Marseilles: Husband sent to prison for veil attack

A man who had hit his wife in a parking lot and fractured her nose, because she had rolled up her veil due to the heat, was sentenced to two years in prison, 18 months of which are suspended, in a court in Marseilles.


The prosecution demanded eight months in prison, three of which to be suspended.  


Ali Nassakh (30), of Algerian nationality, was placed in detention.


A passerby alerted authorities after seeing the young woman's bloodied face.  She burst into tears when he husband testified that she had banged her head on a car parked nearby.


The young woman claimed compensation.  To the investigators she had said she had explained to her husband that "in our religion the husband doesn't have a right to tell his wife to do what he wants."


Source: Figaro (French)

28 comments:

jdamn13 said...

Sadly, she's wrong when she says that "in our religion the husband doesn't have a right to tell his wife to do what he wants." Actually he not only has every right to order her around like slave and use her as a work-animal, but he has the right to rape and beat her ad infinitum with complete impunity. He owns her outright and she is, for all intents and purposes, his sex slave/pack animal. He paid his John fee and she signed/whored her life away. Where he messed up was when he beat her head, which is haram. That's the only Islamic line he crossed.

Esther said...

Hi jdamn13,

I'd like to point you to a previous comment where you said:

They don't have to live by those 3rd-world Dark-Age standards in the free world.

But in this case, when a woman tries to do so, you tell her she can't.

tsarbomba said...

Esther, I believe you missed the ironic/satirical point in jdam13's comment. Loosen up, girl!

Esther said...

I realize that jdamn13 did not mean that husbands have a right to abuse their wives. However I think he did mean that this is a right in Islam.

Therefore, when a Muslim woman says that it isn't - why try to prove her wrong? Do you want everybody to live according to the strictest interpretation of Sharia?

Do you want Christians and Jews to live according to the strictest interpretation of their ancient holy books?

tsarbomba said...

Esther, c'mon girl! I interpretted the 'entire' thing as a satirical jab. Where do you feel he went from satire to serious? Apparently I missed that.

Daphne said...

I did not see any satire in the post. Muslims believe the koran to be the authentic voice of god. And the authentic voice of god is to scourge wives who disobey.
Most christians & jews do not accept the Bible as the literal word of god. Even though christian & jewish fundamentalists do.
In islam every muslim is a fundamentalist. You cannot be a muslim if you do not believe the koran to be the literal word of god. OK 99% of muslims.

grainnewale said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Esther said...

Hi Daphne,


You cannot be a muslim if you do not believe the koran to be the literal word of god.


Said who?

You cannot be a Jew if you do not believe the Torah was given to the Jewish people on Mount Sinai. Every religious Jew affirms this belief every day. What does that have to do with a literal belief?

Mohammed abrogates verses of the Koran in the Koran itself. In other words, Mohammed himself was aware that was was good yesterday is not good today. What else do you need to go from there to a non-literal, deeper understanding?

Daphne said...

Islam has nothing without the Koran. People can believe in the teachings of Jesus without believing he is the son of god. They can believe in forgiving the adulteress, giving the thief your coat when he steals your cloak, the good samaritan, turning the other cheek etc without believing they are the word of god. Just good principles to live by.
Without the Koran what has islam got? A set of principles that make nazism seem moderate. Islam's only justification is that this brutality is the express wish of god. Remove the Koran from Islam and it falls apart as the teachings of a ruthless megalomaniac.
The only exception to this may be the Sufis. But they constitute less than 1% of muslims.

Monotheism is a dangerous set of beliefs. It believes in a fuhrer dictating laws to a passive people. Christianity was similar in the past and Judaism was also similar. But changes in circumstances, notably the basic humanity of the teachings of Jesus and the many persecutions of Jews I believe both those religions and their followers have adapted. Can Islam adapt? I don't think so as long as they believe the Koran is the literal word of god. And without the Koran Islam has the principles of a thug.
As for abrogation. That just shows the emptiness of islam. Can anyone really believe in a god so fickle that he changes his mind from one day to the next? A god who is supposed to be omniscient. Islam would be laughable if it waa not so dangerous.

Esther said...

Hi Daphne,

Neither you nor I will bring about any changes in Islam, but I don't think that it's completely impossible either.

The Koran is full of injunctions to 'be good', btw, for anybody who wants to follow it. Even the cases where Mohamed exhorts his followers to fight for their religion, which he does quite emphatically, could be understood in a non-literal sense.

For example, in Judaism the injunction to wipe out the Canaanites or Amalekites was understood differently in different time periods. Today, most Jews feel uncomfortable with them and just ignore it, or see it as fighting the 'ultimate evil'. In any case, we know that these peoples do not exist today. Just as the peoples who lived in the 7th century do not exist today.

Can anybody believe in a God that changes his mind every day? You tell me. I'm a Jew, so I don't believe God changed his mind the first time. It's up to the Christians and Muslims to debate whether he changed his mind only once, twice or three times.

