How the Islamist Mindset Rationalizes — and Promotes — ‘Sex Sins’
Is it inconsistent for Muslim “holy warriors” to engage in voyeuristic acts of lasciviousness? Because would-be jihadists and martyrs have been known to frequent strip bars — such as the 9/11 hijackers and Major Nidal Hasan, whose “late-night jiggle-joint carousing stands at odds with the picture of a devout Muslim” — many Americans have concluded that such men cannot be “true” Muslims, leading to the ubiquitous conviction that they are “hijacking Islam.”
In fact, Islamists rely on several rationalizations — doctrines, even — that make “jiggle-joint carousing” consistent with Muslim piety. Considering that Islamic law permits sex slaves (Koran 4:3), who can be kept topless by their masters, and makes sex one of the highest paradisiacal rewards, this should come as no great surprise. However, to elaborate:
First, the doctrine of taqiyya allows Muslims residing among infidels to deceive the latter by, among other things, behaving like infidels, e.g., frequenting strip bars: “Taqiyya [deception], even if committed without duress, does not lead to a state of infidelity — even if it leads to sin deserving of hellfire.”
In conjunction, the overarching Muslim principle that necessity makes that which is forbidden permissible goes a long way in helping Islamists validate their libidinous desires: “It is ‘necessary’ for me to be at this strip club so infidels come to believe that I’m just a regular bloke and not a soldier of Allah.” Indeed, sometimes the mere gratification of sexual urges is deemed a “necessity” that makes the forbidden permissible in Islam, as in this historical anecdote:
After conquering the Banu Mustaliq tribe in 628, Muhammad’s men deemed it “necessary” to rape their captive women (citing their wives’ absence and untended desires). However, they also wanted to sell these women for a profit, which posed complications, as copulating with them risked impregnating them. So they rationalized that ‘azl (coitus interruptus) would solve the problem and asked Muhammad. The prophet went one step further and offered a cosmic rationalization, dismissing coitus interruptus as unnecessary, “for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born” — that is, pullout or not, you cannot thwart Allah’s will, so don’t bother. (See here and here for more ‘azl quotes.)
Muhammad also maintained that death in the jihad not only blots out all sins — including sexual ones, a la voyeurism — but it actually gratifies them:
The martyr is special to Allah. He is forgiven [of all sins] from the first drop of blood [that he sheds]. He sees his throne in paradise, where he will be adorned in ornaments of faith. He will wed the ‘Aynhour [a.k.a. “voluptuous women”] and will not know the torments of the grave, and safeguards against the greater terror [hell]. … And he will copulate with 72 ‘Aynhour (see The Al Qaeda Reader, p. 143).
… duplicitous behavior is taught and learned well.
in Islam you only need to keep the man with power happy. and the man with power can do as he pleases. he can quote a passage to accommodate anything.
We have to keep in mind that the jihadist is stripped clean of any sin whatever horrendous or disgusting and that he is granted automatic salvation.
This implies natural attraction for this doctrine between criminals and people whose actions lead them to believe they have no chance of salvation by “conventional means”. It also leads the jihadist to think that he has carte blanche for sinning since his commitment to jihad grants him to go to the highest of the seven layers in Paradise (women go to the lowest one). So Muhammad Atta and accomplices going to a strip club the night before 9/11 only surprises those who don’t know islamic doctrine.
So many virgins not enough time.I would settle for less then 72 !
There is also the Islamic dichotomy between the “faithful” and the “infidel” to consider. In Islamic belief, Islamic women are inferior to men to begin with, and depending on which Islamic scholar is interpreting the Qu’ran either (a) lack souls or (b) may only “earn” souls by dying in jihad. (Hence, women homicide bombers.)
Infidels of either sex, by comparison, are considered to lack souls, period, and are therefore no better than animals. At best, they are suitable to be enslaved as “dhimi”, which is (in Islamist belief) about the same thing as breaking a horse, branding it, and putting a bridle on it. By this “logic”, leering at half-naked women is no more “sinful” than looking at the horse’s backside, or checking its legs for signs of pigeon-toe. They’re just checking out the “merchandise” they see as potential future “property”.
By the same token, they can say that since killing such an “animal” in the name of jihad is no sin, looking at it, in any way, is no sin either.
Once you define a person, or group, as something other than “human”, or as not having “legitimacy”, it becomes very easy to do things to them that would violate your belief system’s demands regarding treatment of “real people”. Islam has much to answer for, in this respect.
clear ether
eon
For moslems Islam is of more importance than morality. They clothe women in bin bags because it reinforces the rule of Islam and not because it makes people moral. If Islam is so moral why is it that a woman can walk freely in the west but doing the same in a moslem country would invite rape and not only that but common islamic perception is that the perpetrator would be totally justified.
There is no such thing as morality in islam because at the end of the day murder, rape, intimidation and lying propaganda are the very tools that give islam its staying power.
I would also point out that, for the most part anyway, the women being so oggled are infidel women who are excluded from the social protections and compacts of islam due to their “infidelity.” For the committed jihadi, then, furthering the degradation of these women is no sin, but an act fully consistent with an attitude of war and insult toward the kafir.
Yup, that explains a lot. Thanks, RI.
This entire mindset was clearly to get a lot of willing warriers to carry out the will of Mohammad. What a community organizer was he!
Then there is the issue of Muslim Gang Rapes. Now prevalent in the EU and Russia, becoming more so in Minneapolis and Dearborne.
paul – indiana brilliant correlation , i wish author would have addressed infidel disposition
1 kill
2 enslave , he did touch on this
3 convert
of course the ideal would b conversion but muslims put little apparent effort into this , mostly brute force in my perception , so the alternative slavery has been shown 2 b unsustainable , also conversion isn’t a great alternative because the biggest killer of muslims r muslims !
@10: There’s a lot of practical tension in the convert / subjugate / kill trichotomy. Subjugated infidels — Dhimmis — are required to pay extortionate taxes for “protection,” which historically made it possible for the Caliphate to sustain itself without taxing Muslims. Of course, that was a powerful incentive for the Dhimmi to convert or flee, which produced an expansionist political dynamic: the Caliphate had to grow in terms of territory and Dhimmi subjects to preserve its financial basis and the expectations of Muslims!
Makes Islam sound a lot like a European welfare state, albeit organized along religious lines, doesn’t it?
It’s Allah’s will; he knows what I like! (Lots of that going on.) Reminds me of the “workers paradise” leftists use to justify gulags and secret police, too.
Raymond Ibrahim. Always enjoy his presentations since his days at Robert Spencer’ JihadWatch.org . This piece demonstrates Ibrahim’s gifts of precision and clarity.
Over at PJTV, the gifted writer/orator, Bill Whittle brings attention to the lyrical logic of Abraham Lincoln with selected quotes including “I’m a firm believer in the people. If given the truth they could be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts.”
We count ourselves incredibly fortunate to know we can rely on Ibrahim, Spencer and Whittle to consistently present ‘real facts’to their audiences.
Geeez, as I prepare to post this comment, wouldn’t you know, I have to ‘submit’ rather than ‘post’! Sigh. Lan Astaslem!
A most excellent PM post! Someone, please send the memo to DHS on the above stated truth on Islam.
It is called Lucifer worship.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha…stop it youre cracking me up…it helps if you are illiterate and possessed of microscopic intelligence…thats how you get an army of robots.
Here we are fast approaching 9 years after 9-11 and you NEVER see this kind of basic information about Islam in the mainstream media.
Why do so few outlets want to reveal the truth?
Every little cult gets blasted by the news the minute they do anything wrong, but Islam gets a free pass every time.
What really gets me about this doctrine is that Allah becomes the slave of any doofus who declares jihad. So just cause literally ANY Muslim says it’s a jihad means Allah has to take these mooks into paradise? Osama bin Laden wasn’t a sheikh until AFTER 9/11–and a sheikh or elder is supposedly one recognized as able to pronounce a judgments or fatwah. So he was allowed to declare jihad before being a sheikh, and successfully killing a bunch of Americans makes him a skeikh? So apparently the salafi/wahhabi jihadist sect of Islam has Allah in its pocket–he has to do what they tell him.
Yeah right. I’ve read the Quran and Allah isn’t a slave to anybody according to the written word. He isn’t required to take anyone into paradise unless he feels like it. So all those jihadists who think they’re getting a free ticket are on theologically VERY shaky ground, even in their own religion. But then there aren’t many real Muslims in the world; practically all who claims to be Muslim are really munkar or polytheists pretending to be Muslims. Originally they hid icons under their robes–today they elevate their own personal beliefs above the Quran. I reckon this belief that they can command Allah to be the most ridiculous of them all. Even if the Quran were true–which it is not in my opinion, in large part–they would be in BIG ENORMOUS COLOSSAL trouble. Allah as described in the Quran does not take kindly to being ordered around.
