In his latest essay, our Israeli correspondent MC wades into the murky cultural waters where shariah advocates and social justice warriors converge.
The Hebrew ‘shalom’ is translated as ‘peace’, but that is not particularly accurate. It actually describes an ‘inner peace’, which comes with a personal relationship with the Creator, in this case Yahovah. ‘Peace’ is essentially a manmade thing (or not, as the case may be), but shalom comes through keeping the Commandments of Yah.
In this day and age this kind study of is considered to be ‘splitting hairs’, just as the difference between quoting a hadith about Mohammed’s sexual proclivities and accusing him of paedophilia is ‘splitting hairs’, since the one makes the other obvious.
The problem about a sex act with a 9-year-old is not so much the gross physical intrusion as the potential for damage to the child both physical and — especially — emotional. This is true particularly when considering the case of Mohammed, a religious icon whose every act is to be emulated by the faithful.
A 9-year-old is a child, and it thus vulnerable. Because a child is, by definition, not yet physically or emotionally mature, he or she cannot be considered able to give any kind of informed consent to a sex act. Any sex act.
Islam, being a male fantasy-oriented religion, takes no account of consent from either mature or immature women. On the other hand, the Judeo-Christian religions regard the woman as the ‘life-giver’, as the name Adam gave to Eve (Chava) implies. The woman is thus a pivotal player in the commandment to go forth and multiply, and we build our Western culture around the need to support this life-giver and her offspring — or rather we did until Roe vs. Wade.
Thus, because paedophilia is an intrinsic part of Islam, any judgement comes down to a matter of who can get away with offending whom. Muslims become violent when offended and start murdering people, but since Christians are mainly ‘white supremacists’ and need to be taught a lesson anyway… or so it seems to go these days. But just when did emotion and politicking creep into the modern law-making and its associated executive process?
So the recent European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) decision that to call Mohammed a paedophile is ‘hate speech’ is fraught with implications. In itself, the idea behind ‘hate’ speech is to provide a means to demonize free speech. Bur free speech is only really proven to be free when somebody is offended by it. So just how do we define hate speech in a ‘free speech’ context, if the two are so mutually incompatible?
Is it when free speech causes harm, as in falsely shouting FIRE in a crowded cinema?
To tip the scales of justice, the difference between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ must be clearly delineated, and must be able to be applied in all circumstances to all people, both equally, and across the board.
Do Muslims have an existential problem with paedophilia? Does the rest of society therefore have to give way to these Muslim sensitivities? Is there therefore a different law for Muslims — ‘Yes’, ‘Yes’ and ‘Yes’, it would appear.