If you're not careful though, you get Smith college.

/partially sarcastic

Good Morning Charles. :)

Maybe some enterprising woman needs to write a how to book on sewing her husband up in a bed sheet, and then preceding to beat him with a base ball bat.
I know a man that happened to.

B.U.M.S.---Beat Up Muslim Spouses...
C.N.N.---Capitulation News Network...

CNN used to be relevant. But it is going the way of the other alphabet news media, the way of the dodo bird.
RIP to them all!

What do you expect from CNN?

Who do you think writes the CNN stories?

It's Fenton Communications.

Journalism school
then
CNN Internship
then
Headline writer
then
Fenton Communications job
then
Democratic Campaign staffer
then
CNN writer
then
Fenton Communications job
then
Democratic Congressman staffer
then Fenton Communications job
then
Death

Does anyone still watch that channel?

My hatred for CNN reached a crescendo during the Afghan war and that dickhead Nic Robertson who could barely conceal his glee when things would periodically go bad for the coalition.

That ugly, mannish bitch, Amanpour, pisses me off too.

Dobbs is ok sometimes but his "exporting America" obsession is getting old fast.

Larry King is a withered old colostomy bag with the i.q. of a reuben sandwich.

Ironically enough, there was a Spanish-based imam who recently wrote a book including a chapter on the proper way to beat a wife. Our Saudi friend should have read it, as it specifically recommended as hitting in the face, as the neighbours would see your handiwork.

It certainly doesn't prohibit violence against Jewish or Christian women.

cnn is to journalism what flip flop Hanoi john is to honesty.

Hey...the pictures in the CNN article show her beaten face uncovered in public. Doesn't that earn her another beating? I'm fuzzy on Shari'ah law, but even if she didn't deserve the beating before, I guess she does now, retroactively.

Personally, I don't know how Jamie Reuben stands the tickling effect of that moustache.

I mean, for God's sake, woman it's the new millenium. We have Nair and even lasers...

In England there is a song which goes:

"I go down t' pub,
Drink ten pints,
And I get really plastered.
When I get home I beat the wife,
'Cos I'm a northern bastard."

Here's the Saudi version (retaining the North england accent):

"I go down t' Mosque,
Pray ten times,
I feel like the master.
Then off t' tent to beat the wives,
'Cos I'm a Saudi bastard."

Make sure you click on the CNN link to get a good look at what the sick f--k did to this woman. Real pretty.

Who wrote the article and what makes them an authority on Islam?

#7 TMF

Dobbs is ok sometimes

I happened to catch Dobbs last night interviewing Richard Perle. He referred to the neo-con cabal, Wolfowitz and how do they answer charges they do it all for Israel. Really sick.

Doo Scrobbs.

Matt Drudge is constantly publishing the cable news ratings, and CNN rarely wins its timeslots. For very good reasons, I guess.

And where the heck did that AM liberal radio station go, anyway?

Maybe there is cause for some optimism...

Unholy crap! These muslims sure are a bunch of mean people.

Dr. Muhammad Al-Hajj, lecturer on Islamic faith at the Jordanian University

He gives lectures on this. He gives lectures on how to beat your wife? What the hell is wrong with these people? This guy is actually running around advocating spousal abuse. What kind of people are these people? They strap bombs on their kids. They beat the living hell out of their wives. They say it is the will of God? What kind of people are these people? This is their concept of what is right and wrong? This is their idea of family? What the hell is wrong with these people?

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE?

Mamba:

I stand corrected. F' Dobbs.

This is typical of liberal media. Check out my post about a report titled "The State of the News Media 2004" that came out last month. It concludes that the public distrusts the media, but instead of self-examination, they blame it on conservatives!

Jordan's Queen Rania is pretty hot and she's taking up the good fight against wife beatings.

[Link: www.middle-east-online.com...]

"...condemned the practice of "honour killings" as a crime against Islam and said she will chair a new council aimed at changing common male perceptions about women."

I have a post on the Qur'an verse Charles referes to...

March 23 Post

Only Islam could institutionalize wife beating, clitorectomies, and "honor" killings.

This death cult is simply incompatible with modern society.

Islam prohibits violence from women, at least in self-defense.

When they fight back, it seems they're the ones who are punished. Severely.

Reminds me of the joke:

What do you say to a Muslim woman with two black eyes.

Nothing, you already told her twice.

Yet another catch 22 of this charming culture:

In order to report abuse to the police, a woman must be accompanied by a male. If the woman is married, the male accomanying her must be her husband. So how is a married woman supposed to report spousal abuse?

One of Prager's finest pieces yet. Highly recommended to all LGFers.

[Link: www.townhall.com...]

Wife beating: check

Child abuse: check

Jew hating: check

Welcome to the wonderful world of the mu-slime male.

OT:

An Indian tribe has forced distributors of an Arab studies guide for U.S. teachers to remove an inaccurate passage that says Muslim explorers preceded Christopher Columbus to North America and became Algonquin chiefs.

Anti-dhimmitude in the classroom: Textbook on Arabs removes "blunder"

"Although Christianity prohibits violence against women..."

"Although Judaism prohibits violence against women..."

"Although Hinduism prohibits violence against women..."

"Although Sikhism prohibits violence against women..."

"Although Buddhism prohibits violence against women..."

"Although Shintoism prohibits violence against women..."

When was the last time you EVER heard any of those phrases uttered on any national news station?

Well, in all fairness, the prophet says send the wife to sleep on the couch first, and only then smack 'er around if she doesn't gewt with the program, and according to the Saudi expert, one should avoid breaking bones, marking the face or causing life threatening injuries.

I think Islam has moved on from the Eight Century now. There positively Ninth Century in their enlightenment.

#27, Indeed that is one of the finest columns I have read in a long time. It mirrors my thoughts perfectly.

To paraphrase Charles Shulz: I love people, it's mankind I can't stand.

But, but, but...

"It's only a tiny minority"

"Islam does not permit violence"

"Islam teaches respect for women"

"Sharia imposes harsh penalties for abuse against women"

"This is not Islam, Islam is peace."

Grrr...

#30

Yeah, it reminds me of the "Yes, the WTC was a tragedy, but..."

#27 Wild Justice Johnson

Thanks for the link!

Well worth the time to read!

I honestly, truly believe that although the fanatics are going to cause a LOT of death and destruction---it's gonna be a long and bloody war---there is no doubt that now that islam is coming to light, it's going to wither and die.

2004 - world muslim population, 1.5 billion

2104 - world muslim population, 42

#29 elbud 4/20/2004 08:40AM PST

This is part of a plan to claim the Western Hemisphere a part of the muslim world. You know prior claims and such. This lie is all over websites. It is the foundation of plan to make those dumb wife beating, child murdering, macho muslim men accept the concept that the western hemisphere must be reclaimed from the infidel.

#27 Wild Justice Johnson - Terrific piece. Thanks for the link.

Note to CNN:

"Men take authority over women... As for those who are disobedient, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them."

    (Surah 4:34)

Whatever she did, she deserved a good slap. Even if it was nothing she was probably thinking of doing something wrong. I applaud a husband who keeps his wife on the straight or narrow.

In fact she should be thankful hubby was so lenient and didn't set her on fire as I believe is the current vogue in the more sophisticated spheres of TROP.

I'm currently waiting for Jermaine Jackson's latest sermon before I give my definitive view, however.

OT: Over at SharkBlog, the story of a "Hezballah Game Show," and a picture begging to be captioned.

The Queen thinks this is about Iraqi women.
Jordanian queen will chair new council aimed at changing common male perceptions about women.

"It is vital that security throughout Iraq be re-established as a first priority so that all Iraqis, and especially women, feel safe enough to work, attend school and undertake their daily activities," she said.

But this woman was Saudi

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) -- A popular Saudi television host publicly showed her bruised and bloodied face and has shocked her compatriots into openly talking about one of the kingdom's long-hidden problems: violence against women.

Apparently, wife abuse is accepted all over the ME except Israel.

"So, Ahmed, you blow up buses for a living. Fascinating! Welcome to the show! How about you, Mahmoud?"

In point of fact, in the original article I read (on BBC, I think), hunny was infact trying to kill her. Anything in HQ on that topic?

# 39 William

Did you send it to CNN? Seriously, why doesn't someone (more knowledgeable than I) actually write CNN an email?

Did y'all read the actual transcript? appalling

Appalling in the commenter's utterly disingenuous prevaricating, and the host's uncritical leading of the conversation.

Well, I suppose it comes with the territory. When the treads grow thin on your 3rd wife, and the fourth is 9 years old, I guess there must be some powerful tension in the ol' bedroom. Islam's Quranic enfatuation with polygamy is just hopeless. If the successful muslim (man) measures himself by the number of virgins he weds and porks before attaining Paradise, then it explains well why Islam's two-party system has a Dar al Islam, and a Dar al Harb. Gotta eliminate 5% to 15% of the male population in their fiery youth, so as to give the opportunity for the salty old farts to have multiple wives. Does the term trophy wife derive, ultimately from Muslim thinking?

But the good Muslim in the interview was so genuine! So well versed, so well regulated in his ratcheting of a man's duty. No, one must work for months to berate the offensive wife. Her actions are, after all, rebellious. One must get video's, tapes, books for her to look at. [presumably picture books, since 7 out of 10 women are functionally illiterate]. One must then kick her out of the sack, and remain that way for whatever amount of time the "man" thinks is long enough. Then one can beat her. The Koran approves heartily.

But the most galling of all of the sentiments comes at the end, where the "host" gives a 500 word sermon on the beauty, power, universality and balance of the Quranic cycle. Women are represented! All people are represented! What a load of bull.

But hey - lets say YOU were born into a completely different society where you either had to keep the sheep from running away, or they would. All the other people in the family will teach you how to keep the sheep, will help. The sheep, in the end, prefer to be kept, since they are fed, shorn, fvcked and sweetly killed. It is a simple existence. The shepherds are happy folk, with a job that they learn to do well. The sheep are so well watched that none can develop horns and suddenly come out for revenge.

Now replace "sheep" with "women" and "infidels", and you have the exact replica of Muhammeds masculine-dominant, totalitarian religion-of-war. It is well named, as "Islam" means submission. What a lovely play on words. Of course, to qualify as a religion, one must submit to a diety, a philosophy. But the diety and the philosophy require a social structure that is also 'submissive'. No wonder Muslim kids are allowed to wear all sorts of joyous, colorful, happy clothes! They have such a short time before being required to submit and be submissive.

GoatGuy

#15 superfly:

Who wrote the article and what makes them an authority on Islam?

I imagine they probably talked to our very own Gordon for input on the piece. He's chock-full of notions about what Islam teaches, and it doesn't bother him a bit that his wild-ass guesses are in direct contradiction with Islamic scriptures.

#17 Clark Golem Kent : CNN never win their time-slot. They may have Larry King beat an earlier or later show of their competitors, but never win comparing apples to apples.

Following Up on Number 41:

1. “Jews… America… Jews … Freedom… Jews … Democracy… Jews ..“ “Um,… things that explode… things that must be wiped out… things that are the sources of all evil in the modern world!” “Ding!”

2. “By Allah, if you give us another lecture on spaying and neutering like Bob Freakin’ Barker, the next house to explode is yours!”

3. “No, I’m sorry, that is not the correct answer.” “Do you wish to wager your children’s lives on that?”

4. “Big Bucks! Big Bucks! No Apaches! Stop!”

5. “Hey, since we have already placed both of your wives in sound-proof booths anyway, would you like to give 'em a few rounds of firm Islamic discipline?”

46 GoatGuy

But the good Muslim in the interview was so genuine! So well versed, so well regulated in his ratcheting of a man's duty.

His matter of factness about this is why it is so terrifying. If he was ranting and raving he would be just a nut but his matter of fact diatribe is terrifying.

I want to feel sorry for these women but I just can't. Their acceptance of such behavior is too dumb. No one is that dumb and stupid. Geez this women will breed more men just like the one who beat the hell out of her. Try to figure that one out. Not only does he beat her up he tells her allah requires her sons and daughters to tie bombs on and go out and kill innocents. And she agrees!

Almost every organization in the western world insists on seeing Islam as oriental Quakerism. President Bush actually got the ball rolling wish his ROP statement. This wishful transposition of motives is extra-ordinarily dangerous and must be stopped. If you al have good liturature, like a Pipes or Hansen article get it to your congressman or anyone in influence. I have and the same have been well-recieved(and he is a Dem.).A lot of times people really do not know the truth behind Islam.

[Link: edition.cnn.com...]

Still, Bashatah said Saudi courts have judged in favor of abused women before.

Wonder how bad those women were beaten when the court did rule in favor of the women? Did the men go to jail for criminal assaault? Exactly what does ruling in favor of abused women mean?

What Islam needs is a few Lorena Bobbit.

Speaking of CNN, here is another mention of a blatantly biased CNN interview. some highlights:

Minutes after it happened, news networks world-wide were putting their spin on the event. But CNN's on-air personality, Frederica Whitfield has to take the cake.

In her interview with Israeli Foreign Affairs spokesman, Gideon Meir (3:20pm Eastern Time), Whitfield asked if this attack on Rantisi was in retaliation to the suicide bombing (murder) a short time before at the Erez border crossing between Gaza and Israel?

Meir said clearly:

This is no retaliation. It was a prepared attack waiting for the best opportunity.

Again, Whitfield asked about Israeli retaliation attacks. Again, Meir said there are no retaliation attacks. Israel - Meir said, is at war with TERRORISTS, and has a strategy that it is following.

Israel will attack TERRORIST leaders whenever Israel has the opportunity to do so with the best chance not to kill or wound innocent civilians. In the case of Rantisi, the opportunity presented itself, and Israel took it.

Again Whitfield came back to retaliation: and again, Meir said Israel does not have the time to retaliate. This is not our strategy.

Whitfield then asked Gideon Meir if the attack on Rantisi was the result of a Green Light given to Ariel Sharon from George Bush?

Once again, Meir's response was crystal clear:

Israel is a sovereign country that makes its own decisions in terms of how it defends itself. Israel does not go to the United States to ask permission in order to act. Just like the United States does not seek permission from others to defend itself.

The moment after Frederica Whitfield thanked Gideon Meir, and he was off-air, the first words out of her mouth were:

"AS YOU HEARD - THIS IS RETALIATION . . . "

Meir said no such thing. TO THE CONTRARY. He insisted at least three times during their discussion that there is no retaliation policy from the State of Israel for acts of Arab TERRORISM.

WAS SHE DEAF?

And to add fuel to the flames of her outright lie concerning retaliation, she included that Israel got the Green Light from George W Bush.

Let me again present the mirror ladies and gentlemen while you once again try desperately to attribute to primitiveness of the few to a whole religion of people:

US FACTS #2:

Nearly one-third of American women (31 percent) report being physically or sexually abused by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives. –Commonwealth Fund survey, 1998

US FACTS #3:

Violence by an intimate partner accounts for about 21% of violent crime experienced by women and about 2 % of the violence experienced by men. – Violence by Intimates: Analysis of Data on Crimes by Current or Former Spouses, Boyfriends, and Girlfriends, U.S. Department of Justice, March, 1998

US FACTS #4:

Of women who reported being raped and/or physically assaulted since the age of 18, three quarters (76 percent) were victimized by a current or former husband, cohabitating partner, date or boyfriend. – Prevalence Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey, U.S. Department of Justice, November, 1998

US FACTS #5:

In 1996, among all female murder victims in the U.S., 30% were slain by their husbands or boyfriends. – Uniform Crime Reports of the U.S. 1996, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1996

Granted the stats are a bit old. I don't think they have changed much since. See for yourself at : Domestic Violence Hotline Website

So I guess if one asshole's sexist comments make everyone of his religion evil, y'all must be some truly mean and ugly people.

There are 1.2 billion muslims in the world folks. Even if 100 million of them were as crazy and evil as you claim here, that would make less than 10%. Don't follow the call for hate.

The idea that Islam prohibits violence against women, even if evidence could be found for it in the Koran, is utterly irrelevant. Go to any Muslim country (I've been to half a dozen myself) and the contempt for women is pervasive and ever-present.

Allright, Open-so called-Mind:

There is a difference between the victims of abuse here in the USA and those in the hard-line Islamic world, which obliterates the validity of your absurd analogy.

Here it is.

Are you ready?

In Islam, the beating of women is CONDONED, TOLERATED, PROMOTED AND ENCOURAGED BY THE AUTHORITIES/SCRIPTURES OF THE RELIGION ON A ROUTINE BASIS.

Here, on the other hand, it ISNT.

Got it?

Twerp.

#54 An Open Mind:

I don't think it's all Arabs who are being scrutinized here; it's the fact that Arab society condones and encourages such behavior.

The perpetrators of the stats you mention are scorned, shamed and prosecuted by the law, the government as well as North American religious institutions.

It's very rare, to say the least, to hear an imam or an Arab government official speak out against the persecution of women, especially when addressing Arabs.

Has anyone else noticed that cnn has been running a commercial for a King fund out of saudi arabia. I switch to msnbc or fox whenever the commercials come on.

Dammit! TMF beat me to a reply.

54 An Open Mind 4/20/2004

The difference in abuse of women in the United States and the abuse of women in muslim countries is this one important fact. No american minister,(catholic or protestant) would be giving lectures on how to beat your wife at a local university (state or private). And he most certainly would not get away with quoting the Bible as a source of mistreatment of women. To compare the two is ludicrous. Although women are the victims of violence here in the US it is certainly not state sanctioned and I might add it is a criminal offense punishable by a little jail time.

#52 right you are.

folks, this article was written by the Associated Press (shock, I know). See at the bottom of the page.
CNN is endorsing the PC bs by publishing it on their website.
If you contact, most effective is to be POLITE - say, you did a good job on the article overall, but there is a mistake here, and cite the facts.

Also, if you haven't yet -- join Honestreporting and CAMERA

Associated Press
[Link: www.ap.org...]
feedback@ap.org
intdesk@ap.org

50 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10020
Phone: (212) 621-1610, 621-1500
Fax: (212) 621-7520

CNN:

eason.jordan@turner.com
tom.johnson@turner.com
rick.davis@turner.com
gerald.levin@twi.com
community@cnn.com
[Link: www.cnn.com...]

1 CNN Center
POB 105366
Atlanta, GA 30348
Phone: (404) 827-1500, (404) 827-1519
Fax: (404) 827-1593, (404) 827-1784

CNN team questioned on suspicion of filming at nuclear plant

By Nir Hasson, Haaretz Correspondent, and Haaretz Service



A team from the American news corporation CNN was questioned by Israel Police on Tuesday on suspicion of trying to film at the country's nuclear reactor in Dimona.

[Link: www.haaretzdaily.com...]

Yep, it's that 10% troublesome minority again. Which magically became an overwhelming majority when the Jordanian parliament rejected tougher punishments for honour killings:

Jordanian MPs argue that more lenient punishments will violate religious traditions and damage the fabric of Jordan's conservative society, where men have the final say.

Here's what happened one day after the parliament voted for more murder:

The 27-year-old left her family home nearly two years ago to marry a man without her family's consent, the paper says. Her 20-year-old sister ran away three months ago to join her. Tipped on their whereabouts, the brothers went to their home with axes, and hacked their sisters to death, the paper says. "It was a brutal scene. One victim's head was nearly cut clean off," an official is quoted as saying. The older sister's 10-month-old baby and her husband escaped unharmed, according to the report.

Hacked to death for marrying and having a baby. And "running away" (at the age of 20). Yep, happens all the time in the US, right? And Congress cheers it on. Yup.

#6 Axiom - LOL!

#7 TMF - Totally agree. But in Canada we don't get FOX News. We were almost going to get Al-Jazeera (I'm still wondering how lucky we still are not to have gotten it, and for how long) - but FOX News is verbotten. So the TV choices are: CBC, BBC, CNN, plus some smaller networks. Thanks God for the Internet.

Regarding the topic of whitewashing Islam, I assume there is as much censorship on these networks as there was in communist China.

What the networks will choose to say on any given topic is so predictable, that it makes one sick to watch. And yet I do watch for the occasional live press conference with Gen. Kimmit, or Rumsfeld, or anybody who matters, so I can form an opinion before the spinmeisters put their own interpretation.

In this message I rendered a dialogue with a CNN anchor who just couldn't get off her script.

#53 Saeel -HAH!
I wrote more or less the same on the Rantisi thread (see my #64 above) about the CNN interview as soon as I heard it! I'm glad others have brought this blatant bias to light.

If there is any particular reporter to embody evil, I think that would go uncontested to the Orla Guerin witch of the BBC.

More riffing on the photo on SharkBlog

6. “Well, as soon as Ramel the dressing-room towel-boy awakens from his roophy-cocktail, at least one of you is going to have some ‘splaining to do.”

7. The only game show in the world where “Have you stopped beating your wife?” is not a trick question.

8.“Yes, Rice-a-Roni does happen to halal. You’re good.”

9. “Ha! Paper covers rocks! Losers!”

10. “Cheese, what an obvious toupee. Talk about a Persian rug? What are you, some kind of splodeydope Marv Albert?”

#65 CastorOil

I know, I just noticed it! Do you think there's a way to get this interview? Did anyone tape it so that they can copy it to MPG or AVI video?

[Link: news.bbc.co.uk...]

Parliament in Jordan has overwhelmingly rejected a proposed law imposing harsher punishments for men who kill female relatives in what are known as "honour killings".

Under the existing law, people found guilty of committing honour killings often receive sentences as light as six months in prison.

Now that should make women convert to islam! Wow nothing like getting the hell beat out of you by a loving husband or better yet your father and your brothers hack you and your sister to death in front of your husband and 10 month old baby. I just can't wait to join up with these peaceful zealots espousing love and understanding and most important true family values. And I love their system of equal treatment under the law for ALL people. None of that life , liberty , and pursuit of happiness with this crowd.

#67 Saeel - the closest thing is CNN Transcripts:
April 17, 2004
• Hamas Leader Rushed to Hospital After Car Explodes
• Hamas Leader Rantisi Killed By Israel
Link: [Link: www.cnn.com...] - but it doesn't have the interview with Gideon Meir on the webpage.

What you don't understand is that there is a difference between "muslim" (1.2 bil) and "arab" (300 mil) and also between "arab" (300 mil) and "saudi" (20 mil). What Saudis do, cannot be attributed to all Arabs and what Arabs do cannot be attributed to all muslims.

So let's for a second belive that in Saudi society of 20 million, violence against women is encouraged. What does that tell me about Islam or the 1.2 billion muslims? NOTHING! Nada! Zilch.

When it comes to the Qur'an. It is all a matter of interpretation anyway (sound familiar? got a bible anyone?).

This is another perspective that I found:

Sura 4, where we read 4:34, entitled "The Women," is one of the longest chapters in the Quran. It deals with many of the rights and responsibilities of women, rights that were first available to western women only a few decades ago, and some that still aren't. The theme of this Sura is to defend women's rights, and countering injustice and oppression of women. Thus, any interpretation of verses in Sura 4 must be in favor of the women, not the other way around.

Unfortunately 4:34 is extremely abused by many of the so-called "Muslim" men in the world. While disregarding their own obligations and their own righteousness, these men only focus on the third step of handling this difficult condition as described in 4:34, skip the first two necessary steps and give themselves the excuse to beat their wives. They find support for their misguided and biased views, and for treating their spouses unjustly, in the fabrications of the so called Hadith and Sunna. They thus misrepresent the true Islam (Submission), and divert people from this perfect and just religion for all.

We have to remember that the right given to the man in 4:34, can only be claimed when you have a situation with a righteous man on one hand dealing with a situation in which his wife repeatedly commits "Neshooz" which is an unrighteous, wicked and rebellious act. Abusing this law and the attempt to apply it to regular daily marital disagreements is not warranted by the strong and selective wording of the verse. Furthermore, for a man to demand or claim this right, he must first give that woman all the rights God has given her and follow all aspects of the commandment without skipping any part of it. God clearly says in the Quran that He has decreed for the men and the women rights and obligations equitably (2:228).

In reality, a believing husband would most probably NEVER come to the stage where he would actually lay a hand on his wife. He would be much too careful to examine his own motives first, as a God fearing man, before exercising this right. As we see in the verse immediately following 4:34, when the marriage reaches this stage it's on it's way to end, as the very next words in the Quran reads; "If a couple fears separation…"

Most women in the world today do not enjoy the protection verse 4:34 grants them. Instead they are unjustly abused, verbally and physically, by unrighteous men in unrighteous ways, and get beaten up for the most trivial of reasons, or for no reason at all. According to 4:34 even if the husband has a good reason, he is not allowed to lay a hand on his wife until he has passed all the previous steps.

Even this might be too hardline for some folks and guess what? Then they can ignore it, or interpret it differently. If you are living in a democratic country where there are laws on marital relations, hell, you don't even need to follow these directives to be a muslim.

These apparently were sent to bring some order into the chaotic pagan Arab society in 600AD. And they were in fact far ahead of their time.

Many muslims realize this and simply move on. Others are insecure men -just like some of the fat white assholes in this forum's racists lot- who use whatever they can find to back up their macho reasoning.

Again the point is, one bad apple in this case, does not give you the right to yell at the grocerer. Remember that whatever you say against Islam or against muslims you are saying against more than a billion people, most of whom do not partake in any of the practices that you find appaling.

Hey, good news from France! France expels 'pro-beating' imam

#30-Frank IBC--You're right, It is all ablout separation of church and state unless its islam then all the lefty goofies scream and whine that discrimination is happening. This claim thus supports a religion while selecting out others to litigate and ridicule.

If you are living in a democratic country where there are laws on marital relations, hell, you don't even need to follow these directives to be a muslim.

Tell that to the ghost of Heshu Yones, hacked to death here in London by her Iraqi dad because she fell in love with a Christian

An Open Mind

I don't think anyone here will dispute domestic violence in the US. But I will dispute that you can find anyAmerican University Professor being interviewed with approval on a US television show discussing the proper way to beat your wife.

American jurisprudence takes a very very dim view of domestic violence, be it between spouses, co-habitants or dating couples, regardless of gender or sexual orientation.

#36 nonic:

I honestly, truly believe that although the fanatics are going to cause a LOT of death and destruction---it's gonna be a long and bloody war---there is no doubt that now that islam is coming to light, it's going to wither and die.

Are you telling me that you yourself, who claims the right and the will to destroy 1.5 billion people because of their religion, are not a fanatic?

Look at yourself -you racist pig- you are the same as the ones you oppose. You might as well grow your beard and put on your clerical garb.

Oh by the way, there is no way the US can kill 1.5 billion people without nuking the planet out of its orbit. Shake off your ignorant disillusioned nationalism.

Dumb fuck!

#70 Brains falling on the floor.

Maybe you didn't know, but interpretation of the Qu'ran is not allowed in Islam.

Also, why do you assume that we are "fat white assholes"? Maybe we are skinny black assholes. Have you got something against white people or fat people? Or do you just like using the word, "assholes"? Does it get you all moist and gooey?

Actually, just stfu. You're boring. Pick your brain up and fuck off :)

#60

It can be punished with a lot of jail time! And in CA, a felony spousal abuse conviction is considered a "strike"...meaning an unrepentant repeater will face 25 yr to life for three strikes.

#70 An Open Mind

Even this might be too hardline for some folks and guess what? Then they can ignore it, or interpret it differently. If you are living in a democratic country where there are laws on marital relations, hell, you don't even need to follow these directives to be a muslim.

I don't even know where to begin. "You can ignore it"? Since when? Are oppressed Arab women allowed to simply ignore it? Have you been living under a rock? The entire point of many arguments against Islamists is that they do not allow for interpretation nor any deviation whatsoever from the literal version of the Koran.

Either you're feigning ignorance or you really expect us to believe your version of reality. Either way it’s a sterilized, whitewashed version of reality favored and promoted by Arab apologists and the far-left.

As Homer Simpson said, "You're living in a dream world with little elves and fairies".

Saeel:

Dude, you are dead wrong.

The correct Homer quote is "you are living in a dream world with elves and fairies wearing pretty little hats".

Saudi society of 20 million, violence against women is encouraged. What does that tell me about Islam or the 1.2 billion muslims? NOTHING! Nada! Zilch.

Yes, if you divide 20 million in the holy land [as in the custodian of the holy mosques and self-appointed ummah leader] by 1.2 billion you get zero. It's the new math.

Meanwhile the rest of Islamia is a veritable paradise for women. Every western woman I know who's been there just can't wait to get back and live the good life women are so cruelly denied in benighted places like, oh, Scandinavia.

An Open Mind (#85),

who claims the right and the will to destroy 1.5 billion people because of their religion, are not a fanatic?

Look at yourself -you racist pig-

Um, islam ain't a race.
I think you meant: -you bigoted pig-

#70 - An open mind - I tend to disagree with your statement:

These apparently were sent to bring some order into the chaotic pagan Arab society in 600AD. And they were in fact far ahead of their time.

Apparently, before Mohammed, the Arab society was a MATRIARCHAL one, one in which women practiced polyandry (multiple husbands!) and Mohammed's first wife, Khadija was such a matriarch, a powerful business woman/ trader. He didn't dare marry another until she died - she was several years older than him. Mohammed had to make his followers happy, thus he made it legal for them to plunder and share the spoils of unbelievers, the women and the slaves. To make it really attractive, he reversed the power of women into submission and allowed for multiple wives. Heck, he even allowed sexual intercourse with women slaves which was forbidden by Romans, and punishable by death. He allowed everything for his male dominated warrior cult in order to retain his followers and gain new ones.

Here is the link: [Link: www.islamreview.org...]

Therefore, the Prophet Muhammad had to rise the status of men at expense of women. So he hammered out a plan of sexual gratification based on male command, which embellished man with dictatorial rights and turned woman into a sexual toy. Man was legally empowered to set up private brothels, technically known as seraglios. These abodes of luxurious wickedness carried out only the approval of "The Most Munificent" Allaha but also constituted as the sole object of salvation because a Muslim obeys the commands of Allaha-Muhammad only for the purpose of gaining entry into paradise, which is inhabited by the most exquisite virgins and boys, the source of wonderful sexual delights.

The Prophet Muhammad knew this fact, his marriage to Khadija, in which she was evidently the dominant partner, must have made him more conscious of the male dominance-urge. So he forged the doctrinal policy of Dominance-Urge vs Feminine Charm for creating a really virile,virulent and vibrant nation which built an empire. Thus, he allotted sexual pleasure, the central role in his religion deliberations: man was to have all the rights and woman was to burdened with all the obligations; man could legitimately have as many woman as he wished in the form of wives and concubines; only a true Muslim was to enter paradise, the place of the choicest sex; and the pious and swift way of securing houris (the paradisiac virgins) was through Jehad, which makes mutilation, murder and massacre of non-Muslims so holy that in case of surviving battle, the Mujahid (warrior) receives plundered wealth and women as Allaha's mercy and if he is killed in action, he goes straight to paradise where no fewer than seventy-two houris are restlessly waiting to offer him their lusty goodies.

"The other bombshell revelation from the [9/11] hearings was trampled into oblivion in the stampede to Woodward's book and other flim-flam. Commissioner John Lehman remarked that "it was the policy [before 9/11] and I believe remains the policy today to fine airlines if they have more than two young Arab males in secondary questioning because that's discriminatory."

In other words, when Mohammed Atta's five-man terrorist crew went to check in that morning at Boston, the airline would have been punished by the Federal Government if it had questioned more than two of them. And that still applies today. And, if you were to suggest changing that regulation, you'd be drowned in whimpers from the New York Times, the Democratic Party and the ethnic grievance industry."

[Link: www.telegraph.co.uk...]

An Open Mind

What you might not remember is that most Muslims see themselves as obliged to defend any Muslim against a non-Muslim.

I think most people here are perfectly aware that Indonesian, Afghani and Iranian Muslims are not Arabs. I agree that some of the comments here about Muslims and Arabs are truly repellant. However, if you think that women's rights and voilence against women are not a significant issue in the Islamic world, I'd suggest you remember (for example) that these aren't Arabs or Saudis:

[Link: www.isiswomen.org...]

Neither are these:

[Link: www.irinnews.org...]

And that while this is about Arabs, it is not about Saudis:

[Link: news.bbc.co.uk...]

If you do not think that traditional Islam has at least something to do with all of this, then you are not paying much attention to the facts. These are not the odd bad apple. These are whole societies.

Wake. Up. Please.

#70 An Open Mind: A little haughty of you to presume that Muslims don't believe in Islam. Tell you what, you take your highlighter and mark up the sections in the Koran and Hadiths that are "optional" and not "the perfectly expressed revealed will of Allah" and we'll see how long it takes for you to be executed for blashphemy. By real Islamic scholars and their followers, in real Islamic countries. Don't worry, you can tell them how they don't understand their faith as well as you do.

Others are insecure men -just like some of the fat white assholes in this forum's racists lot- who use whatever they can find to back up their macho reasoning.

Seems you don't stop at religion, but add gender and race bigotry to your resume as well. Pretty disgusting. You may now attempt to prejudge me if you like.

If you have time after that, you may wish to brush up on your comprehension skills. And don't be afraid to ask us to help you if there's something you don't understand. You see, Islam is not a person. Not even a Muslim. Much less 1.5 billion of them. Now go back and figure out where you went wrong in your screed in post #75, and apologize to the person you misrepresented.

#76 naughty

"Brains falling on the floor".

LOL.

#61   mad as hell

folks, this article was written by the Associated Press

Exactly. Instead of being impotently miffed at this article, let's try to do something about it:
a. The article was an AP article, reprinted by CNN -- it wasn't authored by CNN at all.
b. The article was written by a reporter named Rawya Rageh, whom I believe is a woman.
c. Rawya Rageh is based in the Dubai AP office (see credits at the very bottom of this link).

Use this info when writing clarification and complaint letters to to addresses given above, repeated here for ease of use:
Associated Press
[Link: www.ap.org...]
feedback@ap.org
intdesk@ap.org

50 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10020
Phone: (212) 621-1610, 621-1500
Fax: (212) 621-7520

The AP site also says to use the following address to contact any specific AP writer, so send letters to Rawya Rageh here: info@ap.org

#84 Hhar - Do you think 'An open Mind' is capable to open his mind? Or are we waisting our time?

#88 CastorOil

I don't know. AOM sounds like he (she) is trying to make sense. The tone+name+quoting-without-attribution is all rather "my mind is made up, don't bother me with facts" but I'm willing to give this one a shot. Benefit of the doubt.

open mind??

in reality, a believing husband would most probably NEVER come to the stage where he would actually lay a hand on his wife. He would be much too careful to examine his own motives first, as a God fearing man, before exercising this right.

most trivial of reasons, or for no reason at all. According to 4:34 even if the husband has a good reason, ??? he is not allowed to lay a hand on his wife until he has passed all the previous steps.

Compared to the Christian instruction to men

25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing[2] her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church-- 30for we are members of his body. 31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."[3] 32This is a profound mystery--but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. Ephesians 5:25-33

18Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.
19Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them. Colossians chpt 3 vs18-19
And just in case he is an unbelieving secularist idiot bully there is always this:

[Link: canada.justice.gc.ca...]

government's current Family Violence Initiative which focuses primarily on violence against women and children that occurs in the home. Other areas of activity include, for example, the Aboriginal Justice Strategy, the Victims of Crime Initiative and the National Strategy on Crime Prevention and Community Safety.

Reforming the Law and Enhancing its Implementation
The Department of Justice Canada is involved in an ongoing process of legal reform to strengthen the criminal justice system's response to spousal abuse. Examples of recent legislative reforms include:

Bill C-15 re-introduced on March 14, 2001 (previously Bill C-36) proposes to amend the Criminal Code to increase the maximum penalty for criminal harassment from 5 to 10 years.

Bill C-79 (proclaimed into force on December 1, 1999) amended the Criminal Code to facilitate the participation of victims and witnesses in the criminal justice process. Measures were put in place to prevent victims being re-victimized by the system. For example, bail decisions must take the safety of victims into account, and publication bans are now permitted to protect the identity of any victim or witness.

Bill C-27 (proclaimed into force on May 26, 1997) amended the Criminal Code to strengthen the criminal harassment (stalking) provisions. This included making murder, committed while stalking a victim, a first-degree murder, where the murderer intended to instill fear for the victim's safety. The Bill also requires the courts to take the breach of a protective court order into account as an aggravating factor in sentencing an offender for criminal harassment.

Bill C-41 (Sentencing) (proclaimed into force on September 3, 1996) amended the Criminal Code to require the courts to take into account the abuse of a spouse or a child as an aggravating factor in sentencing an offender for an offence. Spouses and children can now seek restitution from the offender for the expenses they incurred because they had to leave their home to avoid being harmed cont'd

and this: [Link: wsll.state.wi.us...]
and even this:
[Link: www.sec.state.vt.us...]

Although Islam prohibits violence against women, many believe spousal abuse is common in the almost entirely Muslim Saudi Arabia.

That's a bit like saying many believe the Nazis didn't treat the Jews well.

#70 Open

I just went back and re-read, carefully, what you posted.

It still allows a husband to beat his wife as long as he has righteously observed the proper steps.

Spousal abuse is never allowed in CA state law. Period.

fat white assholes in this forum's racists lot

Nothing like a lecture on prejudice and stereotyping from an open-minded bigot.

Nothing like a lecture on prejudice and stereotyping from an open-minded bigot.

Too true. I'm beginning to think that I'll come to an understanding of what constitutes "real" Islam about the same time as OJ Simpson finds the "real" killers.

Well, if you can't trust a fatwa from the Associated Press who can you trust?

Let's take another look at a religious book, shall we? With credit to The Skeptic's Annotated Bible

If you "lie" with your wife and your mother-in-law (now that sounds fun!), then all three of your must be burned to death. Leviticus 20:14

A priest's daughter who "plays the whore" is to be burned to death. Leviticus 21:9

If a man suspects his wife of being unfaithful, he reports it to the priest. The priest then makes her drink some "bitter water." If she is guilty, the water makes her thigh rot and her belly swell. If innocent, no harm done -- the woman is free and will "conceive seed." In any case, "the man shall be guiltless from iniquity, and this woman shall bear her iniquity." Numbers 5:11-31

When one of the Israelite men brings home a foreign woman, "Phinehas (Aaron's grandson) sees them and throws a spear "through the man .. and the woman through her belly." This act pleases God so much that "the plague was stayed from the children of Israel." But not before 24,000 had died. Numbers 25:6-9

If a man marries, then decides that he hates his wife, he can claim she wasn't a virgin when they were married. If her father can't produce the "tokens of her virginity" (bloody sheets), then the woman is to be stoned to death at her father's doorstep. Deuteronomy 22:13-21

If a betrothed virgin is raped in the city and doesn't cry out loud enough, then "the men of the city shall stone her to death." Deuteronomy 22:23-24

These and many other passages in the Bible were used by both Christians and Jews to justify state-sanctioned persecution of women for millenia.

What can we learn from this?

1/ All of the major monotheistic religions were male-centric, conceived in suspicion and hatred of "others", including women. (And please don't give me little homilies about "Jesus is love and forgiveness". The Church and state followed Jesus when it suited them, and the Old Testament when it did not. You see the same behaviour in Fundamentalists today).

2/ Anyone who justifies his or her behaviour against others by saying "this book told me it was okay" is an idiot.

3/ The fact that one person makes such a justification - or even an entire society - does not make the religion itself wrong.

3/ Anyone who critises another religion as being less enlightened than their own is an idiot.

Dreadful Bore -

Thanks for informing us of events that happened 3000 years ago. I'm sure they are quite relevant to this discussion.

A cuddly, adorable Fat White Asshole

Hey! You!

I am a skinny white female asshole.

YOU ASSHOLE.

No faith in which any woman was ever mistreated may ever criticize a faith in which women are currently systematically mistreated.

No country in which there was ever slavery may ever criticize another country for violating human rights.

/Moonbat Logic

Whatever.

You see the same behaviour in Fundamentalists today

Yep, each and every Southern Baptist is a megaterror incident waiting to happen. {yawn}

#98 Frank IBC --- A boudoir photo of Matthew Yglesias!! Arrrgh! My eyes are soiled!!!

96 Dudley Storey 4/20

If a betrothed virgin is raped in the city and doesn't cry out loud enough, then "the men of the city shall stone her to death." Deuteronomy 22:23-24

Nice try. Just post me an example of 17th, 18th, 19th,20th,21st century stonings of rape victims by the men of the city

If a man marries, then decides that he hates his wife, he can claim she wasn't a virgin when they were married. If her father can't produce the "tokens of her virginity" (bloody sheets), then the woman is to be stoned to death at her father's doorstep. Deuteronomy 22:13-21
I think I read somewhere a few years back where some backward group practiced this somewhat . No stoning but I think the groom put her out.
If a man suspects his wife of being unfaithful, he reports it to the priest. The priest then makes her drink some "bitter water." If she is guilty, the water makes her thigh rot and her belly swell. If innocent, no harm done -- the woman is free and will "conceive seed." In any case, "the man shall be guiltless from iniquity, and this woman shall bear her iniquity." Numbers 5:11-31
Again I think this one hasn't been used in a few thousand years but if you find an actual case in the last two centuries post the story.

so what you are saying is
Once upon a time there were some awful things done in the name of religion. Ok I agree but is it happening today in this time? In contrast the muslim world is still doing this stuff. If you can't get it then maybe you just like making idiotic cases. I think the pacific isles used to throw the virgin in the volcano but how many virgins have been thrown in the hot lava lately? Get real?

Or maybe you think the muslims have the right idea, beat the hell out of the old lady, abuse the kids, kill you daughters because you don't like your son in law. We might have some guys who do these things but we TRY to lock em up.

#87   zombie  
THANK YOU!!! for getting the facts so we can take action!

#75 (so called) Open Mind

No, dummy, I didn't say anything about killing them. What I said was that the world is getting to know more about islam and the muslim culture it produces.

Probably a lot of muslims, even, are seeing for the first time what really goes on condoned by their religion, and a lot who sort of knew it are having to face up to it.

Out of 1.5 billion people, how many really want to live that way---honor killings, amputations, suicide bombings, all the rest of what civilization calls barbarism.

Islam, as a religion, will wither and die. It will fade away. People won't want to be muslims anymore.

The fanatics will cause a lot of trouble for a while. But, in fact, the more trouble they cause, the more muslims in general will turn away from them.

You talk like an absolute jerk, and I think you're just rattling your cage to make noise.

Go away.

Dudley, you did not too bad until your second #3

A religion can be assessed on several criteria, including where it is now and how the majority of its practioners behave (as opposed to words that may be at odds with their behavior).

When veiling is forced ie all Islamic theocracies, no amount of "equality between the genders" can be claimed. Moslem women in the US who wear the veil do so because they choose it, not because there are a bunch of men in pickup trucks roving the streets ready to beat them or jail them for showing a bit of hair.

I can, and do, condemn as less enlightened Islam as practiced outside of Western nations. And I condemn Islam as practiced in unassimilated enclaves in those Western nations that turn a blind eye to the Sharia practiced within those enclaves.

It is a moral fool who would draw some sort moral equivalency between Waahabism and Presbytarianism because the Presbytarian Church has some Kings James Bibles in the pews.

Although Islam prohibits violence against women

This is simply contrary to established fact. Islam not only doesn't prohibit violence against women, the Quaran actually instructs, requires and imposes a duty on a man to beat his wife under certain circumstances.

As translated by the USC Mulim Student Association Islamic Server, Chapter 4, Verse 34 of the Quran states (in three different translations)::

004.034


YUSUFALI: Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).


PICKTHAL: 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 fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.


SHAKIR: Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.

Quaran, Sura 4, Verse 34

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/004.qmt.html(emphasis added).

For CNN to say that Islam "prohibits violence against women" when the Quran specifically instructs a man to beat or scourge a "disloyal" wife is either stupefying ignorant or deliberately misleading.

___
Is there any escape? Drinkers Purgatory
http://www.purevolume.com/DrinkersPurgatory

Dudley Storey, #96 writes:

Anyone who critises another religion as being less enlightened than their own is an idiot.

Here's a test for you Dudley -- cite all the times the pope has stated from the Vatican: "Kill the infidels."

I have about 1,500 quotes that state as much from Mecca and Medina sermons in the last two years alone.

Either put up, or shut up.
 

#77 Darleen 4/20/2004 10:30AM PST

I said
state sanctioned and I might add it is a criminal offense punishable by a little jail time.

And you corrrected me.
It can be punished with a lot of jail time! And in CA, a felony spousal abuse conviction is considered a "strike"...meaning an unrepentant repeater will face 25 yr to life for three strikes.

I knew as soon as I posted it I was wrong. Lot of jail time it is. And rightly so.

Riverofpearls -

Don't you know that when comparing Islam and Christianity, you are ONLY allowed to compare "The Golden Age of Islam" (1000 years ago) to the earliest stage of Judaism, 3000 years ago?

Didn't you get the memo? :)

#81 Geepers

Thanks for stickin' up for me. I ain't no racist pig. But in fact I'm not even a bigoted pig.

I happen to be pixilated kitten.

(Anyone who can identify the pixilated allusion gets a prize.)

#70 An Open Mind -

These apparently were sent to bring some order into the chaotic pagan Arab society in 600 AD

And oh how they've progressed since then.

fat white assholes

Get your facts straight - I'm not fat.

nonic (#111),

Thanks for stickin' up for me.

Hey, no problem. ;-)

Saudi Beheaded for Slaying Acquaintance

#109 River

No criticism was intended! I just wanted to expand on your post.

I've worked at a DA office for over five years. Domestic Violence cases run the gamut from misdemeanor to felony with attendant sentences.

I've noticed that Open Mind (gads, I can't even type that anymore with snickering) has totally ignored how bad old secular kaffir America actually deals legally with domestic violence.

J.D. -

"An eye for an eye, and soon we'll all be blind."

{whisper whisper}

What, Muslims, you say? Oh, I meant to say

"We can all learn a lesson from their Religion of Peace, and its practical applications in our daily lives."

Here is the letter I wrote to the AP addresses posted in 87 by zombie:

The story "Battered Saudi TV host breaks topic's taboo" by Rawya Rageh contains an sentence with an inaccuracy and a misleading construction:
"Although Islam prohibits violence against women, many believe spousal abuse is common in the almost entirely Muslim Saudi Arabia."
First let me address the phrase "almost entirely Muslim Saudi Arabia." This is misleading because it gives the impression that to practice any religion besides Islam in Saudi Arabia is a choice, rather than a breach of law. If we apply the same construction to a law in let us say the Norway, where gun ownership is prohibited by law, you would have the "almost entirely unarmed population of Norway," which is absurd given that the only armed ones are criminals. And the only non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia are criminals.
The inaccuracy is "Islam prohibits violence against women." Islam regulates violence against women in a religious framework but it certainly does not prohibit it. A recent Saudi Arabian TV programme hosted by Jasem Muhammad Al-Mutawah discussed the regulations concerning the beating of women. The textual proof was drawn from the chapter an-Nisa:
"Admonish those of them on whose part you fear disobedience, and banish them from the beds, and beat them. (Qur'an 4:34)" One can easily find at least 6 different translations that say either "beat them" or "scourge them."
Beating is violence, no matter how regulated, no matter how light, no matter how many steps of admonishment and withdrawal of affection come before it. The esteemed members of the press have an obligation and a duty to use words in the same way as the readers understand them, and we understand that beating is violence.
Thank you for your kind attention

115 Darleen 4/20/2004 12:12PM PST

I've noticed that Open Mind (gads, I can't even type that anymore with snickering) has totally ignored how bad old secular kaffir America actually deals legally with domestic violence.
I don't think open mind really believes the mumbo jumbo he is spouting. He is just so full of hate for the "right wing nazis" he feels compelled to disagree even to the point where he is actually saying spousal abuse is ok in muslim societies and who are we to criticize such practices since centuries ago we did the same thing. He doesn't even see what he is writing. He is so intent on disagreeing with the right he sees or hears nothing else. A condition common to most people on the left nowadays. They have supported some of the most outrageous views recently because they are so filled with hatred to the President of the US they support the enemies of the US. They are so angry with Christians they have joined up with all the terrorist groups who murder innocents. And none of these lefties could survive in these other countries. I mean can you imagine them advocating abortion, women's rights, separation of church and state in any of the ME countries. In other words the left has gone nuts. All they see is George Bush in the White House and it makes them insane.

rosh (#117)

Great job!

This is to all those out there who take the most extreme hardline Islamic scholars as their counterparts in their debates and blame these individuals' perspectives and interpretations onto a whole religion. Read very closely:

Islam does leave room for interpretation. Want proof? Let me bring forward my Islamic scholar. And let it not surprise you that he is coming from a country many of you have so far been ignoring: Turkey. A country with a secular, democratic government, yet a country with a 99% muslim population. A country founded by a magnificent soldier/scholar/leader called "Mustafa Kemal Ataturk" the creator of the only secular muslim nation in the world, whose name makes extremists all over middle east tremble even 70 years after his death.

And here is my scholar: Yasar Nuri Ozturk the Dean of the Faculty of Theology at Istanbul University.
(oh surprised that there are no Al-'s or Ibn's here? that's right! 1.2 billion muslims and only 300 mil arabs!).

Take some time to go through this interview (dated 2001) yourself:
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2001/519/intrvw.htm

But let me quote some of his words here:

The Qur'an says there is only one Islam. God is one. That's it. There can be many shari'as. The relation betweeen the shari'a and religion is part of religious discourse. First they equate the shari'a with Islam and then they equate their own interpretations with the shari'a. They justify their own positions. The Taliban, as Khomeini before, equate their own interpretation with religion as a whole. That is the worst sin you can commit in the name of Islam -- and of humanity. Look at the "Islamic" countries that put religion in the constitution and reject others under the name of the shari'a. The Qur'an cannot be a constitution. It can only be an inspiration.

Whenever you make a negative generalization about Islam, be assured that you are unjustly insulting millions of Turks who are dedicated to secularism to a degree that no Bush-applauding American can ever realize.

So while Bush herds his sheep with "God Bless America"s here and cleric of sher'ia herd their sheep with "Allahuakbar"s over there, it is us the truly moderate, truly tolerant, truly secular christian, muslim, jewish folk that get stuck in the middle of this pointless war.

#111

(Anyone who can identify the pixilated allusion gets a prize.)

Would that be the Globular Cluster Prize?

[snickering b/c she finally gets the joke]

#98 Frank IBC

I have the funniest two pictures, they MUST be that guy's girlfriend(s) and grandma. They are JPEGs, so I can send them somewhere but they are not on the web.

You want 'em? They are very tame, but very funny.

V the K, Ploome -

I guess I am the only one who is mesmerised by his Mona Lisa-like smile?

THIS should clear your eyes...

#100 V the K

You're applying to me motives that are not mine and words that I have never said, nor even alluded to, in order to dismiss me - or prevent yourself from considering my points.

In fact I think I criticisised all religions - and have never said that criticism of Saudi Arabian society is wrong, or undeserved.

Please withdraw your comments.

#101. By your words, you've implied that every Muslim fundamentalist is a "megaterror waiting to happen". If you truly believe that, I feel sorry for your blindness.

#103 river. I've addressed this earlier, and can repost if you wish, but very briefly - Islam is 700 years younger than Christianity, and 2000 (give or take) years younger than Judiasm - it has not yet matured; Islam has not yet undergone a reformation process, as Judasim and Christianity have, in part because of that youthfulness and in part because in the 20th century it hasn't had to - oil has allowed the religion to be state-supported and insular. It doesn't make treatment that we see in the original post defensible.

#Frank. In fact state-sanctioned violence against women, justified by religion, continued well into the Enlightenment in Europe. Please read my entire post.

#108 William. You've set up a challenge, and I shall endevour to complete it. But I'd like you to realise how you've set the playing feild. You're asking me to find quotes from a single line of male Christian leaders (only one of whom can be alive at any time, by definition, unless we include oddities like the Anti-Pope) and comparing them to speeches made by several thousand Muslim clerics. A better test would be to compare quotes from Cathlolic priests throughout history to statements by imans - but I'll abide by your rules.

He's asking us to take a more nuanced interpretation of his previous posts.

LOL

Here are some remarks from our pals at ArabNews.com. Apparently, violence against women is so common in Saudi Arabia that no one bothers to quantify it. Instead, the paper opines that the thoughtful Arab male will consider carefully before putting his wife in the hospital: What will such emotional outbursts solve? One Libyan researcher found that violence against women topped the list of such crimes in the Arab world at 54 percent total.

[Link: www.arabnews.com...]

Here's more Arab wisdom for achieving domestic harmony...

It is certainly against Islam to beat a good wife. An erring wife should be warned first and advised. If that does not work, then the husband could give her a light beating, the purpose of that being to embarrass rather than inflict pain.

Is that sensitive, or what?

it is us the truly moderate, truly tolerant, truly secular christian, muslim, jewish folk that get stuck in the middle of this pointless war.

Ummm, when you fly on Southwest, do you have to buy an extra ticket for that ego?

#122
Why dont you ask an Armenian or Kurd what their opinion is of the wonderful turks. Hint: stand back or you will probably end up with a gob of spit on your shoe.

You know, Dud, it's deeply, deeply interesting that even though my comment #100 was not addressed to anyone, you immediately came to the conclusion that it applied to your comments.

V the K (#128),

No need, his lack of stature balances back.

#122 An Open Mind :

They justify their own positions. The Taliban, as Khomeini before, equate their own interpretation with religion as a whole. That is the worst sin you can commit in the name of Islam -- and of humanity.

You do realize that the quote you chose to post says that the worst sin you can commit is to interpret Islam, right? Just checking. And just so you know, Turkey has it's own army poised ready to use force against the government and population to prevent them from democratically chosing Islamic theocracy for themselves. So in effect, you're praising a prisoner for not robbing any banks since he's been incarcerated.

Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush

How did this get to be about Bush, or is there anything that isn't about him in your world? And why do I suspect that you won't be assailing John Kerry for his Christianity? Whatever's eating you up, you gotta let it go.

it is us the truly moderate, truly tolerant, truly secular christian, muslim, jewish folk that get stuck in the middle of this pointless war.

Nope, not in your case. You could easily just sit back and let events pass you by. Instead, you've chosen to take sides.

#122 Open Mind

And here is my scholar: Yasar Nuri Ozturk the Dean of the Faculty of Theology at Istanbul University.

Islam does leave room for interpretation. Want proof? Let me bring forward my Islamic scholar. And let it not surprise you that he is coming from a country many of you have so far been ignoring: Turkey.

Unfortunately for the entire world Yasar Nuri Ozturk is the exception and not the rule. Let's hope this fanatical brand of Islam does not intrude into the borders of Turkey.

Whenever you make a negative generalization about Islam, be assured that you are unjustly insulting millions of Turks who are dedicated to secularism to a degree that no Bush-applauding American can ever realize.

If you could try to hear what is being said here you might understand that most of the posters are only showing how the majority of the muslim world treats and thinks about women and children according to the words of the Qur'an. If there are contradictions in the teachings in the Qur'an and the way it is being presented it is up to you to enlightened the brotherhood of muslims. Not us. We only comment on events as they happen. Like the abuse of women, or sending children armed with bombs to kill other people because they have a different religion, or the fanaticism of terror towards other nations. In other words the image of muslims is the image the world sees as it is presented by muslims. We are not making this stuff up. It's happening. We are only commenting on it. We have freedom of speech in this country. If muslims do not like their image it is not up to us to fix it for them.

truly secular christian, muslim, jewish folk

This is actually amusing.

Dudley Storey, #125 writes:

#108 William. You've set up a challenge, and I shall endevour to complete it. But I'd like you to realise how you've set the playing feild. You're asking me to find quotes from a single line of male Christian leaders (only one of whom can be alive at any time, by definition, unless we include oddities like the Anti-Pope) and comparing them to speeches made by several thousand Muslim clerics.

Re-read what I stated -- the Vatican.  Compare what emanates from the Vatican with what emanates from Mecca and Medina.

A better test would be to compare quotes from Cathlolic priests throughout history to statements by imans - but I'll abide by your rules.

Of course it would be "better" -- for you -- because it does not account for the progress of human civilization.

So, let me reiterate your task: cite all the times the pope has stated from the Vatican: "Kill the infidels."

I have about 1,500 quotes that state as much from Mecca and Medina sermons in the last two years alone.
 

William:

Before I go on, you do seem to be either deliberately misunderstanding something. You do realise that the Muslim world has no one central authority? That there is no Muslim Pope? You can't compare Mecca and Medina to the Vatican, nor can you compare every Muslim cleric to the Pope.

If you persist in this view, there's no point in my taking your challenge.

Dudley

In case you didn't notice, the Vatican only speaks on behalf of Roman Catholics...and they are not "all" of Christianity.

Williams challenge is indeed equitable. The Vatican is to "all" Christianity as Mecca and Medina are to "all" Islam. No iman in Mecca or Medina is "independent."

IMO you have no argument, you know it, and are scrambling for a way out.

#132

You're a fuckhead. And I'll tell you why:

You do realize that the quote you chose to post says that the worst sin you can commit is to interpret Islam, right? Just checking.

You must be very close to that 25% of this country that can't read or write. Read again dumbass. It says it is a sin to "equate ones own interpretation with that of the whole religion". Most importantly it calls the Taliban, Saudi, what have you version an "interpretation" not the reality of Islam.

And just so you know, Turkey has it's own army poised ready to use force against the government and population to prevent them from democratically chosing Islamic theocracy for themselves. So in effect, you're praising a prisoner for not robbing any banks since he's been incarcerated.

Ok fuckhead. Is that why the only military interventions in that country were against the leftists not against the islamists? The supreme court of Turkey is the entity that shuts the islamist party down when it gets out of hand, because the Turkish constitution bans the use of religion as a political vehicle to get votes. So secularism is legally enforced not "by use of force" as you suggest.

Also in every election short of the last one, the majority voted against the islamist party. And in the last election the islamist party was replaced by a moderate version which finally embraced 'secular islam' as opposed to extremism. So no fuckhead, those people choose to live in a secular democracy.

#136 Dudley

Mecca and Medina are the sites of "the two holy mosques." Saudi Arabia has no freedom of speech. Therefore, the sort of guys who end up being the imams of these two most important mosques do so with the imprimatur of the Saudi government and can therefore be assumed to be prime examples of the Wahhabist doctrine that is being spread throughout the world currently.

Okay, I'll make it easy on you. We'll assume that the thousands of calls for death to the infidels emanating from "the two holy mosques" are just the same as any coming from any massive church, rather than from one central authority such as the Pope (I don't agree, but I want you to feel you're getting a fair shake).

Find me an instance of a large Christian church calling for death to the infidels in the past 2 years. You can use:

The Crystal Cathedral
Jerry Falwell's church in Virginia Beach Virginia
The National Cathedral in Washington DC
St. Peter's Basilica
etc.

whatever floats your boat, as long as it is a significant enough church to be analogous to the "two holy mosques."

More than 1500 calls for "death to infidels" from those two mosques against ONE instance in the past 2 years. Come on, if everything is as relative as you make it out to be, it'll be easy.

You're a fuckhead

Ahhh! The intellectual acumen and grace of the apologist on parade!

this IS amusing:

You're a fuckhead.

from nick: An Open Mind

LOL

CNN: France to expel imam who preached wife-beating...

#122

Please prove your comments

> If you could try to hear what is being said here you might understand that most of the posters are only showing how the majority of the muslim world treats and thinks about women and children according to the words of the Qur'an.

Please show that the comments presented here - with respect to Charles, based on news items sometimes misrepresented or presented in a fashion the reflects the worst of the tabloid media - show in any way "how the majority of the muslim world treats and thinks about women and children"

> In other words the image of muslims is the image the world sees as it is presented by muslims.

Quite correct. But if you, or Charles, decide to focus solely on negative images, or interpretations thereof, what kind of conclusions do you think you'd make?

> If muslims do not like their image it is not up to us to fix it for them.

Actually I think that many on here would like to "fix" Muslims, but that's not your point. Muslims _are_ doing so - but could you, for my edification, please point out the last positive news item about the Muslim world Charles posted?

134 Frank IBC 4/20/2004

truly secular christian, muslim, jewish folk

This is actually amusing.
You know I agree with you. It is impossible to separate my faith from my thoughts about the world. But is that wrong? If a person believes in nothing then what does he base his opinions on? Where does he get his philosophy? Even so called secularists have some kind of belief system. To believe there is no higher authority than oneself tells much about a person. In other words what or who is secularist? Where does he get a system of ethics? Or is he just making it up? And if that person is just making it up based on his own opinions why should I believe or follow him. In other words I might want to determine my own set of values. I find most secularists are not secularists at all. They usually have some system of beliefs acquired somewhere.

#136 Dudley Storey:

You do realize that the Muslim world has no one central authority?

You do realize the Christian world has no one central authority as well, right? But considering the influence of the Vatican and Mecca and Medina, I'd say the comparisons are rather apt. You got busted and you bailed.

You do at least know that you can't claim the Old Testament verbatim represents Chritianity, right? I seem to recall an incident in which a woman was about to be stoned, and the rules were rewritten.

Keep peddling your moral equivalence pap if you must, but it isn't going to change a thing. Christians and Hindus have plenty that seperate them religiously, yet little trouble getting along together. Of course the Muslims are trying to kill and conquer the Hindus as well. And the Bhuddists. And the Jews. And the Athiests. And the agnostics. From Russia to Holland to Spain to Tunisia to the Sudan to Kenya to America to the Phillipines to Malaysia and on and on and on.

By his own accounts, Muhammed served a god that applauded when he robbed, raped, tortured and broke oaths. It's pretty amazing that you think people of other faiths should be influenced by the revered figures in their scriptures, with Muslims being the sole exception. What do they have to do in order for you to grant them the same level of respect?

New York Times
15/07/2003    Dexter FILKINS
---
BI?A (Yaylim) - Last month a woman named Cemse Allak was buried in a corner of a municipal cemetery here. Ms. Allak, unmarried and pregnant, had died from a stoning.
Villagers and local lawyers said Ms. Allak - as well as the man who had made her pregnant - had been killed to restore the honor of their families.
For seven months after her stoning, Ms. Allak lay semi-conscious, her skull crushed, unable to move or speak. Still, according to the people who watched over her, Ms. Allak was capable of expressing a wide range of emotions with her eyes.
Relatives visited once, in the beginning, to tell the hospital staff that they could not pay for her care. The fetus inside Ms. Allak died six weeks after the attack.
When Ms. Allak died on June 7, no one from her family claimed her body, and none of her relatives attended the funeral.
Just two days before Ms. Allak's funeral, the elected Parliament of this predominantly Muslim nation approved a sweeping human rights law that, among other things, abolished a provision that often reduced the prison terms for murders committed in the name of "family honor."
The legislation is part of a broader effort to secure Turkey's long-hoped-for admission to the European Union and, more profoundly, to answer the centuries-old question of Turkey's place in the world: whether in Europe or the Middle East.
The death of Ms. Allak, 35, underscores the distance between legislative pronouncements emanating from Ankara, Turkey's modern capital, and the sometimes grim, medieval realities of everyday life in other parts of the country.

Link

Darleen and Bluestar --- Kind of interesting, she started out pompous with the lecture in #54, then she became self-righteous in #122, and by #138 she's reduced to juvenile name-calling.

If this thread goes 20 more comments, she'll probably try to make her point by smearing feces on the monitor then hitting it with a heavy rock.

#138 An Open Mind: A favor please, if you don't mind. Could you use all caps and italics in addition to bold when you open-mindedly hurl vulgarities? It would surely sadden anyone to learn they might have missed them as you open-mindedly scream insults at those whose views differ from your own. Thanks in advance.

V the K

ROFLMAO

#147 V the K

Like so many of the so called "peace protesters", it turns out that An Open Mind is filled with hatred.

Just more target practice for the Lizards.

An Open Mind, your "open mind" about the subject of interpreting the koran is going to get you declared an apostate.

You're not a true believer at all.

#144 river

IMHO there is a confusion about what one is talking about when one says "secular".

The United States has a secular government...infact, it is codified in the 1st Amendment with the "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". However, we remain a Christian nation. There really is no contradiction to supporting a secular government and allowing religion in the private and public realms.

Darleen:

> In case you didn't notice, the Vatican only speaks on behalf of Roman Catholics...and they are not "all" of Christianity.

Quite agreed. However, right now there's also only one pope, and thousands of imans - who, despite your opinions to the contrary, do actually have a range of opinions.

Palasine, however, seems to have shifted the goalposts again. I do appreciate the negotiation, but there's still a problem:

> Find me an instance of a large Christian church calling for death to the infidels in the past 2 years

So despite my saying that Islam has 700 years less development than the Christian church, and that fundamentalists are unfortunately mired in the equivalent to medieval thought, I now have to work within a two year timeframe of Christian statements?

Here's the problem, as I see it. You're pointing at another culture and saying "why don't they have the same value system we do?"

The answer is, they're a different culture. Despite the tremendous advances that globalism has made, secular Western democracy is not yet the norm. The solutions I've seen here suggest we impose it - I am proposing a different path.

Of course, you then take the excesses of that culture and use it to brand the entire religion. Oh, what fun!

Magically transporting yourself back to medieval times and giving the populace every modern convenience would not immediately change their culture. They'd use flamethrowers to burn witches. That doesn't mean they are less than or "backward" - remember, you're in their culture, they aren't in yours. Is that the fault of the culture, or you imposing your values on another system?

Once agin, for those who don't get it - this does not mean that fundamentalist, theocratic Islam is okay. It has to change in order to work with the rest of the world. The question is, how do we - and Islam - make that change happen?

V the K, This one's been flinging poo all a day: Fuck off.

And An Open Mind, you never answered my question, it must have slipped your mind.

125 Dudley Story

Islam is 700 years younger than Christianity, and 2000 (give or take) years younger than Judiasm - it has not yet matured

Well if it keeps going the way it's going, it's not going to get a chance to mature. And I ain't its mama.

143 Dudley Storey 4/20/2004 01:32PM PST

In re 122

Please prove your comments
Please show that the comments presented here - with respect to Charles, based on news items sometimes misrepresented or presented in a fashion the reflects the worst of the tabloid media - show in any way "how the majority of the muslim world treats and thinks about women and children"

I am not here to defend or protect any one. I post rarely on this site. When I do post it is about something I myself have observed from many sources. Believe me noone leads me down the path. However my own observations are that the muslim world has an image problem. An image problem they created. Look blowing up the world trade center, blowing up trains in spain, threatening the entire world with terrorism unless it submits to some kind of jihad can cause people to think bad thoughts about you.
As far as Charles and what he posts I would never presume to tell him what to post and what not to post. If I did not like his site I would just move on. There are many other websites on the web. This is his forum and he gets to run the show because he pays the bills not I. (Hello Charles) And the same is true for other posters. They posts here and they do not have to justify anything to anyone. In other words if you don't like what's in the store go to another store. Life is so simple.

#122 An Open Mind

Of course Islam leaves room for interpretation. The problem most preople here have with it is that such room is

1. (Relatively) rarely exploited
2. Currently attacked as either apostacy or "secularism".

Then again, you do not seem to understand the difference between pluralism and secularism. In that, at least, you are in good company with the Islamists, and the idiots who cite the Skeptics Annotated Bible, and do not even begin to realise the depths of their idiocy.

#138

You're a fuckhead.

You're so cute when you're angry. :P

You must be very close to that 25% of this country that can't read or write.

The literacy rate in the United States is 97%.

From what country do YOU hail, may I ask?

(Or maybe you're just trying to get more tax dollars for the thieving, corrupt teachers' unions?)

#153 Deadly Bore -

So despite my saying that Islam has 700 years less development than the Christian church

Given that Islam was stolen from sprang from Judaism and Christianity, why should it get credit for those 700 years?

Let's try that again...

Given that Islam was stolen from sprang from Judaism and Christianity, why should it get credit for those 700 years?

So despite my saying that Islam has 700 years less development than the Christian church

I guess we won't be able to criticize the Scientologists for another 2000 years, if they take to killing in the name of their faith. No, wait, that would be criticized without reservation and acted against immediately.

Of course, you then take the excesses of that culture and use it to brand the entire religion. Oh, what fun!

What? Asian culture has been different from Arab culture, which has been different from Berber culture, which has been different from Sub-Saharan African culture, which has been different from European culture, which has been different from Pacific Islander culture. Yet you claim that when Muslims from all these cultures and in all these locations act directly according to the teachings of Islam, magically it's their culture they're reflecting, not the Islam they all share in common.

Look, there's nothing wrong with wanting to see the best in people, or peoples. But there's something terribly wrong to ask innocents to pay with their lives because you deliberately turn a blind eye to the facts staring you in the face.

I fail to see the LLL component in the story. It's not like the Saudis are being praised. You can't expect the rest of the world to be carrying your torch all the time.

Dudley

The imans in Mecca and Medina are not independent. They preach solely at the pleasure of the Sauds. The comparison stands.

You keep harping on this "maturity" thing...as if Islam were a sentient being learning how to tie its shoes and not leave messes on the floor.

Islam, actually, has even less excuse for its fundie excesses. While Judaism and Christianity were "growing up" along with its culture, its practioners taking inspiration from and shaping the subsequent practices into religions that recognize the God/Caesar paradigm, you have significant portions of Islam insisting on going backwards regardless of the example of Western Judeo-Christian culture. Fundie Islam rejects modernity.

When Iran went Islamist, they dropped the age of marriage of women from 18 to 9.

Islam is made up of practioners, who cannot help but be aware of the tenets of other cultures or religions and types of government where Law is secular while society can remain religious. And they reject it. It is not a matter of maturity.

An Open Mind - Leaving aside the insults, it looks like you've shifted the argument.
Let me remind you what your quote (w/out a link) in #70 was:

In reality, a believing husband would most probably NEVER come to the stage where he would actually lay a hand on his wife. He would be much too careful to examine his own motives first, as a God fearing man, before exercising this right.

I'm glad you you don't deny that beating one's wife is a right (my emphasis) in Islam.
Then you proceed to say that Islam does not need to be taken literally, it is subject to interpretation. OK.
Then you say about the wife beating in the original posted article :

Again the point is, one bad apple in this case, does not give you the right to yell at the grocerer.

You know what? We have given you plenty of links to demonstrate that the grocer is bad indeed, and it's not just one apple (see Hhar's links and others). Wife beating is a man's right, and domestic violence against women is widely practiced in the Muslim world. For your further edification, here's the latest Human Rights Watch Report for Jordan - 2004: Honoring the Killers.
Can we conclude that you've lost the wife beating argument? Because now you're talking about another subject.

#145 Model:

Your first point is already covered above, so I'll move on - you'll note that the debate was originally between the Popes and various imans. I think we're getting closer on the terms engagement. :-)

> You do at least know that you can't claim the Old Testament verbatim represents Chritianity, right? I seem to recall an incident in which a woman was about to be stoned, and the rules were rewritten.

Absolutely, and I never made the claim that it did. But fundamentalists do - of all faiths. (I'd take issue with "the rules were rewritten" - again, its a matter of interpretation as to which parts of the Bible you follow, and which you ignore).

> Christians and Hindus have plenty that seperate them religiously, yet little trouble getting along together.

Actually, you might want to look up examples of Sikh terrorism.

... rant skipped ... amazing how you can lump 1 billion people together in a statement...

> By his own accounts, Muhammed served a god that applauded when he robbed, raped, tortured and broke oaths.

So you want me to go through Exodus for comparison as well? :-)

> It's pretty amazing that you think people of other faiths should be influenced by the revered figures in their scriptures, with Muslims being the sole exception. What do they have to do in order for you to grant them the same level of respect?

I'm not sure that I follow you here. I'm not asking for dispensation for Muslims, only understanding. I am asking _you_ to treat them with respect.

#153

Islam does not have the luxury of having hundreds of years to reform itself. At least one Muslim fundamentalist state has nuclear weapons. Other states are at the point of going nuclear. A number of others have other weapons of mass destruction. They _must_ show that they are up to the task of living in the modern world. If not, what you consider to be their worst examples will have the power to do unimaginable harm to the West, harm that will entail an unimaginable response on our part.

If they wanted to live like their prophet and forswear modernity and beat their wives and issue fatwas all the day long, I wouldn't care. However, they are highly evangelical and have delusions of empire, they have access to modern weapons and forms of communication, and they have _told us_ that they intend to kill or enlave us all, threats they have followed up on with innumerable acts of terror that have claimed millions of lives in the past few decades. That's where my patience ends, sorry. If they want to be allowed to wallow in their beliefs for 600 years until Abdullah Luther shows up, then they should leave us in the modern world alone. If they wish to live in the modern world, they need to stop giving support to odious activities such as wife beating, splodey-doping, slavery, female mutilation, honor killing, and car swarms.

As for the different culture bit, sorry, doesn't matter to me. Any culture that provides well detailed instructions about how to beat one's wife is garbage. I'm not a believer in moral equivalence--all cultures are not equal.

Then again, I'm a woman. Maybe I'm a little sensitive about that.

The possibility remains open in my mind that this immature religion, Islam, is a fantasy ideology being exploited by evildoers with a will to power. Why so many people put up with that shit is beyond me but hey they put up with Lenin too.

Some things on earth are just not viable and don't deserve infinite patience while they "mature".

Paladin

Brava.

#166 Palandine
that was really well put.
I'm off to get a housewarming present for and old lady and then help another woman with her new laptop. And it's legal for me to drive, by myself and everything. See you all.

I do not understand the complaints some have expressed concerning the portrayal of islam on this site. I know that for many the stating of the obvious can be unsettling. Propping up the unreality of situations is so prevalent that such boldness of truth uttering in today's world is almost a sacrilege. [14th century. Via Old French from Latin sacrilegium “temple robbery,” from sacrilegus , literally “collector of sacred things,” from sacr- the stem of sacer “sacred.”] In the atmosphere of political correctness temple no truth no matter how obvious can be stated if it offends any one group. ( Unless it is Christian fundamentalism of course) However I feel the situation in the world today demands that TRUTH above all else is necessary. So If I offend any one please understand it was not done with malicious intent but only to clarify some things that I feel need clarifying. There is no longer any time to play these little games of appeasement and pacification to any one group. In other words grow up everyone before it's too late to grow up. This is not a game.

just two notes, Dudley:

1. Sikhs aren't Hindus.

2. I don't know of a Jewish fundamentalist that advocates strict literalism.Yet you have asserted that fundamentalists of all stripes adopt naive literalist views. So lets discuss one famous Biblical lw: what is in fact the interpretation of "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" in 'fundamentalist' Judaism? I'll even let you define what Fundamentalist Judaism is.

I'm looking forward to a discussion of the Lex Talionis. You can start here:

[Link: www.jewishencyclopedia.com...]

Thanks.

#165 Dudley Storey: How can you say that you recognize how the New Testament transformed Chritianity into a new faith from Judaism, and in the same post point to Exodus?! No, it is not a matter of interpretation of whether it's ok to stone an adulterer to death in Christianity, as the source of the faith said it's not to be done.

You can't just cut up a book into sentence-long sections, hand them out in random order and claim to be presenting the story faithfully. The order and context in which things happen are very important.

Now I'm not aware of any religious obligation for Sikhs to kill Christians, but surely you'll present it to show how it relates to the discussion.

I'm disappointed you bailed out (once again) when challenged to back assertions you brought up. You claimed that the sicknesses infecting Islam are coming from cultures that lie underneath it. I showed that in cultures that span the globe, Islam is a force that motivates peoples to act against their previous cultures, and in fact becomes part of their culture.

"The barbarity and genocide in Cambodia were the result of Cambodian culture. Of course, you then take the excesses of that culture and use it to brand the entire Kmir Rouge ideology. Oh, what fun!"

"The barbarity and genocide in Germany were the result of German culture. Of course, you then take the excesses of that culture and use it to brand the entire Nazi ideology. Oh, what fun!"

No, it still doesn't work for me. Dudley, can you honestly not see how broken your statement is? Was it an honest mistake, or are you just hell-bent on making excuses for one and only one equally dangerous ideology?

> The imans in Mecca and Medina are not independent. They preach solely at the pleasure of the Sauds. The comparison stands.

I'd disagree, but I'm interested to see what Palasis (sp?) says.

> You keep harping on this "maturity" thing...as if Islam were a sentient being learning how to tie its shoes and not leave messes on the floor.

Vulgar comparisons aside, I use the analogy of a growing human body to a system of thought/belief because it's useful. I am not saying they're the same thing.

> you have significant portions of Islam insisting on going backwards regardless of the example of Western Judeo-Christian culture.

You raise a good point here, as does another poster (albeit in a somewhat more back-handed manner).

I've pointed out that fundamentalist Islam (and I appreciate you for using that term, rather than the catch-all "Islam") can do so because it has oil. A system is not going to change without pressure of some kind - social, economic - being brought to bear against it.

To use a poor example, fascism was an intolerant system of thought derived from socialism that infected Germany, Italy, and Japan. That does not make socialism wrong, nor does it mean that the German people were evil (as we've discussed).

"Aha!" you'll say, "We needed a war to end fascism!" Quite true. I am trying to find peaceful solutions to the problem. I am not being Neville Chamberlain. I recognise fundamentalism, of any kind, to be an extremely dangerous threat - especially when combined with theocracy and power. I'd just prefer not to kill several million people - killing the patient in order to remove the cancer - in the process of changing things.

> When Iran went Islamist, they dropped the age of marriage of women from 18 to 9.

If you're bent on repeating this, please also indicate that this is no longer the case, as I demonstrated yesterday.

You've ended your post very well, so I can only attempt to match it.

People, belief systems, and culture are highly resistant to change. They will tend to cling to something they know rather than try an alternative. They are suspicious and sometimes hostile to those alternatives. They'll take the trappings of technology and apply it to their culture, changing as little as possible in the process.

This is especially true when there is no compelling need to change. The Saudis have the oil - why should they be any different?

165 Dudley Storey 4/20/2004
I'm not sure that I follow you here. I'm not asking for dispensation for Muslims, only understanding. I am asking _you_ to treat them with respect.

As the immortal, most eloquent man said. "Ay, theres the rub."
To respect the killers of innocents, to respect the beaters of women, to respect the sacrificers of their own and other people's children to their god, ay, there's the rub.

So...if an American Christian or Jewish TV personality were to be brutally beaten by her husband; how then would CNN treat THAT story?
What on EARTH is wrong with these monkeys? As the train plows relentlessly tword the dummies on the tracks they publish more articles on how there really is nothing to fear...
and how TOLERANT we need to be.
Just a thought!!
The Koran specifically states that salvation for a woman can only be attained if she makes her husband happy.
This is MY plan for Islamic men...wives, make 'em HAPPY! Feed 'em a great supper, put them to bed fat and happy and as they're sleeping slit their throats. That way they die happy and you get to go to heaven where women get to do what?

#166 Palandine

I agree entirely with your analysis. And to my mind, it fits in with what I said in #36 and #105—islam is not going to survive to the end of this century. Because the attached ideology is obnoxious, and muslim fanatics keep pushing it in our faces.

Now, one possibility is that a lot of muslims will find it not so appealing to be part of something so anti-social and counterproductive for life in this world. And the religion they practice will reform somewhat, maybe, but a lot of them will also just wander away from it. Eventually, unless islam comes up with some basic POSITIVE core value---other than total submission to allah---something like, just for instance, love thy neighbor---it will whither and fade and die as a religion.

On the other hand, it is possible, too, that the fanatics will raise the stakes, say with WMD’s, and the west will have no choice but to quicken the process of de-islamization. Violently.

Either way.

#176 nonic - Waiting for Islam to reform is like waiting for a crocodile to become vegetarian. I think we'll need to do some major cleanup.

The imans in Mecca and Medina are not independent. They preach solely at the pleasure of the Sauds. The comparison stands.

I'd disagree, but I'm interested to see what Palasis (sp?) says.

FWIW, my nick has been spelled correctly a number of times on this thread.

If you're interested, here goes: She's right. There is no freedom of speech in Saudi. The House of Saud are called "the custodians of the two holy mosques." If it's illegal to practice Christianity in Saudi, if they have cops whose sole purpose is to beat women who show a little ankle, if they'll take a rosary or a crucifix necklace off of you at the airport, if it's so regimented that you cannot enter the country if your passport has an Israeli stamp, what do YOU think the odds are that the imams of the "two holy mosques" would NOT tow the wahhabi line?

Paladin:

I will join with the others - nicely said. While I don't agree with every point you made, they are well-constructed. I'd prefer you replace "they" with "fundamentalist Islam", however.

Yes, the stakes are far higher. If the Vatican had Apache helicopters in 1100 I'd be concerned too.

I think you'll agree that Western governments - us, in other words (I'm assuming that) have, at best, a two-sided approach to fundamentalist Islam. On one hand we say:

"We don't approve of the way you treat your citizens, nor the way some of your leaders (note: state-funded terrorism is a lot harder to prove) call for the death of Israel and others, and fund those who carry out terrorist attacks."

(The bogeyman of Palestine is something that the governments knowingly let the mullahs trot out, since it keeps the public's minds off repression at home - but that's a topic for another time).

And at the same time, we say: "Pleasepleasepleaseplease give us oil. We'll protect you, we'll give you aid, just keep the oil coming."

There isn't any pressure on the Saud to pull back from fundamentalism when we're so willing to bend over for their oil. In a very real sense, we're funding terrorism and militant Islam.

What do you think the solution is?

The muslim world hides behind the words "it's not islam it's only a few extremists" all the while never uttering one word of condemnation about the killing of innocents. It only asks or rather demands that you not lump them in with such men. And yet never one word of rebuke towards those who participate in such acts. As a christian I understand there have been christians who have inflicted horrible acts on others. Never would I ask any one to accept such acts as a kind of immaturity on those people's practice and understanding of christianity doctrine. Muslims however believe that no action should be inflicted on those guilty of such acts claiming these killers as their brothers and are therefore due some type of loyalty due to their commonality of faith. And yet they cannot understand why they are not respected and why islam is not considered anything but a terrrorists organization.

#174 river:

Again, you're equating terrorists and wife-beaters with all Muslims. I must sadly conclude from our debate that you are a bigot, and my conversation with you is over.

Dudley

I may have missed it (Iran age of marriage), so please link.

However, in June 2002, Iran did raise the age of marriage for girls to 13 without their parents consent. Parents can still marry off their 9 year olds.

[Link: www.ageofconsent.com...]

Females are little more than chattel in "revolutionary" Iran.

#177 CastorOil

Yeah, you’re probably right. I don’t think islam itself, as a religion, will be reformed---like the deliberate Protestant reformation of (then Catholic) Christianity. No, but I think the way individual people and families and communities PRACTICE might reform here and there. For instance, ditching the veil, praying twice a day instead of five times, deciding that pork at Chinese restaurants is halal.

But what might change things more is that it will become a generational thing. At least in the west and anywhere that western culture has influence (and where does it not?). The old folks will be muslim, the young ones will be muslim-lite.

And this is where the problem of a lack of a significant core value will be catastrophic for islam. Take away complete submission to allah, and what is there?

A commitment to humanistic ethics and justice? No, because the only legitimate law is allah’s law.

An admonition to love thy neighbor and thy enemy even more? No, because allah wants the infidels dead.

So, with no positive core value to sustain it, there will be nothing there to keep muslim-lite from floating into the ether entirely.

This is, of course, if the fanatics don’t force us to obliterate them all first.

#182 Dudley Storey 4/20/2004

#174 river:

Again, you're equating terrorists and wife-beaters with all Muslims. I must sadly conclude from our debate that you are a bigot, and my conversation with you is over.

And you are a politically correct fool. And now our conversation is over.

#181, pearl:

Oh, well, there's still hope:

The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia : "...hijacking planes, terrorizing innocent people and shedding blood, constitute a form of injustice that cannot be tolerated by Islam, which views them as gross crimes and sinful acts."

“Attacking innocent people is not courageous, it is stupid and will be punished on the day of judgement. ... It’s not courageous to attack innocent children, women and civilians. It is courageous to protect freedom, it is courageous to defend oneself and not to attack.” Shaykh Muhammed Sayyid al-Tantawi, imam of al-Azhar mosque in Cairo, Egypt

“Any attack on innocent people is unlawful and contrary to shari'a (Islamic law). ... Muslims must safeguard the lives, honor and property of Christians and Jews. Attacking them contradicts shari'a.” Shaykh Muhammad bin ‘Abdallah al-Sabil, member of the Council of Senior Religious Scholars, Saudi Arabia

Dudley

Do you get nosebleeds up there on that really big horse?

river never prefaced any apt criticism of Islamism with "all." It is a given on this thread we are discussing Islamism == fundamentalist/radical Islam

Islamism is an ideology which maintains that Islam is not only a religion, but a system that also governs the politicial, economic and social imperatives of the State.A crucial goal of Islamists is that they take control of the State, to be able to implement this system. As such, we find most Islamist rhetoric and literature comparing Islam not with other religions, but with other ideologies, such as Nationalism, Communism, Capitalism, Fascism, etc.

I do not, nor am I under any obligation to respect Islamism. Indeed, it is my obligation to condemn it and its practioners.

You are not a stupid man, so what are you after playing the moral fool?

you're equating terrorists and wife-beaters with all Muslims.

Until I hear Muslims, ANY Muslims, repudiating terror and domestic violence, I too will "equate terrorists and wife-beaters with all Muslims".

And at the same time, we say: "Pleasepleasepleaseplease give us oil. We'll protect you, we'll give you aid, just keep the oil coming."

There isn't any pressure on the Saud to pull back from fundamentalism when we're so willing to bend over for their oil. In a very real sense, we're funding terrorism and militant Islam.

What do you think the solution is?

By the way, you're 0 for 3 in spelling my nick correctly. Paladin is a man and a different poster.

We give everyone aid. I wish we didn't. We give $2 bil a year to Egypt and they don't give us jack. As far as protection goes, we've laregly moved out of Saudi. They're not exactly on their own, but defense is hardly an issue, especially with them trying to get on the nuclear bandwagon.

I think you'll find we don't ask them to _give_ it to us. They sell it to us at a very handsome profit. And it is fungible--if the water-powered car was invented tomorrow and we didn't need oil anymore, Europe, Japan, China, Australia, and the rest of the world would still keep the oil fields in Saudi working. It's also why it currently doesn't make a difference whether we pump in ANWR or not (although I have absolutely zero problem with oil exploration in the US). It's currently cheaper and easier to use the Saudi oil fields, so that's what we do. I like the idea of keeping our reserves in reserve, anyway.

And I think you're missing who has got whom by the short hairs. Saudi Arabia has a whole lot of nothing: almost no fresh water, almost no tillable land, and unlike Israel, which values its human capital, almost no development in science or manufacturing or research or education. If they weren't selling the oil they'd be literally pounding sand. They need us a whole lot more than we need them. Our buying their oil does give us some degree of power over them.

What's my solution? I like what the President has done so far. Certainly Saudi is cracking down a lot more on terrorism in recent years than it ever had before. Because we're watching them closely, they can't divert as much as they'd like to terror. It's not enough, and I wish we were tougher on the Saudis. If we could name the enemy as Islamofascist terror instead of "terror," we'd be able to do more to stem the poison of wahabbism, but unfortunately that won't happen until the next atrocity. In the meantime, we are very quietly but very surely disengaging from Saudi. It's maddeningly slow, but it's a start.

#182: I think all anyone wants is for what you believe is the "true" muslims to step up and decry this in public.

As a christian (and not a very deep one at that), I decry all the horror caused in the name of christianity, and if it were happening today, I would expect modern christians to do the same.

Why isn't that happening with true and moderate muslims? Where is the cry and outrage over a hijacked religion?

Where are the signs of solidarity with a country that believes in religous freedom? There isn't one, because, I hazard a guess, most muslims (note I didn't say all) don't want other religions around.

The only problem with stereotypes is when they AREN'T true. Give me a reason to believe otherwise and then we can talk.

One of two things are happening, IMHO:

1) Your religion was hijacked by fundamentalists yet nobody wants to decry them.

or

2) Your religion has something inherently wrong in its philosophy of life and love.

@122

What ever you freely call yourself, you are NOT a follower of Jesus Christ.
Your blasphemy is not the righteous speech of Jesus Christ.
You do not walk the path he directed all of us to walk, in order to seek the Father you MUST go through Him, the Son of G-d.
When you've given yourself to G-d as an emptied cup that he may fill you with His Comforter, The Holy Ghost, then you can deem yourself on the path of salvation.

qüark2 ♥ (#191)

I seriously doubt that someone who calls us Jesus freaks is a Christian. He's disgusting, ignore him.

All of these Islamic defenders act like we cannot read. Either Open Mind, Dudley etc, are CAIR members, or they in complete denial. Go to any Muslim site on the net. Talk to any Muslim, The tacit approval of 9-11, the hatred of jews, Christians, America and the desire for Sharia is just below the surface. A new wrinkle is the recent discovery that America was once a Muslim area and white people(that's what they call Americans) must be restoed. Muslim=Vermin.

#191
Hey, quark2!
I AM a Christian and devote a lot of time to thinking about just what that means and how to live it out in a rational way ...
so what part of "judge not...lest you be judged" did you not GET!
Let grover think through the implications of what it means to be a Christian and what's gone wrong.
Just a thought! Have YOU considered devoting any time to rational thought?

Who's grover?

186 Dudley Storey 4/20/2004

Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia Condemns the Tyrranical Zionist Nation's Criminal, Unjust Murder of Shaikh Ahmad Yassin (rahimahullaah)
Author: Shaikh Abdul 'Azeez bin 'Abdullaah bin Muhammad aalush Shaikh

Source: Riyadh Daily Newspaper (Tuesday 23 March 2004 No. 13059 Year 39)
"Think not of those who are killed in the Way of Allaah as dead. Nay, they are alive, with their Lord, and they have provision.

They rejoice in what Allaah has bestowed upon them of His Bounty, rejoicing for the sake of those who have not yet joined them, but are left behind (not yet martyred) that on them no fear shall come, nor shall they grieve.

They rejoice in a Grace and a Bounty from Allaah, and that Allaah will not waste the reward of the believers.

Those who answered (the Call of) Allaah and the Messenger after being wounded; for those of them who did good deeds and feared Allaah, there is a great reward.

Those (i.e. believers) unto whom the people (hypocrites) said, "Verily, the people (pagans) have gathered against you (a great army), therefore, fear them." But it (only) increased them in Faith, and they said: "Allaah (Alone) is Sufficient for us, and He is the Best Disposer of affairs (for us)."" [Soorah Ali Imraan, (3):169-173]

Apparently the Grand Mufti does not include innocent Israeli children in his list of innocents.

[Link: www.theclearpath.com...]

January 21, 2004
Saudi Grand Mufti Denounces Unveiled Women
The unthinkable has happened in Saudi Arabia: women have appeared in public without their headscarves — and mingled freely with men! The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia is outraged, for — note well — the hijab was "ordered by God." Western commentators have misled many people lately into thinking that the hijab was an invention of the Khomeini regime in Iran, or that it was ordained only for the Prophet Muhammad's wives, or as the relentless Karen Armstrong continues to insist, a borrowing from Byzantine Christianity. Well, I know plenty of Byzantine Christian women, and they don't wear it — because nothing in Christianity suggests that it was "ordered by God." But that is not the case in Islam. The Grand Mufti can point to ahadith like this one:

[Link: news.bbc.co.uk...]

I am muslim and these things you talk about are completely alien to me. Violence certainly does not have a place within my family life or in my world view for that matter except when it is inevitably necessary for self-defense.

I'm aware of the passage in question in the Quran. But I'm also aware of many other passages which assert that all people regardless of sex, race or nationality are equal and that you will be held responsible on earth and beyond for any injustice you inflict upon others. Hitting someone outside self-defense is an injustice and therefore is forbidden.

I also do not think this is contradictory, but I find it rather complimentary. While the Quran was being sent to the prophet, commandments were sent to address immediate social and political issues and as new commandments arrived, they made those sent before redundant. All of these words were preserved, however, as words of God.

It is very sad for me to see that so many muslims break the laws of their very own religion, commit so much sin and then use the Quran or Islam to back them up. I believe they will be punished for their crimes, if not in this world, then in another.

It is also very sad to see that so many people here have so much anger and hatred towards me and my religion because of these atrocities. Is it ok to judge others for crimes they have not committed in your religion or moral structure?

I agree in a sense the muslim world is guilty. We are currently guilty for not being able to get rid of the extremists. But this cause is not over yet. There are voices of reason within Islam and they will eventually prevail. For they promise peace and happiness while extremists it seems have nothing but unrest and blood to offer.

So I apologize for the grief others are causing in my name, but please do not let this cloud your judgement about the true nature of Islam and muslims. Under better leadership and the cooperation of the west, the world of Islam will one day join with the free world.

Peace be with all.

I was having a little conversation about this anti-Islam rhetoric over at the lgf quiz site. I think the situation is that Muslims have been challenged by jihadis to join a global uprising. It's good to read about Muslims who reject it and I should think that's a lot in countries like Turkey and an unquantifiable number in countries where there isn't any freedom to say otherwise. Secularism is one alternative and a reformative approach and so is a strongly anti-jihad approach, hopefully coupled with rejection of domestic violence and bullying generally. One option I'm not happy with is denial and another is quiet support for a khalifah at this fragile moment. The bottom line is when murderous acts of jihad take place in the name of Islam it's no good for Muslims to blame the media and the kafir. Either they should distance themselves or oppose it.

It doesn't help that Muslims living in the West oppose any action against Muslim terrorists and instead highlight the humanitarian concerns for which they falsely claim bin Laden et al stand. If they want to be taken as constructive they need to take an honest look at what is happening to the Ummah and be open with other Imams and the media. I do see some Muslims attempting to cut through it but they get bullied into submission. Still I'm against pushing the avrage Joe Muslim into a corner. The Quran isn't really helping matters either.

So maybe there's an internal revolution taking place within Islam to counter the Wahhabi-Deobandi-Salafi etc revolution, but my impression is it isn't making headway. I've acknowledged his point over at that other site that there's too much abusive language to appeal to an open-minded Western Muslim, and since I find LGF invaluable I'll point it out more often.

It ought to be as possible to be a democratic, tolerant Muslim as it is for me to be a vegetarian Jew. But that's not up to me. When the jihad hits the Muslims have to forget talking about a Khalifah or historic gripe or Israel or even their cherished dawah, they have to be good citizens and speak up against jihad. It's no good telling us about the RoP if they won't say it in the mosque. And it will help them if they would address the taqqiyeh thing.

Dudley writes:

you'll note that the debate was originally between the Popes and various imans

The debate, and your task, was to compare what emanates from the Vatican with what emanates from Mecca and Medina.

You advocate tolerance of intolerance.  I condemn all forms of barbarity, and all forms of intolerance, and will make no apologies about it.

The whole 'you don't understand their culture' mantra is just nonsense.  In your view, perhaps the Germans in the 1940s were simply misunderstood?  I mean, who are we to judge?

There is nothing -- nothing -- to understand about burying a woman up to her neck in the center of town, while a mob throws golf ball-sized rocks at her face and head shouting "Allah is Great!" until she is dead.

This is savagery.  Only the morally and/or intellectually bankrupt would serve as apologist for such a culture.

More on Saudi Arabia, the model islamic state, from the US State Dept:

U.S. Department of State

Consular Information Sheet - Saudi Arabia

Islam pervades all aspects of life in Saudi Arabia. It is the official religion of the country, and public observance of any other religion is forbidden. Public non-Muslim religious services are illegal, and public display of non-Islamic religious articles such as crosses and Bibles is not permitted. Travel to Makkah (Mecca) and Medina, the cities where the two holiest mosques of Islam are located, is forbidden to non-Muslims.

The norms for public behavior in Saudi Arabia are extremely conservative, and religious police, known as Mutawwa, are charged with enforcing these standards. To ensure that conservative standards of conduct are observed, the Saudi religious police have accosted or arrested foreigners, including U.S. citizens, for improper dress or other infractions, such as consumption of alcohol, or association by a female with a male to whom she is not related. While most incidents have resulted only in inconvenience or embarrassment, the potential exists for an individual to be physically harmed or deported.

The Saudi Embassy in Washington advises women traveling to Saudi Arabia to dress in a conservative fashion, wearing ankle-length dresses with long sleeves, and not to wear trousers in public. In many areas of Saudi Arabia, particularly Riyadh and the central part of the Kingdom, Mutawwa pressure women to wear a full-length black covering known as an Abaya and to cover their heads. Most women in these areas therefore wear an Abaya and carry a head-scarf to avoid being accosted.

Some Mutawwa try to enforce the rule that men and women who are beyond childhood years may not mingle in public, unless they are family or close relatives. Mutawwa may ask to see proof that a couple is married or related. Women who are arrested for socializing with a man who is not a relative may be charged with prostitution. Some restaurants, particularly fast-food outlets, have refused to serve women who are not accompanied by a close male relative. In addition, many restaurants no longer have a "family section" in which women are permitted to eat. These restrictions are not always posted, and in some cases women violating this policy have been arrested.

Women are not allowed to drive vehicles or ride bicycles on public roads.

In public, dancing, music and movies are forbidden.

A married woman residing with her Saudi husband should be aware that she must have her husband's permission to depart or have their children depart from Saudi Arabia. This is true even if the woman or children are U.S. citizens. The husband is the sponsor of his foreign wife and of his children, and is, as such, the only individual who can request an exit visa for the wife or children.

In Saudi Arabia, child custody decisions are based on Islamic law.

Saudi law does not recognize U.S. court orders, including child custody and divorce decrees, which are consequently unenforceable in Saudi Arabia. Females and children need the permission of the eldest/closest male relative in their family to depart Saudi Arabia.

[Link: travel.state.gov...]

As I have said before the muslim world has sat by and watched these murderers kill innocent people. With one son who has just returned from Afghanistan and a grandson in Iraq at Fallujah my patience is very thin with people who hide behind their religion and stand by while innocent people die. If the muslim world wants respect it will have to do what others have done to get respect as a religion worthy of mankind. This premise of serving a god who demands the death of innocents is an abomination to me , to other men, and to GOD. I am not in the mood to play politically correct games. This Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia is a perfect example of the muslim world. He stands for all that is wrong with this religion. Believe me I do not care if you people worship a rock as long as you do not MURDER innocent peole it is your business and I will not interfere with you stupidity. But if you get started on a killing rampage saying the great rock told you to do so I will make my voice heard. If that is bigotry against you and your religion so be it. I call it defending innocent life. And as long as this country has FREEDOM OF SPEECH I intend to preach my message. Which is this: IT IS WRONG TO KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE. And the GOD I know does not demand such sacrifice from his followers.

As the immortal, most eloquent man said. "Ay, theres the rub."
To respect the killers of innocents, to respect the beaters of women, to respect the sacrificers of their own and other people's children to their god, ay, there's the rub.

#196 pearl:

Your statement was:

> The muslim world hides behind the words "it's not islam it's only a few extremists" all the while never uttering one word of condemnation about the killing of innocents. It only asks or rather demands that you not lump them in with such men. And yet never one word of rebuke towards those who participate in such acts.

I've shown you several. You said "not one word". You did not ask that every single voice be consistent through the author's life - yes, some of those speakers consider Israel to be illegitimate, sadly. But that's similar to critisising Reagan for saying "We must fight terrorists" while funding terrorists.

Here's some more:

"The terrorists acts, from the perspective of Islamic law, constitute the crime of hirabah (waging war against society)."
September 27, 2001 - Fatwa, signed by:
Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, Grand Islamic Scholar and Chairman of the Sunna and Sira Countil, Qatar
Judge Tariq al-Bishri, First Deputy President of the Council d'etat, Egypt
Dr. Muhammad s. al-Awa, Professor of Islamic Law and Shari'a, Egypt

"Neither the law of Islam nor its ethical system justify such a crime."
Zaki Badawi, Principal of the Muslim College in London. Cited in Arab News, September 28, 2001.

"It is wrong to kill innocent people. It is also wrong to praise those who kill innocent people."
Mufti Nizamuddin Shamzai, Pakistan. Cited in the New York Times, September 28, 2001.

"What these people stand for is completely against all the principles that Arab Muslims believe in."
King Abdullah II, of Jordan; cited in the Middle East Times, September 28, 2001.

grover, Frank, pearl, are you prepared to back down from your positions, or admit you were incorrect?
"I'm a Muslim. I've been a Muslim for 20 years. I want the world to know the truth about Islam. I wouldn't be here to represent Islam if it were the way the terrorists make it look."
Former World Heavyweight boxing champion, Muhammad Ali, at the telethon benefit concert, September 21, 2001.

O #197 writes:

It is also very sad to see that so many people here have so much anger and hatred towards me and my religion because of these atrocities.

Speaking for myself, I gave the 'moderates' about a year after Sept 11th to rise up and reject -- forcefully -- the preachings to millions from Mecca and Medina each week, and other various issues that continue to this day.

There was none.  Dead silence.

I recall a rally in England praising the Sept 11 attacks on the one-year anniversary.

There was no such opposition rally from the 'moderates.'

I agree in a sense the muslim world is guilty. We are currently guilty for not being able to get rid of the extremists.

Then stand up, and do something about it.

Americans are increasingly tired of excuses and lack of accountability.

If the leaders of the Jewish and Christian worlds were to state 'death to infidels' and those communities did nothing (as Muslims have done) then those communities are also to blame.

Silence equals consent.

You can continue make excuses, but clearly the resentment nationwide is growing...
 

Dudley:

Meet Irshad Manji

@194 LizzyG

Why are you so hostile towards my posting to 122, who was using the nic of An Open Mind.

If you are troubled by my opinion/belief please feel free with no remorse on my part, to scroll by my posts.

#201: Good points all. By why is this the first time I've heard these? Am I required to search them out? Or should your voices ring louder and truer?

Muhammad Ali says "I want the world to know the truth about Islam."

I want to know the truth too! Do you want to kill us infidels? Do you want to replace our religion with yours? Do you accept Israel as a state? How do you really feel about jews?

I'm being serious here. I've done my research, and unless there really is some "zionist" plot, your religion is responsible for a lot of bad stuff happening. Teaching children to hate, abuse of women, etc. you know the damn list. What are your answers to those questions?

#197: I truly love your sentiment, but its the first time I've heard it! All we get is friggin' apologists over here.

I'm not responsible for educating myself about your culture (even though I have done that). You are responsible for the way the world views you.

The underlying theme that ties all these jihadist attacks together is your religion. What does that make me think of your religion?

I'll grant that out of 1.2 billion, some of you are bound not to be nutballs and hope for a peaceful world. But I'm just not seeing it, and I don't have my blinders on.

Saturday, in my community, their was a Sikh (sp?) march downtown where numerous members carried American flags and let us know how lucky and happy they are to be Americans. They showed solidarity with our society and culture. The picture made the front page newspaper in my town.

Where are your marches, my friend?

If you threw a march, would any muslim show up?

First of all ---that so called "Queen of Jordan" is a "Queen" of a made up by the West-- Monarchy. Its illigitimate. A really big percentage of the people in Jordan question the authenticity of that particular Monarchy. (think that family were Saudi? or Egyptian? Mosque Cleaners)

She was selected precicely BECAUSE she looks good. Westerners are SUPPOSED TO like her cause she is pretty and she is a Pal. ( scientific tests show that you believe what a *pretty person says more than you believe what an unattractive person says) Her "campaign" against violence towards women is a PR sham. No one in the ME Arab Street will pay all THAT much attention to her and it will be interesting to see just what she does INSIDE Jordan IN FULL PUBLIC and OUTLOUD and how MANY TIMES she does this. And if the Law is changed thruout the ME and IF the Law is even applied and when and where and how many times the new Law is applied.

All of this is PR Baloney to please the West.

#206 Leah 4/20/2004 04:37PM PST

All of this is PR Baloney to please the West.

There's a lot of that flying around lately. That's why I like this site. It's a good place to shoot it down.

#203 mad as hell,

Thanks. Now that's what I want to see.

I note her appeal is the very opposite of the whitewash that can characterise this debate.

#197 said: "Is it ok to judge others for crimes they have not committed in your religion or moral structure?"

If you don't stand up and say something, then yes, you are complicit.

If a person murders someone in front of you, and you do nothing to stop them, are you guilty or not?

You tell me...

pat

Muslim = Vermin

Trolling for Kos or LGF Watch?

Kush meer in toches

Also, it should be said that I don't want your religion to crumble.

I want people to stop f***ing killing others in the name of your religion.

And we are the crazy ones?

I'm sick of the apologists.

And let it be known that unless you do something to educate and rid yourself of these murderers and defilers and denounce them and reform, I will do my best to inform my fellow Americans, friends and family of the true intentions of Islamism. It only took a few printed articles passed around my office to open peoples eyes to how much jew-hatred was ingrained in the Palestinian culture. It took 2 articles to convince 10 people here not to EVER support a Palestinian state. Shall I keep going? I've got lots more hand outs available. If you aren't going to stand up and prove to people that muslims support a religion of peace, then what should I do?

#189 Palandine

If we could name the enemy as Islamofascist terror instead of "terror," we'd be able to do more to stem the poison of wahabbism, but unfortunately that won't happen until the next atrocity.

Bush referred to "islamist terrorists" in his press confeence the other night.

*I* NOTICED, because I have been waitinf for it.

#189, Palandine (sorry about the mis-spellings earlier)

> And I think you're missing who has got whom by the short hairs. Saudi Arabia has a whole lot of nothing: almost no fresh water, almost no tillable land, and unlike Israel, which values its human capital, almost no development in science or manufacturing or research or education. If they weren't selling the oil they'd be literally pounding sand. They need us a whole lot more than we need them. Our buying their oil does give us some degree of power over them.

I think you're misled. Buying production from someone doesn't give you power over them, especially when you're not the only buyer. Remember the Oil Crisis of the 70's? Who had power over who?

I agree with you that Saudi Arabia has little in the way of natural resources otherwise - but the one it does have is the most important on Earth, in terms of our way of life.

The fact that they're surrounded by sand makes no difference. Attempting to diminish the perception of your opponent's power when he holds the keys to the majority of your industry is foolish.

> As far as protection goes, we've laregly moved out of Saudi.

In fact the US has completely withdrawn from Saudi - which means al Queda succeeded in achieving one of its major aiims, and the US likely had to invade Iraq (under the wrong pretext).

> It doesn't help that Muslims living in the West oppose any action against Muslim terrorists...

A very broad statement, but you balance it to a certain degree later in the paragraph. I certainly agree that more Muslims in the West could be socially active against fundamentalism.

Thank you for the post. Once you step down from the "all Muslims are bad" rhetoric (I know you didn't use those words) I find myself in agreement with some of your statements. However, we disagree strongly on GW Bush's actions - I think he's pushing more Muslims into fundamentalism, rather than drawing from their numbers - and the reliance on foreign oil. Nor have you directly addressed the fact that we (the West) are funding terrorism against ourselves.

But again, it's nice to see someone who isn't entirely rabid. :-)

Pearl - thanks for sharing your background. I can understand where you're coming from a little better. I sympathise with the fear and anxiety you must be feeling. In my opinion, you've taken that fear and, encouraged by this site, spread it to cover every Muslim. I don't think that's right, but I can now understand why you feel that way.

mad as hell: Thank you for the book recommendation. I've seen several interviews with Irshad, and agree with many of her views... I'll make a note to pick up the book.

Zzzz ...

I can't take it anymore.

#206 Leah

Re the 'Queen' Rania Al-Abdullah She has (gasp!) her own propoganda website. The music is actually quite nice. On the profile is the reason she was picked, as she is a double pretender...she is no queen, but is a Jordanian with this false claim.

Her Majesty Queen Rania Al-Abdullah (formerly Rania Al-Yasin) was born in Kuwait on August 31, 1970 to a notable Jordanian family of Palestinian origin.

Far more dangerous is her mother in law...the daughter of Najeeb Halaby.

Queen Noor's Blind Spots

Queen Noor of Jordan, the fourth wife of the late King Hussein, is beautiful, smart, American born and reared, pro-Palestinian and totally immersed in the anti-Israel myths of the Middle East. While her perspective on the Middle East is not without interest, the reader must approach with caution.

Because of King Hussein's role in helping to bring about a peace plan between Israel and the Palestinians, the reader expects the memories of a friend - not uncritical - but from the heart and hand of a friend. Instead, an interesting not very detailed personal history of Queen Noor's life with King Hussein unfolds against a backdrop in which Jordan is portrayed as key to whatever happens geo-politically in the region, though it is small and helpless, while Israel is portrayed as the gigantic neighborhood bully and Israel's supporters in the U.S. as political and media manipulators.

Throughout the memoir Queen Noor downplays her life of privilege before she became a queen. She notes that her father was deeply in debt while he was the head of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). However, before he was with the FAA and certainly after, he apparently was able to provide a financially and socially rich milieu for his family. Lisa Halaby, as she was then known, went to elite private girls schools in Washington, D.C., New York and Massachusetts, had a horse which she rode regularly, made her debut while she was an undergraduate at Princeton, and lived a thoroughly upper class lifestyle. Her father's roles in government and aviation placed her at the center of an astonishing world of elites whose political, social and financial connections - especially in the Middle East - made her later incarnation as Queen of Jordan not only possible, but somewhat inevitable...

#215 Zulubaby

Chazak! Chazak v'emetz!

214 Dudley Storey 4/20/2004

Pearl - thanks for sharing your background. I can understand where you're coming from a little better. I sympathise with the fear and anxiety you must be feeling. In my opinion, you've taken that fear and, encouraged by this site, spread it to cover every Muslim. I don't think that's right, but I can now understand why you feel that way.
Let me assure you I had these opinions before any of my family landed in the mideast. I am from a military family and I understand more than you ever will. As for the fear I have it is for my country not my family. People like you who spew all this garbage about innocent muslims who are kind and gentle scare me more than any obstacles that the US military face in the ME. You with this trojan horse facade of I'm innocent you can trust me I'm a good person crap. You want people to believe you are a good person. I believe people like you are more dangerous than any arab muslim terrorist the army or marines face. At least those nuts in fallujah are what they are and they know what they are. You on the other hand pretend that there are no serious problems in this religion of yours. So instead of raising your voice and causing your voice to be heard against the murder of innocents you come in here to condemn others for not "understanding" islam. And you want us to agree that your religion is on the same footing with Judaism and Christianity. Yes you and others like you are who I am afraid of. As I said my family is military and we know what freedom costs for this country and we are willing to pay the price. But you you are the dangerous one.

Dudley Storey

You seem to think less reliance on Saudi oil is crucial. Why? How? What have you done for the cause?

And you employ Qaradawi, among other Islamofascists, in your whitewash.

Qaradawi is 4 square behind killing Jews. Is that OK, as long as he doesn't advocate killing Americans, apart from the ones stupid and wicked enough to do evil Zionist things like studying at Hebrew University in Jerusalem?

There must be many clones of VFI floating around the internet.
With the same supercilious tone, arrogant attitude of looking down on the other posters.

Gak!

#214 Dudley Storey 4/20/2004

The fact that they're surrounded by sand makes no difference. Attempting to diminish the perception of your opponent's power when he holds the keys to the majority of your industry is foolish.

You are wrong. SA holds market power because of perceived inventory. SA's market power is mostly over Europe and Asia. Technology is charging ahead and as time goes by these folks will be holding worthless cards.
You think I'm wrong? Go to the hollows of WVa. They too held those cards once.

This thread has the feel of a trap, laid just for me. How paranoid is that? But if I cannot speak the truth, I have no place here, that's sure.

OK then. This is not muslim behavoir. This is tribal guy behavoir, or XY being behavoir, as I usually say. All your ancestors practiced it, neanderthal guy behavoir, cro-magnon guy behavoir, homo-sapiens guy behavoir, right down the line. The reason adherance to tribal memes is so strict in Islam (where other sub-genomes have distanced themselves from nature red in tooth and claw) is that the meme tranmission structure of the Qur'an is so amazingly potent. There is no diffusion, only pure replication. In other words, Islam has preserved tribal behavoirs in a time capsule for more than 1500 years.

So, please, don't say muslims hate us, say instead XY muslims hate us, and not muslims are evil, but XY muslims are evil. Put the blame where it belongs, on our old friend testasterone poisoning.

/channelling Sir Richard

NY Nana, LOL! I'm trying ;-)

214 Dudley Storey 4/

Read how this Grand Mufti praise Yassin

Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia Condemns the Tyrranical Zionist Nation's Criminal, Unjust Murder of Shaikh Ahmad Yassin (rahimahullaah)
Author: Shaikh Abdul 'Azeez bin 'Abdullaah bin Muhammad aalush Shaikh

Source: Riyadh Daily Newspaper (Tuesday 23 March 2004 No. 13059 Year 39)
"Think not of those who are killed in the Way of Allaah as dead. Nay, they are alive, with their Lord, and they have provision.

They rejoice in what Allaah has bestowed upon them of His Bounty, rejoicing for the sake of those who have not yet joined them, but are left behind (not yet martyred) that on them no fear shall come, nor shall they grieve.

They rejoice in a Grace and a Bounty from Allaah, and that Allaah will not waste the reward of the believers.

Those who answered (the Call of) Allaah and the Messenger after being wounded; for those of them who did good deeds and feared Allaah, there is a great reward.

Those (i.e. believers) unto whom the people (hypocrites) said, "Verily, the people (pagans) have gathered against you (a great army), therefore, fear them." But it (only) increased them in Faith, and they said: "Allaah (Alone) is Sufficient for us, and He is the Best Disposer of affairs (for us)."" [Soorah Ali Imraan, (3):169-173]

Apparently the Grand Mufti does not include innocent Israeli children in his list of innocents.

"Those who answered (the Call of) Allaah and the Messenger after being wounded; for those of them who did good deeds and feared Allaah, there is a great reward. "

The only "deeds" Yassin did was put bombs on kids and murder innocents. This is good deeds?

"They rejoice in a Grace and a Bounty from Allaah, and that Allaah will not waste the reward of the believers. "

For killing innocent school kids allah will reward this monster?

What kind of god do these people believe in?

222 twisterella

Unfortunately many Muslim women are the first to propagate the meme, sis. Nourah Abdul Aziz Al-Khereiji speaks out, as loudly as a proper woman can in the ummah, about women's rights in Saudi. She is also one of the sickest anti-Semites I've ever come across in Araby, which is saying a lot.

She's the voice of the grandma scandalized because a teen shows a bit of ankle and wrist in the Jeddah mall, and has a crowd of baying boys trying to rip her abaya off in response, with the religious police wielding clubs (preferably against women) not far behind. Scandalized by the teen, that is.

Arab women's rights campaigners are the first to compain about these "women". Culture sometimes trumps male genes. If it doesn't, sometimes plenty of female genes are ready to take over and play the same role.

May the Lord bless all the oppressed and abused women of the world.

More about CNN’s weird behavior:

Yesterday night, CNN ran the story about the “Islamic radicals’ who were suspected of desecrating the body of the Spanish policeman who was blown up by Islamic suicide bombers.

Other news sources, like Reuters and the New Scotman, published the same info.
Body of Madrid policeman burned in attack on grave

THE tomb of a Spanish policeman blown up by Islamic suicide bombers linked to the Madrid attacks was desecrated yesterday and his corpse was stabbed and burned.

The National Police confirmed that the coffin containing the body of Francisco Javier Torronteras, a special agent, was taken from its grave, doused with fuel and set alight.

Police said there were no immediate indications of who might be responsible for attacking the tomb, at Madrid’s southern cemetery, but Spanish media reported investigators suspected a revenge attack by Islamic radicals.

"At dawn, the tomb was desecrated. They dragged out the coffin and burned it," said a police spokesman. He added that the casket had been dragged to a corner of the cemetery before being set alight.

Mr Torronteras was killed earlier this month when his special operations unit surrounded an apartment rented by suspects in the 11 March bombings, which killed 191 people.

Seven suspects, including two believed to be the ringleaders of the attacks, blew themselves up rather than face arrest, killing Mr Torronteras as well

...

The next day, CNN replaced the article with this, which didn’t mention a thing about the burned body. Why?

little ramallah: This is true in all sub-genomes. Witness the brutal behavoir of the RC nuns towards the XX inmates of the Magdalene Asylums, extent in Ireland from 1964 to 1996. The underlying maths are still the same.

Riverofpearls--you SICKEN me.

I'm from a military family too. My father faught in the first Gulf War when I was still a child. I still have nightmares that he will have to return to war. Other members of my family are also in the military. Living in a military family does not justify the kind of blind hatred that you feel and express against all Muslims. What about Muslim men serving in the American military?

I'm sure that accepting the simplest possible answer is easier for you, however, I refuse to debase myself by condemning an entire people. You are insistant that every Muslim must loudly denounce the actions of the extremests to garner any justice from your heart or mind. I'm not sure that you're capable of this justice anymore...but I can hope. In the same vein, I will denounce the bigotry you are parading, because I would hate for any person, Muslim or not, to assume that I, as an American or child of the military, am the same sort of bigot.

I hope all of your family is well and safe, and I appreciate their sacrifice and your own.

230 ruby 4/20/2004 06:17PM PST

Riverofpearls--you SICKEN me.

Try to take something and come back tomorrow.

@239 ruby

Well it's a good thing we still have some free speech in this country. Otherwise riverofpearls might find herself in prison for airing her views/ opinion/beliefs.
I'm from a military family too. My father served in TWO theatres of war in WWII, so does that give me precedent over your family's military service?
The whole object we've been discussing here is the physical image that terrorism is giving muslims as a whole. Until the ones who disagree stand up and raise a standard of no compromise, they will find themselves in the same boat as the violent participants.
That's not bigotry, that's looking the truth and reality with extreme prejudice in the face.
When it comes down to it. We'll see who blinks...you or riverofpearls.

229 twisterella

I know the horrific Magdalene story. How are the maths the same? Ireland in the 60s (let alone today) is not Saudi in 2004. I'm not trying to pick a fight, just to ask, what exactly do you mean? I'm sceptical of all scientific explantions of what is going on right now :-)

230 ruby

Please take a closer look at the enemy, his theology, and his record. riverofpearls, like so many here, is dealing with a challenge that will probably never make CNN, at this rate. Doesn't make it any less real.

How many people would advocate a higher gas taxes and other aggressive energy conservation programs, along with some oil exploration in the Arctic, as a way of not only starving the Saudis and other oil rich Islamic dirtbags, but decreasing our pollution and waistline?

197 (O) writes:

Hitting someone outside self-defense is an injustice and therefore is forbidden.

Well, here's a little something from Abu Dawud's notes on Hadith Of The Sunan Of Abu Dawud:

"This shows that wives should obey their husbands...".

On 2142: "This means that a man tries his best to correct his wife, but he fails to do so, he is allowed to beat her as a last resort. This tradition never means that a husband should beat his wife without any valid reason". (Abu Dawud's notes on Hadith Of The Sunan Of Abu Dawud, Chapter 709 - On Beating Women, #2141).

And Ask an Imam has this to say:

Allah says, "Advise them (the women) and leave them (in sleeping with them) and hit them"

The verse clearly indicates that there should be a reformation process.

1st Advise - Make up her mind - condition her to be obedient.

2nd Advise - If she is still rebellious then separate beds.

3rd Advise - If she still disobeys then within very specific and distinct measures he is given permission to lightly discipline her.

Such using of force is just to jolt her to obey. Physical abuse to satisfy the anger is Haraam.

And Islam Online says:

...in some cases a husband may use some light disciplinary action in order to correct the moral infraction of his wife, but this is only applicable in extreme cases and it should be resorted to if one is sure it would improve the situation...

Someone must have forgotten to tell those Imams and Muftis about that prohibition.

#223 Zulula

I am positive that you already have it! In any case, here is the answer to a question you asked on another thread.

Grover

In case you do need to top it up once in a great while,, this one, at any rate, will help! :)

Oh, and as an addendum to my previous post, I present excerpts from Dr Ahmad Shafaat's commentry on Surah 4:24:

In regard to the suggestion about beating, the following further points should also be noted:

a) According to some traditions the Prophet said in his famous and well-attended speech on the occasion of his farewell pilgrimage that the beating done according to the present verse should be ghayr mubarrih, i.e. in such a way that it should not cause injury, bruise or serious hurt. On this basis some scholars like Tabari and Razi say that the beating should be largely symbolic and should be administered "with a folded scarf" or "with a miswak or some such thing". However, it is not clear how such a beating can help overcome nushuz of the wife, a point that supports the first meaning of dharb. If dharb is translated as "beating", as most commentators do, then "beating" should be effective in its purpose of shaking the wife out of her nushuz. This means that it should provide an energetic demonstration of the anger, frustration and love of the husband. In other words, it should neither seriously hurt the wife nor reduce it to a set of meaningless motions devoid of emotions. As for the argument that the Prophet intensely disliked beating, we can say that his intense dislike was for the type of beating done outside the limits set down by God.

b) The wife has no religious obligation to take the beating. She can ask for and get divorce any time. The suggestion applies only in the case when the husband is seriously disturbed by a prolonged nasty behavior on the part of the wife but neither he nor the wife is as yet seriously thinking of breaking up.

c) If the husband beats a wife without respecting the limits set down by the Qur'an and Hadith, then she can take him to court and if ruled in favor has the right to apply the law of retaliation and beat the husband as he beat her. In our view the saying attributed to the Prophet on the authority of 'Umar that a husband will not be asked on the day of judgment about why he beat his wife is not a part of the authentic teaching of Islam.

d) Some Muslim jurists are of the opinion that beating is permissible but not advisable. They base their view on the fact that the Prophet intensely disliked the action. But to say that beating is only permissible but never advisable is to say that there is never any good in it but the husband can nevertheless resort to it if he wants to; in other words he can beat up his wife without any good reason. This, however, is a view that cannot possibly be attributed to the Book of God. We can expect the Holy Qur'an to mention beating only if there was some wisdom in that mention. Therefore, if we translate dharb as "beating" we must not be apologetic but ask what is the wisdom behind the Qur'anic suggestion. There could be, it seems, two possible points of wisdom in the suggestion of dhard in the sense of "beating".

First, the beating done within the limits defined by the Qur'an may indeed bring the husband and wife to some kind of understanding. This is not because of the pain involved, which in any case cannot be too much if the guidance in the Qur'an and Hadith are to be observed. Rather, the husband and wife may come closer together after beating because of the emotions involved. The wife may experience the depth of hurt and disturbance her nushuz is causing and if there is any love left among them may decide for that reason to change her conduct. It seems from observations of human behavior that a show of male physical energy can sometimes bring a woman out of a prolonged bad mood (5) even though this energy may be seemingly directed against her in the form of angry words or a slap, provided in this manifestation of energy there is an undercurrent of love and desire for the woman and no real harm is done to the woman. In the situation with which the present verse is dealing, it is understood that in his heart the husband does have some love and desire for the wife. For, he has the option of divorcing her but he is not taking that option. Of course, there are husbands who neither love their wives nor divorce them, but keep them to punish them or exploit them. But we are not dealing with this situation here, since the assumption is that ill-will (nushuz) is from the wife's side.

Second, the mention of beating may have the wisdom, ironically, to protect wives against what is called wife battering. The Qur'an does not always combat undesirable behavior by legal prohibition but by some other means. Experience also shows that legal prohibition of an action may not always be the most effective method to stop it. The Qur'an by requiring that before any beating there should be admonishing and suspension of sexual relations is providing a more effective measure against wife battering, since battering is the result of uncontrollable anger or aggression and this anger or aggression can be tamed during admonishing and suspension of sexual relations. No statistics exist, but I feel confident that if we research the behavior of men in different religious groups over a long enough period and a vast enough area of the globe, we will find that the incidents of cases of wife battering and other forms of cruelty to women have been less, both in terms of numbers and seriousness, among Muslims than in other groups.

Far from being contrary to Islam, there is a whole theology of wife-beating!

Boy, some people will do anything as an arabist apologist to make wife beating look tame, acceptable and no worse than any other ethnic/religious group.

We sure need some clue x fours ™ used frequently!

ruby,

The reason Muslims should denounce jihad is not so we don't all kill them although it's a good point, but to arrest the global sickness of which I suspect we ain't seen nothing yet. If you peruse even the most leftwing news it becomes clearer by the day. If you prefer to turn a blind eye that's understandable, but don't suggest the alternative would be pogroms, it isn't. The alternative is jihad. You cannot have failed to notice that for every successful Muja Head terrorist attack there are numerous such attacks foiled. The problem is not that all Muslims are Muja Heads, but that Muslims are called upon to join the uprising, and many are equivocating to say the least.

#238

My personal favourite is "beating your wife koranically prevents 'wife beating' and protects women"!

To paraphrase another gem from Dr Shafaat "I can't prove it, but if we did the right kind of survey, I'm sure we could come up with results that show that moslem women are beaten less than kufrs, because the koran lets their husbands beat them"!

Islamist logic at its finest!

You all want to know what I see happening as time goes by? We in the West will sort of either bury discussion and condemnation of this kind of behavior (beating your wife) and not talk about it cause it is too UN...PC. OR we will excuse it actively little by little cause of "cultural concerns" ..and frankly cause we will be scared of Islam in our own Country.

The influence of Islam, an Alpha Culture and Alpha Religion, is going to slowly but surely make its way into OUR culture. If it is OK for Islam to have rational beatings of wives ...well then...it must have SOME kind of general merit and maybe OUR culture ought to think about these "takes" on an issue. Dont you know this is coming. It is.

Same with the over..covering up. That TOO is going to start filtering into our culture. Islam will actively look for American "partners" in these cultural things to glom onto. Onc they do that..and they WILL find minorities that will agree with them, and what they do will seem more and more normal and more and more acceptable.

If you think that a good sized Critical Mass of Islam in America isnt going to make a difference ..you are in for a surprise. They WILL make quite a difference and for many different reasons...

Some Americans got a little teeny weeny annoyed at the public showing of a Menorah...Well...get ready people..from Islam you will have to stand for oh...a whole lot more. And if you dont..they will do violence. Dealing with a group as big as the Majority Group isnt the same as dealing everyday with a MINORITY Group in your own Country. G-d knows how all this is going to end up.

#233 little ramallah: Population genetics borrows the 'toolkit' developed to measure gene transmission and diffusion in evolutionary biology. We can use math to show that a meme (analogy: gene) persists in a more or less pure form in a population over time.

/channelling Steven Pinker

qüark2 ♥ johnson

Of course I am not claiming to have any precedence over anyone else who has family in the military. My point is only that even within this relatively small group, we each have different opinions, and that people should not judge the whole by my opinion or yours, or riverofpearl's...etc.

You continue to claim that 'Islam' as a whole must somehow show one voice against violence. Every Muslim I know, which includes my boyfriend, condemns terrorism, spousal abuse, etc. So every Muslim I know has given me reason to believe that it is a peaceful religion. I watch the news, so I know that there are plenty of people from the same religion who do terrible things, but I don't see any reason to extend my opinion of these terrorists to the people I love.

riverofpearls

If I could "take something" that would make you a little less fearful and hatefilled, believe me, I would.

How can you tell that islam is a dead religion? Because there aren't any Arabs on Star Trek

With the gracious help of LGFer Evariste (Shukran, Habibi, Shukran) I'm in the process of producing a line of apparel embroidered with Jewish and Zionist sayings in Arabic. I'm working on the web site and they'll soon be available for online ordering but in the meantime I thought I'd pass this along.

I gave my son a baseball cap that reads "Am Yisrael Chai" [The Jewish People Live]. Moshe, wore his Arabic "Am Yisrael Chai" hat to the Wayne State University campus, in Detroit, yesterday. Wayne has perhaps the largest population of Arab and Muslim students of any US college. While sitting in the student center, an Arab student came up to him and the following exchange ensued:

Arab student: "Does that say what I think it does?"

Moshe: "Yep. Sure does."

Arab student: "I find it offensive."

Moshe: "Go fuck yourself."

Normally I'd be unhappy with Moshe using such coarse language, but he is, after all, his father's son. I think the Arab student's comments speak volumes. The hat doesn't say "The State of Israel Lives". It uses the word "Um", the same word that Muslims use to describe the Muslim "nation", the Muslim corporate, something analogous to "Christendom". The phrase in Hebrew "Am Yisrael", means "the Jewish people" and doesn't have any political meaning, yet to an Arab, presumably a Muslim, the notion of the Jewish people living as a people is offensive.

We are speaking out against this. Are they? Seriously, I want to know.

Where is this moderate, unapologetic voice? Is our media stifling their objection to this behavoir?
If so, the current media should be torn down from the core.

At this point, folks, after much research on the Palestinian "viewpoint", no apology, no "I'm sorry", no "it's a different culture", can make a difference.

It is WRONG! Teaching you kids to hate jews is JUST WRONG!

I don't like what I see. 9 year olds marrying...desecration of the dead...hate filled literature...stifling of new ideas...flag burning...dipping your hands in the blood of a "martyr"...

Am I missing something I need to understand?

The zombies walk amongst us...

I love the bit about saudi arabia being 'almost completely muslim'. Like anyone has a choice in multicultural saudi arabia!! Sure you can go to shul!! When you build one you can go there!! And if you build one we'll have you flogged to death in public.

The 'when did you stop beating your wife?' qusetion in saudi arabia reads 'why did you stop beating your wife?'.

#247

According to the Saudi government:

To understand the history of the Kingdom and its political, economic and social development, it is necessary to realize that Islam, which permeates every aspect of a Muslim's life, also permeates every aspect of the Saudi Arabian state.

Oh yes, and writing on their flag says "ASH-HADU AL-LA ILAHA ILLALLAH ASH-HADU AN-NA MUHAMMADAR RASULULAH", the Mohammedan profession of faith.

Almost sounds like a totally islamic state, to me.

At least in this case the victim was well known enough that the authorities couldn't just look the other way. Her big brave strong husband is currently in custody. See Arab News for a more info.

Algerian imam deported from France

[Link: www.middle-east-online.com...]

This was a really fast deportation. I wonder how France manged to stymie the lawyers.

PS: The said imam has 16 kids in France. YIKES!!!

Dead and Hole in the Head probably won't like this, but
Wife-beating is Koranic: Imam

Abdelkader Bouziane, the imam of a mosque in the eastern city of Lyon, told the April issue of a local magazine, Lyon Mag, that he was polygamous, believed that "beating your wife is authorised by the Koran", and expressed the hope that "the entire world becomes Muslim".

Ah well, Dudley Do-Right seems to avoiding a discussion of Jewish fundamentalism and literal naive interpretations. Its so sad that ardent secularism portrays itself as supremely enlightened, but turns out to be so shallow at times.

O #197:

I know some Muslims that think and feel as you do, and all I can say is more honor and strength to you. I wish your voices were louder, but the only people who are gonna make your voices heard are YOU. I haven't seen you post here before, (I might have missed it) but if you can stomach the "muslim=vermin", "moo-slime", "Arab=nazi" and "death to Muslims" crap (and vile crap it is, and even a little bit of such crap is hard to take) please continue to post.

Ronnie Schreiber-- This is the best idea! Maybe Amritas could collaborate on some asian language translations also! I will buy!

David-- thoughtful and useful discussion. Thank you.

The question is not whether the Koran does or does not permit wife-beatings. It is whether the situation now exists, how prevalent it is, and what is done about it.

Wife-beatings exist in all religions, but Muslims tolerate and accept it as part of the normal custom. When it occurs in the US, the law and opinion does not tolerate it, and the husband is punished.

Wife-beating will persist as long as violence is considered a normal alternative to non-violent methods. It is the same attitude which has fostered Muslim violence which now exists all over the world.

Ditto what Hhar said. O, you're very welcome, most of us are open to your efforts and would like to see your views ascendant within the Ummah. Past what I've said I have little to add about Islam, only the Muja Heads.

#243 ruby 4/20/2004 09:29PM PST

voice against violence. Every Muslim I know, which includes my boyfriend, condemns terrorism, spousal abuse, etc.

So you say this now. I am sorry I missed your post. I was very tired after arguing with peaceful muslims on the merits of wife beating and killing innocent people. It gets tiring. I believe you might have a bias toward any one who points out the problems modern, moderate. muslims are having today. It must be very hard to argue with a straight face the benefits of beating your wife, or taking young people and loading them up with bombs to go out and blow up the world. I know I would have difficulty arguing the pros of such conduct. However, for me (and I might add if you had read my earlier post) it is not about prejudice towards muslims. I really am against wife beating, killing of children, killing of innocent people, and those kind of things. I do not care if you are muslim, christian, jewish or atheist. I believe any group who advocates the beating of women, killing of children, and killing of the innocent should be exposed. I am also against child molesters, rapists, bigots, and all other types. I just feel no one gets a free pass just because they practice a so called "peaceful" religion.
As I said I will talk to you tomorrow and today is tomorrow. See you on the web. And a little bit of advice, I would really be careful marrying any man who believes that sometimes it is ok to beat a woman to keep her in line. But if you go for that sort of thing disregard my friendly advice.

Ronnie Schreiber-- This is the best idea! Maybe Amritas could collaborate on some asian language translations also! I will buy!

I'd also buy some... but could you put both the Palestinian and Star of David flags on it?

Jewish sayings in Arabic script, both flags... you're in danger of becoming a good man :)

"I looked around and saw my leg bleeding and my neighbor lying dead on the floor, torn apart," he said from his hospital bed. "I saw a minibus full of children on fire."

These people think they are doing the work of god?
I HATE killers of children. I guess that makes me a bigot. I am a bigot. I HATE people who kill innocent children on a school bus. This is insanity. This is evil. This is Islam? Who kills little children on a school bus? CRAZY PEOPLE KILL LITTLE CHILDREN ON A SCHOOL BUS! What justification is there for this?

Sorry was so upset left out link.

[Link: story.news.yahoo.com...]

[Link: news.bbc.co.uk...]

UK soldiers who tried to assist casualties were stoned by protesters who blamed the British for failing to provide security.

These people are CRAZY!

Hmmm...An Open Mind? A Beautiful Mind? Have we met before? Do I know you?

riverofpearls--

But you are assuming that every Muslim must condone the "beating of women, killing of children, and killing of the innocent." You have absolutely no reason to believe this. I have not, and will never defend abuse against women, children, or innocents; nor would I waste my time with anyone who even could defend such actions.

But I understand your anger. I just think that it is misplaced. Attacking Islam for these evils will not solve the problem. For several reasons: the cause of these actions is cultural, not religious. The Muslims I know , who do not beat their women, come from well-educated, wealthy or at least not impoverished cities or nations...and really, they can't fathom being associated with the heathens who kill their daughters for any transgression.

After some discussion about this, it seems that it would never occur to them to rally against these actions of other Muslims because it is so clearly wrong that they assume that everyone condemns these actions. Any outcry is as a civilized American or individual. They don't necessarily see a reason to further segregate themselves from our larger society in their anger.

ruby

Tom Paine once said that any religion is good which teaches man to be good.

You say that "... the cause of these actions is cultural, not religious. The Muslims I know , who do not beat their women, come from well-educated, wealthy or at least not impoverished cities or nations...and really, they can't fathom being associated with the heathens who kill their daughters for any transgression. "