Yes it is good to see the Pakistani authorities prosecuting for this crime. I hope all such acts are prosecuted.

I will watch this thread to see how many posters choose to use this as yet another trigger to bash, in this case, Pakistan, even though the authorities do appear to be acting to deal with it.

Posted by: payingattention at February 9, 2007 8:39 PM

payingattention

Just bcos the Musharraf regime did the right thing doesn't mean we can't bash Pakistani society, in which such acts take place. In this case, the groom would have had to potty-train the bride, just in case she wasn't done, but they'd sure ensure that she doesn't get her first periods in her father's home.

I'd however love to see you defend Pakistan i.e. Pakistani society, in which such practices are considered normal, at least in the Pathan areas.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at February 9, 2007 8:44 PM

Here is a story about an Iranian individual who took pornographic photos of 8 year old children at his mother's daycare center. He fled to Iran, then was arrested at SFO when he returned.

No mention of whether Iran's child-bride laws, or the example of Muhammad (the perfect man), influenced his proclivities.

Posted by: special_guest at February 9, 2007 8:52 PM

A four-year old girl given to a forty-five-year old man, but by Allah! - they'll show Westerners some Allah-damn virtue:

Virtuous Arab Doll to Be Marketed in United States

Ummah News Links

Posted by: ummahnewslinks at February 9, 2007 8:57 PM

45, the new 4.5? What is surprising is that this was not an arranged marriage that counted as family reunification under US law. John Yoo where are you?

Posted by: Old Atlantic at February 9, 2007 9:14 PM

Perhaps ole Mr D'Souza could write a book about Muslim perversion as a reason why we consider Islam such a disgusting idealogy.

Posted by: Pelayo at February 9, 2007 9:19 PM

Don't you guys see how progressive this is? Normaly the girl who eloped ould have been brutally killed.

/sarc off

Posted by: JadeDragoness at February 9, 2007 9:44 PM

The real question here is , who is the bigger pig? The 45 year old who "married" her or the uncle who gave her away to save his own skin?

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at February 9, 2007 9:55 PM

"I will watch this thread to see how many posters choose to use this as yet another trigger to bash, in this case, Pakistan"
posted by: payingattention at February 9, 2007 08:39 PM

payingattention,

Yes do watch this post, and for God's sake, please pay attention already!!

Pakistan is irrelevant, with the exception that it is currently dominated by the minions from the "Camp of Islam" (gratuitously lifted from Hugh).

Marisol's source and it's content, if true, and my initial inclination is to believe that it is, should "trigger" bashing, but not the bashing of the host, in this case Pakistan, but rather the parasite...Islam.

21st century examples of pushing the limits of, and actually "bettering", if that could possibly be conceived as a proper term to describe the situation, of the well documented, ethically and morally challenged, Islamist male role model, Muhammad, from the 7th century...should be the object of scorn and ridicule. Let the bashing begin, I say.

You attempt to play both sides of the fence, and sometimes, especially if one is not adequately "payingattention", may appear to suceed without notice. But as the old adage clearly says, "Appearances, can be deceiving."

Posted by: awake at February 9, 2007 10:14 PM

This isnot than Islamist belief but than very old tiberal belief that have nothing to do with islam religion at all. You racist are whying to cause touble cannot wait when they pass HR 254 the Hate Crime Bill.

Posted by: DefenderofIslam at February 9, 2007 10:23 PM

Repeat after me...Islam is not a race.

Islam is not a race.

Islam is not a race.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at February 9, 2007 10:30 PM

DefemderofIslam: Maybe it is a tribal custom, to marry 4 year old girls to middle aged men. But, I am sure that the marriage ceremony itself was an Muslim wedding...so Islam played a part in this sick family feud. Will you join all of us at JW/DW in hoping and praying that the child was not sexually molested before her tragic situation was discovered? In the meantime, remember if a Hate Crime Bill is ever passed, it will apply to everyone.

Posted by: maryrose at February 9, 2007 11:01 PM

Infidel "Pride": That was a pretty lame post. A society is expressed by its Government. In this singular instance, Pakistan has been shown to be standing up for what we in the west would consider modern ethical and fair behaviour by making such a crime illegal. Therefore there is no need to bash Pakistan society on this particular matter.

Awake: I will also ignore the misnomer in your nickname! As far as Pakistan being "irrelevant" I think if that was true, this thread would not have been posted in the first place.

Both of you: I don't care if you want to bash Islam, that wasn't what I wrote. I am not the moderator here. I just have a view that positive news should be applauded. Some of the posters here seem to find an hysterical response to every thread.

Seeing as Pakistan has passed laws protecting women against rape and forced marriage, maybe Pakistan can next consider laws protecting rights of non muslims. Now that's a constructive idea isn't it?

Posted by: payingattention at February 9, 2007 11:07 PM

Mahboob must be so disappointed. No "enjoyment" (thighing and sodomy, prescribed by Islamic clerics for the sexual use of infants) for him.

Posted by: Marwan'sDaughter at February 9, 2007 11:34 PM

defender of islam stuttered "You racist are whying to cause touble cannot wait when they pass HR 254 the Hate Crime Bill."

dude, i hate to piss on your racial supremacist islamo-fascist idealology, but, dude, white people can also be muslims!!!

you never knew this? dude, you need help....

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at February 9, 2007 11:57 PM

The real question here is , who is the bigger pig? The 45 year old who "married" her or the uncle who gave her away to save his own skin?

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader

Isabella, I believe that in the world of the sane, this would be considered a "tie".

Posted by: DCWatson at February 10, 2007 12:09 AM

payingattention,

Please, don't be absurd. Pakistan's reference in this thread is merely an example of "guilty by location", nothing more, nothing less.

Jihad/Dhimmi Watch, is a site dedicated to the revelation of what is Islam, what is it's fundamental goal, as applied by those in power currently able to do so, and according to the "holy" texts of Islam itself. It is not a referendum on the "soup de jour" of Pakistani legislation.

I for one, have been "paying attention", and know that you are not new to these boards. You, as a JW/DW journeyman, peruser and poster on this site, should be aware that this is obvious to me, and I am quite sure to others in this community.

Your unilateral and unequivocable defense of Pakistan is out of place in this thread, especially following the content of the story so graciously provided by Marisol. If you do not expect criticism here, after your initial statements, then you are either pro-Islamist at heart or incredibly naive. FYI, neither of those answers reflect positively of yourself.

Before you get all gushy and starry-eyed about Pakistan, and their pioneering ways towards the necessary and long overdue reformation of the well-documented, vile, tenets of applied Islam, please ask yourself one simple question.

Does Pakistan's claim that they have passed laws against rape and forced marriage, (supposed at best, and most assuredly, unenforced), outweigh the fact that the country has officially banned Robert's book, The Truth About Muhammad, based simply on the fact that the "Truth" in this case, really hurts?

(You remember him...Robert Spencer...our invaluable host...don't you?)

You will get no further response from me on this, for I do not engage in witless banter for long. I will however, contine to "pay attention".

Posted by: awake at February 10, 2007 12:22 AM

Shame....

"...police acted only last week after rights activist raised the alarm."

More shame....

Posted by: ofcourse at February 10, 2007 12:34 AM

What is the age of consent in Pakistan or Bangladesh?
Inquiring minds want to know...http://sheikyermami.com/2007/02/09/cough-its-real-cough-no-fauxtografiethugs-and-killers-in-mecca/

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at February 10, 2007 12:43 AM

"Awake": I promise not to be absurd if you promise too.

I challenge you to demonstrate to me any evidence of me defending Pakistan "unequivocally" or even "gushy and starry eyed". And just because I think when one of these nominally secular, but heavily burdened by Islam, countries do something that is actually positive in either the fight against Jihad or in upholding rights of enslaved people, such as women under Islam, then I think it is worth commending. If this doesn't fit in with your apparent mindset of hate, such that you have to accuse me of being a closet "Islamist" then you need to get over it. Don't be trapped into the idea that people who disagree with your view are inherently evil. I will continue to put my clear and measured views on such matters and I encourage you to also do so without resorting to name calling or insinuation as you have done here.

Posted by: payingattention at February 10, 2007 12:44 AM

I agree with Infidel Pride.

I am no "holy" Hindu charlatan to shed tears or pray for the EVIL, period.

Let pukistan go to Hell,I am not bothered at all. I am blissfully apathetic to its "prosecution" or any "laws". Recently 3 Hindu daughters of a family living there were abducted, converted to "islam" and the parents were "shown" by mullahs the burkha clad, who were forced to say with "choked voices" they "had willingly left home to embrace islam and were extremely happy". There was no "prosecution". About HINDU POWS (right from 1971 warsss, oops, "cross border terrorism" for dhimmis of India..)and their gruesome torture and excruciatingly horrendous deaths, while puki pows were fed biryani,sweets and safely returned....yes I know a hell of a lot of "prosecution" and punishment for wrongdoers have been going on.

I am not thirsting for any peace for them be they children or girls whatever. NEVER. Anyone praying in any part of the world for their welfare also does not bother me. The handwringing "ye kya hora ha hai" Dhritharashtra thought and thought( believed too) his 100 sons were angelic and Gaandhari the mother must have prayed and prayed like Hell.

The following describes pukis and all jihadists of the world: (with relevant modifications)

"There is no change of heart.. only tactics to harass Infidels.

Imagine world to be a sprawling public playground on a summer afternoon. There are hundreds of players running, jumping, hitting, chasing balls all over the place over a cacophony of distinct but blurred loud voices of protests, glee and anger between whispers of conspiracy, compromise with scores of self-appointed captains, referees and coaches hurling invectives, ideas and ideologies. And like in sports, every season the players change. With them, changes the game.

It is not difficult to pick out the players making the loudest noises, jockeying for a position of visibility and power any season. The quintessential jihadist is making his presence felt through cleverly timed and phrased exhortations. He is a hesitant religious leader, unlike his father, who made use of the pulpit to gain public support.

Claims of reforms, of mass support is fiction, created by outside referees who have their own high stakes in the game. Of course, he has his hands, all fingers, in the till. At any given point of time, it is difficult to make a guess whose side he is batting on. He shifts his positions as frequently as the big jihadist players want him to or by occasional bouts of self-delusion of becoming the leader of the people (do not forget the suffix: Muslim).

This time around, he is playing all three roles simultaneously. He is making noises ("shun violence") to please those who have a string or two on the kitty.

And, of course, always echoing as an "ally of terror" and at pains to convey to those who are willing to listen, and open their kitties.(kitties of pity, compassion, fellowfeeling etc etc also included)"

Posted by: Crows&Cows at February 10, 2007 12:54 AM

Correction:
It should read mosque not "pulpit". Apologies for my oversight.

Posted by: Crows&Cows at February 10, 2007 12:57 AM

Excellent post by Awake !

Posted by: Crows&Cows at February 10, 2007 1:00 AM

By sheer coincidence, check out the advertisement on the right side of the AFP article that is the subject of this thread:

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/subcontinent/2007/February/subcontinent_February352.xml§ion=subcontinent

Posted by: PRCS at February 10, 2007 1:11 AM

And here's an oldie/goodie Taliban dating site:

http://www.putrid.com/taliban.htm

Posted by: PRCS at February 10, 2007 1:14 AM

The real question here is , who is the bigger pig? The 45 year old who "married" her or the uncle who gave her away to save his own skin?

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader

Isabella, I believe that in the world of the sane, this would be considered a "tie".

no the father beats em both

Posted by: Patriot8 at February 10, 2007 1:23 AM

Infidel "Pride": That was a pretty lame post. A society is expressed by its Government. In this singular instance, Pakistan has been shown to be standing up for what we in the west would consider modern ethical and fair behaviour by making such a crime illegal. Therefore there is no need to bash Pakistan society on this particular matter. Posted by: payingattention

payingattention

You are a lot smarter than that - no way you can seriously believe what you just wrote. A society is expressed by its government in two instances:

• The society in question has democratic values, establishes a framework for rule of law which isn't merely majority rule, and then establishes governments that get periodically reviewed (and changed, if needed): think almost any Western democracy, or even a whole bunch of Eastern democracies (Thailand or Phillipines come to mind);
  
• The society in question is a barbaric society, and is run be equally barbaric leaders. Think Taliban Afghanistan: as the Afghans have subsequently shown, their values aren't very different from those of the Taliban.
  

There have been a number of instances in history where a government in a country assumed powers and then went on to alter society in ways that radically changed it. Can anybody sensibly argue that post-Ottoman Turkish society was expressed by Kemal Ataturk in the years immediately following the abolition of the Caliphate, or that Tunisian society was/is expressed by Bourguiba/Ben Ali? That Russian society in 1917 was represented by the Bolsheviks? A government can have the values of the society it runs, and usually, with democracies that we are familiar with, that's the case. But is that the case with Pakistan?

This is a country that has had its cycle of elected leaders and junta coup operators. Some of the coup leaders, such as Zia ul Haq, did indeed represent the Pakistan mainstream when they did what they could to hard-code Shariah into the law. Some of the elected leaders, like Benazir Bhutto, had nothing in common with society, and had to go through arranged marriages and pregnancies while in office to convince voters of her Islamic credentials. And prior to the defeat in Kashmir in 1999, and the coup that saw Musharraf take over, Pakistan - both governments (Bhutto and Sharif) and populace - widely supported the Taliban. Even the coup by Musharraf that saw off Nawaz Sharif didn't stop Pakistan's links with the Taliban.

It wasn't until September 11, when the US put a few aircraft carriers off the Pakistan coast, and Wendy Chamberlain and Richard Armitage read the General the riot act, that Pakistan took an anti-Taliban position. And when they did, how popular was that? Remember all the pro Osama rallies in Peshawar, Lahore, Karachi and Quetta? Throughout this war, Pakistani support against al Qaeda has been questionable, and on the occasions that they've seemed to deliver, they always had to factor in local support for al Qaeda. And this is by no means restricted to the Pathans and border areas like Waziristan: support for al Qaeda has been there all over the country. Abu Zubeida was captured in Faisalabad, Ramzi bin alShib was captured in Karachi and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Rawalpindi: none of these major cities are in Waziristan. To this day, Pakistan's support has been tenuous at best, mainly because the bulk of its population is pro al-Qaeda. (Contrast that to, say, Ethiopia. Did Ethiopia's support to the US in Somalia lead to hundreds of thousands of Ethiopians demonstrating in support of the Somalian Jihadis? There, government can freely do the right thing since their society isn't Islamized.)

What does this have to do with the child marriage incident above? Islam. Just as loyalty to Jihad is what inspires a majority of Pakistanis to support al Qaeda, similarly, most Pakistanis would have no problem with the above incident, as was clear from the decision of that 'panchayat'. The last time someone in the US came close to doing this - Warren Jeffs (and that with a 13/14 year old, not a 6/4 year old), there weren't hordes of Mormons coming over to his defense: instead, he was the target of universal societal opprobrium. That's very different from the country bumpkins above who ordered the family in question to hand over the 4 year old daughter in marriage.

Given all that, Pakistani society doesn't deserve a pass on this one. I do agree with Marisol that the authorities did well to intervene in this case, although note again that they only did it when rights activists made this an issue, and they didn't want the negative publicity. There's a difference between doing the right thing to avoid bad press, vs. doing it because it's the right thing to do. Given that, it's a stretch to say that 'Pakistan has been shown to be standing up for what we in the west would consider modern ethical and fair behaviour'

Posted by: Infidel Pride at February 10, 2007 2:00 AM

Pakistan can next consider laws protecting rights of non muslims. Now that's a constructive idea isn't it? Posted by: payingattention

Yep. Don't hold your breath waiting for it to happen.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at February 10, 2007 2:04 AM

This is not than Islamist belief but than very old tiberal belief that have nothing to do with islam religion at all. You racist are whying to cause touble cannot wait when they pass HR 254 the Hate Crime Bill.

Now that would depend on if this 4 year old girl had reached the age of puberty which is defined in Islam as having a period. I doubt at 4 years old she had reached puberty. If she had though per Islam she would be good to go ... per Islam

Posted by: Jack at February 10, 2007 2:08 AM

What happened to his unfortunate child in Pakistan will someday happen in the rest of the world if people conttinue to keep their heads in the sand.

Posted by: Christian at February 10, 2007 2:28 AM

"This isnot than Islamist belief but than very old tiberal belief that have nothing to do with islam religion at all. You racist are whying to cause touble cannot wait when they pass HR 254 the Hate Crime Bill.
Posted by: DefenderofIslam [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 9, 2007 10:23 PM"

Really, DefenderofIslam. Then explain why after hundreds of years under the influence of the highly moral and ethical ethos of Islam, that this barbaric tribal custom hasn't fallen away. Could it be because it didn't have to, it wasn't against the teachings of Mohammed? Could be it that because it was also a tribal custom of pagan arabs, it was also incorporated into the teachings of Mohammed and is in fact an exemplary example of a true believers faithful actions.

Posted by: chrisse at February 10, 2007 3:00 AM

What happened to his unfortunate child in Pakistan will someday happen in the rest of the world if people continue to keep their heads in the sand.

Posted by: Christian

Christian, know one thing for sure. Any Infidel's child being slaughtered/raped or "breasts hacked" of women (like allegedly certain islamic women in Iraq who "welcomed Amerike Soldiers" to liberate them) would never evoke any feeling in the muslimes of the world. Yeah, dissemble and feign they will. But inwardly they would always sanction it with heartfelt approval and gratification as "inshaallah".

Why no tears for Jews slaughtered? The child whose skull was cracked and killed in front of her parents?? The abducted Israeli Soldier whose fate nobody knows??? Let the 5 times praying devouutt jihadists resurrect and bring them ALL back to life and face sharia styled punishment before begging for pity or aid from us.

Who will determine the price for the constant fear enveloping us? Our "loss of Profits"???

Posted by: Crows&Cows at February 10, 2007 4:04 AM

fightback,

Remember to take the help of one Gina Khan, one of those thisisnotislam muslimaa:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/015197.php

Posted by: Crows&Cows at February 10, 2007 5:43 AM

Infidel Pride,

Also recall when another pakistani woman was gangraped and I believe travelled to America to "highlight the plight of thisisnotislam women victimised " taqiya musharraf forgot his lines and blurted out:

"Women wanting to visit America get themselves gangraped".

But gotta admit, musharraf does unwittingly provide macabre chuckles during his "out of the box" thinking.

Posted by: Crows&Cows at February 10, 2007 5:49 AM

Crows&Crows, you are referring, of course, to the case of Mukhtaran Bibi (also sometimes referred to as Mukhtar Mai), a woman who was sentenced by a tribal council in Pakistan to be gang-raped because of an infraction supposedly committed by her brother. Four men raped Ms. Mukhtaran, then village leaders forced her to walk home nearly naked in front of a jeering crowd of 300.

Ms. Mukhtaran was supposed to have committed suicide. Instead, she fought back and testified against her persecutors. Six were convicted. Then Ms. Mukhtaran, who believed that the best way to overcome such abuses was through better education, used her compensation money to start two schools in her village, one for boys and the other for girls.

A group of Pakistani-Americans invited Ms. Mukhtaran to visit the U.S. but the Pakistani authorities (receiving orders from Pres. Musharraf) put Ms. Mukhtaran under house arrest - to stop her from speaking out. Ms. Mukhtaran had despaired that she expected she would be killed. Luckily for her, the news of her travails reached the USA and under tremendous pressure from Human Rights groups, and since he was visiting USA at that time and this incident was bound to look ugly even with Pres. Bush fawning on this great ally of ours in the war on terror, Pres. Musharraf relented and allowed her to be freed and visit USA.

On June 18, 2005, Musharraf quite openly explained at a press conference in Auckland, that he had ordered a travel ban on Mukhtar Mai to protect Pakistan's image abroad. He claimed that Mukhtar Mai was being taken to the United States by foreign non-government organisations “to bad-mouth Pakistan” over the “terrible state” of the nation's women. He said NGOs are “Westernised fringe elements” which “are as bad as the Islamic extremists”. (see http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_18-6-2005_pg1_3 )

During a September 2005 visit to the United States, the Washington Post reported that President Musharraf, in the course of a long interview, said that claiming rape had become a "moneymaking concern" in Pakistan. Musharraf is quoted in an article in the Washington Post, "No challenge from Bush on reversal" (September 13, 2005). "This has become a moneymaking concern. A lot of people say if you want to go abroad and get a visa for Canada or citizenship and be a millionaire, get yourself raped." Musharraf later denied that these were his own views, prompting the Post to put part of Musharraf's interview online where his statements were quite unmistakeable.

More on Mukhtaran Bibi:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukhtaran_Bibi
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/21/opinion/21kristof.html?ex=1277006400&en=eb2bfde50996cd9c&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4620065.stm

Posted by: Razdan at February 10, 2007 6:46 AM

Razdan,

Thanks for the details. But to be honest, the intra or inter strifes among muslims don't interest or move me a bit. Read the following. I really am gungho about the Chinese. Than about the dogooders of the world keen on bailing out and "reforming" the "denied opportunities and dispossessed". Even another muslim woman who enthralled many with her "my booble have missed the boos" had no impact whatsoever on me.

I am so weary and left with teeny weeny spirits to pray only for the Unconquered, No Nonsense and Good. Not the shillyshallying chicanery ingrained of the world and vested interests cheering them doffing their hats with "bravo".

When the muslims apprehend being lassoed with the noose tightening around their "superior muslim necks" they do get adequately polemical and voluble with their thisisnotislam harangues.

They are the craftiestest of the world.

http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=81082

The jihadist executed by China was a pukistani. And China did the most CORRECT thing. Even our Hindu Scriptures prescribe decapitation for treason. I would not buy nincompoop indian media projecting China as our (sic) "enemy". This is my personal opinion. Fortified by various first hand, authentic, positive inputs about China from HINDUS.

Posted by: Crows&Cows at February 10, 2007 7:19 AM

Btw, sharing a comment of an Indian for the sharia law introduction:

"am going to settle down in Kashmir and i prefer shariaya, so i can have 3 wife, easy divorce, burkha clad child prodcing machine....hope PM Manmohan Singh implements "islamic banking system " ..so i can get interest free loans too...India is going right way soon become part of Ummah"

Thenali Raman would have decreed antonio maino dynasty and all muslim appeasers (hajpayee and hadvani too) of India to first embrace sharia by donning burkhas etc etc, getting stoned whatever to prove the authenticity of their respect for sharia and muslim.

How do you like that Kristopher who posted something about "Hindus practising suttee" who were checkmated by some British.

Posted by: Crows&Cows at February 10, 2007 7:35 AM

At least the rape would have been legal (married) as opposed to illegal rape (unmarried) which would have been punished (without the appropriate number of witnesses - which there might have been since this was a FOUR YEAR OLD)by stoning or whipping or hanging or whatever they do to the woman -uh, I mean, girl. Ain't allah great?

Posted by: sheiknbake4pork at February 10, 2007 7:49 AM

Infidel Pride,

This "thisisnotislam we need to be pitied,uplifted" yadayada is the most stupidestest subterfuge.

Recall Karna before being slain in the most ruthless and merciless way on the exhortations of KRISHNA by Arjuna, karna like a wimp pontificates to Krishna about the "ethics of warfare"
begging to be spared. Sri Krishna curtly snubs him pointing out:
"....you are disarmed, not unarmed..."

And there is a Hell of a lot of difference between the two.(Disarmed and unarmed)

Posted by: Crows&Cows at February 10, 2007 8:03 AM

Let it suffice to say that when Mohammed came staggering out of the desert saying he had heard the voice of his figment, allah, he was truly demented. And the ignorant, impovished, sand primitives (also brain-shrunken by the sun) swallowed the delirium, hook, line, & sinker. In the civilized Western world 45 year old men are viewed for what they are if they molest a child. These are just proof positives that this is a very sick idelogy that should and will be stamped out in due time. If Mohammed was alive today, this sick pervert would be thrown in jail and severely beaten by other inmates.

Posted by: Truthseeker at February 10, 2007 9:22 AM

defenderofislam: what's next,a 2 month old? This goes to show you about the mentality of muslim (so called) men.

Posted by: mustang65 at February 10, 2007 9:37 AM

Let's be really honest here: what was the purpose of this so called marriage? Was it for companionship? Was it so the new wife could take care of the 45 year old's other children? Was it because they share a great love for philosphy and current events and sit around at night together and have great intellectual discussions? I sure hope (and pray) that it wasn't because she's a hottie.

No, this was a marriage based on revenge. Let me repeat that,

a marriage based on revenge.

Actually you can't call it a marriage. It is an act of brutality against the defenseless, the apparent hallmark of Islam.

Is it just me or does it seem like the main and overwhelming message of Islam is "F--k me or I'll kill you"?

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at February 10, 2007 10:41 AM

Why is it we never hear of feminist groups here SCREAMING about this sort of thing? And yet the mere mention of Christianity sends them into a tizzy about how oppressive it is. The disparity is unbelievable. I wish I could have an explanation for it.

Posted by: Mo at February 10, 2007 12:51 PM

" I will watch this thread to see how many posters choose to use this as yet another trigger to bash, in this case, Pakistan, .. "

Count me into your paranoid venture. And if you have a list of people holding Islam accountable for these atrocities, by all means, add me to that list as well.

Now that you've wasted your time, worth paying attention to is the disgraceful rate of illiteracy within Islamia. If you're really paying attention, you'll undoubtedly want to teach your fellow Muslims to read. Not paying attention to illiteracy in Islamia and then doing something about it is absolutely criminal.

