In another disturbing example of the abuses that occur in the absence of church (or mosque) and state separation, Pakistani lawmakers have yielded to the demand of Islamic clerics and killed a law that would have imposed real penalties for those who arrange forced child marriages, including raising the legal age of marriages. Clerics denounced the law as “blasphemous” and against Islam.
Some Islamic clerics have maintained that there can be no age limitation on child brides. They often note that Muhammad married Aisha when she was seven and consummated the marriage at nine years old.
The law would have mandated “rigorous” punishment up to two years in prison for those who organize child marriages. The reforms were rejected by a parliamentary committee on religious affairs after opposition from the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) which was formed in 1962 to advise parliament on the compatibility of laws with Sharia. A representative from the CII had declared the amendment to the Child Marriage Restraint (Amendment) Bill 2014 as “anti-Islamic” and “blasphemous.” The CII continues to try to shape the nation’s laws in accordance to its view of Islamic values. In 2013, the CII suggested making DNA inadmissible evidence in rape cases and insisted that Islamic law should bar cases where a victim could not provide four witnesses to back their claims.
Marvi Memon, a member of the ruling Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz), had proposed the new law including raising the age of consent for marriage from 16 years to 18 years. As we have seen, children below the age of 16 are routinely forced into Islamic marriages in Pakistan.
45 thoughts on “Pakistani Lawmakers and Clerics Block Law Imposing Sanctions For Forced Child Marriages As “UnIslamic” and “Blasphemous””
You as a presumably thinking, sentient human being aren’t vehemently Islamophobic? Why on earth not? What’s wrong with you?
1, January 17, 2016 at 5:19 pm
The Jerusalem Post – Israel News
01.18.2016 | 8 Shevat, 5776
North African men suspected of stoning transgender women in German city
By BENJAMIN WEINTHAL \
North African men suspected of stoning transgender women in German city
“That was barbaric what they did. They are barbarians,” one of the victims said.
View of Dortmund, Germany
View of Dortmund, Germany. (photo credit:WIKIPEDIA)
BERLIN — Three young men from North Africa were arrested on Saturday in the western German city of Dortmund for stoning two transgender women.
According to a report on Friday on television station SAT1.NRW, the men attacked Yasmine und Elisa, two transgender women, near the city’s main train station.
“Within seconds we were tossed around…and they took stones from a gravel bed on the corner and threw them at us,” said Elisa.
A police car appeared at the train station as the stoning attack unfolded and arrested the men.
The German media as a general rule do not disclose the last names of victims to protect their privacy. The three men are between 16 and 18 years-old and are known to the authorities from theft and assault arrests.
Dortmund police official Kim-Ben Freigang said the suspects told the police that “such persons must be stoned.”
Yasmine installed a security camera at the residence where she lives with Elisa after the attacks. “That was barbaric what they did. They are barbarians,” Yasmine said.
She added that she could not believe that such an act of shamelessness occurred. “In 2016, in Germany, with stoning!” According to the SATI.NRW report, Yasmine said it was the first time in 30 years she felt unsafe as a transgender woman.
According to Yasmine and Elisa, the three young men propositioned them, but after they realized that Yasmine and Elisa are transgender women, they attacked them with stones.
Stoning people to death is a penalty used in nine Muslim-majority countries. In November, a criminal court in Iran’s northern province of Gilan sentenced a woman to be executed by stoning for alleged complicity in the murder of her husband, Arash Babaieepour Tabrizinejad.
The stoning penalty of the woman, who was only identified by the initials “A.Kh,” was first reported on the Persian-language Iranian website LAHIG.
According to the LAHIG report, the court imposed the penalty on the woman after an initial sentence of lashings and a 25-year prison sentence. The criminal court in the city of Rasht in Gilan issued the sentence.
Lethal homophobia is widespread in the Arab world and Iran. A 2008 British Wikileaks dispatch noted that the Islamic Republic of Iran has executed “between 4,000 and 6,000 gays and lesbians” since the Islamic revolution in 1979.
Islamic State has murdered dozens of gays by tossing the men off buildings. Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Yemen and Qatar, to name just some of the most anti-gay countries, persecute LGBTs with the death penalty and imprisonment.