Dip the bullets in pigs blood and fight on.
the other aspect of islam that is so menacing is muslims r only required 2 b honest with other muslims , so any disinformation or propaganda goes , so when infidels r told islam is the religion of peace there’s room 4 skepticism , oh and bloodybullets , a good friend who was a convoy commander in iraq told me his troops threw ham sandwiches 2 starving begging kids along the convoy routes , sometimes u have 2 account 4 maslow’s hierarchy !
The fact that so many consider Muhammad as a legitimate religious leader and not an evil, cultish charlatan is very disturbing in itself. “Truth has died in the streets.”
Loved the article. I think we could use this practice of strip club
patronage as an early warning device, if the girls would just call in the “rag head in the front row” DHS could pick them up right outside. problem solved, lives saved.
Bacon Burkas for everyone!
Yeah right. I’ve read the Quran and Allah isn’t a slave to anybody according to the written word. He isn’t required to take anyone into paradise unless he feels like it. So all those jihadists who think they’re getting a free ticket are on theologically VERY shaky ground, even in their own religion
What the Quran says (BTW haddiths ie sayings of Muhammad are considered as important since Muhammad is literally Allah’s mouth) about automatic salvation for jihadists doesn’t matter. What matters is what they believe. It doesn’t matter if they believe it because it is in the Quran itself, in the haddiths or because every Muslim scholar agrees about it: this belief determines their behavior and the nature of the ideology called Islam.
Nidal Hassan, reportedly indulging in lap dances at a local strip club (aka “trying to fool the infidel into thinking he was just a regular guy”, sure uh huh)…I read around the time of the massacre that he wasn’t abrogating Islamic law in getting lap dances as long as he didn’t look the woman in the face and only observed her in a mirror.
Reading of all the qualifications and categories restricting behavior in the devout Muslim’s daily life, the rituals and protocols surrounding bodily functions etc., this sounded like it might be right. (not to mention that just following all the miniscule rules laid down would drive a person nuts)
Allah seemed particularly concerned with Mohammed’s sexual pursuits and household management. One of the Sura grants Mohammed permission to have sex (“go into” ?) his adopted (sometimes referred to as foster) son’s wife.
Doesn’t it concern the Jew haters that one of Mohammed’s wives, after Khadija’s death, was a Jewess and another Jewess was a concubine ?
The Harem in Saudi Arabia infantilizes women.
It is disgusting to promise a small female child to a hoary, old man. Equally disgusting for a hoary old man, like Osama or al Zawahiri, to force a 16 YO girl into marrying him.
young jihadists giddily singing about their forthcoming deaths and subsequent sexual escapades in heaven.
It’s hard to believe, but a lot of the motivation for strapping on a bomb for a typical brainwashed 13 YO seems to be the idea of getting laid in Paradise.
“absolutely everything [jihad, suicide operations, etc.] revolves around sex in heaven,” adding, “if you look at the whole of Islamic history, you come up with two words: sex and violence.”
Sounds about right.
Temporary marriage might be described as an excuse for using a woman, a way to rationalize the fact that a man is approaching her as a prostitute.
This treatment can be given to any religion. The Koran was not straying far from the bible in the keeping of sex slaves and multiple wives.
in response to Jeb in #25
Really??? Care to tell us where in the Bible the keeping of sex slaves was allowed? Or where God in either the Old or New Testament ever condoned rape?
I’d hate to think you’re just making stuff up.
Jeb:
Here’s the author of the Saudi curriculum on the subject of slavery (which encompasses the idea of “right hand possessions”/sex slaves as discussed in the Quran):
“…The main author of the Saudi religious curriculum expressed his unequivocal support for the legalization of slavery in one of his lectures recorded on a cassette and obtained exclusively by SIA news.
Leading government cleric Sheikh Saleh Al-Fawzan is the author of the religious books currently used to teach 5 million Saudi students, both within the and in Saudi schools aboard – including those in the Washington, D.C. metro area.
“Slavery is a part of Islam,” he says in the tape, adding: “Slavery is part of jihad, and jihad will remain as long there is Islam.”
http://www.arabianews.org/english/article.cfm?qid=132&sid=2
The sexual enslavement going on right now in Sudan by the arabist/islamic regime in Khartoum is a recent example.
emergent pillage:
“Really??? Care to tell us where in the Bible the keeping of sex slaves was allowed? Or where God in either the Old or New Testament ever condoned rape?
I’d hate to think you’re just making stuff up.”
Have you ever read the “Old Testament”? I doubt you have because if you had, you would not ask such an ignorant question. The Koran is pretty tame compared to the OT. If you like I will give you a few quotes to look up.
