Katie Hopkins – Verbal Diarrhoea is not a qualification »« Not the Ducks! – Quacks, Wikipedia and True Scientific Discourse

Is This Humane or Wahaabism?

We all know that Islam’s modern face is tarnished by the spectre of extremism and apologetics who cover for the extremists. We know that the good in Islam is being poisoned by the bad and that real progress cannot take place without Muslims willingly ostracising their fundamentalists. Right now, the biggest threat to Islam is not Atheists or Modern life but Islam itself.

And this can be seen in Saudi Arabia.

Salma Al-Shuhab lives in a land where women cannot drive. They can learn to drive on the sly, but they cannot take the car out of the house. You see, the Wahaabism that drives the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) believes that a woman should not drive lest it lead her and men astray. I assume there was some confusion about fast women and loose cars that led to this ban.

Salma woke up with a migrane and needed to go see a doctor. She did what many women in the KSA do, she called an ambulance. And when the call centre found out she lived alone, they said “no”. They said “no” because she had no man in the house. She could not just go out into the street at 4:00 AM as she may get arrested for being out without a guardian.

And it wasn’t once but twice, the first was the phone employee. After she asked him to call his manager, he returned with the same message.

That she could not be helped because she was alone. She demanded to know if they leave women to die and after a fifteen minute search she was able to find a driver.

The Red Crescent claims to provide a service that is in sync with International Standards and provides an ambulance service regardless of race or gender around the clock. They will launch an investigation into the call logs that day.

But is this humane? We have seen such idiocy in the past where the exposure of women to the public was less desirable than protecting them from a massive fire. When religion is inhumane then religion must change. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is the heart of Islam and what the core of your religion does is what you aspire to.

Is this what we must aspire to? Base inhumanity, the inability to understand real issues?

Okay  so two events don’t make a trend. There are routine events like this where male paramedics (and face it, they are mainly male because many Saudi women do not have great opportunities for such work) are hindered and harassed by the KSA’s Mutaween Religious Police. Including one case in 2014 where a young lady at a university died while the Paramedics argued with people who were more interested in her body than the paramedics.

The Mutaween insult men but harm women. To them a man is an uncontrolled force of nature, incapable of controlling their actions around an unveiled woman. And this means women must sacrifice their comfort, dignity and even safety for men to remain free of temptation.

And this is the problem with religion. It doesn’t make you moral. It justifies a moral stance. Your religion has ideals that are considered moral. So this can be things we NOW consider immoral such as Slavery, Cannibalism, Human Sacrifice, Violence, Sexism…

And the point is religion has grown and progressed and become more moral as time goes by because humans change and analyse the world around them and change how they think about morality. We move forwards and try to adhere to a code that does the least harm to others and treats others the way we wish to be treated.

But with religious fundamentalists they are sure that their action is completely defensible.

In this case? Denying women the opportunity to go to a hospital is better in their minds than helping her. The sum total benefit of letting these women burn to death or die without paramedic cover or just suffer poor medical care… is worse than contact between genders. That to them there is a tangible benefit to this.

Lets get this straight, this story is from the Arab Times and is being treated as a horrid incident by people in Saudi Arabia. Muslims think this is unacceptable behaviour from the Mutaween.

So how long are they going to stand by and be ruled by them? The people harming Islam and holding Muslims down are not the people who are progressive. Islam is not harmed by accepting women and GLBT as equals. Islam is not harmed by religious freedom. Islam is not harmed by liberalisation.

Islam is harmed by fundamentalists who think that the ideal way to live is a throwback to a less moral time because that’s what Mohammed lived in. Rather than think that they can do better, they think that all the progress we have made in treating humans better and more humane is anti-Islamic.

So Saudi must decide for it’s own safety and future whether it keeps kowtowing to the Mutaween and the Wahabbists or pushes for a brighter future for Muslims. If the centre of Islam is fundamentalist, what hope do the faithful have in overthrowing the shackles of extremism? The man held as an ideal is a fundie, and so more Muslims grow up to aspire to that ideal.

Humanity does not come out of the kit morality of religion but by careful analysis of actions. And Muslims would do well to realise that lest they fall into the trap of Wahabbism.

Comments

  1. luckylarrysilverstein says

    THIS IS GOOD ISLAM:

    BUGGING YOUR WIFE?

