Reflections From a Murky Pond

The simple fact is that Muslims get married and a certain number of them, those who don’t to closely follow the example set by Muhammad, even wait until their females have reached puberty before buying them from their fathers and taking them to wife.

This perforce means that Muslim couples have wedding nights and that the brides – at least those of an to understand such things – will likely want some sort of special bridal lingerie, much in the same way as brides in the Civilized World do.

That in turn causes a problem in places, such as Saudi Arabia, where the Islamists follow very strict forms of Shar’ia that forbid Muslim females from baring their faces in front of even their husbands.

Shari’a Compliant Even According To Wahhab

Fortunately I suppose, the Arabs are a race of merchants and have bred themselves to possess the cunning merchants needs. Certain accommodations of style were made and, so far, few have complained overly much. 😉

NOTE: It’s also apparent that there’s more worth tapping in the MENA region than merely oil. 😛

Tags: Babes | Butts | Humor | Islam | Lingerie | Marriage | Muhammad | Muslims | Pedophilia | Saudi Arabia | Sex | Women

This entry was posted on Sunday, August 28th, 2011 at 12:17 pm and is filed under Humor, Religion, Society. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Some people – mostly the Liberal multiculturists – would have the besieged peoples of the Civilized World believe that they must not only tolerate but accept as valid the cultures of other peoples, even those of the more feral populations which based upon quasi-values that are antithetical to Humanity and Civilized life. Their primary postulate seems to be that our similarities outweigh our differences.

I all honesty their postulate is not entirely fallacious; Mankind and our near-kin are, at a base level, more alike than we are different. We laugh, we cry, we love, we hate – and, if we are sufficiently provoked by people’s deeds, we become outraged.

Muslims Just have Differing Priorities

It really just boils down to a culture’s or population’s priorities, but you can tell a great deal about a culture’s or population’s worth and validity by those priorities – especially what outrages them enough that they will act upon that outrage.

Tags: Cartoons | Dhimmitude | Ethics & Morality | Islam | Islamists | Jihad | Muhammad | Multiculturism | Muslims | Nationalism | Society | Terrorism | Terrorists | War On Terror

This entry was posted on Sunday, July 25th, 2010 at 7:58 am and is filed under Society. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

The people’s of the Civilized World have been repeated told, most often stridently, by Muslims and their dhimmi sympathizers and supporters that any and all representational or figurative depictions of the Muslims’ prophet, Muhammad are and have always been disallowed by Islam and considered highly offensive. This is, of course and unsurprisingly, quite far from the truth.

It was quite common among wealthy Muslims during the Middle Ages to have illustrated copies of the Qur’an and hadith that had within their pages pictures of Muhammad. It was especially common during the early 14th century Ilkhanid dynasty in Persia but continued to be commonplace during Persia’s Timurid dynasty of the 14th – 18th centuries, and the Ottoman Empire had many artistic depictions throughout the 14th – 16th centuries.

Between the Timurids’ Gurkani Alam and the Ottomans’ Devlet-i Aliye-yi Osmaniyye the two empires ruled essentially the whole of the Muslim World until the mid-18th century when Western powers entered and conquered Asia Minor. That perforce means that depictions of Muhammad were not always forbidden (haram) under Shari’a.

Muslim Art Depicting Muhammad

Such illustrated Qur’ans and Hadith could happen in those Muslim empires because there is no direct prohibition against representational artwork, whether it be of Muhammad or not to be found in the Qur’an. The closest that can be found is a strong prohibition against polytheism and idolatry.

God does not forgive the joining of partners with him: anything less than that he forgives to whoever he will, but anyone who joins partners with God is lying and committing a tremendous sin.

— Qur’an, Sura 4 (An-Nisa)

So their God has not forbidden representational or figurative art – even depictions of Muhammad – but does condemn those would worship such images or the subjects thereof. The problem would only arise if the disturbingly intense reverence for Muhammad  crossed over into worship, apparently something that imams have feared since the 8th century.

If, however, one reads, studies, and lends credence to the accuracy of the Muslims’ hadith, it quickly becomes clear that their prophet, Muhammad, had serious issues with representational art in any form and for any purpose at all.

Narrated Abu Talha: The Prophet said, “Angels do not enter a house in which there is a dog or there are pictures.

— Sahih al-Bukhari,
Volume 7, Book 72, Number 833

~*~

Ibn ‘Umar reported Allah’s Messenger (PBUH) having said: Those who paint pictures would be punished on the Day of Resurrection and it would be said to them: Breathe soul into what you have created.

