2008 June 29 Sunday
Child Brides In Yemen Rebel Against Brutal Primitive Custom

The little girls in Yemen are not showing enough loyalty to their authentic local non-Western ancient culture.

JIBLA, Yemen: One morning last month, Arwa Abdu Muhammad Ali walked out of her husband's house here and ran to a local hospital, where she complained that he had been beating and sexually abusing her for eight months.

That alone would be surprising in Yemen, a deeply conservative Arab society where family disputes tend to be solved privately. What made it even more unusual was that Arwa was 9 years old.

Within days, Arwa - a tiny, delicate-featured girl - had become a celebrity in Yemen, where child marriage is common but has rarely been exposed in public. She was the second child bride to come forward in less than a month; in April, a 10-year-old named Nujood Ali had gone by herself to a courthouse to demand a divorce, generating a landmark legal case.

How dare these 9 and 10 year olds oppose their culture. I see a parallel here. When British people try to oppose cousin marrriage of Pakistanis in Britain Harvard Law School professor Noah Feldman, writings in the New York Times, accuses the British of the heinous sin of prejudice and anti-immigrant feelings. Leave aside for the moment the fact that Feldman is a dangerous nutter and that modern left-liberalism is morally bankrupt. If opposition to the practice of cousin marriage is a result of evil prejudice surely the same can be said about child marriage. After all, it has been practiced for hundreds or thousands of years by certifiable real local indigenous non-white natives. Anyone who opposes this practice must be prejudiced.

So what we have in Yemen are evil children who are almost as bad as white people in England who oppose cousin marriage. Noah Feldman needs to prepare a lawsuit against these evil children. Surely he will see the same parallel with Nazism that he drew between the opposition to cousin marriage in Britain and the anti-Jewish actions of the Nazis. He ought to seek an injunction against any children who try to leave their 30+ year old husbands.

Look at it this way: Many Western countries outlaw child marriage and cousin marriage. If the banned practice disproportionately restricts non-whites more than whites we have disproportionate impact. The burden of proof of moral superiority in these matters always falls on those who would impose rules that fall more heavily on non-white patriarchal capitalist dominator males. By this logic the multiculturalists must support the right of adult Yemen men to marry little girls.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2008 June 29 01:09 PM  Culture Compared


Comments
Dragon Horse said at June 29, 2008 4:07 PM:

Something you might want to see that is related to this:

http://www.liveleak.com/e/8d4_1214302019

Imam explains why it is okay for an adult man to have sex with a 9 year old girl.

Big Bill said at June 29, 2008 9:08 PM:

Feldman is not a nutter. He is an Orthodox Jew. He is loyal to his race, although he did snitch on them recently. He took them to task in the New York Times Magazine when they did not welcome his gentile wife for a reunion, told a few tales out of school, and got his knuckles rapped for being a moser* (a Jewish snitch). Feldman is confused. On the one hand, he suckled on the teat of anti-gentilism ("anti-Semitism: the 2000 year-old hate", etc.) in a Boston Jewish school. On the other hand, he wants to be Mr. Liberal Harvard Professor with a shiksa for a wife and be respected for it in a Jewish community that calls Jewish mongrelization with gentiles "the Second Holocaust". Go figure. As someone who was educated in a segregated school in order to prevent assimilation and Americanization, he has shucked some of the ringe beliefs but still has a certain sympathy for Muslims who want to live in the West. He would prefer Americans and Europeans be reckless in our immigration policies for obvious reasons.

*In the NYT Magazine he recounted a Jewish elder advising Jewish young people in Boston about halacha: one can breach the sabbath by saving a Jewish life, but one can save a goy's life on the sabbath only if there is a chance the goyim will catch you walking away and letting the goyim die. Think about it: if we are worth so little in his God's eyes that we should be left for dead on the sabbath, why should anyone be surprised that to him we deserve no nation of our own and should admit anyone who shows up at our door with a smile?

I appreciated his honesty in the New York Times Magazine article last year (although I doubt he will snitch ever again!), but I must say I am not surprised at his equating resisting the Muslim takeover of OUR lands with the Holocaust. It is to be expected.

Richard said at June 30, 2008 6:47 AM:

BigBill

I was going to comment that Prof Feldman was rather selective in the evidence he presented for his position and furthermore, put a spin on that evidence to seal the deal and convince his readers of the righteousness of his cause. Or maybe just to convince himself. Who knows.

But to condemn him for that, or even just to comment on it, without commenting on your spinning of his account of the 'Jewish Elder' (not of Zion by any chance?) - well, that just wouldn't be fair.

So perhaps you might like to read through what you've written in the paragraph starting with '*' and then compare it with the original article. Which I've thoughtfully cut and pasted below. (from the NYT July 22nd 2007)

"One time at Maimonides [the school that Feldman attended] a local physician a well-known figure in the community who later died tragically young addressed a school assembly on the topic of the challenges that a modern Orthodox professional may face.

The doctor addressed the Talmudic dictum that the saving of a life trumps the Sabbath. He explained that in its purest form, this principle applies only to the life of a Jew.

The rabbis of the Talmud, however, were unprepared to allow the life of a non-Jew to be extinguished because of the no-work commandment, and so they ruled that the Sabbath could be violated to save the life of a non-Jew out of concern for maintaining peaceful relations between the Jewish and non-Jewish communities."

This speaks to me of the problems of reconciling the contradictions within any sacred texts to enable adherents to live their lives according to the principles of that religion. How you manged to use it to support your conclusion is a bit of a mystery.

OK, this sounds like a personal attack on you, BigBill. It's not meant to be. But it does highlight the importance of the idea that we all have a tendency to allow our beliefs to shape the evidence when, really, it should be the other way around. Randall provides some pretty thought provoking pieces and I also enjoy the comments that they generate. I just didn't feel that I could leave this particular comment unchallenged.

Randall Parker said at June 30, 2008 6:34 PM:

Richard,

to save the life of a non-Jew out of concern for maintaining peaceful relations between the Jewish and non-Jewish communities

Er, I'm supposed to be more relieved by the exact comment here? Suppose, say, the observant Jew could ignore the person who was about to die because no one would learn of his decision to let the person die? In that case the failure to act would not threaten peaceful relations with non-Jews.

I mean, the attitude relayed by this doctor is terrible. Do you want neighbors who have such an attitude?


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright