When I suggested in Under the covers: teaching our children to be fabulous lovers that we owe it to our children to teach them about love, relationships and intimacy, the April 31, 2009 article from the Associated Press is definitely NOT what I was referring to. 8-year-old Saudi girl divorces her 50-year-old husband. Reading the article, I had many reactions including anger, outrage and frustration.
Shall I comment about the atrocities and perversion that informs a man in his middle years to take a child bride? How about a culture that treats girls and virginity as a commodity, something to barter and violate for a few bucks and at the whim of a man’s sick desires? Or shall I point to the a politically-incorrect and colossal problem facing our world today?
This story highlights the considerable and fundamental differences between Western and certain interpretations of Islamic culture. This isn’t the first time I’ve written about the mal-treatment of women in Islamic culture (read a letter to the man accused of chopping off his wife’s head). As a progressive, I want to believe the best in people; as a realist, I want to keep my eyes open. We may all be Abrahamic faiths, but Judaism, Christianity and certain (loud, frightening and aggressive) elements of Islam are not alike in ways that matter to me: freedom, tolerance, human rights, the treatment women, the soverienty of our bodies and the nurturing of children.
One might want to think that it is the under-educated that endorse these premature marriages - which we must really acknowledge are not marriages, but state-sanctioned statutory rape - that desperation drives a family to sell their daughter to the highest bidder. Not according to the AP article. Those in power still sanction these unions. “Saudi Arabia's conservative Muslim clergy have opposed the drive to end child marriages. In January, the kingdom's most senior cleric said it was permissible for 10-year-old girls to marry and those who believe they are too young are doing the girls an injustice.”
Excuse me? What 10-year-old girl wants to have a relationship of the sorts implied by these ‘clerics’? The real injustice is the loss of her childhood, the raping of a young body and soul, and the defense of it all in the name of religion. Utterly unacceptable, and I commend those who are pushing back within Saudi society to stop this atrocity from happening again.
I implore the moderate voices of Islam in the
I further implore the moderate voices of Islam to continue telling their brothers to stop with the suicide bombings and the teaching of hate towards Western cultures and religions in their schools and communities. If you are living under the protection of our American way of life - speak out. We need to hear you, and the rest of the world does too. Your influence is vast, and can do much to ease tensions and convince those who doubt that that these practices within the Muslim world are the exception, not the rule.
Certain aspects of the Muslim world are pursuing a way of life incongruous with democracy, human rights and the dignity of women as egalitarian partners in life, work and love. Let’s hope we find the clarity and the balls to stop it before another child is sold to the highest bidder.
The greatest compliment you can give me is to share my articles with your friends and family. If you aren't already one of my subscribers, please add your name above by following the link just below my photo.
Comments
I think that there is a problem here with Ms. Bernard's approach. Many people, whether Muslim, Christian, Morman, Jewish, etc., justify their immoral behaviour upon their interpretation of written theological texts. The behaviour should be condemned, but never take the giant and dangerous step that Ms. Bernard does here in her article, condemning a religion. It seems pretty straightforward, and using history helps. Many Christian groups in the past have used scripture to defend their inhumane treatment of others: for example: slavery, mixed marriages, women's voting rights. One should not condemn the Christian faith because of those who interpret scripture differently. Same goes for interpretation of Islamic texts.
Chuck Scurich
Oakland, CA
Dear Chuck,
I did not condemn a religion, I condemn the use of religion to justify cruelty against another. Please re-read my column, and you will see that what I advocate is that those with moderate views and integrity speak out and become the louder voices within their own religion. Again, I strongly suggest that you mis-read and mis-understand the message in this piece.
You say in your rebuttal that you did not condemn a religion, but that you condeman the use of religion to justify cruelty against another. Hooray for your rebuttal. I said the same.
But, dear Ms. Bernard, when you use sentences such as "The story points once again to the considerable and fundamental differences between Western and Islamic culture," you are praising the Western culture (Christian) and denigrating the Islamic culture.
