| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
A terrific opinion piece by Charles Moore in The Telegraph, with thanks to Joerg and Andy:
Was the prophet Mohammed a paedophile? The question is sometimes asked because one of his wives, Aisha, was a child when he married her. As Barnaby Rogerson gingerly puts it in his highly sympathetic recent biography (The Prophet Muhammad, Little, Brown): "…the age disparity was considerable: she was only nine while Muhammad was 53". Aisha was taken from her seesaw on the morning of her marriage to be dressed in her wedding garment. After sharing a bowl of milk with the prophet, she went to bed with him.To me, it seems anachronistic to describe Mohammed as a child-molester. The marriage rules of his age and society were much more tribal and dynastic than our own, and women were treated more as property and less as autonomous beings. Aisha was the daughter of Mohammed's right-hand man, and eventual successor (caliph), Abu Bakr. No doubt he and his family were very proud of the match. I raise the question, though, because it seems to me that people are perfectly entitled - rude and mistaken though they may be - to say that Mohammed was a paedophile, but if David Blunkett gets his way, they may not be able to....
The BNP website describes Islam in the hands of some of its adherents as "less a religion and more a magnet for psychopaths and a machine for conquest". If a law says they can't say that, the BNP will, in the minds of many, be proved right. On Tuesday, Mr Blunkett said that it would be illegal to claim that "Muslims are a threat to Britain". People already censor themselves through fear of Muslim reaction to mockery - I don't suppose even brave, incontinent, foul-mouthed Paul Abbott would write a comedy for the start of Ramadan showing Mohammed downloading dubious images from the internet. If the law criminalises such activity, the scope for resentment is huge.
Iqbal Sacranie, of the mainstream Muslim Council of Britain, wants the new law because any "defamation of the character of the prophet Mohammed (Peace Be Upon Him)" is a "direct insult and abuse of the Muslim community". In effect, he is asking for the law of libel to be extended beyond the grave, giving religious belief a protection extended to no other creed or version of history.
Where does all this come from? Not, I fear, from the right, if misapplied, desire for different faiths to live at peace. Incitement to violence, after all, is already an offence, and so it should be. No, the pressure is chiefly from Muslims. If we want to understand its context, we should look at what happens in Muslim societies.
According to Muslim law, believers who reject or insult Islam have no rights. Apostasy is punishable by death. In Iran, Saudi Arabia and Sudan, death is the penalty for those who convert from Islam to Christianity. In Pakistan, the blasphemy law prescribes death for anyone who, even accidentally, defiles the name of Mohammed. In a religion which, unlike Christianity, has no idea of a God who himself suffers humiliation, all insult must be avenged if the honour of God is to be upheld.
Under Islam, Christians and Jews, born into their religion, have slightly more rights than apostates. They are dhimmis, second-class citizens who must pay the jiyza, a sort of poll tax, because of their beliefs. Their life is hard. In Saudi, they cannot worship in public at all, or be ministered to by clergy even in private. In Egypt, no Christian university is permitted. In Iran, Christians cannot say their liturgy in the national language. In almost all Muslim countries, they are there on sufferance and, increasingly, because of radical Islamism, not even on that.
The ancient plurality of the region is vanishing. Tens of thousands are fleeing the Muslim world, and in some countries - Sudan, Indonesia, Ivory Coast - large numbers die, on both sides. In Iraq, the intimidation of Christians is enormous. Five churches have suffered bomb attacks this year. Christians in Mosul have received letters saying that one member of each family will be killed to punish women who do not wear the headscarf. According to Dr Patrick Sookhdeo of the Barnabas Fund, a charity working for persecuted Christians, "Christians in Iraq are isolated and vulnerable this Christmas, and feel that they have been let down, even betrayed, by their fellow Christians in the West, especially the Church leadership".
The push for a religious hatred law here is an attempt to advance the legal privilege that Muslims claim for Islam. True, Muslim leaders are happy that the same protection should be extended to other religions in this country. But to a modern liberal society which claims the freedom to attack all beliefs, this should be no comfort. It says a good deal about the quality of churchmen and politicians in Britain that the most prominent opponent of the Bill is Mr Bean. The Archbishop of Canterbury is more or less invisible. The Government is on the side of repression.