— Sahih Muslim,
Chapter 19, Book 24, Number 5268

~*~

Narrated [Muhammad’s wife] ‘Aisha: Allah’s Apostle said, ‘The painter of these pictures will be punished on the Day of Resurrection, and it will be said to them, Make alive what you have created.

— Sahih al-Bukhari,
Volume 9, Book 93, Number 646

~*~

This hadith has been reported on the authority of Abu Mu’awiya though another chain of transmitters (and the words are): ‘Verily the most grievously tormented people amongst the denizens [inhabitants] of Hell on the Day of Resurrection would be the painters of pictures.

— Sahih Muslim,
Chapter 19, Book 24, Number 5271

~*~

Allah, Most High said: “And who is more unjust than those who try to create the likeness of My creation? Let them create an atom, or let them create a wheat grain, or let them create a barley grain

— Sahih al-Bukhari,
Volume 9, Book 93, Number 648

~*~

Narrated ‘Aisha: The Prophet entered upon me while there was a curtain having pictures (of animals) in the house. His face got red with anger, and then he got hold of the curtain and tore it into pieces. The Prophet said, ‘Such people as paint these pictures will receive the severest punishment on the Day of Resurrection.

— Sahih al-Bukhari,
Volume 8, Book 73, Number 130

~*~

Muhammad went to Fatimah’s house, but turned back when he saw a figured curtain.

— Sunan Abu Dawud,
Volume 3, Book 21, Number 3746

So, while there is no Qur’anic prohibition against depictions of Muhammad, there has been concern that such images by or in the hands of Muslims could lead to them committing the sin of shirk – placing something or someone as an equal or partner to Allah. Such a prohibition, of course would make no sense if applied to nonbelievers or if the images of Muhammad were “unflattering” in nature.

Yet seems that Muhammad himself was very deeply offended by representational or figurative art in general and would likely have been utterly and maddeningly outraged by representations of himself. Muhammad’s hatred of such forms of art may have a great deal to do with the Muslims’ being offended by such artwork, even on those occasions when it is not purposefully designed to be offensive.

Many Muslims seek to emulate Muhammad, often to extremity. Since they believe, based upon the Hadith, that he reviled such art, it’s hardly surprising that they choose to as well. It is much the same as their dislike of dogs and fondness, or at least tolerance for, pre-teen “brides;” Muhammad thought  that way so it must be the right way to think.

It’s odd though – or seems so to me – that the Qur’an has strict prohibitions against placing anything or anyone on par with their God, Allah, yet the Muslims’ “issues” with pictures of Muhammad is largely based on his idiosyncrasies instead of their God’s revealed will. Maybe those old imams were right to fear their flocks growing to worship Muhammad.

Tags: 1st Amendment | Art | Cartoons | Freedom | History | Intolerance | Islam | Islamists | Islamophobia | Jihad | Muhammad | Muslims | Political Correctness | Religion | Shari'a | Terrorism | Tyranny

This entry was posted on Wednesday, May 5th, 2010 at 5:50 am and is filed under Politics, Religion, Society. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

 
Did the young Arab girl A’isha weep when Muhammad mounted her and tore though her virginity and any semblance of innocence she might have retained at that point? Did she cry bitter tears when, at the age of nine (some apologists say 12 – 14) the middle-aged founder of Islam first used her?

Humanity will never know; it’s never been a safe question ask.  The mere allusion to Muhammad’s debased pedophilia is enough to get one savagely murdered in some noisome quarters of the world. Soon it may be risky across the globe if mankind falters and the Islamists get their way.

I think it safe to say that at least one of the young girls going though this same rape and torment in this supposedly enlightened age will be weeping, screaming, and pleading for her “husband” to stop when he gets the urge to rut in her. Sadly, her cries will be unheeded by the vermin on top of her, the rest of the nest of them around her, and seemingly most of mankind as well, who will shake their heads but take no action beyond that.

A Saudi mother is expected to appeal a judge’s ruling after he once again refused to let her 8-year-old daughter divorce a 47-year-old man, a relative said.

Sheikh Habib Al-Habib made the ruling Saturday in the Saudi city of Onaiza. Late last year, he rejected a petition to annul the marriage.

The case, which has drawn criticism from local and international rights groups, came to light in December when Al-Habib declined to annul the marriage on a legal technicality. His dismissal of the mother’s petition sparked outrage and made headlines around the world.

