Wednesday 19 September 2012

Propheteering.












So, someone somewhere in the USA made a u-tube that reportedly, among other things, depicted Mohammed as a paedophile. History states that Aisha, his youngest but not his first or last wife was betrothed at age six, married at eight and, reportedly consummated when she was ten and he was fifty-three. His first marriage to Kahdija he made when he was twenty five and she forty.

That marriage was monogamous and lasted twenty-five years until her death, so up to that time there was no evidence of paedophilia, which, as any psychologist will tell you, is a mental illness that is difficult for the perpetrator to deny. Also there no evidence he was 'bedding' two women concurrently at any time, so we cannot safely draw the conclusion he married Aisha for sex. So if he was not a paedophile, why did he marry Aisha when she was so young?

Later in life, he did marry women with families who had lost husbands so there is evidence he married some women to give them and their children protection offered by married status, and of course there is politics. As in royal households of Europe and the landed gentry of Britain, marriages were arranged to create bonds between neighbours and it was no different with Arabic tribes of his time and in some societies, it still happens.

Marriages made allies, so was the marriage to Aisha a political marriage? Some historians have Mohammed already married to Sawda by then, a widow who came with her family and, as a grown woman, would have satisfied his sexual needs. He provided an apartment each for Sawda and Aisha, so they had private quarters. Although it was stated officially that the marriage to Aisha was consummated when she was ten, who really knows? If the marriage to Aisha was political, then of course Aisha’s family would be keen for consummation to be announced so they could be confident the union was 'official'.

So we are told he did consummate the marriage and we also know that he came to love Aisha deeply. She was his favourite and later, his historian. As for later marriages to widows with families, there could have been seven or eight of those. So the household became large and complex and who actually slept with the Prophet, only the Prophet and the women knew.

 OK, so we come to now. Modern Western culture is very specific on age of consent and at what age we allow marriage, and we are unanimous in our condemnation of paedophilia. In our definition, sex with a girl of ten is paedophilia. But we cannot apply twentieth century morals to the sixth century, not can we be sure Mohammed did actually have sex with Aisha while she was a child. To assume he did, and also to assume it was unethical for him to have done so, as we say in law, is dangerous. 

Then last week, an individual, an extremist Christian and a US citizen, made a flick and the Muslim world erupted, shooting people, smashing anything smashable, and calling for the death of anyone connected with the US. Even as far away as Sydney. Here, Muslims demonstrated and some youths rioted, putting about twenty people including half a dozen Riot Squad police in hospital. So what is the connection? Americans did not condone the film. Australians did not condone the film. In fact very few even knew it existed. But when they did, everyone from Obama, Clinton, all our political leaders down, condemned it as not representative of our attitude to Islam or the Prophet, but the riots happened anyway, killing innocents and even the US Ambassador to Lebanon, clearly a friend of Islam and a peacemaker.

 So why him? Was his friendship with Muslims a threat to those who destabilise regimes to take advantage of chaos? Muslims in Australia seem to be so happy to be here, so was the Sydney riot an aberration? Ockham’s Razor says not. Such a violent reaction to what was a grubby little film that could in no way be blamed on any one here speaks of a wider discontent, particularly among Muslim youth, and our governments seem to be ignorant of the source. Try these for size.

 • Our (secular) parliament starts each session with a Christian prayer.
• Witnesses in our courts, supposedly secular and blind to religion, race and gender, are asked to swear to tell the truth with a hand on a bible, ‘so help me God’. We are permitted to make an alternative affirmation and not use the Bible, but the Bible is still the default oath and is expected.
• Funding is provided for Public (secular) Schools to have Christian chaplains. They say the school can choose, but originally, the funding was specifically granted for Christian chaplains sourced from one Christian organisation, in a bid to attract the Christian vote. Unfortunately, there are more votes lost when something is taken away than when something is promised, so it stays.
 • Services (defence, fire brigades, police etc) fund Christian chaplains.

At a local level, communities more often than not, resist the building of mosques in their neighbourhoods. A proposed Christian church is generally welcomed.

 In other words, we are a Christian country in which minorities such as Muslims feel alienated. It might not seem that important to 'old Australians', who are accustomed to the flow of language with constant references to Christian beliefs, but one must remember that, unlike most Christians who might or might not attend church once a week or maybe Easter and Christmas or maybe only for funerals, Muslims are infinitely more enmeshed with their rituals, prayers, customs and dress codes.

They do notice and they resent it. Now having said all that, I have no doubt our Christian trappings are used as evidence of religious oppression by many Muslim leaders to keep the cultural divide in place. And with that attitude embedded, it does not take much of an excuse for young angry men to make up a mindless mob of destruction of anything representing the ‘other’.