1, January 15, 2016 at 11:26 am
“I have a great idea. Are you ready? Are you holding onto your turban or hijab? Let’s bring more of these throwback, primitive, backward, turds into our societies! Yes, open the floodgates and let them pour in. The more the merrier. Keep welcoming in more and more of these mentally disturbed individuals and see what happens as they breed like rabbits and engulf our societies with this madness. Want to call me a name? Bring it on! I’m proud to be called anything that you feel identifies with keeping America alive and well. You may have a death wish, for your government, your community and your family. I don’t.”
What about the people quoted below, bam bam? Should Jews everywhere be held accountable for their advocacy of hatred and violence? If not, why not?
Vitriolic Racism and Hatred Has Become The Israeli Norm
By Omar Radwan
Israel appears to be awash with Jewish hate preachers. In the past, rabbis who issued racist edicts or offensive remarks about Palestinians or non-Jews were generally dismissed as radicals and extremists who were no more than a trifling annoyance to be ignored in the hope that they would simply go away. However, it is now clear that ignoring this problem has only made it worse.
In the current climate in Israel, extremist hate preaching has apparently become the norm and it is being embraced, not just on the extreme political right but also by a disturbing number of Israelis in general, be they preachers, politicians, settlers or simply ordinary citizens. Hate-filled Israelis have become emboldened over the years by the knowledge that they can say and do almost anything without fear, knowing that they will not be condemned or, if they are, that nothing will come of it. That is due to the widespread support for their views across Israeli society as well as their religious leaders and the political elite.
What is particularly disturbing is that leading Israeli rabbis, who are meant to be the spiritual and moral guides of the Jewish people, are actually encouraging racism, physical violence and even the killing of Palestinians.
It is no longer shocking to read headlines such as “Leading rabbi encourages IDF soldiers to use Palestinian human shields.” This particular headline relates to Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira, who taught his students that “according to true Jewish values, your lives come before those of the enemy, whether he is a soldier or a civilian under protection. Therefore, you are forbidden from endangering your own life for the sake of the enemy, not even for a civilian.” This sort of teaching, no doubt, goes some way towards explaining why the number of cases in which Palestinian children are being used as human shields by Israeli forces is increasing.
Vicious levels of discrimination against non-Jews have now escalated to the point that when Israelis of a more reasonable persuasion do something as simple as, for example, rent a property to an Arab, rabbis are now calling for them to be shunned and boycotted by their own Jewish communities. A recent report in Haaretz quoted a letter signed by a group of 18 prominent rabbis, including the Chief Rabbi of Safed, who wrote that renting properties to Arabs would deflate the value of Jewish homes and, “The neighbours and acquaintances [of a Jew who sells or rents to an Arab] must distance themselves from the Jew, refrain from doing business with him, deny him the right to read from the Torah, and similarly [ostracize] him until he goes back on this harmful deed”.
It is not just Muslims who are on the receiving end of this campaign of hatred; even Christians in the region have long been subjected to disturbing and widespread campaigns of abuse from Israeli Jews. “I hate to say it”, said Roman Catholic Father Massimo Pazzini of the Church of the Flagellation on the Via Dolorosa, “but we’ve grown accustomed to this. Jewish religious fanatics spitting at Christian priests and nuns has become a tradition.” (Emphasis added)
The term “hate preacher” has often been used in the Western media about Muslims, but it seems more appropriate in describing some of the Israeli rabbis for their recent statements and guidance.
Rabbi Ovadia Yosef
In the run-up to the latest round of Israeli-Palestinian “peace negotiations” Rabbi Ovadia Yosef wished that “all the nasty people who hate Israel, like Abu Mazen [Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas], vanish from our world”. He went on to say, “May God strike them down with the plague along with all the nasty Palestinians who persecute Israel.”
Although his statement was immediately condemned by America, it did not come as a surprise to people who were already familiar with his 2001 call for the annihilation of Arabs, at which point he also said it was forbidden to be merciful to them.
Rabbi Yitzhak Shapiro
In his controversial book The King’s Torah, Rabbi Yitzhak Shapiro sanctioned the murder by Jews of non-Jews, including babies and children, who may pose an actual or potential threat to Jews or to Israel.
“It is permissible to kill the Righteous among non-Jews even if they are not responsible for the threatening situation,” he wrote. “If we kill a Gentile who has sinned or has violated one of the seven commandments because we care about the commandments there is nothing wrong with the murder.” (Emphasis added)
This edict was seemingly made in response to the arrest of a Jewish terrorist who confessed to murdering two Palestinian shepherds in the West Bank, and was thus used to justify the killings.
According to a report by Khalid Amayreh in November 2009, “During the Israeli onslaught against Gaza earlier this year, Mordecahi Elyahu, one of the leading rabbinic figures in Israel, urged the army not to refrain from killing enemy children, in order to save the lives of Israeli soldiers. He had even petitioned the Israeli government to carry out a series of carpet bombing of Palestinian population centres in Gaza. ‘If they don’t stop after we kill 100,’ said the rabbi, ‘then we must kill a thousand. And if they do not stop after we kill a thousand, then we must kill 10,000. If they still don’t stop, we must kill 100,000, even a million. Whatever it takes to stop them’.”
According to Eliyahu’s obituary in the Daily Telegraph in June this year, Rabbi Eliyahu wrote to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to say that, according to Jewish war ethics, an entire city (he referred to Gaza City) holds collective responsibility for the immoral behaviour of individuals.
Thus, he continued, there was no moral prohibition against the indiscriminate killing of Palestinian civilians during a potential massive military offensive in Gaza aimed at stopping the rocket attacks. He ended his letter quoting from the Psalms: “I will pursue my enemies and apprehend them and I will not desist until I have eradicated them.”
He extended his hatred to those individuals worldwide who even show the slightest incidental support for Palestinians and said of the hundreds of thousands killed in 2004 by the Asian tsunami “those who died were paying for their governments’ support of the Palestinians.” (Emphasis added)
With statements such as these it is paradoxical that Muslim preachers such as Dr Zakir Naik and Sheik Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, whose views are very moderate in comparison, are labelled as extremists. Although for years now Muslim leaders have (often undeservedly) been vilified as the most hate-filled preachers in the world, that title is now surely more deserved by Israeli rabbis such as those mentioned above.
By any means necessary, no matter how immoral, or corrupt.
It is strange for the spiritual leaders of a “chosen” people who stake their claim to the “holy” land to use methods to achieve their goals that are decidedly “unholy.” One recent ruling by Rabbi Ari Schvat for example, gave “his blessing to female agents of Israel’s foreign secret service, Mossad, who may be required to have sex with the enemy in so-called ‘honey-pot’ missions against terrorists.” While there is apparently no limit on Jewish men using sex in an effort to infiltrate the enemy, he did make a few remarks about Jewish female ‘honey-pots’ stating, “If it is necessary to use a married woman, it would be best [for] her husband to divorce her… After the [sex] act, he would be entitled to bring her back.” He also added, “Naturally, a job of that sort could be given to a woman who in any event is licentious in her ways.” So, not only are these rabbis genocidal, but sexist as well.
That such comments are not causing moral outrage amongst conservative Jews in Israel and, indeed, in Jewish communities worldwide, is worrying. The concept of a woman defiling herself and committing any act of lewdness or adultery is something alien to most religions but the fact that Jewish women are being given the green light by Israel’s rabbis to use such lascivious means to achieve the goals of Mossad demonstrates further that Israel really does not have any moral line across which it will not go.
The standard response to an article like this is to condemn it as “anti-Semitic”. That is neither the intention nor, it is contended, the result; the statements quoted have been issued or uttered by rabbis and well-publicised. Some may even be directly responsible for the subsequent killings of innocent Palestinian civilians. Instead of lining up to shoot the messenger, detractors should pause instead and really consider what these rabbis have said; and then decide whether reporting anti-Gentile statements made by rabbis really does qualify as anti-Semitism. There are many Jews and rabbis in congregations all over the world who are desperate for peace in the Holy Land and are striving to stand up for the common humanity of us all, regardless of our faith background.
According to New York-based Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss, rabbis like those quoted above “do not and cannot represent Judaism or the Torah,” Indeed, Rabbi Weiss goes one step further: “The Zionist State of ‘Israel’, which is a rebellion against the Almighty, cannot represent the Torah or world Jewry true to the Torah.”
