The bill is a clear violation of equal protection under the law.
Hugh, a typically brilliant essay. Particularly apt was the word "thoughtcrime."
This phrase made me lol: "generally accepted mating principles." It beautifully captures the absurd detachment of Aisha apologetics.
William Buckley wrote an essay where he said he was not going to stop using certain words because he feared folks might not know the meaning of them. His advice was to use a dictionary.
In the same spirit, I appreciate your erudition and your unique, wonderfully appealing writing, as much as the job you are doing on our behalf, and am glad to have someone of your caliber speaking for us.
Islam is a comprehensive ideology. It is no more a religion than than is communism. Islam is the most successful example in history of a wolf in sheep's clothing. For the most part the Western notion of religion only encompasses a code of personal conduct and social constructs that are limited to adherent communitites. As proven by more than a thousand years of Islamic community action, the Islamic ideology is imperialistic at its core. The ultimate expression of that imperialism is the twin doctrines of jihad and dhimmitude and by jihad in this context is meant bona fide offensive warfare, not some nonsensical connotation of inner struggle. Why are these simple and self-evident verities so difficult for the average Western mind to comprehend?
This law cannot suppress thought no more than laws can suppress bank robbery or child pornography
The purpose of a thought crime law is not to suppress thought, but to punish it once it is revealed. The concept of the hate crime is that some crimes are deserving of more punishment because of what may have motivated them. So what they are proposing with these new laws is the punishing of the thought behind the crime - thus the moniker of "thought crime".
Crimes are crimes by virtue of the act. Full stop. However, George Orwell prophesied that in the future, we would have another layer of crime - crimes of the idea. Thus, if you commit a crime, motivated by an idea deemed incompatible with state ideals, you are now guilty of two crimes; the actual crime, and the crime of thinking something naughty while doing it. Thus, the state punishes you for a second crime - your thoughts.
Where this morally odious, and legally absurd, notion becomes dangerous, is where the thought itself constitutes a crime - as witnessed in the hubub over the plate of pork presented to muslims. In that case, no crime was committed, but because the thought was offensive to the state, that was enough to raise the specter of a "hate crime" which is another term for "thought crime". Some sought to punish the student simply for this hateful thoughts.
This is, to borrow a phrase from liberals, a "slippery slope" into a George Orwellian police state where thoughts themselves can become criminalized, which we see is beginning to happen even in the US, the process long ago got started in Europe and Canada.
The notion of a thought crime would, even then, not be as dangerous as it is if such a fascist ideal could be implemented equally for all citizens. In such a society, all agitators are thrown in jail for their thoughts - as Orwell foresaw. However, in the real world, it is the Left that introduced the notion of thought crime laws about 20 years ago, and it is the Left that is using them unilaterally against the rest of society when individuals agitate against their ideals, either in the process of a crime, or just in the act of political protest - as was the case in the cafeteria.
In short, a crucifix in a jar of urine is art, but a koran in a jar of urine would constitute a hate crime. We all know that now. That is one twist to the thought crime predication that even Orwell could not have forseen. His dire warnings not only have come true, but they have manifested themselves in a way far worse than even he imagined.
I wish I remember who it was but someone made the marvelous point yesterday that the U.N. is crowded with "Islamic Republic of This and Islamic Republic of That." A naked and irrefutable self confession of the POLITICAL nature of Islam or at best Political/Religious by its OWN confession.
Political and hence WIDE OPEN to critique and discussion, ridicule, hate, disrespect, or whatever. There is no way to despise the Saudi government, for instance, without despising it as an aspect, a manifestation of Islam. Hate speech???
Hugh, I would like to add my thanks for this valuable contribution; also to endorse the remarks by Moonzoo.
I agree that this bill is not needed.
Punish for criminal acts.
The thoughts and words of the criminal should not be criteria for making a 'federal case' of it, but surely rather the gravity of the deeds. Too many legislators are busy trying to justify their existence with unnecessary measures like this.
The wording quoted above presupposes the need to stamp on prejudice based on religion. This prejudice, though, may be based on a valid recognition of the true nature of that religion. Something beyond the ken of the lawmakers.
Political correctness has given Islam a free pass for too long. It relies on our fear-induced reticence for it's survival, but should be as legitimate a target for hate-speech and condemnation as any other violent, totalitarian ideology, whether religious or not.
Pelayo
It is "thought crime" becuase you are attempting to add extra punishment (even if violent) due to intent. In other words if I attack someone becuase I want money I would get less time then if I attack someone because the person was homosexual. They both are crimes with a similar result but the motives are different. So yes it is "thought crime". It creates un-equal treatment due to attackers motives so the victem who gets attacked for money will not get the same justice as a homesexual for being attacked.
The trouble with it is the slippery slope. Once you create protected classes of people who get special treatment of the law you head down the road to other speacial treatments. One of which would be sharia law.
That is why CAIR supports it. There goal is to create their own special class. This is how rights are eroded overtime. Once the door is opened to such things it is very hard to close.
Hello, Hugh, just a thought I'd bring up a couple of minor points, but one that comes up all the time. You mention 5:32 and, yes, it is quoted all the time without 5:33, which puts it into a greater context. But I have a couple of comments you might care to respond to.
First, something never mentioned by Muslims as far as I know, but that seems very evident from the text: The command is NOT for all people, only for the Jews. In every translation I've read 5.32 is quite clear on this: If a JEW kills someone it is a horrible atrocity.
I guess we should give our muslim friends some credit that they appear to extend this command to all people, and at least claim to apply it to themselves, because it is part of the standard islamic apologetic as to why "Islam is a religion of peace".
Regardless of whether this is a piece of kitman, it seems egregious that, in a text they treat as so critical they ALWAYS misquote it on this point. Can you think of a single muslim apologist who reads the verse as it is actually written? Although it is a clear condemnation of the character of the Jews they don't use it that way because they desperately need verses that make it sound like Islam is peaceful.
But ... by overtly abusing the meaning of the Aya? I don't think I've ever seen an apologist directly taken to task over this point.
Second thing is the exceptional clause, involving "mischief". I am told (but don't have the background in Arabic to verify) that the word most often translated as "mischief" in the Qur'an actually means "resistance". Resistance is, of course, the opposite of "submission", and "submission" is, in Arabic, "Islam".
Therefore, "mischief" may be taken as the opposite of "Islam". Consequently, the meaning of this verse would be taken as "if a JEW (or maybe anyone else, if we're generous) kills anyone unless that person is a murderer or is resisting against Islam, then they have committed an unforgivable atrocity."
This concept of "resistance against Islam" is tricky because it is a slippery soap bar. You can CLAIM that it means violent attack on the Ummah, in which case killing such a person is spun as self-defence. But it could also mean working peacefully to prevent the spread of Islam, or opposing islamic apologetics in a debate, or acting politically to prevent Islamists from gaining a hegemony and/or instituting sharia law in a secular state. Or it might mean attempting to dismantle an Islamic state or to reform it into a secular, non-sharia state.
Finally, "resistance against Islam" might simply mean refusing to become a muslim after being offered Da'wa, or leaving Islam, or proselytizing for another religion, or simply ignoring Islamic propaganda. It might mean a muslim who strives for a moderate lifestyle that does not satisfy the demands of extremists who regard themselves as the gateholders to pure Islam.
Thus, "mischief in the land" would describe the activity of pretty well anyone who is not openly supporting extremist versions of Islam or acting like a very submissive dhimmi.
So, I argue, one needn't even read verse 33 to see the violent aspect of this verse -- it's there already in verse 32. Verse 33 just elaborates.
Am I stretching things?
If, however, you are sure of yourself and you hold your ground, and even dare to quote from the texts (quoting, say, the part about the little girl playing with her toys), if you adduce the evidence, then that embarrassed attempt at evasion becomes, suddenly, the fury it always was. Your Muslim interlocutor will reveal, under the smiles and wiles, quite soon and quite often, a hysterical rage.