    Distortion committed by Bukhari whilst copying down a tradition in his ‘Sahih’ pertaining to the legitimacy of sodomy

    We read in the Holy Quran:

    Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will (Yusufali, 2:223).
    In various Sunni works we read that testimony of Abdullah Ibn Umar regarding the reason for the revelation of the said verse qua legitimacy of performing buggery on one’s wife. Hafiz Jalaluddin Suyuuti for example recorded in Tafseer Durre Manthur, Volume 1 page 638:
    وأخرج الحسن بن سفيان في مسنده والطبراني في الأوسط والحاكم وأبو نعيم في المستخرج بسند حسن عن ابن عمر قال‏:‏ إنما نزلت على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏{‏نساؤكم حرث لكم‏.‏‏.‏‏.‏‏}‏ الآية‏.‏ رخصة في إتيان الدبر‏.‏

    Hasan bin Sufiyan in his Musnad, Tabarani in Al-Awsat, Hakim and Abu Naeem in Al-Mastakhraj with a ‘Hasan’ chain of narration narrated from Ibn Umar who said: ‘This verse was revealed upon the Holy Prophet (s) in respect of the permissibility of performing sex in the anus of a woman’

    Curiously, when it came to the great Imam Bukhari, he felt compelled to record the statement of Abdullah Ibn Umar in an incomplete manner. We read in Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 50:
    Narrated Nafi’: Whenever Ibn ‘Umar recited the Qur’an, he would not speak to anyone till he had finished his recitation. Once I held the Qur’an and he recited Surat-al-Baqara from his memory and then stopped at a certain Verse and said, “Do you know in what connection this Verse was revealed? ” I replied, “No.” He said, “It was revealed in such-and-such connection.” Ibn ‘Umar then resumed his recitation. Nafi added regarding the Verse:–”So go to your tilth when or how you will” Ibn ‘Umar said, “It means one should approach his wife in ..”

    ‘In’ what? Of course IN her anus and whilst Hafiz Jalaluddin Suyuti and other famed Sunni scholars recorded this fact, it was Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani who filled in the blanks whilst commenting on the cited tradition of Bukhari:

    في إتيان المرأة في دبرها
    “Approach the woman in her anus”

    Fatah ul Bari Sharah Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8 page 190
    Imam Bukhari has recorded this tradition in his ‘Sahih’ with the following chain of narration:
    Ishaq (bin Rehwiya) – Nadar – Ibn Aun – Nnaf’i

    Now the most interesting part is that Bukhari actually copied down the above statement of Abdullah Ibn Umar from his Shaykh, namely Ishaq bin Rehwiya as mentioned by Ibn Hajar Asqalani:
    فقد أخرجها إسحاق ابن راهويه في مسنده وفي تفسيره بالإسناد المذكور ، وقال بدل قوله حتى انتهى إلى مكان ” حتى انتهى إلى قوله نساؤكم حرث لكم فأتوا حرثكم أنى شئتم فقال : أتدرون فيما أنزلت هذه الآية ؟ قلت لا . قال : نزلت في إتيان النساء في أدبارهن
    Ishaq bin Raheweh recorded it in his Musnad and his Tafsir with the same chain, when it reached the part “your wives are tilth to you, so go to your tilth anyhow you will” he said: ‘Do you know what for this verse has been revealed about?’ They said: ‘No’. He replied: ‘It has been revealed in regards to approaching women in their anuses’

    Interestingly whilst citing the said tradition verbatim Bukhari committed deception and did not quote the words of his Shaykh opting to leave a blank, in the hope that the attention plan of his readers would be short enough to confuse them and direct them to the next narration.

    (2) Second example of Sunni morality:
    SUNNI ‘ULAMA LEGITIMISED THE USE OF DILDOS (FEMALE SEX TOYS)

    After this ingenious fatwa, Ibn Qayyim then goes on to make permissible the use of a dildoe by women. It is only logical; when the husbands leave to go masturbate and spread Islam by the sword, they need something to do with themselves. On the same page as quoted above, Ibn Qayyim writes:
    “If a woman does not have a husband, and her lust becomes strong, then some of our scholars say: It is permissible for the woman to take an akranbij, which is a piece of leather worked until it becomes shaped like a penis, and insert it in herself. She may also use a cucumber”.

