Robert Spencer: Sex, Jihad and Islam

At Atlas Shrugs this morning I discuss Islam's moral critique of the West:

They hate us because we’re pigs. No, not the apes and pigs into which Allah transforms the Sabbath-breaking Jews in the Qur’an (2:62-66; 5:59-60; 7:166), but pigs as in…dogs. Wolves. Immoral, lecherous, lustful, fornicating creeps. Western immorality is a frequent feature of the Islamic critique of the contemporary West, as well as a target for the morality police of Sharia states. In the summer of 2009 Iranian authorities even published a list of hairstyles that were acceptably moral and Islamic, as opposed to “decadent” Western imports, among which were the ponytail and the mullet.
That same Western decadence is also a frequent preoccupation of Islamic jihadists. In December 2010, a Muslim named Taimour Abdulwahab al-Abdaly set off explosives on a street in Stockholm that was crowded with Christmas shoppers, killing himself and injuring two others. His wife, who was herself later arrested for helping plan the attack, explained that Abdulwahab “disliked the decadent side of society here.”

Even some non-Muslim writers echo this critique. Dinesh D’Souza argued in his 2007 farrago The Enemy At Home that Islamic jihadists were largely motivated by rage at the West’s “social and moral corruption,” and asserted that “the Muslims who hate us the most are the ones who have encountered Western decadence, either in the West or in their own countries.”

The Catholic writer Peter Kreeft even calls upon Christians to learn from Muslims “the absoluteness of the moral laws and of the demand to be just and charitable.”

Yet writers like Kreeft and D’Souza never seem to examine the actual content of Islamic morality to see what exactly in Islam constitutes being “just and charitable.” And while Islamic supremacists rail against Western decadence, few realize that what they offer as an alternative is hardly the vision of moral uprightness that many assume. A few years ago President George W. Bush declared that we were fighting for “moms and dads in Iraq.” He might more accurately have said “moms and moms and moms and moms and dads in Iraq,” for his assumption that the Western model of the nuclear family would also be a universal in the Islamic world was not borne out either by Islamic law or the facts on the ground.

The moral universe of Islam is, indeed, radically different from the Judeo-Christian one. I have just completed a book, Not Peace But A Sword, which explores these differences in depth, but one telling incident recorded in a diary a century ago sums up a great deal of the key differences.

There is more.

« Previous Entry | Home Page | Next Entry »

46 Comments

| Leave a comment

sean | March 19, 2012 8:45 AM | Reply

But this is not decadent...
'PAKISTAN: 95% of truckers have sex with boys
The name 'Pakistan' means 'Land of the Pure'. In that Islamic republic where homosexuality is a crime, the sexual exploitation of boys is an endemic practice, notably in the transport industry.

Those Muslims who denounce the moral corruption of Western secular societies are hypocrites. Children are violated in western countries of course, but those responsible are pursued and punished. In 'The Land of The Pure' , when boys are not being transformed into human bombs, they are sodomised with impunity' http://crombouke.blogspot.co.uk/2010/02/pakistani-truckers-do-it-with-boys.html

Craniac | March 19, 2012 9:09 AM | Reply

In the early 80's I got to visit Egypt. It seemed that American TV was on everywhere I went. It was almost always a Soap Opera translated to Arabic.
If all they see of Western culture comes from the Liberal left/Hollywood elite, it is no wonder they think we are immoral and decadent.

ApolloSpeaks | March 19, 2012 9:20 AM | Reply

ISLAM HAS NOTHING TO TEACH US!

American decadence is Islam's excuse not its cause for jihad against us. With the ancient Persians and Hindus it was their paganism. With the Byzantines it was their Christianity. With the Afghans it was their Buddhism. The cardinal sin of infidels is being infidel however saintly, virtuous or wise. The Islamic world is one vast asylum of moral insanity with a morally depraved killer for its prophet and guide blindly driven by the will to power and the immoral principle that Might is Right. Islam has nothing to teach us, and nothing to advance the moral and spiritual progress of mankind.

miriam rove replied to comment from Craniac | March 19, 2012 9:27 AM | Reply

it is not that at all. I am not sure if you know, but I was born and raised in Iran. it is islam that makeus look decadent. in Islam separation of the sexes is absolute. having sex out side of marrige,holding hands, kissing, losing one's virginity etc.... can carry significanr punishment speacailly for women. having siad that when they watch American TV(or the west)and when they see a woman jump in bed with a guy or kiss a guy, they think that women here in the are all loose! this is fact and myself was one of them. when I came to the states at age 19 or so, I thought here I go to park and some girl will come and sit next me and take me to her place and f...my brains out!! but this is hardly the case and it took me just a month to figure out the western women are not loose, but they are exeszing something that they do not see as a taboo. muslim men are the most sexually frustrated men in the world. even as part of the sharia laws mastubation is forbiden. so this has nothing to do with the west and it all has to do with islam.
m

vladtepes2 | March 19, 2012 9:30 AM | Reply

This is mostly just another case of islam "hitching it's fortunes to the trolley car of morality".
Every political regime trys to get one over on it's adversary and competition and enemy by playing the "morality card".
It's mostly just made up mumbo-jumbo for the purpose of trying to gain the moral high ground.
Robert explains the REALITY of the oxymoron called "islamic morality".
Essentially, when mohammed wrote the koran, he looked at the ten commandments - and then reversed every commandment.
Don't believe me? read the koran.

Infidel | March 19, 2012 10:01 AM | Reply

As Srdja Trifkovic once noted in one of his books, the Muslim model of a family - where a husband has different wives located in different places and goes to whichever one he feels like - is something that has more in common w/ post-Christian secular progressives in the West, than w/ traditional families - be it Christian, Jewish, Shinto, Hindu, Buddhist or whatever else. If one takes the Shia countries as examples - Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, then Mutah marriages are no different from one night stands. Add to this things like cousin marriages, and that imports all the genetical deficiencies one can imagine.

