What’s all this rubbish about Muslim men not being allowed to beat their wives? All that brouhaha about those two pleasant-looking Muslim ladies explaining sweetly that husbands indeed had a right to deal out a bit of marital biff when warranted. Hear! Hear! Or, if you like, Allahu Akbar!
I note that Muslim Labor federal member Ed Husic unaccountably eschews the beating option “It’s not acceptable in any form to strike anyone, either between husband and wife or anywhere,” he reportedly said. Bad syntax apart, the sentiment is both clear and terribly heretical in my view. Isn’t he the same chap who used the Koran when sworn in as a minister in 2013? What is he thinking about? That’s the question that springs to my mind.
Allah is clear in verse 4:34, unless Mr Husic thinks that Mohammed got that bit wrong from the Archangel Gabriel, or perhaps Gabriel misunderstood Allah, or maybe the mistake is as prosaic as the equivalent of a typing error back in the 600s. Who knows, but I can only assume that Husic takes a selective view of the Koran. Or maybe he is a ninny with no stomach for smiting necks and finger tips as Allah instructed in 8:12.
Allah forbid, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Husic also takes friends from among unbelievers, a direct violation of 4:89.
Mark Durie (The Third Choice) lists sixteen verses of the Koran which set Mohammed on a pedestal as a model to follow. Very convenient, you might think cynically, if you are a mere amanuensis to have the guy in the sky repeatedly anoint you as a positive pillar of virtue. And virtue it seems is in the eye of the holy beholder.
Among other things, the very model of a man to emulate led raids, killed, enslaved, married a six-year old, acquiesced to the killing of those who didn’t like him, and rejoiced in Allah condemning his poor old Uncle Lahab (and his wife) to grisly everlasting fates (111:1-5) for rejecting his message in Mecca. Mahatma Ghandi-like he wasn’t.
Islam is beyond parody. The likes of John Wesley, Alexis de Tocqueville, John Quincy Adams, Bertrand Russell and Winston Churchill called it out long ago. Unfortunately there are no giants these days with the gumption to tell the unvarnished truth. Or, perhaps, even more depressingly, overwhelmingly crippled and compromised by political correctness, there are now none who are able to discern the truth.
Religion, unlike race, is a choice. It is not legitimate to choose, or fail to abandon, a religion which preaches intolerance and violence. An excuse often made is that the Bible is violent too. This is sophistry. The violence is predominantly historical. Where it isn’t; it is dead language. No-one inspired by the Bible preaches stoning for adultery. Advocacy of such punishment is dead and buried.
In contrast the intolerance and violence preached in the Koran is both doctrinal (as distinct from historical) and alive and well. There are literally thousands upon thousands of Islamic clerics who are originalists, who take their riding instructions from the Koran and the Sunna (the doings and sayings of the model man Mohammed). Is there anybody out there who is even remotely unaware that it is a piece of cake to find any number of imams favouring death for apostasy or homosexuality, or who acknowledge the right of a husband to discipline his wife?
Swanning about pretending that they don’t know what’s in their scripture or that its malign parts don’t count is the playbook of ‘moderate Muslims’. This is unacceptable. Islam has form in oppressing women, girls, Christians, Jews, and anyone who doesn’t buy its supremacist bill of goods. And now we have rampant terrorism in the brew. None of this is hidden. It is transparent.
The face of Islam is two Muslim women in Australia openly excusing wife beating. It is Islamic scholar Sheikh Farrokh Sekaleshfar openly proclaiming at an Orlando mosque, not long before Islamic terrorism took many lives at a gay night club in the same city, that “death is the sentence” for homosexuals. “There’s nothing to be embarrassed about…Out of compassion, let’s get rid of them now.”
There are countless similar examples of barbaric values brushed aside as inconsequential by organized Muslim pacifiers and dismissed as aberrant by Western glitterati. They are not inconsequential or aberrant. They form part of Islamic scripture. The two ladies and the Sheik are simply following the script. The real question is what religion apologists for Islam have in mind – because it sure ain’t written-down Islam.