Friday, December 10, 2010

Banning Islamic law

I e-mailed this to the New York Times in response to an article about the Oklahoma ban on using Islamic law in Oklahoma courts.

Last summer, (2010) a New Jersey court overruled a prior ruling that a Muslim man was allowed to rape his wife because he was acting in accordance to his cultural (religious) beliefs. How the hell did this case get that far?

Islamic law allows a man to take his wife against her wishes. We call this rape. Islam allows for this because within Islam, a man has no other outlet. Islamic law allows a man to beat his wife. (He is not to leave any visible marks) Why is there a debate over this? I sure as hell don't want that debate over here. Islamic law enforces stoning people to death. The penalty for leaving Islam is death. Non-Muslims owe Islam money for living in lands that are controlled by Islam. I don't care if ANY of this happens only ONE time. Oklahoma does not want ANY of this CRAP. I agree.

I would like to point out that I really don't give a damn if Muslims need to pray 5 times a day. If they need to fast for a month, that is their lookout. Praying and fasting is religion, as I know it.

However, Islam has a legal system. Many parts of Islamic law are hostile to our legal system and our values. (The issues listed above are only a small sample) Legal rulings based upon Islamic law will start violence and warfare. Don't think so? Let's allow a stoning and see what happens. (By the way, the rocks can't be small enough to qualify as a pebble and not so large as to kill with one blow)

Rape is considered by psychologists to be an act of power, not sex. This 7th century law is all about power, particularly when you consider the other restrictions upon women and how Islamic law holds a ‘special’ place for them.

Within Islam, a large debate is going on to determine the meaning of the law allowing a man to beat his wife. Many interpret the phrases as ‘turning away’ or some other less hostile act. I really don’t give a damn. MY interpretation is that NO man is EVER allowed to hit ANY woman. (In fact, battery laws don’t allow a man to strike another man.) I do not see any need to argue this issue. If Islam wants to sort it out, that is their problem. I do not see ANY need to hold this debate in this country. The people of Oklahoma have seen these issues within Islamic law.

Oklahoma saw what happened in New Jersey and decided that they do not want ANY debate on these issues. Once again, I agree.

1 comment:

  1. An awesome post about Islam not being compatible with American Constitutional government!

    I cross posted this at