Fresh Tasty Ideas

Modern democracies bestow the same rights and priviledges to men and women. The very notion of women protesting for suffrage seems hard to imagine, given that most of us have never known anything different here in America. But is Islam capable of exisiting in society which grants equal rights to both sexes? Not without revising or ignoring the teachings of the prophet Mohammed.

Actually, Mohammed was quite outspoken on the matter. He plainly stated: “Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other” (Qur’an 4:34). Some translations say “made one to excel the other” but the point is clear, women are inferior. The newest translations are going to great lengths to ameliorate this sura, it’s a little embrassing — especially for women who claim that Islam brings equality for women.

And wives, they are as a field to be plowed by their husband: “Your women are a tilth for you to cultivate so go to your tilth as ye will” (2:223). A field exists to bring food forth food for the farmer. Mohammed, using his best impression of an SAT analogy, says women are those fields and sex is the the food. What good is a field besides what it produces? And Mohammed did cultivate a plenty; scholars agreed he had at least 22 tilths, err wives, during his lifetime. One of which was pre-pubescent when the marriage was consumated, but that’s another story altogether.

And what should happen if the field refuses to be cultivated? Firstly, the “angels will curse her until morning” (Bukhari, vol. 4, book 59, no. 3237). Also, the husband is given permission by Mohammed to beat his wife: “Good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them” (4:34). Some might contest that scourge, like Jihad, does not mean anything physical. But Aisha, Mohammed’s favorite wife, would disagree. Mohammed caught her sneaking out to follow him into the night, and then beat her: “He struck me on the chest which caused me pain and then said: ‘Did you think Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you.?’” Aisha also said that the “believing women” suffer more than any because their “skin is greener than their clothes” (Bukhari, vol. 7, book 77, no. 5825).

That’s just skimming the surface of the attitude Mohammed had towards women. It’s pretty clear that women are sex property of their husbands, with limited rights. I didn’t even bring up quotes on women’s dress codes, polygamy, divorce, or the hilarious mut’a (temporary marriage). In all cases, the women get the short end of the stick.

So how can a Qur’an-loving Muslim man or women simply ignore the words of Allah? Remember, Islam teaches that Mohammed’s words are the exact words of Allah (although to be fair, only the original works retain that property, and they are in Arabic). And let’s not forget that Allah’s words are not up for revision, they are immutable.

Here is modern democratic society which gives women equal rights and priviledges. How can that coexist with Islamic teachings which are in direct opposition to women’s rights? In one situation, women are inferior, in the other they are equal. Allah says a man may beat his wife for refusing him intercourse, but that will get the man arrested in America.

But it’s not so difficult to make democracy and Islam coexist. Millions of Muslims do it every day across the globe. How? They ignore or discredit Allah’s teachings to the extent that they don’t jive with the 21st century. But who is the more devout Muslim? One who tolerates his wife’s abstinence for an evening, or the one who beats her for refusing him? I think it’s pretty clear what Allah thinks.

Women's Rights, Islam, Qur'an, Mohammed

I wanted to do a post on illegal immigration, but I found one that summarizes everything I wanted to say. It is very frustrating to watch illegal immigrants from Mexico come to America for a better life, and wave the Mexican flag while demanding we accept the fact that they’re breaking the law.

Immigration

Is Islam compatible with democracy? That is the question I want to see debated more often in our academic institutions. Or perhaps the question should be: Is democracy compatible with Islam? Can we all just put our sensitivities aside and chew the fat on this one for awhile? To me, the very fact that so many acted to silence this debate speaks to the matter itself.

Read more

Islam, Democracy

Hugo Chavez had a stern warning for the US today, warning that any invading American forces would have to contend with his bow and poison arrows:

“I am going to practice with a bow and arrow. If we have to put a few arrows into any invading gringo, then you’ll be done in 30 seconds, my dear gringo,” Chavez said pointing to his neck during his regular Sunday television broadcast.

The sad thing is that this megalomaniac has his whole country in a trance, despite their squalid living conditions. I do place blame on the socialist left in America for promoting lunatics like Chavez as benevolent leaders. This guy’s certifiably insane.