Posted by: Daisytoo at February 10, 2007 4:03 PM

A poster above has asked what this issue has to do with Pakistan. Probably nothing at all,considering this issue is one which will have to be faced in each nation in which islam possesses a majority of the populace,due to the examples portrayed in the hadiths.

I,for one, would love to see the expressions on the faces of people such as defenderofislam who believe that law enforcement officials are going to arrest and prosecute their friends,neighbors for speaking out on issues which are obvious to all but the mentally handicapped or seditious, on account of this HR 254. Legislation is one thing,enforcement is another. Those who feel otherwise are going to find that the chickens are indeed guarding the hen houses,just not in the manner they expect. BTW, I have it on quality authority from the horse's mouth(local,state enforcement). This is indeed a situation which could ultimately result in civil strife,US

Posted by: We need G.C. Scott at February 10, 2007 5:09 PM

Since this thread has been superceded by the next one on the same topic, I'll let it go off-topic on the point Crows&Cows makes here:

Recall Karna before being slain in the most ruthless and merciless way on the exhortations of KRISHNA by Arjuna, karna like a wimp pontificates to Krishna about the "ethics of warfare"
begging to be spared. Sri Krishna curtly snubs him pointing out:
"....you are disarmed, not unarmed..."
And there is a Hell of a lot of difference between the two.(Disarmed and unarmed)

I've read as many versions of Mahabharats as Robert has read Qurans, and that's not what I recall. While the rules of conduct of warfare in this case was that a disarmed warrior not be hunted down, in this case, since the Kauravas had already broken those rules on the 13th day, the Pandavas retaliated by breaking the rules whenever they needed to in the killing of Drona, Bhoorishrava, and after Karna's death, Shalya and Duryodhana. In this case, Arjuna was hesitant to slay Karna, who was as you point out pontificating to Arjuna about the ethics of warfare. Krishna pointed out to him how he was one of the several warriors who had similarly killed a disarmed Abhimanyu, and therefore deserved no such consideration. In other words, PC considerations weren't allowed to trump the goal of sure victory.

Actually, for the purposes of confronting Muslims, I'd want Kauravas, not Pandavas. I want military advantages that the Kauravas had in Bheeshma, Drona, Kripa, Ashwatthama, Bhoorishrava, Bhagadatta, Jayadratha, et al. I'd want the ruthlessness of Drona and Ashwatthama - between them, they killed almost every major Pandava ally/warrior. I'd want the complete abdication of ethical considerations when it comes to confronting Muslims, just as Ashwatthama showed on the 18th night, when he chose to massacre the sleeping Pandava army.

The Ramayana and Mahabharata wars were duals in one important aspect: in the Ramayana, the stress was on the righteous side that had a major military advantage to fight ethically, given that victory was guaranteed. In the Mahabharata, where every major warrior was on the side of evil, the stress was to do whatever it took to win, given that a defeat would have meant the triumph of evil. The latter is the attitude that the entire Infidel world, at some point or another, will have to take vis a vis Islam.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at February 11, 2007 2:38 AM

In other words, PC considerations weren't allowed to trump the goal of sure victory.

Should have said: PC considerations weren't allowed to supercede the refusal of Krishna to endorse double standards.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at February 11, 2007 2:49 AM

Infidel Pride,

Sorry I am a poor communicator. I was not narating the story or details of warfare at all. I owe it to a WHITE man who captured the core essence of deciding what is Good and Evil in crystal clear English from The Great Epic AFTER the war where KRISHNA Himself gives a fiery dressing down to the surviving Paandavas. Many might read many versions but what Jesus Christ says in Parable of The Sower is not to be forgotten.

Posted by: Crows&Cows at February 11, 2007 3:44 AM

IP:

"... where every major warrior was on the side of evil, the stress was to do whatever it took to win, given that a defeat would have meant the triumph of evil ".

Precisely. No room for ahimsa or shielding children and women like Israel was arm twisted by all including UN .....etc etc in the war always ever waged by EVIL.

Posted by: Crows&Cows at February 11, 2007 3:51 AM

I owe it to a WHITE man who captured the core essence of deciding what is Good and Evil in crystal clear English
Posted by Crows&Cows

On what basis have you concluded that Infidel Pride is WHITE... and, in any case, what difference does his color make?

