Camel Economics

Submitted by Daisy (United States), Jun 30, 2006 at 17:30

Ms. Thompson, It appears that you'd like to promote the notion that in Islamic states Muslims and "infidels" are given equal treatment under the law when you claim: "For example, four Muslims raped a non-muslim in Pakistan, the four Muslims were not given any special treatment, nor was their sensless behaviour disregarded, they were given the same punishment as anyone else who committs rape: all four boys served capital punishment for their action.

Islam gives a boundary line, you either follow it, or you don't, if you commit rape or any other senseless act then your punishment is no greater, or no less then a Muslim or a non-Muslim."

How then do you explain this: In the April 9, 2002 issue, The Wall Street Journal published the concept of blood money in Saudi Arabia. If a person has been killed or caused to die by another, the latter has to pay blood money or compensation, as follow. 100,000 riyals if the victim is a Muslim man 50,000 riyals if a Muslim woman 50,000 riyals if a Christian man 25,000 riyals if a Christian woman 6,666 riyals if a Hindu man 3,333 riyals if a Hindu woman According to this hierarchy, a Muslim man's life is worth 33 times that of a Hindu woman.

This hierarchy is based on the Islamic definition of human rights and is rooted in the Quran and Sharia (Islamic law). How can we talk of democracy when the concept of equality in Islam is non-existent? Could you please reconcile this schedule of Sharia based fines (which clearly shows disparity in worth of humans. Worth, according to Sharia law, is dependent upon right/wrong gender and right/wrong religion) with your statement that implies Islam is democratic in some way?

And while you're at it, would you please share your thoughts on the fact of epidemic levels of Muslim gang rape (".. four Muslims raped a non-muslim in Pakistan..")? Muslim gang rape is epidemic in Islamic states and throughout Europe. Personally, I think a correlation can be observed between Islamic rape and your cutsie attitude concerning camel economics as it applies to women. Let me quote you here, "For example, the reason women are given half the inheritance compared to men is because a man has more responsibilites in Islam. A woman can use her share of money for anything SHE wishes. She can use the money for new shoes, maybe a nice car, what about those beautiful earings she saw at Tiffany's? Anything she wants she can use it for. However, for a man it is different. He has to use the money for his family, if he has any unmarried sisters, he must use the money to have them married, he must use the money to help his mother, even this amount of money may not be enough for a man."

What you say is absolutely fantastical. Your explanation cannot even rise to the level of rationalization since something rational must be found in rationalization. Earrings? From Tiffany's? You wish. While this may be somewhat true for nouveau riche Muslims, this is not true for the vast majority of Muslim women. In Islam, woman don't get the money they deserve because Islam doesn't consider them deserving of any serious consideration. Gang rape is, among other things, a form of social climbing - albeit a violent and especially perverse form of social climbing. How to you think that may apply to roving Muslim men with pathologically low self-esteem? Do you suppose that ritualistic (and mainly unpunished in Islamic states) gang rape effectively sends a strong social message to Muslim females - enforcing their lack human worth (as deemed by Islam) while simultaneously bolstering the frail egos of forever disgruntled Muslim males chronically uncertain of their own worth? I do. Seen in this way, Ms. Thompson, you're paying a very high price for those earrings you desire. And you're paying with half the money you deserve.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".