Deuteronomy 21:10-14: “When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her [this means have sex with her either with or without her consent], and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.”
Deuteronomy 20:14″ “But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself”
Exodus 21:7-11 (New International Version)
7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, [a] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.
Women and girls are property and they have no say in who they marry or have sex with. Try and find something this bad in the Koran.
#2, David: Your chief problem is that you totally fail to understand that whatever is in the Bible is not necessarily applicable today, and generally of a descriptive nature (such as many of those Old Testament quotes you mention). The Qur’an, on the other hand, is in its entirety totally applicable for today’s Muslim and of a prescriptive nature. This same author discusses the important differences between violence in the Bible and Qur’an here:
http://www.meforum.org/2159/are-judaism-and-christianity-as-violent-as-islam
Then, of course, there is the Ahadith, which make the most problematic Biblical passages pale in comparison, and which you pretend are not part of Islam’s corpus.
Shechild, emergent pillage, and Omar
Read Leviticus and Deuteronomy. They are chock full of laws that most of us would find abhorrent.
I realize that there is a new covenant and that Leviticus and Deuteronomy have supposedly been supplanted, but that doesn’t seem to have sunk in with a wide swath of Christians who continue to quote them to support their own prejudices. Keep in mind that the new covenant means the the 10 commandments are out, the rules against homosexuality are out, etc; it doesn’t just mean that you don’t have to eat kosher*.
I can agree that fundamentalist Islam is oppressive and I have no desire to see it spread, but I feel that way about all fundamentalist and literalist religious movements.
* though if you live in the desert and don’t have access to modern tech it might not be a bad idea
Wow. It’s almost like Islam is a political system, not a religion.
I can’t believe you linked to that Copper Kid comic, Raymond! I think you’re fatwa’ed in Indonesia now.
Once again, Jeb, I don’t think you appreciate the role that the Quran plays in the theology of islam. The Quran isn’t a record of events and miracles, the Quran IS the miracle. It’s eternal and immutable. Mohammad didn’t write it, it was revealed to him in an uncorrupted form and it’s identical to the version in paradise. It is not a descriptive or historical account written by men – even men with divine inspiration – it is quite literally direct instructions from Allah on how to order every aspect of society, from the political to the legal to the social to the religious. It is in every way, PRESCRIPTIVE not descriptive. It currently orders the life of EVERY theocratic islamic state, from stoning to gender aparteid, to dhimmitude, to death for apostates, blasphemers and homosexuals. It can NEVER really exist separately from the expression of state power. It actually requires a full blown paradigm shift for a westerner to understand it fully. . . . Took me about 6 months of full-time study.
A Muslim arrives in Heaven
——–
Abu al-Zarqawi died and George Washington met him at the
Pearly Gates.
He slapped him across the face and yelled, “How dare you try
to destroy the nation I helped conceive!”
Patrick Henry approached, punched him in the nose and
shouted, “You wanted to end our liberties but you failed!”
James Madison followed, kicked him in the groin and said,
“This is why I allowed our government to provide for the
common defense!”
Thomas Jefferson was next, beat al-Zarqawi with a long cane
and snarled “It was Evil men like you who inspired me to
write the Declaration of Independence .”
The beatings and thrashings continued as George Mason, James
Monroe and 66 other early Americans unleashed their anger on
the terrorist Leader.
As al-Zarqawi lay bleeding and in pain, an Angel appeared.
Al- Zarqawi wept and said, “This is not what you promised
me.”
The Angel replied, “I told you there would be 72 Virginians
waiting for you in Heaven … What did you think I said?”
Shechild,
I understand the fact that some Muslims take the Koran more literally than some Christians and jews take the Bible. The point I was making is that the OT “Gods Word” is very violent and it does condone the rape of women and children captured in battle. It also allows fathers to sell their own daughters for sexual use by other men. I don’t know what you mean by “discriptive nature” as in all three quotes above the voice is that of Jehova. He is not “discribing anything” he is telling people what to do. Now I understand that Christianity and judaism can explain away these passages or just pretend they do not exist, and enlightened Muslims can also ignore or explain away the more violent passages in the Koran and other writings. So . . . ????
The Jews have a very effective ‘group evolutionary strategy’. The figurehead of the group strategy is ‘God’. They inter breed within their cultural group, produce highly intelligent offspring who have excellent linguistic skills. The Jewish people have thrived for centuries as a result of their adherence to this ‘God’. Their people are always at the higher echelons in the societies which they live. The Jews succeed through intelligence. The one thing Islam did was to remove the ethnic/racial element from the ‘God’ of the group, thereby increasing it’s breeding base, and therefore make the group more likely to outbreed the Jews. It’s just simple mathematics! Allah is more effective than Jahweh by sheer breeding power.
