Saturday, July 07, 2012

Sex Slavery Again . . .

Sheikh Awn with Concubine-Bride

In an article originally published by the Gatestone Institute, "Egypt's First 'Sex-Slave' Marriage" (Pundicity, July 5, 2012), Raymond Ibrahim describes an event broadcast on Egyptian television:
Last Monday, on the Egyptian TV show Al Haqiqa ("the Truth"), journalist Wael al-Ibrashi began the program by airing a video-clip of a man, Abd al-Rauf Awn, "marrying" his "slave." Before making the woman, who had a non-Egyptian accent, repeat the Koran's Surat al-Ikhlas after him, instead of saying the customary "I marry myself to you," the woman said "I enslave myself to you," and kissed him in front of an applauding audience.
Is this the new Egypt? We've seen calls by other Islamists for sex slaves, but this is the first actual instance of one, so far as I've heard. With this sort of Islamist 'marriage,' the wife's dress code differs from the usual rules for Muslim women:
[E]ven though she was wearing a hijab, her owner-husband declared her forbidden from such trappings, commanding her to be stripped of them, so as "not to break Allah's laws." She took her veil and abaya off, revealing, certainly by Muslim standards, a promiscuous red dress (all the other women present were veiled).
You see the 'husband' removing the abaya in the photo above. Apparently, this man is still too prudish, still breaking Allah's laws, for he appeared on the same television show immediately after the video had shown, and from what follows as justification also implies that the good sheikh didn't go far enough, despite his attempt to follow precedent:
Even stripping the sex-slave of her hijab, the way Awn commanded his concubine-wife, has precedent. According to Islamic jurisprudence, whereas the free (Muslim) woman is mandated to be veiled behind a hijab, sex-slaves are mandated only to be covered from the navel to the knees—with everything else exposed. During the program Awn even explained how Caliph Omar, one of the first "righteous caliphs," used to strip sex-slaves of their garments, whenever he saw them overly dressed in the marketplace.
Sheikh Awn neglected to follow the letter of Allah's law, as his own justification reveals, for he failed to strip his sex-slave down to the navel! Nevertheless, he went too far, according to another Islamist:
The other guest on the show, Dr. Abdullah al-Naggar, a professor of Islamic jurisprudence at Al Azhar, fiercely attacked Awn for reviving this practice, calling on him and his slave-wife to "repent" and stop dishonoring Islam, arguing that "there is no longer sex-slavery" -- to which Awn responded by sarcastically asking, "Who said sex-slavery is over? What -- because the UN said so?"
The report doesn't reveal Dr. al-Naggar's response, but the question is an excellent one, and I'm glad that Sheikh Awn raised it, for this is precisely the issue faced by Islam in our modern world: Which takes precedence, Islamic law or human rights' legislation? We see from the encounter between the two Muslims on this television program that particular Islamic laws embarrass some Muslims even as other Muslims attempt to revive such laws as part of the current resurgence of Islam. Those who wish to revive such embarrassing laws can accuse the embarrassed of not being sufficiently Islamic since these laws are there in the Muslim sources and cannot be denied.

Upon such an Archimedian point, the entire Muslim world can be moved . . . but which way, toward modern human rights or toward medieval Islamic laws?

UPDATE: Long-time commentator "Erdal" explains that the scene was scripted:
This is a "scripted reality" show and the man, Abd al-Rauf Awn, is an actor-pawn of the presenter, who plays out this story to frame the scene for the studio-talk and the street interviews, who all predictably slam him down. It's a morality play in sensationalistic TV format. Even the man's name, Abd al-Rauf Awn, is a pun, meaning roughly "he who serves as an assistant, and we know it."
So . . . never mind.

Labels: , , ,


At 10:44 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

We live in an era of wimps and need people like Churchill who knew all too well, that Islam is an ideology of hate and should be wiped out from the face of the earth.
"The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men."

We won't take anyone seriously who waving his NSDAP membership card in his hand would claim that Nazism is an ideology of peace and Mein Kampf misunderstood by some people. Maybe Hitler's main mistake was not too register his movement as a religion, then Nazism would be protected, safe and growing in this time of political correctness and panzy politicians.