    COMMENT:

    Now, according to Dr. Salamah’s logic, the Saudi government should therefore purchase a large number of such dildos, and distribute them to old widows or otherwise unattractive women who cannot marry. Since anything that is permissible, according to Dr. Salamah, requires stand sanction and support, than clearly a dildoe distribution office needs to be immediately established in the great Islamic state of Saudi Arabia.
    Maybe this is another reason why ‘Umar the Khalifa never went on jihad: somebody had to stay behind and organize the cucumber distribution.

    (3) Third example of Sunni morality –
    PEDOPHILIA, BESTIALITY & NECROPHILIA CAN BE PERFORMED WHILST ONE IS FASTING

    In Bada’i al-Fuwa’id of Ibn Qayyim, page 603:
    “It was narrated by Ahmed that a man came to him that feared that he would ejaculate while he was fasting. Ahmed said: “What I see is that he can release semen without ruining the fast, he can masturbate using his hands or the hands of his wife, If he has an “Ammah” whether be it a girl or a little child, she can masturbate for him using her hands, and if she was a non-believer, he can sleep with her without releasing (his semen), if he released it in her, it becomes impermissible”.
    Bada’i al-Fuwa’id of Ibn Qayyim, page 603
    Not to be hard done by, the Hanafi’s follow suit. In Fatawa Qadhi Khan, Page 820, the learned Hanafi scholar Allamah Hassan bin Mansoor Qadhi Khan sets out those acts that do not invalidate one’s fast, and he includes:
    “Sex with animals, dead people and masturbation, does not invalidate one’s fast provided ejaculation does not occur”
    Fatawa Qadhi Khan, Page 820

    COMMENT:

    What can we say about such Fatwas of morality? Fasting in Islam, is viewed as a means via which a believer purifies himself, via self-discipline, he dedicates that time to the remembrance of Allah (swt) and keeps aloof from sinful thoughts and acts. That is the theory, but the Hanbali and Hanafi madhab allows a man (whilst fasting) to have sex with kaffir women, animals, and dead people, the only proviso being that no ejaculation takes place! Ibn Hanbal was however more considerate to his adherents allowing for a man to ejaculate whilst fasting, providing the deed is achieved via masturbation, and to this end he can do it himself, or seek the help of his wife or a small child! Is this is not evidence that Ibn Hanbal was endorsing paedophilia? Would any decent man (Muslim or Non Muslim) find it appropriate to use a child for sexual stimulation? If we put together these type of fatwas one shudders to think of the image of these great Salaf, entering the war whilst fasting, their buttocks exposed, having sex with melons at the ready. This image would have terrified the opposition!

    (4) Fourth example of Sunni morality –
    A SALAFI WOMAN CAN SUCKLE A SALAFI MAN WITH A BEARD

    We read in Sahih Muslim Hadith Number 3426:
    Ibn Abu Mulaika reported that al-Qasim b. Muhammad b. Abu Bakr had narrated to him that ‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Sahla bint Suhail b. ‘Amr came to Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) and said: Messenger of Allah, Salim (the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifa) is living with us in our house, and he has attained (puberty) as men attain it and has acquired knowledge (of the sex problems) as men acquire, whereupon he said: Suckle him so that he may become unlawful (in regard to marriage) for you He (Ibn Abu Mulaika) said: I refrained from (narrating this hadith) for a year or so on account of fear. I then met al-Qasim and said to him: You narrated to me a hadith which I did not narrate (to anyone) afterwards. He said: What is that? I informed him, whereupon he said: Narrate it on my authority that ‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) had narrated that to me.

    COMMENT:

    This reference is especially for Dr Salamah who has accused the Shi’a of being filthy proponents of Mut’ah, what right do you have to attack us when have the above Fatwa of Ayesha allowing your women to suckle men with beards so as to make them mahram? How many pubescent Salafi men has your mother suckled so that they can enter your house? When your madhab allows your mothers / daughters to breast feed men with beards what gives you the right to attack the practice of Mut’ah? If today any Nasibi tries to suggest that this practice no longer exists in their school and it was only Ayesha who had issued the fatwa then we shall present the thoughts of their Imam Ibn Tamiyah as quoted by one of the revered scholars of Salafies Ibn Uthaimeen:
    واختار شيخ الإسلام ابن تيميه رحمه الله التفصيل وقال إذا دعت الحاجة إلى إرضاع الكبير وأرضع ثبت التحريم
    “Sheikh ul-Islam ibn Taymia (may Allah’s mercy be upon him) chosed to explain in details and said that if the breast suckling by an adult was necessary and he suckled, then the prohibition (of marriage) is established.”
    Fatawa Nur Ala Aldarb, Volume 10 page 204
    Imam Ibn Hazm records:
    ورضاع الكبير محرم ولو انه شيخ يحرم كما يحرم رضاع الصغير
    “The breast suckling by an adult prohibits (marriage) even if he is an old man just like it prohibits (marriage) in the case of suckling by a child”
    Al-Muhala, Volume 10 page 17

    Now compare this morality to the comments of a contemporary Salafi scholar from “Islamic Fatawa Regarding Women” compiled by Muhammed al-Musnad and translated by Jamal Zarabozo. In Chapter 19, Questions of a Miscellaneous Nature under the sub heading Ruling Concerning Women Driving Automobiles’, Imam of the Salafi Nasibi Shaykh bin Baz stated:

    There have been numerous questions concerning the ruling of women driving automobiles. The response is the following:

    There is no doubt that such is not allowed. Women driving leads to many evils and negative consequences. Included among these is her mixing with men without her being on her guard. It also leads to the evil sins due to which such an action is forbidden. The Pure Law forbids those acts that lead to forbidden acts and considers those means to be forbidden also. Allah has ordered the wives of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and the women of the believers to remain in their houses, to wear hijab and not to display their adornments to non-mahram males as that leads to promiscuity that overruns a society.

    Now on the one side these moralistic Salafi have this kind of fatawa prohibiting their women from (Allah forbid) driving a car as this may cause promiscuity, and on the other hand they deem it permissible for their women to suckle men with beards! Women driving ‘leads to many evils and negative consequences’, but if the same women were to remain at home suckling men with beards, that’s fine!

    (5) Fifth example of Sunni morality –
    BESTIALITY CAN BE PERFORMED DURING HAJJ

    Sunni Imam Abu Bakar al-Kashani (d. 587 H) records in his authority work ‘Badaye al-Sanae’ Volume 2 page 216:

    ولو وطئ بهيمة لا يفسد حجه
    “If he had sexual intercourse with an animal that will not make his hajj void”

    (6) Sixth example of Sunni morality –
    PEDOPHILIA, BESTIALITY & NECROPHILIA CAN BE PERFORMED WHILST ONE IS FASTING

    In Bada’i al-Fuwa’id of Ibn Qayyim, page 603:
    “It was narrated by Ahmed that a man came to him that feared that he would ejaculate while he was fasting. Ahmed said: “What I see is that he can release semen without ruining the fast, he can masturbate using his hands or the hands of his wife, If he has an “Ammah” whether be it a girl or a little child, she can masturbate for him using her hands, and if she was a non-believer, he can sleep with her without releasing (his semen), if he released it in her, it becomes impermissible”.
    Bada’i al-Fuwa’id of Ibn Qayyim, page 603

    Not to be hard done by, the Hanafi’s follow suit. In Fatawa Qadhi Khan, Page 820, the learned Hanafi scholar Allamah Hassan bin Mansoor Qadhi Khan sets out those acts that do not invalidate one’s fast, and he includes:

    “Sex with animals, dead people and masturbation, does not invalidate one’s fast provided ejaculation does not occur”
    Fatawa Qadhi Khan, Page 820

    COMMENT:

    What can we say about such Fatwas of morality? Fasting in Islam, is viewed as a means via which a believer purifies himself, via self-discipline, he dedicates that time to the remembrance of Allah (swt) and keeps aloof from sinful thoughts and acts. That is the theory, but the Hanbali and Hanafi madhab allows a man (whilst fasting) to have sex with kaffir women, animals, and dead people, the only proviso being that no ejaculation takes place! Ibn Hanbal was however more considerate to his adherents allowing for a man to ejaculate whilst fasting, providing the deed is achieved via masturbation, and to this end he can do it himself, or seek the help of his wife or a small child! Is this is not evidence that Ibn Hanbal was endorsing paedophilia? Would any decent man (Muslim or Non Muslim) find it appropriate to use a child for sexual stimulation? If we put together these type of fatwas one shudders to think of the image of these great Salaf, entering the war whilst fasting, their buttocks exposed, having sex with melons at the ready. This image would have terrified the opposition!

