The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info -----------------------
Last updated on March 5th, 2018 at 01:45 pm
Uh-oh! Gianna has detected my double standards:
Tim Blair’s mocking Islam for having rules, acting as if its different in that regard from any other religion …
Which was exactly the point made by several Muslim converts in the Sunday Times piece I linked to; that Islam’s rules—their nature and their extent—do make it different to other religions. “In Islam, there’s a rule for absolutely everything,” said convert Jeremy Meredith. “How I eat my food, how I go to the toilet, how I get married, how I lend money.” Gianna believes that this is no different to “living in a Conservative run democratic society.”
I’m not sure about Gianna, but none of these activities have changed much for me since conservatives have been in power (apart from it being a little easier to repay loans, given reduced interest rates). She continues:
Rules just differ depending on your worldview of choice. For example, in John Howard and George Bush’s Christian worldview, there are rules on the specific kinds of genitals that are allowed to be in your underpants as you approach a marriage celebrant. Weird, huh?
Not particularly. Heterosexual marriage is a particularly non-weird feature of most societies. (I support gay marriage, incidentally; I just don’t see it as a crucial indicator of liberation.)
And this from the Government that Blair touts as being about the supreme rights of the individual. Doesn’t extend to freedom of sexuality eh.
Actually, it does. Freedom of sexuality is different to the freedom to marry someone of the same sex. Gianna is free to shack up with any women she cares to, in any number; on this, both Chris Sheil and I would agree, even to the point of encouragement. She might expect a little opposition from Rexhep Idrizi, though. Not to mention Sheik Khalid Yasin, whose rules on this are slightly different to those of other religions. Or even conservative-run democratic societies.
UPDATE. Gianna replies in comments:
Take another look at the sentence you have lifted from my post, in which: i note you are mocking Islam for ‘having rules’ and i say it is not different from other religions and systems in that regard.’–ie., in regard to the fact that it has rules, some of which seem ludicrous to outsiders.”
I didn’t mock Islam for simply having rules; rules are present everywhere, including in Gianna’s house. I mocked Islam for having massive and invasive and irrational rules that apply to—as its followers happily confirm—everything. This indicates a certain difference to, say, rules outlined by Methodists, or conservative western democracies.
How does this get translated by your readers to me being in favor of clitorectomies?
Possibly because they perceive that Gianna would oppose clitorectomies with much greater vigour were they to be suggested (which they would never be) by Howard or Bush than when they are actually carried out in Islamic countries.
Sorry, but i don’t see how their rule about brushing teeth is more laughable or more sinister than our rule about the contents of your undies when you get married.
Gianna should compare apples with apples. To hell with our undies rules; what about Islamic underpant regulations? You want sinister, Gianna? Try arranging a gay wedding in a mosque. Go to Lakemba right now seeking signatures for a petition urging gay Muslim marriage. Add to the fun by wearing a bikini! Yet more from Gianna:
Oh, and how exactly am I giving comfort to the Islamofascist terrorists when y’all reckon Islamofascists are just as homophobic, anyway?
Not just as homophobic, Gianna; far more homophobic. Read the posts I linked to. Many Islamic clerics believe homosexuals should not only be prevented from marrying, but that they should be killed. I know; this seems “ludicrous to outsiders”. Imagine how it seems to homosexuals or adulterers or rape victims who are murdered in Islamic states. Imagine how it seems to people in Australia threatened by the same vicious message. Gianna continues at her own site:
I dislike Islam more than the other religions because of how it conceives of women. My point was that Blair was mocking rules, taking the opportunity to attack Islam on the basis of having banal rules, without acknowledging that other religions and the politics of the God-fearing leaders can have just as strange ideas.
Just as strange? Sure, Gianna; our God-fearing leaders support stoning, amputation, and the hanging of gays. Do proceed:
Sure, we don’t treat our gays as badly as those living in fanatical Islamic states no doubt do. But shouldn’t we treat them the same as we treat everyone else? Why are they still a lesser class of people in our enlightened Western society?
Generally, in our enlightened Western society, they aren’t. But in a certain unenlightened sector of Western society—that which Gianna would excuse—they are. Gianna might consider exploring this.
- Muslim rules Gianna did not comment on:
1. The 72 virgins for murdering non-muslims rule.
2. Refusing health care to women rule.
3. The child bride rule.
4. No education for women rule.
Posted by perfectsense on 2006 01 17 at 05:13 AM • permalink
- Yeah. Muslims tolerate homosexual unions. Here in Iraq they mark the occasion with celebratory AK47 fire. Usually aimed about 6 inches from the back of the newlywed’s heads. I’ll happily escort Gianna to a nearby mosque where she is free to loudly proclaim her undying love for Shirley or whomever. Brilliant. Do people of her ilk ever stop and think about what life is really like in a Muslim country? You’d have never heard from her in the 1st place. Their position is ridiculous.
- I have a gay friend (male) who has travelled extensively and claimed to my amazement he never got more action than in the Arab world. His theory was that women are untouchable before marriage, and often after it if the marriage is arranged and not a happy union. Result: a lot of very frustrated males who get it on together much in the manner of jail etc. The society turns a blind eye to it. After all, the antics of Mr Arafat didn’t raise too many eyebrows.
Never would have guessed it myself.
Not gay myself, but one thing I did notice talking to local lads in the Arab places I have visited (i.e. Palenstinian Authority, Jordan, Egypt) in just casual conversation: they were all obsessed with sex – one track minds. Pussy this, tits that. It came up in any conversation regardless of the context. We talked like this in Australia when we were 15, and grew out of it by 30. But these guys, well into their 20s and 30s, were still at it. Very sexually frustrated society.
No wonder they drove the planes into the building at the prospect of 72 virgins – the DSB must have been killing them.
Posted by Flying Giraffe on 2006 01 17 at 05:55 AM • permalink
- I look at what’s happening with the Islamic world even as we speak, and you know what? I couldn’t give a fark about gay marriage.
I’m more worried about some nutbag trying to blow up my way of life – irrespective of what side of the fence I sleep on – and what I can do about it to ensure it gets sorted before my rugrat grows up.
Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2006 01 17 at 05:58 AM • permalink
- The earlier thread was about how easy it is to make fun of christian conservatives – sure, it is.
But at least Fred Nile has a decent basis for his conservatism. If our society wants to ditch the Christian religion altogether, and undermine the family by a combination of moral disorientation and enforced work for mothers (to afford stupidly expensive housing plus the much discussed child care), it will suffer the consequences.
This thread looks like degenerating into another “not that anything’s wrong with that” chorus about the Love That Will Not Grow Up.
- Gianni like many of her ilk, is confusing Conservatism with Totalitarianism.Posted by Torontosteve on 2006 01 17 at 06:22 AM • permalink
- Onya, blogstrop
I am a very lapsed Catholic but I have more respect for my old religion and its values than the sterile narcissism of yuppie bohemians who feel that any curb on their pleasures is an infringement of their ‘rights’.
Funny thing about breeders; they make people and societies happen. The followers of the Church of the Coloured Condom, to borrow Mark Steyn’s top phrase, need something more serious to lead them than the end of their dicks if they’re serious about the world.
…and equating the strictures of an increasingly repressive Islam with life in Australia under the Coalition is simply another example of why fewer and fewer people take the Left seriously anymore. Last, it was Terry Lane telling us there was no difference between the Mormons and the Taliban. This kind of nonsense is self-refuting.
- Double standards also prevail with the ALP and media being so hot on the trail of the AWB.Especially the formerly reluctant disclosers of the truth about Kofi Annan,SBS and Aunty abc..in the Oil for food scandal.Rudd would love to bring down the Feds but is happy to drag Australia down with it- he’s bad mouthed us every chance he- even remotely -gets.
Unfortunately,the Premier Gallop depression resignation has caused the public media to
launch a flotilla of programmes about DEPRESSION, it is impossible to escape.Obviously mental health is extremely important and deserves attention by the media but when it’s a polly they roll in it.
Sympathy seekers.(not the person concerned of course).It’s appalling.Meanwhile his replacement is apparently likely to be ANOTHER ex ABC employee (arrgh 7.30 report).
The lying and dirty report tonight focussed on Gallop,Rudd and a piece about Chinese Muslims who have been unfairly imprisoned and SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO COME TO SOME OTHER PLACE,LIKE (of course) AUSTRALIA….gee thanks Ms Mckew.Thanks our ABC.
- back in january 2003 Gianna was writing this
LEST WE FORGET
I was reading again today about the people who lost their lives in the Bali bombings (see the Herald website). These beautiful happy people, and their families whose lives have been destroyed. It made me realise that what I have against going to war, for any reason, is that not one more family from any country should be made to grieve the loss of an innocent loved one. Not one.
Is it really so hard to stop killing people?
And to those who will write me off as a raving Leftie: My anti-war stance is not some kind of political reactionism against the ‘despised’ Liberal administration of this country. Labor’s acquiescence in a sanitised, once-removed UN-“endorsed” war doesn’t impress me either.
I question whether the UN can sanction military intervention, anyway. An organisation that goes on about human rights can hardly endorse tit-for-tat killing sprees culminating in the victory of the bigger bully, which is what war amounts to. So, I ask, what kind of “action” do the Allies really propose the UN takes? It’s bullshit, I’m afraid. Asking the UN to “authorise” the world to go to war is absurd, whatever political party you have a stake in. As a civilised human being, I object to legalised murder–so sue me.
I mean, don’t they realise that these kinds of bloody conflicts only result in retaliation and an endless, escalating cycle of violence? Don’t these guys ever read any psychology? Because we are all still just cavemen at heart.in between other la-la-la-i’m-gorgeous-&-clever-&-oh-so-sensitive-&-artistic-&-in-tune-with-nature-read-my-poetic-blog-&-weep shite
she is stuck on stupid if she thinks the islamofascists will stop killing if we stop fighting back
- (My 2 cents worth) I’m of the view the State shouldn’t be involved in marriage at all, i.e., it doesn’t need to issue certificates or whatnot. Let the Church as a private organisation decide whether it wants to allow gay marriage, or *shudder* lefty inter-species marriage etc., etc., and issue their own formal recognition of the relationship.
Oh, and seeing as no one has mentioned Margo in this post, I better let this link off the chain 😉
- I love some of Gianna’s ironical views, ie, that ‘rules’ are something created by nasty people like Bush and Howard yet Islamic rules regarding female circumcision, sexuality, the role of women etc, etc are never mentioned or questioned.
Its much easier to believe that Bush and Howard are the real perpetrators of injustice in our society.
- #5 Flying Giraffe:
I’ve had similar experiences with conversations in those same countries. The other thing I noticed was that when discussing women the opinion was expressed often and with great feeling that they are all whores. It makes it all rather unpleasant.
Many observers have noted that the fear of women – and the consequent vilification that disguises it – is extremely psychologically unhealthy. Combined with an Arab’s connection of virility with honour it makes all sexual relations extremely fraught. Impotence is the great fear, and, as you’d expect, the great fear leads to widespread impotence. I have read that doctors who toured in the old days were inundated with enquiries about how to cure this problem.
I dare say this complex of attitudes and imperatives is related to the complex that surrounds both male homosexuality and bestiality. There is an official attitude of condemnation, but an unofficial attitude that accepts that these outlets are used. And if you can rise to sodomize a goat then you are at least vigorous, and that’s to be admired.
On a more general note, if the rules of your society tend to create psycho-sexual dysfunction in its members, then you are going to have a society full of mentally disturbed people with crippling frustrations. This may contribute to an explanation of the apparent ready resort to violence in that area, and the general tendency to hysteria. It’s as if the stereotype of ‘Victorian’ sexual morality was true and things had been that way for a millenium.
- After reading Giana’s response, I think there should be an international treaty against the torture of logic.Posted by Jim Treacher on 2006 01 17 at 08:20 AM • permalink
- I’m looking forward to Gianna posting the new rules handed down by the Howard government on how we eat food, how we go to the toilet, how we get married and how we lend money.
I read the papers every day but I guess I must have missed their new policy rollout.. either that or Gianna’s a goddamn moron.
- I’ve just read The Trouble With Islam by Irshad Manji over the last couple of nights, very interesting. Without adding to the argument here, have a look or read of the book. I would’ve written it myself if I was born a Muslim. Only 239 pages in my paperback. Anyone here read it?
- ….”geez, Tim.”
take another look at the sentence you have lifted from my post, in which: i note you are mocking Islam for ‘having rules’ and i say it is not different from other religions and systems in that regard.’–ie., in regard to the fact that it has rules, some of which seem ludicrous to outsiders.
how does this get translated by your readers to me being in favor of clitorectomies? i’m not even in favor of male circumcision either, though that’s been a big tradition of our culture hasn’t it?
sorry, but i don’t see how their rule about brushing teeth is more laughable or more sinister than our rule about the contents of your undies when you get married.
oh, and how exactly i am giving comfort to the Islamofascist terrorists when y’all reckon Islamofascists are just as homophobic,anyway?
- Yep, Stevo- it was especially interesting that a Muslim who travelled to Israel recognised the country as a hellofalot better than Loewenstein-like critics would have us all believe.
It was also good that she recognised the use of the Gaz-yptians and West Bank Arabs (oh, Palestinians) as pawns to make Israel look like a stain. As a lesbian, no doubt the annual gay pride march in Jerusalem warms her a little to Israel, at least enough to sift through the propaganda.
She also has a good (but brief) account of Islam in the West. (Early in the book?) She talks about her experiences with Christians compared to Muslims, very very stark differences and very worrying.
Gianna, please dont use laughable and contents of your undies in the same sentence. Have some respect for Tim’s overly sensitive male readers =[
- ”…i don’t see how their rule about brushing teeth is more laughable or more sinister than our rule about the contents of your undies when you get married.”
What is sinister – no, laughable – is shallow ‘empathy’ with one culture, facile denigration of another and deep ignorance of both.
A word on rules. Written English renders ‘I’ in the upper case.
- Dear Gianna,
True, Islam has rules, just as Christianity has rules. But there are rules, and then there are rules.
Islam’s rules, unlike Christianity’s, include the death penalty for those who convert to other religions and mandate an inferior position for women, nonbelievers, and slaves. Islam also mandates that there is no separation between church and state: there is no “render unto Caesar” in Islam. The virtuous state is that which is run by the principles of Islam, period.
Surely even you can distinguish between a religion whose rules state that homosexuals should not marry, and one whose rules state that homosexuals should be killed.
And one of Islam’s principal rules is that you cannot change the rules. Christianity, on the other hand, grants tradition a major role in revelation. This is why Christianity, in its forms and prohibitions, has changed drastically since the 16th century – and why Islam has not.
In our day and age, every one of us must choose between the Christian west and the Islamists. The Islamists have declared war on the west, and they do not compromise, for God Himself has blessed their jihad. It’s the political equivalent of Pascal’s wager: you cannot choose not to choose. You must pick one side or the other,
So, Gianna: Which side are you on?
Posted by Urbs in Horto on 2006 01 17 at 10:35 AM • permalink
how does this get translated by your readers to me being in favor of clitorectomies? i’m not even in favor of male circumcision either, though that’s been a big tradition of our culture hasn’t it?
It gets translated that way because you are practising moral equivalency. We just go a little further than you will.
You chastize the Australian government for not supporting gay marriage by providing demographics to a foreign nation, and then whinge about Tim Blair mocking Islam, a religion that doesn’t support gay marriage either….usually by sending a bullet at muzzle velocity.
Is that clear enough, or should I use monosyllabic words?
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 01 17 at 10:50 AM • permalink
- Gianna and her leftist buddies once again peg the hypocrite meterPosted by swassociates on 2006 01 17 at 11:15 AM • permalink
- I’m with Jim Treacher #19 on this one.
It must take an awful lot of headache-inducing logic abuse to come up with such dubious forms of ‘equivalency.’
As others have pointed out, she doesn’t help her case by failing to note that Islam would be quite concerned, indeed, with “the contents of your undies when you get married.”
- I don’t think the issue is rules, per se, let alone the concept of rules as laid down by a religion (noted theologians Marx, Lenin, Hitler and Mao laid down rules every bit as onerous as any established by one of the “mainline” faiths). The issue is the blind reliance on rules as an excuse for not thinking and not taking personal responsibility. This is why Islam plays so well among the “imbecilariat”, and why the bloody-mindedness of its rules is such a threat to liberal societies (as well as to the development of individual freedom within Muslim societies).