When a couple of weeks ago some residents in the Polish city of Olsztyn openly expressed their discontent with the growing number of Saudi "students" in the city, the Saudi ambassador to Poland came from Warsaw to meet them and asked for... tolerance! Hypocrisy at its best! But we tolerate such liars and double-faced people. Well, Obama even bows to them.


At 11:05 AM, Blogger Horace Jeffery Hodges said...

Saudi Arabia: Beacon of Tolerance.

We'll see how well Islam adapts to the new, wired world. My hope is that as Muslims themselves see what sort of peculiar laws belong to sharia, they'll push for liberalization. Ideally, Islam would become a private faith, its political side shorn off.

But there might not be much left.

Jeffery Hodges

* * *

At 1:35 PM, Blogger ilTassista Marino said...


At 2:20 PM, Blogger Horace Jeffery Hodges said...

Yes . . . and crawly, too.

Jeffery Hodges

* * *

At 5:10 PM, Blogger ilTassista Marino said...

"Yea, slimy things did crawl with legs
Upon the slimy (Red?) sea ..."

At 5:49 PM, Blogger Horace Jeffery Hodges said...

About, about, in reel and rout . . .

(Must be about fishing?)

Jeffery Hodges

* * *

At 9:55 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

With the emergent prominence of de facto polygyny (called “serial monogamy” by Holocaustian theologians aka “social scientists”) there is enormous pressure toward de jure polygyny. Islam is currently the only major sect filling this role in the West. So control of the West comes down to a battle between the Holocaustian theocrats and the Muslim theocrats. Islam is currently the odds-on favorite for replacing the Holocaustian theocracy during its collapse.

Civilization is built on the pretense that husbands are dominant so that they don't revolt against those in positions of authority. The 60s exploded that pretense leaving the glass ceiling protecting men in positions of authority surrounded by de facto harems. Islam is the the likely beneficiary since it dispenses with the hypocrisy surrounding de facto harems and formally sanctions harem sizes limited to a maximum of 4 females.

Civilization is founded on a meta-stable "deal" in which females give up their power to their mates and their mates give up power to the State. If, in this scenario, you liberate only one sex, not only does civilization collapse, but until it does, the circumstances are unbearable to the sex not liberated.

In Western civilization there is no going back to the age of females giving up their power to their mates, so Western civilization is ending and we are left with two choices:

Figure out how to legitimize combat to the death between males, or adopt Islam.

That's a true dilemma

At 10:11 AM, Blogger Horace Jeffery Hodges said...

"Figure out how to legitimize combat to the death between males, or adopt Islam."

Those are not the only two choices. Your extreme reductionism -- e.g., all social scientists are "holocaust theologians"! -- leads you to such false dilemmas. I find your analysis unconvincing and see no reason to follow your path.

Jeffery Hodges

* * *

At 10:11 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Islamists are analogous to reactionary Christians who haven’t been taken in by the “Jews are the apple of God’s eye” contemporary Holocaustian theocracy — i.e., who see Christ’s crucifixion as the supreme sacrifice of the innocent light unto the nations rather than the Holocaust as the supreme sacrifice of the innocent light unto the nations. What the Islamists and the reactionary Christians have in common is the recognition that if you do not kill those refusing combat to the death, and you want to maintain something resembling human beings, you have to have patriarchal strictures (ie: “the rule of thumb”) that allow husbands to be dominant over their mates (wife or, in the Islamic case, wives).

However, the Islamists are not really necessary for Islam’s defeat of Holocaustianity since Holocaustian dogma requires “tolerance” to the point that superior paradigms for civilization, such as Islam, can come in and replace it. Pathetic attempts to resist Islam within the framework of Holocaustian dogma, such as anti-Islamists in the Netherlands, are mere aberrations.

At 10:18 AM, Blogger Horace Jeffery Hodges said...

Do more research into the "rule of thumb" and discover that it has nothing to do with the putative thickness of a stick for beating one's wife.

But this is all beside the point, namely, that sharia has nothing to offer the modern world.

Jeffery Hodges

* * *

At 11:22 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The foundation of civilization is defense of agricultural territory of men in exchange for those men giving up their sovereignty. In this contract the individual man is put at risk because he submits. The compromise therefore allowed the creation of a pseudo-natural environment within the family where the man could legally maintain dominance over the women. There is a fundamental problem that freedom for women presents to civilization. Freeing men in response by legitimizing combat to the death between males, or reviving the compromise by reviving patriarchal religion are attempts to address it. If you know any other options, I'm all ears. My position is that you can’t address it. Pandora’s box has been opened. The contract as been breached — the foundation shattered. Nothing like this has happened before in history. Global civilization teeters and may collapse uncontrollably.

At 1:35 PM, Blogger Horace Jeffery Hodges said...

I simply don't see things the way that you do on any of these points that you raise, so I doubt that we can make any progress.

Jeffery Hodges

* * *

At 5:08 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I see no evidence that civilization is compatible with women's lib, feminism, etc. High social status for women appears compatible with just two forms of human ecology:

1) Female saturated gender ratios resulting from high male mortality due to paleolithic die-offs of males from natural hazards.

2) Female saturated gender ratios resulting from high male mortality due to neolithic die-offs of males from artificial hazards (deadly combat between males, mass war, etc.).

At this point Islam is the only major religion I know of that relegates women to the low enough social status required of civilization. The reason it may be the odds-on favorite for replacing the Holocaustian theocracy during its collapse is that it isn’t hopelessly self-contradictory regarding civilization and its relation to sex.

It's unclear whether high female to male ratios achieved via gender selection can let women have high social status while maintaining civilization, but one thing is clear: Civilization is not natural and we should expect to have to do some pretty intrusive things to maintain it.

At 5:32 PM, Blogger Horace Jeffery Hodges said...

I see that you've done a lot of thinking on this topic, and I also see that you are very rational in your approach, but we differ on assumptions, so we'd likely just frustrate each other in argument.

Sharia has manifold problems, and not all, or even a majority, related to the status of women, so I can't see that it offers any future, merely repression, violence, and a dead end.

Jeffery Hodges

* * *

At 7:46 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Note that in ancient Rome, the individual man submitted to Rome but as the pater familias, the head of household, he possessed the patria potestas, supreme authority over his family, including the power of life and death over his wife and children i.e. he could legally kill them.

After Rome's collapse, Europe was Christianized and men submitted to the Church but Paul's teachings allowed for women and wives to be subordinate as a counter-balance.

At 12:41 AM, Anonymous Erdal said...

Raymond Ibrahim is either stupid or wilfully propagandistic in this case.

This is a "scripted reality" show and the man, Abd al-Rauf Awn, is an actor-pawn of the presenter, who plays out this story to frame the scene for the studio-talk and the street interviews, who all predictably slam him down. It's a morality play in sensationalistic TV format. Even the man's name, Abd al-Rauf Awn, is a pun, meaning roughly "he who serves as an assistant, and we know it"

At 3:32 AM, Blogger Horace Jeffery Hodges said...

Anonymous, I don't think we'll get anywhere in this discussion. Our disagreement runs too deep.

Jeffery Hodges

* * *

At 3:41 AM, Blogger Horace Jeffery Hodges said...

Thanks, Erdal, for the details. I suspect that Ibrahim is simply ignorant in this case since I don't think he's stupid and exposure of the propaganda would be inevitable. He's a Copt, but he grew up in the States, so he's likely just unaware that the scene was scripted.

By the way, what's the purpose of this particular script -- to ridicule Islamism since there have been some (few) calls for re-instituting sex slaves?

Jeffery Hodges

* * *

At 1:58 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Its only indentured servitude. So what if someone sleeps with their willing servants. I am a Muslim and an American and my question is. Why do we all wear clothes made by slaves in the third world. Why are most cars computers and so on made by the third world slaves and its all good in the name of capitalism. But its wrong for me to have a house servant who I can have sex with..?

At 2:29 PM, Blogger Horace Jeffery Hodges said...

Yes, it's wrong for you to enslave someone for sex. Every sane person knows that. There's really nothing to discuss.

Jeffery Hodges

* * *


Post a Comment

<< Home