Farlowe,
That’s and awful lot of baggage to attach to whether or not your religion is evangelical.
Re #28 David.
You should look at the words from those scriptures. The captives were made wives. They were MARRIED not raped. And as wives they put off clothes of captivity and became part of the family with all it’s protections, honors, etc. If things did not go well they could not be sold (the true mark of a slave) but were to be released with full freedom. Girls were “sold” as wives to protect them from the cruelity of poverty. And they had rights as wives. Better to be married off to a family then starve. And she was to be redeemed if things did not work out.
NO WHERE does slavery enter in.
David, no where in the Bible is the practice of sex-slavery condoned. What is permitted is marrying your female slaves. If an Israelite soldier were to capture a woman and desired to have sex with her, he was required to make her his wife, with all the status that came with it. If he later wished to divorce her, he was required to grant her her freedom without cost.
and
What do you call it when someone forces you to marry them so that they can have sex with you whenever they choose to?
They were sold because they were viewed as property.
Remember you shalt not covet your neighbor’s house, wife, manservant, maidservant, ox, donkey, nor anything that is his.
There is good reason for the correlation between increasing women’s rights and increasing secularization of society.
If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
– Exodus 21:20-21
Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.
– 1 Peter 2:18
Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
– Leviticus 25:44-45
Jeb:
Well thank goodness for the New Testament and the Golden Rule which gave Christians like Wilberforce the moral imagination to understand that slavery was wrong (something islam could NEVER accomplish as evidenced by the fact that the gulf countries didn’t actually outlaw slavery until the 1960′s and ’70′s and virtually EVERY country that still practices wide spread slavery today is significantly islamic).
and
Doesn’t the second part of that statement contradict the first?
responding to David in #28
–Have you ever read the “Old Testament”?–
Yes.
–The Koran is pretty tame compared to the OT.–
Which leads me to the conclusion that you haven’t read it.
For example, you reference Deuteronomy 21:10-14 as if it supports sex slavery. But read the passage if you’re going to reference it, and you’ll see that it isn’t about sex slavery at all. The man is to marry the woman, to take responsibility for her, not keep her in a brothel and sell her to whomever wanted to pay for sex with her. The passage even explicitly says she is not to be treated as a slave, as property to simply be sold.
Exodus 21:7-11 is about female servants. There is no hint that in having the girl or waman as a servant, the man was entitled to her sexual services, too. It could be argued that it did involve marriage or maybe concubinage, but she wasn’t his property to be sold, and she wasn’t to be treated as second-rate if he married someone else after her.
And if you’re going to reference Deuteronomy 20:14, you’re going to have to do so in light of Deuteronomy 21:10-14, which tells what it means.
Jeb:
Did you read the quote from Sheik Fawzan?
The sheik, being one of the most prominent islamic clerics in the most prominent and influential islamic theocracy on the planet, CLEARLY does not believe that slavery is wrong. He is forced to hide this aspect of islam because to acknowlede it publically would place him and his barbaric religion beyond the pale and seriously undermine efforts at islamic dawa, especially among western blacks who have not yet been made aware of the role of islam in the African (and other) slave trades. . . . And btw, simply because one of these countries ostensibly outlaws an islamic practice like sexual slavery (or the marriage and rape of 9 year old girls, to give another example) does NOT mean the practice has lost offical sanction or has in any meaningful way actually stopped (Sorry, Jeb, that’s another sign of a western thinker: ” . . . In this context, the problem is not Muslims frequenting strip clubs, but misplaced Western projections that assume religious piety is always synonymous with [western notions of] personal morality”):
“Saudis Import Slaves to America”
http://www.danielpipes.org/2687/saudis-import-slaves-to-america
“UAE Royals Enslave Seventeen Women” Brussels
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/unitedarabemirates/2236851/Women-enslaved-by-Arab-royals.html
Re Rape, Slavery, Etc.