Referring to Rabbi Ovadia Yusef in particular, Rabbi Weiss added: “This rabbi is a member of Sephardic Jewry, Jews from Arab countries. If he would only look back at his own community’s history, he would realize that Jews can, and did, live peacefully with Arabs, for many centuries. When Jews were persecuted, killed and expelled in other parts of the world, the Arab countries provided a safe haven and welcomed Jews with open arms. In Palestine as well, Jews enjoyed this hospitality when Palestinians and Jews co-existed in harmony for many generations, as is well-documented in Jewish books of that era. It was only Zionism, with its theft and oppression of the Palestinian people, that put an end to this co-existence.” (http://www.nkusa.org/activities/Statements/20100819.cfm)
Racism and extremist preachers must be challenged, not least when they ply their wares in volatile areas like the Holy Land, where words can and all too often do lead to murderous acts. People of faith and good faith must stand up to incitement to hatred; it would be refreshing to hear more leading rabbis condemning the hate preachers in Israel. Their silence is deafening.
Defending Against Dhimmitude In France
French mayor denounces Muslim offer to protect church at Christmas.
January 4, 2016
The mayor of the southern French city of Beziers is facing heavy criticism and accusations of racism after sharply denouncing a Muslim group’s offer to protect a church during a Christmas midnight mass.
Robert Menard, elected mayor of Beziers’ 72,000 inhabitants in 2014 with the support of France’s nationalist party, Front National, didn’t pull any punches when condemning the Muslim initiative. Responding on the city’s website on December 26 in an entry titled “Muslim Guard: What Is the State Doing?” he wrote:
“A Muslim guard ‘protecting’ a Catholic church. Against whom? Hordes of Buddhist monks? Siberian shamans? Who are they mocking here? And where is this country going? Since when do the arsonists protect against fires?”
Menard, the former head of the respected ‘Reporters Without Borders’ organization, later pointed out that the proposal was simply a “foretaste of the Lebanisation of France” and that the Muslim group making the offer is led by “two activists known for their fundamentalist and anti-Israeli stances.” Menard stated the Muslim group made the same offer at the city’s 13th-century cathedral, adding he will inform police about this ‘Muslim guard’.
As expected, besides Muslims, France’s liberals and leftists were highly indignant, to say the least, that Menard had compared Muslims to arsonists. One group, SOS Racisme, said it will launch a complaint, calling Menard’s choice of words “insulting,” and accused him of wanting “to whip up hatred against Muslims.”
France’s interior minister, Bernard Cazeneuve, a member of the ruling Socialist Party that relies on the Muslim vote at election time, also entered the fray. On Twitter, the minister expressed his “respect for the Muslims who protected the churches at Christmas.”
One such church in Lens was reported to have “particularly appreciated” the Muslim presence. At the end of the mass, the priest invited the Muslims to come to the altar in order to hand them “the light of Bethlehem, the symbol of peace,” while the congregation applauded (see video here).
It’s too bad the priest didn’t ask them to also spread this message of peace among their Muslim co-religionists in present-day Bethlehem where Christians are persecuted.
Menard is no stranger to controversy. For example, after his fifth victory in court against France’s main human rights organization, the League of the Rights of Man (LRM), he had a photo published in the Bezier journal of a man spanking a woman, taken from the 1924 movie Girl Shy. Menard titled it: “Judicial Spanking: The LRM is visibly acquiring a taste here.” Underneath was written: Mayor of Beziers 5, LRM 0.
Naturally, Menard’s tongue-in-cheek choice of photos produced leftist outrage and accusations from French feminists that he was inciting violence against women.
This, and other politically incorrect actions by Menard, have angered France’s ‘bien-pensants’ (good-thinkers) to the point where socialist deputies in France’s National Assembly called last September for his removal from office. But after calling his socialist critics “completely stupid,” Menard stated: “It is time they understand that democracy is not reserved only for their friends.”
Menard believes the Muslim group approached the Beziers church at Christmas not because it wanted to help prevent Islamic terrorist attacks, like the ones that left 148 dead in France in 2015, but rather because of his own security initiative that would see an unarmed, but uniformed, volunteer force of citizens assist police. It would patrol streets and stand watch at buildings, connected to police headquarters by walkie-talkies.
City council had approved the creation of Menard’s ‘garde biterroise’, as it is called, shortly before Christmas. This new, volunteer force, Menard said, will remain in existence as long as France is under a state of emergency, declared after the November 13 Paris terrorist attack.
But a more sinister motive can be detected behind the seemingly “brotherly” Muslim offer to protect churches than simply a political manoeuvre to counter to Menard’s security initiative. First, some interpret as a provocation the fact that Muslim fundamentalists would pose as protectors of churches, especially on French soil, after the terrorism France experienced this past year.
Even more disturbing, by accepting the Muslim offer, France’s churches would simply be descending another step downwards towards their dhimmitude and that of their country. They would eventually resemble churches in Muslim countries that have to pay the special tax, the ‘jizya’, in order to survive (Even then, these churches still suffer attacks and burnings). One parish in a Danish city already pays Muslims to guard their church and cars during services, and even the parishioners themselves, against attacks by Muslim thugs.
The ‘garde musulmane’ concept is also socially divisive and therefore damaging. Especially after the 2015 terrorist carnage, such offers of protection would only serve to divide the two religious communities even more. Some could regard a Muslim protective force as offensive, since it infers Christians are too weak to protect themselves.
It is also unlikely that the sight of Muslim “protectors” would reassure all church-goers, possibly even scaring some. After all, which faith community is more likely to produce killers armed with kalashnikovs? And possibly use a security force as camouflage for a church attack? Besides, would Muslims like to see groups of Christians standing guard outside their mosques?
Rather than providing ‘protection’ to churches, it would serve community and inter-religious relations in France much better if French Muslims and their leftist allies, like SOS Racisme, would condemn and demonstrate massively against Christian persecution and attacks on churches in Muslim countries as well as against the murderous terrorist attacks in France. Such actions would definitely help people accept as sincere Muslim attempts to improve relations between the two communities.
In addition, instead of standing in front of churches, it would be time better spent if Muslim ‘protectors’ demonstrated in front of radical French mosques and Salafist prayer rooms where terrorists are produced. They could also constantly check to discover whether radicals are infiltrating other mosques, and identify and demand that dangerous, hate-spewing imams be deported.
The Muslim offer to protect churches does, however, serve one good purpose: It shows how bad the situation really is. French churches are in such danger of jihadi attacks that even Muslims believe they now need protection. The fact that Cazaneuve lauded Muslim ‘protectors’ indicates that he also believes churches are facing a threat.
Even more ominous, Cazaneuve’s tweet shows that the government, which should be the sole body responsible for state security, including that of churches, has abdicated that responsibility. Instead, he prefers to show respect to Muslim ‘protectors’ for what his government should itself be doing. Both the Catholic faithful and Muslim fundamentalists could interpret his actions as signs of state weakness.
But what can one expect from a government whose socialist prime minister, Manuel Valls, told graduating high school students earlier this year that they “will have to get used to living with the threat of terrorist attacks for a long period of time.” Which constitutes an admission of failure, even of defeat.
Facing such a state security failure, more French towns and cities should follow Menard’s lead and set up their own auxiliary security forces. Their inhabitants, of all religious faiths, could only appreciate more security after the horrific events of 2015. And thanks to Menard’s security initiative, for Beziers, the scoreboard should now read: Citizens 6, Socialist Incompetents 0.
Liars or Fools: Which Govern America?
It’s one or the other when it comes to the mainstream narrative on Islam.
January 15, 2016
When it comes to the connection between Islam and “anti-infidel” violence, one fact must be embraced: the majority of those in positions of leadership and authority in America are either liars or fools, or both. No other alternative exist.
The reason for this uncharitable assertion is simple: If Islam was once a faraway, exotic religion, now hardly a day goes by without Americans hearing calls for, and seeing acts of, violence committed in the name of Islam. If our leaders don’t, many of us still have “ears that hear and eyes that see” (Proverbs 20:12).
Today, Muslims from all around the world and from all walks of life unequivocally and unapologetically proclaim that Islam commands them to kill or subjugate all who resist it—including all non-Muslims.