Posted by Robert at December 12, 2004 7:20 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
The only way around this is if thousands of people, all at the one and same time, have ad demonstration criticising Islam.
There is safety in numbers, and it would be very difficult to jail thousands of people at one time.
Posted by: Voltaire![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at December 12, 2004 7:31 AM
And what about apostates?
Will they be convicted of inciting religious hatred for no longer believing in Islam, nor believing that Mohammad was the messenger from god?
Posted by: Voltaire at December 12, 2004 7:35 AM
How long do you go to jail for breaking this law?
I feel like travelling all the way to Britain just so I could say that "muslims are a threat to Britain".
Posted by: Voltaire at December 12, 2004 7:59 AM
If it weren't for the Muslims, there's no way this proposal would have been made. Hindus (also unprotected by racial hatred legislation) have not asked for this.
But even if it were not about Islam, this law would still be misguided - religion is just too subjective to legislate about. And legislating against ideas is simply wrong. George Orwell must be turning in his grave.
Posted by: Interestd at December 12, 2004 8:02 AM
Charles Moore says:
'To me, it seems anachronistic to describe Mohammed as a child-molester. The marriage rules of his age and society were much more tribal and dynastic than our own, and women were treated more as property and less as autonomous beings. Aisha was the daughter of Mohammed's right-hand man, and eventual successor'
If Muhammed was a true prophet then his teaching by example should have transcended time and place. The whole point of being a prophet is to guide people away from bad customs and habits and towards righteousness. The Koran is supposed to have been written before the world was created and be to a permanent guide to all people in all times.
Therefore words like anachronistic do not apply to Muhammed's behaviour.
If you believe that he was truly a messenger of God, then that means that God approves paedophilia.
If you don't believe that he was, then you are saying Islam was a fraud.
at December 12, 2004 8:05 AM
If it becomes illegal to criticise other people's beliefs in Britain, then I suggest that fellow Brits suddenly have a visitation from an angel who tells them that it is wrong for them to pay any income tax for if they do they will go to hell.
This is mean that any tax collector who criticises their faith will be breaking the law.
Posted by: Elephant at December 12, 2004 8:10 AM
Just a thought on the topic: The man behind this proposed legislation is the Home Secretary David Blunkett. The same man who had an affair with a married woman, bought her train-tickets pretending she was his wife and fast-tracked the immigration application of this woman's nanny. What does this say about his morals? I thought I was slightly too cynical when I suspected him using his blindness in order to get "sympathy votes" but I'm not so sure anymore. He certainly is blind in more than just one way!
Posted by: disillusionised_german at December 12, 2004 8:56 AM
"It says a good deal about the quality of churchmen and politicians in Britain that the most prominent opponent of the Bill is Mr Bean. The Archbishop of Canterbury is more or less invisible" is funny and true, or funny because it is true.
Rowan Atkinson -- despite or perhaps because of his impersonations of Mr. Bean and Edmund Blackadder -- is not to be trifled with when it comes to free speech. And while we are on the Matter of England, it would be well run by Atkinson, or perhaps even better by Stephen Fry, the latter having repeatedly demonstrated remarkable political and moral sense when it comes to the Jihad against Israel. And how much more entertaining England then would be. Fry's teeming brain would be the only Millennium Dome necessary.
For the moment, with nincompoops like Blair and Howard, and this transparent attempt to shield Islam from critical scrutiny (not that Islam has gotten anything like the scrutiny it deserves), it is we, the Plain People of Infidelia, who in chorus Must Speak Truth to Power (this obnoxious and self-important phrase, the kind of thing tnat nowadays only a Chomsky or a Said would use seriously, does have its comic uses) and say:
"We are not amused."
at December 12, 2004 10:21 AM
Dear Voltaire:
I love your sentiments, and agree that we need mass demonstrations, BUT this proposal ( if it becomes law) is just one in a very long line of atrocities that have been perpetrated against the British by their own government, central and local.
How do we organise such demonstrations.? If there was so much as a whiff of even a tiny demo the police would be sent on mass to wreck it.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN THE UK IS AS GOOD AS DEAD AND BURIED
I don't think there's an employee anywhere within central and local government and most of the media, that isn't so absolutely awash with PC that very soon they may vanish up their own A****. IF ONLY THEY WOULD !!