Yeah, the Muslim society of Dinesh and Kreeft is so much better than traditional Western families.

Battle_of_Tours | March 19, 2012 10:26 AM | Reply

A few years ago President George W. Bush declared that we were fighting for “moms and dads in Iraq.” He might more accurately have said “moms and moms and moms and moms and dads in Iraq,”…

The decadence of Islam's treatment of women as second class concubines for men's sexual pleasures and baby production house slaves; the allowed multiple wives abrogating their equality as individual human beings, some girls married off in childhood, serving as chattel for their old fat slob male masters; the sordid variety of marrying cousins, female genital mutilation, so called 'honor' killings of women, child sex slaves, jihad female captives sex slaves, temporary marriages, ad nauseum… How does this Islamic world 'morality' compare with the Judeo-Christian secular moral code of the West? I'll choose the West, thank you, where life is beautiful, and live free of the amoral turpitude of a decayed Islamic universe. They have nothing moral to offer us... Nothing.

Wellington | March 19, 2012 10:27 AM | Reply

The West has indeed become more decadent in the past half century (e.g., Madonna feigning masturbation on stage, as she did frequently in her "early years," is something that simply wouldn't have occurred a hundred years ago), but what Muslims and dhmmi apologists for Islam miss is that true virtue can only exist where the opportunity not to be virtuous without threat of bodily harm or death also exists. Forced virtue is sham virtue and the virtue exhibited by the Islamic world has force written all over it.

Western societies are currently witnessing what happens when freedom is not accompanied by a sense of responsbility. But the solution to this problem offered by Islam is not an admirable or acceptable solution at all because the Islamic approach to virtue always destroys freedom. In short, whatever's the matter with the West, it isn't anything Islam can fix.

descendantofacrusader | March 19, 2012 10:40 AM | Reply

For anyone remotely interested in the utter sexual and moral depravity inherent in Islam: I highly suggest investigating a series of fatwas by the founder of the Iranian revolution,the late Ayatollah Khomeini, which are contained within a publication called
"The Little Green Book": http://prophetofdoom.net/The_Little_Green_Book.Islam

Alexander W. | March 19, 2012 10:44 AM | Reply

Western "decadence" is preferable to Islamic (false) virtue.
Western "vices" are better than the greatest of Sharia "virtues".
(e.g., Westerners prefer watching cats rather than watching cuts {beheadings} on youtube) :>
-
No. 1 Nation in Sexy Web Searches? Call it Pornistan!
Pakistan: "Land of the (Im)Pure"
-
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/07/12/data-shows-pakistan-googling-pornographic-material/
-

TS | March 19, 2012 11:00 AM | Reply

It's so farcical how Muslims claim the moral high ground, I mean really?? I don't take advice on morality from a 50 something year-old man who has sex with the 9 year old daughter of his buddy, for starters.

Next I would say Islamic morality is based on force, never on free-will. And there is NO morality in someone being forced to do something. True morality can only come from free-will. And this is a huge problem where Muslims dominate. That's why we get the woman blamed for being raped.

As, if she would have just followed the rules and covered herself, then the rapist wouldnt be forced to rape. Which is ridiculous, as if a rapist cares if you are covered up, if they have the propensity to rape, guess what? They will rape who they can. Old, young, attractive or not.

I also think that this causes more rapes as the Muslim man who may not rape, may be more prone to do so if his bases his morality on how a woman dresses and can blame her and can view himself as still pious even after committing a rape! Anyway, just a small example of the Muslim mind and morality in my view.

Twisted, and very uncompatible to the West's (and all other culture's and religion's) views.

eliasX | March 19, 2012 11:07 AM | Reply

One of the fallacious presumptions of interfaith dialogue and, indeed, multiculturalism is that real value differences are nonexistent, insignificant, meaningless or can be ignored, denied, downplayed, or overcome through better “understanding” and goodwill.

Real value differences, however, do make a difference. Between peoples who do not care how other peoples live, behave or think that is not a problem. However, when one group of people believes firmly that its way of being is the only right way AND that it has a right to impose its way of being on peoples who do not share its worldview, then that is a problem for those peoples who do not share the former group’s values, beliefs, ways of thinking and behaving.

That Muslims project their own values, beliefs, and behaviors onto non-Muslims who do not share them is a natural human tendency. That they then judge us non-Muslims according to their value and belief systems is also natural, just as it is for non-Muslims to judge them and their beliefs.

However, fundamental Islamic doctrines, not some hijacked misinterpretation thereof, dictate that Muslims should impose their religious worldview on the rest of humanity, whether through non-Muslim slaughter, forced conversion, subjugation (monotheists), enslavement, extirpation (non-monotheists), fear, violence, intimidation, coloniziation, and, basically, whatever means necessary.

Sura 9:33, summarizes this best:

It is He [allah] who sent His Messenger [muhammad]
with guidance [koran] and the true faith [islam only]
in order to make it superior [by whatever means necessary] to other systems of belief [what the rest of humanity believes]

(Ahmed Ali translation, 1993)

One does not make one’s faith “superior” through peaceful means, and the historic record of Islam to the present day makes that very clear. There is no “peace” or “tolerance” or “justice” in that divine mandate conception for the non-Muslim "other." Yet, Islam in its own self-conception is about “peace” (where shariah is the only law of the land), “tolerance” (permitting non-Muslim non-monotheists to continue to live and own property, as subjugated dhimmi at the whim of the Muslim community), and “justice” (which amounts to treating all non-Muslims based on their degree of “unbelief,” irrespective of what constitutes that treatment; e.g., extirpating non-monotheists or forcibly converting them). (President Obama’s conception of Islam as “fairness” suggests the worst form of wishful thinking, gross ignorance, or delusion.)

Well, one can “understand” Islam reasonably well and not like it. There are fundamental value differences between the adherents of the Islamic faith and the rest of humanity (whether monotheist, animist, polytheist, atheist, etc.). In its essence, Islam is and has been since its earliest days, a predatory faith: it is a declaration of war on the rest of humanity. Non-Muslims don’t have to like or tolerate it. Indeed, their survival depends on defending their ways of being from its allah-mandated depredations.

