Egypt’s Islamic supremacist-dominated Parliament mulling laws legalizing child marriage and sex with corpses

Here is yet more delightful evidence that Sharia is benign and completely compatible with U.S. Constitutional values, as we are constantly told. “Egypt’s women urge MPs not to pass early marriage, sex-after-death laws: report,” by Abeer Tayel for Al Arabiya, April 25 (thanks to Stephen):

Egypt’s National Council for Women (NCW) has appealed to the Islamist-dominated parliament not to approve two controversial laws on the minimum age of marriage and allowing a husband to have sex with his dead wife within six hours of her death according to a report in an Egyptian newspaper.

The appeal came in a message sent by Dr. Mervat al-Talawi, head of the NCW, to the Egyptian People’s Assembly Speaker, Dr. Saad al-Katatni, addressing the woes of Egyptian women, especially after the popular uprising that toppled president Hosni Mubarak in February 2011.

She was referring to two laws: one that would legalize the marriage of girls starting from the age of 14 and the other that permits a husband to have sex with his dead wife within the six hours following her death.

According to Egyptian columnist Amro Abdul Samea in al-Ahram, Talawi’s message included an appeal to parliament to avoid the controversial legislations that rid women of their rights of getting education and employment, under alleged religious interpretations.

The controversy about a husband having sex with his dead wife came about after a Moroccan cleric spoke about the issue in May 2011.

Zamzami Abdul Bari said that marriage remains valid even after death adding that a woman also too had the same right to engage in sex with her dead husband.

Two years ago, Zamzami incited further controversy in Morocco when he said it was permissible for pregnant women to drink alcohol.

But it seems his view on partners having sex with their deceased partners has found its way to Egypt one year on.

Egyptian prominent journalist and TV anchor Jaber al-Qarmouty on Tuesday referred to Abdul Samea’s article in his daily show on Egyptian ON TV and criticized the whole notion of “permitting a husband to have sex with his wife after her death under a so-called “˜Farewell Intercourse” draft law.”

“This is very serious. Could the panel that will draft the Egyptian constitution possibly discuss such issues? Did Abdul Samea see by his own eyes the text of the message sent by Talawi to Katatni? This is unbelievable. It is a catastrophe to give the husband such a right! Has the Islamic trend reached that far? Is there really a draft law in this regard? Are there people thinking in this manner?”

Many members of the newly-elected, and majority Islamist parliament, have been accused of launching attacks against women’s rights in the country.

They wish to cancel many, if not most, of the laws that promote women’s rights, most notably a law that allows a wife to obtain a divorce without obstructions from her partner. The implementation of the Islamic right to divorce law, also known as the Khula, ended years of hardship and legal battles women would have to endure when trying to obtain a divorce.

Egyptian law grants men the right to terminate a marriage, but grants women the opportunity to end an unhappy or abusive marriages without the obstruction of their partner. Prior to the implementation of the Khula over a decade ago, it could take 10 to 15 years for a woman to be granted a divorce by the courts.

Islamist members of Egyptian parliament, however, accuse these laws of “aiming to destroy families” and have said it was passed to please the former first lady of the fallen regime, Suzanne Mubarak, who devoted much of her attention to the issues of granting the women all her rights….

Egypt: Muslim Brotherhood MP Seeks to Abolish Female Rights and Enforce Female Genital Mutilation
Sharia in Egypt: Nation's most popular comedian found guilty of insulting Islam
FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint

Comments

  1. says

    and the other that permits a husband to have sex with his dead wife within the six hours following her death,

    *****

    File that one under EEEEEUUUUUWWWWW !!!

    Only from “great” Islamic minds !

  2. says

    Egypt’s Islamic supremacist-dominated Parliament mulling laws legalizing child marriage and sex with corpses
    ……………………….

    More of the baleful legacy of the “Prophet” Muhammed.

    It is well documented that Muhammed married Aisha when she was just six years of age, and consummated the marriage when she was was a little nine-year-old child.

    As to necrophilia, this is from a book called “Kanz Al Umal” (The Treasure of the Workers), in the chapter of “The issues of women”, authored by Ali Ibn Husam Aldin, commonly known as Al-Mutaki Al-Hindi. He based his book on the hadiths and sayings listed in “Al-Jami Al-Saghir,” written by Jalal ul-Din Al-Suyuti.

    Here is the Hadith:

    Narrated by Ibn Abbas:

    “I (Muhammad) put on her my shirt that she may wear the clothes of heaven, and I slept with her in her coffin that I may lessen the pressure of the grave.” (“The prophet was referring to Fatima, the mother of Ali.)

    The Arabic word used here for slept is “Id’tajat,” and literally means “lay down” with her. It is often used to mean, “Lay down to have sex.”

    Father Zakaria Botros has cited this numerous times.

    Some Muslims deny that the Hadith above indicated that Muhammed actually had sex with the poor woman’s corpse, but that he simply slept in her grave”which is rather disturbing in and of itself, of course.

    In any case, though, in the above instance these are not some “Islamophobes” referring to Islam’s approval of necrophilia, but *Muslims themselves*.

    Of course, as shocking as the necrophilia passage is, I’m even more concerned about the further condoning of child rape, which has caused so much suffering all over the Muslim world.

    Whenever a society becomes more Islamic”as are the countries of the “Arab Spring”, pedophilia raises its ugly head, per the model of Islam’s “ideal man”.

  3. says

    “that permits a husband to have sex with his dead wife within the six hours following her death.”

    Can we assume that the husband doesn’t get an answer when, afterwards, he asks, “Was it good for you?” (though such consideration may be haram in islam)

    “…a woman also too had the same right to engage in sex with her dead husband.”

    Umm, there could be some…umm, MECHANICAL problems there? I mean, uhhhh, you know, ummmm, well, ahhhh…

    Never mind…

  4. says

    Even the Bizarro World out of the old Superman comic books was less bizarre than Islam. A major key to Islam’s eventual destruction is to just let more and more about Islam keep coming out over the years. Islam will help to do itself in. The modern world is passing Islam by and Islam will never catch up. It can’t, and this is because it is indeed, as Ataturk is alleged to have said, “the immoral theology of a seventy-century Bedouin, a rotting corpse that poisons our lives.” I would only add that the “rotting corpse” part of this quote takes on additional meaning in light of what is reported in this article.

    Yep, can’t make this stuff up. And Bizarro World is startin’ to look almost normal like.

  5. says

    They are saying the corpse sleeping thing – came from the Morocco fatwa – where a man asked [just joking – the next time his wife dies] could he sleep with her.

    And the Imam answered yes!

    But the adult breastfeeding and the intercourse with the dead woman ‘controversies’, likely were stirred up by Father Zakaria Botros – reading the Hadiths – the obscure ones that perhaps Muslims would rather forget.

    [It was after this – we began hearing talk about putting these strange Islamic findings into law – embarrassingly so!]

    Shocking what Muhammad did or what he thought he was ‘guided’ to do. And that this is the legacy Muslims are obliged to follow.

  6. says

    But a man having sex with a dead woman who was NOT his wife? What about that? Halal or haram?! Yes, I know, of course haram, and no doubt he would be severely punished…

  7. says

    Must coitus be completed within the six hour window or must only the initial penetration be made in that time?

    This is an interesting question for Honest Ibe Hooper and all libtarded dhimmis to consider.

    Islam: pure evil

  8. says

    MY COMMENT ON MOHAMMED AND NECROPHILIA

    When I posted my comment earlier today on Robert’s new book about necrophilia possibly being one of the disgusting details that Ibn Hisham may have purged from Mohammed’s biography I said that to mock the prophet never realizing it could be true. Could what I said about Mohammed eating the flesh and drinking the blood of his murdered enemies also be true? What about his sodomizing of boys and bestiality and marrying a mule? Do these now seem farfetched after reading this piece about Islam and after death sex? Is it much different than making love to a statue or stone? Maybe Muhammad had the hots for the Kaaba?

    Here’s a short Moslem poem that’s apropos:

    We love death
    More than you love life
    And that includes having sex
    With our dear departed wives.
    It differs little from making love
    To a statue or stone
    But our great prophet had the hots
    For the Kaaba you know.

  9. says

    “…a woman also too had the same right to engage in sex with her dead husband.”

    Umm, there could be some…umm, MECHANICAL problems there? I mean, uhhhh, you know, ummmm, well, ahhhh…

    Never mind…

    ———————————
    Comment:

    Well, actually, with a little help of her hands, mouth, and rigor mortis (“stiffness of death”), he might be hard enough! And, she could get 6 months of pleasure out of him – more than she’d probably gotten during their entire marriage.

    He’d even get that eternal erection those martyr-wannabees struggle for!

  10. says

    I guess, in Arabia, a corpse would still be intact enough to have sex with for six months.

    Islamic science (education) at its best.

    Leave no corpse behind! Or, leave no corpse’s behind alone.

  11. says

    Muslim men can marry additional, wives, regardless of whether their current wive(s) are jealous. Muslim men can also beat the wive(s) if they disobey commands to submit to sex.
    It’s not difficult to imagine that when these women submit to their husband’s commands for sex, they are likely to not be thrilled to do so… probably just lay there like a corpse. Therefore, having sex with a dead Muslima wife is probably quite similar to when they are still alive.

  12. says

    Sharia = imprisonment of the mind—and of the body and spirit too. Have Sharia to the extent that it does exist and you have man as robot to the extent that man can be such.

    Sharia doesn’t expand the human condition. Rather it diminishes it to the extent that it is applied.

    Islam is the religion which puts straight-jackets on people and it calls this both proper and virtuous. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    Islam makes slaves of Allah and Muslims in turn make slaves of non-Muslims. A more wretched belief system would be hard to find.

  13. says

    I hope people will now understand why I want to crusade for children’s rights in canada and expose these canadian Corporations that do Business with the Sex-Tourism islamic nations that actually aid and abet canadian men to go there have have sex with young girls and the return to canada.

    If we remain silent on our Creeping Shariah from the likesof Imam Steve Rockwell and Aly Hindy along with Dr.Sheema khan form CAIR canada, it will be just a matter of time until they DEMAND Shariah in the no-go zones for the muslim hell-holes imported to Toronto from Gaza and Iran. Pedophila and gay-bashing will be the norm for muslims and the COPS with Hijabs and Niqabs won’t lift a finger to stop it and thus… more Honour killings and child rapes by muslim males since muhammad is their example of the Perfect man that raped Aisha at 53 as she was 9 years old.

    The odd thing though is that the leftist/liberals/feminists and gay community have a unholy romance with the islamic-supremacy thugs and will be killed once they fullfilled their purpose as usefull-idiots for dawah and Taqqiyah.
    When i tried to save gays from the Pro-hamas goons in the PRIDE parade in Toronot canada, I got the usual Homophobe label when i really was against the pro-hamas people since gays are murdered in gaza and most OIC armpit nations.

    Medina is a A$$hole of islam, and Mekkah is about 100 miles up it with one huge boil that muslims face and pray to 5 times a day .

  14. says

    There is something hugely more important for freedom and the free world than Muslims in Egypt marrying children or having sex with corpses according to Islamic law – the coming American elections.

    Obama needs to be voted out and you guys need to get behind Romney, or else you might think that Allah sux, but sux you will.

  15. says

    Islamist members [i.e., plain old Muslims] of Egyptian parliament, however, accuse these laws [the Khula, “that allows a wife to obtain a divorce without obstructions from her partner”] of “aiming to destroy families” and have said it was passed to please the former first lady of the fallen regime, Suzanne Mubarak, who devoted much of her attention to the issues of granting the women all her rights….

    “Suzanne” Mubarak, eh? I can see her now, in a pastel pantsuit.

    And let us not forget, by repeating:

    …the former first lady of the fallen regime, Suzanne Mubarak, who devoted much of her attention to the issues of granting the women all her rights….

    Oh, those terrible dictators of Muslim countries. In fact, if it weren’t for most of the dictators of modern Muslim countries, life would have devolved into sheer Talibanesque Shaba’abian shiskabob Hell in those countries, what with the natural appetite of most Muslims for their slavish submission to Muhammad and the Koran.

  16. says

    I apologize to everyone in advance, but I can’t help it.

    ===============================

    If a man gives a woman
    an explosive suicide vest,
    is she a blow-up doll?
    I ask only half in jest.

  17. says

    Sex with the dead! Yugh! But necrophilia is too clumsy a word to use. From now on, I’ll refer to this disgusting act as ‘Shari’a shafting’.

    Clowns!

  18. says

    Bizarro World indeed.

    But you know, the explanation will be that those are “Pre-modern Practices”, nothing to do with us! Or only in backward places!

    And the ghost of the late Jameela Barnette will appear, and spout rantings about “cannibal Christians”.

  19. says

    Abusing and disrespecting women is what we’ve come to expect from mohammedans while women are alive, and now it seems after women are dead, as well. I guess it isn’t enough to abuse and disrespect women while they are alive. No, it doesn’t stop there, and this final gross sex act really punctuates how evil mohammedans are and how low they will go to prove just how worthless women are to them. Ironically, these men are revealing their own lack of character and worth–not women’s, and how barbaric and vile islam & company truly are.