I don't think anyone who doesn't live in the UK can FULLY appreciate the absolute absurd and destructive policies we are being subjected to.
AGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH !!!!!!!
at December 12, 2004 10:42 AM
If anybody knows how to send an email to Charles Moore and or The Telegraph letters to the editor, could you please email me?
rebecca@halbynum.com
Thanks,
Rebecca
at December 12, 2004 12:55 PM
Yeah Charles Moore!!!!!
Posted by: Hugh Bristic at December 12, 2004 1:17 PM
Rebecca,
Try this:
charles.moore@telegraph.co.uk
Good Luck.
Posted by: Andrew at December 12, 2004 1:18 PM
Better get a bodyguard, Charlie.
Posted by: Suzan at December 12, 2004 1:27 PM
LOL True Brit.
Tis true, but I will say the truth till the day die, and no law is gonna stop me from critiscing religion!
Taking a positive spin on this law - if Imams such as those that preach outside Finsbury Park mosque incite hatred to Christians & Jews then they would have better legal standing to kick them out of the country. I don't think we need to worry too much about this 'law'. Common sense will prevail. I would love to challenge this law on the courts, since Freedom of speech is a basic human right, to the extend that it doesn't incite violence.
NO SURRENDER! EUROPE WILL NOT SURRENDER TO THE ISLAMISISTS!
Posted by: freestar at December 12, 2004 2:08 PM
This is not the first time that the British Government has tried to pass this bill. It was also attempted about three years ago, but was rejected by the House of Lords. One can only hope that history repeats itself here.
I think that the Telegraph should get the "European Anti Dhimmitude Neswpaper of the Year Award". Remember that it was earlier this year that this paper ran a series af articles by William Cummins, ( that basically stated that Islam and Western Democracy are incompatable, and heavily criticised the Islamic Community in Britain for failing to make any effort to integrate), which also created a storm. They have also ran at least one very positive article on Aayan Hirsi Ali.
Everybody at Dhimmiwatch should e-mail Charles Moore at the Telegraph to give him our support.
Posted by: Amicus at December 12, 2004 3:43 PM
freestar:
AH! would you were right, re common sense, a virtue our government appears to be totally void of...
You would think that the law as it stands now adequately protects US from incitement to hatred, that the law would work both ways, but think again, they, our illustrious leaders, do naff all when the boot's on the other (Muslim) foot. "Hook hand Hansa" the Finsbury park mosque cleric, or whatever, openly spat hatred at us on the street through a megaphone, never mind in the confines of his putrid mosque and he got away with that for years while, languishing on social security money amounting to a few hundred pounds weekly,(I forget the figure quoted). It was only after they were bombarded by the media regarding his links to terrorism they finally found the guts to arrest him.
They have the confidence now... they've smelled blood, they know our lackey government will protect them at all costs, rather than admit their multi culti "paradise" project is a total disaster where Islam's concerned.
Good Heaven's!! we can't have Tony and his troupe made to look fools AGAIN, so it is only we who are slapped down and punished for any remark we may dare to utter in opposition and at the expense of everything we hold dear, including our live's.
I do believe they are crapping themselves fearing a revolution and maybe this is more like the true reason they want to bring in such a draconian law. It's easier to keep us in place than the marauding Muslims who have no compunction to obey ANY law of this land.
As kids we were taught to retaliate to taunting words with the saying, which I'm sure you all know... Sticks and stones may break my bone's but calling will not hurt me.
Which goes to show how infantile and hyper sensitive both Islam and our government is when they cannot recite those few wise words.
I agree, Mr Moore should be heaped with praise and encouragement.
at December 12, 2004 4:21 PM
Cut off my head if I'm wrong, but isn't England the home of Milton (Areopigitica,) Paine (The Rights of Man,) Mill (On Liberty,) and Orwell ("Politics and the English Language")?
On no. They're all dead. England is the home of Blair and Hansa and al-Margarine.
Excuse me, brother, which way from here to Finsbury Park?
Posted by: sonofwalker at December 12, 2004 4:54 PM
A superb commentary from (believe it or not) the Guardian about the love affair between the left and the Jihadis in relation to this pernicious piece of legislation.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,1371869,00.html
at December 12, 2004 6:22 PM
sonofwalker-
America gets credit for PAINE, since he was not allowed to publish in Merry England.