Or the Muslim will respond as my Islamics Professor at Temple University, the late Dr. Isma'il al-Faruqi, did years ago. While he was waxing eloquent about the beautiful relationship between the Prophet and Aisha, a Jewish student in the class asked, "Dr. Faruqi, wasn't Aisha only nine years old when Muhammad married her?"
It's the only time I ever say him get flustered. He cleared his throat a few times and then said, "You must remember....women in the East mature much more quickly than women in the West!"
Of the many things not to like about HR1592 and S1105 is that sexual deviants are super-empowered legally. That means that pastors or priests who talk against homosexuality are talking against higher ups. It's as though sermons against homosexuality are now as risky as sermons against police corruption, or political corruption.
Another thing not to like about HR1592 and S1105 is the perpetrators of crimes must actually know that their victims are deviant in order to be punished more severely under federal law. As a result, it encourages gay or transsexual to let the public know they are super-empowered legally by dressing in a certain way 24-7-365.
It is rather like the mail carrier who puts on his or her uniform because once he is in that uniform, he is super-empowered legally. Assault and battery on a postman is a federal crime with stiff penalties, while assault and battery on an off-duty postman or regular Joe is not. Also, police and postal carriers are only protected during their shifts and while in uniform, but gays would be super-protected 24-7-365, as long as they are in their gay uniforms.
Crimes against policemen are not federal crimes usually. So HR1592 and S1105 means that sexual deviants are more legally empowered than the policemen who would police their raucous and lude Gay Pride parades. Police have gotten in trouble before at these events, such as when they wore latex gloves in case they had to manhandle gays.
OT but VERY IMPORTANT:
Here is the Video of the Mass Media Award given to Magdi Allam in Washington DC by the American Jewish Committee:
http://www.visualwebcaster.com/event.asp?id=39476
Hugh: "When the very same texts and authorities are quoted, as they are all the time, by Muslim writers about Muhammad, they are fine, they are correct, no fault can be found by Muslims with them. What they cannot stand is that Infidels should dare to read, dare to quote, dare to write the exact same things, in a spirit not of blind and submissive worship, but in a spirit rather of inquiry into what Muslim texts teach Muslims about Muhammad -- about what he said, and what he did, and what he wished for, and what he counselled Muslims."
This is an excellent point. I have always been curious as to why Islamists issue so many death threats to Spencer when he is in a sense confirming the legitimacy of their own take on Islam from the Islamic sources themselves. As you point out, the only difference between them is in the fact that all this is not A-OK with Spencer.
Should things ultimately degenerate to such an extent that it becomes impossible for infidels to use Muslims' own holy texts to criticize islam (while we can surmise that Muslims will be free to continue to cite these same texts with impunity), I don't believe that all would be lost, for the reason that irony and sarcasm would be difficult to squelch with such legislation. I can imagine a scenario in which islam critics could go so over the top in their apparent praise of various facets of islam, that their meaning would be clear while at the same time, noone could accuse them of criticism. For example, I recall an idea mentioned here a long time ago, in which there could be an exhibition mounted called "The religion of peace", which would consist of nothing but displays of hateful Koranic quotes and violent examples of islamic history (many of the illustrations from Shiva's cite would be useful), with no accompanying critical commentary. Or one could write about Mo's pedophelia in a completely over-the-top , seemingly approving way, "How fabulous! How virile Muhammad was! I'll tell you - my 6 year old neice is hot! hot! hot!..."
The point is, if it came to the point that legitimate criticism of islam actually DID become a crime, how would such legislation hope to deal with irony and sarcasm as a means of getting one's point across?
From my reading of history it appears that the Hindus only brought in "child marriage" to prevent the ruling Moslem class from taking their daughters in forced marriage for dynastic reasons.
So - if you were a Rajput King and had daughters - you married them to fellow Rajput kings before the Moslem overlords claimed them as wives and forced an artifical alliance with the Rajput king by virtue of blood-ties.
It would also appear that the act of "Sati" - widow burning - first arrived at the same time - in order to prevent high-caste widows being taken as wives by the Moslem overlords
There is no historical evidence to support the notion that Hindus practised either child marriage or Sati before the arrival of the Moslem conquerors.
Pelayo
I would add that this bill, together with all the other "hate crime" legislation, creates not only protected groups of people but also an absurd hierarchy of motivations for crime: hating your wife for adultery and killing her is less evil than killing a homosexual; abusing a Muslim child because he/she is a Muslim is worse than abusing any child, period. How do you think the parents of an abused Christian child or of a child whose religion does not enter into the configuration of the crime would feel to see that their child's life is deemed as less valuable than a Muslim child's?
The conundrums would never end. How about targeting a pedophile for rape as opposed to raping a Jew? Are we to make pedophiles a protected group too? The law should protect everybody equally against crime, as it does now under the Constitution.
For Reference
From:
H.R. 1592: Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007
From:
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)
SEC. 280003. DIRECTION TO UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION REGARDING SENTENCING ENHANCEMENTS FOR HATE CRIMES.
drk - I read the same thing about Sati. I am very curious about how many things we think of as evil or immoral, actually came about as a consequence of non-Muslim exposure to the savagery of islam. Among those things would be the Crusades but also possibly the Italian mafia, with their protection money ala jizya? the brutality of the Conquistadors? the savagery of "Count Dracula"? Any one would make a great topic for a dissertation.
Caroline,
Not to mention the conflict in the Balkans since '92. The Serbs were not innocent, they were just as brutal as the Croats and Bosnians.
Archimedes2
"The command is NOT for all people, only for the Jews. In every translation I've read 5.32 is quite clear on this: If a JEW kills someone it is a horrible atrocity."
We ordained for the Children of Israel that whoever kills a person, except as a punishment for murder or mischief in the land, it will be written in his book of deeds as if he had killed all the human beings on the surface of the Earth ...
I think the way to interpret this through Islamic eyes is to remember that the "Children of Israel" were and continue to be deemed by Muslims to be aboriginal Muslims (you know how Muslims consider Adam, Eve, Abraham, Moses, etc. to be "Muslims") -- i.e., they (at least the obedient ones among them) were followers of Allah (= Yahweh). Islam, in Islamic eyes, is the "true Israel".
It is worth repeating the case of the consummation of Ayesha's marriage ad nauseam: I doubt if there have ever been many people in any age or any culture who would not have felt a sensation of nausea at the thought of a man in his fifties sleeping with a nine year old girl ( with a teenager would have been disgusting enough to most).
What is noteworthy in the laws in question, is that because "the defendant intentionally selects a victim ... because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation", the crime is singled out for separate treatment.
This has two unavoidable consequences.
1) The gov't has set itself up as the judge and authority about what people actually do or do not have in their minds. As if they had some way of knowing!
2) That the content of the criminals mind is criminal in and of itself apart from the objective act they have committed.
This is very much a "thought crime" law.
Now it will be sensibly objected that the law already addresses concepts like the distinction between "crimes of passion" and crimes committed "with malice aforethought".
The justice of this can be argued either way, but the issue at had is somewhat different. In this matter the court is trying to determine the likelihood of the criminal repeating the offence, the presumption being that anyone might briefly lose control of themselves under extreme circumstances without becoming a threat to the neighbors, but a cold calculating criminal is and remains a continuing threat.
But the determination is simply to determine whether or not someone formed and executed a concious and rational plan, of whatever nature. This is a determination that can be made objectively without setting up the court as a mind reader.
It simply asks, is there evidence that this person planned out their crime in advance, and asserts that if they did they are to be regarded as more dangerous.
In the case of 1592 and such the gov't says that if I rob you at gun point, they are then going to determine what I had in mind at the time and punish me for that separately if my thoughts were in a criminal category.
So the gov't:
(a) sets itself up as the judge of what is in my mind, and
(b) lists a set of thoughts which are criminal thoughts.
If the gov't detects (by what magical means I cannot say) that I had criminal thoughts as I committed my crime, then I do extra time in the hoosegow.
As for the problem of overproduction, which has been latent in our society since the development of the machine technique, it is solved by the device of continuous warfare…
Orwell got this one wrong. Instead of burning off our excesses with continuous warfare, we have been burning off our excesses with continuous social engineering efforts like this legislation. The problem is that these efforts have created a system of growing and unstoppable costs. The result is that there will not be three stable states warring at the borders. Things will be far messier when the problem of overproduction is no longer a problem.
In any case, Americans hate censorship and don’t trust the government. Any efforts to muzzle legitimate political debate will backfire.
"The Serbs were not innocent, they were just as brutal as the Croats and Bosnians."
This might sound odd, but I think the horror movie Wrong Turn (2003) provides a very instructive dramatic analogy to the problem of defending ourselves against Islamic infiltration-cum-invasion: in the movie, a group of young hikers in the woods are beset upon by a gang of deformed, utterly sociopathic, evil murderers. One by one, the young hikers are murdered. By the end of the movie, there are only two left, who work together to save themselves by using their rational fear and intelligence to figure out clever ways to kill their attackers. While the young hikers proceed to murder one after another of the evil attackers, the young hikers do not take any special twisted glee in killing them: they are merely doing what needs to be done against attackers who have no moral compass and who are relentlessly driven to murder.
Moral: in assessing victims of Muslims such as the Serbs, one would have to free oneself of the PC reflex of adjudging their actions in an abstract vacuum guided by an abstract ethical paradigm, and instead keep in mind that sometimes, when fighting a grotesquely evil adversary, extreme measures are necessary.
Hugh,
You are panicking! lol You are panicking that you might not be able to continue to write your silly diatribes against Islam.
as wrathofasma and remote point out, exposure to Islam makes the infidels more brutal. Their posts reminded me of this post from an Indian correspondent at Lawrence Auster's site from several years ago. It stayed in my mind:
"I have always wanted to write about this to you. How is it that India has a massive Muslim population and yet manages to get along with relative calm? Many leftists/liberals in the West could misuse that example to say: “Look, Muslims aren’t trouble. India has 150 million Muslims!”. The way peace is maintained in India is by fear of mob fury. Muslims in India are generally peaceful because they know that if they stretch the limits of Hindu tolerance and kill people, Hindu mobs would descend upon them with a fury that would kill many more Muslims. This is fundamentally the way in which peace in a relative sense is maintained in India – by fear of violent retribution. A good example is a Muslim attack on a train of Hindu pilgrims in 2002. They burnt 50 Hindu women and children alive. Inevitably, in retaliation, violent Hindu mobs killed 2000 Muslims.
"It is barbaric and it is brutal. The mentality that we witness is from the age of barbarism. But that is how peace is actually maintained. I have a feeling that if Hindus were more “civilized” like Westerners and played everything by the book, the Muslims would probably run riot with no end in sight. They don’t because they know that the majority could turn blood-thirsty at any moment. And so relative peace is maintained.
"I wonder how Western liberals would react if they were told that the price of peace in a country with a large Muslim minority is to have a barbaric mindset which vindicates mindless slaughter of innocents – failing which peace would not be possible. They would probably reject it as a “fantasy” of “fascists” and never take it seriously."
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/003862.html
Ovidius_naso, I never once said that I was in favor of this kind of law. Calling it a thoughtcrime is misleading. If a person is acquitted of killng someone, while the prosecution insists it was also a hate crime, the hate crime component cannot be invoked. Before someone can even be sentenced under this law, they have to be convicted of the original crime.
If I ever hear of a proposal to make it a crime to use a racial slur or call somone a dirty name, then I will do something.
Mandi, shut up.
Pelayo: "Mandi, shut up."
I would amend that to say "PUT UP" (i.e. marshal substantive arguments against Hugh's - or any other poster's claims), or "shut up".
"Put Up or Shut Up" ought to be the site's policy towards trolls.
Hugh,
You are panicking! lol You are panicking that you might not be able to continue to write your silly diatribes against Islam.
Posted by: mandi at May 5, 2007 05:06 PM
Islamic over-reach? Although silencing criticism of Islam is the consummation devoutly to be wished by Muslims, we're not quite there yet, 'Mandi'. Not by a long chalk.
Remote_Control: I think the way to interpret this through Islamic eyes is to remember that the "Children of Israel" were and continue to be deemed by Muslims to be aboriginal Muslims (you know how Muslims consider Adam, Eve, Abraham, Moses, etc. to be "Muslims") -- i.e., they (at least the obedient ones among them) were followers of Allah (= Yahweh). Islam, in Islamic eyes, is the "true Israel".
This makes some sense, RC, in light of the tendency for muslims to confuse ancestries and the Qur'an's tendency to speak of the Jews "in ages past" -- not the present tense -- as what you call "aboriginal muslims". I note that Israel is a nickname for Jacob, from whom the Jews trace their descent. A reading of the Qur'an shows that Mohammed, either systematically or out of ignorance, revised much of the story of ancestors of the Jews by inserting, instead, characters whom he took as ancestors of the Arabs.
A good example is the story of Abraham going out to sacrifice his son in obedience to God. Historically: Isaac. (Or if you don't accept the story as history, this is the only ancient and original version of the story.) In the Qur'an the son is not named, but in the Hadith literature it is made clear that the unnamed son was Ishmael -- who, in Islamic legend, is progenitor of the "mixed arabs". This legend too, like all the twisted Islamic pseudohistories, has no foundation in fact -- it is an attempt to rewrite the story to create a mythological foundation for Arabic/Islamic supremacism.
Nevertheless, I don't think that this is what they have in mind, for the simple reason that when Islamic apologists use this verse, they *consistently* leave out the phrase "the children of Israel." If your explanation is correct there would be no reason for this omission. Either they don't know their Qur'an very well, or they really can't bring themselves to mention the name they hate so much.
This is just silly, out of all the good things aisha accomplished and became after marraying prophet Muhhammed (PBUH), why do you overshadow all of that with the fact the Muhhammed married her at nine? If you people look closely into the marriahe, Prophet muhhammed was more of a mentor then a husband to her, he taught her, raised her to be scholar/imam like in her early teens, where older men came to ask her questions about faith. And how ignorant are you people to call him a pedophile? Do you even know what the definition of that word means?
Definition of a Pedophile:
"Pedophile: also spelled PEDOPHILIA, psychosexual disorder in which an adult's arousal and sexual gratification occur primarily through sexual contact with prepubescent children. The typical pedophile is unable to find satisfaction in an adult sexual relationship and may have low self-esteem, seeing sexual activity with a child as less threatening than that with an adult." Encyclopedia Britannica, 1998
"pe.do.phil.ia n [NL] (1906): sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object -- pe.do.phil.i.ac or pe.do.phil.ic adj." Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary
The diagnostic criteria for pedophilia according to American Psychiatric Association:
Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent intense sexual urges and sexual arousing fantasies involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children.
The person has acted on these urges, or is markedly distressed by them.
The person is at least 16 years old and at least 5 years older than the child or children in A.
DSM-III-R Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, ed 3, revised, copyright American Psychiatric Association.
"In addition to their pedophilia, a significant number of pedophiles are concomitantly or have previously been involved in exhibitionism, voyeurism, or rape". (Voyeurism’s the recurrent preoccupation with fantasized or acts that involve seeking out or observing people who are naked, or are engaged in grooming or in sexual activity". Synopsis of psychiatry, Harold I.Kaplan et al., 5th ed., pg360, Publishers: Williams and Wilkens, 1988
Muhhammed's wifes:
Khadija bint khawilad, 40
Sauda Bint Zama, 50
Hafsa Bint Umar bin Khattab, 22
Zainab bint Khuzaima, 30
Aisha, 9 (waited until nine till she reached puberty)
Umm-I-Salma bint Abu Umayia, 26
Zainab Bint Jahash, 38
Juwaeria Bint Harith, 20
Umm-I-Habiba bint Abu Sufyan, 36
Statistics from the above table:
Percentage of his wives who were 17years and older = 91 %
Percentage of his wives who were widows = 75%
^^^^Does the Prophet Muhhammed fit the above criteria of a pedophile?
The following is from (themodernreligion.com/prophet/prophet_aisha.htm):
"The statistics show that the prophet’s marriage to Aisha at her young age was an exception and not a norm of his other marriages. Furthermore ‘a pedophile’s main mode of sexual satisfaction is with prepubescent girls’, which is contradictory to the 91% of prophet’s marriage to women 17 years and over. An unbiased examination of Prophet’s life and his marriages to his wives blatantly rejects the notion of his lifestyle fitting that of a pedophile. All his brides were aged widows (except Aisha and Marium).
Moreover, according to the criteria in the references cited above in ‘Synopsis of Psychiatry’, a vast majority of pedophiles possess a history of exhibitionism, voyeurism, or rape. Again, there is no single reference from either religious or secular sources that the noble Prophet ever indulged in such sadistic behavior (God forbid). This truth is observed and accepted by both Muslims and unbiased non-Muslims scholars.
This is a great link (www.themodernreligion.com/prophet/prophet_aisha.htm), continue reading from the rest that website and please stop bashing Muhhamed's marriage to Aisha.
Some of you may tell me that muslim men could still use the story of muhhammed's marriage to aisha as an excuse to marry a child and use it as an example for defence. This is true, and I know this happenning (although rarely). The thing is, this would never happen today unless the parents force her, and forced marriages in Islam are forbidden (more then 99% of child marriages these days are forced, whether it's the selfishness of the parents -or he man who is offering his hand- or it's because the need to for the parents to find their daughter a husband if they can't raise her anymore -finacial trouble, etc.). Also, most of today's girls have access to education, jobs, or whatever that could provide them. So there is almost no reason today (except maybe for the poor areas in the world) for underage girls to be forced into marriage. And the muslims who use this marriage as an excuse to send their daughters to a strange man are perverting islam for their own use and they know it.
'Prophet muhhammed was more of a mentor then a husband to her...'
'...raised her to be scholar/imam...'
Just like all those female Muslim 'scholars' and Imams down through the ages, right?
Wait, you say there *aren't* any Muslim female 'scholars' and Imams? What can that mean, what can that possibly mean?
Elysian fields of irony, forever.
Percentage of the time Muhammad's example is to be followed: 100%
So if, 9% of his wives were underage, then that must mean it's ok to marry 6 year-olds 9% of the time!
As to the pedophile profile above:
History of Rape:
Seriously, I'm no Koranic expert, so I don't know if there's any example of him personally doing this, but I'm pretty sure Mo condoned the taking of women as (sex) slaves after killing their husbands in battle.
That sounds like rape to me. So even if he didn't have a history of it, he certainly encouraged it in his military.
Maybe he just watched, and that's where the voyeurism comes in...
History of exhibitionism:
What is that story about him getting his fluids on his robe? Did he do that in front of anybody?
Hizballah_Supporter,
Your labors are irrelevant: you won the semantic battle (on the strict technical definition of "pedophile") but that cannot obfuscate the fact that you remain a loser of the overall ethical war. The bottom line is that it is unacceptable for an uswa hasana and al-insan al-kamil to have sex in his 50s with a girl aged 9.
If Muslims will take Mohammed down several pegs and demote him from his status of uswa hasana and al-insan al-kamil as well as of rasool and nabi, then his sexual and psychological abuse of a little girl can be overlooked. But as long as Muslims insist on maintaining Mohammed on such a lofty status, then they incriminate themselves and their Islam.
Nice try, "Allah's Party" - but just Aeisha alone makes Mo a pedophile. As well as a child rapist.
Here's wishing "Allah's Party" in Lebanon a SWIFT DEMISE!
Hizballah sez:
"Moreover, according to the criteria in the references cited above in ‘Synopsis of Psychiatry’, a vast majority of pedophiles possess a history of exhibitionism, voyeurism, or rape.
Again, there is no single reference from either religious or secular sources that the noble Prophet ever indulged in such sadistic behavior (God forbid)'-
Muhammad was a serial rapist. So were his compagnons.
He raped Safiah the same day he slaughtered her familiy and her young husband. Was it different with Maryam, the coptic sex slave? Obviously you are not quite up to date with your scriptures, matey!
Here is a good video, it gets really good towards the end:
http://terror-watch.net/media/womans_rights_islam.wmv
Plus, it's fairly certain that there is an incremental strategy at work here. People from anti-gun groups have openly said that their startegy to banning guns is incremental, i.e., gradually put more and more restrictions limiting gun ownership and you are much more likely to be totally succesful in eventually banning guns completely, as it has the effect of desensitizing people to having the government interefere with the right to bear arms, then if the strategy was to go straight to a ban on private gun ownersip.
Similar strategy at work here. First you pass a bill that sets a punishment for assault, then adds another punishment for thoughts during the assault. Then once you desensitize people to the orwellian aspect of it, the next bill you pass is punishing people just for the thoughts.
Additionally, such hate crimes statues as there are, are never enforced consistently - white on black hate crimes are usually persecuted, while black on white hate crimes, which are in fact much more common, almost never are...
Of course, Islam terrorism is a hate crime under statues as it is motivated by hatred of a person of a different religious group, but do you see muslim terrorist suspects charged under a hate crimes statue to add make the punishment more serious then it would be if they just used the existing legal code?
Any such bill will be intended to be used as a weapon against political opponents, or to lead to a bill to be used against political dissidents from the democratic/MSM line....
If a person is acquitted of killng someone, while the prosecution insists it was also a hate crime, the hate crime component cannot be invoked. Before someone can even be sentenced under this law, they have to be convicted of the original crime.
With hate crime statutes, one can be charged with a more serious offence, and punished more severely. For example, if I burn a square on your lawn, I am charged with public mischief and the like. If I burn a cross on your lawn, I am charged with a much more serious offence covered under hate crime statutes. The only difference was the shape of the burning object and my thoughts. And it is the thought that changes the crime from a misdemeanor to a felony - although the actual act remains the same. If I light fire to a church, I am charged with arson, if I light fire to a synagogue or mosque, I would be charged with a hate crime, upping the penalty - thereby making my thoughts part of the crime. Is this the way we want to go? Are current laws against arson not sufficient to punish me? Should I be punished for thoughts deemed offensive to the state, as well as for deeds offensive to the people?
If I ever hear of a proposal to make it a crime to use a racial slur or call somone a dirty name, then I will do something.
Start doing something. We are indeed moving into even more dangerous territory. Thoughts themselves can be deemed illegal if revealed. In Canada, speech is covered under hate crime laws. That means speech that is defamatory is illegal.
In Canada, Bill C-250 was recently passed which read:
"Everyone who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, willfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of … an indictable offense and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years."
So watch those racial slurs. But even without such slurs, just communication that is critical is illegal. "Willfully promoting hatred" is not a legally definable term, as hatred itself it not definable. Thus, this definition in the hate crime law can be used for political purpose to quash criticism of any "identifiable group", by labeling it as hate. Just as if hate itself is now a crime.
Interesting, eh? Hate is none other than strong dislike. Strong dislike is now illegal. Having thoughts of strong dislike, if revealed through communication that is not private, is illegal in Canada. The age of the thought crime has come.
In Canada, Robert Spencer, or any one of us, could be arrested and charged for our thoughts on islam, which CAIR in Canada would no doubt arm twist the authorities to do, for our strong dislike of it and what it represents.