Self-defense is a universal right. And that includes criticism of Islam, its absurd doctrines and claims, and pointing out its adherents’ nasty behaviors and intentions towards the non-Muslim “other” wherever that “other” may be in the world.

Odyessus | March 19, 2012 11:26 AM | Reply

In the course of my life, I have got to know two Muslim men, both quite well.

I won’t name them; they shall remain anonymous like me.

But our friendship reached such a level where we got to discuss matters sexual.

One told me he lost his virginity at the age of 13 with a 30 year old Iraqi prostitute. The other once confessed to me he once slept with his brother’s girlfriend. Which tells you quite a bit about the morality of Muslim Arab men.
When they end up over here, in what they regard as the fleshpots of the West, they often seem to regard Western Civilization as one big brothel; theirs for the taking.

Anushirvan | March 19, 2012 11:32 AM | Reply

"The Catholic writer Peter Kreeft even calls upon Christians to learn from Muslims “the absoluteness of the moral laws and of the demand to be just and charitable.”

We have to make sure to reiterate that Peter Kreeft:

1) wrongly assumes the position that Islam is a religion with equal merit comparable to Christianity, simply because he finds some commonalities with Islam: a belief system that adheres to an Absolute transcendent morality, that is essentially static, unchangeable, thus metaphysical by nature. And that's as far as the comparison goes. He never makes mention of the totalitarian aspects of Islam, which are totally absent from his mind.

2) doesn't really want to dig deeper under the surface to really start scrutinizing the contents of Islam and therefore (disingenuously ?) makes a pact with Muslims to denounce and rebuke what is purported to be the "immorality within Western society in this day and age", which both Islam and Kreeft's strain of Christianity essentially attribute solely to atheism. They have both found a common enemy, so to speak.

3) will consequently find himself opposite all those Christians, atheists, secularists, Jews and people of any other creed that are indeed truly reasonable human beings, truly charitable, just and able to altruistically put the human rights issues of all those persecuted by Islam to the fore as more important than to disperse a load of self-righteous gobbledegook that mirrors leftwing PC MC liberalism.

By his own admission, Peter Kreeft says about as much as "there are good Christians on this planet, such as myself, and there are bad Christians who can learn a thing or two from Islam."

Really, you stupid wanker ? Makes me think of Salafis who proclaim Takfir on all other Muslims, BTW.

It takes a fanatic to know one, apparently: slamming Christians and atheists all in one go. Very cosy indeed.

LemonLime | March 19, 2012 11:44 AM | Reply

A complex and strange phenomenon requires a pithy term, particularly when that phenomenon is part of a constellation of factors pertaining to one culture whose members are enabling, promoting and perpetrating mass-murderous attacks on our societies (and on other societies around the world).

The term I propose for Mohammedans in the context of the subjet of Spencer's essay here is sexual schizophrenia.

The term is necessary because Islam, and Muslims following Islam, do evidently hold sincere beliefs of a fanatically extreme and obsessive puritanical attitude with regard to sexuality; and yet we also know from copious evidence that Muslims routinely indulge in, and even institutionalize, sexual depravity. The schizoprenia involved here, then, is a psychological and cultural paradox of puritanism and depravity.

Too often I have found in discussions of this subject with regard to Muslims, only one half of the paradox is treated. Hardly better diagnostically is another tendency among analysts to imply that one of the two halves of the paradox is not really real: thus a D'Souza would over-emphasize the puritanical half; while the anti-Islam critic who has little taste or capability of subtlety will imply (or boldly claim) that the puritanical half is feigned, and that only the depravity is real. Both tendencies I think are misquided, and fail to capture one of the many features of the unique disease of Islam.

More broadly, these tendencies we have to make end-runs around the paradox of the Mohammedan mind and culture are our ways to rationalize them. Some things are simply indissolubly irrational -- like mental disease, or Satanism. And when they pose deadly dangers to our societies, these rationalizations can sometimes lead to grievous, or reckless miscalculations; for when defending yourself and your society from a monster or a ghoul, it behooves, on a purely pragmatic level, not to expect a human being capable of reason to be the one trying to hack down your door to murder you and the 5-year-old daughter of a friend with an axe.

Spencer's article goes on to cite a Shi’ite seminarian (i.e., a Mohammedan) named Aqa Najafi Quchani who, as Spencer explains, basically defines the Islamic institution of "temporary marriage" (which, pace Islam apologists, is both a Shia and a Sunni practice) as both

a) lawful and therefore spiritually pure (in the Muslim mind, law -- as long, obviously, as it is Islamic law -- and spiritual purity, are synonymous)

and

b) as a way of "killing the Infidel".

This clarification by Quchani places the schizophrenia of depravity and puritanism (already contained within the institution of "temporary marriage" which is spiritually sanctified and Pharisaically codified casual sex) in the context of the murderous hatred of the non-Muslim which is at the core of Islam, and which is the reason why we even bother to care about their disease at all.

This sexual schizophrenia bedevils the Mohammedan mind, and the Mohammedan society; perhaps the former literally (though not necessarily literalistically), making the latter an all-too real ((though not necessarily literalistic) Hell on Earth.

Champ ♥ | March 19, 2012 12:32 PM | Reply

The Catholic writer Peter Kreeft even calls upon Christians to learn from Muslims ...

~~~~~~~~~~~

Stop right there, Peter ..I have learned all I care to ever learn from muslims, and your assertion that they could teach me a thing or two is beyond absurd and it flies in the face of common sense. Besides, muslims do not possess the truth on any level, and I'm quite stunned that you would suggest such a thing especially to Christians; considering how differently muslims view our LORD Jesus Christ. To muslims Jesus is not the son of God and will come in the last days to destroy all Christians that refuse to become muslims--which goes totally against the teachings of Jesus. Seems that YOU are the one in need of an education about islam and company, you complete and utter moron. Stop giving advice you have no business giving. Wow, you are really out of touch with what they teach, arent' you?

gravenimage | March 19, 2012 12:34 PM | Reply

Robert Spencer: Sex, Jihad and Islam

They hate us because we’re pigs...Immoral, lecherous, lustful, fornicating creeps. Western immorality is a frequent feature of the Islamic critique of the contemporary West, as well as a target for the morality police of Sharia states. In the summer of 2009 Iranian authorities even published a list of hairstyles that were acceptably moral and Islamic, as opposed to “decadent” Western imports, among which were the ponytail and the mullet.
...................................

This whole argument is profoundly perverse. In Iraq, kids sporting "Emo" haircuts are *stoned to death with concrete blocks* by the official "Moral Police". The idea that it is more immoral to listen to Weezer than it is to wantonly murder kids for listening to Weezer shows this grotesque "morality" for what it is.

Western decadence is also a frequent preoccupation of Islamic jihadists. In December 2010, a Muslim named Taimour Abdulwahab al-Abdaly set off explosives on a street in Stockholm that was crowded with Christmas shoppers, killing himself and injuring two others. His wife, who was herself later arrested for helping plan the attack, explained that Abdulwahab “disliked the decadent side of society here.”
...................................

That "decadence" here might be nothing more than shopping for Christmas presents for the kids...

Even if this was just the target and not the motive, what "decadent side of society" could be so great that it could possibly be addressed by *blowing up families* shopping for Christmas gifts?

Even some non-Muslim writers echo this critique. Dinesh D’Souza argued in his 2007 farrago The Enemy At Home that Islamic jihadists were largely motivated by rage at the West’s “social and moral corruption,” and asserted that “the Muslims who hate us the most are the ones who have encountered Western decadence, either in the West or in their own countries.”

The Catholic writer Peter Kreeft even calls upon Christians to learn from Muslims “the absoluteness of the moral laws and of the demand to be just and charitable.”
...................................

These people are moral idiots.

Yet writers like Kreeft and D’Souza never seem to examine the actual content of Islamic morality to see what exactly in Islam constitutes being “just and charitable.”
...................................

So true. "Just" is a byword for Shari'ah Law. which is savage and arbitrary, and results in such things as *the stoning of rape victims*.And "charitable" refers more to "Zakat" funding for violent Jihad than for supporting orphanages, hospitals, and aid for refugees,

Who sponsors most of *this* charity? Why, that would be the "decadent West".

And while Islamic supremacists rail against Western decadence, few realize that what they offer as an alternative is hardly the vision of moral uprightness that many assume. A few years ago President George W. Bush declared that we were fighting for “moms and dads in Iraq.” He might more accurately have said “moms and moms and moms and moms and dads in Iraq,” for his assumption that the Western model of the nuclear family would also be a universal in the Islamic world was not borne out either by Islamic law or the facts on the ground.

The moral universe of Islam is, indeed, radically different from the Judeo-Christian one
...................................

So *very true*. Islamic "morality" includes sex slavery, child "marriage", forced marriage, sacralized rape—including homosexual rape—while stigmatizing and further abusing the *victims*, polygamy, temporary "Mu'ta" marriages, summary divorce (the "Triple Talaaq"), wife beating, and "honor killings".

The fact is, the most flagrant singles bar, wife-swapping party, or gay bath house is *far* more moral than Islam, since all contact is consensual, and none of it involves children.

And never mind that the above presents the norm in the West *only* in the fevered imagination of Muslims.

The idea—promulgated by both Muslims and by otherwise rational Western social critics—that Islam is "moral" could not be more false.

The West does have its problems, but few that would not be rendered *much* worse with Shari'ah and its "cures".

Islam has *nothing* to "teach us".

Important article from Robert Spencer.

Kepha replied to comment from Anushirvan | March 19, 2012 3:08 PM | Reply

As a Christian who laments the moral tailspin into which my civilization has fallen, I find Peter Kreeft utterly disgusting, and I think that Robert Spencer did a proper job on him when they debated. As for Islam and the "moral law", I can't help but note that a lot of things traditional Christians saw as sinful are acceptable if done by a Muslim male. The violence which Islam accepts as an ordinary part of its modus operandus strikes me as a poke in the eye of the Sixth Commandment (against murder). The open belief that Muslims have the right to loot the Kufr also insults the Commandment against theft. And as for the Islamic god who seems to be a prisoner of the Arabic language and is nakedly an Arabian warlord writ large (I wonder which one?), this smacks of idolatry--remaking god in our image--even if it doesn't involve wood and stone.

Kepha replied to comment from miriam rove | March 19, 2012 3:15 PM | Reply

Miriam, as an American and a Christian, I respect the frankness of your posting concerning the impressions you got of our civilization from the movies. And I beg your forgiveness for having my been that young guy who hissed at you when I saw you in the park.

I've since learned that our big money-making pop culture has misrepresented us to more of the world than just Iran and other Muslim-majority countries; and that if those of us who abhor the immoral revolution hadn't subsidized Hollywood by buying its products, it wouldn't be spilling its garbage into every stream of consciousness on the planet.

gravenimage replied to comment from LemonLime | March 19, 2012 5:13 PM | Reply

LemonLime wrote:

The term I propose for Mohammedans in the context of the subjet of Spencer's essay here is sexual schizophrenia.

