In Islam, Domestic Violence Is Domestic Bliss
Yes, yet another sicko-ism from "The Religion Of Peace." From The Yemen Times, Maged Thabet Al-Kholidy writes "There Must Be Violence Against Women":
Occasionally -- if not daily -- we hear about events occurring in Islamic and Arab societies. Some human rights organizations recently have attacked violent acts against women, standing against any type of violence -- even that between a father and daughter -- and citing the cases of some women as examples.Consequently, they offer solutions such as complaining to the police, taking revenge or leaving them men, who are either their husbands, fathers or brothers -- with no exceptions.
One such case involved a woman whose husband allegedly had beaten her. Without revealing the husband's reasons for doing so, such human rights organizations immediately urged the wife to complain to the police and the courts, while at the same time generalizing the instance and other similar solutions to any type of violence.
If a man and woman are husband and wife, the Qur'an provides solutions, firstly reaffirming any logical and acceptable reasons for such punishment. These solutions are in gradual phases and not just for women, but for men also.
For men, it begins with abandoning the marital bed, by opting to sleep elsewhere in the house. After this, they may discuss the matter with any respected person for the husband's or the wife's family, who could be in a position to advise the wife. If this also does not work, then the husband yields to beating the wife slightly. They do this because of a misunderstanding (Amy: uh, yeah, right) in the Quran, as the word says Darban, which is commonly understood today as beating. However, in Classic Arabic it means to set examples or to announce and proclaim. The more accurate meaning of this last one is that the husband finally has to set forth, to make a clear statement or proclamation, and if these measures fail, then divorce is preferable.
Similarly, wives may take actions such as abandoning the marital bed, following by leaving the husband's home for that of their parents, brothers or any other relatives. They may do this more than once, but if such action fails, they may not continue to live with their husband and via their relatives, they may request a divorce.
Despite such instructions, beating is considered a type of violence, according to human rights organizations, which urge women to complain to the police. I just wonder what kind of families our societies would have if Muslim women started doing this regarding their husbands.
Relationships between fathers and daughters or sisters and brothers also provoke argument from human rights organizations, which propose the suggested solutions for all relationships. Personally, I don't think fathers or brothers would undertake such behavior unless there was a reason for it.
Fathers are responsible for their daughters' behavior, but human rights organizations deny this too. Brothers also should take action regarding their sisters' behavior, especially if their parents are too old or dead. If a daughter or sister makes a mistake -- especially a moral one -- that negatively affects the entire family and its reputation, what's the solution by such organizations?
According to them, women should complain to the courts about any type of violence against them. Likewise, should fathers and brothers complain to police if their daughters or sisters violate moral, Islamic or social norms?
Fathers should handle their daughters via any means that suits their mistake; thus, is it better to use violence to a certain limit or complain to the police? Shall such women then complain to the police against their fathers or brothers? It's really amazing to hear this.
Oh, I'm sure it is. The ways of civilized society will surely take centuries for you to get used to. Unfortunately, the spread of technology hasn't confined itself to the modern world -- meaning those whose religion demands that they convert, kill, or dhimmi down all us infidels will be able to blow all of us off the planet with ease...lest their women be further tempted to seek civilized measures to combat utterly uncivilized behavior.
>>>One such case involved a woman whose husband allegedly had beaten her.
Heck, if it were JUST "beatings", people wouldn't be so worked up about it. It is the killings, rape, genital mutilation and general enslavement that I and others can't abide.
(Not condoning beatings, but don't you love how the author whitewashes the whole problem?)
liz at January 7, 2008 11:44 AM
Here's another story from over the weekend. (There were others, but let's see how long we can live under the old house rules of one link per comment.) As we look around the world trying to pick out our enemies, it often seems like there's no better indicator of what to expect from someone than how they treat women.
This makes the popular American distrust of "feminism" all the more troubling. The work is nowhere near done, and the shitwits at NOW shouldn't be permitted to trivialize the important human trend.
A paragraph later, my resolve crumbles. (I live in fear that one day soon Amy's going to scream "Getcher own blog!!") This image was linked at Dvorak's site. Here's a fresh Altavista translation of the caption:
"Each year, in China, of the thousands of babies are abandoned, consequence of the policy of the single child. And the girls pay the full price of them. Abandonment, abortion and child murder are so current that their number drops dramatically. For 100 girls declared with the birth, there are now 118 boys."
Crid at January 7, 2008 12:34 PM
>>>One such case involved a woman whose husband allegedly had beaten her. Without revealing the husbands reasons for doing so.....
No husband ever has a legitmate reason to beat his wife, or vice versa. This is why islam is on the warpath all over the world to begin with, they are not compatible with modern culture. Their only choice is to change or try to take the rest of the world back to their century or else the rest of the world will grow intolerant of their intolerance and do something about it. They cannot change because islam is not a religion, it is really a cult, and cults abhor change.
About China, they have been killing baby girls for decades, I think the one child policy started there in the seventies. I was there in 87 and it reminded me of a Peter Fonda movie. I have heard it estimated that they have some thirty million more marrying age men than women. I cant cite the reference on that so don't hold me to it. But even in schools, men way outnumber the women. That reminds me of an ugly friend I had back in Michigan back in the eighties, We would walk into a club and look around and he would say, "Theres fat chicks here, I CAN DANCE!"
Bikerken at January 7, 2008 1:18 PM
...there's no better indicator of what to expect from someone than how they treat women. This makes the popular American distrust of "feminism" all the more troubling.
As always, Crid, you're right.
Rebecca at January 7, 2008 5:48 PM
...there's no better indicator of what to expect from someone than how they treat women. This makes the popular American distrust of "feminism" all the more troubling.
I'm not sure I would agree with that at all. I believe the first sentence is absolutely correct. I dont think that there is a "popular distrust of feminism' in America. I think there is a common distrust of some feminists for sure. If you look at NOW, they have been loud and noisy as hell on some issues that aren't really that important, then when it comes to things like sharia law, female circumcision, honor killings, Islamic wife beating, where are they? Why are they so quite? Is it becuase there is no American politcal target to hit with it? I know for sure that if the Catholic church, or Mormons or any other American conservative organization advocated beating your wife, They would be screaming bloody hell. But protesting against muslims doesn't hurt Bush, or republicans, or Newt Gingrich, so they don't. That makes me think that maybe they are a much more politics driven organization than a womens rights group.
Bikerken at January 7, 2008 6:23 PM
> you're right.
For the record, I didn't mean it as a pander to the edjumicated babes or as even a simplistic humanitarian point. (Though if it helps me score with chicks, then, like, whatever.)
A society that doesn't disable the competitive efforts (and financial investments) that women can bring to an economy probably isn't going to be limiting anyone's contributions. Saying that again, backwards: Once you've shat upon the broad social aspirations of your own wife and daughter, suppressing an uprising by the peasant Tutsis/Shia/whatever in a distant village will come very easily to you. A nation that demands dignity for women is probably one that's going to gratefully embrace other modern innovations, like contemporary finance, representative government, environmental regulation, etc.
When I was in college, everyone was terribly afraid of the Japanese. But nowadays people aren't.
[Two links in one comment! I'm drunk with power over here!]
If you think you can let go of half your talent and still do well, you're going to be surprised.
Crid at January 7, 2008 7:01 PM
I got ya Crid, when you say it way, it's so much clearer. Definitely agree with the link between the family and the rest of the world.
Life is all cake and crap, Sometimes you run out of cake.
Bikerken at January 7, 2008 7:07 PM
I didn't suspect you of pandering to the empowered babes, Crid. As you point out, any country which suppresses the intelligence and energy that half the population brings to the economy will languish in almost every measurement of its standard of living. Well, except for those filthy rich oil principalities--they can afford to oppress their population.
Are you going for the trifecta and posting three links next?
I think your comments display some of that mistrust, Bikerken. A quick search of NOW's website brought up these articles. Here's just a few examples:
Pakistani Tribe Orders Gang-Rape
Women Denied Basic Rights in Afghanistan
NOW Denounces Sentence of Nigerian Woman to Stoning
Despite what you may think of their domestic politics, it looks like the National Organization for Women has been addressing the plight of women in Muslim countries for a while.
Rebecca at January 7, 2008 7:13 PM
Rebecca, lets be clear, I have nothing against equal rights for women. I have worked for some awesome ladies that were a pleasure to work for because they knew their job well and were intelligent mature adults. That is always an easy boss to work for.
What I don't agree with is how NOW picks their fights. I am a political junkie and having worked in the intelligence field for years, I read a LOT. How much did NOW bitch about Clintons womanizing with a young intern on the job in the office, (insert sound of crickets chirping). He has got to be one of the worst abusers of women this century. But because they like his politics, they let it slide. Am I suspicious or mistrustful of that? You betcha. Does the name Bob Packwood ring a bell? How about the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings? Does Bob Livingston ring a bell? In each one of those cases, NOW was loud as hell. Yet they let Billy Jeff slide, even when a woman went on national TV and said he raped her. Now it may be true that ALL of the women who claimed to be treated like a condom by Bill were lying, but if it was Bush.....
Bikerken at January 7, 2008 8:20 PM
Rebecca, Have you ever read or heard of Tammy Bruce's stories when she worked for NOW? I'm sure you know who she is. Lesbian, Feminist, Conservative, Smart, Gun-totin blogger. She's one of my favorites, I've been listening to her on the radio for years. She has told many stories about when she was with them. I also read Camile Paglia whenever I find something from her. I like her writing alot. Dont agree with everything but that's ok, she's got style and she's bright. These women are what I think of as real feminists. It isn't feminism I distrust, it is that one organization, maybe two, CODE PINK doesnt strike me as all there. When I see them on tv, and the sound is off, they look like a 'Someone bombed an insane asylum and these ladies walked away' story.
Bikerken at January 7, 2008 8:43 PM
"I just wonder what kind of families our societies would have if Muslim women started doing this regarding their husbands." Uh, one where this kind of violence isn't tolerated.
"Personally, I don't think fathers or brothers would undertake such behavior unless there was a reason for it." So if you can justify the honor killing, it's okay?
This is a sick, sick cult.
I have to concure with bikerken about NOW -- mostly because I tried to get involved with them here in New York and found that the heads of the chapters were in a -- there's no other way to put it -- a catfight over who was the rightful head at the State level. I was ashamed and embarrassed at them living up to this stereotype of women but even more disgusted at their behavior. At the time I got involved, the local chapter met at the downtown library -- easily accessible to women in the inner city. They did a lot of squawking about wanting to attract poor women and women of color but, over my objections and my pointing out that even I couldn't attend meetings, they moved the meetings to the white you-ain't-got-a-car-you-ain't-getting-there suburb. Left me with the impression that not only were they definitely not sincere about wanting poor women and women of color but they had a problem with me -- maybe because I brought up "real" issues they didn't want to deal with that affect women on a daily basis.
Donna at January 8, 2008 8:32 AM
I would say the reason why NOW was quiet on the Clinton "rape" charge, Bikerken, is the same reason you've got for mistrusting their actions--partisan politics. Just like the left lined up against Clarence Thomas (The two Bobs openly admitted their misdeeds--so are they the best example here?), the far right backed Juanita Broddick in their attempt to destroy the Clintons' political careers. I can't speak for NOW's leaders, but I'm sure they didn't want to align themselves with what seemed to be a political witchhunt--albeit of the wrong party.
By the way, I'm not a member of NOW. I merely wanted to point out that this particular group has been speaking out against the treatment of women in Muslim countries. So has the Feminist Majority, and other American feminist groups.
Donna, a friend of mine had the same experience with, of all things, the PTA. She's a single mom, and currently getting her PhD at UC Irvine in Orange County, California. She joined her local PTA and found out very quickly it was a social network uninterested in lower-income families. For instance, the ladies liked to lunch in the middle of the day (work hours!) at an expensive fashionable bistro in the area. The few times her schedule allowed her to attend, my friend found that the Orange County housewives talked about everything but school and children. She quit soon after.
Rebecca at January 8, 2008 10:17 AM
I should point out that the expensive fashionable lunch was actually the official PTA meeting.
Rebecca at January 8, 2008 10:36 AM
"When I was in college, everyone was terribly afraid of the Japanese. But nowadays people aren't."
I didnt get to read the full articles but here's an interesting tidbit. When I was in Japan I heard often of crimes commited by foreigners (peruvians, brazilians, etc.). The interesting tidbit is that these foreigners are of Japanese descent whose families had moved to latin america and pretty much assimilated. The Japanese goverment noticed that nobody was having babies so they started shipping them in thinking that because they are of japanese desscent they'd be good stock. Bad idea, everyone hates them.
I found this out because I was explaining to my friend that Adriana Lima was Brazilian. She thought all Brazilians looked Japanese.
PurplePen at January 9, 2008 11:17 AM
Both my daughter and I have found that true of PTA here in New Yorkand in Denver. She followed my lead and tried to be involved in my grandson's school only to find as I did before her that they basically want to be the cheerleaders of the school, holding school spirit events and raising money. The PTA, in other words, has become pointless.
I've been a member of the Feminist Majority for years and they keep a consistent interest up rather than NOW's sporadic now and then when it suits them politically. One thing I really love about Ms. Magazine is it covers local and global news. I've learned a lot from it and Mother Jones.
Donna at January 9, 2008 11:18 AM
Leave a comment