 It might be time to remove religious references from our public institutions, and that can only be done if the majority wants it to happen. But in no case does mindless thuggery like we saw a few days ago, inflicted on a bemused population lead them to believe the minority in their midst is non-threatening. A minority that wants to be equal needs to join in the political process to present its case in the political arena, and it certainly has one. But attacking existing and emerging allies in the general community is not a smart way to go and Muslims here must talk about that among themselves. The majority must also realise that in the long term, it is vital that our newcomers, no matter the source, should be encouraged to feel 'Australian' first and Christian, Muslim, Hindu second. If we fail at integration, we will create the type of bloody mess these people came here to escape.

Maybe you might like to read this. It is more or less related and you might like the poem.
Image borrowed from Daily Telegraph Sydney.

31 comments:

  1. Way back when Mohammed was a boy, girls of twelve were being married off in England and Europe too. Children were also put to work as soon as they were able, and that continued until not that long ago. My Godmother's mother, who died when I was ten, was out scrubbing steps for a penny when she was four, and apprenticed to a kid glove maker when she was six.
    I agree that secular institutions should be religion free. We are a multicultural society and everyone should have the right to worship (or not) as they see fit.
    I was surprised to learn that only 2% of Australians are muslims. The second largest religion in Australia is Buddhism.
    And that Dutch anti-Islamic nutter, Wilders, should, in my opinion, be denied a visa. We don't need that sort of shit here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If he turns up here could he not be arrested for 'incitement'?
      I am working on an essay on why religious hatred is so prevalent. Seems it is 'normal', so to avoid it we need to go through an education process. Much more difficult than stirring up a mob.

      Delete
  2. I think the rub between religions is a load of crap that ignorant people use to force their beliefs on other people...a free person in a free country expressed his right to that freedom and a bunch of ignorant people used it as an excuse to be violent towards other human beings...they have no Right to force their beliefs on anyone else...now understand I haven't seen the video, and do not in any way believe in what I have heard was on it, but I wholeheartedly stand behind that person's constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression...and also their freedom to dislike, and disagree with the beliefs expressed... peacefully. If Muslims don't like that freedom, they can go to places where it is not allowed, they are free to vote with their feet.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If they believe it is wrong to commit murder, as the Koran teaches, how can they justify killing innocent people for what someone else has done?

    If they are fighting for their own people's rights, how can they justify setting off a bomb that kills many of their own people in hopes of killing one Non Muslim?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1. Islam is a religion, like most other religions, claims to be the 'one true religion'.
      2. Many Muslim countries have been ruled by dictators with little regard for human life, so the modus operandi has been to hold power by force, give all the plum jobs to your tribe and milk the treasury, keep the population subjugated through religion and terror and kill any opposition.
      3. A population raised in such a culture will produce extremists who emulate their leaders and use deadly force to 'destabilise' 'the enemy'.
      4. Now they have to identify the enemy. The enemy can be members of the ruling tribe, many seen as supported from outside and by the West. So, if the dictator and population is Shia, Sunnis will bomb them and vice versa.
      To attempt to impose representative government upon a culture that has for centuries been ruled by the strongest tribe at the cost of all others is how it is done. And of course the ruling elite love it.
      Imagine that convolutions and permutations of tribal deals and shifting alliances a dictator has to deal with!
      Also there is no getting away from the direction to 'kill all non-believers'. Of course there are Christians in all those countries who are not killed off. Lebanon even has a Christian President but I think if I were a Christian I would be changing religion or shipping out.
      Interesting point is that Muslims recognise Jesus Christ as a prophet too, but not as the 'Son of God'. Islam grew from Christianity, not Judaism as is generally thought and the history of the crusades is kept fresh in their minds. Like many Christians who periodically predict the day and hour of the 'second coming', some Muslims fear the 'New Crusade', which some say was the real purpose of George Bush's invasion of Iraq. One report had him saying to a bemused French President, that they were in Iraq to get rid of Gog and Magog!
      Many seem to have forgotten the bloody war between Iran and Iraq. That was Sunni versus Shia and it might have been a good idea for the US to keep out instead of backing Saddam, offending Iran which is partly why they are at loggerheads now,l and of course dictators like Saddam are there for their own purposes and will change allegiances when it suits them.
      But it will take very wise heads to bring any rational results from what is a boiling cauldron of confusion and hate, being shaken to the core by what ordinary people have never had before-access to truth through social media.

      Delete
  4. Jeff Sparrow has written an excellent article in CounterPunch detailing why this is much more than anger over a movie
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/09/18/islamophobia-left-and-right/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anyone interested in balance on this subject would do well to follow this link and read what Geoff Sparrow has to say.
      Unlike John Lennon I cannot imagine a world without religion, and even if it were so, we as groupings under other names, would follow charismatic secular leaders who could tap into our prejudices.
      Of course, any power that is willing to back its point of view with military intervention will create a resentment in its target population. As Geoff points out, it happened in India in the Sepoy Rebellion and I am fairly confident the American rebellion against British rule was not really about taxes on tea in Boston.

      Delete
  5. I shouldn't think that removing the trappings of Christianity (as desirable as that would be) would appease those Moslems who want a Moslem state, which a violent minority (if not a majority) do. I also think it disingenuous for American politicians to pretend that the American people don't hate Islam when Islam has given them no reason to do anything but hate it, not just because of terrorism but because of the tremendous oppression that exists in Moslem countries. It seems to me that Islam is a cancer, and I can but wish that it were possible to eradicate it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Many American people are afraid of Islam, as are Australians in general. Our Muslim population is about 2% while our Christian population at the last census (from memory) was about 40% but of course, in a census, many people report their religion as the religion they were born into rather than any real Faith, but even allowing for that, Muslims are a tiny minority.
      However, we have also been subject to the same anti-Muslim rhetoric (oppression of women, high birth rate, all potential terrorists etc) and an absolutely unfounded presumption that the relatively few Muslim refugees arriving by boat are a particular threat.
      Islam, like any other religion can only stay part of a cohesive nation like the USA, Britain, France etc if they feel they belong and it seems that is not what the Christian Right wants.
      I too do not believe in imaginary spirits in the sky that many worship and defend to the death, but I am aware that in order for people to live in some sort of order, and for the sake of the planet, it is not helpful to demonise any grouping of people so they become the enemy within.
      Following the riots in Sydney, the police are arresting all rioters they can identify and charging them with whatever laws they broke, but Police spokespeople are identifying such rioters as 'criminals' not Muslim criminals'.
      A very sensible result of out riots are ongoing dialogue between religious groupings and governments here, aimed at reaching understanding of our principle of free speech and freedom to worship.
      Let's hope they get it.

      Delete
    2. I apologise Snow,for not addressing your first statement.
      Of course, removing 'Christian trappings' from Government institutions is important. We need to make clear to all citizens that there is separation of Church and State and no religious or ethnic group enjoys State patronage. Clearly that was a priority for the US Founding Fathers, and it might be a good idea to ask why they enshrined freedom of worship in that basic declaration of rights.
      We do not have such a declaration of separation in this country and we need one.
      The reason we do have such a Christian presence in public life is historic.
      English kings, probably since there was such a term, but certainly since Henry VIII claimed himself, in defiance of Rome, to be ordained by God (Christian Protestant). His descendants right up to recently, still claimed to have been installed by God and we still have the British Monarch as our Head of State. I don't think anyone would suggest Charles is a demi-god, not that Christianity should be maintained as the State Religion, so maybe we need to reflect those changes in an amended constitution so no religion can take over our government!

      Delete
  6. "Islam, like any other religion can only stay part of a cohesive nation like the USA, Britain, France etc if they feel they belong and it seems that is not what the Christian Right wants."

    I agree with you here, which means that for our own good, we can't blame the problems that Islam represents on Islam as a whole, however tempting that might be due to the fact that where Islam rules, oppression reigns. I will read the link you provided when I have time. I've already read Gabrielle's link in which the author equated the hatred of Islam with the hatred of Judaism. I don't see the validity of the comparison overall because Judaism has never represented a violent threat, neither has it had control in any country but Israel in which, whatever the government's faults, it still appears as an island of sanity in the midst of Islamic insanity. I will agree that America--my country--seems to go out of its way to make people hate it--including myself--but Islam represents a greater internal problem in Europe than it does here, largely because its numbers are greater. This does not inspire confidence in what the result would be if its numbers were to increase here. The last words that thousands of people heard before they were murdered were, "Allahu akbar!"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The link is the same one.
      I must point out that Hitler's successful concentration of hatred onto the Jews as because he was able to convince enough people that their financial woes were entirely the result of a Jewish conspiracy to undermine and take over control of the German economy then Germany itself, along with the rest of Europe. His 'solution' that became the Holocaust was perpetrated by ordinary people stirred up to attempt genocide in what had been a model of progressive liberalism, not unlike the USA of today.
      It started by demonisation of a religious (and ethnic) group, just as we are tempted to do with the Muslim religion and people originating in the Middle East. History is there to read and we must be very careful indeed not to repeat if.
      Islam probably presents a greater internal problem in its "home states" that either Europe, here or the USA.
      Is seems the killing there is constant, and you are right. The last thing many hear before they are murdered is Allah Akba! I guess that is Arabic for "Make my day!"

