The Brutality Of Islamic Culture (Though Mohammed Did Say To Wait Till Children Are Age 10 To Beat Them)
Children being beaten, ages 4, 5, 6.
Watch through for the man to give a tiny girl in pink a brutal little beating. Other adults are present, watching, including a woman with just her eyes peeking out from her burka. Sick.
Here's the story -- from back in 2011.
Here's another. Brutal and awful. And then he has them hit each other. Sick that an adult is leading this.
A commenter on an Islamic website writes about the practice of beating children to get them to memorize the Quran:
In the Name of Allah the Most Gracious The Most Merciful and peace and blessings be upon the Final Messenger to mankind MuhammadI have to adress an evil practice that has become widespread around the islamic world, and strangely enough accepted by the general masses, inspite of all the evil consequences that result because of it: Hitting children so they can memorize the Quran better, or read properly.
Here's a Hadith and some commentary about this:
Almost everyone knows the Hadeeth (narration) in which the Prophet, sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allah exalt his mention ), said: "Order your children to perform prayer when they are seven years old and beat them (for neglecting it) when they are ten."[Al-Albaani: Hasan]The Prophet, sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allah exalt his mention ), did not order beating children who neglect prayers before the age of ten, though, he ordered the parent to command his children to perform the prayers when they are seven. This means that there are three years left between the two stages. The Prophet, sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allah exalt his mention ), delayed using beating for three years and only allowed the parent to verbally direct and discipline during this period. He considered the negative consequences of beating that should be avoided by those who assume the upbringing of children.
If the parent keeps ordering his child to perform the prayers for three years and the child keeps refusing, this means that he is stubborn and therefore he deserves beating.
But 10, 7, what's the diff?
This Muslim mother beat her 7-year-old child to death for not memorizing the Quran.
More from a Muslim woman who says beatings for Muslim children are common -- especially if they dare to question Islam.
And in case you haven't had enough horror, here are the forced child brides -- with grown Muslim men emulating their "prophet," doing as Mohammed did and forcing children into sex slavery.
Oh, first to post. Please note that the following opinion is not my own - it's that of Conan the Grammarian, who, according to prior logic (which I shall provide) would definitely think that the government should not step in to prevent the practice of beating up children to force them to memorize religious text - at least in the USA.
Here's Conan (from a December 30 post):
"In short, I think we enter dangerous territory when we allow the government to circumvent religious beliefs ..... History has shown us that when government becomes religion (by endorsing one religion or eliminating all of them), tyranny ensues. Politics and religion don't mix - and not just at cocktail parties.
The problem is that too many people casually dismiss religious beliefs because they conflict with their own beliefs. They claim authority for the government to over-ride stated religious beliefs of individuals. We enter dangerous territory when we allow a government official to dismiss or over-ride the closely-held beliefs of people just because they're not like us or don't believe the same way we do."
factsarefacts at January 5, 2016 3:09 AM
"The problem is that too many people casually dismiss religious beliefs because they conflict with their own beliefs."
"They claim authority for the government to over-ride stated religious beliefs of individuals."
"We enter dangerous territory when we allow a government official to dismiss or over-ride the closely-held beliefs of people just because they're not like us or don't believe the same way we do."
All of the above statements are true and caution is always needed when asking a government or a person to apply a hammer to a problem.
What's your point faf other than taking a poke at someone.
Not allowing kids to play in parks w/o their parents present, withholding medical treatment because "prayer" should heal, child brides (for a while here in Texas), and so on are recent topics here in the USA so obviously GOVERNMENT stepping in is both a good and a bad thing and 'be careful what you wish for'.
Bob in Texas at January 5, 2016 4:03 AM
Hey Bob in Texas:
You wrote: "Not allowing kids to play in parks w/o their parents present, withholding medical treatment because "prayer" should heal, child brides (for a while here in Texas), and so on are recent topics here in the USA so obviously GOVERNMENT stepping in is both a good and a bad thing and 'be careful what you wish for'."
