LGBT vs Mohammed – This Should Be Good!

Maybe you haven’t heard yet but the UK (United Kingdom, i.e., Britain) has passed legislation that allows for Sharia-compliant wills. What’s that mean? I’m glad you asked…

Sharia law is law that conforms to the moral code and religious law of, in this case, Islam.

Here in the United States, and in Britain where a lot of our law principles originated, our law is secular. Yes, it is founded upon ideas that are based on the Christian Bible and the Ten Commandments, but we have removed most restrictions against personal sin and concentrate mainly on what affects society in general. For instance, if you murder somebody you have a problem because you have sinned against another person and against society, in general, whereas if you become inebriated at home, while the Bible frowns upon intoxication, you are not liable to the legal system unless you hurt someone or cause harm.

So exactly what’s the problem with Sharia-based law? Maybe you didn’t know but Sharia law has respect for only two types of people… the first is actually one person whom you might have heard of, his name is Mohammed. The other type is the group of men who follow Mohammed with strict adherence. How do they do that? Well, they base their lives on the Quran, Islam's holy book, which documents how Mohammed thought we should all live; maybe “demanded” is a better word. For the most part, most other people are excluded.

By all admissions, the Quran was not written by Mohammed; it wasn’t even written while he was still alive. What happened is that his so-called friends got together after he died and came to the conclusion that something wonderful had happened in the life of Mohammed and the fact that he had been here and traveled amongst us; well, amongst them. So, they all agreed to wrack their brains and write down what Mohammed said when he was alive based on their best recollections.

Understand that Mohammed never wrote anything down, in fact, rumor has it that he couldn’t even write and referred to himself, more than once, as the “Unlettered Prophet.” His followers obviously could write, or knew somebody that could and to whom they could dictate. So they all set about writing down Mohammed’s edicts of how we were all to live based on what they remembered he said. There’s one other glitch here, for some odd reason, rather than write down what Mohammed said sequentially during his life from beginning to end, they wrote it down backwards. So, the beginning of the book contains the last things he said and did and the end of the book contains the first things he said and did. Yes, I agree that’s not the way I would have done it but, hey...

I have a theory though of why they did it that way and would like to present my theory for your consideration. Given a period of time you spent with another individual, you would probably find it easier to remember the most recent events and then, going backwards, things might become fuzzier the further back you try to remember. The thing is...I believe the consensus is, at least amongst Muslims, that these guys did not have that problem but I, for one, am not buying that. After all, it’s just human nature. While not perfect, my theory at least gives one possible explanation for finding things Mohammed said at the beginning of the Quran representing his later life that don’t agree with things Mohammed said in, say, the middle or the end of the Book representing his earlier life. Either Mohammed’s biographers did not have the super-recall abilities their advocates insist they had and, instead, had normal mental capacities and so forgot and/or mixed things up the further back they went or they were amazingly accurate in their recollections thus leaving us with the only other possible explanation for the presence of contradictions: Mohammed was in error. Try telling that to a dyed-in-the-wool Islamist. Wait, are Muslims allowed to wear dyed wool? Never mind, I have to tie this up and get to my original thought.

So, we’ve identified the two types of people that Islam and Sharia-based law look favorably upon; what of the others? Herein lies the rub, Sharia law takes an extremely low view of women, in general, adopted children, children born out of wedlock, infidels (that’s me and probably you), and, wait for it…homosexuals.

Yes, while the Christian world has been bending over backwards to prove that it doesn’t hate homosexuals, rather it just disagrees with the lifestyle based on life-principles as laid out in the Christian Scriptures; Islam has taken no such view of things and in some places calls for executions for such behavior. Here in the U.S., while a number of people have said they are willing to grant same-sex couples the benefits of civil union and have never wanted to eradicate civil rights, the LGBT community, unsatisfied with such half-way measures, has pushed the envelope and demanded that same-sex couples be allowed to marry via legally sanctioned marriages. A lot of people have come out in support of this idea and have tried to paint anybody that thinks marriage should remain between one man and one woman, as it has been from time immemorial, as Neanderthals or worse – BTW, no offense intended towards Neanderthals, after all, they’re people, too. The list of supporters of same-sex marriage includes most of Hollyweird and all of our liberal-progressive friends which pretty much encompasses all of the Democrat Party (except for a hated few conservative Democrats) and, especially, all of its leaders.

Here’s a question for you, have you heard of any member of the groups I just mentioned ever coming out and condemning Islam because of how it views homosexuality? Realize that homosexuality is a crime punishable by death in some Islamic societies and especially any that operate under Sharia law.

Let’s fast forward to the present dilemma that will become evident soon in the UK. While Britain’s laws allow for same-sex marriage and grant all the benefits that come with marriage…for instance, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” – Genesis 2:24 (Old Testament)…things are not going to go so smoothly when Sharia-compliant wills are involved because Sharia Law does not recognize same-sex marriage and now the problem starts to become evident.

This should be good. I’m waiting to see what all those who screamed for the guarantee of human rights (as if marriage was somehow a human right) for same-sex couples, meaning they should be allowed to marry just like heterosexuals do and have all the same benefits, will do about the UK granting the use of Sharia-compliant wills. What will Whoopi Goldberg, Barbara Walters, Joy Behar, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack and Michelle Obama do or say? Yes, this should be good.

Let the games begin. (Oh, ALL THE USUAL DISCLAIMERS – just sayin’).