Greece bans Islamic law

**Posted by Phineas

Greece and the Greeks have come in for some well-deserved criticism in recent years, first for their insane profligate borrowing and then for throwing a national tantrum and rioting when their creditors demanded they take steps to fix their fiscal mess.

But, give the cradle of democracy, liberty, and Western civilization some credit, too. When given a chance to strike a blow for human freedom, they did it, banning Sharia law:

This Muslim law establishes among others the right of polygamy and gives only to men the right to divorce their wives which constitutes a problem for the women in Thraki, Northern Greece. Even in Turkey, this law was abolished in 1926.

In addition, this law does not comply with the Greek constitution which establishes the equality of Greeks regarding the application of the laws and the equality of men and women. The National Committee on the Human Rights considers that the Shariah does not protect minorities but abuses the rights and values of all the Greek Muslims.

It is also announced that the family and hereditary relations of all Greek citizens will be regulated by Greek Laws. Thus, the Mufti will only be religious leader of Greek Muslims and will no longer have judicial authorities.

Good. Sharia is a barbaric, misogynistic legal code that enshrines inequality under the law and by its nature as (supposedly) divine law stands foursquare against every principle this country was founded on.

Congratulations, Greece!

Perhaps ironically, this puts Greece ahead of our more immediate democratic forebears in Britain, where Sharia courts have started to operate apparently with official sanction, though not without controversy, and where even the Anglican Archbishop has said that some accommodation to Sharia will have to be made.

Several states in the US have made moves to ban Sharia by forbidding the courts to consider any law not based on the US and state constitutions (1) This movement has gained steam since a (thankfully overturned) ruling by a district court in New Jersey that refused to grant a woman a restraining order against her husband because Islamic law does not recognize marital rape (2).

In this case, let’s hope the United States emulates Greece, not Great Britain.

via Big Peace

Footnotes:
(1) You would think this would be a given, but even the Supreme Court has a problem with this.
(2) Naturally, the Justice Department has threatened to oppose such laws. No, not because Obama is a “secret Muslim,” but because the Leftist lawyers there have a contempt for state legislatures and can’t resist pandering to identity politics.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Just to be clear, there is no minimum age for marriage in Islam

**Posted by Phineas

After all, Muhammad married Aisha (his favorite wife) when she was six. But, lest you think him a lech, he did at least wait until she was nine before consummating the marriage.

From Saudi Arabia’s Iqra TV, listen as cleric Muhammad al-Arifi assures us that there is no minimum age for marriage in Islam:

And here’s the transcript:

Muhammad Al-‘Arifi: There is no agreed-upon minimum age for the marriage of a boy or a girl. It depends upon their maturity. Let’s assume that someone wants to marry your 20-year-old daughter. But your daughter’s mentality and capabilities… She wouldn’t know how to handle it. You feel that her marriage is bound to fail, because she has no understanding of how she is supposed to behave. You think that this girl is not ready to get married. It would be best to wait two or three years.

We don’t want to marry her off, and then have her husband divorce her after 2-3 weeks, saying: “What is this?! This girl doesn’t know what to do, she has no appreciation of marital life. She knows nothing.” In such a case, it is better to delay marrying her off.

In the days of Prophet Muhammad and his companions, people would get married at a younger age. For example, how old was ‘Aisha when the Prophet Muhammad married her? I will give you a hint.

Member of panel of Saudi youth: She was seven years old.

Muhammad Al-‘Arifi: And how old was she when he had sex with her?

Member of panel: Fourteen.

Muhammad Al-‘Arifi: Fourteen?! No way, she was nine. You are getting married tonight and you still can’t count…

She was nine years old. People might think it is strange that he married such a young girl. But this was the age at which they used to get married. The proof is that when the Prophet told Abu Bakr that he wanted to marry ‘Aisha – what did Abu Bakr say? He said: “You are more than welcome, oh Messenger of Allah, but my daughter is already engaged.” At seven years old she was already engaged.

[…]

If a girl’s physical and mental build allows her to get married, it is okay for her to get married. There is no minimum age for a girl’s marriage set by Islam.

Al-Arifi tries to minimize the skincrawl-factor (1) by saying “this is how they used to do it, back then,” but arranged marriages of children to adults are still common in countries ruled by Islamic tradition, including Saudi Arabia. In fact, in 2009, a top Saudi cleric went so far to say that prohibiting the marriage of a 12-year old girl to an adult was unfair — to the girl.

