Fatwa Rules Paedophilia Preferable to Christianity

Following up on the the previous story, I was looking to see what other WordPress bloggers might have said about the kidnapping, forced conversion and forced marriage of the Younis sisters. That’s where I found Blogging for a free world referring to information from Minorities Concern of Pakistan.

Even though the legal marriage age in Pakistan is 16 for females, this was negated by a fatwa – a decree issued by religious leaders – which justified it. It was worth it to them that the girls be kidnapped, sold as property, and then sexually abused in order to effect their conversion to Islam.

Reports indicate exactly what has happened to Saba Younis, the elder sister. After Muhammad Arif Bajwa kidnapped the girls at gunpoint, he sold them to Falak Sher Gill. Gill then gave Saba to his son, Muhammad Amjid. To whom Anila has been given seems to be unknown at this point.

In contravention of the statutory law, a Pakistani court has previously approved of the marriage of a 12-year-old because it ruled that Islam allows a female to marry if she has reached puberty. However, in that case it appears that the girl wanted to marry. Of course in that case, both parties were Muslim.

It now appears that special rules apply if the girl is a Christian and doesn’t consent. Puberty need not be an issue.

Remember to file this under “All religions and cultures are equal.”

Pre-teen Christian Girls Forced to Convert and Marry

Another one for the all religions and all cultures are equal file . . .

Saba and Anila Younis, sisters from a Christian family. They are 12 and 10 years old respectively. They were kidnapped on June 26 on their way to their uncle’s house in the Punjab province of Pakistan. When their father went to the police to complain about the kidnapping, he was threatened. By the 28th, their kidnappers had married them and filed with the police for custody of them. Their husbands declared that the girls had converted to Islam.

Apparently in Pakistan if a man finds a 10-year-old that he just can’t resist, he kidnaps her. If she’s not Muslim, he wants her converted, because even though it is legal for a Muslim man to marry a non-Muslim woman, there’s no reason he should have to have a kafir as one of his wives. I’m not sure if a man has to file for custody of any of his wives in Pakistan, or if it is just for those under 13.

As reported by Ecumenical News International, a court has agreed that the forced conversion was pefectly legal. There appears to have been to no challenge to the legality of the forced marriage.

This is by no means a unique situation. In a blog describing the hundreds of forced conversions to Islam in Pakistan, there is a quote from US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice telling President Musharraf at a 2005 meeting that Pakistan is “a model country for the Muslim world”.

US Government Can Kidnap Anyone Anywhere

The United States is very big on the idea of national sovereignty – as long as it is American sovereignty. This has long been the case, though it has come as a surprise to The Sunday Times, which made a headline of it.

A senior US government lawyer made it clear to the Court of Appeals in this country that the kidnapping of foreign citizen in a foreign country by an agent of the US for prosecution in the US is in perfect accordance with American law. Extradition treaties are irrelevant. If Uncle Sam wants you, he will get you.

Apparently the British court assumed that the US only exercised “extraordinary rendition”, or the kidnapping of terrorist suspects. The CIA goes around doing that all the time. They get it wrong occasionally but no one is bothered. However in the Tollman case, in which London-based hoteliers are fighting extradition to the US for tax evasion and bank fraud, there was some discussion of the US attempt to kidnap Stanley Tolman’s nephew when he travelled to Canada. Lawyers were very plain about the US position. The US is entitled to have anyone, anywhere, anytime, and by whatever means.

The US Supreme ruled back in 1993 in United States v. Alvarez-Machain that it was perfectly acceptable for the DEA to hire bounty hunters to cross into Mexico and abduct a Mexican citizen to face trial in the US for a crime committed in Mexico. This was merely an extension of Ker v. Illinois (1886) which said that a bounty hunter could go to a foreign country and bring someone to the US. The difference was that Ker was a US citizen, committed a crime in the US and the bounty hunter wasn’t hired by the government.

As a result, the US can pass laws that apply anywhere in the world and then grab anyone anywhere in the world, take them to the US and try them. They started doing this with suspected terrorists, but now have made it clear them can do it for any reason they like.