Saturday, December 18, 2010

The "Scientific" Laws of Islam

Reference: Iingam, Rama. Iddat, a Scientific Concept in the Islamic Law to Identify the Paternity. Downloaded 18 December 2010.

Something surprised me while I looked at writing samples from a web site that pays writers for short articles. The article is Iddat, a Scientific Concept in the Islamic Law to Identify the Paternity. The web site identifies writer Rama Iingam as its #4 expert in Divorce and Family Law.

The writer wishes to convince readers that many of [Muslim Law's] concepts are logical, reasonable and above all... scientifically based and have withstood the test of time.

Before we proceed, we need to define Iddat:

Iddat is quite scientific and it is helpful to identify the paternity of a child. Iddat is nothing but a period of probation a Muslim woman has to undergo immediately after she was divorced by her husband or on his death.

By probation, he means isolation. The law prevents confusion over paternity by ensuring that no child is conceived immediately after divorce or after the death of a husband. Here's the interesting part:

When a Muslim wife below the age of 8 who is under the menopause stage, even if her marriage is consummated, she need not undergo Iddat, when she is divorced or when her husband died.

How many 8-year-olds have undergone menopause? Hopefully, the author meant 'puberty;' so we will let that slide.

I admire Rama Iingam's courage to expose Islam's allowance for consummation of pre-pubescent marriage. Or, I am thankful for his naive exposure of a law, Iddat, that should be spelled Idiot.

What kind of culture condones consummation of marriage to a little girl who is only seven years old, or even younger? Muslims get quite worked up over others' sacrilege toward their false god. Perhaps they should concern themselves more with the blasphemy that is Islam.

Monday, December 13, 2010


Blanket, unqualified condemnation of censorship promotes verbal and visual anarchy. 

Anarchy can work only in a society of perfect people. 

I have yet to learn of any such culture.

Sunday, December 05, 2010

Artsy-Fartsies Upset over "Censorship"


Recap: One (1) display that displays intolerance toward the religious beliefs of many Americans gets pulled from a Smithsonian exihibit full of (debatably) pornographic displays; and we are supposed to feel threatened by this "censorship."

What does the above have to do with the Grant Applications and Philanthropic Revenue Streams LinkedIn forum on which it was posted? Let me rescue the author. If public reaction surprised the partnership -- that is, assuming the grant makers, the artists, and the Smithsonian did not intentionally bait the public -- the story illustrates a grant partnership that failed to recognize the environmental constraints of the project, undoubtedly due to the artistic fringe's insensitivity to, or disrespect for, the public.

Is this childishness hypocrisy or just faux indignation? Grown-up people get censored every day to protect the feelings of the Left. For example, I cannot fully expressing my opinion about the display's iconoclasm (to put it euphemistically) because it could cost me future employment. Do the artsy-fartsies think they have been censored? Awww, poor babies!

Is it "censorship" to refuse to force taxpayers to fund a venue for propagandists who have many alternate venues? Would it be "censorship" not to facilitate the violation of community standards of decency? Is it "censorship" to stop facilitating propaganda hostile to many citizens and to their religion?

If this is censorship, then at least some censorship is good.