    ANIMAL LOVING MUSLIMS:

    ISLAM & ZOOPHILIA

    Pakistan has banned content on more than a dozen websites because of “offensive” and “blasphemous” material, while they themselves rank No. 1 for certain sex-related search terms, including “child sex,” “rape sex,” “animal sex,” “camel sex,” “donkey sex,” “dog sex,” and “horse sex”.[1]

    IN THE ISLAMIC WORLD

    AFGHANISTAN

    In a society where homosexuals and adulterers are stoned to death for “sexual immorality” you would expect a similar outcome for someone caught having sex with an animal. Surprisingly this is not the case.
    An Afghan soldier was detained by police after being caught having sex with a donkey in southeastern Afghanistan, a police officer told AFP.
    The soldier was discovered with the donkey in an abandoned house in a small village of Gardez, the capital of Paktia province, last week, a local police officer said.
    “He was caught in the act by a small boy who immediately told police about what he had seen and police arrested him in action,” the Gardez-based officer told AFP, requesting anonymity.
    The soldier claimed he committed the act because he did not have enough money to get married.
    After being caught with the donkey in a village about 100km south of the capital Kabul, he was jailed for four days and then released without charge.
    According to tradition in south and southeastern Afghanistan, a suitor must pay around $US5,000 ($A6,800) to the parents of the girl he wishes to marry.
    Soldier caught with his pants down
    The Age, March 16, 2004
    Could it be that the soldier was released without charge because there is nothing in the Qur’an that prohibits bestiality?
    PALESTINE

    In 1923, the Director of Health in the British Mandate government in Palestine sent out a questionnaire to his Principal Medical and Health Officers in the country, asking them to report on various sexual practices and attitudes among the Muslim Arab population.
    As a result, the British discovered that the Muslim Arabs engaged in bestiality.
    The Nablus officer finds sodomy and “similar vices” “not uncommon in some of the towns but less so in the villages where…bestiality is by no mean unknown” and “immorality…rather lightly regarded” in those villages that are closer to the larger towns. He comments, “in the villages there seems to be curiously little feeling against bestiality which I have heard admitted in a very airy way on more than one occasion. Sodomy is considered disgraceful but not I think more so than ordinary immorality” (III).

    “Unnatural Vices” or Unnatural Rule? The Case of a Sex Questionnaire and the British Mandate
    Ellen L. Fleischmann, Jerusalem Quarterly File, Issue 10, 2000

    PAKISTAN

    In Southern Punjab, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Sindh and Balochistan, sex with animals is a common practice among rural youths and considered a rite of passage into adulthood.
    In southern Punjab, much of NWFP, Sindh and Balochistan sodomy and bestiality are common among rural youths. In fact, he caught two boys trying to rape a goat in the vicinity of the mazar of Hazrat Sultan Bahu. The punishment meted out to them was 10 blows with a chhittar (shoe) each on their butts. They protested however that in many rural areas having sex with an animal was considered a rite of passage on the way to becoming full members of the male society!

    Desegregation of the sexes and promiscuity
    Ishtiaq Ahmed (associate professor of political science at Stockholm University), Daily Times, June 27, 2006

    DONKEY KILLED AFTER BEING RAPED

    In June 2011, a male who was caught having sex with another man’s donkey was fined Rs 50,000. This fine was not imposed for having sex with an animal, but for committing adultery. The raped donkey was labelled a ‘kari’ (an adultress) and eventually honor killed by its owner.

    Incredible though it may sound, a donkey was declared ‘Kari’ and shot dead here in a remote area on Monday. The Jirga imposed 110,000 rupees fine on the alleged ‘Karo’.
    The reports said that in Village Ghahi Khan Jatoi, a villager Ghazi Khan alias Malang shot dead his donkey on being ‘Kari’ with Sikandar Ali alias Deedo. He attempted to kill Sikander too but the alleged Karo managed to escape and surrendered himself to an influential person of the area.
    Sources said the influential person summoned both the parties and imposed 110,000 rupees fine on the Karo. They said Sikander and his family were forced to pay Rs 50,000 on the spot and the remaining amount in two installments.
    The sources added that the alleged Karo pleaded innocence at the Jirga, but the Jirga members paid no attention to it. Sikander’s family said he paid Rs 50,000 to save his life otherwise he would have been killed.
    Donkey declared ‘Kari’ killed

    The News International, July 19, 2011
    Pakistan ranks number 1 for such varied search terms as “child sex,” “rape sex,” “animal sex,” “camel sex,” “donkey sex,” “dog sex,” and “horse sex”.

    The Muslim country, which has banned content on at least 17 websites to block offensive and blasphemous material, is the world’s leader in online searches for pornographic material
    . . .
    Google ranks Pakistan No. 1 in the world in searches for pornographic terms, outranking every other country in the world in searches per person for certain sex-related content.
    Pakistan is top dog in searches per-person for “horse sex” since 2004, “donkey sex” since 2007, “rape pictures” between 2004 and 2009, “rape sex” since 2004, “child sex” between 2004 and 2007 and since 2009, “animal sex” since 2004 and “dog sex” since 2005, according to Google Trends and Google Insights, features of Google that generate data based on popular search terms.
    The country also is tops — or has been No. 1 — in searches for “sex,” “camel sex,” “rape video,” “child sex video” and some other searches that can’t be printed here.
    No. 1 Nation in Sexy Web Searches? Call it Pornistan
    Kelli Morgan, Fox News, July 13, 2010

    OTHER COUNTRIES & BESTIALITY — RELATED SEARCHES

    Pakistani Muslims are not alone in their search for porn.
    Google, the world’s most popular Internet search engine, has found in a survey that mostly Muslim states seek access to sex-related websites and Pakistan tops the list. Google found that of the top 10 countries – searching for sex-related sites – six were Muslim, with Pakistan on the top. The other Muslim countries are Egypt at number 2, Iran at 4, Morocco at 5, Saudi Arabia at 7 and Turkey at 8. Non-Muslim states are Vietnam at 3, India at 6, Philippines at 9 and Poland at 10.

    PAKISTAN MOST SEX STARVED

    Khalid Hasan, Daily Times, May 17, 2006
    Here are the Muslim countries and how they placed in the top five world ranking of various bestiality-related internet search terms:[8]
    Pig Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Egypt (No. 2) Saudi Arabia (No. 3)
    Donkey Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Iran (No. 3) Saudi Arabia (No. 4)
    Dog Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Saudi Arabia (No. 3)
    Cat Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Iran (No. 2) Egypt (No. 3) Saudi Arabia (No. 4)
    Horse Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Turkey (No. 3)
    Cow Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Iran (No. 2) Saudi Arabia (No. 4)
    Goat Sex: Pakistan (No. 1)
    Animal Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Morocco (No. 2) Iran (No. 4) Egypt (No. 5)
    Snake Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Malaysia (No. 3) Indonesia (No. 4) Egypt (No. 5)
    Monkey Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Indonesia (No. 3) Malaysia (No. 4)
    Bear Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Saudi Arabia (No. 2)
    Elephant Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Egypt (No. 3) United Arab Emirates (No. 4) Malaysia (No. 5)
    Fox Sex: Saudi Arabia (No. 1) Turkey (No. 4)

    MIDDLE EAST

    Bestiality is common among boys of tribal Arab cultures.
    Miner and DeVos (1960) comment that amongst Arab tribal cultures, “Bestiality with goats, sheep, or camels provides another outlet. These practices are not approved but they are recognized as common among boys.” Havelock-Ellis [note 52] states “The Arabs, according to Kocher, chiefly practice bestiality with goats, sheep and mares. The Annamites, according to Mondiere, commonly employ sows and (more especially the young women) dogs.”
    Historical And Cultural Perspectives On Zoophilia
    Serving History
    There is also a certain saying which remains popular among the Arabs:
    The Arabs have never taken quite so condemnatory an attitude towards the practice, and indeed a popular Arab saying had it that

    “The pilgrimage to Mecca is not complete without copulating with the camel.”[9]