  20. says

    Muslims are more than welcome to have sex w/ their dead wives. It’s when they have sex w/ their living wives that i have a problem – b’cos they then expand the population of islam, w/ all its societal implications.

    This from the same country that gave islam the ‘Reliance of the Traveller’, and all that stuff about the sacredness of Mohammed’s urine, and so on. Isn’t it wonderful that they’re debating all these things now? With some luck, other countries like Pakistan, Libya, Saudi Arabia and so on can adapt them, so that they can move towards a more islamic future.

  21. says

    Pope Benedict XVI quoted a 14th-Century Christian emperor who said Muhammad had brought the world only “evil and inhuman” things . . .

  22. says

    And do you promise to take this woman to be your lawfully wedded wife until death do you part, ….. and, eh, up to around six hours after, if you’re in the mood?

    Clowns!

  23. says

    Once again, Islam shows that its “sexual ethics” are merely granting blessing to every sexual lust of the male sex.

    In contrast:

    For the woman which have a husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband (Rom. 7:2). Hence the “…till death do us part” in traditional Christian marriage vows.

  24. says

    It’s strange, but I didn’t see ‘sex with your wife within six hours of her death’ at the ‘1001 islamic inventions’ exhibition in Istanbul…

    To be honest, I’m all for Islamic countries becoming more Islamic. Because that means they will become even more backward, retarded, and primitive than they already are, making life worse and much harder for muslims.

    Has anyone ever been to a muslim country? I’ve been all over north africa and the middle east, and it’s like stepping into a worm-hole in the fabric of the space time continuum. Like a parallel universe where left is right, right is wrong, black is white, and up is down.

    They should really rename the middle east ‘The Twilight Zone’.

  25. says

    A domestic altercation one afternoon and a subsequent revelation about faith conversion changed the lives of Christian couple Amin Masih and Shehnaz. While the couple decided to stick with each other, they were shunned by their hometown and the kindness once shown by their Muslim neighbours soon turned into disapproval and threats

    Read more: http://www.maghrebchristians.com/2012/04/26/christian-couples-on-the-run-in-pakistan/#ixzz1t8oruo6H

    Youssef

  26. says

    As usual, when Muslim men do something atrocious the focus is always on the woman and the negative affect she has on society. But let’s honestly ask ourselves, and contemplate the answer, what is the character of a man who will stick his ding dong in a dead person and seek to have an orgasm while the soul and life of that person has left the body? It appears that Muslim men have no soul bonding experiences with the people they have sex with. They use sex as a weapon, as a means to create more jihadi soldiers or as a pleasurable release only for themselves. But they don’t use it for what it was intended for. Perhaps this provides a clue into why so many Muslim men who “look” normal walking around in our society are emotionally retarded. Indulged in every way by their families just for being male, told fantastic stories of never ending sex with virgins if they kill themselves in the cause of furthering Islam and constantly reminded that they are superior to everyone else must make them feel invincible. Curious then that while having no shame for screwing a corpse they fall apart like little girls if one of their women embarrasses them.

    Perhaps screwing the corpse of their dead wife is the ultimate revenge against women, literally and figuratively.

  27. says

    “Could the panel that will draft the Egyptian constitution possibly discuss such issues?”

    This is the most sadly hilarious part. Imagine for a moment, the 1787 Constitutional Convention of the newly created United States, with Madison and Hamilton and Franklin discussing the permissibility of sex with a dead body.

  28. says

    In Denmark we have a cabbie, a Turk according to his name, who strangled a female passenger. She faked death, whereupon he raped her dead body, as he thought it.
    He was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment for attempted murder, rape and indecency with a corpse (he did believe her to be dead!).

    It is a strange thought that in a Muslim country the cabbie might very well be punished very severely (he did shame the honor of her father/husband/guardian/brother) if the deed could be at all proven (the lack of a sufficient number of witnesses), but indecency with a corpse would not come into it.

  29. says

    Sharia law is basically what does the Qur’an say and what would Mohammad do. If Mohammad had a desire to have sex with the corpse of any female no doubt he would have had a “revelation” telling him it was okay.

  30. says

    A new spin on an old classic –

    Outside the Persian gates – We Love Death – More Than You Love Your Wine!

    Imagine if Persia said – we’ll keep the wine!!

