<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d7626745258811529122\x26blogName\x3dOpineTree\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLACK\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttps://opinetree.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://opinetree.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d-6547004278245586123', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

What Would Muhammad Do?

Dr. Ahmad Al-Mu'bi, a Saudi marriage officiant, gave an interview on Lebanese television in which he stated that it is permissible to "marry a girl at the age of one, if sex is postponed." He further justifies this by stating that, "The Prophet Muhammad is the model we follow; he took 'Aisha to be his wife when she was six, but he had sex with her only when she was nine." Watch.

So Muhammad was a pedophile? Good to know! You should understand that the young mind of a Saudi male needs the companionship and intellectual stimulation that only a one-year-old can bring to the table. And if you don't think having sex with a nine-year-old is rape, you should...well, you should move to Saudi Arabia.

Meanwhile, citing "evolving standards of decency," our own Supreme Court has just ruled that we are not allowed to execute someone who rapes a child. The ruling stemmed from a 2003 case in which a man was sentenced to death for raping his 8-year-old stepdaughter. What was the Supreme Court's justification? That executing someone found guilty of child rape would be a violation of the Eighth Amendment, constituting "cruel and unusual punishment."

So I guess having the perpetrator raped is out of the question? Two of the most liberal judges the court has ever seen, Souter and Ginsberg, based their decision on "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." Could a "maturing society" be one that isn't full of child rapists?

Justice Alito wrote that the 5 judges ruled against the death penalty "no matter how young the child, no matter how many times the child is raped, no matter how many children the perpetrator rapes, no matter how sadistic the crime, no matter how much physical or psychological trauma is inflicted and no matter how heinous the perpetrator's criminal record may be."

In a 5-4 vote, the liberals on the Supreme Court, rather than acting as protectors of the nation's children, have thrown them to the wolves. Muhammad would have loved it here.

Labels: ,

You can post a response or digg this post by using the links below.
Comment | Digg | Go to end
hits counter