Jehova in the bible condones/commands all three of these. None of you have dealt with the actual text or the passages. Your lame attempts to explain away these passages illustrate your selective reasoning. For example, in any of the passages I quoted did the woman have any right to refuse to have sex? No! So if the man insisted on having sex with his captive, his slave or his purchased girl, the man had the right to “humble” her by forcing himself on her. Can’t we all agree that this is rape? And in every case the man was NOT obligated to marry the woman. If he didn’t like her after he raped her he could set her free. Now I know you all feel this is somehow better than selling her, but ask yourselves, “In that culture what is a raped former slave woman worth?” The answer is “nothing.” She would be forced to become a prostitute or starve. Remember these were Jehova’s instructions or orders. If you were as forgiving and creative with the Koran or any other of the Muslim writings as you are with the Hebrew sciptures your point might be taken. The OT is dripping in blood, rape, vengence, slavery and genocide. To argue that it is not is dumbfounding. Really, Islam is about 120 years behind Christianity in terms of morality. Or have we already forgotten about the millions of slaves brought to this country and worked by “Christians” (mostly “southern” baptists.) Why can’t you see other religions through the prism of your own religious tradition’s issues?
“15. Richie-Massachusetts:
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha…stop it youre cracking me up…it helps if you are illiterate and possessed of microscopic intelligence…thats how you get an army of robots.”
Hmm. No punctuation for “you’re,” other notable grammatical weaknesses, the beginnings of a run-on sentence…
I’d say you shouldn’t quit your day job; you don’t seem to be very good at this political commentary/mocking thing.
Just sayin’
David/Jeb:
You give us verses in the old testament that no mainstream jewish or christian denomination accepts as legitamate or practices. I gave YOU the words of a prominent living islamic cleric as well as binding theological arguments which require modern theocratic islamic states to accept such practices as legitamate, AND numerous documented cases of educated, highly placed representatives of those religio-politcal states REPEATEDLY engaging in this behavior on the assumption that they act with complete impunity and legality, even in western countries. And we’re the ones who are illogical? What’s teh difference? It’s only the difference between the fossilized imprint of an old flu pathogen from 3,000 years ago compared to a fresh live dose of contageous ebola. . . One LIVES and is dangerous, while the other does NOT.
P.S. Many cultures have practiced slavery over the course of history. It was not uncommon. What’s remarkable is the fact that western judeo-christian culture, almost exclusively among major world cultures, STOPPED, to the point of committing violence to see it end (The British actually had to bomb the east African islamic slave ports to enforce the ban – though as I have noted earlier, it still continues – while the US suffered through its bloodiest war).
THAT’S what’s remarkable about this story.
This reminds me of how Christian Republicans think anything is permisable as long as they pretend to repent after they get caught.
45. Not true. No one would ever starve in Israel so long as Israel abided by the Commandments. Widows and orphans, as well as other impoverished peoples, were entitled to glean from their neighbor’s crops, as well as to receive sustenance from the tithes of their countrymen. Plus, as a free woman she would be free to marry whomever she pleased, which shouldn’t be hard if she was beautiful enough to make a soldier desire her, rather than an Israelite woman.
Mr. Ibrahim– I checked you are not a Visiting Lecturer at the National Defense Intelligence College. You have lectured repeatedly in one course one time over the last two years which makes you a “Guest Class Lecturer”. You are such a fraud.
“This reminds me of how Christian Republicans think anything is permisable as long as they pretend to repent after they get caught.”
Oh look, an angry liberal elf and his adorable twee rage. Rock on, little elf.
Omar,
The differences you note are primarily derived from the increasing secularization of Western society since the Enlightenment. It is this increasing secularization reigning in religious excess that accounts for the differences between modern secular states (the developed world) and the theocracies and virtual theocracies that you describe; it is not differences inherent in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam or their holy books.
Life model decoy,
That’s is just petulant and doesn’t forward any argument.
Chuck Jenson,
There is no real difference between the appellations. Grow up.
Once again Mr Ibrahim tells false information about Islam as a part of a racial campaign,he selects what he likes with out continuing the phrases or the ideas .He chooses criminals and killers to show that this is Islam.
What will you say Mr Ibrahim if I tell you that the apartheid criminal regime in south Africa was christian?Are not christians those who killed , and persecuted the blacks?what do you say about the Nazis are not they Christians and persecuted the jews and committed genocide(the holocaust)?Mr Ibrahim what was the man who threw a nuclear bomb over Heroshima and Nagazagi?he was christian.So in your course of articles and accusations the christians are killers and criminals ,but really they are not.
Please stop this flaw of hatred and racism because we are fed up with calls of violence and vendetta and look carefully at the big ally to the US , Saudi Arabia which funds the Takfiri schools in Pakistan and graduate and produce taliban and Qaeda .Try to stop this bad conduct ,claim that US fighting terrorism and funding it from the other side.
response to David in #45
–Jehova in the bible condones/commands all three of these.