      Delete
  7. Stafford, Hitler wasn't attacking a religion but a people who shared common blood without the least regard for their religious affiliation. Of course, he did attack some religious groups. For example, he targeted Jehovah's Witnesses, and he wasn't keen on Freemasons either. The trouble with comparing hatred of one group to hatred of another group is that one must make a case that the two situations are at least similar enough to warrant the comparison, and I don't see that it is in this case. You, of course, do. Where we agree is that demonizing Islam will alienate those Moslems who would have otherwise supported us, and given the relative lack of attacks on America by American Moslems, I would say that this would include most American Moslems.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Snow. The point I was trying to make was; Hitler used the same tactics to concentrate attention on an identifiable group within Germany, to demonise them by using the same tactics, that is to spread rumours of conspiracies, breeding their way to domination, practicing bizarre acts, usually sexual and then inciting mobs to attack them, even kill them. He used classic Mob Manipultion 101.
      You might think American Muslims put America first and Islam second, but too many Terry Joneses and Innocence of Muslims and that will change.
      Of course, many Muslims living in advanced Western countries realise how free speech works and do not react by holding a whole society responsible for individual expression.
      They also might like the freedoms they enjoy there that are not permitted in the society from which they came.

      Delete
  8. I learned more than I knew, or had organized in thought. Thank you for the post. I might add, religion, for all it's "good", seems to be the root of much "evil." I think you are right, perhaps if people could just keep it to themselves, we might be better able to "get along."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think it is religion per se that is what divides and makes enemies of us, but the way religion is manipulated by those who would have us 'follow them'.
      As previously mentioned, Hitler was such a leader, as was Mao, probably Mugabe and Milosovic.
      The only response is education, liberal, universal and secular. Here we are pouring public money into church and other special interest education and I wonder how we justify paying for schools whose aim is to quarantine children from ideas that do not support their view and to teach myth as fact. They also teach elitism and the mix can be deadly.

      Delete
  9. Thank you Stafford for reasoning this out - far far better than I have so far. I have posted this out on FB - hope you do not mind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Zalina. I went to your page and was delighted to read the comments. We are not alone!

      Delete
  10. The mere fact that the DFLers were bullied into re-inserting the word God into their platform speaks volumes!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They are picking their religious teams. Unfortunately, it is much easier to get a specific religious team together than an all-inclusive one. Most people feel safer in a gang and politicians know it.
      And if your gang is the one God likes, so much the better! Shit!

      Delete
  11. I am not a religious person and I find the excuse to kill because of some off the wall remote video to be inexcusable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I suspect most Muslims agree with you. We must presume people in general are not stupid, no matter what their race or religion.
      If we start there, we can at least start the dialogue without prejudice.
      If we start by attributing any behaviour exhibited by a few to the philosophy of the main group, we close the debate and had better hope the stick is big enough.
      Of course, since 9/11, we should have learned that the size of the stick is no longer relevant and we had better start talking (with respect).

      Delete
  12. So the corrupt hyper rational system of Darwinistic globalism mixes cultures together in the world blender with no respect cor cultural, ethnic, geographic traditional considerations. We n the west who have prospered for so long from our interventions in the middle east , maintaining effective contriol of the worlds fossil fuel resources , through a multitude of nefarious wars and destabilising tactics. Eventually we find ourselves confrnted by a group who have been more or less cmpelled to emigrate or flee the middle east to escape its horrific violence, to find a better life for their families. They end up in the very countries which have appropriated their wealth , though most of the population seem blithely ignorant of this fact . These people find themselves on the bottom of the economic shitpile in a country full of white, christian , bloated capitalists who have absolutely no idea what is happening anywhere else in the world. Meanwhile back home, the wars continue to rage , while their religion is virtually outcast n their adopted land, by virtue of propaganda on unprecedented scale , by the local plutocrat media, which focusses exclusively on any extremist who happens to stick his crazy head up. Eventually , there is trouble, and noone seems to know how or why it started. Amazing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I ask anyone who blunders into this debate to read this comment carefully and really think about Ned's opinion.
      There are things that could be said to defend the actions of Western companies who developed oilfields in the Middle East and where the royalties have gone, and the 18th and 19th century Colonialism that set up so much of the current strife, but these comments do represent a very valid point of view that needs to be part of anyone's understanding of the resentment that underlies violence that is vented at any opportunity.
      Reactions to 'insults to the Prophet' are symptoms of a deeper malady that must be understood for progress to be made.
      Condemnation of Islam because a few extremists who "stick (their crazy heads) up" only increases the frustration.
      Ned is right too about the media. Sensationalism trumps intelligent political comment. Unfortunately that will not change, so it is up to us to 'think globally and act locally' now that the environment and political unrest is a continuum that will accelerate unrest and violence.
      I am reading Rotten Gods by Greg Barron.
      It is hard to read because the writer's area of expertise is Terrorism and he has stuffed his story with facts and opinion, but it really puts faces to the people Ned is talking about.
      It is likely peacemakers are candles in the wind as so many are trying to blow them out. It will take so much good will to get a happy result, I doubt humanity is up to it.. but what is the alternative?

