A Culture of Murder and Sanctified Fornication

Posted on December 1, 2008
Filed Under Arabs, Freedom, Freedom from Religion, Freedom of Religion, History, Honor killing, Human Rights, Imams, India, Infidel-o-Phobia, International, Islamic intolerance of other religions, IslamoFascism, Jordan, Judicial, Mumbai, Muslims, News, Political lies, Racism, Religion, Religious intolerance, Shiites, Sunnis, Terrorism, UN, arrogance, culture, culture of violence, fanaticism, fascism, fornication, free society, honor killings, hypocrisy, infidels, islam, judges, killings, misogynism, mullah, murder, mut'a, political corruption, political intimidation, political terrorism, political violence, prejudice, prostitution, radical Islamic terrorism, rape, religious hatred, rights, sanctified fornication, society, suppressing the facts, suppression of free speech, taqyia, temporary marriage, violence, violence against women, women, women's rights | 5 Comments

In view of last week’s horrific events in Mumbai, in view of the siege of a Coptic Church by 20,000 Muslims in Egypt a few days earlier, one may ask what is it about these terrible events that they are usually perpetrated by those who allege theirs is the Religion of Peace?

Before we try to dissect the mind of those claiming to be devout Muslims merely following the word of Allah and sacrificing themselves for the pleasure of spending eternity with 72 houries, we must examine those same creatures attitudes towards members of their own religion, towards members of their own household, specifically. Today’s Jordan Times reports:

Man receives reduced sentence for killing sister

By Rana Husseini

AMMAN – The Criminal Court has sentenced a 21-year-old man to seven-and-a-half-years in prison for murdering his married sister in Jerash in January.

The court declared the defendant, a construction worker, guilty of strangling his married younger sister with an electric wire at their family home on January 13 and handed him a 15-year prison sentence.

But the tribunal immediately commuted the sentence to half after the victim’s family dropped charges against the defendant.

Court papers said the victim was married to her cousin six months before her death.

“The victim had marital problems with her husband and left the house to stay with a friend on several occasions,” according to the court verdict.

Four days before the murder, the court added, the victim left her husband’s house and went to stay with a female friend until she was found by police.

The police handed her over to her uncle, who in turn drove the victim to her family’s home, the court said.

After the family went to sleep, the defendant interrogated his sister and asked her about her whereabouts during the time she was gone from her husband’s house, but she refused to answer, according to the court.

“The defendant then stuffed the victim’s scarf in her mouth to prevent her from screaming and strangled her with an electric wire. He then sat in front of his sister’s body and smoked a whole pack of cigarettes,” the 10-page court verdict said.

The victim’s brother then took the scarf and wire and roamed the streets for an hour before heading to a police station and turning himself in, claiming to have killed his sister in the name of family honour, the court added.

The court rejected the defendant’s plea that he killed his sibling in a moment of rage to cleanse his family’s honour, stating that he had prior knowledge that she often left her husband’s house.

There was no proof that she committed any acts that would tarnish the honour of her family, the court added.

“You tortured and killed an innocent person who did not commit a crime and your sister did not deserve to be murdered in this brutal manner,” presiding Judge Hassan Amayrah told the defendant while issuing the verdict.

The court also comprised judges Ahmad Atoun and Fawzi Nahar.

The November 27 verdict will automatically be reviewed by a higher court within the next 30 days.

Murder is necessary, according to this cretin’s disgusting beliefs, to cleanse the family honor. While no one in Jordan would raise an eyebrow at a male cavorting with females he’s not married to (unless they are married to another!), the same females would be severely punished and even murdered by their families for their indecent behavior. Though I obviously agree that promiscuity is not an admirable, nor even remotely desirable, trait it is hardly an excuse for culturally sanctioned murder. The fault in the above case lies with the police who turned the victim over to her uncle, who in turn drove her to her parents’ home

Are these police officers so dense as to not know the customs of their country, the customs of their own people? Or… was their handing over the victim to her uncle a deliberate act meant to extract vengeance from a young woman who dared have a will of her own?!?!?

A prime reason for disgustingly demeaning women and treating them as objects, is shown here:

It is written in Sura 3: Al-i-Imran -”Imran’s Family” (verse 14, in part): “Fair in the eyes of men is the love of objects which are the desire of their instinct, women and sons. . . ..”

Here is another example of how seemingly devout Muslim men take advantage of objects women, through thorough religiously sanctioned ways:

Temporary Marriage

A Plea from A Muslim Sister

I was fourteen years old and my relationship with my parents was on the edge just like any other teenager. I started to become interested in boys. I felt as if no one understood me, not even my friends. I especially didn t feel pretty with my braces

It all changed when I met him . It was fascinating to know that a college student would care so much about me. He was the most wonderful person. He treated me like a queen, and soon we became the best of friends. I felt I could tell him anything. As our friendship progressed, we talked about different topics including religion. He had different beliefs than me; he was Shia while I was Sunni. We always argued upon the differences. He had a way with making things sound bettter than what they were. Soon I became very confused.

One day he mentioned the idea of Mut’a. He told me that it was a type of temporary marriage, which was halal even in Sunni books. At first I didn t believe him, but he used sources such as Bukhari and Muslim. I took his word for it, and before I realized, I was into a lot of trouble. I was in Mut’a for four years. As time went by, I learnt that I had lost my honor and dignity to someone who had done this to several other girls. Allah helped me open my eyes and realize what I had gotten myself into. By now, I was on the verge of switching beliefs to be a Shia. At this point, I decided to really search for the truth. Since I cannot present the whole research, I have tried to give a very brief idea about Mut’a.

I hope to inform and educate the people about the disease of Mut’a, which is spreading rapidly in the sunni community. It is the goal of certain Shia individuals to do Mut’a with innocent girls, who lack knowledge of religion and experience of life. They convince them with their beliefs, and create confusion in their minds. I beg every sister, brother, father, mother, and friend to take a closer look at their dear ones, and make sure they do not become victims to the concept of Mut’a.

Mut’a is a form of temporary marriage where a man can marry a woman for an agreed amount of time and money(mahr). In Mut’a, the husband is not financially responsible for the wife. There are no set limits in this kind of marriage by the Shias. According Shia beliefs, no witnesses nor a permission of the guardian is needed (the Sunni father does not believe in Mut’a), and there is no limit on the number of Mut’a one can do.

Also, the time period can be as little as one hour to as long as sixty years. In addition, a man who is permanently married can do as many Mut’a as he feels like, even with married women. This is very similar to prostitution indeed.

I fail to grasp the difference between mut’a and prostitution other than in West they do not bother to pretend by calling it marriage… This custom of “temporary marriage” is done merely to assuage whatever religious scruples the man may have. It makes no difference what the woman’s feelings may be, as we saw above she is merely an object. Mut’a is, as Mohammad Gill concludes:

It is sanctified fornication in itself.

Our Western sensibilities may be uncomfortable with this religio/cultural loophole to what merely amounts to prostitution, even if dressed up as a religious contract between a man and a woman.

The same article earlier quotes an Iranian woman about a different type of temporary marriage. Be warned, gentle reader, you better have a strong stomach…

The title “An Iranian Girlhood and Islamic Barbarism” by Parvin Darabi however drew my attention. The name ‘Darabi’ rang a bell in my mind but I had forgotten all about her. I refreshed my memory by going to the Internet. Her sister, Homa Darabi, had immolated herself protesting against the victimization of women by the Iranian government in the name of religion. After reading Parvin Darabi’s article, I couldn’t resist the urge to write this article.