And did you notice something telling about this panel? There was not a single woman on it. No one to give a woman’s point of view, because a woman’s point of view isn’t worth considering; she isn’t as intelligent as a man, you see, and so couldn’t really understand the subtle issues involved. This is one facet of the degraded state of women subject to Sharia law, which makes them little better than property under the control of men. Ayaan Hirsi Ali has written movingly about this.

via MEMRI

Footnote:
(1) That’s a technical term for the revulsion one feels when considering a pedophile.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Pat Condell: name the poison

**Posted by Phineas

Pat Condell returns and opens this video with a correction: When he mentioned in an earlier video that news from Norway had shown that 100% of the rapes in Oslo over the last five years had been committed by Muslims, he failed to distinguish between date-rape and marital rape on the one hand, and violent assault on the streets on the other. It’s this latter category that apparently is the special province of Muslims in Norway.

Having confessed that error, Condell takes out a rhetorical baseball bat and uses it to beat Islam and its Leftist apologists for the misogyny and mistreatment of women that forms a key pillar of the faith. He’s in fine form:

Condell touches on one point that’s crucial to understand a woman’s burden under Islam and Sharia: the woman must remain clothed and veiled with only the barest features showing, if at all, because the mere sight of her flesh might drive a man into uncontrollable lust. In other words, the woman is made responsible for the the man’s sexual misbehavior. One Islamic cleric infamously compared this to leaving uncovered meat out for the cat — what else could the cat do in that case, but take it?

Good Muslim women who follow the rules are inviolable, but if she breaks the rules, then she is guilty of adultery and punished — in some case by whipping. Unless, of course she can produce four male witnesses to say it was really rape, but, um… As Condell points out, who other than the rapists are likely to be witnesses?

And non-Muslim women? Whores by definition for going about uncovered and, by Muhammad’s own example, they are prizes of jihad.

Just ask the women of Oslo.

RELATED: Earlier posts on Islamic misogyny, and an article by Robert Spencer on the rape jihad.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Iranian official: “Retaliation and punishment are beautiful”

**Posted by Phineas

Call it the Shiite bookend to the earlier post about a Sunni cleric who argued that mutilating prisoners is an act of compassion. In this case, as PJM’s Reza Kahlili reports, there’s an extra-special Orwellian touch, as the “gentleman” in question is Mohammad-Javad Larijani, head of the Iranian judiciary’s Human Rights Council.

Have these guys got a sense of humor, or what?

Larijani, who had previously claimed that the sentence of stoning is much lighter than actual execution because the “defendant can actually survive,” also said:

  • “Retaliation and punishment are beautiful and necessary things. It’s a form of protection for the individual and civil rights of the people in a society. The executioner or the person carrying out the sentence is in fact very much a defender of human rights. One can say that there is humanity in the act of retaliation.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei also criticized the West last week for demeaning the value of women in their societies. He claimed that the Islamic regime of Iran has upheld the status of women, and that under Islam much attention is given to the role of women in society.

Call me crazy, but I get the sneaky feeling that most Iranian women would be grateful for less “attention:”

These two Iranian officials failed to mention that women in Iran are constantly attacked for not adhering to the Islamic hijab, or that thousands are in prison suffering torture, rape, and execution for seeking their rights. Just days ago, Iranian humanitarian and democracy activist Haleh Sahabi died after being severely beaten by Iranian security forces during her father’s funeral. Her body was immediately seized by Iranian authorities and her family forced to watch as they buried her that same night. No autopsy was allowed. Her father, also an activist, had been arrested several times in the past.

In spite of these atrocities, Iran was recently allowed to join the UN Commission on the Status of Women.

Like I said, they’re regular jokers. But keep in mind, per Mr. Larijani, it’s all in defense of human rights.

Whether it’s Sunni or Shiite, these examples from Iran and Egypt are just the latest illustrations of Islam as a totalitarian religious-political system that subordinates the individual to the group as a fate-bound slave. It demands absolute control over the lives of its followers down to the minutest detail and ordains punishment for all deviation. Not just for those things we would regard as real crimes –robbery, murder, rape, etc.– but for all aspects of behavior, even for daring to drive a car when it is forbidden. Especially victimized are women, who are regarded as inferior beings, less intelligent (1), and therefore in need of control and, yes, punishment.

But remember, these are beautiful acts of compassion.

It’s for their own good.

(1) Muhammad said so. So there.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

The United Nations as farce: an insult to the world’s women

**Posted by Phineas

A couple of days ago I provided an example of why the United Nations is useless: while the world is beset by problems around the globe, the Secretary General came to Hollywood to lobby for movies that would serve as propaganda for the alarmist side of the global warming debate. Sure, that’s worthy of a face-palm moment, but it’s not evil.