You bring up a *very* import point here, LemonLime.

While it is certainly true that many Muslims are simply hypocrites in a perfectly recognizable manner, as in the Saudi "Sheikh" who would kill a sister who committed "Zina", but has no qualms about jetting off to Monte Carlo for a weekend of gambling and call girls.

But it is also true that—bizarrely, by the standards of the West—that prudishness and what we would consider sexual decadence can coexist at the same time with Muslims.

A pious Muslim who would be appalled at the idea of hiring an adult prostitute would consider it perfectly Halal to contract a Mu'ta marriage with an Imam whereby he enjoys the sexual favors of an under-aged child while he is on pilgrimage. And this would be just as acceptable if he was already married.

We, however, would be appalled at the spectacle of a religious cleric pimping out a child to a married man, especially if he was supposed to be on a religious pilgrimage at the time.

All perfectly 'moral" in Islamic terms, though...

Wellington replied to comment from gravenimage | March 19, 2012 5:58 PM | Reply

Your analysis, gravenimage, a response to LemonLime's subtle take on sexuality in the Muslim world, is right on point. To you both I would simply add a summation of sorts, crude though it might be. Here it is: Islam is really screwed up---on sex and most everything else.

So tired of Islam's many dysfunctional aspects, as I know you are. Hope you and yours are doing well, my anti-Islamic friend.

Infidel replied to comment from gravenimage | March 19, 2012 10:22 PM | Reply

As Ali Sina once pointed out, islam has no golden rule. So while a Muslim may go ahead and have a one night stand w/ an underaged girl - even/especially a Muslim girl, he will kill his own sister/daughter/neice if somebody else were to enter into one of those Mutah marriages w/ her.

It's one thing that they don't consider it hypocrisy, since in their worldview, Infidels and Women are lowlives. But what's particularly fascinating is that they don't care about their own people: if A's daughter got raped by B, then in the absense of A being able to do anything to B particularly if his daughter doesn't have 4 witnesses, A's only 'redress' would be to rape a girl in B's family, so that B gets tainted as well, and has to redeem his honor by killing the taintee. Obviously, not only is the golden rule not applicable to Infidels or women - it's not even applicable to each other.

It's hard to make any of this stuff up, if one tried: even hell is too good a place for Muslims.

gravenimage replied to comment from Infidel | March 20, 2012 7:00 AM | Reply

Infidel Pride wrote:

So while a Muslim may go ahead and have a one night stand w/ an underaged girl - even/especially a Muslim girl, he will kill his own sister/daughter/neice if somebody else were to enter into one of those Mutah marriages w/ her.
......................................

IP, this point has never been terribly clear to me. From what I have been able to learn, it sounds as if the *family themselves* is pimping out the girl, often using the *local Imam* as procurer.

But I do know that if the girl gets pregnant, that—occasional protestations to the contrary—that the father neither acknowledges any children nor provides for them.

Being a single mother in the Muslim world is incredibly grim—ranging from mother and child being despised and discriminated against in places like Tunisia (I've read accounts, not involving Mu'ta marriages, but often involving rape) and are often reduced to begging or prostitution; to being subject to imprisonment in places like Pakistan; to being subject to judicial murder in places like Iran. Likely Tunisia is poised to become considerably worse in the fast Islamizing conditions there.

And, of course, in cases of incestuous rape, the victim is often murdered by her own rapist if she becomes pregnant, to restore the "family honor".

God, I hate Islam.

gravenimage replied to comment from Infidel | March 20, 2012 7:18 AM | Reply

Infidel Pride wrote:

IP, I believe it is the families *themselves* that often pimp girls out to Mu'ta marriages, usually using the local Imam as procurer.

But I do know that—occasional protestations to the contrary—that any children resulting from a Mu'ta "marriage" are neither acknowledged nor provided for by the father.

Being a "single mother" in the Muslim world is an incredibly grim prospect—ranging from Tunisia (where such case are often due to rape) where mother and child are despised and discriminated against, and often reduced to begging or prostitution; to Pakistan, where she is often subject to imprisonment under the Hudud laws; to Iran, where she is often subject to judicial murder.

And in fast Islamizing Tunisia, things are likely poised to become much worse.

And, in cases of incestuous rape, a girl who gets pregnant may be murdered *by her own rapist* to cleanse the "family honor".

God, I hate Islam.

gravenimage replied to comment from gravenimage | March 20, 2012 7:22 AM | Reply

Sorry for the similar posts. The first one simply disappeared—even hitting "refresh" didn't bring it up. Not sure I've had that happen before...

SISAC | March 20, 2012 8:24 AM | Reply

'what exactly in Islam constitutes being “just and charitable.”' This is exactly the question I ask every Muslim that I encounter. What is the equivalent moral code in Islam to the Ten Commandment and the Sermon on the Mount? And I wait for their response rather making assumptions, judgement, or answering my own question. I would then move on to the question of the Prophet Mohammed and have them tell me who he was before sharing the information that I have gathered.

LemonLime | March 20, 2012 9:58 AM | Reply

I repeat: it's a mistake to condemn Muslims on our terms -- for that is to rationalize them, and indulge in sort of the reverse of the "back-handed compliment": the "reverse condemnation".

The reason I oppose this thought pattern (or mental tic) we too often indulge in is because by rationalizing Muslims in a Western way, we pave the way, even if only through the door of our thoughts, for their assimilation into the human family. They are not in the human family. We should stop treating them as the "crazy uncle" of Mankind, whose pathology we can explain by "hypocrisy" or some other understandable Western mechanism; and rather simply bracket them out altogether. Their disorder is unique. Other unique cultural diseases (such as cannibalism, for example) have long since become so rare as to be non-existent, and certainly don't continue to beset the world on an international scale.

LemonLime | March 20, 2012 10:04 AM | Reply

And once again I notice Wellington's curiously detached and abstract way of expressing his antipathy to the problem:

"So tired of Islam's many dysfunctional aspects..."

