|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Since Andrew Tate is back in the news, it may be a good idea to remember what is considered normative sexual behavior in Islam. Just another typical story from the United Kingdom.
Three brothers have gone on trial accused of grooming and sexually exploiting underage girls in Barrow-in-Furness.
The Miah brothers – Joman, 37; Amran, 47; and Alman, 46 – are originally from Beeston in Leeds, where Joman and Amran are also accused of indecently assaulting two girls from the age of six and seven.
One of the girls claimed Joman sexually assaulted her at least weekly at a mosque in Leeds, where he taught the Qur’an and she was his pupil. She was aged seven to nine at the time, and Joman was 17 to 19.
Opening the prosecution case on Friday, the barrister Tim Evans said the girl was picked up from school in her uniform each day by Joman. He would take her to Iesha’s, where they would have sex most days, either on the sofa or in a bed.
About five months into their relationship, Joman allegedly began taking her to have sex in a Barrow hotel, the Gables, sneaking her in late at night when no one was on reception. A witness to their relationship thought the girl was “head over heels in love with Saj”, the court heard.
This is why in India, they call it the ‘Love Jihad’, in the UK, it’s grooming, Andrew Tate has his own spin on it, but it’s fundamental to Islam in areas where they do not yet exercise full control.
A fourth woman, who accuses Amran (also known as Jai) of raping her, told police she saw “many young girls at the takeaway, some downstairs, some upstairs and others out the back”, Evans told the court.
She told detectives she challenged Joman about his inappropriate relationship with her friend. “He replied that he was doing nothing wrong and that in his religion a girl could marry an adult male from the age of nine,” Evans said.
That is Islamic. It’s the religious law and value system that Muslims are taught to abide by based on the most ‘perfect man’ who ever lived.
Pirates do not generate spiritual religions.
Pirates generate crime waves.
Only in Islam are they the same thing.
Yes, it’s Islamic, but more crucially it’s the moral code of altruism (which literally means “otherism”) in action.
Altruism demands mind-sacrifice, which means objectivity sacrifice, which means reality sacrifice. Altruism means that morality is not to be based on the objective facts of reality but on whatever an other consciousness, human or God, commands you to do, or says is moral to do, regardless of, or in contradiction to, the facts of reality.
For example, the story of Abraham. An other consciousness commands Abraham to sacrifice his son to him, Abraham obeys, then the other consciousness commands him not to sacrifice his son, Abraham obeys. According to altruist morality Abraham has acted with admirable and noble virtue. Because religious morality is altruist morality, obedience to an other consciousness, regardless of, or in contradiction to your own mind’s independent thinking about the facts of reality.
Religion prepared the ground for modern totalitarianism by indoctrinating the Western mind in three philosophical fundamentals, in metaphysics the worship of the supernatural (that which is beyond your mind to know or understand, God works in mysterious ways), in epistemology the reliance on faith (don’t rely on your reasoning mind because blind faith is superior to reason), and in ethics the reverence for altruism which is self-sacrifice, which means mind-sacrifice.
By indoctrinating an individual into believing that obedience to mysterious commands is the essence of virtue you can transfer that obedience from God to Hitler. The Lutherans were staunch supporters of Hitler.
“Ayn Rand – Why Altruism is Evil”
When one inquires the hour, one learns how to build a watch.
Or at least buy one.
I invested the time to listen.
Conclusion #1. Altruism is mistaken for kindness. It isn’t beneficence, at all. It is a mental affliction that compels destructive behaviour and leads to death by starvation.
[ FWIW, dictionaries of the vernacular do not approach this level of distinction. ]
Conclusion #2. The next time a pan handler importunes me for the price of a cup of coffee, I should do the right thing, beat him unconscious, and go through his pockets.
Or am I being too literal?
Your conclusion #2 is a most bizarre, thoroughly irrational, and thoroughly immoral, evil, conclusion. It has nothing to do with Ayn Rand’s argument against altruism and for rational self-interest.
But that’s what altruism is designed to do. It cripples and paralyzes an individual’s ability to identify, discover, formulate, and apply a rational code of ethics.
Altruism puts you in a moral trap, it gives you only two options, either sacrifice yourself to others or sacrifice others to yourself. As you altruistically assume, if you refuse a dime to a beggar, you must also beat him and rob him. Or to expose the unstated altruist premise, to deny a beggar a dime is tantamount to murder.
“By elevating the issue of helping others into the central and primary issue of ethics, altruism has destroyed the concept of any authentic benevolence or good will among men. It has indoctrinated men with the idea that to value another human being is an act of selflessness, thus implying that a man can have no personal interest in others—that to value another means to sacrifice oneself—that any love, respect or admiration a man may feel for others is not and cannot be a source of his own [self-interested] enjoyment, but is a threat to his existence, a sacrificial blank check signed over to his loved ones.
The men who accept that dichotomy but choose its other side, the ultimate products of altruism’s dehumanizing influence, are those psychopaths who do not challenge altruism’s basic premise, but proclaim their rebellion against self-sacrifice by announcing that they are totally indifferent to anything living and would not lift a finger to help a man or a dog left mangled by a hit-and-run driver (who is usually one of their own kind).” – Ayn Rand
Well, maybe not too literal. Coffee is expensive nowadays.
Child rape is not altruistic. WTF is your major malfunction?
Very disappointing.
I was hoping you could appear as witness for the defense in any future court appearances.
A persuasive tutorial should cause the magistrate to jump to his/her feet proclaiming “Hallelujah! Dismissed with prejudice!”, while the jury broke out in chorus with Amazing Grace.
The logical argument seemed that steel trap solid.
So, I’ll go with Plan B. Escape down a rope of knotted bed sheets.
Strange legal oddity, introducing Sharia Law by claiming Muslim behavior is OK because the Koran permits it.
The koran, hadith and sura also permit incest and necrophilia, as if pedophilia isn’t bad enough.
The Prophet lacked a proper dating app.
Yeah, goats and camels didn’t have apps back in the seventh century. Neither did nine year old girls.
Age nine for rape? It’s prophet pretender approved.