I like that you acknowledged that it government interference into religious matters is both a good and a bad thing. It is extraordinarily subjective - and inevitable. So, what are the legal criteria when the government should step in to interfere with the "deeply held religious beliefs" of an individual or group? Inevitably, the government is the decision-maker. Because these deciders (legislators, judges) are people, with their own religious beliefs (I'm including atheism here) and their own agendas, is it possible that many of them will exhibit bias because of those beliefs. [The truth is, as human beings, we all exhibit bias to some extent - even if we take an oath not to.]
For example, this blog post is about a religious practice (exercised by some Muslims) involving beating children in order to get them to memorize the Quran. It wasn't that long ago (and it may still be going on in some places) that Catholic schools were engaged in similar practices that involved physical violence against children. One practice may receive censure by the government (and the other may get away with it), based solely on (a) the decision of one judge, who may be greatly affected by his religion (like, if he's a Catholic, or Christian, he may be more inclined to use the "government can't interfere with religious beliefs" stance to let the Catholic school get away with it) or (b) a majority of legislators (who are Christian) and who are motivated, in part, by trying to appeal to the majority of their constituents (who happen to be Christian).
Here is my point "other than taking a poke at someone."
On December 30, Amy blogged about a case about a lesbian couple in Oregon who were awarded $135K after a bakery refused to make them a cake to make a case for the libertarian position that private businesses should be able to discriminate against any customer they want for any reason. Some posters (including Ben and Conan) elected to focus specifically on the case, which is fine. I found it disturbing that they were willing to lie about the facts of the case in order to disparage the lesbians - for example, Ben stated that the lesbians and the bakers were friends (which was not reflected in the "findings of fact" in the ruling) and Conan eagerly jumped on that statement to paint the lesbians as horrible, selfish people. Conan stated that the bakers weren't motivated by bias against homosexuals, but by their "deeply held religious beliefs" solely against gay marriage; I disagreed because the ruling included a "finding of fact" that one of the bakers told the mother of one of the lesbians that her gay children were abominations. I could go on and on (like I'm doing now, LOL), but I think you get the gist.
Why do you think Ben and Conan were willing to lie, distort facts, portray the lesbians as horrible, selfish people (without bothering to read the ruling and learning the facts of the case)? Because if they had, they may have learned that one of the reasons why the "award" was so high was because the bakers published the lesbians' contact information, which led to those "eggshell" lesbians getting death threats, which led to a great deal of stress because the lesbians were in the process of trying to adopt their 2 special-needs foster children and the adoption agency stated that the adoption may not be granted if they couldn't guarantee the children's safety. [The lesbians are people with good and bad traits; but based on the facts I listed above, I think it could be argued that these lesbians aren't always horrible and selfish people.]
I can engage in distortion as well. I took Conan's exact words from one blog posting and presented them here. And, voila, I portrayed Conan as someone who is in favor of Muslims beating their children all in the name of "deeply held religious beliefs" - regardless of whether it's the truth or not. I did the same thing to Ben in another of Amy's posts. [Distortion isn't nice - is it?]
So based on what I've written, I'll let you make your own conclusions about what my point is?
factsarefacts at January 5, 2016 6:25 AM
I'll let Charles Napier have the last word:
I R A Darth Aggie at January 5, 2016 6:50 AM
I can engage in distortion as well.
So, you intentionally engage in distortion? There are words for that.
Liar. Deceiver. Fraud.
I R A Darth Aggie at January 5, 2016 6:52 AM
factsarefacts, nice try at defaming someone. Anyone who has read what Conan has been posting here over the years knows that you took him grossly out of context. There is no way you can twist that statement into saying that he approves of Islamic-inspired child beatings. And if you think you've caught him in a gotcha trap, there's a very simple resolution: Islam is not just a religion, it's a complete totalitarian system. As such, it is fundamentally in conflict with both the U.S. Constitution and Western values in general. There is widespread agreement across the political spectrum in America that child beatings are bad, m'kay? Nobody of any Western belief system is going to allow a religious exemption for it, regardless of which religion is claiming it. On the other hand, note that Islam seeks to do exactly what Conan warns about -- become a theocratic government.
You are such a stereotypical leftists. You assert right in your screen name that what you say is true simply because you are the one saying it. You have asserted, in this post and others, that anyone who disagrees with your opinions is evil and/or mentally deranged. Contrary to what you call yourself, you have demonstrated with your words that "winning" the argument is far more important to you than finding the truth is. Leftism is the politics of narcissism, and judging by what you've written here, you are a perfect example.
Cousin Dave at January 5, 2016 6:57 AM
far:
"Here is my point "other than taking a poke at someone." On December 30, Amy blogged about a case about a lesbian couple in Oregon ..."
Topic of THIS post:
"The Brutality Of Islamic Culture (Though Mohammed Did Say To Wait Till Children Are Age 10 To Beat Them)"
FAR, your topic is off topic so your post is a rant targeting a specific individual.
Not for me to say "get w/the program" but others including a pirate might make you walk the plank.
Bob in Texas at January 5, 2016 7:06 AM
S.E. Asians do that too. The difference though is that the kids get a whipping for not excelling in school.
There's no better incentive into learning long divisions like being hit on the back with a piece of electrical wire.
Sixclaws at January 5, 2016 8:24 AM
FactsAreFacts,
Are you an alt for Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers?
Ben at January 5, 2016 9:09 AM
Hey, I admitted that I was engaging in distortion (and, I was doing so to make a point - not to remotely convince anyone on this board that Conan really thinks beating the crap out of Muslim children is OK). Feel free to call me a liar, a deceiver, a fraud. I'm not bothered - well, a little bit, because I do hope that you guys would appreciate IRONY. LOL
And, am I engaging in defamation, or, distortion? All I did was copy someone's words, and based on those words, was able to draw a conclusion about how that person feels on a "different" subject matter using the same logic. I did so - admittedly - to make a point.
I disagree with you "Bob in Texas". There are parallels between this blog entry and Amy's previous blog entry re: the bakers' discriminating against lesbians over a wedding cake. It involves governmental prohibitions against certain actions, that some people justify based on their religious beliefs.
What I do find fascinating are Cousin Dave's assertions.
He wrote: "You are such a stereotypical leftists."
Cousin Dave, please support your opinion that I'm a "stereotypical leftist". Please define what you think a "stereotypical leftist" is (because I don't really know what one is). And, feel free to use any and all language that I've used to back up your claim. I mean, you don't know my opinions on a variety of topics, from affirmative action, abortion, the death penalty, etc. So, in other words, perhaps you are just as guilty as I am in engaging in distortion in order to suit your own agenda -- but, I do want to point out, that I have freely admitting that I was engaging in distortion to prove a point.
I disagree with your assertion about my name signifying that "what [I] say is true simply because [I am] the one saying it." I take great care (and, unfortunately, am not always successful) to distinguish between what is fact, and what is opinion - I think you'd be able to tell that if you go back and read my entries in the December 30th blog post (where, I would use words like hypothesis, maybe, perhaps - to signify that something wasn't a definitive fact; I also freely admitted that I didn't know things; and I even admitted that I made a couple of factual errors, and upon discovery, apologized and made the effort to correct them. I also did quite a lot of original research to provide more facts so the participants in the discussion could use them to formulate their opinions. And, certainly, we (and, I am definitely including myself in this category) can all cherry pick "facts" in order to justify our opinions. My name is a reflection of the importance I place on obtaining all the facts (which, in reality, is not always possible) in order to make fair judgments.