- Gianna, in the west, conservatives grumble if a candidate decides to treat Priscilla, Queen of the Desert like a campaign bus. In the Islamic world, Priscilla would get fragged on sight with an IED…
This may be too nuanced a difference for you, but I thought I might point it out…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 01 17 at 11:27 AM • permalink
In John Howard and George Bush’s Christian worldview, there are rules on the specific kinds of genitals that are allowed to be in your underpants as you approach a marriage celebrant
Well gee, I knew gay marriage was legal in the US until GWB came along and banned it. But I didn’t know your experience was the same.
Posted by tim maguire on 2006 01 17 at 11:39 AM • permalink
- Gianna is invited to revisit this question after her clitoridectomy. The downside is wearing a burqa will make her butt look bigger.Posted by Mystery Meat on 2006 01 17 at 11:59 AM • permalink
- #29 3: “The 72 virgins for murdering non-muslims rule”.
Did anyone note the priceless figure of speech Steyn used to describe this idea of paradise: “Allah’s cathouse”.
And James Lileks describes the 72 virgins as “celestial whores”.
Which, as has been noted, is the attitude that Arab men seem to take toward all women. So I might point out to Gianna that herprimary, unrecognized problem with Islam might not be homophobia so much as misogyny.
The issue is the blind reliance on rules as an excuse for not thinking and not taking personal responsibility.
Exactly so, paco. That’s my major problem with any philosophy (political or religious), but the “progressive” left seems to embrace (or provide moral support to, if not simply turn a blind eye) such philosophies. That’s largely why I consider lefties to be non-thinkers, and generally unoriginal in their thoughts and ideas. There are exceptions to this, of course, but it’s like finding gemstones in a pile of gravel.
Lefties are always toeing the line of whatever rhetoric coming from the “intellecturals” this week. Gianna’s latest rant is but another example of this character flaw.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 01 17 at 12:30 PM • permalink
- “intellecturals”….heh! Should be “intellectuals”. PIMF 🙁Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 01 17 at 12:30 PM • permalink
- Hmmm.
Perhaps she should consider that in many Islamic countries women, even young girls, are murdered because they are *suspected* of either adultery or pre-marital sex.
I.e. proof is not required.
Frankly I seriously wonder if the conversion of Europe to Islam might not be a good thing. For one thing it’ll give liberals a personal one-on-one experience with this crazy nonsense so maybe they’ll stop being so utterly clueless about reality.
But then again they wouldn’t be liberals any longer.
Posted by memomachine on 2006 01 17 at 12:47 PM • permalink
- Hmmm.
On reflection though perhaps Islam isn’t too bad. Consider the poor married man looking to get a hummer from his wife during a football intermission.
What the hey! Allah wills it!
Posted by memomachine on 2006 01 17 at 12:55 PM • permalink
- That really was an awfully lame attempt at moral equivalency.
Then again “deliberately obtuse” is mainstream Leftist thinking nowadays.
Posted by Spiny Norman on 2006 01 17 at 01:01 PM • permalink
- #45: Absolutely, RJ. That’s why the pursuit of excessive power by any group is so dangerous.
#46: Hold on, there, maybe you’re on to something. How about “intellectualoids”? Or maybe “ninjallectuals” (those who strike quickly with sharp slogans that are basically non-sequiturs, leaving the logic-based victim momentarily stunned).
- “I mean, don’t they realise that these kinds of bloody conflicts only result in retaliation and an endless, escalating cycle of violence? Don’t these guys ever read any psychology? Because we are all still just cavemen at heart. “
Why she’s right men – back into the landing craft and offa this damn beach in Normandy
Why if we go on killing those SS troops – we’ll be no better than they are
I mean – we’re all really just cavemen
Captain Smith – just before his Sergeant “accidentally” pushed him over the side on 6.6.44 : )
Posted by Pogue Mahone on 2006 01 17 at 01:19 PM • permalink
- Gianna wrote:
Sure, we don’t treat our gays as badly as those living in fanatical Islamic states no doubt do. But shouldn’t we treat them the same as we treat everyone else? Why are they still a lesser class of people in our enlightened Western society?It would be considered one of the greatest acts of emancipation in human history if Muslim women were suddenly treated as well as Western gays. (or in Giannas eyes treated “as badly” as the Western world treats its gays).
Posted by perfectsense on 2006 01 17 at 01:20 PM • permalink
- ::desperately waving hand for the teacher’s attention::
But there are rules, and then there are rules.
I posted this list, but just had to share.
First: The questions?1) I plan on performing nikah soon and I wish to take my wife on honeymoon. Can you please advise me on the correct intention to make before leaving on honeymoon?
Salaams, 1) I plan on performing nikah soon and I wish to take my wife on honeymoon. Can you please advise me on the correct intention to make before leaving on honeymoon? 2) Is it true that our beloved Nabi (Sallallahu alaihi wa Sallam) use to eat something sweet after his meal? 3) If a married couple has intercourse is it necessary to place a towel on the bed to prevent any orgasmic fluids? 4) If by chance semen does falls onto the bed, does it mean the bed is napaak? 5) Is it permissible to go for a massage if given by the same sex? 6) Is it permissible to make whudu with contact lenses? May Allah reward youThen: The Answers From the Fatwa Department (I SH*T you not ~ the FATWA Dept ~ they have one.)
1. The very concept of going on a honeymoon is alien to Islam. Yes, you may go out with your wife to a quiet place that affords you additional privacy to get to know each other better, etc. Your intention may be around these lines. Also, there is no sense in going for this trip to a place that is very busy or crowded with other tourists, etc. This would obviously defeat the purpose of your travel to this place.
2. There is nothing specifically mentioned. Yes, the eating of fruit or dates before and after both have been mentioned.
3. It is better to place something like a towel, etc. beneath her. Cleanliness demands something be placed there to prevent the bed being soiled.
