Woman's Rights and Sharia Law [Archive]

trulymagical

08-03-2009, 09:34 AM

Christian Family Burned to Death in Pakistan After Koran is 'Defiled'

Paramilitary troops patrolled the streets of a town in eastern Pakistan yesterday after Muslim radicals burned to death eight members of a Christian family, raising fears of violence spreading to other areas.

Hundreds of armed supporters of Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, an outlawed Islamic militant group, burned dozens of Christian homes in Gojra over the weekend after allegations that a copy of the Koran had been defiled.

The mob opened fire indiscriminately, threw petrol bombs and looted houses as thousands of frightened Christians ran for safety. “They were shouting anti-Christian slogans and attacked our houses,” Rafiq Masih, a resident of the predominantly Christian colony, said. Residents said that police stood aside while the mob went on the rampage. “We kept begging for protection, but police did not take action,” Mr Masih said.

Police and local officials said that at least eight people, including four women and a child, were killed in the fires. Two others died of gunshot wounds. Residents said that the casualties were much higher; one claimed that the number of dead could be in the dozens as many bodies were still buried under the rubble. Shahbaz Bhatti, the Minister for Minorities, said that 40 Christian homes were torched in rioting. He said there was no truth to allegations that a Koran had been defiled, and accused the police of ignoring his appeal to provide protection to Christians.
Tension started mounting last week after Muslims accused three Christian youths of burning a copy of the Koran. They denied the allegations, but clerics called for their death. On Saturday, hundreds of supporters of Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, an outlawed Sunni sectarian group, poured into the town from surrounding districts. The group is believed to have close links with Al Qaeda and has been involved in several terrorist attacks targeting security forces in recent years.

Television footage showed armed men running through the streets, gunfire, and women and children wailing. Blackened furniture lay outside burning homes, while a group of people rushed a man suffering from burns on a cart through the streets. Rehman Malik, the Interior Minister, said that the paramilitary troops were sent after police and the local administration failed to control the situation. Security forces were also placed on high alert to prevent violence from spreading to other towns of Punjab.

paxaeon

08-03-2009, 10:04 AM

Why should O'bama be involved in the affairs of Sudan and Saudi?

While the president of the US has no constitutional duty to speak out on affairs not germane to his immediate office, as leader of the supposed "free world" and the republics and democracies that cherish concepts like "liberty, justice and human rights", it behooves the president to speak out against such flagrant and violent atrocities committed against women. It is definitely something that is not without precedent.

paddystyle

08-03-2009, 10:14 AM

While the president of the US has no constitutional duty to speak out on affairs not germane to his immediate office, as leader of the supposed "free world" and the republics and democracies that cherish concepts like "liberty, justice and human rights", it behooves the president to speak out against such flagrant and violent atrocities committed against women. It is definitely something that is not without precedent.

Yep thats how wars start,no matter how reprehensable our leaders find certain acts,it is none of our concern how others govern themselves,would you like some other Nations leader intervening to enforce Sharia law on you...as individuals we have every right to speak out against this but a leader of a Nation has no business meddling in the affairs of other soverign Nations,the bare facts of the matter are people choose to live under Sharia law the same as you don't

H20gerl

08-03-2009, 11:10 AM

Why should O'bama be involved in the affairs of Sudan and Saudi?

I was thinking the same thing......why is it the U.S.A.'s job to babysit the lifestyles of everyone else? Shit......we can't even take care of ourselves.......

paxaeon

08-03-2009, 11:33 AM

Yep thats how wars start,no matter how reprehensable our leaders find certain acts,it is none of our concern how others govern themselves,would you like some other Nations leader intervening to enforce Sharia law on you...as individuals we have every right to speak out against this but a leader of a Nation has no business meddling in the affairs of other soverign Nations,the bare facts of the matter are people choose to live under Sharia law the same as you don't

Evil exists because the good do nothing about it. This isn't a religious tome, it's a philosophical, ideological reality. Your view of the world and how it should operate is your prerogative. I fortunately see the human spirit in a much more selfless and sublime light.

As I do not seem to recall myself writing about any actual involvement in the internal affairs of any country involved in the repression of women, I must assume you are writing rhetorically. Speaking out against something is hardly "meddling" in this regards.

This seems way out of character for a person who continually condemns Israel and the Jews for abuses in human rights. I must again assume, you are adopting a "Advocatus Diaboli" role for the sake of argument or something. You can't have it both ways my friend.

paddystyle

08-03-2009, 11:58 AM

Evil exists because the good do nothing about it. This isn't a religious tome, it's a philosophical, ideological reality. Your view of the world and how it should operate is your prerogative. I fortunately see the human spirit in a much more selfless and sublime light.

As I do not seem to recall myself writing about any actual involvement in the internal affairs of any country involved in the repression of women, I must assume you are writing rhetorically. Speaking out against something is hardly "meddling" in this regards.

This seems way out of character for a person who continually condemns Israel and the Jews for abuses in human rights. I must again assume, you are adopting a "Advocatus Diaboli" role for the sake of argument or something. You can't have it both ways my friend.

Nope if you read my post i clearly say it is each individual's right to campaign against these thing's if we so desire,what your advocating is that one head of state tells another how it should conduct his affairs,when O'bama ceases to be POTUS then he is free to condemn all he wants just like your ex president Carter is doing and should be applauded for such actions....you may assume i'm speaking Advocatus diaboi if you wish,but i can assure you this is my opinion and is not for the sake of argument....if you wish to impose what you percieve as right on others with little or no understanding that's yor perogative but its also mine not to judge or interfere with laws that don't apply to me

paxaeon

08-03-2009, 12:17 PM

Nope if you read my post i clearly say it is each individual's right to campaign against <snipped for brevity>

Like I said my friend, a US president speaking out about human rights, world-wide, is not without precedent, to wit;

George W Bush Speaks Out Against China Human Rights Abuses - Source (http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2008-08/2008-08-07-voa4.cfm?CFID=272093383&CFTOKEN=74427560&jsessionid=66301c78e47c134766f725647c1754403b34)

Bill Clinton - "Human rights" has become "the soul of our foreign policy". Source (http://www.zpub.com/un/un-bc.html)

Ronald Reagan - the Reagan Administration vigorously promoted the cause of human rights and spoke out forthrightly when violations occurred. Source (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Human%20Rights%20Documents/Reagan_HumanRights_HRW.html)

Time prevents from listing every US president and their record on speaking out against human rights abuses. You must forgive me,

Also, the United Nations exists as an organization, supported by the nations of the world, that speaks out against human right abuses and violations. Same can be said for Amnesty International.

You are free to believe that speaking out against injustices in the world is a bad thing. I disagree.

minesadorada

08-03-2009, 12:28 PM

As long as the world tolerates sovereign nations, it must live with the consequences.

I support Paddy's view on this issue.

paddystyle

08-03-2009, 12:28 PM

Like I said my friend, a US president speaking out about human rights, world-wide, is not without precedent, to wit;

George W Bush Speaks Out Against China Human Rights Abuses - Source (http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2008-08/2008-08-07-voa4.cfm?CFID=272093383&CFTOKEN=74427560&jsessionid=66301c78e47c134766f725647c1754403b34)

Bill Clinton - "Human rights" has become "the soul of our foreign policy". Source (http://www.zpub.com/un/un-bc.html)

Ronald Reagan - the Reagan Administration vigorously promoted the cause of human rights and spoke out forthrightly when violations occurred. Source (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Human%20Rights%20Documents/Reagan_HumanRights_HRW.html)

Time prevents from listing every US president and their record on speaking out against human rights abuses. You must forgive me,

Also, the United Nations exists as an organization, supported by the nations of the world, that speaks out against human right abuses and violations. Same can be said for Amnesty International.

You are free to believe that speaking out against injustices in the world is a bad thing. I disagree.

Sorry when you said stand up to these injustices in your OP i assumed you meant more than speak out against it....just how seriously an American president is taken though considering the recent human rights violations regarding torture is debatable would'nt it be a case of do as i say don't do as i do?.....The UN humanatarian arm and Amnesty have of course spoken out against these and many more and are well within their remit in doing so,the same as you or i am

paxaeon

08-03-2009, 07:14 PM

Sorry when you said stand up to these injustices in your OP i assumed you meant more than speak out against it....just how seriously an American president is taken though considering the recent human rights violations regarding torture is debatable would'nt it be a case of do as i say don't do as i do?.....The UN humanatarian arm and Amnesty have of course spoken out against these and many more and are well within their remit in doing so,the same as you or i am

Understood. Bush being seriously critical about the human rights of the Chinese and Tibetan people must have caused a few laughs in Beijing and then there is Reagan's supposed human rights concern for Honduras which was a cover for what is now known as the Iran/Contra scandal.

My purpose here was to bring to light the abuses of women, done under the Sharia law...a law recognized ONLY by the extremist Islamics, the hypocrisy of the US and their butt-buddies, the House of Saud and UN when it comes to doing more than just issuing papers of condemnation.

But speaking of "meddling", the UN and since we opened the door on this related topic, there is the NATO action in the Balkans. That was purely a humanitarian conflict. Unfortunately, Europe, the US and the rest of the world did not react at all to the genocide that was happening in Rwanda. Too bad Rwanda doesn't have oil, the US would have been there in a flash.

paddystyle

08-03-2009, 07:41 PM

Understood. Bush being seriously critical about the human rights of the Chinese and Tibetan people must have caused a few laughs in Beijing and then there is Reagan's supposed human rights concern for Honduras which was a cover for what is now known as the Iran/Contra scandal.

My purpose here was to bring to light the abuses of women, done under the Sharia law...a law recognized ONLY by the extremist Islamics, the hypocrisy of the US and their butt-buddies, the House of Saud and UN when it comes to doing more than just issuing papers of condemnation.

But speaking of "meddling", the UN and since we opened the door on this related topic, there is the NATO action in the Balkans. That was purely a humanitarian conflict. Unfortunately, Europe, the US and the rest of the world did not react at all to the genocide that was happening in Rwanda. Too bad Rwanda doesn't have oil, the US would have been there in a flash.

I do see where you coming from but Sharia law is hardly only reconised by fundamentalists In those Muslim countries where Islam is the official religion listed in the constitution, sharia is declared to be a source, or the source, of the laws. Examples include Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Yemen, and the United Arab Emirates, where the governments derive their legitimacy from Islam. In Pakistan, Egypt, Iran, and Iraq, among others, it is also forbidden to enact legislation that is antithetical to Islam. Saudi Arabia employs one of the strictest interpretations of sharia.Saudi are your allies how can O'bama condemn them yet still treat them as freinds? most use a dual system of Sharia and secular but revert to sharia for family matters this is where the more draconian justice takes place and where the Hadd rears its ugly head

In a 2007 University of Maryland poll (PDF), more than 60 percent of the populations in Egypt, Morocco, Pakistan, and Indonesia responded that democracy was a good way to govern their respective countries, while at the same time, an average of 71 percent agreed with requiring "strict application of [sharia] law in every Islamic country." there in lies the problem can Democracy and Sharia exist together i doubt it

paxaeon

08-04-2009, 05:48 AM

I do see where you coming from but Sharia law is hardly only reconised by fundamentalists In those Muslim countries where Islam is the official religion listed in the constitution, sharia is declared to be a source, or the source, of the laws. <snipped for brevity>

When I refer to "Sharia Law", you will note that I make no distinction in how it's interpreted at present. It is not the same set of laws that was around say 80 to 100 years ago where women actually had more rights under Sharia than western women.

Sharia has been perverted and maligned as also been the Qur'an, by extreme elements, much like modern day christian extremists have done to the Bible. Any law that robs the rights and decency of women...humans for that matter as present day Sharia law does, deserves to be condemned and abolished.

Saudi Arabia is NOT a friend of the US. The House of Saud, the ruling monarchy, has business interests with US oil companies which forces them to be civil to us, BUT, they are not our friends. The Emerites? perhaps, to a point.

As far as women's rights, Sharia and Obama...must I reiterate what I just wrote previously? Obama, as any leader of a nation in the free world, has a duty if not responsibility to condemn any actions that violate human rights, regardless of the legitimacy and/or source of such laws. He can be diplomatic but firm.

Now as far as that poll is concerned, I'd have to see the particulars before I accept it. 60% of "what part" of the population? Just men? Just voters? At this point, that's like saying "four out of five dentists" surveyed.....Besides, one poll does not a consensus make..

paddystyle

08-04-2009, 06:46 AM

When I refer to "Sharia Law", you will note that I make no distinction in how it's interpreted at present. It is not the same set of laws that was around say 80 to 100 years ago where women actually had more rights under Sharia than western women.

Sharia has been perverted and maligned as also been the Qur'an, by extreme elements, much like modern day christian extremists have done to the Bible. Any law that robs the rights and decency of women...humans for that matter as present day Sharia law does, deserves to be condemned and abolished.

Saudi Arabia is NOT a friend of the US. The House of Saud, the ruling monarchy, has business interests with US oil companies which forces them to be civil to us, BUT, they are not our friends. The Emerites? perhaps, to a point.

As far as women's rights, Sharia and Obama...must I reiterate what I just wrote previously? Obama, as any leader of a nation in the free world, has a duty if not responsibility to condemn any actions that violate human rights, regardless of the legitimacy and/or source of such laws. He can be diplomatic but firm.

Now as far as that poll is concerned, I'd have to see the particulars before I accept it. 60% of "what part" of the population? Just men? Just voters? At this point, that's like saying "four out of five dentists" surveyed.....Besides, one poll does not a consensus make..

Yeah i get all that i have as much time for Sharia as i do for any other religious law which is zero...i'm only pointing out that Sharia law is not just followed by extremesits as you pointed out,a huge amount of people live under various sharia regimes...the sad fact of the matter is O'bama cannnot speak out against it for fear of offending the house of Saud

H20gerl

08-07-2009, 10:52 AM

Soooooo............is there supposed to be something that is offensive in the pic......?
I'm not getting it...........

mrmacq

08-07-2009, 12:07 PM

This is where the problem emerges when you don't understand the message of the picture. It is offensive to a female herself as being portrayed as a physical appearance not according to her intellectual level let alone in a place where females are thought to be protective to their dignity and their bodies. It doesn't mean that a female is modernized when she shows the split between her breasts and wearing a mini-shirt but it means the female sells her body for free and exposes it to public when some are paid thousand of dollars to have their naked pictures in the covers and other movies like " the sex and the city' and other series and movies. I hope you read the "Bell Jar" by Sylvia Plath and you may understand how women were driven from being moderate to being exploited in commercials and other fields. It may sound weird to you but you are grown in a society that makes you succumb to being passive under the authority of men, and all these cause divorce, emerge of bi-sexual groups for not accepting being under men in everything. It makes female struggles inside and outside, plastic surgeries even men join the movement, doing everything that can attract attention of the other.

This is why there is a conflict of arguments when it comes to women wearing hijab and western women. There should be meetings and exchanging views between a Muslim female and a non-Muslim women so that they can be understanding before judging. And when I said a Muslim women, it is not limited to race or geographical place.

when in rome do as the romans
im following
i understand
she shood be following the local customs
after all she is there as a guest
i have people take off thier shoes upon entering my house
cause they're my rules

minesadorada

08-07-2009, 12:44 PM

Taking off shoes is like simple Golf rules to wear a collared shirt and golf shoes.

Denying female golfers instruction is a different thing.

It is not for one culture to dominate another, so let the Taliban women discover their weakness - if they care.

I despair at American and UK vilification of art and intellecualism - and the weakness will be discovered; one day.

fourquartets

08-09-2009, 11:30 AM

Item - Sudanese woman to dare court over flogging (http://www.theage.com.au/world/sudanese-woman-to-dare-court-over-flogging-20090802-e5tf.html) A woman in Sudan is arrested for wearing "pants." When arrested, the police beat her around the head and she now faces a flogging of 40 lashes.

Item - 8 year old Saudi girl divorces husband (47) (http://yalibnan.com/site/archives/2009/04/8_year_old_saud.php) She was denied a divorce twice, The court there saying that she had to wait until she reached puberty.

Item - 15 girls dies in blaze, Saudi police prevent rescue as girls were not wearing correct Islamic dress (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1874471.stm) - One witness said he saw three policemen "beating young girls to prevent them from leaving the school because they were not wearing abhaya and veil. Fifteen girls were burnt alive while their relatives watched helplessly from outside.

***************

I'm not even going to post the plethora of news Items I have detailing the beating and flogging of women who were already raped and then subjected to further punishment because "they allowed themselves to get raped" or "did not resist enough."

The Bush administration did nothing to protest these atrocities against women. They were especially sensitive to the feelings of their oil rich butt-buddies in Saudi Arabia, where many of these incidences occurred.

I am struck by the sheer courage of the woman in Sudan, the likes of her character I have not seen in any western woman.

I can only hope that President Obama stands up to these archaic and inhumane tactics done under the name of religion....but I am not holding my breath.

The Administration, individual citizens in organizations, and particularly our UN representatives can certainly help further the cause. We're not even a signatory to The Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the basic UN women’s human rights document, as of last year signed by 185 nations. The US is one of very few holdouts, in the company of Iran, Sudan, and Somalia.

Very important topic, Paxaeon, much debated in the past few years especially, as the Right primarily has been waging attacks against American feminists for "not caring" and "doing nothing." Cries of outrage and protest by feminist groups (including the more "conservative" Sisterhood is Global and Feminist Majority) in Washington and elsewhere in the U.S., have always made some difference in the gender politics of the Middle East and the lives of Middle Eastern women, both in U.S. immigrant communities and abroad. And, feminist theorists in the American academe have for a while now sought to analyze, articulate, and move beyond the discourses that pit U.S. nationalism against Middle Eastern Islamism to begin instead to work for a new politics anchored in feminist concerns, a politics that neither silences women nor places them exposed and vulnerable at major turning points in history. What conscientious American feminists are careful NOT to do is get into a "civilizing mission" (CF Gayatri Spivak) ... deem Islamic countries irretrievably "premodern" and "barbaric" and attempt to impose their high-minded modern ideals on the rest of the world. Taking up the American torch to light freedom across the globe is the same misguided ideology that's landed us in Iraq. The goal is a gender politics that is right for the particular cultural context of each nation, and there's enough indigenous effort there for us to support rather than try to lead and define on our own terms (especially when we have all sorts of dirt to clean up in our own backyard).

"American women are reluctant to help women in Iran" is a manufactured argument that appears many places, as is this: "American feminists lack 'basic decency' because they focus on their own insignificant issues rather than global sexism and misogyny, and because they equate their negligible oppression to that of women in 'Muslim societies.'"

Such absurd moral pronouncements (lack of decency, mistrust, etc.) are turned into facts by otherwise motivated "women's advocates," such as Christina Hoff Sommers. Two years ago she published "The Subjection of Islamic Women and the Fecklessness of American Feminism," an article in which she attempts to be comprehensive and yet remains woefully shortsighted, not a surprise considering she's always had an axe to grind with American feminism and she's an eternal advocate of rigid and essentialist gender ideology (The War Against Boys, etc.). Much in there, but two points stand out: ONE, Sommers uses blanket terms such as "Muslim societies" and "Arab nations" rather than make necessary distinctions, e.g. "Islamism," "Muslim theocracies," "radical Islamic states" and so on, in effect erasing historical/cultural/political specificity and obscuring the significance of indigenous resistance. TWO, in her enthusiastic attack on American feminists, Sommers dazzles us with her ignorance around what's at the center of the argument: a serious debate between "universalism" (i.e., human rights defined the same way globally) and "cultural relativism" (respect for traditions particular to different cultures). This debate is extremely important since, historically, the "culturally particular" has been represented in international forums by the dominant in each culture and not by the groups victimized in the name of Culture and/or Tradition (women, the poor, ethnic and religious minorities, etc.). If anyone cares to read further on the subject, I'll be happy to share references. The paragraph below is from Janet Afany's excellent essay, "Seeking a Feminist Politics for the Middle East after September 11":

Finally, there has been an attempt to move beyond the binary debate on universalism and cultural relativism. Feminist writers such as Mehrangiz Kar and Nooshin Ahmadi embrace the politics of diversity that Western feminists have explored in the last two decades. They also point to the limits of cultural relativism as it is currently argued in the West. Since conservative Islamist leaders have institutionalized sexism and other forms of discrimination in the name of culture, the reformist opposition now calls for adherence to the values of universal human rights. A strategic universalism instead of a limited cultural relativism provides more opportunities for creating tolerant societies in the Middle East, they argue. Iranian feminists are thus calling for adherence to a set of universal principals to be reached through dialogue and consensus among women of the East and the West. They especially wish to strengthen the authority of organizations such as the United Nations and documents such as the U.N. Charter on Human Rights and the Beijing Charter on Women's Rights.

There's NO general rule that the Islamic faith is anti-woman, anti-freedom, etc., and a major ideological arena in which there's indigenous resistance in Iran (specifically) is precisely religious deconstruction. Iranian citizens of both genders have been working to take back Islam from the fanatics who've reduced it to a set of puritanical and intolerant laws. They've been working with arcane religious legalisms and interpreting religious texts either to give them a feminist reading or to provide ample ambiguity about the origins of the sexist statements.

For example, the first two decades of the twentieth century, a central debate in Iran concerned political democracy and women's education, following Khomeini's fatwa against the latter. You see, the fatwa contradicted the Koran, which specifically calls on both women and men to educate themselves in the search for knowledge. At any rate, Iranian religious thinkers have joined more secular advocates of human rights and change in stressing the need to move beyond fundamentalist regulations (e.g., leading clerics Mojtahed Shabastari and Seyyed Mohsen Saidzadeh, who was jailed for his writings, etc. etc.).

NOTE on a subject deserving its own message board (let alone post or thread): The term Islamism is commonly used to describe the militant and retrogressive interpretation of Islam in question (Theoretically speaking, "Islamism" is to "Islam" what "masculinism" is to "masculinity"); and it is not just a response to modernity and Western culture, but it is also a product of Western politics, the result of numerous influences.

Links to Afany's and Sommers' essays here:

Seeking a Feminist Politics for the Middle East after September 11:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3687/is_200401/ai_n9370015/

http://3quarksdaily.blogs.com/3quarksdaily/2007/05/the_subjection_.html
The subjection of Islamic women and the fecklessness of American feminism, by Christina Hoff Summers.

fourquartets

08-09-2009, 11:37 AM

Here's the open letter Katha Pollitt circulated last year:

American Feminists Challenge Media Misrepresentation

21 January 2008 in Feminism, North America

Sign the Open Letter from American Feminists

With advice and counsel from the History in Action e mail list, I wrote up the Open Letter below to protest the way the media slanders the women’s movement as indifferent to the human rights of women in the developing and/or Muslim world. Fact: it’s feminists who first identified atrocities against women around the world – female genital mutilation, forced marriage, child marriage, spousal violence, rape — as violations of human rights, not family matters or customs of no state importance. it is feminists who have consistently pushed for women’s rights to education, health care, and legal and social equality and who’ve pushed organizations from the UN to Amnesty International to broaden their perspective to include women’s rights to be free from violence and coercion.. “Women’s rights are human rights” was not a slogan dreamed up by David Horowitz or Christina Hoff Sommers.

In only four days, the Open Letter has gathered 700 signatures. it’s been signed by people from all walks of life and every part of the country: writers, scholars, students, activists, leaders of feminist organizations and global health organizations, doctors, nurses, kindergarten teachers, clergy people, stay-home mothers and so on and on – to say nothing of a whole bunch of people who simply describe themselves as “feminist.”

If you’d like to sign, send your name to me Katha Pollitt, and be sure include how you would like to be identified. for example: writer, Prof (with dept and U), activist, astronaut, movie star. if you are active with a feminist/progressive or global organization or NGO, that would be a good thing to mention. I would like the list to show that all sorts of women, and men, are feminists and how many are actively working for women’s human rights. and yes, men can sign.

An Open Letter from American Feminists

Columnists and opinion writers from The Weekly Standard to the Washington Post to Slate have recently accused American feminists of focusing obsessively on minor or even nonexistent injustices in the United States while ignoring atrocities against women in other countries, especially the Muslim world. A number of reasons are given for this supposed neglect: narcissism, ideological rigidity, reflexive anti-Americanism, fear of seeming insensitive or even racist. Yet what is the evidence for this apparently now broadly accepted claim that feminists don’t support the struggles of women around the globe? It usually comes down to a quick scan of the home page of the National Organization for Women’s website, observing that a particular writer hasn’t covered a particular outrage, plus a handful of quotes wrenched out of context.

In fact, as a bit of research would easily show, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of US feminist organizations involved in promoting women’s rights and well-being around the globe – V-Day, Equality Now, MADRE, the Global Fund for Women, the International Women’s Health Coalition and Feminist Majority, to name some of the most prominent. (The National Organization for Women itself has a section on its website devoted to global feminism, on which it denounces a wide array of practices including female genital mutilation (FGM), “honor” murder, trafficking, dowry deaths and domestic violence).

Feminists at Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the United Nations have moved those organizations to add the rights of women and girls to their agenda. Feminist magazines and blogs – Ms, Feministing.com, Salon.com’s Broadsheet feature, womensenews.com (which has an edition in Arabic) – as well as feminist reporters and commentators in the mainstream media, regularly report on and condemn outrages against women wherever they occur, from rape, battery and murder in the US to the denial of women’s human rights in the developing or Muslim world.

As feminists, we call on journalists and opinion writers to report the true position of our movement. We believe that women’s rights are human rights, and stand in solidarity with our sisters who are fighting for equal political, economic, social and reproductive rights around the globe. Specifically, contrary to the accusations of pundits, we support their struggle against female genital mutilation, “honor” murder, forced marriage, child marriage, compulsory Islamic dress codes, the criminalization of sex outside marriage, brutal punishments like lashing and stoning, family laws that favor men and that place adult women under the legal power of fathers, brothers, and husbands, and laws that discount legal testimony made by women. We strongly oppose the denial of education, health care and equal political and economic rights to women.

We reject the use of women’s rights language to justify invading foreign countries. Instead, we call on the United States government to live up to its expressed commitment to women’s rights through peaceful means. Specifically, we call upon it to:

• offer asylum to women and girls fleeing gender-based persecution, including female genital mutilation, domestic violence, and forced marriage;

• promote women’s rights and well-being in all their foreign policy and foreign aid decisions;

• use its diplomatic powers to pressure its allies — especially Saudi Arabia, one of the most oppressive countries in the world for women — to embrace women’s rights;

• drop the Mexico City policy–aka the ‘gag rule’–which bars funds for AIDS- related and contraception-related health services abroad if they provide abortions, abortion information, or advocate for legalizing abortion;

• generously support the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), which supports women’s reproductive health including safe maternity around the globe, and whose funding is vetoed every year by President Bush;

• become a signatory to The Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the basic UN women’s human rights document, now signed by 185 nations. The US is one of a handful of holdouts, along with Iran, Sudan, and Somalia.

Finally, we call upon the United States, and all the industrialized nations of the West, to share their unprecedented wealth, often gained at the expense of the developing world, with those who need it in such a way that women benefit.

Signed: Katha Pollitt, writer Marge Piercy, writer Susan Faludi, writer Alix Kates Shulman, writer Julianne Malveaux, president Bennett college for women Anne Lamott, writer Mary Gordon, writer Linda Gordon, historian, NYU Jennifer Baumgardner, writer Ruth Rosen, historian Jane Smiley, writer Anna Fels,MD, psychiatrist and writer Debra Dickerson, writer Margo Jefferson, writer Jessica Valenti, writer Dana Goldstein, The American Prospect Karen Houppert, writer Gloria Jacobs, The Feminist Press Carole Joffe, Sociology, UC Davis Janet Afary, Middle East Historian, Purdue University and over 700 more women and men.

Source http://www.thenation.com/blogs/anotherthing?bid=25&pid=273005

paddystyle

08-09-2009, 11:39 AM

fourquartets

08-09-2009, 12:03 PM

Freesoul-- I missed the posts on the "barbaric" nature of Islam, but I'm well familiar with the "argument" and refuse to address it at that level. I would, however, like to comment on the topic of Christianity and gender relations, another area woefully misinterpreted and abused.

You quote Peter: Killing people and enforcing slavery and the like. These claims are not God's Words but human's made. I will try not to insult the religion but what some Christians follow tell the story as racial arrogance, treatment of women, torture and sexual abuse.

Good reminder. What’s being disseminated as God’s Word is often but a narrative crafted to inferiorize the subaltern-- women, racial/religious minorities, the poor, the homosexuals, the Other. In all religious traditions there’s God’s Word, and then there’s the mediating consciousness of the Word’s interpreters. Specious creatures the latter, self-serving, speaking in tongues when necessary, dispersing oracles like Pithy would in Delphi—what enabled the sacrifice of Antigone and the stoning of Soraya M.

Christianity in relation to gender, heterosexual intimacy, and marriage is an enormous subject (as is Islam, of course) that includes faith and theory in equal measure, and also honesty. We will not cover it in a few posts, so here’re some important to me observations:

Roles and expectations are tied to culture; we screen philosophical statements and hermeneutics through our own experiences, both good and bad; and there is great mystery in the interaction of the sexes that bear God’s image in marriage, as it illustrates Christ and the church, and in the discovery of personal identity in Christ as it concerns being a woman or a man.

Fallen humankind has historically granted privilege to men, and often the church has wrongly approved of such social arrangements. Many men have used privilege to stunt women from developing as Christ’s disciples. Christian men too frequently abandon responsibilities at home for selfish reasons, increasingly distancing themselves from healthy relationships. Many women today acquiesce to unhealthy patterns in marriage rather than challenge distortions that male privilege causes. (Perhaps it is in this respect that men and women are “no longer what they used to be,” as the popular lament goes. Distortions of male privilege in the past have gradually given way to anger, resentment, withdrawal, fear, and cowardice among many men in our post-feminist era. A vision of Christian servant-leadership, stressing both elements of the term, does offer great hope for men to honor God and bless their wives and children. Yet only a remarkable few truly understand the vision.) Given men’s advantages, it is critical to emphasize that they understand and accept the challenge to sacrificially “love as Christ loved” (Ephesians) … or the Christian Marriage Contract is trashed.

Men and women together and equally bear the image of God (Genesis). The need for unity, honoring of one another (1 Peter) and mutual submission (Ephesians) are both described and taught in scripture. Nothing that implies superiority or inferiority attaches itself to gender (not creativity, intelligence, experience of the presence of God, range of spiritual gifts, responsibility to obey and grow in maturity).

Perhaps the most profound description of marriage is stated first in Genesis: “They shall become one flesh.” Jesus reiterates this truth (Mark), adding the recognition that it is God who makes a marriage and that no one should tamper with it. Marriages are made by God, not between a generic masculine entity and a generic feminine entity, but between two unique individuals. Godly marriages should then display a awesome variety (rather than cookie-cutter sameness), especially in a culture like ours where men and women share most spheres of life equally (education, travel, decision making positions, etc.), so that few things exist as belonging exclusively to the experience f men or women.

Male headship (“kephale”) is *not* about leadership that dominates. Rather, it initiates, blesses, strengthens invites response … Female “azar” (help) is not about passivity, or taking orders. It is about interaction and contribution of immense value. It is about co-implication. … In the New Testament epistles, the passages that address directly the relationship between a husband and a wife (significantly *not* between all men and women) are contextual to a particular culture and usually written to establish order in the midst of congregational chaos. The context of the Ephesians 5 teaching on marriage asks us to “be filled with spirit.” In Colossians, “whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus,” precedes the directives for life in the home. In 1 Peter 3, discussion of marriage is prefaced by two motivational issues: “maintaining good order among the gentiles” and “honor all men.” Paul’s word on marriage to Titus is within the rubric of “sound doctrine.” Individual men and women are first disciples who much enjoy and obey Christ from the heart before making an effort to measure up as “proper” husbands or wives.

It is important that mutual submission between husband and wife (Ephesians) rules out positions of domination, privilege, condescension, co-dependency, fear-based withdrawal, irresponsibility, power-struggle, and buck passing (Genesis). Jesus’ teaching (Mark) and example (John, Philippians) make evident that biblical leadership is servant leadership, … measured not by any benefit gained by the one who leads, but by the degree to which others are empowered. Male headship, properly practiced, destroys barriers that keep women from experiencing all that God intends for them (Ephesians). God, of course, wants all his followers to live within limits of his choice (e.g., couples parenting young children have demands not present in the lives of those whose children are grown).

The unqualified language of “man’s leadership,” supposedly derived from God, beyond offensive in its audacity and ignorance is dangerous, especially in our society’s volatile context. Figuratively and literally, women lose their lives because of it.

mrmacq

08-09-2009, 12:10 PM

become a signatory to The Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the basic UN women’s human rights document, now signed by 185 nations. The US is one of a handful of holdouts, along with Iran, Sudan, and Somalia.

I'm amazed the US has'nt signed this.......why ever not?

this is new to you paddy?
heres another
To prevent the worst crimes, a set of principles was made law, to restrain leaders and those that serve them, and each of the people, from the worst crime by the stronger against the weaker. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was adopted unanimously by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 9, 1948, signed by the United States November 12, 1948, and ratified by the United States on November 23, 1988. With the Convention theoretically applicable in U.S. Courts, Americans become liable to "complicity" under international law, although U.S. "Reservations" and "Understandings" at ratification make it as difficult as possible to apply the Convention to the U.S. government.
Of the specific "Reservations" and "Understandings" which the United States made when ratifying the Convention, each accommodates the U.S. refusal (except where it wishes) to cede authority to the International Court of Justice, despite the fact that the International Court of Justice is the legal court of the United Nations.
The first U.S. reservation states that any case "to which the United States is a party," cannot be submitted to the International Court without specific U.S. consent. The second reservation insists: "Nothing in the Convention requires or authorizes legislation or other action by the United States of America prohibited by the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the United States." The United States reserves the right to decide whether, when and how, the "Convention on Genocide" can be applied to itself.
http://www.serendipity.li/more/genocide.html

fourquartets

08-09-2009, 01:52 PM

become a signatory to The Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the basic UN women’s human rights document, now signed by 185 nations. The US is one of a handful of holdouts, along with Iran, Sudan, and Somalia.

I'm amazed the US has'nt signed this.......why ever not?

Okay-- it appears that President Carter had indeed signed it, but it was never ratified because of strong opposition by the Christian Right and anti-feminist groups. Here's more: http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/ http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Convention_on_the_Elimination_of_All_Forms_of_Disc rimination_Against_Women#encyclopedia

Excerpt:

Controversy-- The CEDAW has been controversial for statements seen by some as promoting radical feminism. Particularly referenced is a 2000 report which said that in Belarus "the Committee is concerned by the continuing prevalence of sex-role stereotypes and by the reintroduction of such symbols as a Mothers' Day and a Mothers' Award, which it sees as encouraging women's traditional roles." Also in 2000, a report on Austria linked privatization with "right-wing extremism" and suggested that the government use "federal funding for political parties as an incentive for the increased representation of women in Parliament" and "integrate gender studies and feminist research in university curricula and research programmes" . Other controversial positions of CEDAW include supporting the decriminalization of prostitution in specific countries, criticizing Slovenia because only 30% of children are in daycare, demanding equal treatment for work of "equal value", and a treaty requirement that nations "embody the principle of the equality of men and women in their national constitution or other appropriate legislation." These requests are seen by Concerned Women for America and other anti-feminist and Christian Right Christian right groups as a backdoor to an Equal Rights Amendment or comparable national legislation. Australian and (defunct) New Zealand anti-feminist groups voiced similar concerns in the early eighties.

More recently, the controversy concerning CEDAW has centered around the question of easy access to abortion and contraception. According to C-FAM (the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute), at UN meetings officials pressed the delegation from Colombia to liberalize its abortion laws and to inaugurate campaigns encouraging contraceptive use and "reproductive health awareness".

Many Islamic countries view the CEDAW as culturally biased towards the Western nations and have consequently placed reservations on the elements that they see as in fundamental contradiction with Islamic Sharia law.

fourquartets

08-09-2009, 01:56 PM

Here's more: http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/

States Parties-- Currently, 185 countries - over ninety percent of the members of the United Nations - are party to the Convention. An additional State has signed, but not ratified the treaty, therefore it is not bound to put the provisions of the Convention into practice.
http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/states.htm

Country Reports:
http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/reports.htm

paxaeon

08-10-2009, 03:39 AM

. It may sound weird to you but you are grown in a society that makes you succumb to being passive under the authority of men, and all these cause divorce, emerge of bi-sexual groups for not accepting being under men in everything.

Just for starters, Google; Taliban, Gay and/or homosexual to get at an idea as to how men act under the strict administration of Sharia. Apparently women who must consistently wear a burqa cause many men to dally with their own comrades in arms.

Bisexuality is a deep rooted in may supposedly Islamic countries but that may have to do with with it's conquest by Alexander the Great and subsequent long period as a Greek colony.

Specifically dealing with Afghanistan, I get a lot of my info from Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) (http://www.rawa.org/index.php)

mrmacq

08-10-2009, 12:53 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by freesoul17
. It may sound weird to you but you are grown in a society that makes you succumb to being passive under the authority of men, and all these cause divorce, emerge of bi-sexual groups for not accepting being under men in everything.

holy crap
i missed this
freesoul this is one of the most "broken " things i think ive ever heard you say

paxaeon

08-10-2009, 09:28 PM

what some people, who attack women in Islam and the way they wear, need is a direct discussion with those women. Last month, an Egyptian women was stabbed by an extremist in Germany. This kind of action is barbaric if I can use the right word on the right place. <snip>.

You see, the topic here is Sharia Law and women...not women and the rest of the world. To state that there are other injustices against women around the world is not germane to this thread but only seems to be your attempt to deflect this topic away from the heinous and barbaric conditions women who live under extremist Sharia law have to suffer.

I can appreciate that you are conditioned to defend and respond to criticism of Sharia by pointing out other injustices BUT....they pale when put side by side against the sheer inhumanity of the strict adherence to extremist Sharia law. If certain men had their way in the US, women would be subject to the inhumanity of extremist Biblical law but that's not the topic here.

Women need to shed the yoke of forced patronage and servitude dictated to them by men, using religion as their weapon.

For further information as to how I understand how Islamic women feel about their rights, Shraia and liberty, please feel free to browse any one of these sites.

http://womenagainstshariah.blogspot.com/ - The mission of Women Against Shariah is to prevent and outlaw the imposition of shariah law in the United States for both Muslim and American women as either a parallel legal system or a replacement for existing laws. Additionally, we hope to empower women worldwide to resist shariah.

http://www.mwlusa.org/ - The Muslim Women's League is a non-profit Muslim American organization working to implement the values of Islam and thereby reclaim the status of women as free, equal and vital contributors to society

http://www.karamah.org/ - Muslim Women Lawyers For Human Rights is a charitable, educational organization that focuses on the domestic and global issues of human rights for Muslim women. KARAMAH is founded upon the ideal that education, dialogue, and action can counter the dangerous and destructive effects of ignorance, silence, and prejudice.

http://wluml.org/english/index.shtml - Women Living Under Muslim Laws is an international solidarity network that provides information, support and a collective space for women whose lives are shaped, conditioned or governed by laws and customs said to derive from Islam.

mrmacq

08-11-2009, 12:57 PM

You said;"You see, the topic here is Sharia Law and women...not women and the rest of the world. To state that there are other injustices against women around the world is not germane to this thread but only seems to be your attempt to deflect this topic away from the heinous and barbaric conditions women who live under extremist Sharia law have to suffer."

It is a very pathetic attempt to run away from the truth and trying to shed light on certain groups and avoid others.

she was attempting to get it back to thee subject

Tan12pack

08-11-2009, 02:06 PM

Tan12pack

08-11-2009, 02:34 PM

paxaeon

08-11-2009, 02:49 PM

You said;"You see, the topic here is <snip>

I didn't think you'd actually look at the site I listed much less read the missions statements on each one. And again, you attempt to deflect the attention away from the extreme barbarity and and inhuman treatment women living under Sharia are suffering. There have always been injustices in this world but by far and large, but none compare to the past and present brutality brought about by men who use extreme Shria law for their immoral purposes.

Time nor space permit me to post even a slight list of the savage beating and mutilations women have suffered under Sharia but the first site tries to do. By the way, the first site isn't really a blog...you would have known that IF you would have looked at it and the three other sites are hosted by educated and intelligent Muslim women would are well known and respected in the world. I would encourage both men and women to visit these sites and see for themselves what kind of mockery to justice and freedom Sharia is.

If you intention was to shoot down my message by shooting at the messenger, you failed miserably. The message remains strong, the messenger, stronger and the eventual over throw of extreme Sharia and the misogynist men who support that archaic concept, is just a matter of time.

At the moment, the Sudanese woman who courageously is standing up against Shraria, the male pigs who enforce it and whom herself faces 40 lashes ...40 LASHES just for wearing pants instead of Shraia approved clothing, has the worlds attention and a call for action. It is causing a resurgence in woman's rights activism in Arab countries and calling to task leaders of the free world to do something about it.

Sorry my friend...you and your ilk are a dying anachronism and while it will take more than a few generations and cause many more women to suffer and die because of your inhumane beliefs, your end is near. Enjoy your misbegotten beliefs while you can

paxaeon

08-11-2009, 03:31 PM

If you intention was to shoot down my message by shooting at the messenger <snip>

*sigh*...you are repeating yourself and let's be real here, who the hell is going to travel to an Arab nation at this just to talk to Arab women about Sharia? That's foolish. Why do that when there are Muslim women all over the US whom are speaking out against Sharia? Why bother with that expense when they have web sites that tell the horrifying stories of women whom are victims?

Like I said my friend, where extreme Sharia law is practiced, religion, culture and law ride in the same cart as politics. Confused? I think not. I'm not even surprised at your acrimonious style of defending that which you were conditioned to accept without question...it's the nature of the beat we say.

I suppose you want the last word...so have at it.

paxaeon

08-11-2009, 03:31 PM

If you intention was to shoot down my message by shooting at the messenger <snip>

*sigh*...you are repeating yourself and let's be real here, who the hell posting in a forum is going to travel to an Arab nation just to talk to Arab women about Sharia? That's foolish. Why do that when there are Muslim women all over the US whom are speaking out against Sharia? Why bother with that expense when they have web sites that tell the horrifying stories of women whom are victims?

Like I said my friend, where extreme Sharia law is practiced, religion, culture and law ride in the same cart as politics. Confused? I think not. I'm not even surprised at your acrimonious style of defending that which you were conditioned to accept without question...it's the nature of the beast we say.

Tan12pack

08-11-2009, 03:57 PM

Nope if you read my post i clearly say it is each individual's right to campaign against these thing's if we so desire,what your advocating is that one head of state tells another how it should conduct his affairs,when O'bama ceases to be POTUS then he is free to condemn all he wants just like your ex president Carter is doing and should be applauded for such actions....you may assume i'm speaking Advocatus diaboi if you wish,but i can assure you this is my opinion and is not for the sake of argument....if you wish to impose what you percieve as right on others with little or no understanding that's yor perogative but its also mine not to judge or interfere with laws that don't apply to me

Most Folks will agree after reading the below that "Obama is beyond Cluless" as it relates to Women's Rights, EH Isa???????

Obama on “Women’s Rights” in His Speech in Cairo, Egypt
Posted on June 4, 2009 by bostonboomer

Obama's concept of women's rights?

Oh. My. God. Is this man really as clueless as he sounds? Obama on the rights of Muslim women in the U.S.:

…freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one’s religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state of our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That is why the U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it.

On what he refers to as “women’s rights”:

I know there is debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well-educated are far more likely to be prosperous.

Now let me be clear: issues of women’s equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women’s equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.

Our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons, and our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity – men and women – to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. That is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams.

That is all Obama had to say about “women’s rights” yesterday in his speech to a Muslim audience.

I’m really struggling to get my rage under control right now, but I think it’s going to be a losing battle. This man is beyond clueless. Does he have any idea of the daily abuse women are subjected to in Muslim countries? Here is Peter Daou’s reaction to Obama’s mealy mouthed words about women’s rights:

Is that a joke?

With women being stoned, raped, abused, battered, mutilated, and slaughtered on a daily basis across the globe, violence that is so often perpetrated in the name of religion, the most our president can speak about is protecting their right to wear the hijab? I would have been much more heartened if the preponderance of the speech had been about how in the 21st century, we CANNOT tolerate the pervasive abuse of our mothers and sisters and daughters.

Daou’s entire article about the speech in Huffpo is well worth reading. But Murphy’s reaction at Pumapac is even more congruent with mine:

Hang on a second there, Jackass. No woman (or man) in the West believes that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal. What we KNOW is that religio-fascist regimes which REQUIRE a woman to cover herself in public view women as less equal.

It is not WE who view ANY woman as less equal you sexist pig. It is THEY who view women as less equal.

When I see photos of women in burquas in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia I don’t think they are LESS equal for lord’s sake. If anything I see them as MORE EQUAL. More equal in the sense that they deserve to be fought for; to be rescued, protected, FREED!

Again, please read all of Murphy’s piece. It’s simply brilliant.

Based on his own words, here is a summary of what our President believes about “women’s rights”:

1. There is a “debate” about whether women should have equal rights.

2. Muslim women must have the right to cover their heads in public, and the full force of the U.S. Government will be used to protect that right. (Of course, as Murphy points out, the supposed “controversy” about prejudice against muslim women wearing the hajib is a ridiculous strawman argument.)

3. Muslim countries have elected women leaders, and by implication the U.S. is worse than they are because we have never had a woman President. (Does this man have any sense of the irony of what he said?)

4. Women shouldn’t be denigrated for choosing “traditional roles.”

5. Countries that allow women to “reach their full potential” will be richer.

6. Literacy for women should be encouraged.

Woman being prepared for stoning in Iran
President Obama had nothing to say about young women having acid thrown in their faces for going to school. He had nothing to say about women being stoned to death in public for adultery or even for being raped (h/t Peter Daou). He had nothing to say about women being sexually harrassed constantly in Egypt (See here also). He had nothing to say about laws permitting women to be raped by their husbands and requiring women to get permission from their husbands to leave the house. He had nothing to say about young women who are dying by self-immolation rather than go on living under the horrendous conditions they face in their country. He had nothing to say about the rampant physical abuse suffered by pregnant women in Pakistan and the concurrent epidemic of depression among women there. He had nothing to say about honor killings in Muslim families.

I could go on, but why bother? American voters elected a misogynist who is utterly clueless about women’s life experiences, about what would be needed to achieve equality for women, and about what women want period. This man imagines that he can find “common ground” with murderers of abortion doctors, and with men who think that women are the property of men. Oh, and by the way, our clueless, uncaring President had nothing to say about gay rights the horrendous treatment of homosexuals in Muslim countries either.

I can’t even begin to describe my feelings of disgust and contempt right now

lizbethrose

08-12-2009, 12:24 AM

Sha'ria, from what I've learned, can be either beneficial to women or lethal. If Islamic countries embrace it, imo, most do so in a beneficial way, otherwise there wouldn't be Muslim females in professions such as law and medicine--or in leadership positions.

There are, however (and, again, imo,) tremendous misuses of Sha'ria, especially when it comes to 'honor killings.' In the US, for example, a father killed his daughters for 'becoming too Westernized.' To him, it was an 'honor killing,' under US law, it was murder. Last I heard, he was in hiding rather than stepping forward and citing Sha'ria as his defense. If he did so and if he stood trial, it would be for murder and he'd be found guilty.

Which is one of my objections. Sha'ria should not be forced onto non-Islamic countries as a concomitant rule of law, even if it's only used in domestic disputes within a heavily Muslim section of a city.

Even within Islamic countries, Sha'ria demands punishments that, to the Western world, go way beyond the offense. a husband who throws acid in his wifes face, because she wants a divorce. That's vengence! Fathers and brothers who stone a girl because she has a boyfriend who comes from a 'different tribe' they don't approve of. Uncles who rape female children in order to make them 'unacceptable' to a groom from another tribe and girl children, married as children to much older men in order to settle a debt, who are told they can't divorce the husband until after they start their menstrual periods. In the meantime, of course, the 'marriage' has been consumated. (Sorry, that last example should be in the singular.)

These are 'examples' of Sha'ira that make news headlines--rightly or wrongly. I would hope that those examples are the result of decisions made by 'simple' Muslim people who interpret the Qu'ran and Sha'ira in its strictest sense.

But, it's still there. Muslim courts may mitigate the strict sentences, but they still sentence the 'offenders,' mostly women (there seem to be no laws against men's actions under Sha'ira,) to the letter of the law.

Most of what I've written comes from news stories from 'reputable' news sources in the US and England.

paxaeon

08-12-2009, 02:23 AM

fourquartets

08-12-2009, 03:37 AM

I've been careful to say "extreme Sharia" as I stated at the beginning, it's not the law itself that is at issue but those, (let's face it, they are males) whom have perverted Sharia into every woman's worst nightmare.

The Muslim women against extreme Sharia are faithful and devout Muslim's but they are also educated and see how the words of their law are being maligned.

Dunno about you, but at times I envy people who drink. At least they know what to blame everything on. :D (Oscar Wilde)

Tan12pack

08-12-2009, 08:10 PM

Dunno about you, but at times I envy people who drink. At least they know what to blame everything on. :D (Oscar Wilde)

I'm new here so don't want to cause "waves"......but is she sayin that uneducated Women enjoy the extreme Sharia Laws???????? Are "Women's Rights" determined by the Education of the Woman?????? Well....but....sadly.....I guess so ...to a certain extent and even in our Country...... Hey a Woman has to first know what her "Rights are". "It's all about The "perception" of the "Right""......no "perception"....no "Right".....time for another Grey Goose....."Feminists" are so confued these days.....but it could be just a 'mood" thing......lmao....But seriously.....I could be a better "Feminist" than most of you!!!!!!!! and that's sad. Do you think these Women think Sdamn's Sons were considering whether to Rape an Educated Woman or an Uneducated Woman?????? Thank Bush....those creeps are Dead!!!!!!!

lizbethrose

08-13-2009, 04:38 AM

freesoul, In all my replies to you, I've tried to be non-partisan. When I listed the things I listed, I ended it with the disclaimer that this is what the Western media has shown us.

I also tried, without giving insult, to explain that I realize the examples given are examples of Sha'ria (now I may be insulting) as practiced by largely rural, certainly uneducated and, forgive me, rather stupid, followers of Islam who take it upon themselves to interpret, on their own and for whatever reason, Sha'ria. I believe I even said that the husband who threw acid in his wife's face because she wanted a divorce, did so out of vengance.

I'm not a vehement feminist, although I've felt, many times during my life, the inequalities women in the US face in many different areas. My first and only 'great fight' was with my husband, who grew up with the Biblical idea of woman's subjugation to her husband. This idea simply isn't either true or correct.

However, I do object to your 'justifying' Sha'ria by pointing out the crimes against women in other countries, our own included. Yes, there are innumerable crimes against women all over the world. In the US, these crimes are prosecuted under our secular laws, not under religious laws.

If it can be shown that a male American soldier has raped any woman, he will be tried by military court martial. I may be idealistic in saying this, but until you document instances of rape by an American soldier, you're just doing to me what you've accused me of doing to you.

I'll try to find, under the Freedom of Information Act, statistics that show the number of US military who've been tried and found guilty of rape during the current US military 'involvement' in the ME. Will you do the same? Or will you simply leave it up to me (us) to accept your word?

T12p--welcome to thoughts.

Why should a woman be obligated to 'know' what her 'rights' are? Aren't female 'rights' the same as male 'rights?' Have you any need to define your rights through 'perception?'

A very empathetic man in the other forum group to which I belong, said this (a paraphrase:) Women are incubators of mans 'precious seed.' He went on to give a rather funny description of how men, in ancient times, thought of their sperm as little replicas of themselves.

It was all broad sarcasm (which I understood) and it was all historically correct.

It's also how a lot of men still view women today.

Better not make love to your wife for the pleasure it brings both of you--you might just be 'spilling' your 'precious' replicas of you.

paxaeon

08-13-2009, 10:17 AM

Ahhh, my friend has changed his tune, no? "Misbegotten beliefs" in the context of this topic, "Sharia Law" and in particular "EXTREMIST Shiria law" (I kept emphasising "extremist") was absolutely appropriate considering my friends apparent defense of extreme Sharia.

To be blunt, I CONDEMN the use of extremist Sharia law as I outlined in my original post and the suffering and brutality it has caused women. There is no defensible position regarding this inhumane archaic law system. Those men who practice extreme Sharia should be held in the most utter contempt. I make no exclusions or apologies.

While my friend may see my opposition to extreme Sharia as an affront and insult to his beliefs (which it isn't), he absolutely failed to make a differentiation between those whom practice "moderate" or conventional Sharia and extreme or "Traditional" Sharia when it comes to the rights of women nor did he attempt to explain that the Muslim faith also allows for these moderate interpretations of Sharia. Instead, he tried to side-track this issue by pointing out problems in other counties and cultures and NEVER addressed as to how and why extreme Sharia was tolerated.

I would welcome people to look at the Wiki article on Sharia law then look at mine and my friends posts....if you have nothing better to do that is.

paddystyle

08-13-2009, 11:22 AM

To blame Sharia law for violence against women is in fact making excuses for the human behaviour that causes it.Violence against women is characteristically under-reported for a number of reasons, including feelings of shame, fear of scepticism, disbelief or further violence. In addition, definitions of the forms of violence vary widely in different countries, making comparisons difficult.

Many states lack good reporting systems to determine the prevalence of violence against women. The failure to investigate and expose the true extent of violence allows governments, families and communities to ignore their responsibilities.
Amnesty reports that At least one out of every three women has been beaten, coerced into sex, or otherwise abused in her lifetime, according to a study based on 50 surveys from around the world
More than 60 million women are "missing" from the world today as a result of sex-selective abortions and female infanticide, according to an estimate by Amartya Sen, the Nobel Laureate
In the USA, women accounted for 85% of the victims of domestic violence in 1999 (671,110 compared to 120,100 men), according to the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women
The Russian Government estimates that 14,000 women were killed by their partners or relatives in 1999, yet the country still has no law specifically addressing domestic violence
The World Health Organisation has reported that up to 70% of female murder victims are killed by their male partners
There's no doubt women are mistreated under Sharia law but they are also mis treated in countries that don't have it,the blame lies in human the human nature of those who do it and those who don't speak out against it

paxaeon

08-13-2009, 11:54 AM

My tune remains the same as in the first post to your thread. Here is your fall statement. I wonder who is changing views and tunes;You said "Sorry my friend...you and your ilk are a dying anachronism and while it will take more than a few generations and cause many more women to suffer and die because of your inhumane beliefs, your end is near. Enjoy your misbegotten beliefs while you can" There is one thing, don't fake it by calling me "your friend", and your way of dividing between extremist Sharia and moderate sharia is like generalizing all Muslims are terror, then they start saying moderate and extremists. There is one Islamic law either you like it or not, and those who misinterpret the law, the burden is on them and they will be punished according to their actions. Everyone harvests the seed of their deeds. The problem is that you will never learn from your mistakes and blind way of bashing others, generalizing, and pretending you care for others but at the same time you contradict yourself. Enjoy your thread!

Just so you know, I use "my friend" as a way to keep myself emotionally distant from a heated discussion, much like members in congress address each other as "The Honorable" so and so...just before the plunge a knife in their back....ok, that's sarcasm.

Am I passionate and extremely opinionated about this topic? yes but for reasons that are mine alone. I could say I know Muslim's or even that I have for years been with and perhaps still continue to see a Muslim man whom is African and that has influenced me but I am not an extension of them...I am me, forever independent.

and it's NOT my thread. I don't own it. I just started it.

mrmacq

08-13-2009, 11:58 AM

Just so you know, I use "my friend" as a way to keep myself emotionally distant from a heated discussion, much like members in congress address each other as "The Honorable" so and so...just before the plunge a knife in their back....ok, that's sarcasm.

Am I passionate and extremely opinionated about this topic? yes but for reasons that are mine alone. I could say I know Muslim's or even that I have for years been with and perhaps still continue to see a Muslim man whom is African and that has influenced me but I am not an extension of them...I am me, forever independent.

and it's NOT my thread. I don't own it. I just started it.

apology's
ive edited my post to reflect

lizbethrose

08-15-2009, 05:08 AM

This is an aside and has really nothing to do with Sha'ira. Reading this post, however, brings to mind a book of photographs taken by Japanese soldiers of the Chinese women they killed through rape. The women's hands are tied to chair arms, their legs are spayed and their viginas exposed--dialated as if they are about to give birth.

Such stories--and they aren't stories--they're true--frightens the shit out of any woman.

If Sha'ria can allow the stoning of a woman until the death of that woman--the murder and/or destruction of woman's face with acid or if it punishes women through lashings without sentencing the man, for anything, the it's a mysogenistic form of rule. And it should be stopped. I really don't care what the religion says.

Freesoul, you repeat the idealism of Islam and I'm sure you do your best to live it, just as we all do our best to live within our perceived religious parameters. I find no fault in that.

I do, however, find fault with a religion and a way of living that has everything, judged by men to be 'wrong', placed as a burden on the shoulders of a woman.

Tan12pack

08-17-2009, 03:10 PM

Obama on “Women’s Rights” in His Speech in Cairo, Egypt
Posted on June 4, 2009 by bostonboomer

Obama's concept of women's rights?

Oh. My. God. Is this man really as clueless as he sounds? Obama on the rights of Muslim women in the U.S.:

…freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one’s religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state of our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That is why the U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it.

On what he refers to as “women’s rights”:

I know there is debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well-educated are far more likely to be prosperous.

Now let me be clear: issues of women’s equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women’s equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.

Our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons, and our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity – men and women – to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. That is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams.

That is all Obama had to say about “women’s rights” yesterday in his speech to a Muslim audience.

I’m really struggling to get my rage under control right now, but I think it’s going to be a losing battle. This man is beyond clueless. Does he have any idea of the daily abuse women are subjected to in Muslim countries? Here is Peter Daou’s reaction to Obama’s mealy mouthed words about women’s rights:

Is that a joke?

With women being stoned, raped, abused, battered, mutilated, and slaughtered on a daily basis across the globe, violence that is so often perpetrated in the name of religion, the most our president can speak about is protecting their right to wear the hijab? I would have been much more heartened if the preponderance of the speech had been about how in the 21st century, we CANNOT tolerate the pervasive abuse of our mothers and sisters and daughters.

Daou’s entire article about the speech in Huffpo is well worth reading. But Murphy’s reaction at Pumapac is even more congruent with mine:

Hang on a second there, Jackass. No woman (or man) in the West believes that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal. What we KNOW is that religio-fascist regimes which REQUIRE a woman to cover herself in public view women as less equal.

It is not WE who view ANY woman as less equal you sexist pig. It is THEY who view women as less equal.

When I see photos of women in burquas in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia I don’t think they are LESS equal for lord’s sake. If anything I see them as MORE EQUAL. More equal in the sense that they deserve to be fought for; to be rescued, protected, FREED!

Again, please read all of Murphy’s piece. It’s simply brilliant.

Based on his own words, here is a summary of what our President believes about “women’s rights”:

1. There is a “debate” about whether women should have equal rights.

2. Muslim women must have the right to cover their heads in public, and the full force of the U.S. Government will be used to protect that right. (Of course, as Murphy points out, the supposed “controversy” about prejudice against muslim women wearing the hajib is a ridiculous strawman argument.)

3. Muslim countries have elected women leaders, and by implication the U.S. is worse than they are because we have never had a woman President. (Does this man have any sense of the irony of what he said?)

4. Women shouldn’t be denigrated for choosing “traditional roles.”

5. Countries that allow women to “reach their full potential” will be richer.

6. Literacy for women should be encouraged.

Woman being prepared for stoning in Iran
President Obama had nothing to say about young women having acid thrown in their faces for going to school. He had nothing to say about women being stoned to death in public for adultery or even for being raped (h/t Peter Daou). He had nothing to say about women being sexually harrassed constantly in Egypt (See here also). He had nothing to say about laws permitting women to be raped by their husbands and requiring women to get permission from their husbands to leave the house. He had nothing to say about young women who are dying by self-immolation rather than go on living under the horrendous conditions they face in their country. He had nothing to say about the rampant physical abuse suffered by pregnant women in Pakistan and the concurrent epidemic of depression among women there. He had nothing to say about honor killings in Muslim families.

I could go on, but why bother? American voters elected a misogynist who is utterly clueless about women’s life experiences, about what would be needed to achieve equality for women, and about what women want period. This man imagines that he can find “common ground” with murderers of abortion doctors, and with men who think that women are the property of men. Oh, and by the way, our clueless, uncaring President had nothing to say about gay rights the horrendous treatment of homosexuals in Muslim countries either.

I can’t even begin to describe my feelings of disgust and contempt right now.

mrmacq

08-17-2009, 05:04 PM

oh god
comprehension error

Obama on “Women’s Rights” in His Speech in Cairo, Egypt
Posted on June 4, 2009 by bostonboomer

Obama's concept of women's rights?

Oh. My. God. Is this man really as clueless as he sounds? Obama on the rights of Muslim women in the U.S.:

…freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one’s religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state of our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That is why the U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it.
yes, yes, and yes
On what he refers to as “women’s rights”:

I know there is debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well-educated are far more likely to be prosperous.cant argue

Now let me be clear: issues of women’s equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women’s equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.
something about a * ball
Our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons, and our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity – men and women – to every man is equal (that includes the ladies).
I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. That is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams.
(bravo bravo)

That is all Obama had to say about “women’s rights” yesterday in his speech to a Muslim audience.(spoke volumes everyone is equal)

I’m really struggling to get my rage under control right now, but I think it’s going to be a losing battle. This man is beyond clueless. Does he have any idea of the daily abuse women are subjected to in Muslim countries? Here is Peter Daou’s reaction to Obama’s mealy mouthed words about women’s rights:

Is that a joke?
no dear he is showing the world he means change again everyone equal
and then the rant

"I can’t even begin to describe my feelings of disgust and contempt right now."

likewise:rolleyes:

lizbethrose

08-30-2009, 03:41 AM

We saw a woman in full burka today with only her eyes showing--at Costco. Her husband was in shorts and sandals--it was pretty hot today.

littlespirit

08-30-2009, 05:00 PM

Winston

08-31-2009, 03:21 AM

I suppose many of this women don't want to be covered from head to toe. This form of dressing is an outward expression of the total control men exert over women in Muslim countries

littlespirit

08-31-2009, 09:39 AM

has anyone ever tried asking the women their thoughts on their own culture?

paxaeon

08-31-2009, 09:15 PM

whether we agree with other's culture or not, it is not our right to distroy their beliefs. we all have our own belief's and it is our right to do so. as it is theirs. do i agree with the punishment of those woman or even the young child being married. no. but where i am in my country, i should be here taking care of it, and the children ect of my country.. as should everyone else and stop meddling in other's countries. why do you think then, all of those problems arise? im not saying in anyway i agree with their actions, but i have to respect their culture in hope they respect mine.

No one is asking or even suggesting that Sharia Law or Islam be "destroyed", if such a thing were even possible which it isn't. This topic is stating that Sharia Law, in the EXTREME application of it, is harmful and deadly to women and that it's EXTREME application should be opposed...which is and by women of the Muslim faith.

While you may not feel that the heinous crimes against women, committed under the guise of "Sharia Law" should not be a concern of anyone other than where the laws are applied, that is your opinion and thankfully is not shared by millions of other women around the world.

ThePoet

10-06-2009, 11:34 PM

First to that one who claimed to kill "coward" muslims, dear first of all you should be tried for war crimes and murder coz apparently you killed thme in Iraq or Afghanistan, secondly who is coward you bastard Christians who only attack on weak countries or us, who is coward you who first drop tonnes of bombs and missiles on some area and then dare to send your mommy daddy type cow boys to kill who is left, who is coward he who fights the biggest power with just and ak-47 and rpg or some granades or that power who trying all cruel tactics including uranium on civilians yet say this war is not winnable.

Secondly first save those American and european women who are raped much that any other country's women, at least sharia law in saudi arabia makes the country much safer than any other and your laws suck on the so-called name of humanity and can't protect you, thirdly you people would tech us civilization when your kids are not sure about name of their father, and because of to much sexual relations with many men your women are also not sure which one of the f**ckers is real daddy of their child. you a society of illegitimate children are going to teach us civilization us who gave civilizations to west, for your kind information in all Norwegian countries the law of social security is called Omer law, omer was a companion of our dear Prophet (pbuh) and he brought many revolutions in the field of social security, So first tackle your society and try to make sure that your children are sure about their fathers name then try to teach us.

and who says this Quran no bible :" utterly destroy all that they have, do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling baby" 1 Samual 15:3

"kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man".

31:17-18

and this what you are and what your hand made Christianity teaches you civilized people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJleS6a81_g

civilized americans showing their ancestral guts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riboisae0JY&feature=PlayList&p=A396C921A43AD37F&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=54

paxaeon

10-07-2009, 10:37 AM

First to that one who claimed to kill "coward" muslims, dear
<snip>

Ye gods...stick to the topic. It is about the application of "Extreme Sharia Law" which is a rather narrow focus. If your only defense of this barbaric law is to point out crimes in other cultures and nations....you FAIL.

If you are saying that enforcement "Sharia Law", in extremis is part of your religious belief, then fine. I can respect that. It's not much of a defense from a civil or humanitarian perspective, but I'll not argue your sincere beliefs.

But from a logical viewpoint, pointing out faults in others as a means to defend the faults in question (extreme Shraia law), is not a defense but a distraction or in logical terms is called,
ignoratio elenchi, or a red herring which is an argument, given in reply, that does not address the original issue. Critically, a red herring is a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument.

Thanks.

ThePoet

10-07-2009, 10:44 PM

Ye gods...stick to the topic. It is about the application of "Extreme Sharia Law" which is a rather narrow focus. If your only defense of this barbaric law is to point out crimes in other cultures and nations....you FAIL.

If you are saying that enforcement "Sharia Law", in extremis is part of your religious belief, then fine. I can respect that. It's not much of a defense from a civil or humanitarian perspective, but I'll not argue your sincere beliefs.

But from a logical viewpoint, pointing out faults in others as a means to defend the faults in question (extreme Shraia law), is not a defense but a distraction or in logical terms is called,
ignoratio elenchi, or a red herring which is an argument, given in reply, that does not address the original issue. Critically, a red herring is a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument.

Thanks.

Thanks for the reply and there is no extreme or balanced sharia law, sharia law is sharia law either it is or not at all.Sharia law is God's blessing and it has been proved in Saudi-Arabia where not all but some of Sharia Law was applied, i have stayed in Saudi-Arabia and i read in those 40 days not a single murder, or rape.Problem start with the appliers of sharia Law, for example in many countries like Pakistan punishment of murder is death to the murderer, let's say that with wrong evidences and with help of corrupt judiciary and police some one is given death punishment, what would you do, would delete that punishment from law or you would try to punish and suspend those corrupt judges and police.

In Pakistan we have a test case, in Pakistan if you not only insult Islam or Prophet of Islam but any religion and religious person you can be given life imprisonment or death sentence, now because of some corrupt police men and some idiot clerics if some non-muslim is killed by state would you demand to delete this law from our law books or would you demand to punish those policemen and clerics? Like because of america and europe's stress our Govt. of dictator Musharraf changed the blasphemy law in Pakistan instead of bringing revolutions in our police system, so what happened when there was a law only the person who committed this crime was punished but now when the law is weak and with help of America when two convicts of blasphemy escaped from the country, what happened now on a single incredible news of blasphemy whole christian society suffers from wrath and anger of emotional followers of Islam. just let me make one thing clear we muslims didn't accpet blasphemy even in british rule over india and we killed or injured everyone who tried to insult our Dear Prophet (pbuh) so now when we have a state of 97 % muslim majority we wont let alive any one who insults our religion or Prophet (pbuh) in Pakistan , law or no law doesn't matter. So sharia law is not bad but appliers like law and order enforcement agencies can be wrong and be punished.

paxaeon

10-09-2009, 02:47 AM

Thanks for the reply and there is no extreme or balanced sharia law, sharia law is sharia law either it is or not at all.Sharia law is God's blessing and it has been proved in Saudi-Arabia where not all but some of Sharia Law was applied,<snip> .

Fine. If this is your belief, then that works for me. However, for the record...I personally know Muslim women (and men) whom will vehemently disagree with you. My point is, and will never change, that the application and enforcement of extreme Sharia Law is barbaric, inhuman and violates every principle of international human rights.

ThePoet

10-10-2009, 01:58 AM

Fine. If this is your belief, then that works for me. However, for the record...I personally know Muslim women (and men) whom will vehemently disagree with you. My point is, and will never change, that the application and enforcement of extreme Sharia Law is barbaric, inhuman and violates every principle of international human rights.

Well then i would say that white nations don't have any right to speak about human rights as they themselves are the biggest enemy of human rights, have you read my thread "Is america guilty of war crimes?" then you should that was just a sample of violations of human rights committed by white wolves. and no sharia law is not barbaric but it's wrong application by wrong people can be barbaric. For example Islam says that if somebody steals something more than price of a specific quantity of gold he should be deprived of his left hand, but in the era of Omer (pbuh) a very great and close companion of Prophet (pbuh) one man committed a theft but Omer just forgave him because those days people were starved because of lack of food. So you see that this depends on applier not on the law, and now you must be thinking that because of this law in Saudi-Arabia many people would be without one hand, but you would be shocked to know that in 40 days of my stay in Saudi-Arabia i didn't even watch a single person without one hand hand, this just works like nuclear threat, you don't need to drop atom bomb on your rival having same or less power he just because of nuclear attack wont do the wrong thing. So your logic sucks and i feel pity on you.

iBruno

10-10-2009, 06:27 AM

So, because you (as a tourist in that country) saw no evidence of the barbaric treatment then it doesn't happen?

ThePoet

10-11-2009, 10:33 AM

i said that yes if some commits theft of a good more than value of a specific quantity of gold he should be deprived of his left hand but it is not like Saudi-Arabia would be filled with handicap people but only because of fear of that punishment it happens in a blue moon that person get his hand lost.clear?And again western nations don't have any right to call anyone barbaric but themselves.

paxaeon

10-12-2009, 09:24 AM

Well then i would say that white nations don't have any right to speak about human rights as they<snip>.

http://img131.imageshack.us/img131/808/disagreeislam.jpg

mrmacq

10-12-2009, 01:50 PM

http://i38.tinypic.com/2qu0mjm.jpg

excellent find dude

paxaeon

10-12-2009, 07:25 PM

Thankfully, I limited this thread to just "Sharia Law" and more in it's heinous application to women but it also has a effect on men, although extremely limited. I didn't touch on "honor killing" which another barbaric "custom" rooted in religious tradition where women are getting brutalized and killed.

Lawmage

10-12-2009, 07:48 PM

I confess I have not read through the entire thread...

Has anyone mentioned the school girls how died in a school fire in Saudi Arabia. The "religious police' would not let the girls leave the burning building because they were not properly clab in accordance with hajib. Those same police prevented rescuers from approaching the girls in an attempt to save them because such interaction with the girls would have been sinful...

Google for the March 2002 Saudi school fire...the BBC had a good write up it.

mrmacq

10-12-2009, 09:16 PM

yup
deplorable

ThePoet

10-13-2009, 03:10 PM

http://img131.imageshack.us/img131/808/disagreeislam.jpg

who was that bastard who told you that Islam want to kill every non muslim, not at all but yes those who want to fight and kill muslims in battle, i can't understand why your bias can't let you see that Islam spread from Arabia and arabic nations and still in Syria and Lebanon there are many many much Christians, Lebanon's Christians are 40 % of the total population so before pasting nonsense why don't you people see facts, why Lebanon, Spanish and Indian non-muslims were not killed when muslims ruled there without share for 1300,800, and 1000 years. Come on! think before you say!:mad:

This is Islam please get out of your negligence:
The prophet of Islam said: “Whoever hurts a non Muslim, I shall be his complainant and for whoever I am a complainant, I shall ask for his right on the day of Resurrection.” (Hadith)
He also said: “ Whoever persecutes a non Muslim or demands work from him beyond his capacity or takes something from him with evil intentions, I shall be a complainant against him on the day of Resurrection.”(Hadith)

And this the most touchy

Prophet Mohammed said: “ One who hurts a non-Muslim, he hurts me and one who hurts me, hurts God.” (Hadith)
Qur’an says: “… and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious.” (16: 125)

and this

The son of the Muslim governor of Egypt once slapped a native Christian when he had raced ahead of him. When the complaint was brought before Omar, the second Caliph, he ordered the son to be beaten by the Christian.
Omar said to the governor: “ How could you make slaves of these people who had been born free?”

Qur’an says: “ Do not argue with the people of the Book, unless it is in the politest manner.”(29:46)

When Omar entered Jerusalem victoriously, he visited the Holy Church. When the Muslims prayer was due, the Christian Patriarch asked him to perform his prayer in the church. But Omar refused, saying: “ I fear that once I have my prayer in this church, the coming generations of Muslims would say that in this place Omar had performed his prayer and therefore it has to be converted to a mosque. I want the church to remain a church.”

Yes we are bad followers but our religion is the only best religion.

paxaeon

10-13-2009, 06:08 PM

who was that bastard who told you that Islam want to kill every non muslim, not at all but yes those who want to fight and kill muslims in battle, <snip>.

That reply was "Tongue-in-cheek" and not meant to taken literally although it does contain it's own subtle message.

Lawmage

10-13-2009, 06:46 PM

ThePoet asked: who was that bastard who told you that Islam want to kill every non muslim,

Well, that bastard was a pederast named Mohammed. He wrote those instructions in a book. The book is called the Koran. Perhaps you have heard of it? It contains little gems of wisdom like:
9.123: O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard

or,

4.89 : They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper

or,

9.5: So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

If this Mohammed guy lived too long ago to still matter to you, Poet, you can look at more recent calls for Muslims to kill nonbelievers. For instance, that peace loving cleric in Great Britain, Abu Hamza, called on the faithful to kill nonbelievers...and they did.

See, Poet, I am here to help you. All you have to do is ask and I am more than happy to answer the questions for you. Hell, I am such a nice guy I even refer you to the original source material.

ThePoet

10-14-2009, 04:43 AM

Well, that bastard was a pederast named Mohammed. He wrote those instructions in a book. The book is called the Koran. Perhaps you have heard of it? It contains little gems of wisdom like:
9.123: O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard

or,

4.89 : They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper

or,

9.5: So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

If this Mohammed guy lived too long ago to still matter to you, Poet, you can look at more recent calls for Muslims to kill nonbelievers. For instance, that peace loving cleric in Great Britain, Abu Hamza, called on the faithful to kill nonbelievers...and they did.

See, Poet, I am here to help you. All you have to do is ask and I am more than happy to answer the questions for you. Hell, I am such a nice guy I even refer you to the original source material.

In response to my post filled with Quranic Quotes and hadiths of prophet (pbuh) about importance of non-muslims to Islam you started with blasphemy, you can't just say blah blah blah without giving any historical evidence proving that muslims killed somewhere all non-muslims without any reason, what's your answer about that touchy hadith in which Prophet (pbuh) said that "He who hurts a non-muslim hurts me and he who hurts me hurts Allah". Neither in Spain, nor in Arabia and not in Inida we killed all non-muslims when we were ruling there, when we left Spain and India we were still in minority that's mean that we didn't kill non-muslims, on the other hand you killed all muslims of spain right after you came in power there.

Now let's see your quotes from Quran.

first quote: Again without any historical evidence you can't prove that Islam wants us to kill every non-muslims near us but this quote says that first fight those cruel and war monger non-muslims who are near you then the others, it's nothing but a rule for war.

second quote: i think this is about hypocrites in muslims not about non-muslims because Islam only require muslims to leave homes in allah's way not non-muslims.

third quote: third quote is again a rule of war, it in fact says that because muslims are not allowed to fight in sacred months so after those they can launch offensive against their armed war monger enemy but it is included that if they want peace no more war because Allah dislikes cruel people.

All of them are about fighting or armed enemies of Islam not about innocent non-muslims, but if you think that Islam still require muslims to kill non-muslims without lawful reason prove that from history, as far as that cleric is concerned, Islam is not responsible for him like Jesus (pbuh) is not responsible for this guy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=br_70Kbdpow

And Islam doesn't say this and not jesus also but then who is responsible for saying such satanic verses?

"Utterly destroy all that they have;do not spare them but kill both man and woman,infant and suckling baby."
1 Samual 15:3

and

"let us do the evil that good may come" Romans 3:8

and

"kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for your selves every girl who has never slept with a man" Numbers 31:17-18

For more information about your humanity see this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJleS6a81_g

paxaeon

10-14-2009, 05:32 AM

On October 30, 2008, the United Nations condemned the stoning to death of Aisha Duhulowa, a 13-year-old girl who had been gang-raped and then sentenced to death by a Sharia court for fornication (Zina). She was screaming and begging for mercy, but when some family members attempted to intervene, shots were fired by the Islamic militia and a baby was killed.

Local Sharia courts in Bangladesh regularly punish raped minor girls and women by flogging and beating them with shoes. Similar cases of punishing raped women are Mina v. the State, Bibi v. the State and Bahadur v. the State. Sharia courts in Pakistan have punished thousands of raped women by long term imprisonment.

You might think that such horrific barbarity cannot be the real Sharia law; that it is a misapplication of the law by ignorant clergy. Sadly, neither is true.

There is a traceable dynamic in Sharia Law that is bound to lead to this barbarity. And unless we abandon these laws we will never be able to emerge from this barbarity. It was a blunder that Muslim jurists included rape in the Hudood section of Sharia Law that deals with murder, bodily harm, apostasy, drinking, defamation, theft, adultery and highway robbery. But anyone who tried to change these laws ended up banging their heads against the wall. Mawdudi, the founding father of modern Political Islam, claims that even if all the world’s Muslims together wanted to make the slightest change in these laws, they would not be allowed to do so. News Source (http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=33098)

It all comes down to choice. If this is the law of the religious sect you choose to believe in, then by all means, please do so. However, there are are those of us who not only disbelieve but actively wish to put this barbaric and abominable practice to an end.

lizbethrose

10-14-2009, 11:58 PM

poet, I think you said it right here:

Yes we are bad followers but our religion is the only best religion.

You run into problems with declarations such as this from all the other religions of the world--many of which say the same thing. The difference is that Islam, which in many ways developed out of both Judaism and Christianity, still believes in jihad--perhaps because Islam is the youngest of the major religions of the world.

Sharia Law, as I understand it thanks to freesoul, is the religious 'rule of law' that governs Islam as a life-style--one cannot live the Islamic life without accepting its 'rule of law.'

The Western world can't accept that because we're sectarian, for the most part, and have our own 'rule of law', codified by the Magna Carta some 600 years after Mohamed but backed by centuries of tradition. Sharia Law may also be backed by years of tradition, but those traditions are vastly different than the feudal law in England that led to the Magna Carta.

Our, the US, Constitution is an organic 'rule of law' that can change, and does change, over time. Sometimes those changes aren't 'good' changes, so we change them back. We have a mechanism for doing so. There is no such mechanism within Islam and Sharia Law because Sharia is religious. You can't change it without changing the fundamentals of Islam.

ThePoet

10-15-2009, 04:32 PM

poet, I think you said it right here:

You run into problems with declarations such as this from all the other religions of the world--many of which say the same thing. The difference is that Islam, which in many ways developed out of both Judaism and Christianity, still believes in jihad--perhaps because Islam is the youngest of the major religions of the world.

Sharia Law, as I understand it thanks to freesoul, is the religious 'rule of law' that governs Islam as a life-style--one cannot live the Islamic life without accepting its 'rule of law.'

The Western world can't accept that because we're sectarian, for the most part, and have our own 'rule of law', codified by the Magna Carta some 600 years after Mohamed but backed by centuries of tradition. Sharia Law may also be backed by years of tradition, but those traditions are vastly different than the feudal law in England that led to the Magna Carta.

Our, the US, Constitution is an organic 'rule of law' that can change, and does change, over time. Sometimes those changes aren't 'good' changes, so we change them back. We have a mechanism for doing so. There is no such mechanism within Islam and Sharia Law because Sharia is religious. You can't change it without changing the fundamentals of Islam.

you know what you did? you accepted what i said, our religion is the only best but we are bad followers and you say i am right so application depends on applier, for example Saudis let some school girls burnt in school because they didn't have hijab, so this is not problem of Sharia law but insane appliers, life is much precious to Allah than law, we muslims can't eat pig meat but he allows us to do so if we are dying because of hunger.

When some unaware non-muslim was urinating in mosque of Prophet (pbuh) Prophet's companions become angry and they were about to beat him but Prophet (pbuh) stopped them and said tell him politely it's mosque, it's sacred so next time please don't do this.So you see difference is of applier. For example because of corrupt policemen and judiciary someone got death sentence what would you say, would you delete death sentence from law or would you bring some reforms in your police and judiciary.Thanks for taking my side.:)