CHALLENGE FOR PUBLIC DEBATE WITH RAJA PETRA KAMARUDDIN ON THE TOPIC OF ISLAMIC SHARIAH

Raja Petra in his latest article decided not to answer my argument, instead creates a “fictitious” Tulang Besi and attacked that fictitious “Tulang Besi”.

I do not blame him for doing so because that is what we have come to know in the world of Psychiatry as “Defence Mechanism”. When under threat, defence mechanism will kick in automatically. It’s a knee jerk reaction and everybody knows that.

If Raja Petra was writing from his heart or from his mind, he would have chosen to at least address the argument I presented and NOT attack a fictitious TUlang Besi. He would have addressed these facts that I had presented in my earlier postings:

1.0 Shariah has been in practiced for 1400 years ago and continues to be in practice to the present day
2.0 Islamic Penal Code was removed forcibly by the Colonialists when Muslim lands were invaded by the Europeans i.e. English, French, Belgians, Dutch, Americans etc.
3.0 The Muslims themselves were not the ones removing the Islamic Penal Code from their societies or communities. They were forced to do so by their colonial masters
4.0 And another fact I did not add in my original posting is that Islamic Penal Code has made a comeback and more and more Muslims wants the Islamic Penal Code to be implemented.
5.0 The Susilawati case falls under QISAS and not HUDUD. Raja Petra clearly do not know where the case of Susilawati should be classified showing his deep ignorance of the Islamic Shariah he is criticizing
6.0 His usage of the history of Christianity to criticize the Islamic law is clearly a sign of abject ignorance of the Islamic Shariah. The Islamic Shariah DOES NOT FOLLOW the same historical as Christinanity. In fact, it is miles apart.

The arguments presented above were largely ignored by Raja Petra. Instead he went on a character assassination routine labeling me as this and that, which is all UNTRUE.
The truth is Raja Petra is TAKEN ABACK by the simplicity of the argument I presented. The fact I presented is simple and common knowledge to all that has a fully functional brain. It doesn’t take a person with PHd in Islamic history or law to acknowledge it.

Except, of course, Raja Petra.

So, in the interest of the TRUTH I hereby CHALLENGE RAJA PETRA to a PUBLIC DEBATE. I am willing to fly up to London just as long the debate is a reality.

I am also willing to debate Raja Petra on the issue of Al Hadeeth An Nabawi and it’s legality in the Islam. So let’s settle this issue like men, not like children.

My email is malaysiawaves@rocketmail.com. Send me an email RPK, if you think you are on the side of the truth. We can broadcast this debate over the internet and let the world see and hear. Let the world decide whether Tulang Besi is really what Raja Petra had accused him of or that Raja Petra is lying through his teeth.