Posted by: Razdan at February 11, 2007 7:28 AM

Razdan,

Loll ..this is really too much. The WHite man I referred to is no more. Have I mentioned his name ? He has written a book. I really did not expect this from you.

Posted by: Crows&Cows at February 11, 2007 7:34 AM

Razdan,
I don't blame you. Even when I communicate in my mother tongue to my own, most of the times I am misunderstood and this has led to serious problems. I do wonder whether what I am trying to get across is lost and I sound inadvertently abrasive.

Posted by: Crows&Cows at February 11, 2007 8:40 AM

IP,

Oh no ! You have got it all upside down. Virtue alone and always triumphs. Kauravas stand for Adharmam. And the Story does not stop with the end of the war. Oh so sad...anyway I will not launch on it. Cannot too.

Posted by: Crows&Cows at February 11, 2007 4:44 PM

In this case, Arjuna was hesitant to slay Karna, who was as you point out pontificating to Arjuna about the ethics of warfare.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at February 11, 2007 02:38 AM

.. and we hear about the 'ROP', 'benevolence in the heart of Islam', crap dished, much like Karna pontificating to Arjun, but just as Kauravas threw out rules when killing Abhimanyu, muslims have thrown out Oslo Accords and every other signed agreement, deserving no consideration. The other lesson from Karna's character is that no matter how righteous one is taking the side of evil outweighs one's righteousness. The right action under the circumstances was for Karna to join Pandavs. Muslims should leave Islam, much like Vibhishan left Lanka.

Posted by: Alert at February 11, 2007 10:07 PM

Crows&Cows

I disagree. For instance, in the Ramayana, had Lakshman allowed Indrajit's final yagna to go through completion, it would have meant sure victory for Indrajit from then on. Similarly, had the war gone on purely on ethical grounds, the Pandavas would have lost their entire army (unless Krishna chose to militarily intervene.) The 'Virtue always triumphs' adage is meant as an encouragement to work towards that end: simply stating it, and assuming that it is inevitable no matter what, is a good way of ensuring that Virtue doesn't triumph.

You are also missing my point about wishing that we had Kaurava like leaders across the board. To understand it better, imagine India, for instance, being led by a Duryodhan like ruler who isn't willing to give a pin-prick worth of terretory to the ummah. Imagine a Drona as a Defense Minister who is willing to unleash nukes on the Jihadi countries. Imagine an Ashwatthama as a commander in chief who is willing to launch a surprise unprovoked nuclear attack on the ummah (like the 18th night massacre). And imagine the Indian armed forces having top rate generals like Bheeshma, Drona, Kripa, Ashwatthama, Kritavarma, Bhoorishrava, Bhagadatta, et al. Oh, and imagine that Duryodhana wants an empire from Fez to Brunei, and hates the ummah like he hated the Pandavas. Think there'd be much of Islam left when they are done?

Okay, I'm fantasizing. But my point is - what a difference a bunch of aggressive leaders would make.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at February 12, 2007 2:14 AM

IP :
( and certain other lurkers who may be panicstrickenly interested in my comments) I am APPALLED you people have again chosen oh so cleverly to miss the import of my comments.

I am focussed on the clear and PRESENT danger. And you belittle and demean me by reducing me to the role of some pompously garrulous TV panelists or bollywoodkollywood badshas((

I am not narrating the EPIC. NOT AT ALL.

OooiMaa ! I recall mother ecclesiaticca threatening me that I am being " watched over and monitored " which held her tongue in leash or else would have pounded out replies . I don't have money also to meet the cost of bandwidth gobbled up by me. Recall *MIDNIGHT KNOCKS (SS)* of .........

Posted by: Crows&Cows at February 12, 2007 3:42 AM

Razdan,
I don't blame you. Even when I communicate in my mother tongue to my own, most of the times I am misunderstood and this has led to serious problems. I do wonder whether what I am trying to get across is lost and I sound inadvertently abrasive.

Posted by: Crows&Cows

Yes, I know how your own with whom you communicate in your mother tongue feel. My sympathies are with all people who have had the misfortune to communicate with your esteemed self. And in reply to your wondering, no, you do not come across as abrasive, you come across as plain crazy. You have messed up several threads with your posts, and you take special pride in insulting posters who have never demeaned you in the first place. Personally I think if you are not on substances, then you are just plain unhinged.

Posted by: arjun.sevak at February 14, 2007 4:30 AM