Can beheading as capital punishment be far behind?
Forward into darkness!

Posted by: interestinconundrum at December 21, 2007 6:10 PM

So Sweden's established Evangelical Lutheran Church gets behind this? What putrification!

Posted by: John C at December 21, 2007 6:25 PM

But I forgot--Luther counseled Phillip of Hesse to take another wife if his conscience permitted it, as there is nothing expressly against it in Scripture (Jesus condemned putting away one's current wife--legalistic loophole for Deadened Legalists and other Whitened Sepulcres--He didn't specifically address taking another one; did He, now?)

Posted by: John C at December 21, 2007 6:33 PM

But I forgot--Luther counseled Phillip of Hesse to take another wife if his conscience permitted it, as there is nothing expressly against it in Scripture (Jesus condemned putting away one's current wife--legalistic loophole for Deadened Legalists and other Whitened Sepulcres--He didn't specifically address taking another one; did He, now?)

Posted by: John C at December 21, 2007 6:36 PM

Luther also was a raging anti-semite ... but fortunately modern Lutheranism has gotten past this unpleasantness, we hope ...actually Sweden is essentially atheist so it's inevitable that any lingering Christian traditions be assaulted under the guise of religious freedom and individuality. This has little to do with Islam , except as to provide an excuse , and everything to do with Socialist Democractic policy.

Posted by: David Xavier at December 21, 2007 7:24 PM

"the law should not interfere in religious matters or in matters pertaining to each individual."
-- from the article above, quoting Swedish judge Prof. Stefan Lindskog

Here it the problem. Swedish judge Prof. Stefan Lindskog thinks that Islam is merely a "religion" like any other. But it is not. It is a politics, an economics, a system for organizing society, all regulated by the holy law of Islam, or Shari'a. When he complacently insists that the "law should not interfere in religious matters" this means, when applied to Islam, that "the law should not interfere with the Total System of Islam."

And Islam is not, as Judge Professor Stefan Lindskog may dreamily believe, a faith that is, like modern Western democratic states, solicitous of the individual. The individual in Islam does not matter. He has no right to his individual conscience. He may not leave Islam, and if he tries to do so, it is on pain of death. He may not criticize or mock any aspect of Islam; that constitutes blasphemy and is punishable by death. He is the member of the Umma, the Community of Believers, and not an individual. He is to acquire the habit of mental submission, not ever to question the rules set down by Allah, as codified in the Shari'ah, any more than a Muslim girl can question the authority of male relatives over her, in every regard.

When Juge Professor Stefan Lindskog writes what he writes, ignorant of Islam, he is endorsing the prison of Islam, consigning all those who happen to have been born into Islam, and who now live in Sweden, to be subject to the rules of Sharia, subject to what is commanded or prohibited. If Muslim women want the right not to be subject to polygamy, and they do, they have to rely on non-Muslims to outlaw it, to prevent it from being imposed on them. Wafa Sultan, Nonie Darwish, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Azam Kamguian, and a thousand other articulate apostates or secularized Muslims could explain this to him. But I suspect he, Judge Professor Stefan Lindskog, doesn't wish to know.

Posted by: Hugh at December 21, 2007 7:44 PM

"the law should not interfere in religious matters or in matters pertaining to each individual."
-- from the article above, quoting Swedish judge Prof. Stefan Lindskog

Here it the problem. Swedish judge Prof. Stefan Lindskog thinks that Islam is merely a "religion" like any other. But it is not. It is a politics, an economics, a system for organizing society, all regulated by the holy law of Islam, or Shari'a. When he complacently insists that the "law should not interfere in religious matters" this means, when applied to Islam, that "the law should not interfere with the Total System of Islam."

And Islam is not, as judge Professor Stefan Lindskog may dreamily believe, a faith that is, like modern Western democratic states, solicitous of the individual. The individual in Islam does not matter. He has no right to his individual conscience. He may not leave Islam, and if he tries to do so, it is on pain of death. He may not criticize or mock any aspect of Islam; that constitutes blasphemy and is punishable by death. He is the member of the Umma, the Community of Believers, and not an individual. He is to acquire the habit of mental submission, not ever to question the rules set down by Allah, as codified in the Shari'ah, any more than a Muslim girl can question the authority of male relatives over her, in every regard.

When judge Professor Stefan Lindskog writes what he writes, ignorant of Islam, he is endorsing the prison of Islam, consigning all those who happen to have been born into Islam, and who now live in Sweden, to be subject to the rules of Sharia, subject to what is commanded or prohibited. If Muslim women want the right not to be subject to polygamy, and they do, they have to rely on non-Muslims to outlaw it, to prevent it from being imposed on them. Wafa Sultan, Nonie Darwish, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Azam Kamguian, and a thousand other articulate apostates or secularized Muslims could explain this to him. But I suspect he, judge Professor Stefan Lindskog, doesn't wish to know.

Posted by: Hugh at December 21, 2007 7:44 PM

Will this newfound openness to polygamy apply to kaffirs such as myself, or is it only Muslims who will be able to marry multiple Swedish women? Hey, Naseem's not the only one with a thing for blondes.

Posted by: special_guest at December 21, 2007 7:58 PM

And how many will be a drain on the welfare system given the cost to raise a family in a modern society. This isn't hypothetical; in the recent case of the Mormon Tom Green, his polygamous family lived off welfare for the most part. How else does one support five wives and 29 children.

Posted by: johnb at December 21, 2007 9:17 PM

"consigning all those who happen to have been born into Islam, and who now live in Sweden, to be subject to the rules of Sharia, subject to what is commanded or prohibited."

Sweden is a liberal democracy , it has an education system so its citizens arent ignorant, it is part of the EU , it is subject to the EU human rights charter. Therefore women who enter into a polygamous relationship do it freely...if they are coerced or wish to leave then they may seek relief from the Swedish courts or the EU court of human rights. As we have seen the EU courts trump National and indigenous laws. Also the good Prof is just submitting a draft bill that probably wont get up as polygamy is so retrograde. Redefining marriage is a pressure throughout the West , and is hardly a precursor to Sharia!

Posted by: David Xavier at December 21, 2007 9:29 PM

If Prof. Lindskog really believes what he says, then he wouldn't mind polyandry--multiple husbands--either, right?

Posted by: sceptico at December 21, 2007 10:01 PM

Greetings in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved

Can't wait to move to Sweden so I can have multiple husbands.....what's that you say? It only goes that way for men, not women? Pffftttttt.

Posted by: Stand fast in the liberty at December 21, 2007 10:26 PM

Sad, ancient laws perverted in 20 years by pervert muslim immigrants.

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at December 21, 2007 10:47 PM

Will cannibals have the right to eat people in Sweden as well? If so, this judge should be the first to be placed under glass.

The insanity just never ends.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at December 21, 2007 10:47 PM

If polygamy is to legalised for muslims, then it is an act of discrimination to prevent non-muslims from engaging in polygamy as well.

Non-muslims who wish to engage in polygamy should protest this act of discrimination towards them.

Posted by: Voltaire at December 22, 2007 1:51 AM

The serious political work for introducing polygamy in Britain started about 5 years ago.

1. Radio 4's "Today" is always used to test the air and they did an item about 4 years ago when an unpleasant muslim woman was interviewed. Among other things she said - as near as I can remember - was "We muslims have been supporting the labour party for years and it's about time we got some payback".

2. About 2 years ago Radio 4's "Woman’s hour" had half an hour on polygamy in Britain. The line taken was not "Stop it! It's illegal!" But "Golly gosh isn’t it common!

This is called preparing the ground.

I know an educated British Asian who openly married his 4th wife this year. He told his colleagues "I know only one of them is legal but....".

Incidentally the first - the very first - thing Labour's Jack Straw did on taking over the Home Office in 1997 was to scrap the “primary purpose rule”. This stated that a foreign partner could be denied entry if the primary purpose of the marriage was to gain entry into the UK. He declared it was "racist" and of course it mainly affected his “Asian” constituents. As a result 60% of “Asians” now bring in partners from “The Indian sub-continent” I THINK previously the rate stood at around 25%.

So statistically 2 of this young mans brides were immigrants and therefore illegal twice over but he does not seem too worried.

Posted by: Fred at December 22, 2007 2:15 AM

'David Xavier' - what a delightful name, so suggestive of Catholic and Western sensibilities.

I have noticed you on a number of threads, now.

Your posts seem continually to aim at distracting, at blurring sharp edges, laughing things off, diminishing any sense of alarm, any hint that there may in fact be any kind of a problem at all with this or that statement by a Muslim, this or that proposal to accommodate Islam within our societies. And, oh so sweetly, oh so casually, along the way you place your little pricking thorns designed to subliminally stir up trouble between Jews and Christians, between Protestants and Catholics, between Left and Right, to turn us against each other and lead us to ignore that which threatens us all.

Let's put polygamy aside, for a moment, and think about other things that sharia permits, or commands.

I wonder what you would say to the murder by strangling of Aqsa Parvez, in Canada,by her own father (or possibly, her brother) because she refused to wear hijab? He was merely doing what quite a lot of avowedly pious Muslims are claiming the right to do, in Iran, and in Iraq.

What about a Muslim who wants to apostasise? - look up Mohammed Hegazy, in Egypt; or 'Hannah' and 'Sofia', in modern Britain, whose families are attempting to enforce, right there in Britain, the sharia rule that Muslims who convert to Christianity should be executed.

I find specious, and indeed disingenuous, even sinister, your airy assertion that the permission of Muslim polygamy (which is part of sharia law, and Quranically permitted, even encouraged) is, first of all, never going to happen in a Western country, but that if it did, it would be no big deal, no different from the in-house debate the west is currently having over the 'redefinition of marriage'. Because it might happen; and if it does happen, it will be a very big deal indeed. It would feed Muslim triumphalism.

Your representation of Muslim polygamy as if it were merely another individual lifestyle choice, is ridiculous.

Read Geraldine Brooks, Nine Parts of Desire. You will find there a chapter discussing a marriage in 'Palestine', and what happened to a Muslim woman, and her children, when her husband took a second wife and gave her the choice of either divorce - which would mean losing her children, since as a Muslim he had exclusive custody rights - or tolerating (up close and personal, in a house too small for privacy) that second wife. Or you could peruse V S Naipaul, 'Beyond Belief', as he observes the disastrous effects of men's multiple marriages, upon their children. Or perhaps Nonie Darwish and Wafa Sultan could enlighten you.

Not all women, within the Muslim community, are free agents - many are far too young, and too totally controlled by, intimidated by, the people around them, to be able to say 'no' to being handed over to some man as his second or third wife. And conversely, women have historically had little say in whether their husband decided to add another woman to the household.

Even western women in abusive relationships with western husbands can find it difficult, almost impossible, to muster the strength to leave. Your airy assumption that if some Muslim woman were having a problem she could just opt out, no big deal, is lacking in realism - for remember, her own family and her husband's family are going to be watching her closely.

Best to simply forbid polygamy and to enforce, also, our own laws about the minimum age at which a woman may marry.

Defeat the Jihad. Reject Sharia law.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at December 22, 2007 2:21 AM

"the law should not interfere in religious matters or in matters pertaining to each individual."

Guess bank robbery and rape are ok then, as long as the individual involved really really believes in it as a lifestyle option.

Posted by: Ian at December 22, 2007 10:08 AM

David Xavier

I am afraid I must agree with dumbledoresarmy.

Pronouncements like this by people just outside mainstream politics are usually a sign that something is going on. If you look at my post above you will see the pattern taking shape,

1. Apparently outrageous political/social demand.
2. No negative public reaction.
3. Public is the "educated" about the positive aspects and social advantages.
4. Party policy
5. Law.

BTW when I wrote to my MP about the spread of shria law his reply could be summed up as "Dont worry, shria law is not a problem and it will always be subordinate to British Law".

Most reassuring.

Posted by: Fred at December 22, 2007 4:30 PM

If the mohammedan wants to breed with its own kind then ok.They're degenerate enough to begin with and intermarriage will produce a race of idiots,morons and microcephalics.
Oh but that's what's already happened,it's called islam.

Posted by: Paul at December 22, 2007 4:30 PM

Fred,

I think your commentary has more to do with lax immigration policy , poor social planning and blind ideological multiculturalism. I dont think you can blame Islam to occupy the 'social' space , its host country willing provides for them. The UK ,Sweden and other European countries are there own worst enemies and this thread is all about the ideology of Socialistic democracy , not Islam.

By the way my 'MP's' party stated ( and this is a bipartisan position ) unequivacally that Sharia is contra to the constitution , all calls for its implementation will be resisted , anybody who wants to live under Sharia should perhaps consider leaving the country.

Posted by: David Xavier at December 22, 2007 5:32 PM

dumbledoresarmy ( Hello Harry , Ron , Hermione and the rest)

I am what my name implies. I am not trying to 'wedge' you and your fellow travellers. I am a sceptical scribber who see's hysteria replacing reason.