I don't think the debate should be about what is logical or not. God says quite clearly in the Bible to kill people who desecrate the Sabbath. Moses went to God and asked him and that was God's decision. Is it logical to say that a court who kills more than one person in seventy years is considered a 'bad' court? I don't know, but that's the Jewish attitude. This attitude was decided upon when Jews had such courts. Today, the attitude is that courts today don't have that power at all. Why? No good reason, I think.

Jews have their own country, and they can reinstate whatever religious laws they want. The question is not what do the religious laws say, but how do the believers see them.

It is the responsibility of religious believers to follow a moral lifestyle, to reject terrorism and hate. It is of course much easier in Judaism (which states that the law is up to man) and Christianity (where there are no day-to-day religious injunctions), but that doesn't mean that Islam can just shrug this responsibility off. This is what must change by Muslims. Everything else, is really excuses.

jdamn13 said...

Granted, I was as clear as mud and dove right into the smartassery, but I was really responding to her retarded, outlandish comment that "IN OUR RELIGION the husband doesn't have a right to tell his wife to do what he wants." She was dead wrong and she knew it. She read her buku nikah and she knows what her "rights" were. She has none under Islam.

But the fact that he was sent to prison is proof that, no, he can't do that. I mean, he can, but he can't get away with it with complete impunity like he could in any Muslim nation because civilized, decent people don't tolerate violent criminal behavior. She doesn't have to tolerate that kind of treatment in the free world, but she does under Islam. Thankfully, Islam is not the law of the land. She could have him locked up for raising his hand to her in Europe. Her statement was a pretty extreme example of taqiyya and Stockholm Syndrome, though, you've gotta admit, since she was willing to lie to defend an institution which allowed her to be treated like that, so long as she wasn't beaten about the head.

Also, I'm a she. It's Justin Elizabeth, but I'm used to that in textual environments.

Also, the Koran IS to be the eternal word of Allah (please don't call Allah "the deceiver," "of darkness," "of affliction," "of pride," "of war" God). Abrogation serves a purpose: the gentler verses, which endorse taqiyya all over the place, are instructions for how Muslims are to comport themselves when they are not in a position of power, and then the later, Medinian verses are instructions as to how Muslims are to handle themselves once they gain the upper hand. They ARE to be tolerant, kind, and respectful, but only so long as they have to, and only for devious purposes. And it's interesting to note that even in the Meccan verses there's still not a single moral teaching, only instructions for what to do in order to appear to be moral and decent. Reinterpretation of Koranic verses constitutes bit'a, which is tantamount to apostacy, and to be punished by death, not only under Sharia law, but per Koranic instruction. Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, etc. can all be reinterpreted, since their texts allow for that, don't forbid it, and their teachings certainly forbid KILLING people who choose to reinterpret them, but rather preach tolerance. And Daphne, it's not monotheism that's dangerous. It's putting all your eggs in one basket like having only one church. The Catholic church lost most of its power once Christianity divided into denominations. It wasn't God that was evil. It was people acting in evil ways and using "religion" to justify it. But Christianity doesn't condone serfdom or totalitarianism, which were how the Church got so powerful. Islam explicitly condones every single atrocity that is carried out in its name, with the notable exceptions of honor killing and female infanticide, and I'm not even sure that Muslims use Islam to justify female infanticide. I just know that the only people who are known to engage in the practice with any regularity are Afghans and Pakistanis. And Mein Kampf is incredibly moderate compared to the Koran. Read them back to back. Hitler was a saint compared to Muhammad. And he modeled his manifesto on the Koran, put it in a logical order, removed the scientific inaccuracies, the idealization of pedophilia, every form of sex crime, torture, most of the misogyny, the slavery, and the killing everyone but Muslims in favor of killing just Jews. He kept the genocide, the racism, the supremacy, and a lot of the logical fallacies. He also used to bemoan the fact that he ruled over a non-Muslim people.

I agree with you, Esther, that God never changed his mind. People have only reinterpreted what they believe to constitute the Golden Rule...people, with one notable exception. All Jesus did was set an example as to how to live the Golden Rule and die for our sins because we got it wrong and we keep getting it wrong, like by letting the Saudis rule the UN, whose purpose is to eradicate human rights violations like the war in Sudan.

And honestly, I don't think that knocking out the Canaanites was necessarily the wrong thing to do. I don't even think that wiping out the Aztecs was necessarily the wrong thing to do. We would be a much worse world had those genocides not taken place. Some people should be eradicated, provided their ideology can't be changed. Fortunately, when dealing with cults which have an Achilles heel, that's no longer necessary. We could nuke Mecca and eradicate Islam just like nuking Japan eradicated Shintoism. We didn't have to wipe out the Japanese. But without Oppenheimer and Fermi, who's to say how we would have handled the Japanese?

Esther said...

God never changed his mind..

Depends who you ask ;-) You call it reinterpretation, Jews call it taking their basic beliefs and throwing them out the window. Then going outside and stamping on them up and down. Oh, and they've been burned at the stake for it too, so it's hard for me to accept the inner morality of these new teachings.

My point is that being moral and doing good is up to the believer. You bring a good example of female infanticide. You of course exclude female infanticide done before birth - India and China are going to face major problems when their current generation grows up and discovers women are rare - since it doesn't fit your point of view. Female infanticide is specifically prohibited in the Koran. As you say, it might be common among Muslims, but what does that really mean? It means that the Koran is not what drives their actions.

I think this is true in general. People are driven by society, by what they think and feel. How they interpret their holy writings is based on what they think is expected of them by society.

Muslims who want a better society can do that by reading the Koran in that light. Is it as easy compared to the bible which talks about turning one's swords into plowshares? No. But it's possible.

I don't accept that any religion can be reinterpreted except Islam. Islam is not exceptional in believing their scriptures came directly from God and that it has came down unchanged through the centuries.

jdamn13 said...

Islam IS exceptional in having never reinterpreted its beliefs, And I have to disagree that "Jews call [reinterpreting the scriptures] taking their basic beliefs and throwing them out the window." Not even the most orthodox, fundamentalist Jews engage in animal sacrifice and stoning adulterers, nor have they for 1500 years, at least stoning. Judaism is 4000 years old. Israel is the only country to have ever had state religion for 60 years and not fall decades, if not centuries behind the ball in terms od technology, standard of living, quality of life, medicine, business, education, healthcare, economic development, etc. It just keeps getting better and better, and that didn't happen without a liberal, moderate interpretation of Judaism. Jews are generally very progressive people, in my experience. Judaism has always allowed itself to be reinterpreted. Were that not the case it would be a very barbaric way of life. All of Islam's scholarship was carried out 1000 years ago and Islam has not changed a bit. The Islamic powers that be, along with the Muslim community at large, would never allow that to happen. Daphne's right all Islam is fundamentalist.

“A moderate Islam does not exist. It does not exist because there is no difference between Good Islam and Bad Islam. There is Islam and that it the end of it. Islam is the Koran, and nothing other than the Koran. And the Koran is the Mein Kampf of a religion that desires to eliminate others - non-Muslims - who are called infidel dogs, and inferior creatures. Read the Koran, that Mein Kampf, yet again. In whatever version and you will see that the evil which the sons of Allah against us and themselves has perpetrated comes from that book". -Oriana Fallaci

"To me it seems certain that the fatalistic teachings of Muhammad and the utter degradation of women is the outstanding cause for the arrested development of the Arab. He is exactly as he was around the year 700, while we have kept on developing" -General George S. Patton: The War as I Knew it, 1974, p.49

I think the more useful question is not "can Islam be reinterpeted or reformed?" but rather "is Islam a decent enough or good enough ideology to warrant reform or reinterpretation, or is it just inherently evil and unacceptable, in its that every core teaching and belief is violent, immoral, supremacist, intolerant, and ultimately self-destructive, but never before being other-destructive (i.e., parasitic and then cannibalizing)?"

Esther said...

Hi jdamn13,

Of course Islam never reinterpreted its religion, since every time it did you don't consider it Islam anymore.

I was not talking about Judaism reinterpreting itself, I was talking about Christianity - why do you think Jews look at Christianity any differently than Christians look at Muslims? It's a new faith that claims to have superseded the original. Jesus, being a Jew, repeated many of the ethical teachings of his time, as they also appear in other Jewish writings. Some of what he says (ie, turning the other cheek), are not Jewish teachings, and I don't see many Christians follow those teachings today. And yet, a Christian could still tell me that he believes in Jesus as the son of God and that he follows Jesus' ethical teachings. Why should I start arguing?

I really don't understand why you start arguing with a Muslim woman who says that Islam doesn't allow men to abuse their wives. If she says so, and other women say so etc etc., then it will become reality. Does that woman really need non-Muslims who jump up and tell her to shut up because she has no idea about 'real' Islam?

jdamn13 said...

YES, she does need people to jump up and tell her how evil Islam is. There are many, many Musims who simply don't understand what a sick ideology Islam is because, as you said, they don't necessarilly behave according to the laws of Islam (which often vary from Sharia, which was why I didn't write 'Sharia law'). Ali Sina and Abul Kasem didn't realize how sick Islam was until they read the Koran as adults. They both say that after having done so, they couldn't look their mothers in the eye until they apostacized. Lots of Muslims ascribe humanistic and moral values which are patently un-Islamic to Islam, and they live in countries in which the law of the land deviates from Sharia, which it does everywhere but Iran and Saudi Arabia, since they know that that's what these countries' rulers have to do in order to keep the free-world money rolling in. And since "morality" is imposed from the top-down in Islam, rather than being a personal creed, I can understand how that would be confusing to them. But if they understood how truly unacceptable Islam is I really do think that there would be lots more apostates and that this would be a better world.

In the the atmosphere that Islam creates, one in which religion and government are one and the same and there is no real morality, only narcissism, I can also see how Muslims would think that even female infanticide is acceptable, since violence against women and even honor killings are acceptable. It really is a matter of what you can and can't get away with that becomes "ethical" in that context. There is no overarching principle of right vs. wrong, and no concept of "do unto others," only "what does Sharia forbid/allow" and "what is halal/haram," and halal/haram have nothing to do with ethics or morality. That is why Islam is evil. It promotes all sorts of abhorrent behaviors and ways of thinking, which is why it attracts bad people and turns good people into bad ones. Violent, criminal behavior is unacceptable, and Islam promotes and in many cases even requires it, which is one of the main reasons why Islam is so unacceptable to me.

There and back again said...

Jdamn13-

You are sadly mistaken on all of your interpretation of Islam. Period. Muslim men DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to beat their wives. The Quran does not allow them that at all. The Quran, 1400 years ago, was the first religious text (coming out of the Abrahamic faiths, and as far as i know, in the world) to give women equal rights to men. Women were suddenly recognized as people, instead of property to be inherited (since that was the norm in Middle Eastern society at the time the Quran and Islam were revealed), guaranteed rights to own their business, property, wealth, to marry on their own accord, to be entitled to divorce, to not have to be responsible for the money that that supports her own family- in case this doesn't sound like much to you, Jdamn, until the Women's Movement in the United States in the middle of the last century, many of these rights weren't available to women in the West. Women had to fight, and are still fighting, to ensure that their legally protected rights are honored. This is a result of the deeply entrenched patriarchy in our Western society, and is esentially the reason women are treated terribly throughout much of the Muslim world as well. Patriarchy, NOT ISLAM, has made cultural practices like honor killings, female genital mutilation, female infanticide, child marriages, forced marriages, bride burnings and forced veiling issues that women throughout the Middle East, Africa, Asia and parts of the West have to deal with. Patriarchy, NOT ISLAM, discourages and even forbids dissent and a re-examining of the texts or even access to the texts in the first place! The very first word said to the Prophet Muhammed by Angel Gabriel was "READ!" (the word in Arabic is Iqra). The impetus to keep learning, questioning and evolving lay in that first revelation. There are in fact, 4 main schools of Islamic jurisprudence schools of thought, and many scholars who have other interpretations of the Quranic texts, the Hadith (documented sayings from the Prophet recorded by those closest to him) and the Sunnah (the Prophet's example of behavior from his life). Courageous women (and some men) across the Muslim world (that includes the numerous Muslim communities in the West) are working, and have been working for decades to bring about justice on behalf of Muslim women oppressed by patriarchal cultural practices that their adherents claim is couched in Islam. The statements you have been making show an obvious Islamophobia that is based in an inaccurate and incorrect understanding of Islam, Muslim communities and the realities of the modern Muslim world. Some reading suggestions that might help inform your view points: http://www.amazon.com/Believing-Women-Islam-Patriarchal-Interpretations/dp/0292709048/ref=pd_sim_b_3 and check this book out: http://www.amazon.com/Veil-Male-Elite-Feminist-Interpretation/dp/0201632217/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1218740796&sr=8-1. In fact, if you check out the other books listed on these amazon pages, there's a wealth of scholarship and information about this particular topic. Hate doesn't ever help further any conversation, debate or issue, my friend. Please check out the links I've provided, or even google progressive muslims and see the world that exists outside of your stereotypes and misinformation. Peace.

Daphne said...

"Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property. So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them."
Koran 4:34

The Koran justifies the men beating women. Islam is a reactionary doctrine that reverses the position of woman to that of a second class citizen.
What other philosophy says a womans word is worth half a mans.
I must admit that the womans position in an Islamic society is better than that of a dhimmi whose word is worthless.
Where is your evidence that islam progressed the position of women? All the evidence is the opposite. Women had much more freedom in other countries. Women could even rule such as Cleopatra, Boudicca or Sheba. Name me an Islamic queen.
Islam is a male chauvinist warrior doctrine that is similar to nazism in placing the importance of women in the hearth & home.

There and back again said...