Tulang Besi

Freedom to oppose as long as you agree with me

Tuesday, 28 September 2010 Super Admin
What some people in PAS can’t seem to understand is that PAS is a political party. And as a political party it has every right to propagate and promote its political ideology. And in the case of PAS it is Islamic politics. But PAS can’t deny Malaysians their rights as well. And this right is to reject the PAS brand of politics in favour of some other political ideology.
NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin
I was wondering when Rahman Celcom a.k.a. Tulang Besi would crawl out of his hole in the ground. In case some of you are not aware, Rahman was the person who revealed that Ustaz Hadi Awang, Mustaffa Ali, Hassan Ali and a few other top PAS leaders were engaged in secret talks with Umno soon after the March 2008 general election.
People like Rahman and those of his ilk have only one view. And that is if you agree with everything they say, then you are learned (ulamak). If, however, you disagree with what they say, then you are ignorant (jahil).
Your status -- whether you are a learned or an ignorant person -- depends on whether you agree or disagree with what these people think and say. In my case, since I disagree with them, then I am an ignorant person.
It does not matter where I studied. It does not matter how long I studied. It does not matter from whom I studied. It does not matter how many books I may have read and who wrote those books. I am learned only if I agree with their opinion and am ignorant if I do not.
These people are of the view they have the right to propagate, propose, promote, etc., their brand of politics. In this case it happens to be Islamic politics. You and I, however, do not have the right to reject their brand of politics. You must agree with them and not reject them or dispute what they say.
Oh, it’s not that they do not believe in freedom of speech, expression, opinion, association, or whatever. They do. But this freedom is only allowed as long as you too share their views as to what is right and wrong and what is permitted and not permitted.
For example, if they oppose Ketuanan Melayu, and you too oppose Ketuanan Melayu, then they allow you the freedom to oppose Ketuanan Melayu. Your freedom extends to only those areas of ‘common interest’. But once you part company on certain issues then you forfeit your right to this freedom.
Another thing these people believe in is that they have a right to impose their opinion on you. They have a certain opinion and you must accept this opinion. You may not disagree with what they think. Malaysia may be a democracy. But democracy is only allowed as long as you do not disagree with their opinion.
Think what you want. Say what you want. Just make sure you think and say what they too think and say and not opposite to that.
This is the mentality of Rahman Celcom and those of his ilk. And the fact that they tolerate other religions -- although tolerate is something you do when it is a nuisance -- proves that they are very reasonable people.
**********************************************
J. Hussain wrote:
“In Islamic law, crimes are classified in three ways: hudud, qisas (and) Ta’azir...Hudud crimes are those specifically mentioned in the Koran as transgressing the limits which God himself has placed on people's behavior. The hudud crimes are: theft, highway robbery, drinking alcohol, unlawful sexual intercourse and false accusation of unchastity. Some jurists also include murder and apostasy (al-riddah) among the categories of hudud crimes.”
Schacht wrote that hudud is reserved for crimes against Allah for which there can be no mercy or judicial discretion.
Further, Al-Awwa adds “unlawful rebellion” to the list of hudud crimes.
Schacht sets out the specifics of huhud:
“The death penalty either by stoning (the more severe punishment for unlawful intercourse) or by crucifixion or with the sword (for highway robbery with homicide); cutting off hand and/or foot (for highway robbery without homicide and for theft....”
Schacht also confirms the rigidity of Islamic law; that hudud is meted out as:
“... a right or claim of Allah, therefore no pardon or amicable settlement is possible.”
However, in some cases, Muslim law allows a criminal defendant to pay off the victim (diyya) and thus, to escape punishment; an option obviously only available to the wealthy.
REFERENCES:
* Al-Awwa, Muhammad Salim, “The Basis of Islamic Penal Legislation”, published in The Islamic Criminal Justice System (Rome: Oceana Publications Inc., 1982), page 127
* Duhaime, Lloyd, Legal Definition of Ta’azir
* Hussain, J., Islamic Law and Society (Sydney: Federation Press, 1999), page 134
* Schacht, J., An Introduction to Islamic Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964), page 175
*****************************************
Raja Petra went to town attacking the PAS Youth Chief for suggesting Hudud as an alternative. My initial response is : AT LEAST SOMEONE IS THINKING OF A SOLUTION TO THE WORSENING CRIME PROBLEM in Malaysia.
Instead of providing a sound alternative, RPK chose to redicule the PAS Youth Chief.
He went to cite the failure of Christian laws in Europe from the history of Christianity. The trouble with this argument is that the same cannot be said about Islamic laws or Hudud. The Islamic Penal Code has been in practiced for 1400 years and NO ONE complained about it's implementation.
The removal of Islamic Penal Code from the lives of Muslims are mostly the handiwork of Colonials like British, Russians, France, Belgium, Dutch etc when Muslim Lands were invaded by them.
In fact, in India, women were prevented from getting inheritence from their fathers because the Common Law of Britain forbids any inheritance to women, at that time, when British first invaded India. For a few hundred years before that women were getting inheritance without any hinderance because they were subjected to Shariah Laws.
So, there lies Raja Petra's main weakness in his argument: he cites examples from the history of CHRISTIANITY which DIFFERS greatly from the history of Islam and Islamic Penal Code.
As far as history has shown, Islamic Penal Code is practiced by Muslims for the last 1400 years and no one complained about it despite the coming and going of Muslim rulers throughout the ages.
So, i beg Raja Petra to come up with a better argument to negate the effectiveness of Islamic Penal Code.
Oh, and Raja Petra also made this argument:
If this is true then why quote the example of the murder of Datuk Sosilawati Lawiya? This woman was allegedly killed by Indian Hindus, not by Malay Muslims. And since Hudud applies only to Muslims then it does not matter whether Malaysia does or does not implement these Islamic laws. It would not have deterred these Indian Hindus from killing Datuk Sosilawati Lawiya because they would have been exempted from these laws anyway.
It so happens, the crime of murder falls under QISAS and not HUDUD. And trust me, anyone would agree to QISAS regardless of their religion.
As for me, if a Jewish gentleman name Noah Feldman who actually thinks that Islamic Penal Code is good and practical.
Funny, a guy like RPK who claims to be Muslims, giving hell about Islamic laws while a Jewish professor from Harvard wrote and article in the New York TImes to defend the Shariah.
How the world has turned upside down. Did I mention the Jewish guy is a professor of law from Harvard?
Tulang Besi a.k.a Rahman Celcom
ps i've written before about Raja Petra's shallowness in understanding Islam and the Islamic Penal Code. No matter what RPK says, majority Muslims supports the Shariah and wants it's implementation. Hell, even in Britain, the Shariah is being practiced albeit still limited.

Read more!

America's sexual revolution: Engineered by pedophiles

How 1 secretly twisted scientist destroyed nation's morality laws
Posted: September 18, 2010

By Drew Zahn
© 2010 WorldNetDaily


A shocking report at WND's "Taking America Back" conference in Miami, Fla., contends the sexual revolution of the 1960s and beyond was manufactured by a single pedophile with deep financial backing.

Dr. Judith Reisman, author of "Sexual Sabotage: How One Mad Scientist Unleashed a Plague of Corruption and Contagion on America," unveiled at the confab a hidden history of scandal and scientific fraud that she says convinced not only America's legal system but also its culture to unjustifiably embrace sexual deviancy.

Reisman explained how Dr. Alfred Kinsey, a scientific pioneer who was lauded in the 1950s for his research and who launched modern-day sexology, received his financial backing from the Rockefeller Foundation in 1941 and used it to twist science and law to fulfill his licentious agenda.

For example, Kinsey's landmark study from 1941-1945 claimed to describe the "normal" sexual practices of "everyday" Americans. Reisman contends, however, that Kinsey didn't have access to the majority of "normal" American men and women, who were engaged with World War II at the time, and so he used a tainted sample.

"Eighty-seven percent of his subjects," Reisman stated, "were sex addicts, homosexuals, criminals, rapists, prostitutes, pedophiles and prisoners."

Reisman further shocked the audience by posting a chart of Kinsey's research detailing how many orgasms children of various ages could be made to experience in a 24-hour period. Reisman quoted Kinsey's defenders, who insisted that the men conducting the experiments were not pedophiles, but merely "trained observers" with stopwatches, counting orgasms among 4-year-olds and even infants.

Kinsey's research later claimed that 100 percent of children were capable of being sexually active from birth, so long as they had "help" from adults.

Reisman also pointed to studies and surveys by Kinsey that consistently and grossly inflated data to prove that licentious behavior had "no social consequences."

The results, she explained, were staggering.

"Kinsey radicalized university faculties with his [corrupt and agenda-driven] data, then told the students to ditch 'hypocritical' parental values," Reisman stated, "hence the 'me' generation of sex and drugs was born."

Reisman then quoted significant court cases and journals that had so radically shifted from previous legal opinion that the law itself "was divided into pre-Kinsey and post-Kinsey periods."

"Pre-Kinsey, sex laws were based on biblical authority and considered an area of 'public rights,' meaning we recognized sex had civil consequences on society," Reisman said. "Post-Kinsey sex laws are based on 'scientific authority' and are considered 'private rights,' which claims sex has no social consequences."

"Only seven years ago, the Supreme Court case Lawrence vs. Texas, which struck down all anti-sodomy laws in the nation, was based on Kinsey," Reisman said. "But the Supreme Court was never told it was all based on [intentionally flawed] Kinsey data.

"The No. 1 sexpert versus Prop 8," said Reisman, referring to the more recent case in which a federal judge overturned California's prohibition of same-sex marriage, "who was quoted 58 times by [Judge] Walker, was quoting Kinsey data."

Reisman also showed the more immediate impact of Kinsey's widespread research in the 1950s, quoting a 1962 Vanderbilt Law Review that opined "even at the age of four or five [a girl] can seduce" a man into committing sexual abuse.

The 1969 Georgia law review called child sexual abuse "a minor crime" and said the need to relax laws prohibiting pedophilia should be obvious to all but the "prudish."

All of the examples, and several more, Reisman contended, are based on Kinsey's data, which legal scholars accepted despite its dubious origin.

Reisman demonstrated the legal shift in America by pointing to changes in the law. In the pre-Kinsey period, the legal age of sexual consent was somewhere between 16 and 21 depending on the state, whereas now it is 12-18. Prior to Kinsey, rape was a crime punishable by death in 18 states, by life sentence in 22. Now, Reisman stated, the standard sentence is six months to four years.

No-fault divorce, the decriminalization of adultery and even the decision by the American Psychiatric Association to no longer consider homosexuality a sexual disorder, Reisman said, are the result of using Kinsey data that was specifically manipulated to redefine "normal" and exaggerate deviant behavior.

Reisman's final charge to the "Taking America Back" audience was based on the words of a lesbian professor, who in 1998 warned that if the truth about Kinsey were revealed, "50 years of sexual progress is undone; biography is the battleground."

Reisman challenged the conference not only to make Kinsey's work known but also to overturn the laws Kinsey "twisted."

"Biography is only the battleground if it enters the courtroom," she concluded. Read more!

PEDOPHILIA: THE TALMUD'S DIRTY SECRET

By Rev. Ted Pike
28 Sep 10 (Update)

Editor’s Note:

This year, top Israeli Rabbi Moti Elon was indicted by police for sex crimes against minors. “Far from being the rabbi of an obscure Hasidic sect, the charismatic Elon is a high-profile leader, educator and media personality, representing the more mainstream religious Zionists and former head of the renowned HaKotel (Western Wall) Yeshiva. He comes from a family of high achievers in law, politics and academia that has drawn comparisons with the Kennedy clan.”

In 2006, Elon was restricted by an organization of rabbis in his contact with students, after confessing to sexual relationships with male students. Yet he continued to act as the president of a Talmudic academy in Jerusalem and did not fully honor the agreement. One Ha’aretz commentary says Elon “managed to turn himself into almost a kind of saint” –a fate certainly to be envied by American religious figures turned pedophiles.

Dr. Aviad Hacohen, dean of the Sha'arei Mishpat College, in 2007 reported that “95% of sexual offences in Jerusalem were performed by the religious and haredi.” “Several years ago, I began looking into the issue on a data-based level," said Hacohen. "It turned out that the law enforcement authorities, both the police and the prosecutor's office, were aware of the data but refused to expose it based on sectorial affiliation in order to avoid branding a certain group in the population…”

Since the following article was written in 2006, cases of Jewish leadership figures in Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox Judaism being involved in homosexuality or pedophilia scandals continue to mount not only in Israel, but in New York, where Ultra-Orthodox are strongest. The reason is simple: some of the very greatest rabbis who wrote the Talmud were pedophiles.

Read this shocking and timely article for complete documentation.




PEDOPHILIA: THE TALMUD'S DIRTY SECRET

By Rev. Ted Pike
11 Oct 06

For nearly a century, the Jewish-dominated Hollywood film industry and big media have conspicuously influenced Christian America away from Biblical morals and values. (See, "Jews Confirm Big Media Is Jewish")

Yet, with the hippie rebellion of the early sixties, the Jewish media found exponential opportunities to hasten America’s moral decline. Encouraging drugs and pornography it persuaded America that "free love" and living together outside of marriage were socially acceptable. With astonishing rapidity the movie, TV, and print media helped produce a generation of sexual libertines. By the end of the sixties, it hastened the sexual revolution to its next stage, homosexuality.

Now, more than 40 years later, even homosexuality has lost its attraction to many children and grandchildren of the hippie generation. Pedophilia (sex with little boys and girls along with child pornography) is the latest underground obsession sweeping America and the world.

Last fall, I alerted the nation to the power of the pedophile lobby in Congress; Sen. Edward Kennedy, long backed by homosexuals in support of the federal anti-hate bill, betrayed them to favor the evidently more powerful and rewarding pedophiles. (See "How Kennedy and His Pedophiles Weakened the Child Safety Bill")

Rotten Roots

What kind of moral foundations do Jews of the media rest upon, that they could consciously ignite and fan the flames of a sexual inferno that continues to ravage our once Christian society?

Virtually all the media moguls who founded Hollywood and the big three TV networks were immigrants, or their children, from predominantly orthodox Jewish communities in Eastern Europe.

In the late 19th century, most European Jews were a people of the book. But their book wasn’t the Bible. It was the Babylonian Talmud. To this day, the Talmud remains Judaism’s highest moral, ethical and legal authority.

Does the Talmud share Christianity's foundation of wholesome moral values? Hardly. Instead, the Talmud is the sleazy substrata of a religious system gone terribly astray; it is that code of Pharisaic unbelief Christ described as "full of all uncleanness" (Matt. 23:27). Shockingly, Judaism’s most revered authority actually endorses such sins as lying, oath-breaking, and indirect murder. And it even sanctions one of the greatest sins of all: child molestation.

Three Year Old Brides

When Christ accused the Pharisees of His day of being Satan’s spiritual children, He fully realized what they were capable of. Second century Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai, one of Judaism’s very greatest rabbis and a creator of Kabbalah, sanctioned pedophilia—permitting molestation of baby girls even younger than three! He proclaimed, “A proselyte who is under the age of three years and a day is permitted to marry a priest.” 1 Subsequent rabbis refer to ben Yohai’s endorsement of pedophilia as "halakah," or binding Jewish law. 2 Has ben Yohai, child rape advocate, been disowned by modern Jews? Hardly. Today, in ben Yohai’s hometown of Meron, Israel, tens of thousands of orthodox and ultra-orthodox Jews gather annually for days and nights of singing and dancing in his memory.

References to pedophilia abound in the Talmud. They occupy considerable sections of Treatises Kethuboth and Yebamoth and are enthusiastically endorsed by the Talmud’s definitive legal work, Treatise Sanhedrin.

The Pharisees Endorsed Child Sex

The rabbis of the Talmud are notorious for their legal hairsplitting, and quibbling debates. But they share rare agreement about their right to molest three year old girls. In contrast to many hotly debated issues, hardly a hint of dissent rises against the prevailing opinion (expressed in many clear passages) that pedophilia is not only normal but scriptural as well! It’s as if the rabbis have found an exalted truth whose majesty silences debate.

Because the Talmudic authorities who sanction pedophilia are so renowned, and because pedophilia as “halakah” is so explicitly emphasized, not even the translators of the Soncino edition of the Talmud (1936) dared insert a footnote suggesting the slightest criticism. They only comment: “Marriage, of course, was then at a far earlier age than now.” 3

In fact, footnote 5 to Sanhedrin 60b rejects the right of a Talmudic rabbi to disagree with ben Yohai's endorsement of pedophilia: "How could they [the rabbis], contrary to the opinion of R. Simeon ben Yohai, which has scriptural support, forbid the marriage of the young proselyte?" 4

Out of Babylon

It was in Babylon after the exile under Nebuchadnezzar in 597 BC that Judaism's leading sages probably began to indulge in pedophilia. Babylon was the staggeringly immoral capitol of the ancient world. For 1600 years, the world’s largest population of Jews flourished within it.

As an example of their evil, Babylonian priests said a man's religious duty included regular sex with temple prostitutes. Bestiality was widely tolerated. So Babylonians hardly cared whether a rabbi married a three year old girl.

But with expulsion of the Jews in the 11th century AD, mostly to western Christian lands, Gentile tolerance of Jewish pedophilia abruptly ended.

Still, a shocking contradiction lingers: If Jews want to revere the transcendent wisdom and moral guidance of the Pharisees and their Talmud, they must accept the right of their greatest ancient sages to violate children. To this hour, no synod of Judaism has repudiated their vile practice.

Sex with a “Minor” Permitted

What exactly did these sages say?

The Pharisees justified child rape by explaining that a boy of nine years was not a “man” (See, "Judaism and Homosexuality: A Marriage Made in Hell") Thus they exempted him from God’s Mosaic Law: “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination” (Lev. 18:22) One passage in the Talmud gives permission for a woman who molested her young son to marry a high priest. It concludes, “All agree that the connection of a boy aged nine years and a day is a real connection; whilst that of one less than eight years is not." 5 Because a boy under 9 is sexually immature, he can't "throw guilt" on the active offender, morally or legally. 6

A woman could molest a young boy without questions of morality even being raised: "…the intercourse of a small boy is not regarded as a sexual act." 7 The Talmud also says, "A male aged nine years and a day who cohabits with his deceased brother's wife acquires her (as wife)." 8 Clearly, the Talmud teaches that a woman is permitted to marry and have sex with a nine year old boy.

Sex at Three Years and One Day

In contrast to Simeon ben Yohai's dictum that sex with a little girl is permitted under the age of three years, the general teaching of the Talmud is that the rabbi must wait until a day after her third birthday. She could be taken in marriage simply by the act of rape.

R. Joseph said: Come and hear! A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition and if her deceased husband’s brother cohabits with her, she becomes his. (Sanh. 55b)

A girl who is three years of age and one day may be betrothed by cohabitation. . . .(Yeb. 57b)

A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband’s brother cohabited with her she becomes his. (Sanh. 69a, 69b, also discussed in Yeb. 60b)

It was taught: R. Simeon b. Yohai stated: A proselyte who is under the age of three years and one day is permitted to marry a priest, for it is said, But all the women children that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves, and Phineas (who was priest, the footnote says) surely was with them. (Yeb. 60b)

[The Talmud says such three year and a day old girls are] . . . fit for cohabitation. . . But all women children, that have not known man by lying with him, it must be concluded that Scripture speaks of one who is fit for cohabitation. (Footnote to Yeb. 60b)

The example of Phineas, a priest, himself marrying an underage virgin of three years is considered by the Talmud as proof that such infants are "fit for cohabitation."

The Talmud teaches that an adult woman’s molestation of a nine year old boy is "not a sexual act" and cannot "throw guilt" upon her because the little boy is not truly a "man.” 9 But they use opposite logic to sanction rape of little girls aged three years and one day: Such infants they count as “women," sexually mature and fully responsible to comply with the requirements of marriage.

The Talmud footnotes 3 and 4 to Sanhedrin 55a clearly tell us when the rabbis considered a boy and girl sexually mature and thus ready for marriage. "At nine years a male attains sexual matureness… The sexual matureness of woman is reached at the age of three."

No Rights for Child Victims

The Pharisees were hardly ignorant of the trauma felt by molested children. To complicate redress, the Talmud says a rape victim must wait until she was of age before there would be any possibility of restitution. She must prove that she lived and would live as a devoted Jewess, and she must protest the loss of her virginity on the very hour she comes of age. “As soon as she was of age one hour and did not protest she cannot protest any more.” 10

The Talmud defends these strict measures as necessary to forestall the possibility of a Gentile child bride rebelling against Judaism and spending the damages awarded to her as a heathen - an unthinkable blasphemy! But the rights of the little girl were really of no great consequence, for, "When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this (three years and a day) it is as if one put the finger into the eye." The footnote says that as “tears come to the eye again and again, so does virginity come back to the little girl under three years.” 11

In most cases, the Talmud affirms the innocence of male and female victims of pedophilia. Defenders of the Talmud claim this proves the Talmud's amazing moral advancement and benevolence toward children; they say it contrasts favorably with "primitive" societies where the child would have been stoned along with the adult perpetrator.

Actually, the rabbis, from self-protection, were intent on proving the innocence of both parties involved in pedophilia: the child, but more importantly, the pedophile. They stripped a little boy of his right to "throw guilt" on his assailant and demanded complicity in sex from a little girl. By thus providing no significant moral or legal recourse for the child, the Talmud clearly reveals whose side it is on: the raping rabbi.

Pedophilia Widespread

Child rape was practiced in the highest circles of Judaism. This is illustrated from Yeb. 60b:

There was a certain town in the land of Israel the legitimacy of whose inhabitants was disputed, and Rabbi sent R. Romanos who conducted an inquiry and found in it the daughter of a proselyte who was under the age of three years and one day, and Rabbi declared her eligible to live with a priest.

The footnote says that she was “married to a priest” and the rabbi simply permitted her to live with her husband, thus upholding “halakah” as well as the dictum of Simeon ben Yohai, “A proselyte who is under the age of three years and one day is permitted to marry a priest.” 12

These child brides were expected to submit willingly to sex. Yeb. 12b confirms that under eleven years and one day a little girl is not permitted to use a contraceptive but “must carry on her marital intercourse in the usual manner.”

In Sanhedrin 76b a blessing is given to the man who marries off his children before they reach the age of puberty, with a contrasting curse on anyone who waits longer. In fact, failure to have married off one’s daughter by the time she is 12-1/2, the Talmud says, is as bad as one who “returns a lost article to a Cuthean” (Gentile) - a deed for which “the Lord will not spare him.” 13 This passage says: “… it is meritorious to marry off one’s children whilst minors.”

The mind reels at the damage to the untold numbers of girls who were sexually abused within Judaism during the heyday of pedophilia. Such child abuse, definitely practiced in the second century, continued, at least in Babylon, for another 900 years.

A Fascination with Sex

Perusing the Talmud, one is overwhelmed with the recurrent preoccupation with sex, especially by the most eminent rabbis. Dozens of illustrations could be presented to illustrate the delight of the Pharisees to discuss sex and quibble over its minutest details.

The rabbis endorsing child sex undoubtedly practiced what they preached. Yet to this hour, their words are revered. Simeon ben Yohai is honored by Orthodox Jews as one of the very greatest sages and spiritual lights the world has ever known. A member of the earliest "Tannaim," rabbis most influential in creating the Talmud, he carries more authority to observant Jews than Moses.

Today, the Talmud’s outspoken pedophiles and child-rape advocates would doubtlessly spend hard time in prison for child molestation. Yet here is what the eminent Jewish scholar, Dagobert Runes (who is fully aware of all these passages), says about such “dirty old men” and their perverted teachings:

There is no truth whatever in Christian and other strictures against the Pharisees, who represented the finest traditions of their people and of human morals. 14

Aren’t Christ’s words more appropriate?

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. (Matthew 23:27, 28.)

(Adapted from Ted Pike's book, Israel: Our Duty, Our Dilemma)

Endnotes:

1 Yebamoth 60b, p. 402.
2 Yebamoth 60b, p. 403.
3 Sanhedrin 76a.
4 In Yebamoth 60b, p. 404, Rabbi Zera disagrees that sex with girls under three years and one day should be endorsed as halakah.
5 Sanhedrin 69b.
6 Sanhedrin 55a.
7 Footnote 1 to Kethuboth 11b.
8 Sanhedrin 55b.
9 Sanhedrin 55a.
10 Kethuboth 11a.
11 Kethuboth 11b.
12 Yebamoth 60b.
13 Sanhedrin 76b.
14 Dagobert Runes, A Concise Dictionary of Judaism, New York, 1959. Read more!

Hudud: Raja Petra Has Failed Again to Make His Case

Raja Petra went to town attacking the PAS Youth Chief for suggesting Hudud as an alternative. My initial response is : AT LEAST SOMEONE IS THINKING OF A SOLUTION TO THE WORSENING CRIME PROBLEM in Malaysia.

Instead of providing a sound alternative, RPK chose to redicule the PAS Youth Chief.

He went to cite the failure of Christian laws in Europe from the history of Christianity. The trouble with this argument is that the same cannot be said about Islamic laws or Hudud. The Islamic Penal Code has been in practiced for 1400 years and NO ONE complained about it's implementation.

The removal of Islamic Penal Code from the lives of Muslims are mostly the handiwork of Colonials like British, Russians, France, Belgium, Dutch etc when Muslim Lands were invaded by them.

In fact, in India, women were prevented from getting inheritence from their fathers because the Common Law of Britain forbids any inheritance to women, at that time, when British first invaded India. For a few hundred years before that women were getting inheritance without any hinderance because they were subjected to Shariah Laws.

So, there lies Raja Petra's main weakness in his argument: he cites examples from the history of CHRISTIANITY which DIFFERS greatly from the history of Islam and Islamic Penal Code.

As far as history has shown, Islamic Penal Code is practiced by Muslims for the last 1400 years and no one complained about it despite the coming and going of Muslim rulers throughout the ages.

So, i beg Raja Petra to come up with a better argument to negate the effectiveness of Islamic Penal Code.

Oh, and Raja Petra also made this argument:

If this is true then why quote the example of the murder of Datuk Sosilawati Lawiya? This woman was allegedly killed by Indian Hindus, not by Malay Muslims. And since Hudud applies only to Muslims then it does not matter whether Malaysia does or does not implement these Islamic laws. It would not have deterred these Indian Hindus from killing Datuk Sosilawati Lawiya because they would have been exempted from these laws anyway.

It so happens, the crime of murder falls under QISAS and not HUDUD. And trust me, anyone would agree to QISAS regardless of their religion.

As for me, if a Jewish gentleman name Noah Feldman who actually thinks that Islamic Penal Code is good and practical.

Funny, a guy like RPK who claims to be Muslims, giving hell about Islamic laws while a Jewish professor from Harvard wrote and article in the New York TImes to defend the Shariah.

How the world has turned upside down. DId I mention the Jewish guy is a professor of law from Harvard.

Tulang Besi

ps i've written before about Raja Petra's shallowness in understanding Islam and the Islamic Penal Code. No matter what RPK says, majority Muslims supports the Shariah and wants it's implementation. Hell, even in Britain, the Shariah is being practiced albeit still limited. Read more!