Welcome to George Orwell's nightmare.
Hizballah_Supporter
Was Muhammad a pedophile for his time? Perhaps not and that I would agree. Child marriage was common for his time in Arabia and in fact other parts of world too. The problem many of your muslim brothers are convinced Muhammad is example of perfect behavior for all time. That includes today and our time. Thus marriage to a 9 year is ok becuase Muhammad did it.
The Ayatollah Khomeini himself took on a child bride at the age of 10 years. He like so many used the example of Muhammad and today in Iran child brides are can be found. It is based on the very founder of the faith and thus the founder of your civilization. His book the Quran is perfect and his deeds are not ones to challanged by us non-muslims.
This is one of the reasons the clash of civilizations is on. We will never accept such savage behavior. Unless muslims stop doing things like this (and many others) then no peace between us can exist. I would rather die then allow this to happen on our soil. I guess in the end you were wrong on this accord. Leaders of Hamas and Hizballah always say we Americans and Westerners love life more then death and that is why you will win. You were wrong because when faced with such a thing I would prefer death. Western Men have one weak spot and that is western women and girls. Death is preferable then allow them to sold and bartered like cattle. To be beaten and to be put into sheets. Never...
I have my motivation to fight....
What is yours? A dead Arabian warlord?
Hugh likes to write a lot of distortions brilliantly when it comes to Islam and Muslims.
Child marriage was common in most cultures of the world in ancient times. It still exists even today in parts of Africa, South America and South Asia regardless of religion.
So why pick on Muhammed when it is not even certain that he married a 9 year old is a historical fact. His life history was written almost 100 years after he died!
Abraham married and had sex with his sister Sarah.
He raped his black slave virgin and impregnated her, only to abandon her in the desert with her new born baby
Mary the Virgin was pregnant with Jesus when she was 13. This implies that Yawyeh was a pedophile, and Jesus the son of a pedophile.
The bible is filled with episode after episode of rape, incest, murder and genocide. Unbelievers are doomed for genocide or damnation in hell. The bible is bloody.
Do we therefore all discard our religious beliefs completely?
Hugh:
-you can fool some of the ignorants that lap up what you write with out analyzing, But some of us have read the bible and the koran, and are familiar with many cultures and histories, so we are not so easily fooled.
I love some of your writings though cause I like the way you are insightful about so many things, and some of your writings really make me laugh (in a good way).
JUST STOP LYING ;-),
mandi
Muslims use Muhammad when they get it on with girls below 14. Nobody is breaking out Jesus Christ or Abraham when it is done in places in Africa or Asia.
You are doing the classic deversion nonsense. No mainstream Christian or Jewish organization allows such a thing. However many if not most Islamic organizations (Legal/Religious) do.
How is that a lie? Our civilization does not allow it and their civilization does.
That is a statement of fact. Name me a western nation right now that allows for child marriage. Heck name me a western nation right now that looks the other way when a child is married. Now I can tell you the majority of countries with muslim majorities do one or the other. They either have in legal stone that it is allowed or they just look the other way.
Mandi
"Mary the Virgin was pregnant with Jesus when she was 13. This implies that Yawyeh was a pedophile, and Jesus the son of a pedophile."
What mainstream Christian accepts this as part of their faith?
Mandi
"So why pick on Muhammed when it is not even certain that he married a 9 year old is a historical fact. His life history was written almost 100 years after he died!"
Because a large portion of the 1 billion muslims on this earth take this stuff word for word. They say" "Muhammad did it with a 9 year old so should I because Muhammad was perfect"...the ideal muslim.
That is why...
GREAT COMET,
The problem is that I have lived or visited many parts of the world and are aware about the truth about sex and marriage with young girls
You make the classic example of confusing Western to mean Christian.
As for Muhammed being cited when for having sex with less than 14 year olds-really?
Mary is cited to justify sex with under 14 year olds in Africa.
Christian and Jewish organizations in non-western most definately do allow child marriage under 14.Yemeni and Ethiopian Jews get married at 9. Christian girls in South America and Africa start having sex in or outside of marriage at as low as 11 or 12 years old with approval of their churches in the case of marraige.
On the other hand, in most Muslim countries the number of girls below 14 having sex is low because a) premarital sex is rare (no boyfriends allowed), b) marriages tend to be arranged and parents WAIT to find a suitable husband for their daughters. Women marry young in Muslim countries, but in their late teens or early twenties. Most Christian girls in the third world start having sex when they are in their early teens in or out of marriage.
There are two easily distinguishable moral questions involved in the aisha matter.
The first is the question of an older man finding a mate in a younger woman. This is a complicated moral assessment to make that must take into account the culture, era, and particular characteristics of the individuals involved.
Then there is the second question of an adult male having sex with a pre-pubescent girl. It is implicit in nature (and consequently, evinced in human mores across time and culture) that sex with a child is depraved.
Whether Mohammad was a "pedophile" or not is a bit of semantic wanking. He was depraved regardless.
Sex with a sister is also depraved as is the case of Abraham.
I will also add that sex with pre-pubescent girls was was more common than we think in ancient times whether it was Muhammed or the prophets of the bible.
You Judeo-christians are in serious denial of this.
Mandi, don't forget that Islam claims Abraham as an 'Islamic prophet'- which is false, but you should take that into account when you make accusations like that.
Any man of 54 who rapes (what else would you call it?) a 9 year old is a pedo, full stop. For those born into Islam this is 'lawful'- for us it is forbidden because we see it as it is.
Our law penalizes the the perpetrator for the crime that he committed. The sharia doesn not.
Besides, I have never come across anybody who follows the bible like you follow the Koran. What Abraham did, (if he did it) is not an example to follow. Is he seen as 'uswa hasana- insan al kamil?) Obviously not. You analogy is false.
Watch this, this women speaks truth to power. Its in Arabic with subritles:
http://terror-watch.net/media/womans_rights_islam.wmv
And Mandy, stop making excuses for Muhammeds perversion and depravity:
It is Muhammedans TODAY who are doing what he and his compagnons did: Rape infidel women ( who are 'war booty)
and abuse children. Did you watch the video?
Its from a woman who left the cult of Islam. She knows what she is talking about, she is not making it up. Perhaps you have answers to that? Or apologies?
Article 1041 of the Civil Code of the Islamic Republic of Iran states that girls can be engaged before the age of nine, and married at nine: “Marriage before puberty (nine full lunar years for girls) is prohibited. Marriage contracted before reaching puberty with the permission of the guardian is valid provided that the interests of the ward are duly observed.”
The Ayatollah Khomeini himself married a ten-year-old girl when he was twenty-eight. Khomeini called marriage to a prepubescent girl “a divine blessing,” and advised the faithful: “Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house.”
Time magazine reported in 2001: "In Iran the legal age for marriage is nine for girls, fourteen for boys. The law has occasionally been exploited by pedophiles, who marry poor young girls from the provinces, use and then abandon them. In 2000 the Iranian Parliament voted to raise the minimum age for girls to fourteen, but this year, a legislative oversight body dominated by traditional clerics vetoed the move. An attempt by conservatives to abolish Yemen’s legal minimum age of fifteen for girls failed, but local experts say it is rarely enforced anyway. (The onset of puberty is considered an appropriate time for a marriage to be consummated.)"
The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) reports that over half of the girls in Afghanistan and Bangladesh are married before they reach the age of eighteen. In early 2002, researchers in refugee camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan found half the girls married by age thirteen. In an Afghan refugee camp, more than two out of three second-grade girls were either married or engaged, and virtually all the girls who were beyond second grade were already married. One ten-year-old was engaged to a man of sixty.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/015224.php
Do I really have to keep repeating myself?
There are 54 year old christians and jews and hindus marrying 9 year olds in the third world and they are not arrested.
Neither Sharia, nor Jewish religious law nor Christian religious law, nor Hindu punish marriage with young girls. The law that punishes child marriage is secular law!
Actually, I am not making excuses about Muhammed.
If Muhammed is a pedophile, than so are all the prophets of the bible, and also incestous. PLEASE DO NOT DENY THIS!
Joshua, Abraham etc. raped non-jewish women all the time and kept them as war booty.
Do yourself a favor and read the bible. People in glass houses should not throw stones.
Also, look up a web page called evilbible.com.
S
Would someone out there please tell me what muslims plan to do with the 72 virgins and the dark eyed prepubescent young boys the are promised to get when they make to their heaven?
Hey, Sheik, the interviewer in that video looks like he is wearing the islamic version of a cowboy hat.
I had to laugh.
Mandi this is for you. What do you think would happen if Israel were to disarm? Do you think they would last more than a few hours? It seems by your comments that you dislike all religions? Do you think that one in particular religion is more dangerous than another?
Does everyone truly believe the current text of the new testament and the quran or whatever ancient religous writings you choose to believe are the end all be all and that nothing will ever be updated like it has in the past like for instance the old and new testaments? I don't know if my thinking is right or wrong but as of now leaning towards thinking all faith based religions are nothing but garbage. I am looking for concrete answers, though I know i will never get even one proven truth from any religous text. No one anywhere, anytime, ever could hold and show anyone any proof that their religion is righteous.
mandi
"Christian and Jewish organizations in non-western most definately do allow child marriage under 14.Yemeni and Ethiopian Jews get married at 9. Christian girls in South America and Africa start having sex in or outside of marriage at as low as 11 or 12 years old with approval of their churches in the case of marraige."
Hello Mandi! I hate to tell you this but the Ethopians are not waging a would wide crusade to bring this marriage plan to the US. Last time I looked Islam is.
"You make the classic example of confusing Western to mean Christian."
No I said that for a reason. I don't care what funky tribe you found is some lost jungle in the 3rd world that still practices this. The fact is in the West under secular law this in not practiced. Islam is waging a war however to change that. They keep claiming their civilization is equal or better then ours. This is false and silly.
"Mary is cited to justify sex with under 14 year olds in Africa."
Please give me proof for this. Even so NO MAINSTREAM Christian church teaches this. In Islam this in NOT the case. Iran is not some petty tribe found in the lost world but are about to go nuclear and their leaders think this kind of thing is ok with them.
"On the other hand, in most Muslim countries the number of girls below 14 having sex is low because a) premarital sex is rare (no boyfriends allowed), b) marriages tend to be arranged and parents WAIT to find a suitable husband for their daughters. Women marry young in Muslim countries, but in their late teens or early twenties. Most Christian girls in the third world start having sex when they are in their early teens in or out of marriage."
How wonderful! You know why there is no premarital sex? Its called being stoned or hanged to death unless you get lucky and feel the sting of the whip or lash (unless you are a man). Yes arranged marriges are so enlightened (so pre-20th century). She not need to understand or know anything about her future because her father knows best. Oh and lets do talk about those honor killings! What a great idea!
Really what a stupid argument to make.
"Would someone out there please tell me what muslims plan to do with the 72 virgins and the dark eyed prepubescent young boys the are promised to get when they make to their heaven?"
Posted by: Barry
Barry,
I hate to inform you of this, but they intend to sodomize them, repeatedly for eternity. As these males have no facial or pubic hair, unbelievably, this "religion" considers them suitable for pederasty, and this act not equivolent with homosexuality. The boys will not age, and are an eternal gift to the shahid.
More unbelievably, this "religion" sanctions this and similar abuses in the real world.
http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/private_lives/en/chap2.php
mandi
Oh wait I am wrong on one thing about the premarital sex part....
If you don't wear the proper muslim "get up" and I as a muslim man catch you on the open by yourself (esp. if you are a non-mulism woman)...
Meow! Cat Meat!
I can't help it! Cats gab the meat!
"Mandi",
You need to study some comparative theology.
There is a vast difference between what the Bible reports and what it approves. David committed adultery, but the report of this does not sanction this or absolve him of punishment.
Not so with the Qur'an. Muhammad is reported to be the model of conduct, therefore his every vice IS sanctioned as halal.
Next, you should compare the character of Jesus of Nazareth and Muhammad. Jesus did not marry, nor did he marry a six year old. IF a Hebrew prophet did, that doesn't make it OK, because the Bible does not say the prophets were without sin or the eternal model of conduct in all affairs. It does say that about Jesus, and the Qur'an says that about Muhammad, so start your comparison of the two faiths there.
Thank you Concerned Citizen for being truthful and honest with your reply. Its something I can't get one person in my personal life to recognize that being a muslim in itself is a perversion that should be somehow be wiped from ever having existed in the first place. Thank you
Moreover, according to the criteria in the references cited above in ‘Synopsis of Psychiatry’, a vast majority of pedophiles possess a history of exhibitionism, voyeurism, or rape. Again, there is no single reference from either religious or secular sources that the noble Prophet ever indulged in such sadistic behavior (God forbid). This truth is observed and accepted by both Muslims and unbiased non-Muslims scholars.
Posted above by a supporter of terrorists
Muhammad was a sadistic butcher as well as a lecherous, over-sexed pervert who allowed his pathetic followers only four wives but an unlimited number for himself. Had he lived longer, I'm sure he would have managed to "marry" at least thirty women. His fourteen wives and numerous sex slaves and concubines kept him occupied when he wasn't out beheading Jews and engaging in rapine and genocide.
As for psychiatric definitions of "pedophile"; who cares? My God, muhammad was a BEAST!!!! His penchant for babies is but one perversion on an endless list of psychological aberrations. Why would any man need FOURTEEN WIVES???? Muhammad was a psychotic pedophile and an evil, inhuman, greedy, cruel barbarian. If that despicable excuse for a human being is your idea of the "perfect" man, God help you!
I feel like I'm home finally! I really did not know places like this forum existed. Why does'nt erveryone see the truth and think as we do about the sicko muslims?
'mandy'-
either you subscribe to the values and laws of civilization and enlighenment, or you 'submit' to the sharia and remain in the dungeons of the Muhammedan cult.
For you I guess the latter is the preferred choice. Apostasy might get you killed...
Hugh fitzgerald..a true treasure//
Mandy: Muhammad, he 'perfect man' for you?
From the Hadith:
Muslim (8:3309) - Muhammad married Aisha at the age of nine.
Bukhari (62:18) - Aisha's father, Abu Bakr, wasn't on board at first, but Muhammad explained how the rules of their religion made it possible. This is similar to the way that present-day cult leaders manipulate their followers into similar concessions.
Muslim (8:3311) - The girl took her dolls with her to Muhammad's house (something to play with when the "prophet" was not having sex with her).
Bukhari (6:298) - Muhammad would take a bath with the little girl and fondle her.
Muslim (8:3460) - "Why didn't you marry a young girl so that you could sport with her and she could sport with you, or you could amuse with her and she could amuse with you?" Muhammad posed this question to one of his followers who had married an "older woman" instead.
Bukhari (4:232) - Muhammad's wives would wash semen stains out of his clothes, which were still wet from the spot-cleaning even when he went to the mosque for prayers. Between copulation and prayer, it's a wonder he found the time to slay pagans.
Bukhari (6:300) - Muhammad's wives had to be available for the prophet's fondling even when they were having their menstrual period.
Bukhari (62:6) - "The Prophet used to go round (have sexual relations with) all his wives in one night, and he had nine wives." Muhammad also said that it was impossible to treat all wives equally - and it isn't hard to guess why.
Bukhari (5:268) - "The Prophet used to visit all his wives in a round, during the day and night and they were eleven in number." I asked Anas, 'Had the Prophet the strength for it?' Anas replied, 'We used to say that the Prophet was given the strength of thirty men.' "
So let me summarize:
Even if we accept a 54 year old man marrying a child, raping captured (non-believing) woman what does that make him?
Even we accept the unacceptable, what do you call a guy who rapes captured women and sells them into slavery?
Even if we accapt all that, what do you call a guy who has sex with 14 women in one night?
Just answer the questions please....
Here's more:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/025-Muhammads-sex-life.htm
Mandi,
You say that the patriarch Abraham married his sister Sarah. That is not the case. He had Sarah pretend to be his sister when they were forced by famine to go to Egypt (see Genesis 12:10-20) so that he would not be killed by the Egyptians on account of her beauty. When Pharaoh realized (after being smitten with plagues in a foreshadowing of the Exodus story) Sarah was Abraham's wife, he reunited them and had them both booted out of the country. Not exactly a shining moment for the progenitor of the Jews and Arabs!
Oh, and Hagar (Sarah's slave and Abraham's concubine) was an Egyptian according to the Bible. The Bible does not note her color.
Perhaps the Koran has a different version of the story. Please remember that as far as Christians and Jews are concerned, most of the Bible stories quoted in the Koran are badly corrupted. The Bible as we have it today corresponds very well with ancient translations (the Greek Septuagint or the Aramaic Targums) and with the Dead Sea Scrolls, all of which date back hundreds of years before the earliest known Korans. So quoting Koranic versions of these stories at us to prove a point is foolish.
Archimedes2,
re "mischief"/"corruption" (fasad) in the Quran and Islamic law, see this; it is rather long, but does give some information about what exactly is meant by the term.
"I feel like I'm home finally!... "
Posted by: Barry at May 5, 2007 11:54 PM
Welcome Barry!!!
I agree - JW/DW is a real breath of fresh air!!!
Susanp,
"Had [Mohammed] lived longer, I'm sure he would have managed to "marry" at least thirty women. ...Why would any man need FOURTEEN WIVES????"
In Islamic history, there have been Muslim rulers who had many, MANY more wives than that. Just to pick a couple out of a turban:
In Iran in 1891, Shah Nasir al-Din's harem had 1,600 wives, concubines, and eunuchs.
The Sultan al-Hakam II of the palace-city at Cordoba, Spain (10th century A.D.) had a harem of 6,000 persons total (a population both of wives and slaves).
mandi,
You write:
"Hugh,
You are panicking! lol You are panicking that you might not be able to continue to write your silly diatribes against Islam."
He doesn't sound like he's panicking. He exhibits a healthy concern in light of recent and historical trends.
"Do I really have to keep repeating myself?"
Hopefully not. I think some people were trying to get you to respond in some other mode than the tu quoque fallacy.
"Also, look up a web page called evilbible.com."
I'm familiar with the site. A more sober, scholarly approach would be preferable, but it's good that they're exposing some of the problems. I'd like to see a Quran version there too, with Hadith and Sira.
Their piece on Hitler is rather naive, based mostly on public statements (which are important but don't give a complete picture) and simplistic analysis. Please see Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion for some important information
http://www.lawandreligion.com/nuremberg.shtml
"The problem is that I have lived or visited many parts of the world and are aware about the truth about sex and marriage with young girls
You make the classic example of confusing Western to mean Christian.
As for Muhammed being cited when for having sex with less than 14 year olds-really?
Mary is cited to justify sex with under 14 year olds in Africa.
Christian and Jewish organizations in non-western most definately do allow child marriage under 14.Yemeni and Ethiopian Jews get married at 9. Christian girls in South America and Africa start having sex in or outside of marriage at as low as 11 or 12 years old with approval of their churches in the case of marraige.
On the other hand, in most Muslim countries the number of girls below 14 having sex is low because a) premarital sex is rare (no boyfriends allowed), b) marriages tend to be arranged and parents WAIT to find a suitable husband for their daughters. Women marry young in Muslim countries, but in their late teens or early twenties. Most Christian girls in the third world start having sex when they are in their early teens in or out of marriage."
Please provide links and sources for all of the above empirical statements. I don't think anyone denies that child marriage occurs in non-Islamic cultures. But what are the statistics? Also one must be careful to make valid comparisons. We are talking about an adult being married to a young child, (in this case a six year old child), and then having sex with her when she was nine. Are all of your examples comparable?
"JUST STOP LYING ;-)"
A strong charge, one that should not be made lightly. You imply that Hugh knows that what he's saying is false and that he intends to mislead people with that false information. Well, first show us the false information. If you can't, then it would be right for you to withdraw that charge.
"Hugh likes to write a lot of distortions brilliantly when it comes to Islam and Muslims."
What distortions? You made the claim, now support it with examples and evidence from Hugh's writings.
"Child marriage was common in most cultures of the world in ancient times. It still exists even today in parts of Africa, South America and South Asia regardless of religion.
So why pick on Muhammed"
This site is dhimmiwatch, focussed on the Islam problem, so the child-sex problem, here, falls under the Islam category. You want to talk about the child sex problem more broadly, as a category in its own right. That's fine; but this site is primarily about Islam. Anything about problems in other religions would only be relevant in terms of comparisons with Islam. Beyond that, to focus on all that you suggest, the site would have to be changed to "religion watch" or "child abuse watch" or "dirty old men watch" or some other category.
"when it is not even certain that he married a 9 year old is a historical fact. His life history was written almost 100 years after he died!"
Surely you would agree, in light of your criticisms of the Bible, that one can criticize a belief without necessarily having that belief. With religion, we are dealing beliefs. More importantly, we are dealing with beliefs that are implemented in real brains, real behaviour, real societies. Enough Muslims, including major Islamic scholars, believed in it (i.e., the permissibility of sex between an adult male and a female child) historically, and many Muslims around the world still believe it and accept it, as has been documented at this site many times. The fact is that it is practiced and is merely one item on a long list called "the problems with Islam"--problems that when taken together constitute one of the most serious challenges facing humankind in this century.
That troll is gone....
It all comes down to who the "victim" is.
Several years ago, when I worked for a Canadian government agency, a female supervisor accused a male subordinate of sexual harassment.
(From my close vantage point -- I knew both of them -- there was no substance to her accusation. She was out for revenge because she disliked this employee and she got it.)
There was an internal investigation and the male subordinate was found guilty of "gender harassment", which, as it was explained in writing, meant that the supervisor felt doubly threatened by the employee because he was a man and she was a woman, even though the employee was not found to have harassed her in a sexual manner or to have uttered any threats against her. (There were never any criminal charges.)
The gender difference was the deciding factor in the decision. There was no proof that he had harassed her in any way. The internal thoughtcrime police... I mean, investigators... did not consider the fact that, as the boss, she held most of the power (his union membership prevented her from eliminating his position when she wanted to, which was the real issue). They also did not consider the fact that she had for years taught female self-defense courses.
He was a man, she was a woman, so this was obviously "gender harassment".
Re. jihadwatcher's comments about Canada and thoughtcrime.
A couple of things I learned from this and other situations I encountered in the government workplace:
- S/he who accuses first, wins.
- Accusations of racism or sexism almost always win because how do you prove that you didn't do or say something or have a certain gleam in your eye? And how can you defend yourself against the crime of being male and therefore intimidating and powerful? Or, hypothetically, the crime of being a Christian and thinking that Islam is wrong and therefore having everything you say or do come out biased against Muslims (and therefore actionable in some way)?
- If it isn't an actual offense, the government agency will make up a new one to fit the "crime".
- Nothing is ever confidential. As one of my co-workers said, when she told me why she wouldn't tell the investigators about the incriminating statements the supervisor made to her, "If I make an accusation, she will have the right to know who is accusing her and what has been said. She will fire me or make my life a living hell and I need my job."
Some time later, something happened that proved to me that she was right.
I used to attend courses and seminars in the workplace. We were always given "anonymous" assessment forms to fill out at the end of the course.