In addition to mutah, there is another situation of temporary marriage in Islam called “Nikah Halala” which arises when a husband pronounces a triple talaq in quick succession in a fit of rage. The utterance of the triple talaq severs the matrimonial bonds between a husband and his wife and they cannot remarry ‘easily’, if they want to, without help from a third party. The third party comes through halala arrangement. According to Sharia, a divorced woman has to get married with another man after spending the iddah period after her talaq, get divorced from the new husband, wait for iddah, before she can remarry her old husband. I knew of this also before I read Darabi’s article and had filed it away in my memory together with mutah. But Darabi brought it to my attention rather stunningly by quoting a real life story.

She narrated, “Years ago, one of our distant relatives divorced his wife under rage and then was sorry and wanted to get back with her. However, the Mulla would not remarry them unless she married another man, spent a night with the new husband (allowing him to have sex with her), and then was divorced the next day. I recall what a circus this was. The ex-husband was desperate to find a man to pay to marry his ex-wife for one night and then divorce her the next day. Since his ex-wife was a very beautiful woman from a distinguished family, the man needed someone he could trust would divorce his ex-wife the next day. So finally they asked one of my father’s workers to marry the woman. The ex-husband paid this man a substantial sum of money, he slept with the ex-wife for one night, and they were divorced the next day.”

Commenting on this incident, Darabi expressed her disgust as follows: “I found this law barbaric and inhuman for several reasons, First, the woman’s feelings and rights are not considered and she is forced to be raped for one night by a total stranger. Second, the idea of a man paying another man to ravish his wife for an entire night is appalling. And finally, in the cases where the Muhallal does not divorce the woman, she is forced to live a life in misery (unless the Muhallal happens to be kinder than her ex-husband).”

This arrangement might have been suitable in the Muslim culture in Arabia some 1400 years ago; it certainly has outlived its utility now. (It is mutah time now). It is disgusting and humiliating to the women of the 21st century.

This arrangement might have been suitable in the Muslim culture in Arabia some 1400 years ago; it certainly has outlived its utility now. (It is mutah time now). It is disgusting and humiliating to the women of the 21st century. I guess to the devout Muslim author above sanctified fornication is indeed preferable… Why not just call it prostitution? Oh, silly me, now I get it! If you call it prostitution it no longer is sanctified fornication. Semantics, semantics…

The whole point of my quoting the last three seemingly extraneous passages, is to show the low value Islamic customs place on women’s lives, women’s rights, women’s thoughts. Basically, it is permissible to use them in any way as long as it’s called a “temporary marriage,” the time period can be as little as one hour to as long as sixty years.

As soon as a male feels that his honor has been sullied, murder, cold blooded murder becomes a perfectly logical solution to restore the family’s honor. If a woman is merely an object, why can’t the owner of that object woman use, abuse and dispose of her as he sees fit?!?

Thus, if it has been OK for 1400 years to violently dispose of their own objects women, why then should we infidels be surprised when they kill our kind indiscriminately as happened last week in Mumbai, as happened right here on 9/11, as has been happening throughout Asia and Africa for so many centuries?

Let’s face it, gentle reader, it is merely a cultural thing. We have to be more understanding!

I have no doubt that by exposing this side of Islam (as if nobody knew or ever suspected this, right?), I am now guilty of a grievous crime against humanity… You see, gentle reader, on December 18th 2007 the UN General Assembly passed a resolution called “Defamation of Religion.” While ostensibly defending all religions it actually never mentions any of them by name, except for Islam:

The only religion actually mentioned in the document (PDF download) is Islam, of course. Here’s paragraph 9:

Stresses the need to effectively combat defamation of all religions
and incitement to religious hatred, against Islam and Muslims in particular;

Wheww! Don’t you feel better? You can still kinda speak out against all other unspecified religions… BUT do not dare say anything against Islam and Muslims in particular! If pointing out the truth be a crime, then I proudly plead guilty! UN Resolutions notwithstanding, until my last breath on this vale of tears, I will continue saying my piece. I pray, gentle reader, you will too!

Chaim

Digg it!

Sphere: Related Content

Comments

Copyright © 2007 Freedom • Using Modernpaper theme created by Performancing