Advice Goddess Blog
« Previous | Home | Next »

How To Beat Your Wife
From Bahraini Cleric Abdullah Aal Mahmud...who else?!

ClericBeatings.jpg

Don't go soft on us now, Cleric Abdullah!

Of all the religions out there, Islam is the worst for women. For the Atheist Foundation Of Australia, Inc., Voula Papas writes:

Under Shari'a - Islamic law - a man can marry up to four wives. He can divorce his wife or wives by saying “I divorce you” three times. For a wife to obtain a divorce is usually very difficult. Muslim apologists claim that Muslim women have the right to divorce and that in Islam the mother is revered and respected. Upon divorce, fathers win custody of boys over the age of six and girls on the onset of puberty. Many women would be reluctant to divorce violent or polygynous husbands for fear of losing their children. Despite the exaltation of motherhood - Mohammed once told a follower that paradise is found at the feet of the mother - children are considered the property of the father with the mother being merely the caretaker. How is it possible for a Muslim man to respect his mother when immutable religious law proclaims women's inferiority and inadequacy?

Under the Shari'a, compensation for the murder of a woman is half the amount of that of a man. A woman's testimony in court is worth only half of a man's. Women are entitled to only half the inheritance of males; the reason given for these is that males have families to provide for. In sura 4:34 men are granted superiority and authority over women because they spend their wealth to maintain them, this implies that women are a burden on society and that their work in caring for children, household and livestock is insignificant and trivial.

Girls as young as nine can be married off by their father even if the mother disapproves of the marriage, often they end up as second or third wives of much older men - here is a way to instantly eradicate illegal paedophilia! Conservative clerics have resisted moves to raise the minimum age for girls. One of Mohammed's wives, Aisha was seven when she was betrothed to Mohammed and nine when the marriage was consummated, Mohammed was in his fifties with several wives.

Any attempts by various governments to give women more freedoms, greater property and marriage rights have been vehemently opposed by conservative Islamists, who insist that the reforms are against Islam.

In the Qur'an the prescribed penalty for adultery is one hundred lashes and a year in exile - sura 24:1. However, Mohammed did condemn people to be stoned to death, in one case the rabbis brought a man and a woman accused of adultery, Mohammed ordered the pair to be stoned to death. The Jews practiced stoning for adultery and it is mentioned in the Old Testament under Mosaic Law. Today many Islamic fundamentalists advocate the stoning of women and stoning does occur in many Muslim countries.

In Muslim countries, men have the power of life and death over their women. Honour- killers usually escape punishment and the ones that are tried and convicted, receive only a few months in prison where they are treated like heroes by other inmates. Honour killings are carried out by men against women in their family for disobedience or suspected sexual transgressions. Even women who have been raped are killed for defiling the family honour.

Welcome to The Religion Of Peace!

Papas continues:

Islam's psychotic obsession with female chastity, modesty and virginity has rendered men incapable of viewing women as equal and worthy companions. How can we expect these men to treat women decently when their religion and culture forbids it! In fact, Muslim men can relax only when their foot is firmly placed on their women's necks!

In Muslim societies religion governs all aspects of life and has priority over secular laws and local customs, therefore, the excuse that tradition alone is responsible for women's oppression is untenable. Unless Muslim apologists are prepared to back their claims by a campaign to reform their religion and improve the situation of women, their assertions that Islam is blameless in oppressing women, are null and void.

There is a risk that multiculturalism and freedom of religion will ensure that tradition and religion remain eternally immutable. Should respecting other cultures mean that we should turn a blind eye to sadism, torture and brutality?

Video link via Andrew Sullivan

Posted by aalkon at January 5, 2007 1:25 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/mt4/mt-tb.cgi/1978

Comments

"Of all the religions out there, Islam is the worst for women."

On the contrary, the Koran dispels the myth that women are evil by nature, and that men are owners of women.

women.rationalreality.com/
www.themodernreligion.com/women/women_why_converting.htm

Posted by: Hasan at January 5, 2007 6:43 AM

Oye Vey, Hasan...

Posted by: Brian Mann at January 5, 2007 7:12 AM

On the contrary, the Koran dispels the myth that women are evil by nature, and that men are owners of women.

I'm sure all the disfigured victims of attempted "honor killings" will be thrilled to hear that.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 5, 2007 7:42 AM

Princess: A True Story of Life Behind the Veil in Saudi Arabia (Paperback)
by Jean P. Sasson

This is a trilogy of books that should be required reading for every woman on the planet. Highly recommended; a gripping read.

Posted by: The Necklace Lady at January 5, 2007 8:05 AM

They're not very nice to fags either.

Did you see this piece in the LA Weekly?

http://www.laweekly.com/general/features/an-american-muslim/15329/

In an era when Muslims are increasingly feared as a monolithic, impenetrable community of believers, dangerously insular and rigid in their doctrine, Hathout and the members of his mosque are carving out a new form of American Islam, founded in line with the progressive political philosophies that created the United States and headed by an immigrant who wants to distance himself from certain negative memories of the East. His ideas put him at odds with Islam’s most conservative voices; at the same time, he has acquired a small but vocal group of non-Muslim critics who are quick to lump him in with the same America-hating strain of Islam that he is working so hard to change. But to dismiss Hathout and the Islamic Center is to miss an important part of the evolving story of Muslims in America.

Posted by: Lena at January 5, 2007 8:45 AM

There is no shortage of things to dislike about Islam.

Many of the situations you reported between men and women are similar to the rules concerning Muslims and non-Muslims. Websearch the word "dhimmi" or "dhimmitude" for more info.

ALL non Muslims (Christian, Jew, Hindu, Scientologist, Atheist etc) have very good reasons to distrust Islam. People in America and the West in general have no problem opposing repressive totalitarian ideologies of other types. Islam should not get a special free pass.

Posted by: winston at January 5, 2007 9:39 AM

Nor should Scientology.

Posted by: Crid at January 5, 2007 9:50 AM

I agree, but at least the scientologist only sue when you make fun of them.

I'm not a fan of Scientology but it worries me much less than Islam. My point was that it's not "Islam vs the West". It is "Islam vs the rest"

Posted by: winston at January 5, 2007 9:54 AM

While I realize that the reality of life for many Muslim woman is one of oppression, shouldn't we begin by criticizing our own culture? How is the objectification of women progressing in our own culture?

Posted by: Hasan at January 5, 2007 10:03 AM

"shouldn't we begin by criticizing our own culture?"

Been there, done that. Our culture is criticized ad nauseum. Both by ourselves and the Islamic world. At this particular moment we are examining Islamic culture.

This is a common trick used to deflect criticism from Islamic religion and culture. "don't look here, look over there".

Posted by: winston at January 5, 2007 10:12 AM

"Our culture is criticized ad nauseum."

Point taken.

Posted by: Hasan at January 5, 2007 10:18 AM

"shouldn't we begin by criticizing our own culture?"

I do it every day. Luckily, I don't think Gregg or the government has a right to cane me for it.

Furthermore, fundamentalist Muslims are quite clear in their intent to take over the world and kill the infidels. Sean Hannity is merely an annoying liar.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 5, 2007 10:20 AM

Furthermore, what's wrong with "the objectification of women"? Usually, when it's brought up with those words, it's a form of nonthink. Why, exactly, is it bad? What people don't realize is that men do it and women do it (they see themselves as the object when, say, watching a porn film -- put themselves in the place of the woman being acted upon. It's basic male-female biology playing out in society).

Of course, you don't want to be just an object, but as my dad said (in not so many words) the days the construction workers stop whistling at your titties is the day you should start complaining.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 5, 2007 10:22 AM

>How is the objectification of women progressing in our own culture?


If by "our" you mean that of the USA, pretty well. You ask the question one day after the appointment of a woman as Speaker of the House, and (hopefully) two years before a woman becomes President. Women's testimony has been fully accepted in the courts of law there for centuries, and no woman has been stoned to death under primitive religious laws in that country, ever.

Posted by: Stu "El Inglés" Harris at January 5, 2007 10:27 AM

"fundamentalist Muslims are quite clear in their intent to take over the world and kill the infidels"

I would like to disagree slightly with the above statement. They don't want the infidels to die necessarily, they want them to submit. They demand that ALL non-Muslims submit themselves to sharia law and dhimmitude.

I don't want to be nitpicky but we need to understand precisely what we are up against.

Posted by: winston at January 5, 2007 10:28 AM

>(hopefully) two years before
> a woman becomes President.

Who you got in mind?

Besides, I thought you were in France.

Posted by: Crid at January 5, 2007 10:37 AM

>(hopefully) two years before
> a woman becomes President.

How sexist. I just want somebody qualified. I don't care what they're packing below the belt (if anything, a la Hedwig and the Angry Inch).

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 5, 2007 10:56 AM

Objectification is a form of degradation, Sugartits.

Stu, that's very optimistic. I'll bet a thousand dollars that no woman will be elected President in our country for at least 20 years, and no black person for double that.

Posted by: Hasan at January 5, 2007 11:25 AM

Objectification is a form of degradation, Sugartits.

No it's not, it's been painted that way. It's male sexuality. As I noted, female sexuality involves being objectified.

Gay men also objectify their sex partners -- because they're men. But, if a guy man is going for a boyfriend, he's going to look for something more than a body, unless he's a total idiot. Likewise for straight men.

Think before you spit out radical feminist propaganda.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 5, 2007 11:30 AM

I'm not talking about the objectification of a sexual partner. I'm talking about the objectification of women in society, which focuses solely on their sexuality, ignoring intelligence, personality and sensitivity. It's not radical propaganda, it's science and it leads to psychological consequences and mental
health risks...

etd.lib.fsu.edu/theses/available/etd-06172005-190311/unrestricted/Lise_Melbye_Thesis.pdf

Posted by: Hasan at January 5, 2007 11:44 AM

Dang, the link didn't post...

etd.lib.fsu.edu/theses/available/etd-06172005-190311/
unrestricted/Lise_Melbye_Thesis.pdf

Posted by: Hasan at January 5, 2007 11:56 AM

Oh, please. I love when I get letters from readers saying they find me hot. Tell me how that's putting me at risk for a breakdown.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 5, 2007 12:12 PM

But that's you, you're balanced. Other women end up with eating disorders or in abusive relationships.

PS: I find you hot:P

Posted by: Hasan at January 5, 2007 12:14 PM

See, this is very interesting...my parents worked in that part of the world 40 years ago, before oil and gas money...they still have great memories of their stay. They said that the people were friendly and they were very passionate, and loved their kids. They never felt threatened any place or any time. There weren't these fundy undertones, or they were more like Pat Robertson, kinda funny. They said that Lebanon was like a paradise.

Posted by: The Mad Hungarian at January 5, 2007 12:16 PM

Thank you.

And I don't have time to read some chick's 67-page thesis, but coincidence is not causality (my take on it after skimming a few pages).

Here's a bit of my take on it, from a piece I wrote for Hustler a few years back debunking commonly held myths about how porn damages women. I'm quoting professor Catherine Salmon (quite the hottie herself):

But, doesn't porn "degrade" women? "If there is one thing all (heterosexual) porn videos have in common, it is portrayal of women engaged in some form of sexual activity," writes Salmon. "Pornography is about sex, and not about violence or the degradation of women." She deems the vast, bottomless pit of gay male porn "the ideal test case" for this claim.

...So, how, exactly, ARE women hurt by pornography? According to Salmon, the same way they are when their significant whatever passes a lot of pretty women while walking to work. Salmon points to several studies that indicate it's not photos of NAKED women, per se, that make men report feeling "less committed" to their partners, but photos of a number of "very attractive" women, naked or clothed. So, what's the answer? (SNIP)...Should we all go around in burkhas?

...Ever wonder why there are no dick mags for women? Sorry, but women, for the most part, don't get turned on by pictures of men's big hard dicks. Quite frankly, most of us would rather shop. That doesn't mean we don't want to have sex with men -- well, those of us who haven't been brainwashed into career victimhood. It just means we're not as visual as men. That's right, all you wymyn or wimmin or whiminn out there, male sexuality isn't WRONG. It's just different.

Men and women have had what evolutionary psychologist David Buss refers to as "different adaptative problems over human evolutionary history." Men needed to have sex with healthy women to pass on their genes. The female features men, across cultures, evolved to find beautiful -- like youth and an hourglass figure -- turn out to be remarkably accurate predictors of fertility and health. And that's why male attraction is largely about the pictures, and why commitment isn't all that important -- because a guy just needed to stick it in, not necessarily stick around. It's also why men get turned on by naked women and indiscriminate sex, while women read romance novels about the alpha-male who sweeps them off their feet into eternal commitment. As Catherine Salmon puts it, it's "pornotopia" vs. romance-o-topia.


Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 5, 2007 12:20 PM

Your welcome.

There is a ton of pornography that specifically involves the degradation of women. Se with secretaries, sex with schoolgirls, sex with gangs of men, sex with animals, sex with machines, sex while being urinated and defecated on, sex while gagged, tied up and with nipple clamps.

Damn I've watched a lot of porn.

Posted by: Hasan at January 5, 2007 12:29 PM

Hasan, I don't feel particularly degraded by the fact that you have seen some nasty stuff.

I do, on the other hand, feel concerned about politicians who want to take away my right to protect myself from some nutjob who thinks that the fact that I'm not covered head-to-toe means that I'm asking to be raped.

My point is that I don't care what some guy on the street imagines, as long as my actual rights and power aren't taken away from me.

Posted by: jenl1625 at January 5, 2007 12:38 PM

Amy, you are five kinds of right about this...

But Prager was the first one to point out that gay porn is as 'objectifying' as straight porn, so women shouldn't take it personally.

Posted by: Crid at January 5, 2007 2:11 PM

"but as my dad said (in not so many words) the days the construction workers stop whistling at your titties is the day you should start complaining..."

The last time I heard that cracker, the guy saying it was 79 years old!

(I laughed so hard my glasses almost flew off!)

Posted by: Jody Tresidder at January 5, 2007 2:23 PM

I don't think most people in the U.S. have a clue as to what Islam is all about. It's much more dangerous than people realize. I don't give two cents about the theology, it's the ideology that concerns me. It is an absolute threat to enlightenment values all over the world.

It is those with liberal and progressive attitudes that should be the most concerned. Look what is happening in France, Britain, Holland and Scandinavia. Salman Rushdie, Ali Hirshi, and Theo Van Gogh are names we should never forget.

Please, educate yourself about Islam and the ideology of Jihad. Come to your own conclusions but do not lazily accept the "religion of peace" platitudes we constantly hear.

Posted by: winston at January 5, 2007 2:37 PM

There is a ton of pornography that specifically involves the degradation of women. Se with secretaries, sex with schoolgirls, sex with gangs of men, sex with animals, sex with machines, sex while being urinated and defecated on, sex while gagged, tied up and with nipple clamps.

Hasan, some people are into that sort of thing. Some of them are men who have sex with men, some of them are men who have sex with women. And a few are women. But, for the most part, male sexuality is very visual, and female sexuality is not.

Read what I wrote -- if it's about degrading women, how do you explain gay porn?

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 5, 2007 2:39 PM

"fundamentalist Muslims"

This is redundant. All pious muslims are fundamentalist. There is no philisophical mechanism (that I am aware of) by which Muslims can accept parts of the Koran and reject others. It's all or nothing.

Posted by: winston at January 5, 2007 3:08 PM

Is there such a precious "mechanism" in Judaism or Christianity? Or do people just figure out what's important to them?

Posted by: Crid at January 5, 2007 5:09 PM

More! Bonus Friday comment at no extra charge!

> Se[x] with secretaries, sex with schoolgirls,
> sex with gangs of men, sex with animals,
> sex with machines, sex while being
> urinated and defecated on, sex
> while gagged,

A theme emerges! The leitmotif is "sex". Paglia once put it in fewer words: "Male sexuality is hot!" It's not about other things. Many women can't hang with this.

> Read what I wrote --

Yes. You should answer what Amy wrote or give it up. Boys and girls are not the same.

> I laughed so hard...

Say that again and be clearer, or I might be pissed at you again.

> do not lazily accept the "religion of peace"
> platitudes we constantly hear.

Correct

Posted by: Crid at January 5, 2007 5:23 PM

"Or do people just figure out what's important to them?"

The Koran is (to Muslims) the inherent word of God. They are not allowed to "figure out what's important to them". It's all important to Allah.

"Is there such a precious "mechanism" in Judaism or Christianity?"

Yes, it's called "the enlightenment" Try to find ANY enlightement values in modern Islam (good luck).

Have you studied Islam, Crid? It seems you are making the classic mistake and trying to understand Islam using your knowlege of Christianity and Judaism as a reference. Modern Islam is very different from the modern versions of these two religions. The theology is somewhat similar, but the ideology is very very different.

Posted by: winston at January 6, 2007 6:52 AM

> I laughed so hard...

Say that again and be clearer, or I might be pissed at you again.

Fair enough, Crid.

I've never liked the bully factor requiring a female to simper prettily in response to a bunch of building site aestheticians.

I always thought construction site yodels more a product of cowardly groupthink, not atavastic growling.

Even in my own "girl from Ipanema" days I found it neither automatically flattering nor charming. Bit of a bugbear, in fact. (London girls' school backgound - god, we got sick of it!)

(Amy is highly selective about which Ev. Psych. impulses she acknowledges/accepts. So am I).

Posted by: Jody Tresidder at January 6, 2007 7:22 AM

> word of God.

I was named for minister in the Christian church who happened to be my grandfather. That phrase is very precious to my kin as well, but I've heard too much word to be afraid anymore, or to be impressed with anything but its instrinsic humanity.

> you are making the classic mistake
> and trying to understand Islam using
> your knowlege of Christianity

And you are making the popular error of sacrificing your clearest thinking and dearest values in order to sound sophisticated and worldly in a blog comment. It comes off as merely racist: 'The little brown illiterate ones have a different way of doing things! We have to accept that it's just an alternative path to civilization! We'll need to make room for them! Lets toss the women and gays overboard first.'

> Yes, it's called "the enlightenment"

If you think the Big E is an inherent component of Christianity and Judaism, you've done the math backwards, showing just how successful rationality can be. Enlightenment (through agents like our Miss Alkon) has been pummeling and containing religious Christian and Jewish faith for a couple centuries now. There's no reason that this can't happen to Islam.

And it will. We're going to insist. Muslim life will adapt to Modernity, often in shameless retreat at full gallop, or it will be extinguished.

You gotta problem with that?

Posted by: Crid at January 6, 2007 7:37 AM

(Amy is highly selective about which Ev. Psych. impulses she acknowledges/accepts. So am I).

I use solid data, Jody, not "impulses."

Muslim life will adapt to Modernity, often in shameless retreat at full gallop, or it will be extinguished.

Let's hope!

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 6, 2007 8:02 AM

> I always thought construction
> site yodels more a product of
> cowardly groupthink

You just think that because you're a girl. Women by nature and acculturation believe that everything wrong with human hearts is because of bad socialization or other clumsy handling. Females rarely experience pointed, sparky sexual impulses on the street, though it happens to men all the time. But no woman --hell, no human being-- wants to believe that other people have feelings that they don't share. It's scary to acknowledge you're in a game where players hold different cards. And it's girly indeed to think that everything someone says to you is meant to "flatter or charm."

Men who behave badly are being assholes, but they're not defying their nature, they're just betraying it.

Civilization is not the norm, it's artificial as can be.

PS- I apologize for capitalizing "Modernity" in the previous comment. Humanity's finest achievements don't need bogus puffery.

Posted by: Crid at January 6, 2007 8:09 AM

"If you think the Big E is an inherent component of Christianity and Judaism"

I never said it was. If you noticed I called it a "philsophical" mechanism not a "theological" one.

"'The little brown illiterate ones have a different way of doing things! We have to accept that it's just an alternative path to civilization! We'll need to make room for them! Lets toss the women and gays overboard first."

I really don't know where you get this one. Muslims come in all races so it's not racism to criticize them. I certainly DO NOT accept their "alternative path to civilization". My posts have been very critical of Muslims, and their treatment of women and homosexuals are but two reasons I dislike and distrust Islam.

"And it will. We're going to insist. Muslim life will adapt to Modernity, often in shameless retreat at full gallop, or it will be extinguished.
You gotta problem with that?"

Not at all. You're just more more optimistic than I am. Maybe you're right I hope you are.

Crid, you seem to want to attack my posts without really understanding what I am saying.

Posted by: winston at January 6, 2007 8:33 AM

"Crid, you seem to want to attack my posts without really understanding what I am saying."

Borrowing your excellent line from a moment, Winston?

You wrote, Crid: "And it's girly indeed to think that everything someone says to you is meant to "flatter or charm."

Reach for the generalisation, why doncha, to score a pointless point?

There are few exchanges more rigidly codified than a girl and a building site posse. There's not a helluva lot of nuance. We both know our roles.

As far the rest of your observations. Sure, some truths. But "women by nature etc etc". Whatever.

Posted by: Jody Tresidder at January 6, 2007 8:48 AM

You wrote, Crid: "And it's girly indeed to think that everything someone says to you is meant to "flatter or charm."

As Albert Ellis, quoting Epictetus, said: "It is not events that disturb us, but the views we take of them."

Maybe if a guy whistles at you and you smile and say thank you, it becomes a compliment, not oppression.

If a bunch of guys shout across the street, "Hey, baby, come suck me off!" Well, okay, I'll walk on. But, "Nice dress!"?

Correct response: "Thank you!"

I'm always amazed by women who spend an hour or more getting dressed in the morning, then sneer down their nose at the first comment from a man not in their social circle.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 6, 2007 8:57 AM

I usually disagree with you on Islam and Christianity and Judiasm and any other faith system. You want people to be consistant. You want all people of a group to behave in a consistant member and maybe that's possible if you take small enough bites. When you lump all of islam, all of Christianity and all of judiasm into the same basket you will make assumptions that do not hold true universally... of course. There are actually MORE flavors of islam than there is of Christianity. because the Sunnis don't have a centralized leader. Unless you count the Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him) So how they approach the religion can include their cultural predelictions as well as the religion itself. What is islam what is cultural. The same can be said of Christianity, the Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe in the trinity, the Mormons where special clothes to service, The Mormons sometimes have many wives sometime don't. It's cultural more than religious. If you want to claim some cultural thing is backward, fine, but don't blame islam. Islam established rights for women. being 1/2 the value of a man was a big step up from O% which it was before that time. Before that even the Jews had few rights for women. The right to own real property for women was establish in Turkey 40 years before we had it here in the U.S. That's our cultural problem, all our cultural 'superiority' ia terribly recent. We have to be careful whom we condemn before they remind us of how awful we have been in the past.

Posted by: Myra at January 6, 2007 9:03 AM

Anybody who bases their actions on the irrational belief (belief without evidence) in god, is backward, primitive, and, unless they're like astrology buffs, who keep their idiocy to themselves, usually some danger to the freedoms (and or lives) of the rest of us.

Islam, as it's practiced, is simply much more barbaric and primitive than the rest of them.

Our "cultural superiority" over anybody who puts out "How To Beat Your Wife" videos is indisputable.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 6, 2007 9:11 AM

"Islam established rights for women. being 1/2 the value of a man was a big step up from O% which it was before that time."

Agreed, however it is a step down from the modern understanding of rights. I absolutly agree that when Sharia was first established it was very enlightened compared to Western civilization. But that was centuries ago and Islam is still trying to use medieval rules in a modern society.

I also agree that much of what we think of as Islamic is actually cultural. However the tenents of Jihad and dhimmitude are not cultural they are part of the religion. As long as they are Muslims cannot be completely trusted by the "kafir".

Posted by: winston at January 6, 2007 9:14 AM

Winston, can you explain dhimmitude?

Also, there's apparently something in Islam that says it's okay to lie in the service of spreading Islam or something like that.

I can't remember the word...taquira, tariqua, something like that. Taquiyya, it seems it is:

http://euphoricreality.com/2006/12/21/the-taquiyya-that-islam-is-peaceful/

Taqiyya: “The Islamic principle of lying for the sake of Allah. Falsehoods told to prevent denigration of Islam, to protect oneself, or to promote the cause of Islam are sanctioned by the Qur’an, including lying under penalty of perjury in testimony before the United States Congress, lying or making distorted statements to the media such as claiming that Islam is a religion of peace and deceiving fellow Muslims when the one lying has deemed them to be apostates.”

al-Taqiyya: “Concealing or disguising one’s beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies…”

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 6, 2007 10:21 AM

"Dhimmis" means "protected people". in Sharia (Islamic law) non muslims are allowed to practice their religion however they are subject to a number of LEGAL constraints.

These include;
Non muslims (aka "kafir") cannot testify against muslims in a court of law.

Kafir can only inherit property if there is no muslim member of the family. If there is the muslim gets everything regardless of the wishes of the deceased.

Muslims may convert kafir to their religion but not vice versa. If a Muslim renounced their religion they are subject to the death penalty.

Kafir cannot build new houses of worship and any prayer must be kept quite so as to not offend muslims.

Kafir cannot carry weapons

Muslim men may marry kafir women but kafir men may not marry muslim women.

Kafir must pay a special tax

Kafir must dress and cut their hair in a certain way to indicate their status.

This is not an exhastive list but you get the idea. This is what is the most worrisome about Islam. This is God's law, he commands it's implementation EVERYWHERE not just Islamic countries. Democracy and the U.S. Constitution are just man's law. This is what I mean when I say the Jihadi's don't demmand our deaths or conversions, they demand our SUBMISSION.

Look at Europe to see the attempts at "Islamization" (Implementation of Sharia) of secular societies.

Posted by: winston at January 6, 2007 10:53 AM

When Islamic societies bump up against non islamic societies there are but three options.

1.Accept Islam and convert

2.Accept Dhimmi status.

3.War (this can be either hot or cold)

Islam is a supremicist ideology in a way that no other modern religion is. Anyone reading this DONT TRUST ME find out for yourself. Most Americans haven't a clue.

Posted by: winston at January 6, 2007 11:21 AM

Winston is right in the previous post...but what happened? Nothing like this was going on 40 years ago, when my parents were there.
Also, have you noticed that many of the worst abuses are in societies which ban porn?? Why is that?
But there is hope...if the United Arab Emirates can accomplish a seemingly pluralistic society, where 80% of the population is non-arab, then perhaps, it's possible elsewhere.

Posted by: The Mad Hungarian at January 6, 2007 12:40 PM

"there's apparently something in Islam that says it's okay to lie in the service of spreading Islam or something like that."

I think that murder is also okay for Hindus, as long as they say a little prayer to offer the act as an homage to the gods before doing it.

Posted by: Lena at January 6, 2007 3:14 PM

> I never said it was.

Me--> Is there such a precious "mechanism" in Judaism or Christianity?

You--> Yes, it's called "the enlightenment"

Me again, typing now in colorful, stereophonic, highdef real time: It worked for the Christians, it’ll work for the Muslims. They want medical care and safer food and technology and all the things the rest of us enjoy. They can't make them for themselves until they get with the program.

>you seem to want to attack my posts

No, I want to attack people who (A) feign arcane knowledge of trivial relevance in an effort to (B) paralyze the forward thinking of others in a manner that (C) tends to aggrandize the 'knowledge holder. ' I grew up in a college town with a lot of snots, and grew hypersensitive about this. You use the word “understanding” three times, and I can’t imagine why. Let’s say that Islam will be a tougher nut than much of Christianity has proven to be (of late). So what? Should this scare us? Is there a particular course that you’d therefore recommend? What do you want?

> Most Americans haven't a clue.

People who discount the insight of Americans are quite often deluding themselves.

> You're just more more optimistic

Maybe. Even if the west loses these wars, the surviving Muslims won't be able to run a modern economy, so they're doomed. The point is it's not possible that they could win, and neither is it possible that we can surrender or accommodate men like the one Amy quoted in this post.

> Reach for the generalisation,

Where?

> There's not a helluva lot of nuance.

Never said there was.

> Whatever.

Oh, throw a punch, would you?

> There are actually MORE flavors of
> islam than there is of Christianity.

So can we hope for the kind of immobility that happened to Christianity in the States, when no single faction could become pre-eminent?

Posted by: Crid at January 6, 2007 6:01 PM

Yep... AND there are thousands and thousands of peaceful Moslems who get no press at all. None at all none whatsoever. Moderate Muslims working to get their voice heard over the zealots. There is a lot of problems that all moderate peoples of all stripes and liberals for that matter when Fundamentals (islam, Christian, what-have-you) wing nuts try to write the agenda for the rest of us.

That's the problem that I have with stuff like this.. If you look - you can find the wing nuts of all stripes. Why emphasize the wingnuts when the majority just wants to live in peace and harmony.

It a logic phallacy... Because their is one wing nut in the news today (or last week) then all the people of their religion are nuts and evil and wrong... Why didn't we paint Christains bad when McVeigh started the current domestic terrorism wave? Amy might have said something but it was not in mainstream news. We aren't willing to villify the popular religion.. What's going to happen when the Muslims pull out in front. They have twice the children we do..

I happen to think Atheists have a lot of faith. To not believe in God in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. It boggles my mind.

Posted by: Myra at January 6, 2007 7:09 PM

winston you're an idiot. What do you suppose happens when peole refuse to submit to a religion they find distatful and that religion declares war - people die. So thaey are indeed qite wiling to kill the infidels, because the infidels are the ones who refuse to submit.

And Myra there are less than 5 sects of islam, there are more than a hundred sects of chistianity, not to mention all the 'non-denominational' churches. FYI mormons dont were special garments just for sunday services.

And if there is proof that God exists there would be no need for faith. But of you do have proof I would like to hear about it

Posted by: lujlp at January 7, 2007 2:12 AM

Myra, faith is belief without evidence in something, and that's precisely what atheists do not have. I see no evidence there is a god -- and that means concrete evidence -- the same evidence you'd require if, to borrow from Sam Harris (I think) I told you your frozen yogurt could become invisible. And in light of no evidence, I don't believe there is a god. If you have some evidence (perhaps god visits you weekly and leaves you a magic stone we can look at), do present it. I suspect that you see nature as pretty incredible and leap to the conclusion that there is a god. That's not evidence. It's weak thinking.

As for "emphasizing the wingnuts" -- there are a huge amount of wingnuts compared to those of other religions. There's the occasional Christian Timothy McVeigh, but Christians, by and large, are no longer murdering people who don't think like they do.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 7, 2007 7:41 AM

OK, Examples. Where does grass come from, how did it start. Can you make some? Where do we come from The humanistic Adam and Eve came from somewhere, where? People who are prayed over (even when they don't know about it) have better medical outcomes. He speaks to Bush and Pat Robertson (Okay so those are jokes) If you are going to say we come up from primordial slime I will accuse you of being from the faith of "Sciencism" because I've watched some slime in my day and never seem it turn to anything...

You have faith... You believe that the world is put together in some logical way despite the evidence to the contrary. You believe that without external influence your keys will be where you left them. Sometimes that is truth... You believe in the internet... I could be God typing to you and how would you know I wasn't. Faith is pretty tricky to live without...

:-)

Posted by: Myra at January 7, 2007 11:13 AM

Where does grass come from, how did it start.

Myra, because you can't explain it doesn't mean you can attribute it to god, any more than you can attribute it to Zeus, the Great Pumpkin, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The prayer thing was a hoax. Of course.

The fossil record is evidence of evolution. Also, there's been short-term evolution (adaptations taking hold) documented by scientists.

There was a piece in the LA Times today, from the Edge pieces I linked recently, decrying the lack of logical thought in our citizens. Perhaps if you studied logic (get the pamphlets at criticalthinking.org -- just six bucks each) you wouldn't make such obvious (and actually embarrassing) errors in basic reasoning.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 7, 2007 11:29 AM

"...I grew up in a college town with a lot of snots, and grew hypersensitive about this..."

You don't like the way I write, who cares? Your childhood isn't my problem.

"winston you're an idiot. What do you suppose happens when peole refuse to submit to a religion they find distatful and that religion declares war - people die. So thaey are indeed qite wiling to kill the infidels, because the infidels are the ones who refuse to submit"

Which modern religion is using violence to make people submit to its dictates?

Posted by: winston at January 8, 2007 8:31 PM

Leave a comment