In Sudan a dozen women were sentenced to be flogged for wearing pants. Some of them were Christian, but that has never really mattered, as the essential premise of Islamic law is that it is inherently superior to every other law. Naturally no men have ever been sentenced for wearing pants. That is a law that applies only to women, because there is a fundamental difference between Islamic law and Western law, not simply in morality or structure-- but in equality.
Islamic law is law made by Muslim men for the benefit of Muslim men, and the detriment of everyone else. It is the product of an inherently unequal system, designed to perpetuate that system.
Under it non-Muslims are inferior to Muslims because by rejecting the "truth" of Islam, they cast doubts about their moral fitness. A non-Muslim is an infidel who drinks alcohol, eats pork and has forbidden sexual relations. As far as Islamic law is concerned he is already of poor moral character and a criminal.
Women are inferior to men, as they are lower in status than men. When Mohammed declared, or was said to declare in Islamic scripture, that, "I also saw the Hell-fire and I had never seen such a horrible sight. I saw that most of the inhabitants were women", he was articulating the top down theology of a cult that defined sinfulness in terms of position of tribal power. Therefore in the Mohammedan vision of hell, the underworld was to be populated mostly by women for their ingratitude to their husbands, who under Islam were also their masters. And slaves are defined as moral to the degree that they serve their masters.
Under the circular logic of Islam, women are second class citizens because they are untrustworthy, and untrustworthy because they are second class citizens. This makes women automatically suspect of all sorts of things.
It is why a woman who was raped is more at fault than the man who raped her. In the Islamic worldview, which is itself a carryover of Bedouin tribalism, a rapist has taken someone else's property. By contrast the woman who was raped was careless with the property of her husband or her father. Whether the woman had consensual sex or was raped does not matter very much, because in either case she is only property that was damaged. Not a human being. The honor killing is simply a male relative or spouse destroying what Islamic tribalism considers to be "damaged property". Her consent is not considered significant, because Islamic law does not take the agency of a woman seriously, or treat her as competent to make decision on the level of a man in the first place.
It is why the woman is always at fault. While Western jurisprudence considers diminished capacity to be an extenuating circumstance, Islamic jurisprudence considers it to be a statement of guilt. That is because Western jurisprudence presumes innocence, while Islamic jurisprudence presumes guilt. The lower the role, the more readily the presumption of guilt is applied. Since Islam treats all people as inherently sinful, and therefore perpetually guilty, the higher the form of awareness, the more likely the Muslim is to avoid sin. A Muslim mam has more agency than a woman, and is more likely to do the right thing. A Muslim woman is considered to have less agency, which is why she must have a husband to master her, and why Islam considers her more likely to be at fault.
Like slaves, women can only demonstrate their worth through submission to their masters. Muslim men in turn can only demonstrate their worth through submission to the will of Allah as expressed by the Imams. Since the core of Islamic law is held by Arab Muslims, they effectively serve as superior to non-Arab Muslims. And throughout it all, one thing is missing. Equality under the law and equal justice for all.
If there is one thing that is innate to the functioning of a democratic society, it is that every person is legally equal under the law. It is also why Islamic Law or Sharia, is incompatible with a democratic society, because Islamic law presumes the inequality of everyone who is not a Muslim male as a given. Defenders of Sharia have tried to get around this by pointing to the things that Islamic law did not take away from women and non-Muslims while willfully ignoring the things that it did take away.
This is a basic reality that Westerners have been kept deliberately ignorant of. Yet the moment a Western tourist sets foot in a Muslim country, she has left a system where she is legally the equal of anyone else, and entered a system in which she is dramatically unequal. A woman or any non-Muslim who enters a Muslim country is now under the power of a legal system that considers her or him inferior in morals, in character and in testimony.
At the heart of the problem are the fundamentally different realities at the heart of law in a democratic nation and within Islam.
Citizens of First World nations see the legal system as part of a social contract with a government of their choice. The law is the expression of the wishes and values of the citizenry. And it treats everyone as inherently equal under the law because otherwise fairness becomes impossible. By contrast Islamic law is not part of any social contract, it is a decree of the Prophet and the various Muslim figures throughout the ages who have interpreted his sayings. It is not part of a bottom up civil society, it is a strictly top down series of clauses that mixes tribal customs, stolen scraps of other religions, with the determined will of a ruthless, though illiterate, warlord.