4. No, the bed is not Napaak. Only the bedsheet or the place it falls onto is Napaak.
5. Yes, it is permissible provided the person massaging does so without touching the Satr and without any fear of falling into temptation.
6. Yes, it is permissible. Contact lenses are worn in the eyes. This area of the eyes are not washed in Wudhu. Hence, the wearing of contact lenses does not affect the validity of Wudhu.
and Allah Ta’ala Knows Best
Mufti Muhammad Kadwa
FATWA DEPTAny question you ever had ~ and they seem to have quite a few ~ can be answered at Ask-Iman.com
Posted by tree hugging sister on 2006 01 17 at 01:46 PM • permalink
- So, Muslims kill homosexuals, huh? Well, Xtians don’t want them to get married!
So, Muslims make women wear head-to-toe coverings, huh? Well, Xtians would prefer they wear skirts and dresses a little more often and not wear pants so darn much!
So, Muslims think scantily-clad non-Muslim women are fair game for rape, huh? Well, Xtians frown on thongs!
So, Muslims ban alcohol, huh? Well, Xtians tend to frown on public drunkenness!
So, Muslims ban pornography, huh? Well, feminists Xtians would like to, also!
So, Muslims have an irrational, murderous hatred of Jews, huh? Well, Xtians worship a Jew and seem pretty darn happy he was crucified!
Yep, they’re exactly the same. It’s just so logical.
- Gianna, how is it that you use the toothbrushing rule as no more ludicrous, say, than, er, um…well, some similar rule in Christian churches, but you fail to mention any of the really nasty rules (that have been mentioned here) which lead to the direct murder of the rule-breaker? Do you really think that Christianity tells the followers of Christ to murder homosexuals? Are you equating laws against gay marriage with mutilation and stoning to death? Do you think that Christianity has a rule that if a woman is raped she is the one who needs to die for that crime? The rampant gynophobia amongst M.E. men, which has been noted here, should have clued you in a little better to the state of Muslimism today. It is too shocking for you to have missed it. Gianna, let me offer you my humble historical perspective if I may be so bold. You seem to be lacking this perspective to a shocking degree.
Muhammad (mhnbp – gotta say that every time we mention his name. It’s a rule) was attracted to the Jews because he liked the notion of One God over the many gods of his own people. He wanted to know that One God, but on looking closely at the Hebrews of that time he saw men and women breaking their own laws on a daily basis and getting away with it. He thought, well, that’s not good, these people are sinning against their own God, the One which I myself have come to worship. These Jews have strayed and need to be reformed, brought back to their intended state as obedient servants.
He read the books of the Torah – what we call the Pentateuch – and saw the laws there and adopted them, tweaking some to make them even more rigid. He kept multiple marriage and stoning and other laws of the Hebrews which are anathema today in all Western societies. But Islam has never had a Reformation, there is no equivalent of the Enlightenment in the Islamic world, and any reforms which have occurred, have occurred because of men like Kamal Ataturk. Even these few reforms are being rejected by today’s Islamists. The mullahs and imams and ayatollahs of our time are trying to pull the world, not just the M.E., which is already there, the world, back to the time of the Caliphate when men were men and women were chattel to be done to as men desired. That is the operating principle among today’s Islamist factions, most notably the Wahhabi. To think of linking Christians – even the most fundamentalist of them – to the Taliban or any other similar Islamist group shows a deep and abiding ignorance on your part (it may be deliberate, as far as I know you’re a scholar of Islam, but you want to harrass Christianity so badly you are pretending to know none of this. Is that the case?) of the historical reality. It’s not about gay marriage, Gianna, it’s about survival of liberal Western values under the rule of Sharia. To support Islamism is to support the most reactionary, ultra-ultra-rightist force in the world today.
- A little factoid for y’all… Consider U.S. Southern Baptists, a Christian denomination regarded as so conservative many people mistakenly believe President Bush is one (in fact, he’s Methodist).
Well, guess what? You can be a southern Baptist church and have gay marriage! That’s right – you can go and start Bob’s Baptist Church N’ Bait Shoppe out on Rt. 12 and perform gay marriages every Sunday, base your sermon on that week’s “Queer Eye”, end every prayer with “Faaaaabulous!”, or whatever you like. Every Southern Baptist congregation is autonomous and can do as they please.
There’s not a damn thing the other Southern Baptists can do about it either, except grind their teeth (and maybe not invite you to the voluntary has-no-authority Southern Baptist Convention). They can’t force you to stop marrying gays or claim you’re not a Baptist church because you do. And they can’t use the government to do the same, either (not that any self-respecting Baptist church would try that).
Not quite as ultra-conservative as you’d expect, huh? Fun fact.
- Latest rule: the Muslims are contemplating a fatwa stating whether one should keep the clothes on while having sex or whether having sex under a blanket would suffice. Good thinking: they could surely save a lot of time by not having to take clothes off and on all the time!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,,1688285,00.html
- Gianna: “Math is hard.”Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 01 17 at 04:32 PM • permalink
- GIanna also ignores the fact that gay rights have gradually been improving in western countries over the past thirty years. We have not got to the stage of gay marriage yet but I’d be suprised if some form of civil union is not developed in the next few years ( even with evil Howard in power). Whether this is called marriage or not is purely a semantic issue.
You know someone’s argument is thin when they keep returning to the same one example as proof of their position. Gianna can only come up with gay marriage as anything even close to religious rules in australia today. Despite the supposed fanatical christian leaders we have, abortion is still available, shops can open on sundays, there is no law against homosexuality and divorce laws are on a no-fault basis.
Seems like Gianna had a reactionary moment against the argument that Islam might be different in the extent of its rules and then desperately cast around looking for examples to show we are no better. She found one and will repeat it ad nauseum.
- I propose an extension of Godwin’s Law whereby you lose an argument the moment you bring up conservative Christians as a comparison.
Right, they’re just Nazis anyway.
/leftybat
More on-topic, this Gianna is just a generic dumb person, no? Count her in with the immature sleepwalkers. Somebody above had the right thought – I’d be more interested in Gianna’s defense of Islam after her mandatory cliterectomy.
- We probably need a Fatwa on this.Posted by WeekByWeek on 2006 01 17 at 06:35 PM • permalink
- #15 – no-one had mentioned Margo, but Gianna has webdiary listed under “news, etc.” on her blog. One might call webdiary many things, but news it certainly ain’t.Posted by Bilious Young Fogey on 2006 01 17 at 06:43 PM • permalink
- I hope she was listening to Radio National this morning as Stephen Crittenden sighed and whispered and whined and banged on about some trans gender guy who went to Holland to marry as a same sex couple and whose marriage was not recognized by Oz.
At least 15 mins Public money ticking away on the meter on this.Mucho crits of HOWARD gov and blameless Attorney General Phil-as usual.The abc and sbs and alp do not care how much damage they do AUSTRAYA as long as they hit the feds….
- Forgive me if it’s been covered earlier.
Christianity = two rules:
1. Love your neighbour as yourself
2. Love God with your heart, soul and mind
From Christianity’s founder.
Islam = rules to numerous to post.
Any questions Gianna, feel free to let me know.
— Nora
Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2006 01 17 at 07:28 PM • permalink
- Wow Tim you are definitely in your element here, no wonder the left HATE the “new media” so much. Congratulations on being such an irritant to them!!
Take Iran for example. Women, ALL WOMEN have to sit at the back of the bus! Girls as young as nine (YES NINE!) are regarded as adults and can be forced to marry MEN!
I’m sure all the other impositions Islam demands of its women are well known by now.
- Pogue — That’s a waste of a good Captain. They can soak up a lot of shrapnel if you push ‘em so’s they’s leadin’ from the front.Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 01 17 at 08:22 PM • permalink
- #15, antony27
With regards to the inter-species thing. If you want a good chuckle and can access the Spectator’s archives then I strongly recommend the following:
Animal lovers
Life, liberty and the pursuit of …brute creatures.
Mark Steyn reports on the Americans who want equal rights for bestiality.I have no idea of the date, but it is not recent.
- Does Gianna’s husband know she’s posting this stuff? Did he give his permission?Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 01 17 at 09:35 PM • permalink
- Upon reading the link Tim gave to the Sunday Times piece, I was given to wonder what these folks were thinking. Many of the things extolled by these converts as virtues peculiar to Islam are present in Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Christianity.
No, there has to be something else these folks are seeking. Islam has nothing to offer than cannot be found in the other major religions except bowing five times a day towards Mecca and believing that Muhammed is the last, great Prophet, and scriptural justification for mutilation, torture, murder…and…rape. Of course! That must be it. It must be a cellular nostalgia for earlier times. How about this: Caliphate Days! A week long celebration – in period costume – with real decapitations, gang rapes, stonings and mutilations. Or a Judge Judy-type of show – Mullah Justice, with an Imam issuing fatwas for beard length violations. Or American Idolator, where the Faithful go about finding people who worship stones and dance at the solstice, or practice runes, or pray to statues of the Buddha. Then they kidnap them and behead them, on TV!
Oh, wait a minute. We already have that.
- If those poor boys like Bilal Skaf had’ve only committed their gang rapes under shar’ia rather than the repressive ogre of western law, they’d be free as birds, and their “victims” would’ve gotten their just desserts, the shameless hussies.
I always thought Gianna was a bit of a dill, but this would appear to show she’s dumb enough for a career in politics- perhaps the Democrats have an opening.
- #55
Having been dragged up as a Methodist (now Uniting Church), the last thing I’d be doing http://www.askaminister.com (not a link) and asking about how I should go to the toilet, when I should have sex, what I should name my children, etc live my life.
And I am pretty sure that the Uniting Church doesn’t have any honour killings.
There’s rules and there’s rules.Oh, and even though I am a heathen proddy by birth and upbringing, I am not a ‘churchy’ person. Just live and let live mostly.
- Remember what the Saudi ladies say: “Does this dress make me look fatwa’d?”Posted by Paul Zrimsek on 2006 01 17 at 10:08 PM • permalink
- By Gianna’s own moral equivalancy, she should have been buried up to her neck and pelted with gonnies for her obvious shameless and brazen adultery under Islam, much like her punishment under Western Christianity. Except she gets paid by taxpayers, and only gets stoned when some local hippy pops around with some Nimbin ditch weed.
- Let’s talk about DOUBLE STANDARDS.
When the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took to the podium at the United Nations a few months ago, he spent the first few minutes of his address praying for the second coming of some long-dead Imam! However this didn’t even rate a mention on the news, certainly NOT the ABC. Now can you imagine if President Bush did the same thing??? Can you imagine the media-storm that would result, especially on the ABC, SBS, SMH and The AGE???
When it ain’t Christian, apparently it’s okay!
- #64- Are the taxpayers still picking up the tab for Gianna’s illegitimate baby? A bit of Muslim social enforcement would have saved everyone a bit of cash. Hard to collect benefits when you’ve been stoned to death for sluttish carelessness.
Phranger- ouch, that’s harsh and uncalled for. Be civil to the lefty calling for ‘death to the western world.’ calling for a Ghandi approach to dealing with Islamic terrorists.