      Delete
    2. I ask anyone who blunders into this debate to read this comment carefully and really think about Ned's opinion.
      There are things that could be said to defend the actions of Western companies who developed oilfields in the Middle East and where the royalties have gone, and the 18th and 19th century Colonialism that set up so much of the current strife, but these comments do represent a very valid point of view that needs to be part of anyone's understanding of the resentment that underlies violence that is vented at any opportunity.
      Reactions to 'insults to the Prophet' are symptoms of a deeper malady that must be understood for progress to be made.
      Condemnation of Islam because a few extremists who "stick (their crazy heads) up" only increases the frustration.
      Ned is right too about the media. Sensationalism trumps intelligent political comment. Unfortunately that will not change, so it is up to us to 'think globally and act locally' now that the environment and political unrest is a continuum that will accelerate unrest and violence.
      I am reading Rotten Gods by Greg Barron.
      It is hard to read because the writer's area of expertise is Terrorism and he has stuffed his story with facts and opinion, but it really puts faces to the people Ned is talking about.
      It is likely peacemakers are candles in the wind as so many are trying to blow them out. It will take so much good will to get a happy result, I doubt humanity is up to it.. but what is the alternative?

      Delete
  13. The Muslims I know are just as outraged by the riots as anyone else. The problem really is the way religion is interpreted by a few fanatics and how the press latch on to that. But it's a mode of thinking not just peculiar to Islam. Look at what the Christians have done in the 'name of religion' - the Crusades, the Inquisition, look at the Borgias and the corruption in the Vatican (the Pope was bumping people off, for God's sake)...look what the IRA have done supposedly for God and Ireland. All of us could go on for days about that subject.

    I don't know what the answer is but I hope that with every act of violence done in the name of religion the brave few step forward as a result to open up the conversations we need to have so we can begin to appreciate other perspectives. If enough people talk loudly enough, maybe we'll all start to hear....

    ReplyDelete
  14. There is no answer, Selma, because we are dealing with matters of FAITH.
    If you said to me, "Two and two is five", I could get two coconuts and give them to you. Then I could give you two more coconuts and ask you to count them.
    Now, unless you are a raving ratbag, I do not need to hit you over the head with a coconut to change your mind.
    However, if you say: "My imaginary friend in the sky is better than your imaginary friend in the sky!" I cannot produce evidence because there is no evidence. So the only way I can stop you from blaspheming is to kill you.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "the only way I can stop you from blaspheming is to kill you."

    Stafford, you've just go to quit killing off your followers because sooner or later, the cops are going to figure out what's happening to all those people all over the world who are being killed in the exact same way. It was funny back when you started killing people, but anything can get boring after you've seen it enough.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah Snow! I do not have imaginary friends in the sky, so it is pretty hard upset me with blasphemy. It must be someone else doing the killing.
      Maybe the cops should check out the infant holding the sign!

      Delete
    2. No word from Selma, so I guess you got her.

      "The problem really is the way religion is interpreted by a few fanatics"

      It's funny to me that, in the case of the Bible, and I suppose the same is true of the Koran, that you have a record of God's chosen committing the most heinous atrocities by his command, yet when someone does the same thing today, it never occurs to people like Selma that the system itself just might be flawed. Yet, I have every thought that Selma is a very nice and well-meaning person, so it's her thinking that I'm criticizing and not her motivation.

      Delete
    3. I am sure Selma did get the point and she agrees with me and if she came back for another look, she would agree with both of us. And I agree with her that we do need Muslims to publicly condemn their own extremists as we condemn ours.
      However, the chance of that happening in a significant way is zilch.
      But all that said, any change to that culture of 'kill all who disagree with me' must come from within. It cannot be imposed from outside so the sooner we stop trying the engineer personal freedom, for other societies, the sooner they can take their attention off us and begin to address corruption of their institutions- political, religious and judicial.

      Delete

(leave a message)