Islam does not recognize human equality. It is premised on human inequality. Women cannot be subject to the same laws as men, just as Mohammed was not subject to the same laws as men. Indeed the Koran records that Mohammed explicitly had the law rewritten on his behalf when he desired something, such as Zaynab, who happened to be married to his adopted son. A minor matter for the Prophet. The Koran also limited the number of permissible wives to four. This did not stop Mohammed from marrying as many as fifteen women. Muslims do not see the contradiction in any of this, because there is no premise of equality under Islamic law. You are only as "equal" as your spiritual standing within the Ummah permits.
There is no "I" in Islam, except in the alphabetical sense. Islam means participation in the Ummah, the dead Mohammed's "Kingdom of Heaven" on earth, as exemplified by the Muslim community as a whole, to be ideally expressed as the Caliphate that everyone from Al Queda on down to a hundred different regional ethnic terrorist groups such as Hamas, Abu Sayyaf, Hizbullah, the Taliban, Al-Ummah, Al-Faran and numerous others. What they all have in common is the mandate to enforce Islamic law as the only and absolute law, without any compromise, while scourging away any traces of Western law or culture whose pernicious individualism threatens the essential premise of the Ummah.
It is why Islamic law is the antithesis of equal justice under the law, and the two of them cannot co-exist side by side. If Western nations admit Sharia, then they are admitting to a state of inequality under the law. And that will be Islam's greatest triumph over the freedom of the individual and the equality of man.
That is very true. Shariah is not a law that any individual should want, let alone women. There is no rule of law, it is the rule of a few powerful men. Disgusting. I am always shocked when I meet women who actually want to convert to Islam, usually it is for men, but how blinded can you be?ReplyDelete
You said in your article, "There is no "I" in Islam, except in the alphabetical sense." Not true. There is no "I" in the Arabic alphabet. The closest letter is a yah, but it is used for vowel sounds.
Sharia is, in fact, terrifying. Anyone who has grown up or now lives in a Western democracy should accept this and should energetically fight to stop the concessions being made to Islam in so many countries. 'Creeping Sharia' is real and is happening left, right and centre.ReplyDelete
I remember blogging a while back about the case of a woman who had gone on holiday to a Muslim country. When her drink got spiked and she was raped, she then found herself flung into jail. Women should stay away from Islamic regimes.
women and anyone and everyone else, who isn't a high ranking Muslim male, the figure at the top of the justice chain in Muslim nationsReplyDelete
Read it and weep: we now have British policewomen actually dressing up as Muslim women.ReplyDelete
How is it that we and many others can see the problems intrinsic to Islam, yet we have idiocy like *this*:
I know it's the liberal, multiculturalist mindset at work but don't these morons have even a semblance of common sense and dignity left?
LOL LOL - think I'll email your article to the police force in question, Sultan Knish :)
The Islamist thrust with getting non-Muslim women to wear the Hijab, burka, etc has been to present it as a civil rights issue by telling them that it shows solidarity with Muslim womenReplyDelete
which is a fantastic bit of twisted logic,
You're right. That is precisely how the police force concerned have worded it.ReplyDelete
Pity people don't choose instead to show solidarity with the countless women in Muslim nations who get flogged for being raped, or stoned to death, and so on.
I think Britain is fast becoming a lost cause. And of course, every time something like this happens, the BNP is there to take advantage and attract more voters.
Britain is becoming desensitized to the Islamic threat, as illustrate by this VILE development:
They've been doing this since 9/11. People are told that reacting negatively to the Hijab, etc is Islamophobia. And the way to show solidarity with "Muslim sisters" is to walk in their shoes, or Hijab.ReplyDelete
Naturally showing solidarity with Muslim women being abused by Muslims is out, as that is "Western privilege".
Instead Western women are supposed to atone for their society's Islamophobia by donning the Hijab.
That is the essence of their argument broken down
Islam is the ultimate religion revealed to mankind. Since Islam recognizes all previous Prophets and Holy Books It encompasses everything good and beautiful previously revealed in Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism etc.ReplyDelete
That some Muslims do wrong is to be attributed to their imperfections as any human beings.
One day you'll meet your Lord and he will ask you what did you do out of your life and your knowledge... Will you answer that you were lying, mocking and vilipending faithful believers ? Repent while it's still possible.
You're confusing "recognizing" with "stealing". Stealing the religious figures of other faiths, and then claiming that they're inferior to your pedophile warlord Mohammed, does not make Islam the ultimate religion.ReplyDelete
Just as cult leaders today who claim that they have the final revelation of all the prophets, are not recognizing or encompassing anything. They're stealing and blaspheming.
That some Muslims do wrong, is attributed to them being Muslims who follow the Koran and their Imams.
One day you'll meet your Lord and he will ask you what did you do out of your life and your knowledge
I will answer that I opposed an evil murderous cult that blasphemed his name, and sought to slay his people.
Any more questions? Go and repent now, and be a Muslim no more.
"How is it that we and many others can see the problems intrinsic to Islam, yet we have idiocy like *this*"ReplyDelete
A very good question. I'd really like to know the answer because at some point body counts add up and I doubt ideologies like multiculturalism can ignore that.
@Lemon -even Judaism?
Same way Communism killed millions, and people kept rejecting any criticism of it. Same way Hitler went about his business, and people said we needed to encourage England and France to reach a peace agreement with him.ReplyDelete
people see through the lens of their own ideology, and a body count means nothing to them
Wow. That was a great article up until the very end. The whole thing, in essence, explained how and why Islam is political, and then closed with the unsubstantiated statement that it's religious. There's nothing religious about Islam. Read Sura 17 and tell me that Allah isn't a magical sky-troll at best. Why are apostates - those who renounce Allah - given the chance to repent while those who insult Mo are immediately put to death? Why does Allah do what Mo tells him to (lower the number of prayers per day) in Sura 17? He submits to Mo. Islam is a cult of personality. If anyone's the deity it's patently worldly Mo, who prays beside Allah (who know to what) in Sura 17. Allah is a scapegoat. There is nothing religious about Islam. Any and all pseudo-religious rituals (i.e., cult indoctrination) are incredibly militaristic. Nazism was a cult, too. It didn't require a deity. Unlike Islam, it required snappy dressing and a strong work ethic.ReplyDelete
Why were Non-muslim women punished as well?ReplyDelete
lsn't Sharia law only for Muslims?
Islam is extreme in its degredation of women, granted. But even in Judaism, or rather in Orthodox Judaism, women are somewhat less than equal. Look at the bus 'issue' in Jerusalem right now. Look at the way women sit at the back in many Orthodox Synagogues.
No offence intended to any of my Orthodox fellow Jews.
But all the Abrahamic faiths are inherently patriarchal. I'd argue that Judaism is the *most* democratic of the three though, in all respects.
Sorry, I know you directed this at LEMON :)
As for 'GOODADVISE':
Yeah, 'cause we can all see how 'beautiful' Islam is, every time a woman gets flogged for being a rape victim, and every time another woman gets stoned to death, in public. Not to mention all the 'infidels' that get beheaded simply for exercising free will and declining to convert TO Islam.
Yeah - real 'beautiful', that is.
There's a reason why Islamic countries have the worst human rights records. It's precisely *because* they are Islamic.
The root of Islamic terrorism = ISLAM
Orthodox synagogues have separate seating for men and women. My synagogue has gallery seating. Some synagogues arrange it differently, but there is no mandate in Orthodox Judaism to have women sit in the back.ReplyDelete
Sure, it's not true of all Orthodox Synagogues but sadly, many do have a layout whereby women sit at the back.ReplyDelete
I prefer the layout whereby the mechitsa (spelling?!) runs down the middle. The gallery ends up being counter productive, I think, because all too often the women just sit and chat.
Again, this won't be true of all Synagogues, but it is of a fair number.
Usually when the synagogue is longer than it is wide, seating is moved to the back. Wide make it easier for parallel, which I agree is the best arrangement, or galleries which is hard on the elderly.ReplyDelete
This is easier for stand alone synagogues, than synagogues built in apartments on tenement models.
Muslim men wear dresses. Flog them for dressing like women.ReplyDelete