freecounterpoint: Harvard Law prof praising Sharia Law

Monday, March 31, 2008

Harvard Law prof praising Sharia Law

4 comments:

My Frontier Thesis said...: Britain has no constitutional separation of church and state.

First off, get T.J. over there to draft one of those nifty Declarations. Then send Professor Noah to live under this wonderful Sharia law in Saudi Arabia; or better yet, Somalia. Doesn't Noah read Ayaan Hirsi Ali? (rhetorical question); 3/31/2008 1:50 AM
Arelcao Akleos said...: It helps a Harvard Professor maintain such gibberish with a straight face if he doesn't know an application of Sharia from his Sonny & Cher.
The uses of eyes wide shut are manifold.; 3/31/2008 7:12 PM
My Frontier Thesis said...: I guess that's how you keep a horse's brain in-line too, tunnel vision right down the trail: blinders.

When reading this stuff, I'm just in fucking awe, abso-fucking-lute awe. And in addition to Noah's corrupted and dishonest interpretation, there is little if any critique of Islamic Sharia law. It's as though anyone under Sharia has been and still is living in some type of wonderful Disneyland (which, arguably, it's a variation of — mindless subordination to religion). Ayaan has thoughtful criticism of what she grew up under throughout Infidel. Here's a couple quotes I have on file. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Infidel (page numbers so Pepe can look them up):

"I found it remarkable how many esteemed [male & female] Muslim thinkers had philosophized at such length about precisely how much female skin could be bared without causing chaos to break out across the landscape. Of course, almost all these thinkers agreed that once a girl reaches puberty, every part of her body except her face and her hands must be covered when in the company of any men who are not immediate family, and at all times outside the home. This was because her bare skin would involuntarily cause men to feel an uncontrollable frenzy of sexual arousal. But not all thinkers agreed on exactly which parts of a woman's face and hands were so beguiling that they must be covered.

Some [Islamic] scholars held that the eyes of women were the strongest source of sexual provocation: when the Quran said women should lower their gaze, it actually meant they should hide their eyes. Another school of thought held that the very sight of a woman's lips, especially full ones that were firm and young, could bring a man into a sexual state that could cause his downfall. Yet other thinkers spent pages and pages on the sensual curve of the chin, a pretty nose, or long, slender fingers and the tendency of some women to move their hands in a way that attracted attention to their temptations. For every limitation the Prophet was quoted." (Ayaan Hirsi Ali, 2007: 110)

Keeping that in mind, read her perspective on living in western Europe:

"...one reason that human relations are better [in Western Civilization] is that in the West, life on earth is valued in the here and now, and individuals enjoy rights and freedoms that are recognized and protected by the state. To accept subordination and abuse because Allah [or any other mentally constructed God or Diety] willed it — that, for me, would be self hatred." (Ayaan Hirsi Ali, 2007: 348)

On second thought, a horse seems a bit too high on Darwin's evolutionary ladder for such a comparison with Noah. I didn't mean to insult horses (they are quite the animals) in such a way.; 4/01/2008 1:43 AM
Tecumseh said...: Another school of thought held that the very sight of a woman's lips, especially full ones that were firm and young, could bring a man into a sexual state that could cause his downfall.

This is funny. Pepe must have some thoughts on this -- but it looks like he's fading out, again.; 4/01/2008 9:44 AM

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)