Invited by Franklin to emigrate, Paine made it safely to America and, in the fledgling U.S., he flourished.
His works "Crises" and "Common Sense" are good clear thinking, and strengthen the mental spine.
But I'll add back to your list that brilliant Brit H.G. Wells ('An Outline of History' to 'Mind at the End of Its Tether').
And suggest one from the New World:
Walt Whitman (Yankee author of "Leaves of Grass") whose poem about 'Cows' would have him gotten him a religious fatwa ---had he not been safe on Mickle Street in Camden, New Jersey, in the 19th century.
The 'submissive' supressors of freedom of thought made a BIG mistake in killing a prominent member of the creative community- with an iconic glocal name. VAN GOGH.*
Let's hope the word spreads to the 'so-far cowed' artistic/creative community worldwide:
Unless you want the word "[CENSORED]" gnawing holes in the intellectual core of the thinking mind...
Resist.
There should be a silent Dutch T-shirt wearing campaign, flowing from Amsterdam outward. Just Theo Van Gogh's NOW DEFUNCT newpaper column's title- in red on white or black:
"MAG IK DIT ZEGGEN?"
(in English:
("May I Say This?")
His murderer answered: 'NO, you may not.'
The world needs to over-rule the killer by replying:
We will speak our freedom.
We not only MAY. We MUST.
And maybe quote an Arabic proverb:
"When the hawk said that he was simply resting on a ruin, the owls who lived there cried out: "He lies! He is trying to steal our home by guile."
-"Caravan of Dreams" Idries Shah
* "VAN GOGH HOME."
(A bumper sticker for Netherlanders?)
at December 13, 2004 12:30 AM
OT - but I think relevant, as it concerns the state of mind of the Home Secretary who is proposing to snuff out our freedom of speech:
Kelly was killed. It's on the news - BBC news at that. I think most of us who took an interest in the case have felt that this was the case for some time, and there are many informed sources in the blogosphere and on Usenet who have furnished us with the facts of the case.
In the light of Mr Blunkett's now glaringly obvious character flaws this no longer seems so fantastic. Consider: Mr Blunkett is said to have said of his lover, Kimberly Quinn, 'If I am not going to have you, no one can have you'.
(http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/11/28/nblun128.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/11/28/ixnewstop.html).
I'm no forensic psychiatrist, but this suggests to me pathological jealousy/rage, something that can and sometimes does lead to murder.
The question is - has he already crossed the line?
Consider the effect on Mr Blunkett, as a blind man with the character defects suggested by his behaviour towards his mistress, of the large number of intelligence sources and networks that the he has access to - networks which he cannot directly interact with or control. He is forced to take everything on trust from his staff. Much of what they tell him about things, such as, for instance, the Internet, he cannot verify in any other way. If he is told that the Internet is a giant computer network mostly used for the distribution of paedophilia and hate material, he cannot verify that for himself, and is likely to frame legislation based on this – albeit with other testimonials – skewed picture.
It seems likely to me that the effect of his responsibilities and duties on him has been to make him increasingly paranoid, and the proposed legislation reflects this.
If there are any qualified psychiatrists out there reading this, I think we would all be interested to see your thoughts on the Home Secretary.
PS. I'm not sure how to make the link work - please advise!
Posted by: khoment8r at December 13, 2004 1:23 AM
The British pubs are loaded with tough people, and people should visit all the pubs in their neighborhoods and remind them that if Islam advances like it hopes to, their beer and free speech will be taken away from them by Muslim immigrants.....
That ought to get them rolling down the street to the homes of lawmakers to have a chat......
Posted by: DCWatson at December 13, 2004 3:44 PM
I wrote a note of support to Charles Moore, and spoke of freedom of speech.
However, this British brouhaha is one of the things that gave a lot of us a "crisis of faith" re modern liberalism ages ago: it seems that rather than its strategy has been to accommodate and surrender to hostile forces. It practices a kind of striptease in which principles get stripped away for the sake of every noisy, aggrieved party--even if they're aggrieved because of getting just desserts for some egregiously evil behavior.
Posted by: Kepha1 at December 14, 2004 12:38 AM
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Dhimmi Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)