#67- Fogey. ‘Margo’ and ‘news’ in the same sentence is worse than Gianna’s ‘contents of undies’ and ‘laughable’ combination.
#72- Hamish- clean silk boxers (or just fold them inside out).
#85- Melanie- thanks for the link.
- A few years ago I posted a round-up of some sad little rules of Islam, from an online ask-an-imam. They are collected and linked in this old LGF comment.Posted by The Sanity Inspector on 2006 01 17 at 11:26 PM • permalink
- Sorry to over-post, but…
Melanie, Lemmy. I just read the link:
Anyway, three days after Miss Whipple was killed, Knoller and Noel decided to adopt Cornfed as their son, telling reporters that while he may be a convicted thief and attempted murderer ‘at least he’s not a Republican’.
‘At least he’s not a Republican’? That’s whats wrong with the left. At least Stalin isn’t not a Republican, at least Castro isn’t a Republican… Some people just need a good clip under the ear.
Oh, and Singer is an idiot. It’s not even worth engaging with the ‘issues’ he raises. The guy is a freak and I hope he gets eaten by a pack of lions.
- Not just as homophobic, Gianna; far more homophobic….many Islamic clerics believe homosexuals should not only be prevented from marrying, but that they should be killed. I know; this seems “ludicrous to outsiders”. Imagine how it seems to homosexuals or adulterers or rape victims who are murdered in Islamic states. Imagine how it seems to people in Australia threatened by the same vicious message
oh, come on. you did not mention a rule about stoning, amputating and killing gays in your original post. you were making fun of a Muslim’s many apparently trivial rules about daily life. so i mentioned that we too have some rules that seem stupid and I related it to the one I’d like to see changed.
now you imply that I am equating our Government’s stance on homosexuality to that of extremist Islamists. well, that’s obviously ridiculous. of course I don’t think our Government is “as bad as” one that would have a rule to kill gays. who would?
the reason I drew your attention to this issue–on the subject of petty rules, Tim–is that we live in Australia. i am pretty powerless to change foreign Islamic societies, whereas as a voting citizen of Australia, I have at least some miniscule avenue of effecting change here in my own country.
- Gianna, dear, I believe you are back pedalling on the basis of many of the insightful and learned comments here.
— Nora
Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2006 01 18 at 12:38 AM • permalink
- #95
Phranger, you are so far behind the times.Welfare payments are direct debited these days.
— Nora
Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2006 01 18 at 12:40 AM • permalink
- Reading between the lines of Gianna’s postings & comments, it is clear that she has little (if any) first hand exposure to islamd.Posted by Steve at the pub on 2006 01 18 at 12:58 AM • permalink
- #94 – Gianna finally understands why her original post was so dumb.Posted by Bilious Young Fogey on 2006 01 18 at 01:03 AM • permalink
- Phranger, if you don’t quit it, I’ll ban you. You’re adding nothing interesting to the argument by dragging it down to the level of personal insult, and you’re making the rest of us look bad, and incidentally giving Gianna a lift up, since she can now say to her pals “see how horrible those conservatives are over at Tim’s, they attacked my child!” The actual subject—that she’s being an utter fool on the subject of obsessive-compulsive Muslim rules—will be totally lost. Though perhaps I am naive in presuming you actually care about that subject, as opposed to bragging about how your offspring never benefitted from government largess, which I am finding hard to believe unless you raised them on a desert island.Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 01 18 at 01:29 AM • permalink
- Being the child of unwed parents, I’m not going to call any kid a bastard because it’s a bullshit term.
Gianna’s original view reminds me of socialists who talk about the wonders of their “faith” while living in a modern democracy.
Posted by Major Anya on 2006 01 18 at 01:35 AM • permalink
- Let’s just assume for the moment that Gianna is a woman. She clearly has a view that her duty as a leftie is more important than the rights of women in in Islamic society. The next question is: Is Gianna a lone idiot or does she represent a mainstream feminine worldview?
I am beginning to suspect that the support for Bush and Howard may come partly from a lot of women who do not support Islam and would like a tough confrontation to be maintained.
- Gianna,
I can’t believe you returned here just to back away from your own comments. I haven’t read your work as I am an American and we Iraqi-killing barbarians don’t normally read (we think it effeminate), but I did read what you wrote in the linked-to articles. Gianna, you don’t have the courage of your own convictions. There are imams in Australia preaching hate, preaching the spread of Sharia in Oz. Where is your anger? Where is your righteous indignation?
Did it ever occur to you that your moral equivalency could have dire consequences? Does the desire of Islamics to completely destroy Western society not alarm you? Would it alarm you if Pat Robertson came over there and preached the spread of Jesus Christ’s rule over Australia? I dare say, Gianna, you would attack him with both barrels, and his rule would be a good sight easier to take (they would probably just paint a red “H” on the clothing of gays and let them go their merry way). Have you said one negative thing against hate-preaching imams in Oz? That is without then seguing into a morally equivalent argument which brought in Western governments and began icing them for disallowing gay marriage. Grow a pair, Gianna.
- As yet another one of those single mother hags, I’m glad someone told Phranger to pull his head in. A person’s marital status or lack thereof is irrelevant to the subject at hand.
Getting back to it (#94), Gianna, while I agree that we can’t change policy in Islamic countries, the thing to remember is that we aren’t Islamic, yet there is a growing population (via immigration, breeding and conversion) who are quite happy to use our democratic system to vote us back to the 7th century.
And then, of course, get rid of the vote and forcibly convert us. Or kill us.
Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2006 01 18 at 02:32 AM • permalink
- I appear to have been entirely correct about “deliberately obtuse”. That has got to be the most determined attempt at completely missing the point I’ve seen in a long time.Posted by Spiny Norman on 2006 01 18 at 02:35 AM • permalink
- Gianna wrote:
the reason I drew your attention to this issue–on the subject of petty rules, Tim–is that we live in Australia. i am pretty powerless to change foreign Islamic societies, whereas as a voting citizen of Australia, I have at least some miniscule avenue of effecting change here in my own country.
So why mention Bush?
- Gianna is symptomatic:
To leftists, other cultures are merely fantasy projections of the utopias they dream of imposing on the rest of us.
The point is always our corrupt society. Other cultures exist to demonstrate that we are diseased at root. Any concern about them is necessarily hypocritical and most likely racist. If Islamists hate us it must be because we are hateful.
We have no right to think ourselves better than ‘them’.
In the world of cultural and moral relativity the intention is not so much to teach students about other times and places as to make them aware of the fact that their preferences are only that – accidents of their time and place. Their beliefs do not entitle them as individuals, or collectively, as a nation, to think they are superior to anyone else.
The true believer is the real danger. The study of history and culture teaches that all the world was mad in the past; men always thought they were right, and that led to wars, persecutions, slavery, xenophobia, racism and chauvinism. The point is not to correct the mistakes and really be right; rather it is not to think you are right at all.
Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind
Actually Gianna does have a position: the annihilation of any ‘rules’ (not to be read as ‘traditions’ or ‘customs’ – those words are reserved for indigenous fantasy utopias) which might constrain the freedom of affluent bohemians to do as they please. To achieve that one must knock down any claims to moral or political knowledge which stand in the way, especially those of religion.
Even human rights have been turned into ‘Western constructs’ and we begin to make excuses for fascists because in making a case for freedom, we have destroyed the basis of arguments for it.
- Fairly recent news article…
U.A.E. gay arrests.
Dubai:More than two dozen gay Arab men,arrested at wht police called a mass homosexual wedding,could face gov ordered hormone treatments,five years in gaol and a lashing.
..and that’s probably considered a mild and enlightened punishmentin the Arab world.If they were female on the other hand,who knows?
- Despite my conservative points of view, I support homosexual marriages- but only if they impose the same penalties- alimony, property issues, as they do when couples divorce. In fact, I’d rather see the cancellation of the legal value of defacto relationships.Posted by Wylie Wilde on 2006 01 18 at 07:05 AM • permalink
- Well, after reading all the way down to here, I must say Blogstrop had it right all the way back up at #7
— Nick
Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2006 01 18 at 07:51 AM • permalink
- What people like Gianni, deny is the fact that the gay rights movement, manifested itself in the capitalist west, and in the U.S under Nixon for heavens sake.
the Left completely ignored the plight of gays in the Soviet union, Cuba and other places.
There is no state sponsored persecution of gays in the west,(opposing gay marriage is not persecution).
Here in Canada one so called “international gay organization” based in Ottawa, actually said that gays in Canada should put; more energy into Canada’s “persecution” of gays, before criticizing other countries,(unless of course it is the U.S). Apparently according to “ARC International:” gays in the west have overreacted to the persecution of gays in Iran, and we should give the Iranian authorities the benefit of doubt, and by attacking the Iranian authorities North American gays are attacking Islam, which apparently is the worse crime of all.Posted by Torontosteve on 2006 01 18 at 07:52 AM • permalink
- Gianna:
“take another look at the sentence you have lifted from my post”
Lifted? You seem to be trying to insinuate that Tim Blair quoted you dishonestly, but he did no such thing.
“some of which seem ludicrous to outsiders”
Yeah, some people won’t eat meat on Friday. Others have a long-obsolete, medieval rule for literally everything.
Some refuse to recognize gay marriage. Others kill gays…and dissidents, and blasphemers, and apostates, and infidels.
“i say it is not different from other religions”
The sheer number of rules makes Islam rather like a totalitarian political system.
“i note you are mocking Islam”
What’s wrong with a little mocking of morons?
“oh, come on. you did not mention a rule about stoning”
When most intelligent people read a comment about Islam’s obsessive rules, they immediately think of its rules on sex and belief…and its draconian punishments for deviation. When you complain that Tim Blair did not explicitly cite those facts you were being, to put it kindly, disingenuous.
“i am pretty powerless to change foreign Islamic societies”
“Progressives” have always been willing to protest what goes on in other countries…except when they actually don’t care.
And how about Muslims living in Australia? You could speak out against their stupid and evil beliefs and condemn how their culture creates young men who take pleasure in gang-raping “infidel” girls.
- “The issue is the blind reliance on rules as an excuse for not thinking and not taking personal responsibility.”
Good point. Muslims, of course, believe that the Koran saves us all from the need to think, and all that’s left is for us to be willing slaves of Allah. No thanks.
But I do believe that the sheer number of rules is a fair target: Islam is the obsessive control freak who moves in next door: He beats his wife and children when they don’t follow all his silly pointless rules, and there are reports that he killed a few people back in his home town. And now he’s showing a disturbing interest in you YOUR failure to follow his rules.
- Torontosteve (#113), I saw a great T-shirt in your home town the other day. It said: ‘I support Gay Marriage – as long as both the chicks are Hot!’Posted by AlphaMikeFoxtrot on 2006 01 19 at 05:24 AM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
Heterosexual people are free to marry someone of the opposite sex, just like every homosexual.
Currently, homosexuals can’t marry anyone of the same sex – but neither can a heterosexual.
Should the defintion of marriage be changed? Different question. Maybe. But it’s not as if this tradition all makes us raving fundamentalists.