The sacred institution of incestuous child rape is the very glue which binds civilized societies such as those found in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Cleveland.
Oh, this post is kinda dark and slightly sarcastic, so heads up, everyone.
David, our managing editor, had asked me a while ago to respond to David Forsmark’s post, Marriage is civilized society’s foundational contract, in which he makes the case for government enforcement and regulation of marriage contracts, because, as he claims, “marriage is civilized society’s foundational contract.” I never got around to responding because this set off a still ongoing debate with my mother regarding Constitutional law.
So I pose the question of what civilized societies are to do about Islamic “marriages,” which have little, if anything, in common with any legitimate definition of “marriage.”
Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary defines marriage thusly:
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>
Islamic “marriage” does meet definition (2), provided that one considers the signing of a contract specifying money for sex by one of the parties involved to be a “rite.” Aside from the contract (which is not consensual, since a male family member must sign the contract on behalf of the “bride”), Islamic “marriage” (nikah) refers to the act of sexual intercourse. (The word literally means “to penetrate.”) In no way does it refer to an institution of any sort, which is why calling off an Islamic marriage (which can only be done by the husband) consists of firing or repudiating a “wife,” not divorcing her. She has a job, not a role, and that job consists of being sexually available.
Because no minimum age for “marriage” is established anywhere in any authoritative Islamic text, and because the ideal “marriage” for all Muslims for all time is the sale of little Aisha at age six to her 51-year-old uncle, a one-day-old baby girl can be “married” under Islamic law. As a consequence, child “marriage” is quite common in the Muslim world.
Also common in the Muslim world is the practice of honor killing, in which family members murder their daughters and sisters out of a belief that they have brought shame on the family. What the neighbors think is far more important than human life, especially female human life, in Islamic culture. These “marriages,” which are traditionally arranged, are typically if not explicitly carried out under threat of death.
As mentioned above, the ideal “marriage” for all Muslims for all time was a close incestuous one. The “Perfect Man” also “married” his daughter-in-law, considered a daughter in the Arabian culture of the time. Consequently, cousin marriage and niece-uncle marriages (mostly in South Asia) are the norm among Muslims.
Demonstrating the timelessness of the Sunna of Muhammad, Al-Arabiya recently ran a story about a little Aisha, a poor Yemeni girl whose father sold her (as is required by the Sharia unless she is to be doomed to hellfire) to an old man for $1000. Both her former owner (her father) and her current owner (her “husband”) drugged and ruthlessly beat her on a daily basis so that she would be more submissive when her “husband” “married” her.
What 10-year-old Aisha did not know was that after the wedding party she would have to leave school, move to a village far from her parents’ home, cook and clean all day, and have sex with her older husband.
“He took out a special sheet and laid me down on it,” Aisha told IRIN, wringing her small plump hands. “After it, I started bleeding. It was so painful that I was crying and shouting, and since then I have seen him as death.”
Like a horse and carriage. Now Aisha is 12 and stuck in her “marriage,” having no legal recourse under Sharia. She can never escape or become an autonomous human being. She is lucky that her family has not killed her for repeatedly fleeing her “husband.”
If Aisha’s “husband” were to bring her to the U.S. tomorrow the State Department would recognize this instance of child sex slavery as a valid marriage. The institution of selling one’s 10-year-old daughter into a lifetime of being a victim of horrific violence under threat of death is perfectly kosher under current U.S. law, provided that the sale contract was agreed upon in a jurisdiction in which this actually constitutes “marriage,” or probably over the phone with someone in Pedophiliastan.
Sharia makes no distinction between sex, rape, child molestation, and incest, provided that both buyer and seller (both of whom must be men, naturally) have agreed upon the contract and the fee has been paid. It’s all “marriage,” and it’s all perfectly valid because our government endows it with legal legitimacy. I asked an Arabic-speaking friend of mine to translate one of the article’s sub-headers, entitled “Rape Not Marriage,” then I asked him to translate it in fewer than ten 140-character tweets but he couldn’t because the Arabic language and Muslim culture more generally simply lack any concept of consent on the part of a female who has been purchased or captured by a Muslim male.
Is raping one’s six-year-old niece at knifepoint “civilized society’s foundational contract?” Because Islamic “marriages” carried out abroad are legally valid in the United States, despite the fact that they meet no objective definition of marriage and every objective definition of slavery.
So should we maintain this lovely status quo simply because gubbmint sanctions it? Should we declare all marriages and other contracts carried out abroad invalid in the U.S.? Should we discriminate against Muslims and just declare marriages carried out under Sharia invalid? Or should we just all take this as the ultimate example of how and why giving government authority to dictate our interpersonal relationships just because it seems like a smart social engineering measure in theory (but is merely a way to exploit us for socialistic tax purposes in practice) is a really bad idea, relieve government of this authority, and stop allowing people to bring children to our country for the express purpose of raping them simply because a marriage/rape/incest/child molestation/penetration contract from a nation in which women and Jews don’t enjoy the legal status of people validates it?
This is why government should not involve itself in personal matters of no legal consequence: because felonies become valid institutions when government involves itself in our personal lives. Only government could turn incestuous child sex slavery into a respectable institution just by ostensibly looking out for us. On the other hand, at least it was a good idea when government got into the marriage business, back when they were in it for the sake of maintaining racial purity rather than enforcing socialism through the oh-so valid concept of “dependents.”
Thank God Mother Government is there to validate slavery contracts between incestuous pedophiles and their slaves’ fathers while invalidating relationships based on mutual love and commitment between consenting adults of the same sex. Without government to guide us, we stupid individuals might get crazy ideas in our heads, like little girls being entitled to human rights, slavery being illegal, frowning upon the forced prostitution of children (also Islamic “marriage,” called muta, urfi, or misyar), or inbreeding being a bad idea.
Those crazy Canadians are trying to stop this from happening, but no such initiative has ever been undertaken in the United States, thank goodness. We’ve got to protect society’s foundational contract at any cost. Fortunately, pedophiles are welcome to bring their purchased underage nieces and cousins to our taxpayer-subsidized universities on F-1 visas. The State department can’t issue them fast enough. Sadly, Indiana University ran out of funds or something so they no longer pay people to rape their own children (something about lawsuits), but our universities still sanction the incestuous rape of underage nieces, cousins, and half-sisters by importing them expressly for that purpose, as detailed in their “marriage” contracts. We taxpayers even subsidize cheap housing for children to get raped in on campuses all across America. Awesome.
And of course we’ve got to look out for “refugees” from Sharia states and validate their “marriages,” because if we don’t give incestuous child molestation legal sanction people’s human rights might get violated. Then where would little girls like Aisha go?