    ::

    This was really about war with the infidel – on Muhammad’s battlefield there were no limits.

  31. says

    It’s any woman I’m afraid.

    The Islamic Hadith is called ‘Intercourse with a Dead Woman’

    Which retells how Muhammad goes into a woman he admired burial chamber or crypt and has intercourse with her.

    In a separate Hadith – specific instructions are given on how to wash the body [actually it instructs that the body not be washed] before the act.

    It is permissible in Islam to sleep with the dead.

  32. says

    This was really about war with the infidel – on Muhammad’s battlefield there were no limits.

    War has a way of going out of control – a way of straying from its original reasons, whether the reasons are justifiable or not, to become only about itself. It was not for nothing that among the Greeks, Ares was the most hated god.

    Even the idiots who wrote the Qur’an may have known this, yet they said:

    Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. But you may hate a thing although it is good for you, and love a thing although it is bad for you. God knows, but you know not. (2:216)

  33. says

    “When i tried to save gays from the Pro-hamas goons in the PRIDE parade in Toronot canada, I got the usual Homophobe label…”

    Trying to save radical Leftists from Islam is only one microscopic increment in useless absurdity away from trying to save Muslims from Islam.

  34. says

    “Suzanne” Mubarak, eh? I can see her now, in a pastel pantsuit.

    Oh and — how could I forget? — a fashionable Capri-blue Jackie-Onassisian scarf & Jackie O sunglasses dark enough to shield viewers from the sadness with which her eyes must have been weighed down all those years, haunted by a Mephistophelian love she couldn’t help have for the godfather of all oppression, Mohammed himself.

  35. says

    Not in the case of muhammad. Apparently he died fully armed and there was quite a furore as to how to deal with it. I forget which hadith I read that in but it’s there somewhere, however I don’t recall there were any takers for the pleasure of having conjugal relations with his corpse.

  36. says

    “The Islamic Hadith is called ‘Intercourse with a Dead Woman’

    Which retells how Muhammad goes into a woman he admired burial chamber or crypt and has intercourse with her.”

    Please tell me this is a joke?

  37. says

    johnmatt,

    You posted “To be honest, I’m all for Islamic countries becoming more Islamic. Because that means they will become even more backward, retarded, and primitive than they already are, making life worse and much harder for muslims.”

    I tend to agree, in principle. The only problem is, as islamic countries become more backward and even less productive, they will demand more aid – jizya, in fact – from Western nations, and our deluded “leaders” will pay it.

    If Western nations would only find the balls to stand up and say “Enough! No more aid, no more military assistance, no more anything!” then I wouldn’t care what muslims do in their own countries, nor give a damn what becomes of them.

  38. says

    EliasX wrote, replying to George:

    “…a woman also too had the same right to engage in sex with her dead husband.”

    Umm, there could be some…umm, MECHANICAL problems there? I mean, uhhhh, you know, ummmm, well, ahhhh…

    Never mind…

    ———————————
    Comment:

    Well, actually, with a little help of her hands, mouth, and rigor mortis (“stiffness of death”), he might be hard enough! And, she could get 6 months of pleasure out of him – more than she’d probably gotten during their entire marriage.

    He’d even get that eternal erection those martyr-wannabees struggle for!
    ………………………………..

    Elias, “hands” and “mouth” would do *nothing* for the dead, and rigor mortis is a pretty short-lived phenomenon, and would hardly result in anything resembling the “desired” state, in any case…

    But then, it is insanity that we are even discussing such issues.

    I have never noted *any* creed as f*cked-up as Islam when it come to love and sex”or, really, mostly just sex, since Islam is a loveless a faith as can be imagined.

    Virtually *every* aspect of Islam mitigates *against* love”FGM for little girls, the bans against even the most innocent mixing of the sexes, child marriage, forced marriage, general oppression of women, wife beating, polygamy, the “Triple Talaaq” divorce, “honor killing”, and now, sex with corpses.

    What normal person would even want to have sex with their spouse’s corpse? It is either posthumous marital rape, or else an attempt at a final “intimacy” that one would only attribute to the temporarily insane.

    Sane people would consider anything beyond a final kiss to be a *desecration* of their loved one’s body.

    But then, nothing about Islam is either sane or normal”or decent.

  39. says

    necrophilia!!!!! I can tell is this:
    this guy muhamad was one sexualy twisted SOB. he was into evrything, from pedophilia to necrophila and everything in between! if he is done, the muslims find a was to sanitize and make it ok to do.
    M

  40. says

    You’re forgetting Calvin and Augustine. The Fall. What the church calls Sin.

    Yes, Muslims are human, children of Adam. Fallen humans. Sinful humans. Evil humans, merely exhibiting to the nth degree all the things that evil humans do and have always done…including in the millennia of human history prior to Islam. Old-fashioned Presbyterian clergymen wouldn’t have been in the least surprised or shocked by the things that Muslims do or by the fact that the Muslim cult permits and prescribes and even praises and exalts such things. It’s only because many in the west have lost that gritty, bleak Christian realism about unredeemed human nature and the depths to which it can sink, that people like you get all puzzled and shocked and decide that Muslims can’t possibly be human.

    There is no evil that Muslims do that other groups of humans haven’t done or don’t do. The figure of Mohammed, which Spencer is arguing is primarily fictional, ‘rings true’ when one compares it with real life historical figures such as Hitler, Stalin, and Chairman Mao…not to mention the likes of Pol Pot.

    Sure, Muslims seem to go in for more of a variety of evil practices all at once and systematised and sacralised, at a level other groups don’t do *today*. But leave the present day, start digging around in history and archaeology, and they don’t look all that much out of the common way.

    Surely you’ve read Petronius and Tacitus. Surely you know of the orgiastic cults of Bacchus and Cybele. Surely you know what the Aztecs got up to, and the Thuggees and the Aztecs. The Thuggees might have been influenced by Islam, but the Aztecs thought up their industrial-scale human sacrifice system all on their lonesome.

    And in the PNG jungle there was a tribe or group of tribes that had something a whole hell of a lot like the Mohammedan exaltation of taqiyya – when told the story of the betrayal of Jesus by Judas, they cheered and grinned and thought Judas was just the most amazingly clever and admirable guy. (This tribe differed from Muslim, however, in that they had actually realized that they had painted themselves into a corner, and they had come up with a method of making a peace that could sorta kinda be trusted. See a book called ‘Peace Child’).

    I don’t know whether you’ve read M Scott Peck’s ‘People of the Lie’. He wasn’t thinking of Muslims at all. Islam wasn’t a blip on his radar screen – in his one mention of it he seems to think it is a respectable ‘moral’ religion. He figured out his definition of human evil – individual and group – and spiritual evil (after observing a couple of exorcisms – not the Hollywood caricature but the real thing [and successful; the patients, who had *asked* for help and consented to the process, were healed] where he encountered a Presence that he couldn’t explain scientifically at all) – from experience within America, with common-or-garden westerners, rich and poor, of both secular and nominally religious backgrounds. Yet everything he says about evil and evil people and how they operate – including the title of his book, ‘People of the Lie ‘ – perfectly describes Muslims and Islam.

    For that matter, anyone who’s read Dante’s Inferno and Charles Williams’ analysis of same in his book ‘The Figure of Beatrice’ will find that Dante’s analysis of the processes of corruption of the city and of the soul – an analysis based overwhelmingly upon *non-Muslim* examples of same – ‘fits’ with the sort of thing one sees when one tries to figure out Muslim psychology or observes the goings on in a Muslim polity.

    Muslim evil is *human* evil. A particularly obvious and glaring exhibition of same, but nothing all that novel about it, when you stop and think.

  41. says

    LemonLime wrote:

    “But then, nothing about Islam is either sane or normal”or decent.”

    But remember, Muslims are human. Therefore, what…?
    ………………………………

    Dear LemonLime, I addressed this issue at some length here:

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/04/norway-mass-murderer-breivik-reveals-his-true-inspiration-we-have-drawn-from-al-qaida-and-militant-i.html#comment-874478

    I wrote, in part:

    “…but I *do* believe that truly devout Muslims”those who take the tenets of their barbaric creed to heart”the murder of Infidels, the genocide of Jews, child “marriage”, the rape of young boys, the condoning of “Honor Killing””do render themselves “inhuman” in the moral sense.

    “Certainly, while I have in the broad sense a very positive view of humans as a species, and as I regard our long-term prospects, I also am all too well aware of the evil of which humans are capable.

    “The horrors of sending slaves to the arena in Rome, of Aztecs sacrificing those they captured to their bloody gods, of torture and unjust war, of Hitler and Stalin and Pol Pot. The practitioners of the terrible savagery of Fascism and hard-core Communism and Islam are still “human”, but present a side of humanity few in the civilized world would condone or embrace.

    “So, while embracing the barbarity of Islam does not strip one of one’s humanness in the literal sense, it certainly strips them of their humanity, as does the embrace of any inhumane creed.”

  42. says

    Perhaps screwing the corpse of their dead wife is the ultimate revenge against women, literally and figuratively.

    That’s probably true Isabellathecrusader. It’s depravity to please the Marquis de Sade. The farewell law is a final insult.

    To read what Muslim women complain about, it’s not as if Muslim men are paying attention to what their wives say or want.

    In those six hours, it’s the only time in a Muslim man’s life that his wife’s silence can’t possibly mean “no.”

  43. says

    “You’re forgetting Calvin and Augustine. The Fall.”

    If that were a sufficient explanation, the problem would dissolve the ideological-cultural borders of Islam, and we would just have a general human problem. There is obviously something systemic about Islam that makes it, and its human carriers, singular and distinct from garden-variety sin and evil.

  44. says

    You don’t get my point.

    From a Christian POV, this is how the world looks:

    Fallen, sinful humans, inclined to evil, created the Thuggee Cult, and created the Bacchic frenzies, and the self-castration of the devotees of Cybele. And the sacrifices of Moloch.

    Fallen, sinful humans made certain centres in West Africa – and Uppsala, too, way back in the day – and the Aztec pyramids centres of wholesale human sacrifice.

    Fallen, sinful humans produced Pol Pot and his cronies and the Cambodian genocide, and Stalin and his cronies and *their* mass murders, and the Rwanda genocide.

    And fallen humans, at a very late stage in human history (given that humans have been around in a form like us, for at least 50 000 years already) came up with Mohammedanism: *possibly* the worst of the many appalling religio-political systems that the depraved human mind has thought up, or at least about the worst that we currently know of; but given that we only know about those systems that have been invented since people had writing, and that were practised (or described) by partly literate people we still can’t say for sure. Worse may have existed, and destroyed themselves or been destroyed by the exasperated neighbours, without any record being left; humanity has been around on this planet perhaps 100 times longer than Mohammedanism has existed. Plenty of time to experiment…

    There are different varieties and subsets of evil empires and evil ideologies and what I would call evil black-magic cults.

    Muslims didn’t *invent* either slavery or polygyny and all the associated evils; both had been practised in many parts of the world for millennia before Islam decided to sacralise them. They didn’t even invent FGM, merely adopted and perpetuated it.

    It’s ironic that you – who if I recall correctly, are not in any sense of the word a practising Christian, but some type of oh-so-sophisticated and superior agnostic? – are more inclined to view Islam in apocalyptic terms, as if it is some entirely surprising, unique and extraordinary visitation upon the earth, than I who am the stupid, primitive, unphilosophical and clumsily literalistic believer-in-an-actual-incarnation-and-actual-resurrection that I am.

  45. says

    It’s ironic that you – who if I recall correctly, are not in any sense of the word a practising Christian, but some type of oh-so-sophisticated and superior agnostic? – are more inclined to view Islam in apocalyptic terms, as if it is some entirely surprising, unique and extraordinary visitation upon the earth, than I who am the stupid, primitive, unphilosophical and clumsily literalistic believer-in-an-actual-incarnation-and-actual-resurrection that I am.

    There is no way that you are a stupid primitive, a clumsy literalist, or an un-philosophical rube. You are one of the best-read posters on this site, if not the best. [That takes care of that primitive idea. I don’t know many Anglicans or Episcopalians who are literalists; and I don’t know anyone who has spent any time on farms who isn’t philosophical, even if some are not formal philosophers.] I’ve learned a lot from you, and would never have got to know of some interesting and important books without you.

    Your phrase, “fallen, sinful humans,” captures in six syllables the Christian view of human nature. It is not an easy idea or one that seems hopeful – at first. Perhaps that’s why there have been centuries of theology on the nature of humanity and sin.

    You mention Tacitus. In his Annales, who is more prideful or evil than Lucius Aelius Sejanus? What does it earn him? A trip down the Gemonian Stairs.

    If Islam is in part an old Christian heresy, then the Muslim’s “submission” was perhaps the attempt to rule pride. In any case, the results have been a disaster, and Islam will trip down a flight of stairs one day too.

    OT – You wrote a few days ago about your eye problems. You’re on my prayer list now. All the best to you dumbledoresarmy. Take care.