This is:

Today, Iran officially becomes a member of the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women. Only three days ago, the U.N. General Assembly voted to suspend Libya’s membership on the U.N. Human Rights Council in a desperate bid to save the Council’s tattered reputation and itself.

But not a single state, including the United States, has indicated anything but smooth sailing for today’s membership of Iran on the U.N.’s top women’s rights body.

Yes, you read that right. A misogynistic Islamic (But I repeat myself) theocracy has been elected to an international board meant to promote the rights of half the world’s population.

This is how the commission describes itself:

The Commission on the Status of Women (hereafter referred to as “CSW” or “the Commission”) is a functional commission of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), dedicated exclusively to gender equality and advancement of women. It is the principal global policy-making body. Every year, representatives of Member States gather at United Nations Headquarters in New York to evaluate progress on gender equality, identify challenges, set global standards and formulate concrete policies to promote gender equality and advancement of women worldwide.

The Commission was established by ECOSOC resolution 11(II) of 21 June 1946 with the aim to prepare recommendations and reports to the Council on promoting women’s rights in political, economic, civil, social and educational fields. The Commission also makes recommendations to the Council on urgent problems requiring immediate attention in the field of women’s rights.

Emphases added.

Gee, I wonder what kind of recommendations and reports we could expect from Iran to promote the “gender equality and advancement of women?” Maybe we should look at their track record:

For the UN to agree to Iran’s membership on the Commission is beyond a joke or a farce; it is a slap in the face to all women everywhere, and especially to Iranian women, who have to suffer under this barbaric tyranny.

And, never forget, your tax dollars pay for this.

UPDATE: I forgot to mention something: Notice how the Obama administration has voiced no objection Iran’s membership? Another proud moment for the diplomacy of Hope and Change.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Lara Logan’s rape as a symbol of Islam’s “silent scandal”

**Posted by Phineas

“Silent scandal.” Those are the words former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy uses to describe the miserable condition of women under Islam, in which inferiority to men is theologically sanctioned and non-Islamic women — or a Muslim woman who doesn’t behave as she should — are open targets for beatings, rape, and even death.

While horrific crimes against women occur in all parts of the world, it is only under Islam that these receive religious sanction. As McCarthy relates in “Who Attacked Lara Logan, and Why?

Tahrir Square is also the place where, in the frenzy after Hosni Mubarak’s fall, CBS news correspondent Lara Logan was seized and subjected to a savage sexual assault by an Egyptian gang. Coverage of the attack has been muted. There have been testimonials to Ms. Logan’s courage, and one anti-American leftist lost his comfortable fellowship at NYU Law School for failing to conceal his glee over the atrocity. We have heard much about the attack, but have heard next to nothing about the attackers. You are just supposed to assume it was a “mob” — the sort of thing that could have happened in any setting where raw emotion erupts, say, Wisconsin’s capitol.

Except it doesn’t happen in Madison. It happens in Egypt. It happened in Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim country, in the riots that led to Suharto’s fall — as Sharon Lapkin recounts, human-rights groups interviewed more than 100 women who had been captured and gang raped, including many Chinese women, who were told this was their fate as non-Muslims. It happens in Muslim countries and in the Muslim enclaves of Europe and Australia, perpetrated by Islamic supremacists acting on a sense of entitlement derived from their scriptures, fueled by the rage of their jihad, and enabled by the deafening silence of the media.

As Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer has detailed, al-Azhar University endorses a sharia manual called Umdat al-Salik. It is quite clear on the subject of women who become captives of Muslim forces: “When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.” This is so the woman can then be made a concubine of her captor.

This arrangement is encouraged by the Koran. Sura 4:23–24, for example, forbids Muslim men from consorting with the wives of other Muslims but declares sexual open season on any women these men have enslaved. (“Forbidden to you are . . . married women, except those whom you own as slaves.”) Moreover, Mohammed — whose life Muslims are exhorted by scripture to emulate — rewarded his fighters by distributing as slaves the women of the Jewish Qurazyzah tribe after Muslim forces had beheaded their husbands, fathers, and sons. The prophet himself also took one of the captured women, Rayhanna, as his concubine. And, as Spencer further notes, Mohammed directed his jihadists that they should not practice coitus interruptus with their slaves — they were encouraged to ravish them, but only in a manner that might produce Muslim offspring.

Emphases added. Be sure to read the whole thing, because McCarthy is one of the few willing to speak bluntly about this problem, rather than turn a multicultural blind eye. The sum, as he and other writers such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali have noted, is that Islamic law reduces women to a less-than-human status, encouraging such abuse, and the silence of Western liberals and leftists only abets it.

via Patrick Poole, who notes that the Umdat al-Salik, mentioned above, received a disturbing endorsement from an American imam.

LINKS: Phyllis Chesler on jihad by rape and liberal blindness. Power Line on “no-go zones” in France and the catastrophic failure of European multiculturalism. Jamie Glazov on Muslim rape and feminist silence (Disturbing photo warning). Bruce Bawer on the challenge posed by fundamentalist Islam in Europe and tolerating intolerance .

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Lara Logan attacked because she was “Jewish”

**Posted by Phineas

In a follow up to yesterday’s nauseating story, we see two themes that are central to Islam: contempt for women and hatred of Jews. Tragically for Lara Logan, they came to a focus in her. From The New York Post:

“60 Minutes” correspondent Lara Logan was repeatedly sexually assaulted by thugs yelling, “Jew! Jew!” as she covered the chaotic fall of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Cairo’s main square Friday, CBS and sources said yesterday.

The TV crew with Logan, who is also the network’s chief foreign correspondent, had its cameras rolling moments before she was dragged off — and caught her on tape looking tense and trying to head away from a crowd of men behind her in Tahrir Square.

“Logan was covering the jubilation . . . when she and her team and their security were surrounded by a dangerous element amidst the celebration,” CBS said in a statement. “It was a mob of more than 200 people whipped into a frenzy.

“In the crush of the mob, [Logan] was separated from her crew. She was surrounded and suffered a brutal and sustained sexual assault and beating before being saved by a group of women and an estimated 20 Egyptian soldiers.

“She reconnected with the CBS team, returned to her hotel and returned to the United States on the first flight the next morning,” the network added. “She is currently in the hospital recovering.”

A network source told The Post that her attackers were screaming, “Jew! Jew!” during the assault. And the day before, Logan had told Esquire.com that Egyptian soldiers hassling her and her crew had accused them of “being Israeli spies.” Logan is not Jewish.

Her real religious affiliation, if any, is immaterial. Logan had become the embodiment of the paranoia and conspiracy-mongering in a society that can take seriously claims that Israel has trained sharks to attack Muslims or is sending AIDs-carrying women to Egypt. And Jews have been the declared (by Muslims) enemies of Islam since the days of Muhammad, the invocation of the Muslim massacre of the Jews at Khaybar being a rallying cry to this day. Indeed, the Muslim version of the anti-Christ will be born of a Jew and lead an army of Jews. Thus calling Logan a Jew, as well has her “immodest behavior,” justified her rape. If she had just worn a niqab and stayed in her room like a proper woman… .

But don’t you dare say Islam isn’t tolerant or doesn’t respect women.

via Jihad Watch

UPDATE: The Washington Post reports that Logan is home with her family and adds this chilling note:

When Logan returned Saturday to the United States, she was described as being in shock and not speaking, the source added.

Poor woman. To think what she and her family are going through right now.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Saudi Arabia: rape victim to be whipped

**Posted by Phineas

In civilized countries, such as the United States or any other Western liberal democracy, a woman who was gang-raped would be given medical care and whatever therapy she needed to recover. If her attackers were captured, she’d have the right to testify against them in open court and see them punished.

Remember, we’re talking about civilized countries.

In the Islamic police state of Saudi Arabia, however, which is governed by the totalitarian Sharia code of religious law and which treats women as little better than a man’s property, that same rape victim gets sent to jail and given 100 lashes:

A 23-year-old unmarried woman was awarded one-year prison term and 100 lashes for committing adultery and trying to abort the resultant fetus.

The District Court in Jeddah pronounced the verdict on Saturday after the girl confessed that she had a forced sexual intercourse with a man who had offered her a ride. The man, the girl confessed, took her to a rest house, east of Jeddah, where he and four of friends assaulted her all night long.

But, let’s not be too harsh. The court did, after all, postpone her whipping until after the baby was born. See? They really do have a heart! And, hey, she confessed!

It says a lot about a society in which the victim is the one who “confesses.”

Bear in mind that this same religious legal code is what al Qaeda and other jihadist groups want to impose on us by force, and that Muslim Brotherhood front-groups such as CAIR, ICNA, and ISNA want to bring to the West through a cultural jihad — with Saudi support.

Women in the West have much to look forward to.

RELATED: Other posts on the Religion of Misogyny.

via Jihad Watch

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)