This message is hardly limited to jihadi groups like the Islamic State. It’s the official position of several Muslim governments (including America’s closest “friends and allies,” like Saudi Arabia and Qatar, as demonstrated in a forthcoming article); it’s the official position of Islamic institutions of lower and higher learning, including Al Azhar, the world’s most prestigious Islamic university; and it’s the official position broadcast in numerous languages on Islamic satellite stations.
In short, there’s no excuse for ignorance about Islam in America—especially if you hold a position of leadership or authority. Yet it is precisely those in such positions who vehemently deny any connection between Islam and violence. Why?
The most recent example took place on January 7. Edward Archer, a convert to Islam, shot and wounded Philadelphia police officer Jesse Hartnett. He later explained his motivation: “I follow Allah. I pledge my allegiance to the Islamic state. That is why I did what I did.”
Yet after showing a surveillance video of Archer in Islamic dress shooting at Hartnett, Philadelphia mayor Jim Kenney emphatically declared:
In no way shape or form does anyone in this room believe that Islam or the teaching of Islam has anything to do with what you’ve seen on the screen….It is abhorrent. It is terrible and it does not represent the religion or any of its teachings. This is a criminal with a stolen gun who tried to kill one of our officers. It has nothing to do with being a Muslim or following the Islamic faith.
Kenney’s assertions are either the product of an addled brain or calculated lies. Take your pick, but there are no other alternatives.
If those running the show still don’t “get it,” the overwhelming majority of Americans have by now learned, in Donald Trump’s words, that “there’s something going on” with Islam, “You see the hatred. I mean, we see it every day.”
“We see it every day” is absolutely correct—hence why those who deny it must either be liars or fools. (See “Muslim Persecution of Christians,” reports which I’ve been compiling every month since July 2011, and witness the nonstop violence and carnage committed against non-Muslim minorities living under Islam.)
Still, Kenney’s falsehoods and/or foolishness are mainstream. Most politicians—practically every democrat but also a majority of republicans—makes the same claims, beginning with U.S. President Obama who insists that the Islamic State “is not Islamic,” calls for the “rejection by non-Muslims of the ignorance that equates Islam with terror,” and classified the Fort Hood massacre as “workplace violence,” despite the overwhelming evidence that it was jihad.
More recently, democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton admonished us to get aboard the wishful thinking bandwagon: “Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.” Republican leaders like John McCain say that “unequivocally, without a doubt, the religion of Islam is an honorable and reasonable religion. ISIS has nothing to do with the reality of Islam.” “Conservative” talking heads like Bill O’Reilley flippantly dismiss jihad as “a perversion of Islam, we all know that.”
And so it goes. In the context of the most recent slaughter of Americans at the hands of Muslims—one last December and one last November, both in California—the usual chorus of politicians, media, and others made the same tired claims.
Despite the evidence that the Muslim couple that massacred 14 people in San Bernardino was motivated by Islamic teachings of jihad against the hated “infidel,” Obama claimed “We do not know their motivations.” Chris Hayes and MSNBC were also “baffled” in their search for a motive.
Despite the many indicators that the Muslim student who went on a stabbing spree in UC Merced was motivated by Islam—he was described as a “devout Muslim,” had an ISIS flag, and praised Allah in his manifesto—“local and federal authorities continue to insist that Faisal Mohammad, 18, carried out the vicious attack because he’d been banished from a study group.”
In response, the father of Byron Price, who was stabbed while defending some Merced victims, observed that, “Everyone is afraid to be politically incorrect… [I]t seems like to me we aren’t getting the whole story. I just wonder how much of this is driven from way higher up and is politically driven — I just don’t know.”
Unfortunately, it was one thing to be politically correct when America existed in a utopian bubble away from all the nastiness “over there,” but to be politically correct at this late hour when the tentacles of the global jihad are well entrenched in America is suicidal, literally.
Either way, political correctness is a fancy way of saying “lying”— bringing us right back to our question and a final observation: It doesn’t matter if those running the show are liars or fools, for at day’s end, the result is the same: the world’s strongest nation lays paralyzed before a vicious threat that grows more emboldened by the day.
Comments are closed.