« i've heard so many wonderful things about you.... | Main | the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month... »

November 11, 2010

Comments

I'm a bit late to this, but someone like Warren Jeffs seems just as twisted as al-Awaki

Here are a few fellows to check out.

Some of them are just loudmouths, some of them kill people.

All or nearly all of them live (or lived, some are dead) right here in the USA.

I agree that Warren Jeffs is a very bad guy. But this part of the post

As Hodgson discusses, this also explains some aspects of Islamic family law. He points out that in pretty much *all* 'advanced' societies, upper-class men have the option of keeping and having children by more than one woman: that is, they may be de facto polygynous. Traditional Christian societies are de jure monogamous, which means that only one of those women (and her children) count: mistresses, concubines, slaves and their children are not entitled to support or inheritance. Christian marriage doesn't protect children in general, it ensures that some children (and their mothers) get preferential treatment, while others may be righteously neglected.

appears to suggest the opposite, that under Shariah, polygamy is permitted, therefore states should permit it. You could argue that the Okies aren't an advanced society, but they still have the right to vote agin it.

appears to suggest the opposite, that under Shariah, polygamy is permitted, therefore states should permit it. You could argue that the Okies aren't an advanced society, but they still have the right to vote agin it.

Not how it works, dude. "Shariah law" (or Jewish law, or Biblical law, or international law) may be used, in states other than OK, for extra-judicial arbitration -- but it can't be used to do things that are *illegal* under US or state law. Did you truly think otherwise?

I quoted Hodgson's discussion of Islamic marriage law because polygamy is so often brought up as a way Islam is morally defective, compared to Christianity. The point Hodgson is making is that Christianity is *also* polygynous, biologically speaking. The difference between the two systems is not that traditional Christiana are monogamous, but that Christian men do not have to support all their mates and children equally.

DaveC, you asked for some examples of equivalent bad guys to al-Awaki. Jeffs is a perfect example because 1) it springs from Judeo-Christian roots and 2) it utilizes certain notions inherent with the Judeo-Christian tradition to sanction a host of henious behaviors. Furthermore, it is not like Jeffs was preaching about these things from some country far away, he was talking about it right here. Yet you wouldn't dream of questioning someone's Christian faith because of Warren Jeffs. Why the disparity?

Slartibartfast, you might like to check out seriously influential Northern Ireland politician and Protestant minister Ian Paisley

I know I probably don't need to say this, but the fact that someone, somewhere has an opinion on a topic doesn't make said opinion automatically part of church doctrine.

For certain values of "church", I have to say. Not all Protestant factions are identical, and "Presbyterian" isn't even close to exchangeable for "Lutheran". The latter of which itself is a wide, wide net. This guy appears to have founded his own branch of Presbyterianism. A small one, but he probably speaks for at least some of them.

under Shariah, polygamy is permitted, therefore states should permit it

Deut 25:5
If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not be married abroad unto one not of his kin; her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her.

that is, under Biblical law, a brother is obliged to marry his dead brother's wife.

and the punishment:
Deut 25:9
then shall his brother's wife draw nigh unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face; and she shall answer and say: 'So shall it be done unto the man that doth not build up his brother's house.'

oddly. this doesn't happen.

(it is the punishment ... for failing to marry your dead brother's wife)

They do what they do for the glory of Allah and with the intent of creating as many deaths of innocents as possible, the point of terrorism. I perceive them to be people of principle, prepared to die for the common good and convinced of their righteousness.

Marty, as envy pointed out, this statement is wrong on several levels:

1. Generally, radical Islamist groups do NOT do what they do for the glory of Allah. Further, most terrorists have only a very shallow religiosity, and little knowledge of Islam. They do what they do for political reasons, and in reaction to "The Narrative" of persecution.

2. The goal is NOT to create as many innocent deaths as possible. In fact, the goals are political, and in practice, killing soldiers is preferred to civilians because it fits in with the ideology/theology/narrative.

appears to suggest the opposite, that under Shariah, polygamy is permitted, therefore states should permit it. You could argue that the Okies aren't an advanced society, but they still have the right to vote agin it.

I should point out that there is no one, agreed upon version of "Shariah Law." It has many, many interpretations, and not all of them agree on polygamy.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad