First! And I think this was the source of the "rule of thumb," which was that wives couldn't be beaten with any rod bigger around than their husband's thumb...

Now I'm gonna lose my lunch ...

"Religion of Peace and Wife-Beating™"

Lovely.

Why should anyone be surprised by this?

4, Verse 34, the husband’s third step when the wife is rebellious: First, he must reprimand her, without anger. Next, he must distance her from the conjugal bed. Only if these two methods fail should the husband turn to beating.

Ok. At what point in this psychotic 12-step program is wifey buried up to her chest and people throw stones at her head? Is it before or after the wifes clitoris has been sawn off? ROPMA.

And, STILL, the feminazis and LLLs support these cro-magnons.

I heard a report today on one of the radio stations about a Saudi man that had been married 58 times and was fixin' to wed wife number 59. He was going to decide which of his existing 4 wives to divorce by a coin toss.

Somethin' tells me that alimony is not part of the culture.

book, which sold around 3,000 copies in Islamic cultural centers across Spain, was removed from the shelves.

I am more concerned with another book which has sold far more copies and wreaked far more havoc.

So, the Koran even tells you how to abuse your property. Ya learn something new every day.

#7 Swamp Woman

I don't think child support is, either.

#5 Jaffar:

Unfortunately, there is no 12th step as rule #11 details how to fit your wife for an explosive belt in order to become a glorius shahid.

Their child-rearing steps are similar to their marriage counseling I hear.

I sent this article to my teenage daughters with a warning about never,ever date a Muslim boy.
Why any Western woman would take a chance with having a personal relationship with any man coming out of that culture is beyond me.

Why the feminists defend this culture is a total mystery.

#4 Paladin 3/22/2004 05:16PM PST

Why should anyone be surprised by this?

Noone should. However, never underestimate the power of the ... er, of the el Cubo.

Lysander, who almost channeled Mel Brooks!

supended sentence???

Damn monsters! How do you give someone a suspended sentence for inciting domestic violence?!! For making it religiously mandated?!!!

I can't have enough contempt for the "judge" in this case. Fucking coward!

OT Read this. You know you want to, baby!

One funny Spanish story that seems to have escaped notice (or rather connect the two dots if you can simplisme analysis) is the Islamic conference in Granada just after the new mosque was opened there last year.

That was a Big Event for Euro self-congratulation on how wonderfully tolerant we are and how cool it is to see a big minaret in Granada.

Meanwhile the Muslim dignitaries assembled in Granda attended a conference where the key note speaker called for the end of capitalism:

Mr Vadillo, a Spanish Muslim, called on all followers of Islam to stop using western currencies such as the dollar, the pound and the euro and instead to return to the use of the gold dinar.

Then Germany's Muslim voice weighed in:

The conference also heard from Abu Bakr Rieger, a German Muslim. He said Islam could only be practised in Europe in a traditional way, not in one adapted to European values and structures.

Heh heh.

OT C & F do it again

EU Gets "Tough" on Terror

I need someone to explain to me how cutting off aid to impoverished countries will address the "root causes" of terrorism leaders of European countries accuse America of ignoring. After all that's the primary tool on the EU's new plan to get tough -- that's tough as in pathetically weak -- on terror.

With the Madrid bombings behind them and the fear of more attacks looming, European Union foreign ministers on Monday adopt tough new anti-terrorism measures ahead of a summit at the end of the week.

But Monday's statements went beyond just rhetoric. In an uncharacteristic move linking trade and aid with political compliance, the foreign ministers warned partner countries outside the bloc that their economic relations with the EU would suffer if they failed to cooperate in the fight against terrorism.

The ministers referred to the fight against terror as "a key element of political dialogue" with non-EU countries, including those in the Middle East, Asia and Africa. Those whose cooperation in fighting terrorism was deemed insufficient would risk loosing aid and trade with the economically powerful EU, the ministers wrote in a draft declaration on terrorism after the meeting.

Just asking, but shouldn't they have already stopped playing nice tradey-tradey with such terror supporting countries after 9-11?

I agree that the book's contents are disgusting; can any lawyers out there tell me if this book could be banned in the United States? If not, as I suspect, where do the Euros get off telling us that we live in a police state?

#12 Lysander

To paraphrase Mel Brooks:

In islam, it's good to be the man!

his client was not expressing his personal opinion, but only reiterating the writings of Islam from the 13th and 19th centuries.

Or, as Flip Wilson used to say, "The Devil made me do it!"

Whatever.

Two points:
1. Nothing written on any subject should ever come as a surprise or shock to anyone. Everything that could ever be said has already been said, so the restating should surprise nobody. That includes the Starsky and Hutch movie, by the way.

2. The Spanish have already demonstrated their lack of spine, so giving a suspended sentence to this waste of space should have been a forgone conclusion.

3. As a rabid freedom of speech devotee, I question the wisdom in trying this guy in the first place. The beauty of freedom of speech is that it gives one more than enough rope with which to prove oneself an idiot.

#20 Alyksandr

That's three points.

#1 BarCodeKing

Actually, that's a myth.
"The Rule of Thumb"

Spanish today. Germany tomorrow. I bid you farewell Europe.

In Germany, Mosque-Building Boom Regarded With Fear

Nothing to see hear folks...just a religion of peace quietly taking over your country...carry on.

Gulcek's mosque reflects the surge in Islamic construction sweeping Germany. The number of traditional mosques with their distinctive minarets nearly doubled in Germany from 77 in 2002 to 141 in 2003, according to Islam Archive, a Muslim research group in the city of Soest. An additional 154 mosques and cultural centers are planned, many of them in the countryside where vistas are dotted with symbols of crescent moons and crosses.

Like the cultural battles over allowing Muslim women to wear head scarves in European schools, mosques are another indication that immigration is transforming social, religious and aesthetic landscapes. Staccato Turkish and throaty Arabic syllables whirl amid European vernaculars, and where once there was a German bakery, there is now a Moroccan kebab stand. In some bookshops, the Quran is as prominent as the Bible, and Muslim worry beads sometimes rattle alongside rosaries.

#21 Paladin

Actually it was 2...before it was 3.

(sorry, couldn't resist)

The wife beating is of a piece with age old, tradition heavy Muslim law and practice. Muslim tradition has it that womankind are licentious and rapacious.

Sura 4.34 Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye hear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart; and scourge (beat) them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them Lo! Allah is ever High Exalted, Great.

Swampwoman, when you say:

I heard a report today on one of the radio stations about a Saudi man that had been married 58 times and was fixin' to wed wife number 59. He was going to decide which of his existing 4 wives to divorce by a coin toss.

This is common practice. Muslim men often compete with each other to sire male progeny. It is common practice, according to V.J.Naipaul, for men to marry a woman, breed her to exhaustion, divorce and begin again with no obligation to the abandoned family. Serial siring. Naipaul says the resentment of the sons goes a long way toward explaining the frictions in Muslim society.

Cardinal Ximinez: Our two points are that its redundant and shows Spain's lack of spine and that it helps expose people's idiocy. Oops. I'll come in again.

Reg: I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition.

Cardinal Ximinez: NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! ...Amongst our points are such diverse arguments as ...

#11 Tim K . . .

Why the feminists defend this culture is a total mystery.

Most of the people who defend this culture are truly ignorant of what Islam and Islamofascism are all about. They think the Koran is just like the Bible and Islam is just like Christianity or Judaism, only "quaint" and "cultural."

#11 Tim K . . .

Why the feminists defend this culture is a total mystery.

Enemy of an enemy?

Just a quick correction to my post - Spain, not spanish.

D'oh.

#20 Alykzandr

re: Freedom of speech.

As I said yesterday, such speech was long ago ruled not protected by the supreme court.

Incitement to violence is NOT protected speech.

I never cease to be amazed by the ignorance American have about what their constitution actually means.

The main purpose of the first amendment was to make democracy possible, not to allow demogogs to incite violence, or criminals to conspire to break the law. Neither of those acts are protected.

The tests the Supreme court laid out in their most important decision was:

"Words which, ordinarily and in many places, would be within the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment may become subject to prohibition when of such a nature and used in such circumstances a to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils which Congress has a right to prevent. The character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done."
...
"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force. Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 439. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."

Read that carefully:
" It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force."

If someone says the violence is mandated by God, clearly such words "have all of the effect of force".

" become subject to prohibition when of such a nature and used in such circumstances a to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils which Congress has a right to prevent. "

Clearly in such a context there is "a clear and present danger" that such words will bring about "the substantive evils which Congress has a right to prevent"
That is unless you think domestic violence and deliberate terrorizing of women isn't "a substantive evil that Congress has a right to provent"

Keep in mind that:
1. The court has ALWAYS allowed procescution of such speech. This was a case the court took in order to clarify what it has always upheld. It created a very high bar. "Clear and present danger of a serious and substantive evil..."

2. Also keep in mind that no other country sets the bar so high as the United States. Other countries disallow hate speech that doesn't directly call for violence like this particular case does!!

So freedom of speech is not set up as the highest principle of the constition. Other principles do take presidence.

If preacher in the US start preaching that men have a right and duty to beat their women into submission I hope we jail them with a quickness.

#28 Andjam . . .

I doubt the "enemy of the enemy" explanation. I'm a feminist, for example. To me that means being FOR equal rights and opportunities for women, not being against men.

I know the word "feminist" has become a dirty word, but I'd just like to restore it to its more simple and straightforward meaning.

"The number of traditional mosques with their distinctive minarets nearly doubled in Germany from 77 in 2002 to 141 in 2003, according to Islam Archive, a Muslim research group in the city of Soest. An additional 154 mosques and cultural centers are planned..."

The demographic takeover of non-Moslem countries is allowed to proceed precisely because our social and political leadership still refuse to identify the enemy--and educate the public about their intentions and methods. So we end up with no internal security even as we defeat them on the battlefield overseas. The Islamoids will simply shift the "front" from "their" countries to ours when their numbers are ready for insurrection.

The exponential rate of mosque and madrassa construction in Europe and the US is prima fascia evidence of our demise taking place before our very eyes.

The only hope is for the political elites to be blown out of their complaceny and cowardice by an acceleration of the war by the enemy. This is surreal.

My first husband and I honeymooned in Spain, first stop Fuengirola. Breathtaking. It breaks my heart to think there is a mosque polluting it now.

The Spanish women of my generation (fifty-ish) would never put up with this. The younger generation worries me.

For further edification, the EUNichs have a counterproposal for Mideast security to present at the G8 conference where Bush will present his ideas for democracy.

(There is no permalink, scroll down to the March 18th entry "Middle East).

“Information” seminars and “sensitivity awareness” campaigns for Middle Eastern countries may be conducted, the guidelines of which will be taken from the conflict prevention experiences of the EU in areas such as the Balkans and Africa.

Translated from Geopolitique by the boys at !No Parasan!

Yes, they came up with the after Madrid.

#30 Joshua Scholar

Re: Freedom of Speech

Not to press the point, but when I refer to "freedom of speech" I'm not referring to one's constitutionally protected right to expression but rather to the actual ideal of free speech.

This is one of those points where I diverge from what I suspect is the "norm" in the USA.

I believe that words are nothing more than letters arranged in a particularly cunning order which convey ideas. Those ideas, while good, bad or neutral when manifest, are inherently amoral. I consider the notion that there are "bad" words particularly ridiculous.

And yes, before the question is asked, in my opinion, while yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater should get you pelted with Mike and Ikes by your fellow moviegoers and escorted from the theater, it should not be a criminal offense.

P.S.
It's my first day, so please forgive me missing your prior post.

#34 Alykzandr

Oh, never apologise for missing a post. No one expects you to read all of the posts on LGF every day. That probably wouldn't be good for you anyway.

But back to the arguement... Saying that God mandates violence is not a mere idea, it's an order to commit violence given on the authority of God. Clearly that's incitement or direct conspiracy! And clearly society has a duty to protect itself from those who incite or conspire to create violence!

We have democracy after all, we have freedom of speech (short of such horrors), there's no need for violence in our society. And besides protecting our people, and our children, there violence also threatens this system...

jaffar! i think tim robbins or sean penn shall play your role! i thought you read Y-not?

in michigan, where i grew up, there were some anachronistic laws still on the books-- one, a wife's hair belongs to her husband, and also, it was ok to beat your wife as long as the stick was no thicker than your wrist.

this..is..a..guy..thing! now i will have to stay up late researching the bunyoro and the yanomamu tribes so that i can DESTROY your argument.

you' all think i am kidding about the miniseries-- the blog'verse will have to have a biographer-- why not me? it is only a matter of time before foxnews turns up begging on charles' doorstep...

OK, thought experiment. Suppose someone published a book advocating that homosexuals should be taken out and beaten to a bloody pulp like Matthew Shepard, justifying his remarks by quoting Bible verses on homosexuality. Should that book be considered an incitement to violence?

Also, polygamy is against the law. Are books inciting people to polygamy then causing people to break the law? Or are they only guilty of causing people to (a) desire to break the law or (b) think the guy who wrote the book is an idiot?

I think there's a fundamental difference between shouting "Fire" in a theater and publishing a book which basically says "My opinion is that Violent Action X should be taken by myself and others". If there really were a fire in the theater, only an idiot would remain behind, and there is a potential for real violence (e.g. trampling) to ensue immediately. But if you read a book that advocates something that is clearly wrong, only an idiot would then go out and act on it. There is an intermediate step of thought between reading something and actually acting on it.

y'all should see the king abdul azziz mosque the saudis built in their summer playground of marbella down the road from fuengirola--its an unguarded small masterpiece that would be a rubble pile if i was spanish after the train bombing--but the citizens of al andalous maybe recycled mozarabs and not of castillean stock thereby accounting for the buttboyish tendencies toward the free spending house of saud who vacation there every summer--yecchh

#35 Joshua Scholar

Saying that God mandates violence is not a mere idea, it's an order to commit violence given on the authority of God.

It would be my contention that that too would merely be an idea. Its interpretation by the listener may be that it is an order, but can we hold the speaker liable for what someone does with his or her idea? I would say no because you never know what some nutcase is going to do and to limit ones expression to only the unambiguous is to render self into automata...and even that may not be safe. One will never go broke underestimating the sanity of humanity.

#31 Promethea:

I doubt the "enemy of the enemy" explanation. I'm a feminist, for example. To me that means being FOR equal rights and opportunities for women, not being against men.

Actually, the "shared enemy" I was thinking of wasn't men, but "Amerikkka".

I wondered how many people were going to defend this based on free speech principles.

I counted 2.

Let's make that three. We're Americans (well, many of us); since when should we be calling to *ban books*? No matter how distasteful the content! We don't ban Mein Kampf, despite the incitements to action within that book, and the action there is just as distasteful.

The Supreme Court ruled that if speech can cause a clear and present danger, it can be restrained. A book is (I would say, at least) categorically incapable of causing present danger. By its nature, the act of writing a book means that the speech and any act resulting from it are widely seperated. Unlike the man yelling fire in a theater, where self-preservation mandates a book cannot force an immediate action - if a book says "Do this", there is no compelling reason for you to act without thinking. The onus of the effects of the action remains on the person who acts, not on the person who advocates.

About wife beating and the Koran, you should read this article:

[Link: www.faithfreedom.org...]

"Sorry, not interested in letting the Islamic radicals hang me with my own freedoms."

Freedom only for those who agree with me. The clarion call of the right.

#33 grayp

The Spanish women of my generation (fifty-ish) would never put up with this. The younger generation worries me.

Sadly they do, and are victims of it, at the hands of their Spanish (Catholic) husbands.

n Spain one woman every five days was killed by her male partner in 2000

And it gets worse...

October 31, 2003
Since January (2003), 74 women have been killed

"Muslim women are like shrimp tempura; they are best when they are lightly battered"

This is somewhere in the Koran, I think.

#45 Dr. Zen,

You are an asshat. If you think that Islamionazi radicals care one single whit about your freedom of speech, then you have your head on backwards.

What we are talking about is defending freedoms from the vicious assault of a foreign ideology in which such freedoms do not exist.

They won't hang only the "righties" they will hang us all.

Why do you LLL always insist that the "right" is more dangerous to you than the demonstrably fascist, intolerant, islamic religious bigots ???

You imbeciles refuse to recognize that ALL Americans and westerners who believe in Democracy are threatened. Left, Right and in Between.

Precisely when we all need to unite against the threat, you continue with your knee-jerk reaction against anyone you percieve as "right wing." and try to shut them up with ass-backwards logic.

Get a clue, your enemy is not on the right, it is Islam.

What I find interesting is not this fanatic's book (no surprise there) but rather the fact that it is apparently illegal in Spain to publish printed material which is politically and morally offensive.

Not so here. (LGF is sometimes proof of that). Here, the best that could be done is for a victim of spousal abuse to sue the imam (like the Southern Poverty Law Center does to various racists).

Does anyone on LGF want to be more like Spain at this point in terms of proscribing such writings with criminal sanctions?

Also, a minor factual (actually Charles nomenclature) quibble. Fuengirola is on the Costa del Sol, which is in the far south of Spain, and which I have never heard referred to as the "Spanish Riviera." (although it is beautiful, except for the row of high rises constructed along many of the beaches)

[Link: costa-del-sol-spain.travel-holiday-guide.co.uk...]

I was last there in 1982, at which time it was mainly frequented by elderly Teutonic tourists sunbathing themselves into melanoma.

Dr. Zen -

Sure. The left is all about freedom

It's not the right that is imposing speech and behavior codes on American university campuses and businesses.

It is not the right that sues and presses charges every time someone tells a dirty joke

It is not the right that is trying to take firearms away from the people, leaving them defenseless

It is not the right that is trying to restrict me from seeing the doctor of my choice, or to force me to join a union in order to work, or pay dues which will be used for political purposes to which I am opposed

It is not the right that wants to take away my choice of a Big Mac for lunch, or restrict the size of my car, or is waging an all-out battle on home-schooling

It is not the right that is condemning millions in the third world to lives of poverty, misery and early death by refusing them the sanitation, electricity and health measures we in the west take for granted, all in the name of "sustainability"

I could come up with countless more examples, all of which you will ignore, as you obviously do not see or hear anything you don't want to.

#49 Gor-don

I don't think anyone here would want the book banned, or the author punished.

Hell, if I had the means I'd publish it myself and donate it to libraries so they could put it right next to the CAIR-supplied propoaganda ...

I don't need to restrict what someone can say to know they're dangerous.

I don't live in Germany (where anything Nazi-related is banned, by the way).

I live in a country that cherishes its freedoms; YES, I want to defend the right of a Nazi fascist to say kill the Jews, a radical Muslim to say kill the Jews, a Palestinian-supporting lefty to say kill the Jews... whoa, sorry, got on a bit of a rut there.

They can say "Kill the Jews", which means "I want to kill sub_version". I have to let them say that, because it preserves my right to say "Put Nazis in a dark hole with no food, a terrorist, and half a brick, and let the one who wins... stay in the hole until they die."

You see what I'm saying?

Probably not, because you're so afraid of what someone says that you forget that the freedoms we extend to all, no matter how distastefully they may choose to use them, are what makes this country great.