    SUDAN

    In February 2006, a man caught having sex with a neighbor’s goat was not punished, but ordered by the council of elders to pay the neighbor a dowry of 15,000 Sudanese dinars ($50) and marry the animal because he “used it as his wife”.
    A Sudanese man has been forced to take a goat as his “wife”, after he was caught having sex with the animal.
    The goat’s owner, Mr Alifi, said he surprised the man with his goat and took him to a council of elders.
    They ordered the man, Mr Tombe, to pay a dowry of 15,000 Sudanese dinars ($50) to Mr Alifi.
    “We have given him the goat, and as far as we know they are still together,” Mr Alifi said.
    Sudan man forced to ‘marry’ goat
    BBC News, February 24,2006

    MOROCCO
    Morocco is an Islamic country, with 98.7% of the population Muslims.[10] The following is taken from a paper on sexuality in Morocco written by Nadia Kadiri, M.D., and Abderrazak Moussaïd, M.D., with Abdelkrim Tirraf, M.D., and Abdallah Jadid, M.D. Translated by Raymond J. Noonan, Ph.D., and Sandra Almeida.[11]
    In the rural world, zoophilia is still very widespread and not blameworthy. With masturbation, it constitutes an obligatory passage in the adolescent male’s apprenticeship of sexuality.
    The operative phrase is ‘obligatory passage in the adolescent male’s apprenticeship of sexuality’. Obligatory. It means in rural Morocco, Muslim males must have sexual intercourse with animals as part of their sexual apprenticeship.
    Also according to the scholars Allen Edwardes and Robert Masters, Ph.D, FAACS, the Muslims of Morocco believe that sexual intercourse with donkeys “make the penis grow big and strong” and masturbation is often scorned by them in favor of bestiality.[12]

    SLAMIC SCRIPTURE

    The above paper also says “it is prohibited without question by the Shariâ”. But is this alleged prohibition within the Shari’ah extracted (as it must be) from the Qur’an and Hadith, or has this fiqh been derived using external non-Islamic sources?

    QURAN

    In contrast with what secular and non-Islamic religious sources say about bestiality, this is what the Qur’an has to say on the subject:
    That’s right – absolutely, positively nothing. Unlike the Qur’an’s clear-cut rulings on the morality of homosexuality, Polygamy, rape, and pedophilia, the permissibility of bestiality seems to have been left open to ‘interpretation.’
    If Islamic teachings were truly opposed to such a practice, then this omission is somewhat surprising when you consider that, historically, bestiality was indigenously accepted in the Middle-East.[13]

    HADITH

    There is no prohibition against bestiality to be found within the two Sahihs. The following hadith is taken from the Sunnah Abu-Dawud collection, not Bukari or Muslim.
    Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: If anyone has sexual intercourse with an animal, kill him and kill it along with him. I (Ikrimah) said: I asked him (Ibn Abbas): What offence can be attributed to the animal/ He replied: I think he (the Prophet) disapproved of its flesh being eaten when such a thing had been done to it.
    Abu Dawud 38:4449
    Sounds too good to be true, doesn’t it? And it is. Just look at the very next hadith.
    Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: There is no prescribed punishment for one who has sexual intercourse with an animal.
    Abu Dawud 38:4450
    This is a very clear contradiction. How can one hadith say kill the person committing bestiality, and the very next one say there is no prescribed punishment for the same person? Both statements cannot be true.
    What’s worse; these two contradictory hadiths (transmitted through different isnad) have been attributed to the same person. Abu Dawud himself had said the former of the two hadith is “not strong” and the latter further “weakens” it.[14]
    From the above, we can gather that Robert Masters had correctly stated, “bestiality was not specifically prohibited by the Prophet,”[9] so there is little wonder that Islamists generally shy away from mentioning Abu Dawud 38:4449 in their pronouncements on bestiality.

