Showing posts with label Islam. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Islam. Show all posts

Monday, December 16, 2013

Pam Geller Is Very Upset About New Campaign From "Seattle's Jew-Haters"

Shrieking harpy Pam Geller is battling yet another transit agency.
The Jew-haters are at it again. The relentless Seattle Mideast Awareness Campaign (SeaMAC) has launched another vicious Goebbels-style blood libel against the Jews in Seattle. Yes, this is Seattle where we are moving forward with our lawsuit against Seattle transit for their refusal to run our FBI Global Faces of Terrorism ad. We will prevail in that lawsuit. Just as we will prevail in our lawsuit against Boston. AFDI will not let this go unanswered -- we have submitted the following ad to Seattle transit. Contribute to this campaign here.

Thursday, October 31, 2013

Like Father, Like Son

Consanguinamory happens between people and their adult children more than most people think. Another forbidden relationship that is, perhaps, even more frequent is between adults and their new stepparent, especially if their stepparent is closer in age to them than their parent. In addition to steprelations being seen as incestuous, another aspect that also makes many of these relationships forbidden is when they involve cheating due to the stepparent violating a vow or agreement with the parent. (Not all have such agreements and thus the relationship with the "stepchild" would not be seen as cheating.)

At islamweb.net there was something that addressed these topics, headlined with attention-grabbing "His wife and son have regular incestuous relations together."

It appears to be an advice column. From the question...
Respected Sheikh, I am a man in my late sixties and recently discovered that my 33 year old wife has regular incestuous relations with my 17 years old son.
A few things to note right away: 1. Although this is not written so as to make clear she is not the biological mother of his son, I think if she was the biological mother of the son that would have been explicitly stated, which is not. 2. She is closer in age to his son than she is him. 3. Seventeen year-old males generally are bursting with hormones and constantly wanting sex. Leave one alone all day with an attractive person and... well, this isn't surprising. 4. It is entirely possible that where they live 17-year-olds can legally consent to sex with 33-year-olds.
When I confronted them they denied it, but one day I came home unexpectedly and found them in the act. They repented and promised not to do it again.
So this was a matter of cheating.
I am devastated and don’t know what to do. I beg you to tell me in the light of the Quran and hadith what course of actions I shall take.
This is, of course, from a Muslim website. Being cheated on, especially when the other person is another person you thought you could trust, is painful. My advice would be to seriously consider if this is unacceptable, and if he needs her to only have sex with him, if he's going to be able to treat her right going forward without going batty. If not, then the marriage should be over. But he didn't ask me. Let's get to the response was given...



First, there was a statement of what sins were committed according to Islamic teaching.
However, if they had both truly repented, then they did well.

Now, if your wife becomes righteous and shows good conduct, then you should keep her and have good marital relations with her and do not hold her accountable for what she had done, but you are obligated not to have sexual relations with her until you make sure that she is not pregnant from Zina by the passing of one menstrual period.

Also, you should be keen on disciplining both of your wife and son and teaching them the matters of their religion as what they did is mostly due to ignorance and negligence.
I doubt they were unaware what the religious authorities would say. They were horny, and perhaps also in love. But we get some more Quranic verses anyway. Then...
On the other hand, if you are suspicious about your son in the future, then you should take the matter firmly in hand and prevent him from being in seclusion with your wife and prevent her from appearing in his presence without Hijaab. Likewise, if you are suspicious about your wife, then there is no good in keeping her as your wife; rather you should divorce her so that she would not contaminate your bed and give birth to children who are not from you.

Finally, it should be noted that committing Zina is generally due to being lenient in matters that lead to it, like a woman appearing in front of men (other than her husband) in an inappropriate manner, like wearing revealing clothes and so forth. So, one should be careful about this.
Ah yes, this was all because she wasn't covered up in a Hijaab. Uh huh.

I do find other cultures' perspectives interesting.

Something people need to keep in mind is that while the Westermarck Effect (reduced sexual attraction) is common between people raised together or by one another, it isn't there when you bring someone new into your adult/post-pubescent child's life, whether that is your new lover, partner or spouse, or any post-pubescent children they have. This man was attracted to this woman. Why wouldn't his son be, too? That doesn't excuse cheating; someone who needs monogamy and has received a pledge of monogamy should expect monogamy as long as they are not neglecting their partner. But if he was living under the assumption that his son and wife were unlikely to be attracted to each other on some level, it was a mistaken assumption, as demonstrated.

Like Father, Like Son

Consanguinamory happens between people and their adult children more than most people think. Another forbidden relationship that is, perhaps, even more frequent is between adults and their new stepparent, especially if their stepparent is closer in age to them than their parent. In addition to steprelations being seen as incestuous, another aspect that also makes many of these relationships forbidden is when they involve cheating due to the stepparent violating a vow or agreement with the parent. (Not all have such agreements and thus the relationship with the "stepchild" would not be seen as cheating.)

At islamweb.net there was something that addressed these topics, headlined with attention-grabbing "His wife and son have regular incestuous relations together."

It appears to be an advice column. From the question...
Respected Sheikh, I am a man in my late sixties and recently discovered that my 33 year old wife has regular incestuous relations with my 17 years old son.
A few things to note right away: 1. Although this is not written so as to make clear she is not the biological mother of his son, I think if she was the biological mother of the son that would have been explicitly stated, which is not. 2. She is closer in age to his son than she is him. 3. Seventeen year-old males generally are bursting with hormones and constantly wanting sex. Leave one alone all day with an attractive person and... well, this isn't surprising. 4. It is entirely possible that where they live 17-year-olds can legally consent to sex with 33-year-olds.
When I confronted them they denied it, but one day I came home unexpectedly and found them in the act. They repented and promised not to do it again.
So this was a matter of cheating.
I am devastated and don’t know what to do. I beg you to tell me in the light of the Quran and hadith what course of actions I shall take.
This is, of course, from a Muslim website. Being cheated on, especially when the other person is another person you thought you could trust, is painful. My advice would be to seriously consider if this is unacceptable, and if he needs her to only have sex with him, if he's going to be able to treat her right going forward without going batty. If not, then the marriage should be over. But he didn't ask me. Let's get to the response was given...



First, there was a statement of what sins were committed according to Islamic teaching.
However, if they had both truly repented, then they did well.

Now, if your wife becomes righteous and shows good conduct, then you should keep her and have good marital relations with her and do not hold her accountable for what she had done, but you are obligated not to have sexual relations with her until you make sure that she is not pregnant from Zina by the passing of one menstrual period.

Also, you should be keen on disciplining both of your wife and son and teaching them the matters of their religion as what they did is mostly due to ignorance and negligence.
I doubt they were unaware what the religious authorities would say. They were horny, and perhaps also in love. But we get some more Quranic verses anyway. Then...
On the other hand, if you are suspicious about your son in the future, then you should take the matter firmly in hand and prevent him from being in seclusion with your wife and prevent her from appearing in his presence without Hijaab. Likewise, if you are suspicious about your wife, then there is no good in keeping her as your wife; rather you should divorce her so that she would not contaminate your bed and give birth to children who are not from you.

Finally, it should be noted that committing Zina is generally due to being lenient in matters that lead to it, like a woman appearing in front of men (other than her husband) in an inappropriate manner, like wearing revealing clothes and so forth. So, one should be careful about this.
Ah yes, this was all because she wasn't covered up in a Hijaab. Uh huh.

I do find other cultures' perspectives interesting.

Something people need to keep in mind is that while the Westermarck Effect (reduced sexual attraction) is common between people raised together or by one another, it isn't there when you bring someone new into your adult/post-pubescent child's life, whether that is your new lover, partner or spouse, or any post-pubescent children they have. This man was attracted to this woman. Why wouldn't his son be, too? That doesn't excuse cheating; someone who needs monogamy and has received a pledge of monogamy should expect monogamy as long as they are not neglecting their partner. But if he was living under the assumption that his son and wife were unlikely to be attracted to each other on some level, it was a mistaken assumption, as demonstrated.

Sunday, June 23, 2013

Cousin Marriages From a Genetic Perspective

A blog about gene expression at Discover Magazine took a look at “the individual & social risks of cousin marriage,” and it even had maps.

In the United States there’s a stereotype of cousin marriage being the practice of backward hillbillies or royalty. For typical middle class folk it’s relatively taboo, with different legal regimes by state. The history of cousin marriage in the West has been one of ups & downs. Marriage between close relatives was not unknown in antiquity. The pagan emperor Claudius married his niece Agrippina the Younger, while the Christian emperor Heraclius married his niece Martina. Marriage between cousins were presumably more common.

How did things change?

With the rise in the West of the Roman Catholic Church marriages between cousins were officially more constrained. Adam Bellow argues in In Praise of Nepotism: A Natural History that there’s a material explanation for this: the Roman church used its power over the sacrament of marriage to control the aristocracy.

That’s interesting.

More precisely the coefficient of kinship between two first cousins is 1/8. That means that at any given locus there’s a 1 out of 8 chance that the two individuals will have alleles which are identical by descent, which means that the genetic variant comes down from the same person in the family line.

If the allele is “good,” that is, totally normal/wild type, not associated with any pathology, then we’re in the clear. That’s why most first cousin marriages don’t produce children who are monsters. What a first cousin marriage does is change the odds. How you present these odds matters a great deal in how scary they sound. If I told you than the chance of first cousins having children with a birth defect is 4-7%, vs. 3-4% for a non-consanguineous couple, it might not sound that bad. But if I told you that the odds of having a birth defect is ~50% greater, then it sounds worse.

He got more technical and moved on to discuss Muslims in Britain.

Thursday, March 28, 2013

They Know Equality Will Happen


wrote at vdare.com that we'll eventually get the polygamous freedom to marry, and he says it will happen because of African immigrants. I get the impression he's not happy about it and is being sarcastic when referring to racism.

Whether someone is a bigot or not, it is good that more and more people realize we will get full marriage equality. We've seen that over the last few days when it comes to the DOMA and PropH8 cases before the US Supreme Court, and how defeated the anti-equality mouthpieces are sounding.

The sooner opponents of equality realize that it is inevitable, the sooner they can put their resources to things like, oh, protecting children (and adults) from predators. I know denying basic rights to other adults is high priority and all, but once they realize equality is going to happen whether they like it or not, they're less likely to waste their time and money.

They've claimed their opposition to equality has been for the protection of women and children. In their convoluted desperation, maybe some of them actually believe it. But every dollar or minute spent fighting another adult's right to marry is a dollar or minute that can't be spent feeding the hungry, sheltering, the homeless, treating the sick, or fighting crimes against children.

They Know Equality Will Happen


wrote at vdare.com that we'll eventually get the polygamous freedom to marry, and he says it will happen because of African immigrants. I get the impression he's not happy about it and is being sarcastic when referring to racism.

Whether someone is a bigot or not, it is good that more and more people realize we will get full marriage equality. We've seen that over the last few days when it comes to the DOMA and PropH8 cases before the US Supreme Court, and how defeated the anti-equality mouthpieces are sounding.

The sooner opponents of equality realize that it is inevitable, the sooner they can put their resources to things like, oh, protecting children (and adults) from predators. I know denying basic rights to other adults is high priority and all, but once they realize equality is going to happen whether they like it or not, they're less likely to waste their time and money.

They've claimed their opposition to equality has been for the protection of women and children. In their convoluted desperation, maybe some of them actually believe it. But every dollar or minute spent fighting another adult's right to marry is a dollar or minute that can't be spent feeding the hungry, sheltering, the homeless, treating the sick, or fighting crimes against children.

Monday, August 27, 2012

Polygynists, Obama, and Romney

I've mentioned before the polygyny in the heritage of both President Obama and his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney. Thanks to Jesse Walker at reason.com for calling my attention to McKay Coppins' article at buzzfeed.com, "Polygamists See Themselves in Romney, Obama Family Trees."
Anne Wilde still clearly remembers the moment she watched Mitt Romney throw his heritage under the bus.

A practicing polygamist and leading advocate for "plural marriage" rights, Wilde had watched Romney's political rise over the years with an unusual sense of personal investment. She knew his agenda wouldn’t include the polygamist equality that she’d spent years fighting for as co-founder of the advocacy group Principle Voices. She knew he was just a politician trying to win an election.
And look how he's treated gays and lesbians who want to monogamously marry.



But she also knew this was a man who came from a long family line of proud polygamists — ancestors who embodied the best qualities of the lifestyle she loved. And, in 2007, as Romney ascended to the top tier of the Republican presidential primary, Wilde found herself eagerly cheering him on.

Then, in May, Romney gave an interview to Mike Wallace of 60 Minutes, where the subject of polygamy came up.

"There is part of the history of the church's past that as I understand is troubling to people," the candidate said. "Look, the polygamy, which was outlawed in our church in the 1800s, that's troubling to me. I have a great-great grandfather. They were trying to build a generation out there in the desert. And so he took additional wives as he was told to do. And I must admit, I can't imagine anything more awful than polygamy."

Wilde was crushed.
Really? He couldn't think of anything more awful than polygamy? Well, I suppose it is awful in a time and place where women are property, only men can have more than one partner, lesbians are force to marry men or be shunned and alone, and all of that. But under a system with gender equality, the freedom to not marry, and the freedom to divorce, a woman should be free to marry a man who is already married, provided all involved agree, and provided she is free to marry a woman if she wants to, or more than one woman, or more than one man, or a man and a woman.
Obama, meanwhile, has kept mum on the subject of his ancestral polygamy since entering the White House, Wilde said, though she suspects he wouldn't be quite so harsh, since he doesn't feel the same compulsion to overcompensate that his Mormon challenger does.

Image by Chris Ritter/Buzzfeed

As biographer David Maraniss reports in his book, Barack Obama: The Story, the president's great-grandfather was a polygamist in western Kenya — where it was a common practice in the Luo tribe — and took five wives, including two who were sisters. Obama's grandfather had four wives; and his father already had a wife in Kenya when he went to the University of Hawaii, fell in love with Ann Dunham, and married her.
As for Romney...

In Romney's case, the practice was put to an end several generations ago, but the list of known polygamist relatives is much more expansive, thanks in part to his church’s commitment to genealogy research. Both of Romney’s paternal great-grandfathers, early leaders in the Mormon Church, practiced polygamy, and both spent much of their lives in Mexico, after fleeing a U.S. government crackdown on Mormon plural marriage. One of them had five wives; the other had four — and that's where it stopped. Romney's grandfather and father were born in a Mormon colony in Mexico, but both were monogamists.



Image by Chris Ritter/Buzzfeed

The article eventually gets to the Dargers, and Joe Darger supporting the Libertarian candidate for President.

Categories