What translation of the Quran are you quoting Daphne?
As we all know- who translates the words of religions completely controls the interpretation. Remember when Christian churches throughout America were citing Bible verses for why Africans shold be enslaved by whites and why whites were doing God's work by "caring" for slaves by keeping them in bondage? If you don't know about that, look it up. (On a source more historically accurate than say Wikipedia please.) You cited three ancient queens as an example for why women had rights over a thousand years ago? Are you serious? Have you EVER taken a Women's Studies course? A sociology class? An anthropology class? A HISTORY class? Women didn't have the right to vote in America until 1920! It took decades of women's suffrage to enable the 19th amendment to be passed and to FINALLY extend the right to vote to all American women. Women in 1920 when the 19th Amendment was passed could not own property on their own, qualify for credit, were not protected under the law against rape (marital rape, stranger rape or acquaintance rape), were not protected from domestic violence, were not entitled to access to whatever healthcare their bodies might require, were not able to hold many types of employment and not entitled to higher education, among many, many other rights and opportunities. As I included links with my comment of books that examine the Quran and Islamic practice through a non-patriarchal lens, how bout you check those out before you ask for more information? Those books are pretty thorough, dense and informative. I challenge you to read them and inform your world view with something substantial and obviously different from what you believe now.

Daphne said...

I quoted from the Pickthal translation. I think you will find that most translations of the Koran agree that men are permitted to beat women.
The reason islam insists that the Koran should be read in Arabic is the same as the reason that the Christian church opposed translations of the Bible from Latin to English. The church killed
people for translating the Bible. The reason is the maintenance of power. Once everyone reads the vile parts of the Bible and the Koran they will see their religion differently from the way the priests and imams present it.
A translation stops people from being hoodwinked by the church/mosque.
As to your comment on slavery. It is notable that the last countries to abandon slavery were Islamic. Then only under moral duress from the UN. Even today I remember a Saudi in the US being prosecuted for treating his servants like slaves. He claimed the US was prosecuting him because of his religion. That is Islam.
You seem to think I must have been on courses and got degrees before I can comment on women's rights. For someone who admires an illiterate who had intellectuals assassinated I find this ironic.
I have a long book list which is continually increasing. I am selective of my reading material and prefer unbiased books. As you made the claim that pre Islamic society was repressive to women and that Muhammad lifted their oppression it is your responsibility to back up your claim. Telling me to read a turgid tome of a thousand words does not back up your claim.
I quoted women who reached the top in ancient pagan countries of the time of Muhammad. I asked you for similar examples from Islam. I can only assume you have none.

Daphne said...

I quoted from the Pickthal translation. I think you will find that most translations of the Koran agree that men are permitted to beat women.
The reason islam insists that the Koran should be read in Arabic is the same as the reason that the Christian church opposed translations of the Bible from Latin to English. The church killed
people for translating the Bible. The reason is the maintenance of power. Once everyone reads the vile parts of the Bible and the Koran they will see their religion differently from the way the priests and imams present it.
A translation stops people from being hoodwinked by the church/mosque.
As to your comment on slavery. It is notable that the last countries to abandon slavery were Islamic. Then only under moral duress from the UN. Even today I remember a Saudi in the US being prosecuted for treating his servants like slaves. He claimed the US was prosecuting him because of his religion. That is Islam.
You seem to think I must have been on courses and got degrees before I can comment on women's rights. For someone who admires an illiterate who had intellectuals assassinated I find this ironic.
I have a long book list which is continually increasing. I am selective of my reading material and prefer unbiased books. As you made the claim that pre Islamic society was repressive to women and that Muhammad lifted their oppression it is your responsibility to back up your claim. Telling me to read a turgid tome of a thousand words does not back up your claim.
I quoted women who reached the top in ancient pagan countries of the time of Muhammad. I asked you for similar examples from Islam. I can only assume you have none.

There and back again said...

Your assumption is wrong, obviously. Ever heard the line "never assume, it makes an ass out of you and me"? Right- maybe you should consider that.

You do need to study and take courses to comment on the history of Women's Rights- otherwise you wouldn't have access to the information- it isn't taught as an integrated part of curriculums in most schools, even liberal arts/social science disciplines like history, political science, pyschology, communications, and even more conservative anthropology and sociology departments. You prefer unbiased sources? What are those exactly? Fox news?

While it is true that some non-Abrahamic societies pre-Christianity were more egalitarian than the societies with more institutionalized versions of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, the whole world didn't look like that. Patriarchy was rampant (and still is!) in most of the world. You didn't address any of my points regarding patriarchy and the way as a paradigm it controls the way culture is formed and enforced, especially when it comes to the wording of laws and translations of holy books. Pointing at indivuduals and using them as examples of why an ENTIRE FAITH is wrong, hateful, backward or evil is inaccurate and ill-advised. It is the definition of stereotyping. Ever heard that word? Looked it up in the dictionary?

As for your claim that pre-Islamic society was less repressive to women than post-Islamic society: you are incorrect. The misogynistic cultures of the world pre or post Islam are based in PATRIARCHY which is why they continue! There are repressive soceities where women are treated terribly that have nothing to do with Islamic idealogy. Ever heard of the state of women in India? Hindu customs like bride burning? Sex selective abortion in India and China? Female infanticide because boys are so highly prized over girls? How about the practice of female genital mutilation, which as a custom predated Islam's expansion throughout Africa? What about Chinese foot binding of girls? What about trafficking little girls and women into sexual slavery? That happens all over the world, with little to do with the religious affiliation of the area and sadly has happened for centuries upon centuries.

I suspect, since you obviously haven't ever taken these illuminating university level courses in Women's Studies, Sociology, Anthropology or History and refuse to read up on these disciplines, that you don't know about these things. Since you prefer "unbiased" reading material, I can only imagine what access to information you have. As to your claim that I cannot back up women who have acheived power in Muslim countries or cultures: Ever heard of Benhazir Bhutto? She was Prime Minister of Pakistan, before America ever had a woman president- oh wait! We still don't. How about Queen Rania of Jordan? Those are just two MODERN examples of Muslim women in power. I notice you completely side stepped my point about men in power controlling the translation and interpretation of the Bible in the USA to condone, perpetuate and encourage slavery. How convenient. I suggest that before you continue to take stances on topics you clearly don't understand, you do some reasearch. These topics are dense and complex and deserve the time and work it takes to do actual research and reading, not just checking blog posts and internet news articles, to understand them.

Do you know what the Reformation of Christianity was? Look it up in case you don't. Re-interpreting the texts (after a select few members of society have been in control of those interpretations and those texts) of a religion lays the power of administering the faith in the hands of those who have access to those texts and the knowledge that comes from them. This is why the books I linked you to are so important. Feminist theory has changed so much academic scholarship and has led to vital re-examinations of patriarchal laws, patriarchal interpretations of holy books, patriarchal literature, medical technique, scientific training, education systems. This is happening throughout Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism at all levels of scholarship and lay people's practice. As a result of the development of critical feminist theory, Muslim women scholars are re-examining the status quo within Islamic jurisprudence and working hard to seperate the often mangled history of culture masquerading as doctrine or religious ideals.

Your understanding is very limited and sadly, your access to information seems to be very limited as well, although it seems to be a self imposed limitation. That's the worst kind! You could know more, be more aware, be more informed, but you are consciously choosing not to be. It seems you'd rather be tangled up in the darkness of your ignorance, instead of illuminated by the light of truth. Peace.

Daphne said...

You assume I have not been on courses and get my info from Fox news. What was that petty comment you made about people who assume? Something about asses wasn't it?

You keep rattling on about all the courses you have been on. This is a strange attitude for someone who praises an illiterate thug who assassinated intellectuals.

You claim that with islam 'Women were suddenly recognised as people'
This obviously does not apply to slaves ot six year old girls.
Muhammad had at least eleven wives. Shouldn't he have been flogged or stoned for breaking his own laws. He also took numerous slaves as concubines. Is this what you meant by women being recognised as people?
Having sex with a slave is rape yet you have the gall to claim Muhammad recognised women as people. This demonstrates what little respect you have for women.

Why do you mention the abuse of women in other countries? This is an undeniable fact. They were abused becauise they were subject to man-made laws. Islam claims its laws are god-made. The Islamic god has as little regard for women as yourself. He treats women as sex objects that men can enjoy at will. He allows men to have four wives then permits them to divorce their wives by chanting a holy mantra. He claims a woman's word is worth half a man's and divides an inheritance by two parts for the man and one part for the woman. The islamic god cannot even count. What's the betting he was on one of the same courses you've been on? Still, as the Islamic god is not an intellectual he need not fear being assassinated by the illiterate Muhammad.

I pointed to women leaders in the ancient pagan world. What do you offer me in return? Examples from the modern world. Not the same. Even the examples you gave were flawed. Queen Rania is not a ruler in her own right. Her status is as consort to the king. I can recommend a course you can go on which will show you the difference between a leader and a consort.
Benhazir Bhutto became a leader 1500 years after Muhammad. A bit on the slow side is Muhammad. She became a leader despite Islam. Not because of it.
Guess who assassinated her? I can recommend a course for you to go on where you will learn the answer.

Muhammad said about Khosrau (ooh guess what. Another pagan woman ruler)
"Never will succeed such a nation as makes a woman their ruler.
Cue Islamic suicide bomber. Farewell Benhazir Bhutto. Farewell women's rights.

There and back again said...

Daphne, I'm leaving this flame war behind after this post. I'm sad to see that our debate/exchange has not informed any of the information you browbeat when mentioning Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) or the actual, factual history of the way Islam started and has continued for the last 1400 years in its many different manifestations. I wasn't assuming you watched Fox news; I was pointing out the ridiculousness of your statement that you like "unbiased" sources of information and are saying such incredibly biased and uninformed things, much like Fox News does. Did you miss that sarcasm?
The reason I pointed to modern Muslim women leaders was to contradict your point that women have no rights within Islam, as exampled in the modern world. Your problem with Queen Rania of Jordan's position seems to be the institution of kings and queens, but you interestingly didn't seem to have that issue with pagan queens from over a thousand years ago.
Again I have to question where you are getting these supposed quotations of the Prophet from and these seemingly rock solid impressions and interpretations of Islam that you are spouting. As I've mentioned numerous times before, Islam has many different interpretations within the faith, as all faiths do. It is is no way a monolith of over one billion people. There are varying interpretations of Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism and also as I have referenced, Islam.
You are making foolish, unsupported and unsubstantiated comments about the "Islamic god" when in fact, the God of Islam is the same God of Judaism and Christianity, which is why the three faiths are called Abrahamic, as in, derived through Abraham.
Since you refuse to get any information from legitimate historical sources as to the rights of women for the last two thousand years around the world and the absolute impact patriarchy has had on them, I will no longer continue this futile exchange with you. Just spouting off about issues without using factual evidence and claiming that since you are saying it, it must be true, is not the way to argue, debate, or make any valid point. That is the realm of an uninformed conversation informed with emotions and passions, not an informed conversation with fact, reason and rationale at its root. Good day Daphne, and I truly hope that one day you will come around from this place of utter ignorance and learn more about the complex issues you choose to discuss. Peace.

Daphne said...

In my last post my comment about Rania being a consort and you having to learn what the word means was sarcastic. I did expect to have to explain what a consort is.Rania is a consort to Abdullah Hussein. Her position is there solely because of her marriage. She does not hold the reins of power as the pagan women I cited do. There is a difference you know.

I did not think I needed to cite verse & chapter of the Koran and all its misogyny as I thought you would have read it and knew what I was talking about.
The quotation:
"Never will succeed such a nation as makes a woman their ruler."
is Bukhari 88:219.
Bukhari is an accepted authority by the vast majority of muslims.
A rather damning comment on Muhammad's attitude to women don't you think.

My comments about ther Islamic god are not foolish at all. In fact it is you who have made the foolish comment about the islamic god being the same as the god of Christianity & Judaism.

Muhammad said the adulteress should be flogged or stoned.
Jesus saved the adulteress woman from a stoning.
Muhammad said the thief should have his hand cut off.
Jesus said if the thief steals your coat give him your cloak also.
Muhammad said an eye for an eye.
Jesus said turn the other cheek.
Muhammad said do not make friends with jews or christians.
Jesus told the parable of the good Samaritan.
As can be seen there are two very philosophies and therefore two very different gods. The Islamic god is the complete and utter opposite of the Christian god. You are insulting Jesus & christianity by associating him with Muhammad.

As for me 'spouting off' without giving facts. This is totally ludicrous. You are the one who has waffled your way through your posts without presenting one relevant fact.
I appreciate that you will not be replying to my post. It's time for you to enrol on another course and they are so hectic.

There and back again said...

You know what? One last thing. Bukhari is not the Quran, Daphne.
And you are going back and forth on accusing Prophet Muhammed of supposedly saying things, The Quran supposedly saying things, now Bukhari? With no understanding of Arabic to read the text in its original context, you attempt to assail the faith, the history of Islam and the contemporary realities of a diverse faith of over a billion adherents.

You aren't Muslim, have never taken any classes in Islam, haven't ever read a proper Quran and are conveniently quoting mysterious citations that seem to back up your flawed, inaccurate and incomplete arguments. It's sad, Daphne, that you follow this path. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

You perpetuate stereotypes by whole heartedly believing in them. Have you ever known any Muslims? And I don't mean you met a few once or twice: have you ever had teh chance to work with Muslims? Live in the same neighborhood? Share food with Muslims? Possibly be friends with the people you stereotype so severely? This is obvious, but sadly seems necessary to say: Muslims are people too. People who are suffering a great deal from lines of thinking like yours, closed mindedness like you're spouting, and a deep unwillingness to learn any more than what you already believe to be the truth.
You are blanketly condemning an entire religion and holy text with no citation at all. The over one billion adherents of Islam are overwhelming normal, decent people who aren't trying to impose their will on anyone else or any other country; they are trying to survive in this capitalist, globalized world in unstable post-colonial countries where every day life is exceedingly difficult. Most Muslims throughout the West are vital members of their communities, working hard to contribute and find their place.

Just FYI- There is a LOT of violence in the Old testament (which in case you aren't clear is the Bible). A LOT. Have you ever read it? There are very barbaric stories, punishments, rules and laws laid down in the Old testament that almost all Jews & Christians have completely abandoned and are often left out of new versions of the Bible in contemporary editions. I'm not saying that the Quran does have those things, but I am definately saying that the Old testament does, and I don't see you accusing Judaism or Christianity of misogyny or barbarism as a result; only Islam.

See this satirical letter to Dr. Laura regarding the many laws in the Bible that are no longer practiced, followed or even acknowledged. I wonder if you can get the point of the letter without taking all that is said literally.
http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/joke/laura.htm

Daphne said...

"Bukhari is not the Quran"

I am aware of that but he is an accepted authority by the vast majority of muslims. As his title Sahih clearly implies.