You have yet to show any such thing.
–For example, in any of the passages I quoted did the woman have any right to refuse to have sex? No! So if the man insisted on having sex with his captive, his slave or his purchased girl, the man had the right to “humble” her by forcing himself on her. Can’t we all agree that this is rape?
By your definition, any kind of ‘forced marriage’ or ‘arranged marriage’ would be ‘rape’, which would be a redefining of the word analogous to the feminists who use to say (and some may still) that all marital sex is rape.
–And in every case the man was NOT obligated to marry the woman.
Show were that is so? None of the passages say that, and in fact stress that they are to be married before they are to engage in sex. You are completely reaching, for whatever reasons you may have for doing so.
I had never thought of this concept before, but now I see how utterly disastrous this concept in theology is. I myself am Catholic, so I am not unfamiliar with the concept of keeping track of my personal sin, so that I might gain absolution later. Absolution of course comes in three parts in Catholicism, penitence, confession, penance. The long list of sin in the Catechism applies to all Catholics. Piety and salvation has a single standard.
This theology of Islam seems to set up two categories of saved people within Islam.
A. The devout and pious whom must follow all of the tenants of their faith and resulting abstinent manner regarding worldly pleasures.
B. The holy warriors whom get to do pretty much whatever they want and still be saved. Essentially justified hedonism without any guilt of conscience.
If Islam was my faith, given the the very abstemious tenants of Islam faith, I certainly would be inquiring, probably sometime around age 15 or 16, “How do I become a part of group B?”
Jamil Hanna.
The article is not trying to suggest that Christians cannot be violent, history has borne clear evidence that we can, nor that Muslims must be violent due to faith. The article is criticizing an article of faith, that makes hedonistic activity morally justifiable while acting as a warrior for God. Perhaps the religious leaders in the Islamic world, should they be truly concerned with curbing violence committed in the name of Islam, consider the tempting nature of hedonism, and revise their articles of faith to remove an exemption of piety from the holy warrior.
Christian faiths have revised their teachings and methods on absolution many many times as the previous teachings proved destructive to pious moral behavior. If their is a particular current belief or teaching of the Christian faith that encourages any sort of violence towards Muslims or any other group, or provides exception to the given standards of piety and morality that would certainly also be a valid criticism. However the argument that “Christian’s can be violent too” while very true, does not get back to the point of the article. Which is not “The Islamic faith is bad, Muslims are bad” but simply “maybe this particular belief is encouraging destructive behavior, maybe you should consider modifying your teachings”
A forced marriage generally amounts to forced servitude and often repeated rape. If a woman (or man) does not want to have sex and is forced to (even by a spouse) it is rape. Do you really disagree with that?
Not all marital sex is rape, but all forced sex is rape regardless of the marital status of the participants. It was not until quite recently that this was legally recognized in the US. If memory serves it wasn’t until the 1970s or even 80s in some states it was illegal for a man to force his wife to have sex with him. This was largely defended because it was viewed as the wife’s duty and that was largely biblically defended. A relatively short time before that it was legal for men in the US to beat their wives, again with widely voiced biblical support. In both of these cases it was secular society that came to the rescue of the beaten and raped women.
Put Islam together with Communisim and what will WE get ??
Peripherally related but worth a read is:
Tamarin, G.R. 1966. “The Influence of Ethnic and Religious Prejudice on Moral Judgment.” New Outlook, 9:1:49-58.
I can’t find it online, but if you have access to a good research library…
HANK:
LMAO!! I gotta send that to my mother-in-law in Fredericksburg!
RE: Rape, Slavery etc.
I was able to make a pretty good dent in reading the Bible from beginning to end during deployment and, no kiddin’, some of that stuff in the Old Testament is pretty disturbing. (Except for the stuff about what to do with a rebellious child. I wish I could apply it to my 12-year-old step-son. ; ) “..you must remove the evil from the camp!” ) I think I even made notes in the margins comparing them to jihadis. And David and Solomon both had multiple wives and concubines. And now I’m no Biblical scholar — or even a Naked Archaeologist — but I think by the time the first century rolled around those practices had been discarded. Nor would I want to try to discuss how Judaism evolved other than to point out that Christianity actually began as a Jewish sect, ie. it’s adherents, the disciples, apostles, were observant Jews who believed Yeshua was the fulfillment of OT prophecy.
Anyway, my long-winded point is, yes, it’s true Judaism and Christianity had some of that too. But they evolved. Islam, apparently, has not.