Without Muslims putting Islam into practice all over the world, Islam would be as harmless and inert (though still intellectually repellant) as Aztec sacrifice or South Pacific cannibalism. Are Muslims incapable of refraining from putting Islam into practice? Who's the one dehumanizing Muslims here? Old Goebbels-reminiscent Hesperado, or someone who consistently implies that Muslims cannot help themselves, as though they were robots and the abstraction Islam were the culprit in the driver's seat?

Infidel replied to comment from gravenimage | March 20, 2012 11:30 AM | Reply

Gravenimage

I don't think that families themselves pimp out the girls, since for them, honor is what is at stake. They'd rather give those girls away in permanent marriages, or, what's more common, just sell them. In other words, they hand over the girls to those aged husbands, pocket the cash, and hope to never hear from them again. I recall this happening a few times in India, except that there, the police did intervene and prevent the marriages to minors from going ahead. But if the girl is not a minor, she's outta luck.

As the Afghan case of the woman who was forced to marry her rapist showed, most Muslims would either see 'their women' married permanently, or else, just disappear. Since the latter can't easily happen in most cases, death is what they opt for.

The one thing that amazes me is that Muslim society hasn't gone extinct w/ all the women they've slaughtered in executions and honor killings. The Russians can barely maintain their population levels @ replacement rates, but the Muslims have no problems multiplying despite what they subject their women to.

LemonLime replied to comment from Infidel | March 20, 2012 11:47 AM | Reply

"...Muslims have no problems multiplying despite what they subject their women to."

Another indication that a sufficiently vast number of Muslim women are stockholm-syndromically complicit -- often enthusiastically and fanatically -- in their own oppression (and are thus better seen as our enemies rather than victims requiring the waste of our time, effort, money and lives to help them).

Wellington replied to comment from LemonLime | March 20, 2012 12:42 PM | Reply

You're overthinking again, LemonLime. Both Islam and Muslims are the problem. Ditto for Marxism and Marxists. Neo-Nazism and Neo-Nazis, the KKK and Klansmen. And if you can come up with a heinous belief system or organization which doesn't have a single adherent, then that belief system or organization is still a problem but in a potential way and not an actual one.

LemonLime replied to comment from Wellington | March 20, 2012 1:23 PM | Reply

I don't think I was overthinking; I was just checking. You may be surprised how many in the anti-Islam movement (such as it is) resist condemning Muslims, but pride themselves on their no-nonsense toughness against Islam per se. (And of course, I haven't yet mentioned the dreaded A word -- all -- which I'll leave for another time.)

Wellington replied to comment from LemonLime | March 20, 2012 3:16 PM | Reply

Yes, LemonLime, all followers or supporters of an evil ideology or institution are a problem. Every last one of them. But, and here's the digger, not all are evil. All are confused and on the wrong side of history but not all are evil. And so when the humane and more enlightened portion of the world is forced to deal with folks who are at least confused and perhaps also evil, I think a distinction has to be made between "merely" the confused and those who are both confused AND evil. It's just another burden that the best of civilization has to deal with.

As an example here, take Jefferson Davis. I don't for one moment think that he was an evil man but he certainly was a confused human being because he thought that slavery was defensible. After all, the ultimate solution to dealing with American slavery was not to want to expunge from American society every last slave owner, only slavery itself. And this is precisely the complex situation we have today regarding Muslims. All are confused. Some are evil. Their religion is evil. This is the starting point.

Hope you and yours are doing well. I don't always agree with you but I regularly am impressed with your reasoning powers.

vladtepes2 replied to comment from Wellington | March 20, 2012 5:50 PM | Reply

Another point about individual muslims.
The hallmark of islam is conversion at the point of the sword.
Some of todays muslims are yesterdays Christians or Jews or others who were made an offer they couldn't refuse.
Or Christian girls kidnaped in childhood.
Or even descendants of Irish or Ukrainians or others taken as slaves generations ago.
And, the way things are going, tomorrows muslims may be your your grandchildren.

I rail against islam, but I try to keep this in mind:
islam is slavery - abolish slavery - free the slaves - eradicate islam.

As a practical matter, you may get more support for eradicating islam and freeing eveyone who has falled into the pit of islam than by attacking all muslims.

At the same time, I regard islam as an imminent and mortal and existential threat to Western Civilization and to all the people of the West and so drastic action may need to be taken to defend our lives, even at the cost of the lives of otherwise innocent muslims.

I would never have taken the decision that Bush did, to sacrifice thousands of American soldiers in order to spare so called "innocent" muslims.
I would not have spent the life of a single American soldier - if necessary, we have other more drastic means of defeating islam.

LemonLime replied to comment from Wellington | March 20, 2012 6:59 PM | Reply

Yes Wellington, that's a good distinction.

I like to make three distinctions with respect to Islam: evil, unjust and dangerous.

If an ideology were merely evil (e.g., Satanism), it would not be a political (let alone a geopolitical) priority. Were an ideology merely unjust and/or evil, it may be a political concern, but it would not be on the front burner of our priorities. But when it's all three -- as is Islam -- then it moves to the head of the list.

Infidel replied to comment from Wellington | March 20, 2012 7:34 PM | Reply

I didn't ever see 'overthinking' as a problem, except when in the context of Indian 'saas-bahu' TV sitcoms, where mothers-in-law and/or sisters-in-law indulge in that activity, in the absense of nothing better to do.

On vladtapes2's comment above, I think that at this point, it's irrelevant what their ancestors were. Even Mohammed's ancestors were not Muslim. Point being that Muslims have long extinguished the cultural remnants of what they were - an odd Nowruz (Zoroastrian New Year) festival in Iran or the attachment Indonesians have to some aspects of their pre-Islamic culture, such as Garuda Airlines (Garuda being the avian vehicle of Lord Vishnu in Hinduism) should in no way be allowed to mask the fact that they are blazing jihadis whose initial goals are to Islamize their immediate surroundings, followed by their neighbors and the rest of the world. The problem w/ the 'Islam is slavery' analogy is that Muslims are the slave-owners, not the slaves, while dhimmis are the slaves and Infidels in non-Muslim countries are the people they want to make as slaves.