Cousin Dave, you stated, with respect to me, "You have asserted, in this post and others, that anyone who disagrees with your opinions is evil and/or mentally deranged." Really? Please point that out for me and the rest of the board. You can't - because it's a lie. So, IRA Darth - just out of curiosity, would you be willing to lob the words "liar", "deceiver" or "fraud" against Cousin Dave? -- because I might agree with you there.
You also wrote: "you have demonstrated with your words that "winning" the argument is far more important to you than finding the truth is." That is your opinion - and you are most certainly entitled to it. From my point of view, I can hardly be deemed to try to win any argument when I've flat out admitted that I was engaging in deliberate distortion.
factsarefacts at January 5, 2016 9:12 AM
Oh, hey Ben.
You wrote: "Are you an alt for Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers?"
To be honest, I don't know that means. I'm assuming it's a joke. Would you care to explain it?
And, hey, I'm still waiting for you to provide factual evidence that the lesbians and bakers were friends? Something, like a link to an article? I mean, because Conan relied heavily on your assertion in order to justify his opinion that the lesbians were fairly horrible, selfish people.
factsarefacts at January 5, 2016 9:18 AM
Oh, hey Ben.
You wrote: "Are you an alt for Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers?"
To be honest, I don't know that means. I'm assuming it's a joke. Would you care to explain it?
And, hey, I'm still waiting for you to provide factual evidence that the lesbians and bakers were friends? Something, like a link to an article? I mean, because Conan relied heavily on your assertion in order to justify his opinion that the lesbians were fairly horrible, selfish people.
factsarefacts at January 5, 2016 9:19 AM
"So based on what I've written, I'll let you make your own conclusions about what my point is? "
Dude, it seems that your widdle feelings were hurt and now you're trying to make the "bad" guys pay. And you're coming off as a creepy obsessed, stalker troll. Why don't you get off the cross and use the wood to build a bride and get over it?
Matt at January 5, 2016 9:24 AM
And you're coming off as a creepy obsessed, stalker troll.
Yes, that is one of my intentions.
factsarefacts at January 5, 2016 9:42 AM
FAR:
Are you the Energizer Bunny?
Plus if you would use LESS words and 'talk' SLOWER us 'less-enlightened' might CARE.
You are making my point for me by being so anal retentive. It was a fricking cake for pete's sake. Grow some balls and go somewhere else and spend your money. It's not like #BLM or anything important. (Maybe there's some room in the Federal Bldg in Oregon if you guys are that upset about a CAKE.)
As far as your post being on topic, well it did take place on Mother Earth so ...
Bob in Texas at January 5, 2016 9:54 AM
Wow. I'm the one here who can't stand children — and this story enrages me, makes me want to vomit, actually made me weepy. How anyone could treat a child in such a fashion is so far beyond my ken I'll never understand it.
I don't know how anyone could watch this and find it only material for bickering, but most of y'all seem to have done it.
Kevin at January 5, 2016 10:10 AM
Hey Bob, you have a point about it being a cake. But, the facts of case also involved death threats lobbed against the lesbians, which can be interpreted as, I'll use Matt's language, "creepy, obsessed, stalkerish."
We're all different. But, I can understand how the lesbians suffered stress, not just over the cake - but the death threats and the potential derailment of the adoption of their children. It is, to put it mildly, uncomfortable to feel like you're being stalked or harassed. I admitted yesterday, in a separate post, that I was trolling - and I was trolling Ben and Conan (who were very dismissive of, or willfully ignorant of this element of the case). Such creepy, stalkerish behavior even makes those on the periphery (such as yourself and other posters - or the foster children of those lesbians) uncomfortable and unnerved.
Sometimes you can talk until you're blue in the face. You can be more succinct, or you can continually provide examples - and, sometimes it doesn't work. Or, you can behave like an a**hole to try and get your targets to feel like how those lesbians felt - just a little bit - and, maybe hope that (i) they'll have a little more empathy, (ii) they'll have a little more desire to obtain the facts of a case (from all sides involved) before coming up with harsh conclusions (like the lesbians are horrible and selfish people), (iii) they'll think twice before deliberately lying or distorting facts or cherry-picking them in order to sway opinion to their side (because, you never know, an anal-retentive, psycho troller could get on your case and call you up on it, LOL); or (iv) that (and this is point that I had made to Conan) a case about a stupid wedding cake can act as precedent for future legal and societal battles over things that can be considered far more "essential" than cake.
Listen, I am not bothered about people not agreeing with my opinions (particularly over a gay wedding cake) - especially if they can back up their opinions with facts (which, I think, is an awesome skill). My own opinions are often based on errors in fact - and I appreciate it greatly when people take the time to correct my factual mistakes or provide me with additional facts. You can probably tell by my previous paragraph what's been bothering me.
factsarefacts at January 5, 2016 10:46 AM
Oops, sorry Bob. Just adding "engaging in distortion" as another item. It isn't nice.
factsarefacts at January 5, 2016 10:55 AM
Muslims follow a violent system, some erroneously call a religion.
Methinks factsarefacts is a sock-puppet. Dude came out of nowhere.
Dave B at January 5, 2016 10:58 AM
Nice try. But since I haven't weighed in with an opinion on this subject, that's not my opinion, it's yours.
Or more to the point, it's you engaging in what I find to be one of the most distasteful practices of leftists, that of taking one sentence from someone and pigeon-holing them into a category - e.g., "he's a racist because he said/wrote something against affirmative action." Straight out of the Saul Alinsky handbook for character-assassinating those who don't share your opinion..
IF you meet any opposition in your character assassination, you innocently claim you're only trying to understand the other person's position. You're not. You're trying to destroy the other person because they've beaten your argument like a Muslim child.
No, you used someone's words to defame them, to paint them as approving of child beating.
The subject on which I said we "enter dangerous territory" in letting the government have a say in our inner lives involved involuntary association, that is someone being forced to take part in a ceremony that violated their religion, not someone going home to beat their children for not studying a religious text.
In that same post, I also asserted that religious freedom has bounds (as do many other of our freedoms), including, and I quote, "no child abuse."
By the way, you also posted "Yes, I agree with you...." in response to my comment. Thus, I conclude that you approve of child beating. Not my words, yours.
Conan the Grammarian at January 5, 2016 12:04 PM
And thanks, Cousin Dave, Matt, and Bob in Texas, for the defense.
Conan the Grammarian at January 5, 2016 12:05 PM
You also promised in your last post on that thread that it was "Just my final 2 cents on this matter."
Apparently not.
Conan the Grammarian at January 5, 2016 12:13 PM
As far as beating your children for not studying their prayers, this was written probably in the late 600s, when the hadiths were gathered into a book.
Our views on beating a child have changed over the years. The Bible even admonishes us not to "spare the rod," which we accept today as a metaphor for discipline, not violence - though literal interpretations in the past have lead to corporal punishment in schools and spanking at home, over which we're having heated debates today.
Many sects of Islam today insist on a literal interpretation not only of the Qu'ran but of the hadiths as well. ISIS cherry picks hadiths to justify its violence, even ones that most Islamic scholars have concluded are falsely attributed to Mohammed.
It would have been better if the compilers of this particular hadith had used the word discipline or spank instead of beat, but society will interpret whatever word it hears in a way the confirms its own prejudices.
Conan the Grammarian at January 5, 2016 12:22 PM
factsarefacts, while this quote tangentially connects to this post you've been having this argument across several unrelated posts
Now as the regulars here know, I can really hold a grudge, but the trick is to use it only as appropriate to the post at hand.
I figure your in the ball park on this one but you werent on the Soviet grocery thing.
Also keep in mind you can keep posting on old threads
One poster and I went back and forth for I want to say a week or two, I'll have see if I can find that link
lujlp at January 5, 2016 1:59 PM
Well that went downhill fast.
NicoleK at January 6, 2016 4:18 AM
Leave a comment