Not near so early as that. Jews and Christians both gave up slavery at the same time the societies around them did, though some of both tried to hold on to it longer and some of both helped bring it to an end. The same is true of wife rape and polygamy.
Christianity grew up under Roman rule and the Roman tradition of (official) monogamy was adopted by the church relatively early*. Some Jewish sects gave up polygamy as early as the 11th century. There are still people alive today when both gave up slavery and forced marriages**. We were both alive when they turned against wife rape.
* 8th or 9th century
** some few still haven’t given up forced marriage
How come it never occurs to people to ask “Why did God command the destruction of these people?” The answer is pretty simple- these people engaged in child sacrifice as a part of their pagan worship, and readily sought to corrupt the Israelites to copy their abominations. They rightly deserved extermination! It is in this context that one must view enslaving the ones who surrendered. The Israelites were commanded to treat their slaves well and treat foreigners with dignity- provided all slaves and foreigners abided by Jewish moral laws.
mythbuster,
Is it your view then that the Spanish should have exterminated the Aztecs?
Is it your view then that the Spanish should have exterminated the Aztecs?
Actually it is neither mythbuster’s nor Cortez’s opinion. It was the opinion of the Tlazcaltecs and every other tribe who was being raided by the Aztecs.
JFM,
It is myth buster’s expressed view that genocide was justified because at least some of those exterminated engaged in child sacrifice. It doesn’t take much to extend that to justifying the genocide of the Aztecs for their religious practices or to the Chinese for their one child policy. I just want to see how far he/she is will to push the rationalization.
Jeb
Are you joking? The Aztecs sacrified 40,000 (fourty thousand) people in a single celebration. The Chinese refrain from having babies.
Now, let me tell ypu that Islamist apologists who quote teh Bible are utterly despicable. First of all archeological evidence shows that teh conquest of Judea was far ess violent than what is described in te Bible. Second: Because nowhere in the Bible it is said that these were virtuous things or that the perpetrators had to be admired (Muhammad the child raper is set as the perfect man). Third: Because there is more in Rabinninc judaism than the Bible. It was precisely that who differentiates it from Saduceans Judaism (the ones who had Jesus crucified). Fourth: Because whetever happened three thousand years ago judaism doesn’t preach exterminatinge enemies. Islam does and will ever do because there is a single prophet, there will never be another one and that the Coran is uncreeated. Allah himself cannot tell that times have changed and alter its message.
After documenting various anecdotes indicative of Islamist obsession with sex, human rights activist Magdi Khalil concluded that “absolutely everything [jihad, suicide operations, etc.] revolves around sex in heaven,” adding, “if you look at the whole of Islamic history, you come up with two words: sex and violence.”
John Quincy Adams summed up the essence of mahoundianism in almost exactly the same two words: violence and lust:
“Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST; TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE (Capitals in original)
Pedrosito:
“So many virgins not enough time.I would settle for less then 72 !”
I happily settled for seventy-one less. Instead of killing innocent people and then getting myself killed, I just married a virgin.
i cant get it why u have to avoid sex if god put it inside human nature..
People like Raymond Ibrahim are why we are losing the battle against extremism. Misinformation, wild accusations, fictional characterizations; all these things impede our true understanding of the mind-set of extremists. Therefore, we are not able to defeat them. Poor scholarship and sensational articles, like the ones Mr. Raymond Ibrahim writes, deceive policymakers in the US, and hamper their understanding of the true nature of extremism. Thus, they fail in defending their nation and combating extremism properly.
I have read all Mr. Raymond Ibrahim’s work and I can say with clarity that it is absolute fiction. They are the product of poor scholarship that would not allow Mr. Ibrahim to pass for a Masters degree at a third-class college let alone university. The problem is his imagination about Islam and Mohammad has taken him beyond the boundaries of reality; and he is taking policymakers with him. This will only impede our handling the fight against radicals and eventually have us lose the war.
Prof. Johathan C.
Israel
Specifics, Jon, specifics. Just making accusations against Ibrahim is not enough. Show us how he is wrong. For example, how is this article false? How are his very important articles on taqiyyah wrong?
Specifics, Jon. Specifics.
Sah Hosting – Hosting, Reseller, Linux hosting, Domain, Sanal Sunucu, Web Tasarim Yazilim ve Web hosting Hizmetleri Saglamaktadir
Virüssüz canlı ve kesintisiz porno, sikiş, sex izleme siteniz Unlutv.com
has been an enjoyable article, thank you. can not wait to read the articles.
thanks for this very interesting article