  2. Larry Silverstein says

    THE 3 HEADED SNAKE IS DEAD: JUDAISM – ROMANISM – MOHAMMEDANISM

    WHAT THE AUTHOR OF GENESIS 1:1-2:3 AND HIS GOD BELIEVED!
    by Dr. Steven DiMattei Copyrighted and posted on May 27, 2014

    Since many Creationists, Fundamentalists, and I suppose Jews and Christians in general believe that they believe what the author of this 2,500 year old text believed (and by extension what the god of his text also believed!), I’ve decided to list his beliefs (and “God’s”) clearly and orderly. This follows from the textual analyses of Genesis 1:1-2:3 that were previously posted: Gen 1:1-2; Gen 1:3-5; Gen 1:6-8; Gen 1:9-10; Gen 1:14-19; Gen 1:24-27; and Gen 2:2-3. Consult them for specifics.
    As has been repeatedly voiced, our aim here is to reproduce as objectively and faithfully as possible the beliefs of the author of Genesis 1:1-2:3—not ours—as evidenced by an understanding and reading of the text on its own terms and as a product of its own historical and literary world. The author that penned the creation account now found at Genesis 1:1-2:3 had a very unique worldview and set of beliefs that, in large part, were shaped by, and shared throughout, the larger ancient Near Eastern world within which he lived. And these beliefs themselves were most likely formed as the result of what ancient peoples saw and perceived about their world and the conclusions they naturally drew from these limited empirical observations.
    Genesis 1 is an account of the origins of the world as its author perceived it. That is to say, his perception and beliefs about the world and its origins were projected onto the god of his text and in turn this god then created the world that he himself, our author, perceived and experienced. These then are his beliefs:
    1. That God created the earth (dry habitable land, never the planet) and the skies out of preexistent undefined and inhabitable earth that was immersed in a deep, dark watery abyss.
    2. That creation was an act of separating this primordial matter (earth and water) out, subduing it, and forming it into an habitable, life-bearing world.
    3. That the source of day’s light is an inherent and essential property of day itself; its source is not the sun.
    4. That God created day, as light or daylight.
    5. That night is the original primordial darkness.
    6. That God subdued the primordial untamed waters by creating a domed barrier in their midst which separated the waters, now above and below this barrier.
    7. That the sky is this solid transparent domed barrier.
    8. That the sky’s function, as God created it, is to keep back the waters above.
    9. That the sky is blue because of the waters above it.
    10. That the sky, this domed barrier holding the waters above, touched the waters below at the horizons.
    11. That God subdued the waters below and caused them to gather together into seas.
    12. That earth, specifically dry habitable life-supporting land—not the planet—emerged from the depths of these now tamed seas.
    13. That the land or earth was flat.
    14. That the land or earth “floated” upon or was supported by the waters below.
    15. That the earth brought forth all plants and vegetation, each by its own kind.
    16. That God created and placed the sun, moon, and all the stars together in the domed barrier that he had made earlier, above which were the waters above.
    17. That these luminaries were created to regulate and to distinguish between the day and the night, not to create day (daylight) and night.
    18. That these luminaries moved through this domed barrier.
    19. That the moon produces its own light.
    20. That the luminaries’ purpose, in part, was to indicate when the months began, and on what days Yahweh’s festivals (Sabbath, Passover, Unleavened Bread, Horn-Blast Holy Day, Day of Atonement, and Booths) fell and were to be observed.
    21. That the observance of these festivals or holy days were eternal laws punishable by death or excommunication.
    22. That the luminaries, particularly the moon, were created to serve as a calendar system, each new moon beginning a new month.
    23. That God created the living beings of the waters below, each by their kind.
    24. That God created the birds, each by their kind.
    25. That God created the animals of the earth, each by their kind.
    26. That in opposition to the animals, God created mankind, male and female, in his image.
    27. That there existed a plurality of divine beings or a divine counsel of some sort.
    28. That God created all of this in 6 days.
    29. That God created and consecrated the 7th day as holy.
    30. That God rested from his work on the 7th day and therefore man too must rest from his work on the 7th day, as reckoned from the new moon and then each 7th consecutive day afterward.
    31. That anyone caught doing work on the 7th day, that is not observing the Sabbath (our Saturday—but this is still inaccurate since we do not follow a lunar calendar), was to be stoned to death by commandment from God himself.
    32. That the Sabbath was an eternal covenant, to be observed forever, on penalty of death.
    These, then, are what the author of Genesis 1:1-2:3 believed—well actually just a small fraction of what he believed and perceived as “true,” as his experience of the world dictated.
    How many of these are seriously believed by our so-called modern day Creationists? 5? 10? 30%? How long are we as sentient beings going to put up with this dishonest and hypocritical practice? For by feigning belief in Genesis 1, they themselves are some of the most strident enemies of this ancient text and its author. I would expect more out of a species made in the image of God!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>