Yes, I did re-read your problematic article.
You also imply that immoral behaviour is NOT comdemned by other Muslims (which you call "moderate voices"). I disagree. There are many Muslim voices condemning this behaviour.
This article is an attack on the Muslim faith and if you do not agree, then you should rewrite this article and only focus on the problem. The problem is NOT the fundamental differences between Christianity and Islam. The problem is NOT the voices of moderate Islam. The problem is NOT political strugges like Hamas and H
When you have one society sanction a union between an adult male and a child and call it marriage - and another call it pedophilia and rape - you have fundamental differences in values. When you have a culture use religion to justify the subjucation of children and women and non-members, then they open their religion to criticism. You are right in one way - this isn't just about Western Culture vs. Islam. (And by the way, Western culture isn't only Christianity, but includes Judaism, democracy, freedom and liberty, etc.) This struggle is really between civilization and barbarianism. No matter how you might want to frame the narrative, Buddhists aren't blowing up mosques, Jews aren't blowing up German institutions, Christians aren't beheading women, priests aren't sanctioning the rape of children, nor are American fathers and brothers systematically engaged in honor killings when their daughters and sisters decide to choose who they sleep with. Sorry Chuck, but I think you are naive.
While I share some of Ms. Bernard’s feelings about the plight of girls forced to submit to much older men, her criticism of Moslems as supporters of terrorism is over the top--in a column by a “love examiner?”
It would be at least as appropriate to condemn Jews everywhere for the actions carried out in the 1940’s by Jewish militias. Irgun leader Menachem Begin led the 1946 bombing of Jerusalem’s King David Hotel, in which nearly 100 were killed. Jewish leader David ben Gurion condemned the cowardly attack, calling them enemy of the Jewish people. Jewish militias also killed at least 100 people in massacres at Deir Yassin.
I recall what the sage Hillel had to say about ethics, often known as the Golden Rule, translated from Hebrew as “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation." Or there’s the much later Christian version “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” I’ve always liked Reb Hillel’s versio
To Bob S.: Ms. Bernard's comments are not over the top in the least when she links Islam to terrorism. If you believe that they do, you are hopelessly naive. And misinformed: the bombing of the King David Hotel was a legitimate target since it was filled with British military personnel, not civilians. Additionally, the Irgun took pains to warn the British and told them to evacuate the place. Typically, the Brits treated the warning with contempt and ignored it... and paid the price. By comparing this event with the kind of terrorism committed by Muslims (not Christians, not Jews, not Buddhists, not Mormons: Muslims) all over the world, you are the one who's going over the top and compare what cannot be compared. As for Deir Yassin, there was no intentional massacre of civilians. Yes, there were civilian casualties among Arab civilians, but they were not intentional, while there were quite a few Jewish civilians intentionally murdered by Arab forces. How about mentioning those, too?
To Chuck: you are missing the point (or intentionally fudging the issue): you want to dissociate the barbaric practices correctly denounced by Mrs. Bernard and the religion that sanctions and approves them. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. Sanctioning pedophilia (there is no other word to describe grown men having sex with little girls) is part and parcel of Islam because it is what the prophet Muhammad did himself. You need to understand that Muslims regard their prophet as the perfect man who could by definition do no wrong. So, since he took as his fourth wife little 6-year old Aisha when he himself was 52 and consummated the marriage when she was 9, it's been OK ever since for centuries - and to this day - for older Muslim men to do the same thing, even though it is considered a reprehensible and perverted behavior in Western countries, to the point that it is punishable by law. This is just one example, there are many more, in which Islam is the issue, nothing else.
Bob - I write about matter related to relationships, love, and intimacy. When an older man takes a child as a bride, that is one of the most dispical forms of terror - rape and pedophilia. I gently urge you to read more of my columns, so you will see that I try to illuminate how we can as individuals, as communities and as a society elevate our experiences in love. And I shine the spotlight on those who pervert and subjugate relationships, whether 'justified' or not by their belief systems. In this case, Islam holds some of the blame since the clerics in Saudi Arabia sanction these child-unions.
Sacha Baron Cohen's character Bruno, a gay Austrian fashion reporter, acquires his African baby in his new upcoming movie by swapping him for an iPod. If Bruno can do it, is it so wrong?
to jjs110 the us government has been proclaiming acts of violence directed at us military personnel as terrorism for years now. do you disagree with that characterization as well, or does your attachment to facts which others would dispute blind you to the truth? in fact, a moslem man who yesterday shot up a recruiting station in the us--a reprehensible act without doubt--is being charged with terrorism.
so far as warnings to the brits go, they got maybe a 20 minute warning, and not all of the british personnel at the king david were military, whether a legitimate target or not. the bombers also set off a charge in the street outside the hotel, which resulted in the death and injury of onlookers drawn to the scene when the big bombs inside the hotel went off. as garry trudeau likes to say, menachem begin was a terrorist. i believe it wasisraeli leader david ben gurion who decried the as irgun an enemy of the jewish people for that terrorist bombing.
to tina marie i did not take you to task for your denunciation of the "marriage" practices of saudi arabian men, but rather for the unwarranted leap you take to link islam and terrorism, and the absurdity of placing it in this article you wrote about legitimate concerns for the rights of girls. it seems you didn't pay very close attention to my words.
i'm also disturbed by your words " If you are living under the protection of our American way of life, you owe it to us..." america is not the ruler of the world, nor the planetary police, and your assumption appears quite arrogant. and on a slightly professional note, maybe you ought to use a spell checker. or the examiner should. there are typos in your original article as well as your response to my post. do they pay you to be a "journalist?"
your definition of yourself as a progressive seems far from my own. but i'm sure someone must appreciate your writing. good luck with your career.
Dear Bob,
Thank you for your copyediting spotlight. I noticed that you forgot to capitalize, but that's probably just your computer...seriously, frustration needn't define our dialogue; I'd like to offer a suggestion. Read JJ110's response on Islam and terrorism; for additional information on that topic, I gently suggest you turn to the daily news, because as you have righly implied, this is a 'column' and not a journalistic forum. As for those living here - the United States - we all cherish something special: a constitution and a bill of rights that afford us freedom of speech, and protection from religious persecution. It isn't a perfect system, but the best we have at this time. Isn't is a progressive message to see that song loud and clear? To implore those who now enjoy this personal liberty to engage in the dialogue, so that we don't misinterpret silence as tacit support? 'If I am not for myself, who will be? If I am not for others, what am I?' I wish you good reading.
The discussion here has inpsired me to dedicate this song to you all:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNC0kIzM1Fo
Bob: You say "the us government has been proclaiming acts of violence directed at us military personnel as terrorism for years now". That's a very convenient and misleading blanket statement that doesn't reflect reality. It is true in some cases, not in many others. It depends on the tactics used and the people targeted (military or civilians, or a mix of the two). The US and Israel respect the Laws of War, the Muslim world ignores them.
As for the attack on the King David hotel, I find it interesting that you spend so much time and energy trying to prove that it was terrorism in a vain attempt to establish equivalency between the Jews and Arabs when the Irgun was a rogue group quickly put down by Ben Gurion (in effect disavowing its methods), and the Arabs, for whom terrorism has been the normal way to conduct their fight. I object to that. The two sides cannot even begin to be put on the same footing, and yet that's what you're doing, blaming the victim and excusing Arab terroris
Bob, why dont you just shut up. Nothing you have to say is relates to the article. You are just arguing for the sake of arguing and nothing more. Just what exactly are you trying to defend? Islam? are you Muslim? if not then why the f*** are you defending it? The examiner has a valid point, and if you dont understand it then move on and read somthing else. In the mean time shut up because no one has any interest in hearing your petty arguments/comments!
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!