vladtepes2 replied to comment from Infidel | March 20, 2012 8:14 PM | Reply

I mostly agree with you - in fact, you may be entirely right, but...
when I see a member of my own race, or a descendant of my own race, a muslim, but really I think, being held captive as a muslim, then my sympathy goes out to them.
They, or their ancestors, should never have been taken slave in the first place, would that it could have been prevented, but maybe there is still time to put things right for some.

I see the satanic ideology of islam as pure evil ( it's not a religion ), but I would like to think that some of its victims could be saved.

Infidel Pride says
"The problem w/ the 'Islam is slavery' analogy is that Muslims are the slave-owners, not the slaves,"

Today, the giant serpent of islam has my friend, my cousin, my daughter in its jaws, I try to save her, if I fail, then tomorrow she will be digested and become part of the serpent, and I will slay the serpent - but today, while she still lives, I try to save her.

Infidel replied to comment from vladtepes2 | March 20, 2012 9:28 PM | Reply

Your last statement - that you would slay the serpent - is what's true about today's Muslims. They are a part of the larger 1.8 billion strong boa constrictor, which was my point - it's counter-productive to be sympathetic to them just b'cos several generations ago, our ancestries might have been common. As I sometimes point out to DefenderOfIslam, I share the same race as people from Bangladesh, but that doesn't stop me from recognizing them as being amongst my enemies. I certainly don't sympathize w/ them as 'victims of islam'.

I have sympathies for Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians and others who in the middle ages were converted to Islam at swordpoint, or made to covert to Islam in other ways (such as fathers turning over their sons to Muslim conquerors to be raised as Muslims). But none for their descendants, though. While those converted Christians, Buddhists and others may have been the victims of Islam, their descendants of today are not, and our sympathies for their forebears should have an Inheritence tax of 100% and beyond, and not be transfered to them like ancestrial property normally is.

Battle_of_Tours replied to comment from vladtepes2 | March 21, 2012 9:11 AM | Reply

@vladtepes2 : "I see the satanic ideology of islam as pure evil ( it's not a religion ), but I would like to think that some of its victims could be saved."

Here is Islamic morality in simple equation form:

Mo' + ^ll^h / C* = SEX

No matter how you multiply or divide it, it reduces down to sexual depravity, rape, incest, prostitution, pedophelia, sex slavery, women abuse, female genital mutilation, stonings, kidnapings and murder, all to cover up its depraved nature with its hateful primitive "family honor". Islam is where the victims are abused and defenseless slaves. Ugly ugly sick sexuality ala Islam! Man, what a downer…

No wonder they are so quick to commit murder via suicide… It's a way out of their depraved slavery, morally sick world for the dehumanized Slaves of Allah+Mohammud. End this pure evil, thus end slavery for all time.

Wellington replied to comment from LemonLime | March 21, 2012 9:38 AM | Reply

Your distinction of evil, unjust and dangerous, LemonLime, is sound, but what should be the recourse of a civilized, free, Western nation when confronted by all three at once in some ideology? For instance, Communism during the Cold War was arguably all three of your categories but being a member of the American Communist Party was still legal and constitutionally protected (though immigratioin of Communists was disallowed; a model of action for our times perhaps). Also, one needs to be on guard against a McCarthy initiative whereby it becomes fashionable to be anti-anti-something. Re McCarthy, his bungling ways of exposing Communism in America led to anti-anti-Communism, which itself was wrong and stupid. Fortunately, Robert Spencer is anything but a bungler and has played things almost perfectly so far in my opinion.

It is almost always not enough to be right. One must also know how to be right.

LemonLime | March 21, 2012 8:35 PM | Reply

Wellington,

"For instance, Communism during the Cold War was arguably all three of your categories but being a member of the American Communist Party was still legal..."

Yes, but no Communists had done a Pearl Harbor or a 911 on American soil (and 911 was far worse than Pearl Harbor) -- not to mention numerous attacks after 911, both successful and luckily stopped in time; with more sure to come. Why do I have to remind you of this vital and crucial distinction?

can Cho replied to comment from SISAC | March 21, 2012 9:35 PM | Reply

Justice for all is one of the basic principles in Islam. Every one has rights to be fullfilled. God has rights over his creations and likewise creations have rights to be fulfiled by God. what is charitable, well charity is main duty of every beleiver. To spend the wealth to up lift poor and needy is of paramount importance. To sepnd is the command that stands out prominant in the text of quran.

Battle_of_Tours replied to comment from can Cho | March 22, 2012 8:50 AM | Reply

@can Cho: "Justice for all is one of the basic principles in Islam. Every one has rights to be fullfilled. God has rights over his creations and likewise creations have rights to be fulfiled by God."

Do you mean Islam has "equal rights" for ALL human beings regardless of race, gender, or religious beliefs? Well, perhaps you can explain how Allah let these verses slip into the Koran, sanctifying the "master and slave" relationship, which includes rape of captured female slaves and concubines. Is this the "equal" treatment of women your Islamic morality allegedly supports?

This is from FaithFreedom.org article by Alamgir Hussain, with Koran referenced quotes:

"Allah does not only sanction the institution of slavery, He also gave divine blessing to masters (Muslim men only can own slaves) to have sex with the female slaves:
And those who guard their private parts, Except in the case of their wives or those whom their right hands possess—for these surely are not to be blamed [Quran 70:29–30]
And who guard their private parts, Except before their mates or those whom their right hands possess, for they surely are not blameable [Quran 23:5–6]
Therefore, if there are women amongst the captives or slaves, Muslims are divinely sanctioned to have sex with them as they do with their wives. This verdict of Allah founded the institution of sex-slavery or slave-concubinage in Islam, which was widespread in the pre-colonial Muslim world and continued well into the mid-twentieth century. As far as legal marriage is concerned, there is a limitation of four wives for a man at one time [Quran 4:3], but no such limitation on the number of sex-slaves."