There are many Muslim girls who dont wear the Hijab inthe West, so this doest necessarily lead to tragedy. I suspect a proportion of women do wear the Hijab out of fear of offending family , but this a transistory cultural imposition that will dissipate over genrations. Whats more the greater Muslim community isnt demanding "death" ..its only the family as the crime are rooted in shame , humilation and misogyny ( yes which can ultimately be attributed to a sense of Islam brought from the 'old' country ) it is essentially a crime of passion. The same with the cases of Apostasy in Britain , it is the families ( not the community) that is inciting murder- which is a crime ...which makes this essentially a 'Law and order' issue. If Western countries involved give 'oxygen' for this sort of behavior then the consquence can only be further tragedy...which only time will alleviate.

As for Polygamy , I do not believe polygamy will become a legal reality in the West , it will not in any case be the vanguard of the implemetation of Sharia. I do believe Polygamy is retrograde and corrosive and ultimately misogynous. I do also know someone ( non muslim) whose mother was a 'second' wife and was trapped in a poisonous conflict with the first wife. Also in the West , as I stated in my first post, women are more likely to be free agents due to a Western upbringing and education or exposure to Western concepts. Finally women enter in such arrangements now ...but this is on the decrease due to Western properity , Western romanticism , greater voice of women and their empowerment which leads to resistence on the basis of self esteem ,to the notion of being a "second" wife.

Posted by: David Xavier at December 22, 2007 6:32 PM

'David Xavier' -

so Mr Robert Spencer, and Bat Yeor, and Andrew Bostom are all inciting irrational hysteria - Islamophobia? - when they attempt to draw attention to the remarkable and rather unsettling congruence between the sort of things that many Muslims do in fact do nowadays - in their own countries, and ALSO in the Muslim 'colonies' within Infidel lands - and the teachings enshrined in the sacred texts of Islam, and the behaviours very frequently recorded of Muslims, in both Muslim and in non-Muslim histories, throughout the past 1400 years?

How about Jacques Ellul? Was he irrational and hysterical when he wrote the following - "there is so much talk nowadays about the tolerance and fundamental pacifism of Islam, that it is necessary to recall its nature, which is FUNDAMENTALLY WARLIKE".

Ellul - a trained sociologist, who specialised in law and the history of institutions - gave it as his sober professional judgement that it would be extraordinarily difficult for Islam to change itself, to become less violent, less oppressive, since Jihad was written into its deep structure, as an Institution rather than an Event.

Ellul did not necessarily believe such change to be impossible; but I do not think he thought, as you appear to want us to think, that positive change would happen on its own, by a mere magical osmosis between Western society and Muslims, and that meanwhile no Infidel should presume to view things such as honor killings, or polygamy, or the murder or attempted murder of 'apostates' and 'blasphemers', as having, in fact, anything at all to do with the attitudes and teachings of Islam.

I agree that the laws of our Infidel lands should be enforced.

But I think our Infidel police need to know WHY a formerly-Muslim girl who has become a Christian, or who is married to or cohabiting with a non-Muslim, may need heavy-duty protection against the murderous intent of her nearest-and-dearest. And I think they need to know that when a Muslim father in Canada strangles his daughter for not wearing hijab, this is a domestic violence case with a difference - a religious difference, that connects her murder with the murders of defiantly non-hijabbed women in the streets of Basra.

And OF COURSE, according to you, it's 'all in the [individual] Muslim family', so to speak, it has nothing to do with the wider Muslim community (i.e., other Muslim families), let alone, I assume, ANYTHING that is being preached in ANY mosque, anywhere. Let's all forget about David Henshaw and 'Undercover Mosque', shall we? He made it all up, didn't he? And MEMRI are making it all up, too - all those sermons out of Persia and Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Gaza and Syria, they're all invented by Zionist propaganda, or mistranslated. And there are only one or two trifling little 'recruit for the jIhad' websites, nothing to worry about there, piffle, they don't do any real harm.

Perhaps you can make us forget that people like Spencer, Ibn Warraq, Robert Redeker, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Salman Rushdie have to refrain from divulging their place of abode, even though none of them lives in a Muslim country, and two - Spencer and Redeker - do not come from Muslim families (so, no 'culture clash' family tension at work). Do you believe them to be hysterical alarmists, in that they live in Secure Undisclosed Locations? Do you think they do this just as a publicity stunt?

Perhaps you think they should publish their home addresses, since after all, 99.99% of Muslims are lovely, peaceful, tolerant people, and within our Western countries no rational person could ever suppose themselves to be at risk of assassination?

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at December 23, 2007 1:39 AM