The judge said the mother, who is separated from the girl’s father, was not the legal guardian and therefore could not represent her daughter, the mother’s lawyer, Abdullah al-Jutaili, said at the time.

The girl’s husband pledged not to consummate the marriage until the girl reaches puberty, according to al-Jutaili, who added that the girl’s father arranged the marriage to settle his debts with the man, who is considered “a close friend.”

In March, an appeals court in the Saudi capital of Riyadh declined to certify the original ruling, in essence rejecting al-Habib’s verdict, and sent the case back to al-Habib for reconsideration.

Under the Saudi legal process, the appeals court ruling meant that the marriage was still in effect, but that a challenge to the marriage was still ongoing.

The relative, who said the girl’s mother will continue to pursue a divorce, told CNN the judge “stuck by his earlier verdict and insisted that the girl could petition the court for a divorce once she reached puberty.”

The appeals court in Riyadh will take up the case again and a hearing is scheduled for next month, according to the relative.

Child marriages have made news in Saudi Arabia in the past year.

In a statement issued shortly after the original verdict, the Society of Defending Women’s Rights in Saudi Arabia said the judge’s decision went against children’s “basic rights.”

Marrying children makes them “lose their sense of security and safety,” the group said. “Also, it destroys their feeling of being loved and nurtured. It causes them a lifetime of psychological problems and severe depression.”

Zuhair al-Harithi, a spokesman for the Saudi Human Rights Commission, a government-run group, told CNN that his organization was fighting child marriages.

“Child marriages violate international agreements that have been signed by Saudi Arabia and should not be allowed,” al-Harithi said.

Child marriage is not unusual, said Christoph Wilcke, a Saudi Arabian researcher for the international group Human Rights Watch, after the initial verdict.

“We’ve been hearing about these types of cases once every four or five months because the Saudi public is now able to express this kind of anger, especially so when girls are traded off to older men,” Wilcke told CNN.

— Mohammed Jamjoom
Reporting for  CNN, April 12, 2009

This is the sort of thing that humans find sickening. Some misborn mockery of a man can’t pay his debts, so he sells off his daughter to another subhuman piece of filth for the purpose of slaking its perverted lusts.

When the girl pleads for protection from the upcoming serial rape, what passes for a court system in Saudi Arabia declares that she’s too young to understand divorce and so must remain “married” to the vermin until she reaches puberty.

That’s Arabs for you. The girl’s too young to understand divorce, but not too young to be bred by some sweating, filthy, creature who mocks mankind by his piss poor aping of them.

And, of course, when the girl’s mother tries to get the Saudi courts to see something akin to reason, Sheikh Habib Al-Habib declares that she has no standing with the court and that the state-sanctioned rape and enslavement of her daughter will proceed.

Of course, under Shari’a – the law as laid down by Muhammad – such villainy is fully condoned, so one must expect any mouthings issued from the maws of al-Qummal like Sheikh Habib Al-Habib to fully support pedophilia and the selling of young girls into bondage.

While this is something that everyone has come to expect from what the Arabs try to pass off as their “civilization,” one has to – if one is human and possessed of reason and morality – wonder why it must be, albeit tacitly, condoned by mankind.

Would it not be better if mankind rid itself of this infestation and the diseases of both flesh and spirit that it carries?

Tags: Crime | Islam | Law | Muhammad | Muslims | Saudi Arabia

This entry was posted on Sunday, April 12th, 2009 at 12:17 pm and is filed under Ethics & Morality, Religion, Society. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

In 2005 the Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten and 12 of its cartoonists were threatened by Muslim extremists for publishing cartoons about the prophet Muhammad deemed offensive by Islamists. The resulting religious hysteria and extremism was amazing and horrible to behold.

Eleven Muslim ambassadors traveled to Copenhagen to confront Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen demanding apologies from the newspaper. The ambassador of Turkey had received full support of the Turkish Foreign Ministry in demanding that Rasmussen call Jyllands-Posten to account for “abusing Islam in the name of democracy, human rights and freedom of expression.”
When Rasmussen refused to cede his countrymen’s freedom of speech, the ambassadors decided to take the matter to international Muslim organizations, such as the Arab League, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, and the Muslim Brotherhood.

In January 2006, after both the newspaper and the Danish government refused Muslim demands for an apology, a wave of violence ensued during which several Danish embassies were set alight.

Tags: Crime | Freedom | Human Rights | Islam | Islamists | Jihad | Muhammad

This entry was posted on Wednesday, February 13th, 2008 at 2:16 pm and is filed under Religion, Society. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.