Thursday, November 19, 2009

A Bunch of Rednecks Who Think We Know it All

PederastyThe following comments appeared during the night on an old post (June 2008) about Afghanistan’s nancy boys. The commenter complains about my lack of “bloody research”, ignoring the well-attested sources I presented in the linked posts about the persistence of boy-love in Islamic cultures, particularly in Afghanistan and the Arabian peninsula.

I have to be out most of the day today, so I won’t have time to do these comments justice. Since most of you probably missed what Naila had to say — and some of you may be interested in responding — I’ve reproduced his/her/its comments below:

Comment #1:

Naila said…

A very interesting shindig u have going here. Quite sad really but nice enough for all you narrow minded people to show how much you don’t know.

Just so u know, pederasty began and is synonymous to Hellenic culture (for those who don’t know what that is, its called Ancient Greece and if u want details of man-boy love, read Plato’s work).

Secondly, before condemning Islam and pinpointing it as a breeding ground for pederasty due to women being ‘scarce’and in hijab and what not, look at Christianity. I have no disrespect for the religion but many a priest have been condemned for such practices, and pederasty was accepted until the late 19th century in Russia, which is would u believe a oh-so orthodox land. German aristocrats still fight for acceptance of this which began as a movement in the the late 60’s.

So really is this a ‘Afghanistan’ thing that only occurs there due to their religious practices? Clearly not but how would u tell that to a bunch of rednecks who think they know it all? Apologies to those who have actually learnt something from this.

Blame the people. Not the religion. I don’t accept pederasty as something that should be ignored, but next time u want to put up a post/article like that at least do ur bloody research.

And before I end this, its funny how u post up the ‘abuse’ that the soldiers saw in Afghanistan, yet failed to include any abuse that those soldiers committed to the citizens of the land? And if u say ‘oh but the soldiers are innocent n have only been doing their job’- think again coz you’ll only voice ur ignorance.

Peace out

Comment #2:
- - - - - - - - -
Naila said…

And another thing, Islam does NOT accept homosexual relationships and condemns it in its books like Christianity.

The punishment for such is death.

These soldiers that have watched this event every thursday are NOT upholding Sharia law hence I have no pity for them if they allow for these activities to take place before their eyes as they are simply viewing this as entertainment. If it struck them as wrong, they’d intervene. Considering its only struck them as ‘odd’, it means they accept it not because their hands are tied but because they find this grossly amusing.

This has nothing to do with the government, rather what people are happy to turn a blind eye to.

16 comments:

Servius said...

"And another thing, Islam does NOT accept homosexual relationships and condemns it in its books like Christianity."

That may be true and from the images of homosexuals dangling from cranes in Iran it even appears to be enforced in some places.

However, these aren't "homosexual relationships". These aren't gays the way we have a gay culture in this country.

The ancient Greeks you mentioned weren't gay either and would never allow themselves to be used in that manner. But if a young male slave was along and no women available? "Bend over kid."

Could they have learned it from the Greeks? Sure. But it's part of their culture now and that culture is Islamic. And the Islamic teachings seem to have no power to redeem the culture.

Nick said...

We've all read "The Kite Runner."

Zenster said...

Naila: And another thing, Islam does NOT accept homosexual relationships and condemns it in its books like Christianity.

The punishment for such is death.

These soldiers that have watched this event every thursday are NOT upholding Sharia law hence I have no pity for them if they allow for these activities to take place before their eyes as they are simply viewing this as entertainment. If it struck them as wrong, they’d intervene. Considering its only struck them as ‘odd’, it means they accept it not because their hands are tied but because they find this grossly amusing.

This has nothing to do with the government, rather what people are happy to turn a blind eye to
.

Like much of how shari'a law is applied within Islam, it is subject to a remarkable degree of finessed interpretation.

Many here are probably familiar with this already but, just in case we have some less acquanted readers, here goes:

Read the Taliban Codex:

Rules number nine and ten seem to be aimed at combating pilfering and graft.

No. 9: Taliban may not use jihad equipment or property for personal ends.

No. 10: Every Talib is accountable to his superiors in matters of money spending and equipment usage
.

However, rule number nineteen provides us with an important degree of detail:

19: Mujahideen are not allowed to take young boys with no facial hair onto the battlefield or into their private quarters. [emphasis added]

Just as shari'a law prescribes with niggling detail what direction to face in the loo, how many drops of urine you may allow to land on your clothing, which hand to wipe your posterior with, what to wipe your posterior with and, even, how much excrement may be left beneath your fingernails afterward, so does it also define homosexuality and manhood.

Homosexuality is defined, with seeming rationality, as sexual activity between two men. But here is where the usual Islamic weaseling begins.

Note the above mention of "young boys with no facial hair"? That is because a pre-pubescent boy is not considered to be a man. Therefore, sex with such an individual does not qualify as shari'a-defined homosexuality.

What's more, you can bet the farm that these young boys are not playing "pitcher" with their Mujahideen teammates. Again, shari'a law's weaseling only classifies the "catcher" as a homosexual. The "pitcher", who is not penetrated, retains his heterosexual status intact, as it were.

As Jamie Glazov and numerous other commenters noted about rule nineteen, such a rule wouldn't be necessary were not the practice it proscribes a rather common event.

There are reams, so to speak, of more information about boy brides, transvestite boy "dancers" and other obvious pedophilic activities in Islamic culture. Considering that, by legal definition, Mohammad (the perfect Muslim Male™), was a self-admitted pedophile, it hardly comes as any surprise that pedophilia should be a routine feature of the Islamic landscape.

Just be very careful which side of shari'a law's definitions you sit on, in a manner of speaking.

favill said...

I was under the impression that Mohammed had committed pederasty with a boy. Mohammed sneaked up on the boy and "embraced" him from behind, the boy was going to fight but when he saw it was Mohammed he "pushed" back. Then of course, we all know that Mohammed was also a pedophile...deflowering a 9 yr old. It says something that Western-educated Mohammedans who know about this, don't rename this "religion" as "Mohammed's license to do whatever the heck he wants" and relegate it to the dustbin of history.

Ann-Marie said...

Naila is a joke, why is it that muslims a l w a y s quote what happened according to the Bible hundreds of years ago. Today such things are punishable by law and if found out, the culprit goes to jail, however muslims still live by the same book and laws as hundreds of years ago. You people need to get with the program. This is the 21st Century not 10th.

Jérémy said...

Hello.

Firstly, I'd like Naila to indicate on what precise grounds can he claim that the punishment for homosexual relationships is (or should be) death. One has to be very certain about one's knowledge and one's ability to make just statements in order to define what Islam does or does not accept (not to talk about what God a.k.a Allah accept or not).

Secondly, and I am now talking to the writer of this blog, it seems to me that there is a bit of inconsistency in your post about "boy-love".
Your conclusion, which I read as a piece of (very bad) conjectural anthropology, was the following :

" Islam holds sway over a large part of the world where brutality has been the way of life for millennia. In Islamic tribal cultures, women are a scarce commodity, hoarded by rich and powerful men, leaving unattached men in the same situation as men in prison.And the outcome is the same: the young and the weak become the “nancy boys” of the older and more powerful men. A culture of pederasty develops, consisting of dominant men and their catamites. Raised on a regimen of brutality, the young boys grow up to inflict it on the next generation. Talk about a “cycle of violence.” "

I don't want here to directly counter the beliefs that you stated here, but to ask a couple of simple questions. According to the sources you quoted, when the Taliban were in power in the region under scrutiny, they enforced strict rules against pedophilia and homosexuality, right ? Then, how do you explain that fact using the reasoning you sketched above ? Weren't the Taliban grown in a part of those "Islamic tribal cultures" you talk about ? Then, according to your reasoning, weren't women a "scarce commodity" (your words) among them ? Then how do you explain the difference between them and the warlords as far as enforcement of rules about sexuality are concerned ?

Baron Bodissey said...

Jérémy --

Thank you for bringing up that particular question.

The brief answer (as Zenster noted above) is that to the Taliban -- as well as Arabs, and also some subsets of Western culture -- sex with pre-pubescent boys does not constitute homosexuality. In polygamous cultures, where women are scarce, pederasty tends to become a common occurrence.

In other words, homosexual pedophilia as such is not considered a crime or even abnormal.

Most practitioners of boy-love in these circumstances do not consider themselves homosexuals, nor does the surrounding culture. Many of them return to heterosexual behavior when women become available.

The crime of homosexuality is limited to sex acts between two post-pubescent men, and is especially applied to the passive partner. The well-known severe punishments meted out to homosexuals in Islamic cultures are reserved for this group.

Jérémy said...

I am sorry, but you didn't answered my question.
If pederasty in Afghanistan is due, as you implied in your above quoted conclusion, to particulars of "Islamic tribal culture", why don't the Taliban reproduce the particular "cycle of violence" you talked about ?

Baron Bodissey said...

Jérémy --

On the contrary, I most certainly did answer your question. Or, to be more precise, I answered one of them, since there were several.

This was the one I answered:

According to the sources you quoted, when the Taliban were in power in the region under scrutiny, they enforced strict rules against pedophilia and homosexuality, right ? Then, how do you explain that fact using the reasoning you sketched above ?

And actually, I don't think they enforced strict rules against pedophilia (boy-love), they simply restricted it. See Zenster's quote above -- no bringing little boys onto the battlefield or into your tents, guys!

The "cycle of violence" I referred to here was penned in bitter irony, which always gets me in trouble with people who are irony-deficient.

If you recall, what I said immediately prior to that was this:

And the outcome is the same: the young and the weak become the “nancy boys” of the older and more powerful men. A culture of pederasty develops, consisting of dominant men and their catamites. Raised on a regimen of brutality, the young boys grow up to inflict it on the next generation.

In other words, brutality breeds brutality. The passive child victims of today's homosexual rapists become the homosexual rapists of tomorrow.

Some men can recover from such childhood horrors, and become more or less normal adults. But others cannot.

Brutality begets brutality down through the generations.

Jérémy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jérémy said...

Please, pardon my irony deficiency. I had never read any ironic statement before.

All my questions in fact pointed to one and the same overarching question :

"if pedophilia is ingrained in Islamic tribal cultures, as you implied in your statements, why did the Taliban tried to restrict it ?"


According to your source :

"But when the Taleban came, they were very strict about the ban. Of course, it still happened —the Taleban could not enter every house — but one could not see it."

You can say "they simply restricted it", but it is still restriction. So, in your opinion, why did the Taliban restricted pedophilia ?

It seems to me (I might be wrong) that you do not want to answer this precise question. But, as I have seen that you are quite dedicated to freedom of speech, I thought you would not mind my using it.

Zenster said...

Jérémy: So, in your opinion, why did the Taliban restrict pedophilia ?.

Without wishing to answer for the Baron, I would venture that, overt continuance of obviously homosexual activity might tend to UNDERMINE the already tenuous "moral" authority (more irony for the deficient), of a very unpopular and violently installed regime like that of the Taliban.

The Talibs base their right of governance upon a superior knowledge of Qu'ranic law and it does little for their image as pious Muslims to be openly buggering smooth skinned young lads.

To have their revered Mujahideen cavorting with patently underaged young boys is equally, if not more, damaging for their reputation as their already well documented habit of financing jihad through the cultivation of otherwise strictly prohibited narcotics.

Fortunately, at least for the adult Muslim males involved, such utter hypocrisy has never been known to give them much pause before and is less than likely to do so now.

Baron Bodissey said...

Jérémy --

Gradually, as I come to understand your questions, I will answer them, if I can (at least to the four-comment limit; I'm on #3).

...why did the Taliban restricted pedophilia?

For the same reason that army commanders restrict alcohol consumption or the keeping of pets or the presence of women on the battlefield.

The activity they restricted (the keeping of catamites by full-grown men) was not considered inherently wrong in all circumstances. It had its time and its place.

In Western countries the military might consider that alcohol use during a battle would impair the fighting efficiency of soldiers, and accordingly restrict it to non-combat situations. Among the Pashtuns, the same would apply to keeping nancy boys.

Just as a matter of interest, in what way do you feel that I have interfered with your freedom of speech?

Do you believe that your freedom of speech requires me to answer all of your questions?

If so, I strongly diagree.

Jérémy said...

We get to the point, thanks.

So there is indeed an inconsistency, no ?

If, as Baron stated "a culture of pederastia" necessarily develops in Islamic tribal cultures, and I think Baron would include the society where the Taliban ruled in that category, how could the continuance of pederastia undermine the "moral authority" of the Taliban ? Can you see what I mean ? If this is normal business (as Baron implied) why should it suddenly be seen as morally wrong ?

[could it be that in Afghanistan pedophilia and rapes are indeed deviances, despite the fact that there is cases of pedophilia and rapes, like in... wait... Europe ? Could it be that decades of war in Afghanistan have empowered men in arms to a terrible point ? Could it be that the whole story is not only and above all about culture ?!]

Baron Bodissey said...

Jérémy --

I see that I have used up all four of my comments attempting to answer the questions of someone who appears not to read my answers. Your latest declamation brings up points that were completely answered in my most recent response.

There was no inconsistency. The Taliban do not consider sex with boys to be morally wrong. They merely restrict the locations where the act may take place.

I don't consider it morally wrong for a man to have sex with his wife, but I would object to it if he committed the act in a booth at the local McDonald's. So would the county sheriff, for that matter.

And now I have wasted all of my allotted space on a thoroughly pointless argument. I should have known better.

I'm done on this thread. Bye, everybody!

histfan said...

Jeremy:
Army commanders are interested in having their soldiers keep focused upon the battle things, not upon doing their favourite diversions.

If those diversions are gambling and drinking, then gambling and drinking is forbidden IN camp.

If fornicating with a woman is the soldier's main diversion, the army forbids that, too. IN camp.

If sodomizing boys is the soldiers' main source of diversion, then army commanders forbid that, too. IN camp.