After one course, I left some negative comments about the instructor, based on her attitude towards me and my questions. (My comments were not rude or insulting.)
She must have made a huge fuss, because the head of her department phoned every single person who attended that course until he tracked me down. I was caught unawares, and am a poor liar at the best of times, so I admitted that I was the one who had complained. I explained what she had said, how she had said it, and also that others had confirmed my impression of her behaviour towards me. He defended her, saying maybe she'd had a bad day, etc.
But the lesson I learned is that nothing is ever confidential, at least in Canada.
If you are accused of something, the burden is on you to prove your innocence, and not the other way around. If the law doesn't provide an avenue for your accuser, s/he will use the workplace or school rules against you.
One thing I didn't see here was perhaps the more sinister motive for CAIR supporting this bill. If the police must call in the FBI everytime a muslim is a crime victim, then there is much less time for the FBI to be digging into more important crimes and potential terrorist groups.
Yes, maybe I'm just being paranoid, but I can see the terrorist supporters doing this to give terrorist free-rein, just like with the flying imams.
Karl
Two comments:
1) In the LA Times (hardly a conservative bastion), an article entitled: "Hate crime bill veto is vowed" states: "...[the proposed bill] gives federal authorities more leeway to assist state and local law enforcement in investigating and prosecuting hate crimes.
Current law limits federal involvement to cases in which victims are engaged in federally protected activities, such as attending school or voting. The new law would cover 'a wider range of circumstances,' according to a House Judiciary Committee report."
I do not see the need for such a law.
2) Wouldn't this also create a two-tier standard of justice? Like Sharia Law's differential treatment contingent on identities of perp and victim -- if someone assaults a Muslim, there's potentially a greater punishment, if the perp is found to have posted to anti-Islam websites. but if a Muslim, say, goes on a "Sudden Jihad Syndrome" and crashes his vehicle into a group of "infidels" or pedestrians -- he would not get additional punishment, since "infidels" are not an identifiable "minority group," "religion" or "homosexuals", etc.
Not to mention the conflict in the Balkans since '92. The Serbs were not innocent, they were just as brutal as the Croats and Bosnians.
Posted by: wrathofasma
How many times do we have to explain to people that the Serbs ahev to do what they have to do.
There is but one way to deal with islam.
It is not the fault of the Serbs that they have to deal with these islamic savages.
I will not fault them for dfoing what is needed in their own defense.
moslems don't belong in Europe so the Serbs attempted to expel them.
Too bad that not everyone "gets it".
The history of islam should be a pretty good clue.
Hugh,
You are panicking! lol You are panicking that you might not be able to continue to write your silly diatribes against Islam.
Posted by: mandi
mandi, would you care to elaborate on your accusations? I'd like to see what you consider a "diatribe against islam".
Please quote a relevant passage from something Mr. Fitzgerald has written and explain to me what about it is a "silly diatribe".
This is your opportunity to get a fair and impartial hearing.
Much more than what can be said for your islamist websites out there.
"Panicking" is not something I ordinarily do. I do windows. I even do Windows, though I'd love to have an Apple. But I don't panic.
"Hugh likes to write a lot of distortions brilliantly when it comes to Islam and Muslims."
And why exactly would he be motivated to do that in your opinion? Although I'd be inclined to call it harmlessly objective observations.
Please give examples for one.
And second.. why would anyone take this much of their time and devote it to something so drab and joyless as islam?
The only reason I can see is that we understand the threat that islam is for all that is good in the world.
Thus we have to inform ourselves and each other about this demonly virus that rots the human brain.
It is hard enough to argue amongst our own people against this scourge.
I for one do not believe that it is possible to convince islamos of tghe error of their terrorist ways and thus I relize I must work to change the hearts and mninds of those who are yet uninfected.
Knowledge is the first step in self-defense.
Once we have enough people who understand what is going on then we can work on what needs to be done.
Until then, mandi, please elaborate on those "distortions" you mentioned earlier.
Archimedes2,
"Nevertheless, I don't think that this is what they have in mind, for the simple reason that when Islamic apologists use this verse, they *consistently* leave out the phrase "the children of Israel." If your explanation is correct there would be no reason for this omission."
Sure there would -- they want to use that verse for the simplest most effective purpose of propaganda: to leave in "the Children of Israel" would require a complex explanation that would distract from that propaganda effort -- not to mention it might lead to questions about why they consider Islam to be the "true Israel". This mythological Israel-Islam connection I think is the raison d'être of the Muslim self-conception of rightful ownership of the world which, in turn, is the basis for their sense of rightful conquest and domination of the world.
Allahfanculo how can you expect to change people who are just plain sick? These people are way past the age of reasoning. They will never Know the difference between right and wrong. I strongly believe these things are not learned. If someone has to be taught the difference then they are not worth teaching because they can just as aesily unlearn it.
Oh yes I almost forgot . Did I hear someone say death to Islam?
Allahfanculo how can you expect to change people who are just plain sick? These people are way past the age of reasoning. They will never Know the difference between right and wrong. I strongly believe these things are not learned. If someone has to be taught the difference then they are not worth teaching because they can just as aesily unlearn it.
Posted by: Barry at May 6, 2007 06:13 PM
It is somewhat understandable that isolated muslims with no exposure to the civilized world would believe the dogma of islam since it is crammed down their throats from the moment they emerge from the womb. However, it is truly amazing that muslims living the West cling to the atavistic nonsense of islam, often with a supremacist, hysterical fervor that they are quite proficient in concealing from the infidels around them. I think the West either makes or breaks the latent jihadist in most muslims, leaving a few ambivalent fence sitters who could go either way and it makes more than it breaks.
Indoctrination is a powerful and tenacious weapon and no group provides a better example of its impetus than muslims. Islam manipulates the human psyche to create the perfect psychopath by dehumanizing non-muslims; by instilling the ludicrous certitude of islamic supremacism; by inculcating convictions of victimhood and oppression; and by implanting fatalism and abject fear of allah. Supremacism and fear of allah are the two most compelling and dangerous aspects of islamic indoctrination because they enable muslims to justify jihad, which includes every act of inhuman barbarity known to man. As long as jihad remains a sacred tenet of islam, muslims will pose a threat to humanity and the civilized world.
Islam gives muslims a license to kill, steal, hate, lie, cheat, deceive, rape, enslave, torture, commit genocide----every sin or malevolent crime imaginable against non-muslims is divinely sanctioned. Why would muslims want to "unlearn" the rights granted them by allah because they are the "best of people", the rightful rulers of the world? In their bizarre parallel universe, evil is good, good is evil; logic, reason, and common sense be damned.
hizballah_supporter said
That posting was hilarious, quite worthy of The Onion. The proof of Muhammad's moral authority as the Perfect Man, is that most of the women he took as sexual slaves (ie. war booty) were past puberty? Let me ponder that one a while...
Willy Sutton did not rob 64% of the banks that he entered. Jeffrey Dahmer did not kill and eat 97% of the men that he dated. And 91% of the sex-slaves that Muhammad took were post-menses. Using statistics is certainly an interesting and novel defense.
And, John Mark Karr (noted devotee of Jon Benet Ramsey) was married. I think you'll find that most clinically diagnosed pedophiles are married (uhh, to post-menses women) at some point in their lives, including pedophiles who are attracted to boys. Previous marriage to an adult is no proof that someone is not a pedophile.
H.R. 1592 says
I am not a supporter of hate crime legislation, but I'm not that big of a critic either. This same language could be used by an intelligent and informed Administration against acts by jihadists who target their victims based on their religion (ie. the infidels). Of course it won't, but it could be.
And if this or any future legislation ever makes it illegal to criticise Islam in the U.S. (as is the case, I believe, in other parts of the non-Islamic world), I solemnly swear that I will be arrested. I see that as a civic duty.
I have thanked my US House rep. for voting against the resolution... and have asked both my senators to vote against the Senate version: