Islam - political ideology or religion? Christopher Stevens knows the answer.

Muslims reading this will question the very premise of the title. Of course it's a religion, they will say. And of course they're right. Up to a point. However, a brief examination of the events of the last few days shows that for many (if not most) followers of Islam, politics and religion are but two branches of the same tree.
In the West, we watch in sickened resignation the crowds massing outside the American Embassy in Benghazi, baying for blood (quite literally), tearing apart American flags and rejoicing in the death of the Mr. Stevens.
"Our Prophet is the best human ever! You cannot insult our Prophet! You cannot insult our religion!"
How hard did the evil, sh*t-stirring bastard who set in motion this whole train of events have to work to find the insignificant little film and then publicise it, I wonder. Sometimes you have to put in incredibly long hours to be insulted, it seems.
But that is not the point. The umma don't just believe in the superiority of the super-man, Muhammad and in his revelation being the actual words of God. No, they believe in the inherent, unquestionable superiority of a way of life that demands complete submission to their God (which of course is the only God) and the consequent complete submission of the whole of humanity to their belief system.
If this were an overtly political ideology then those who abhor totalitarianism could stand openly and resist. But Islam stands behind the assumption that it is a religion. Those who dare criticise it are in turn castigated for being insensitive or worse.
So please answer me this. If you are a Muslim and you believe that Allah intends for the whole of mankind to bow down (literally) and worship Him and more, that it is your duty to bring this day closer, where do you draw the line between political and religious action?

Pakistan: 14-9-12

                                               outside the US embassy in London 14-9-12
Photos courtesy of Middle East in Photos

Under-age marriage, the Qur'an and the Prophet Mohammad

The Sunday Times today reveals the tragic prevalence of under-age marriages within the Muslim community in the UK. The fact that Muslim clerics are using religious authority to knowingly justify their breaking of the law to condemn girls as young as 10 to a life of being abused  is both disturbing but inevitable.

I shall not go over the well-worn ground of whether the Prophet married a 7 year-old and consummated the marriage when she was 9. The evidence is clear if you believe the ahadith, and the retired imam quoted by the Sunday Times makes it clear he certainly follows the actions of the Prophet described therein: "We have to follow the way of the Holy Prophet. We are his followers and that is what you have to explain to your daughter." 
Rather I shall look to the Qur'an to see if the supposed words of God make clear or clearer what Allah really wants or expects of us in this regard.

One of the most oft-quoted verses to defend the notion that the Qur'an actually explicitly requires girls to be mature before marriage  is this: 
4:6  And test the orphans [in your charge] until they reach a marriage­able age; then, if you find them to be mature of mind, hand over to them their possessions [...]

Note the very clear implication that the author doesn't necessarily equate marriageable age with sound mind. In any case, the verse is hardly a ringing endorsement of the necessity for maturity. The verse is dealing, after-all, with orphans. 

Let us then turn to an Islamic site to see if they can clarify matters. 

Misconceptions about Islam helpfully lists the verses in the Qur'an that give guidance on the age of marriage:

What does The Quran say on the age of marriage?The Quran does not state a specific legal age of marriage, however it does give a guideline and mentions situations and conditions that should be considered before marriage:

• Determining mutual attraction/compatibility [2:221, 2:235, 30:21, 33:52]

• Ascertaining whether the potential partner is of similar beliefs/faith [2:221, 60:10]

• Discussion of and agreeing to the level of dower and other terms (if any) [4:4, 4:24]

• Understanding and mutual acceptance of marriage as a solemn/strong oath/contract [4:21, 2:232, 2:237, 24:33]

• If male, capable of providing for the family/household [2:228, 2:233, 4:34, 65:6]

• To have physically matured / post-puberty [4:6, 24:31, 24:58-59]

Given the latest revelations in the Sunday times it seems prudent to focus on the last of these: those lines which apparently guide believers to take wives who have physically matured or who have past puberty.  I have quoted 4:6 above. Let's now look at the next verse chosen by the Islamic apologists: 24:31

24:31 (Picktall) And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands or fathers or husbands' fathers, or their sons or their husbands' sons, or their brothers or their brothers' sons or sisters' sons, or their women, or their slaves, or male attendants who lack vigor, or children who know naught of women's nakedness. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And turn unto Allah together, O believers, in order that ye may succeed.

Hmm...Am I being stupid or is there little here to reassure us that Mohammad/Allah intended his followers not to marry children? Let's ignore the awkward references to slaves and eunuchs (how we marvel at the  universality and timelessness of the advice contained in the Qur'an...) and the laughable (I'm sorry, but it is) injunction on stamping feet in case your boobs wobble, and focus on the message. Nothing about ensuring your putative wife is mature enough to know her own mind or physically capable of sex without harm. Not a hint. But let's be generous and assume that Misconceptions simply quoted the wrong verse.

So let's examine the next verse.

24:58 -9 (Picktall) O ye who believe! Let your slaves, and those of you who have not come to puberty, ask leave of you at three times (before they come into your presence): Before the prayer of dawn, and when ye lay aside your raiment for the heat of noon, and after the prayer of night. Three times of privacy for you. It is no sin for them or for you at other times, when some of you go round attendant upon others (if they come into your presence without leave). Thus Allah maketh clear the revelations for you. Allah is Knower, Wise.
And when the children among you come to puberty then let them ask leave even as those before them used to ask it. Thus Allah maketh clear His revelations for you. Allah is knower, Wise.

Well that's cleared that up once and for all, hasn't it. Allah maketh clear, my arse.

I'm going to be presumptuous here and risk Allah's wrath (but hey, with this blog I'm going to have the the mother of all saunas anyway, so what the hell...) and suggest an improvement on how He could have made this issue clearer and saved countless children the awful bloody fate of being hitched to old abusers without recourse to any help whatsoever during their miserable lives.

Women, you (hi - sorry I've ignored you for so long) will not marry until and unless you are both physically and mentally mature and you want to. No-one shall force you against your will.
Men, you shall listen to the wishes of those you desire to marry and to your daughters' wishes. Under no circumstances shall there be compulsion in marriage or in sex. Let me make that quite clear.

I don't think even the ridiculous brain-washed old imam quoted in the Sunday Times could have misunderstood that, do you?

Actually, don't answer that.

Allah's mountains, paths and repetition and mountains and paths...did I mention the mountains?

And he has placed firm mountains on earth, lest it sway with you, and rivers and paths, so that you might find your way (16:15)

 And We have set up firm mountains on earth, lest it sway with them, and [that] We have appointed thereon broad paths, so that they might find their way. (21:31)

(Struck by the similarity? This repetition - so common in the Qur'an - is of course not a fault. Rather it is one of the literary devices that makes the Qur'an unique and inimitable. Note also the subtle differences between the two verses. This is not bad recollection on behalf of an author who has forgotten what he said the last time. It is "grammatical shift" or lltifat - the change of pronoun and concomitant possessive adjectives. So he becomes we, you becomes them and your becomes their. This is not confusing but enlightening. If you can't appreciate this it is because you are reading Allah's words in translation. Allah's style doesn't translate well into English.) 

Back to the roads. Who needs the Romans or even the Highways Commission, when you've got Allah on the job?
There I was, thinking that paths and roads were the product of very human endeavour - at their simplest the result of countless feet treading the same line between two points.
But it was Allah all along who thoughtfully provided them.

I suppose it was easy to assume that the routes taken by traders through the deserts were established by supernatural intervention if you were a 7th century illiterate desert dweller yourself. Such paths must have seemed eerily and presumably supernaturally, wondrous.
It's less easy to countenance the possibility of a cartographically literate divine path-builder from the perspective of the 21st century. 
So what is the Qur'an actually saying here? Laying claim to rivers and mountains is one thing, if you're a God - but surely paths, BY THEIR VERY NATURE, are man-made. Isn't it a bit much for Allah to claim responsibility for them as well? 

But of course the same can be said about so many of the more outrageous claims contained in the Qur'an. 

A simple, unsophisticated 7th century mind might well see mountains, for example, as immovable objects - fixed forever and serving to keep the earth stable (instead of bearing ironic testament to the seismic shifts and upheavals of the Earth's crust.) (Even more ironic is the totally disreputable claim that these verses don't refer to mountains stopping earth-quakes etc.- since not even the most ardent miracle seeker can maintain that lie in the face of modern geological knowledge -  but instead refer to the "fact" that mountains' roots prevent the mantle moving)

Mohammad's followers no doubt forgave him the endless repetition, the simplistic beliefs and the outrageous claims. They were, after all, simple folk themselves.

Why modern readers should do the same is beyond me.

Yusuf Estes and the lies about embryology

Here's our old friend again, spouting mendacious clap-trap to the good folk at Guide USTV. "Who knew -even a hundred years ago - what the egg inside the mother looks like at the moment it's fertilised? Nobody... because it's microscopic"  And your point is, Yusuf? Ah, here we go... "An' yet, in the Qur'an it's clearly described"  Is it, Yusuf? Is the "egg at the moment of fertilisation" really "clearly described" in the Qur'an?? (You know, sometimes ol' Yusuf just makes it too easy for us, doesn't he?) So...according to brother Estes, this is what is described in the Qur'an in miraculous detail 1400 years before anyone human could possibly know what it looked like.

 Or, if you prefer...this:

or this...

And what is the miraculous passage that "Sheik" Estes wants us to believe describes the microscopic scene above? Well, it all revolves, it seems, around the word "alaqa", which (as followers of the Islamic miracle seekers will know) has three distinct meanings which Estes enumerates: a leech, a blood clot or something that clings. "All three of these are an EXACT description of what a baby looks like AT THE MOMENT OF CONCEPTION", Estes tells his amazed audience.
Now forgive me if I'm being over-picky here, Yusuf...but "exactly like"??? I'm no micro-biologist, but even I can tell that the awe-inspiring pictures that scientific endeavour has allowed us to see have f*ck-all to do with a leech or a blood clot.
Once again, Yusuf Estes, you are lying to an audience of gullible people desperate to have their faith confirmed by whatever means possible.
Once again iERA you are supporting this shameful practice.
Shame on the lot of you.

How Afghanistan has benefited from being rid of the Taliban

In his recent article in the Guardian newspaper, James Stavridis listed the ways in which Afghan society has changed for the better in recent years.

1. There are now 8 million children in 15,000 schools across Afghanistan up from 1 million when the Taliban were in control.
2. Of those 8 million, 37% are girls
3. Of the 175,000 teachers, 30% are women
4. There are now over 18 million mobile phones owned by Afghans (up from basically zero under the Taliban)
5. The economy is growing by 5% annually and has done for the last 5 years.
6. At the recent Tokyo Conference over 80 nations made commitments to finance the Afghan National Security Force ( the ANSF) beyond 2014.

Contrast this with the picture painted of the country in the same newspaper four years ago. In an article by Clancy Chassay, the situation of Afghan women and young girls in 2008 was described in disturbing but telling detail:

Afghan women who defy traditional gender roles and speak out against the oppression of women are routinely subject to threats, intimidation and assassination. An increasingly powerful Taliban regularly attacks projects, schools and businesses run by women. [...] The Taliban's regional commands have varying attitudes toward women, but all those fighting under the Taliban banner are committed to enforcing their interpretation of sharia law, which forbids women from working or leaving the house without a male escort.[...] The Islamist group is just one of the many threats facing Afghanistan's few outspoken female MPs. "Our parliament is a collection of lords," said Barakzai. "Warlords, drug lords, crime lords." In parliament, she says, she is often greeted with screams of "kill her" when she stands up to speak, and she has had no shortage of personal threats from fellow MPs. They visit her privately to tell her she will be killed if she continues to speak out on such issues as the right of a woman to have a personal passport (separate from the standard "family passport") or against compulsory virginity tests for young women, and the right of a man to have custody of a child at two years old.

Thus when my Muslim convert friend tries to suggest, as does the increasingly bizarre Yvonne Ridley, that the Taliban are heroic freedom fighters with their people's best interests at heart, and the West is determined to rape and loot the Islamic Afghanistan without a thought for the inhabitants, I try...very quietly...to put the other side of the argument.

Rimsha - Petition reaches 900,000!

Please sign the petition at:
http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/Save_my_daughter_save_Pakistan/?bzQXedb&v=17416

"We ask you to ensure the safety and freedom of Rimsha, a mentally disabled girl jailed in Islamabad who has been accused of blasphemy, which can carry the death penalty. Please use your power to save this young girl and take immediate action to protect minorities in Pakistan."

This is a message from Misrek Masih, of Islamabad, Pakistan. 

Last week an enraged crowd threatened to burn my daughter alive and in the coming days, a judge will decide whether she goes free, or stays in jail. Rimsha is a minor with mental disabilities and often isn't in control of her actions. Yet local police here in Pakistan have charged her with desecrating the Koran, and we are afraid for her life.

Right now she is being held in a maximum-security jail, and in hours, she will face the court under Pakistan's anti-blasphemy laws, which carries the death sentence. We are a poor Christian family and witnessing mob fury over my daughter's case and many other families have faced similar intimidation forcing them to either flee or live in fear. But the international attention on Rimsha’s case has emboldened Pakistani Muslim leaders to speak out against this injustice and forced President Zardari's attention.

Please help me keep up the global outcry on my daughter's case. I urge you tosign my petition to President Zardari to save Rimsha and demand protection for us and other vulnerable minority families. Avaaz will share this campaign with the local and international media which are watched carefully by all the politicians here. 

Noah's Ark- is the Qur'an more believable than the Bible?

Many Muslims, including such dubious luminaries as Maurice Bucaille and Zakir Naik, claim that the story of Noah and the Flood as related in the Qur'an does not contradict common sense or archaeological evidence as does the Flood story in the Bible. The main reason for this it seems is that the Flood as described in the Qur'an was not the global catastrophe that all Christians have been brought up to believe, but a much more credible LOCAL affair. They thus dismiss the Biblical flood narrative as childishly naive, scoffing (see later for more on "scoffing") at the idea of Noah having to load his Ark with every animal and of a world-wide inundation.

Here is an excerpt from Zakir Naik's book on the subject:

The Biblical description of the flood in Genesis chapter 6, 7 and 8 indicates that the deluge was universal and it destroyed every living thing on earth, except those present with Noah (pbuh) in the ark. The description suggests that the event took place 1656 years after the creation of Adam (pbuh) or 292 years before the birth of Abraham, at a time when Noah (pbuh) was 600 years old. Thus the flood may have occurred in the 21st or 22nd Century B.C.This story of the flood, as given in the Bible, contradicts scientific evidence from archaelogical sources which indicate that the eleventh dynasty in Egypt and the third dynasty in Babylonia were in existence without any break in civilisation and in a manner totally unaffected by any major calamity which may have occurred in the 21st century B.C. This contradicts the Biblical story that the whole world had been immersed in the flood water. In contrast to this, the Qur’anic presentation of the story of Noah and the flood does not conflict with scientific evidence or archaeological data; firstly, the Qur’an does not indicate any specific date or year of the occurance of that event, and secondly, according to the Qur’an the flood was not a universal phenomenon which destroyed complete life on earth. In fact the Qur’an specifically mentions that the flood was a localised event only involving the people of Noah.It is illogical to assume that Prophet Muhummad (pbuh) had borrowed the story of the flood from the Bible and corrected the mistakes before mentioning it in the Qur’an. 

This all seems very credible until we read the Qur'anic version more closely. For if experience has taught us anything, it's to take with a giant ladle of salt anything Muslim miracle seekers tell us.

So what about 71:26-27 which plainly states that NO-ONE, NOT A SINGLE PERSON will be left alive on Earth?
71:26 And Noah, said: "O my Lord! Leave not of the Unbelievers, a single one on earth!
71:27 "For, if Thou dost leave (any of) them, they will but mislead Thy devotees, and they will breed none but wicked ungrateful ones.
That doesn't sound like a LOCAL flood to me.

Or how about 11:40-42 which says that the waters gushed over the face of the Earth and talks of the waves being the size of mountains and requires Noah's Ark to act as a depository for breeding pairs of EACH animal? LOCAL flood? Hmm...
11:40  [And so it went on] till, when Our judgment came to pass, and waters gushed forth in torrents over the face of the earth, We said [unto noah]: "Place on board of this [ark] one pair of each [kind of animal] of either sex,  as well as thy family -except those on whom [Our] sentence has already been passed  -and all [others] who have attained to faith!"-for, only a few [of noah's people] shared his faith.
11:42  And it moved on with them into waves that were like mountains. At that [moment] noah cried out to a son of his, who had kept himself aloof [from the others]: "O my dear son!  Embark with us, and remain not with those who deny the truth!" 

So, just to re-cap: we have
1. Noah asking God to drown ALL the non-believers so that NOT A SINGLE ONE is left on Earth so they can't breed again (a pretty big ask for a LOCAL flood!).
2. We also see Noah being told (just like in the Bible) to load breeding pairs of ALL animals onto the ark (to what purpose if this is a local flood? Wouldn't it be easier simply to restock from an area unaffected by the LOCAL flood? You'd also avoid the inherent risk of having future animal stock forever cursed with genetic problems from the inbreeding necessarily required when you restock from just one breeding pair.)
3. And we have waves the SIZE OF MOUNTAINS.
4. And we have the waters covering the FACE OF THE EARTH.

And we're asked to believe that this story is MORE believable than the errant nonsense in the Bible?

Come on Muslims! Challenge the patronising jerks who feed you this nonsense! Ask your immams to explain.

And if they can't, then ask yourself why. Why might a supposed holy book contain a story so full of holes an intelligent six year-old can see the logical flaws- "Er, Daddy - how big did you say the ark was? And Noah had ALL the animals in his boat....? For HOW long...?"

I'm not for one moment suggesting that a disastrous flood (or two) didn't happen at some stage in our pre-history. Why should there otherwise be so many FLOOD MYTHS. Look at the Gilgamesh flood story, for example. In fact it might be enlightening for any reader who believes the story of Noah to be original and hence divine to google it right now. Go on - I dare you! You'll find disturbing echos of the Biblical/Qur'anic story right down to birds being sent out to test if the waters had receded.

Note: i. Since the Flood and the building of the Ark, we are apparently supposed to regard all ships and boats as signs from God. Did you know that?
54:15  And, indeed, We have caused such [floating vessels] to remain forever a sign [of Our grace unto man]:  who, then, is willing to take it to heart? 
         ii. It's interesting to see how much "scoffing" went on at the time. Look at this, for example:
11:38 And  set himself to building the ark; and every time the great ones of his people passed by him, they scoffed at him. He said: "If you are scoffing at us-behold, we are scoffing at you , just as you are scoffing at us. 
and then remember how the style of the Qur'an is supposed to be utterly inimitable and perfect. So perfect and inimitable, in fact, that no-one can write a verse like it. Hmm.... (Sorry - doing a bit of scoffing here myself, I've just realised.)