Chavez, Gringo

And so was Mohammed and Moses, too. What am I talking about? Swiss and Israeli neurologists claim that it was perhaps altitude sickness which gave way to three of the major religions in the world today:

All three felt, heard or saw a presence, experienced lights and felt afraid, say the brain scientists from Lausanne, Geneva and Jerusalem. But so have contemporary mountaineers who are more interested in ice picks and thermal undies than anything mystical - suggesting the dizzy heights may have the effect of turning ordinary mortals into prophets.

A cleverly spotted coincidence methinks, but woefully short of a serious scientific hypothesis.

Lightheaded

Via AP:

The Russian government collected intelligence from sources inside the American military command as the U.S. mounted the invasion of Iraq, and the Russians fed information to Saddam Hussein on troop movements and plans, according to Iraqi documents cited in a Pentagon report released Friday.

Russian spies relaying information about the movement of our troops to an American adversary? I thought the cold war ended a long time ago. It’s already well-known that Saddam counted on the Russians (and the French) to save him when Bush and Blair came knocking at his door. But now the Russians were supplying Hussein with information which endangered our troops and cost lives? This is inexcusable!

Update: Some of the documents handed over to the Iraqis specify things like amount of tanks and ships and in what locations, location of two special forces units, and the directions from which the US would attack.

Russia, Spying, Iraq, Hussein

The 9/11 attacks were not carried out by Islamic terrorists, according to Charlie Sheen who the article refers to as one of a growing number of “prominent credible whistleblowers.” It was our government that brought down the Twin Towers with explosives, and also our government that hit the Pentagon. Why is this deluded fantasy so popular among the “progressive” community? Here’s a little reading for Charlie (assuming that he can read).

Update: 9/11 conspiracy theorists succeeded in stuffing the ballot box for a CNN poll which asked if you agree with Charlie Sheen. They claim this is the “third wave” of 9/11 skeptics to go public. I dedicate this to the 82% of people who agree with Charlie Sheen:

Sheen

Christopher Hitchens assumes the position of armchair-general for a moment — explaining how the war in Iraq should have gone. Here’s a telling excerpt:

It is in the light of that last point that one of the article’s crucial discoveries must be read. Saddam believed until the end that the French and Russian governments would save him. He also knew what we—at the time—did not: The oil-for-food system had turned into a self-sustaining racket that cemented his support in French and Russian circles. He thought that contracts would speak louder than words, and in this instance he wasn’t completely crazy to do so.

Hat-tip: LGF

Iraq

When the New York Times, a very left-leaning newspaper, opines the worthlessness of the United Nations, you know it’s gotten pretty bad.

The UN is a failed experiment, a paralyzed guard dog, an utterly ineffectual and scandal ridden beauracracy. The money that the US burns by funding the UN could easily be put to better use in practically any other way. Pull the plug on the UN.

United Nations

Isaac Hayes, the voice of Chef on Southpark, recently quit the show. He cites “intolerance” for the beliefs of others as his chief concern. This is almost comical, because Southpark has been a phenomenally successful show specifically because it takes shots at everyone. Jesus has been dragged through the mud, Joseph Smith thoroughly mocked, and Jews lampooned on a regular basis.

It seems more likely that this episode, which focuses on Scientology, caused Mr. Hayes — a devout and outspoken Scientologist — to leave the show. Co-creator Matt Stone said:

“This is 100 per cent having to do with his faith of Scientology. . . He has no problem - and he’s cashed plenty of cheques - with our show making fun of Christians.

[I] never heard a peep out of Isaac in any way until we did Scientology. He wants a different standard for religions other than his own, and to me, that is where intolerance and bigotry begin.”

Oh, and by the way, if you watch the episode that made Hayes quit, you’ll be in for a real treat. Stan is given an exclusive screening of the secret beliefs of the Church of Scientology, and as far as I can tell, it’s 100% true to the Church’s actual teachings. They even put in a disclaimer that states This is What Scientologists Actually Believe. Funny as hell.

South Park, Hayes, Chef