It looks like Allah divinely sanctioned "spending wealth" on slaves, especially women slaves, as only Muslim men are allowed to own them and use them for whatever pleasures their atavistic sex urges demand. Not exactly the Ten Commandments, is it? In the Western civilization's moral imperative, this command by Allah is called "prostitution".

can Cho replied to comment from Battle_of_Tours | March 22, 2012 6:49 PM | Reply

Quran emphasizes on liberating slaves. There is huge reward for freeing slaves. How can you say Islam supports the instituion of slavery.
Fourteen hundred years ago it was a rule to slaughter all those taken as prisoners after the war was over. This was changed by muslims. The prisoners were treated humanely. You are right female prisoners of war were taken as sex partners but freeing them was considred as rewarding. Polygamy was common in good old days. Abraham the great patriarch had two wives. In other major world religions polygamy was common as well. You can not single out Islam.

Wellington replied to comment from can Cho | March 25, 2012 4:38 PM | Reply

I can single out Islam. It condoned the slavery of blacks many centuries before the Christian world, starting with the Portugese, got into it in the fifteenth century. And more important is the fact that the Western world, starting with the Quakers in the late seventeenth century, arrived at the conclusion that slavery was deeply morally wrong and thereafter took major measures to end it. When did Islam, on its own, come to the conclusion that slavery was a great moral transgression?

For instance, the British ended the slave trade in 1807 and America did so in 1808. Britain ended slavery throughout its empire in 1833 and America, after a brutal civil war, ended it in 1865. And yet slavery continued in the Islamic world well into the twentieth century (e.g., Saudi Arabia only ended it in 1962). Islam is retrograde in so many ways. Doing nothing about slavery until compelled to do so from non-Muslims is just one example of a multitiude of examples that could be provided.

In short, Islam never is the leader in trying to create a better world. It does provide a few scraps here and there, for example the People of the Book rot, to make it look like it is progressive. But Islam is a guarantee, in the final analysis, that the world will always go backwards. In short, Islam really sucks and you're a fool to think otherwise. Fortunately, with each passing year, more and more non-Muslims are coming to realize just how awful Islam is.

can Cho replied to comment from Wellington | March 25, 2012 10:45 PM | Reply

I assume you are telling me I am idiot to follow Islam. I am not offended at all. I am not thin skinned at all. I just want your opinion why in the world India observed a slave dynasty. Yes slaves assumed the power and became rulers but did not give up the title SLAVE. that is right Islam changed the very basics that makes a person slave competley abolishing the misery of slavery and emansipating the salves. the former slave became the companion of prophet of Islam. What an ascention. on the otherhand west exploited the salves and left no end to the brutal and inhumae treatment of slaves. I konw you are the advocate of the west why in the world constitution of USA did not include artical to abolish slavery. thanks waiting for your reply

NOTE: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.

FrontPageMag.com

Books by Robert Spencer

The Muslim Brotherhood in America, by Robert Spencer

Islamophobia: Thoughtcrime of the Totalitarian Future

Muslim Persecution of Christians, by Robert Spencer

The Ground Zero Mosque: Second Wave of the 9/11 Attacks

“My comrade-in-arms, my pal, my buddy.”
— Oriana Fallaci

“Robert Spencer incarnates intellectual courage when, all over the world, governments, intellectuals, churches, universities and media crawl under a hegemonic Universal Caliphate’s New Order. His achievement in the battle for the survival of free speech and dignity of man will remain as a fundamental monument to the love of, and the self-sacrifice for, liberty.”
— Bat Ye’or

“Robert Spencer is indefatigable. He is keeping up the good fight long after many have already given up. I do not know what we would do without him. I appreciate all the intelligence and courage it takes to keep going despite the appeasement of the West.”
— Ibn Warraq

“America's most informed, fearless, and compelling voice on modern jihadism.”
— Andrew C. McCarthy, Senior Fellow at National Review Institute

“Robert Spencer is the leading voice of scholarship and reason in a world gone mad. If the West is to be saved, we will owe Robert Spencer an incalculable debt.”
— Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs

"The consummate Islam critic and expert." — Bruce Bawer

“Over the years, we have become friends, and I have received his assistance on several pieces of legislation I proposed.”
— Former Congressman Tom Tancredo

“Few people are capable of applying scholarship, analytical reasoning, and objectivity to their topic -- while simultaneously being readable and witty -- as can Robert Spencer.”
— Raymond Ibrahim

“A national treasure...The acclaimed scholar of Islam.”
— Frank Gaffney, Center for Security Policy

“I am indeed honored to call him my friend.”
— Brad Thor, novelist

“A top American analyst of Islam....A serious scholar...I learn from him.”
— Daniel Pipes

“A brilliant scholar and writer.”
— Douglas Murray

"One of my best teachers."
— Ashraf Ramelah, Voice of the Copts

“Thank God there’s at least one man with balls left in the West.”
— Kathy Shaidle, Five Feet of Fury

“I read people like [Mark Steyn] and Bob Spencer and the rest of them, and I say, ‘Boortz, you’re pretending you’re an author. These people really are. They really write some entertaining, some standup stuff.’”
— Neal Boortz

“Robert Spencer is the Stephen King of Jihad.”
— Chris Gaubatz, Muslim Mafia

“Armed with facts and fearlessness, Spencer stands up for Western civilization.”
— Michelle Malkin

“Widely read in conservative foreign policy circles.”
— New York Times

“Widely read in many quarters in Washington.”
— Washington Post

“A canny operative who likely has the inside track on the State Department’s Middle East affairs desk should the tea party win the White House.”
— New York Magazine

“A hero of the American right.”
— Karen Armstrong

"The leading anti-Islamic intellectual in the United States....The go-to Islam expert for the right wing."
— Salon Magazine

“Robert Spencer is an Edward Said turned upside down.”
— Stephen Suleyman Schwartz

“One of the nation's most notorious Islamophobes.”
— Hamas-linked CAIR

"Geller and Spencer are probably the most important propagandizing Islamophobes in the world. These people's voices speak very loudly — not just here in the United States but overseas."
— Heidi Beirach, Southern Poverty Law Center

“Satanic ignoramus.”
— Khaleel Mohammed

“The Likud anti-Christ.”
— Dar al-Hayat newspaper (Saudi Arabia)

“Zionist Crusader, missionary of hate, counter-Islam consultant.”
— Al-Qaeda’s Adam Gadahn, “Azzam the American”