"And you are going back and forth on accusing Prophet Muhammed of supposedly saying things"

If you question any of the things I have attributed to Muhammad then ask and I will try to provide chapter & verse.

"With no understanding of Arabic to read the text in its original context, you attempt to assail the faith, the history of Islam and the contemporary realities of a diverse faith of over a billion adherents."

As I have already said. Refusing to acknowledge translations and saying the Koran should only be read in Arabic is a spurious argument which is made to keep power & knowledge in the hands of the imams.
Numbers do not count for me. I do not give a fig if the whole world becomes muslim. It is still a brutal ugly and intolerant faith suited only to powerful megalomaniacs and their dupes.

I have not said anything against muslims. I have met many who are good and kind hearted. But then many Germans in Nazi germany were also good kind hearted people who believed they were doing the right thing for their country. They were also duped. It worries me that muslims belong to a brutal religion whose founder preached hate, violence, racism and misigyny.

As to the violence in the Bible. I don't know if you are aware but I am neither a Jew or a christian and I agree with you about the violence in the Bible. In my opinion both books should be expurgated and have all the hatred, violence, racism & misogyny removed.
The reason I attack islam is because that is what this board is about. Besides which Christianity is diminishing in its power and has separated the church from the state. As I believe Judaism has. Islam with its Sharia law is more like a political party which does not recognise this separation. Therefore it is a highly dangerous religion as it seeks political power. Ans political power under sharia law wiould be no different from nazism. Worse. Because there is no possibility of assassinating the Islamic fuhrer.

serendipity92 said...

- mind you that Muslims are not just one group of people
- different ethnicities have different interpretations of the Koran
- If women were really meant to be sex objects and the carrier of children in Islam, we wouldn't have leaders like Benhazir Bhutto and Queen Rania of Jordan

jdamn13 said...

Oh, Serendipity92, where to start?

- mind you that Muslims are not just one group of people
- different ethnicities have different interpretations of the Koran


Actually, differences in interpretation are along sect lines, not ethnic lines. Your statement was true 100 years ago, but the fact of the matter is that Islam has really mobilized itself as a political movement to the extent that almost all Indonesian Muslims follow the doctrine of Hizb ut-Tahrir and 99.9% of the mosques and Islamic schools in North AMerica, Europe, and North AFrica are owned by the Muslim Brotherhood and funded by the Saudis. Whether or not they know it, almost all of the Muslims in all 3 continents are Salafists. That's why their ISlam differs from that of their parents and is infinitely more violent, more regressive, more radical, and more genuinely ISLAMIC. SO no, they're really not all that different, except that the Shi'ites are more concerned with killing just Jews that with everyone else too, and most Shi'ites in North AMerica, Europe, and Africa are Salafists too.

- If women were really meant to be sex objects and the carrier of children in Islam, we wouldn't have leaders like Benhazir Bhutto and Queen Rania of Jordan

Women are nothing more than vaginas in Islam. Read the Sharia civil law code. There are no 'women.' There are only 'vaginas.' Just like when their families pimp them into sex slavery their permission to penetrate ('marriage contract') explicitly refers to them as 'vaginas.' Muslim 'marriage' (sex slavery) is a business contract between a slave owner and a slave-buyer regarding money and a vagina. Read the Sharia permission to penetrate. WOmen exist in Islam as vaginas to rape and as wombs for Allah's army. Muslim women are to be nothing more than undead corpses who breed and perform manual labor. That's why the Muslim concept of female beauty, both on Earth and in the afterlife, hinges entirely upon the extent to which she is able to dehumanize herself into an undead corpse through silence, submission, and immobility. Muslim women are to be soulless, lack free will, and have no personality or opinion in Islam, just like the undead-corpse houris.

And how is Rainia anything more than a vagina/taqiyya machine? Has she helped the condition of women in Jordan? No. It's gotten considerably worse under her slave owner. She's a high-priced sex slave and nothing more. Like every Arab Muslim woman in the entire history of time she has never managed to be anything more than a vagina in practice. I keep waiting for someone to provide me with a counterexample and nobody has ever been able to. No wonder the Arabic words for 'woman' and 'vagina' are one and the same.

And as for Benazir Bhutto, she didn't earn her job. She inherited it from her father, so she's not an example of a legitimate success. And her legacy? She contributed nothing to this world but an increasingly Islamized Pakistan and 50,000 slaughtered native Hindu Kashmiris. Not opposing Musharraf's stealing the office via military coup was the right move for the free world to make. It's not a coincidence that within 2 days of having a Bhutto in office we're at full-on war with Pakistan. Read up on who Benazir Bhutto was here and here before you defend that sick monster.

And thereandbackagain, it's you who need to stop assuming. Why is it that every Muslim I have ever encountered anywhere has without exception operated on the assumption that non-Muslims are as ignorant and illiterate as your average Muslim? Seriously. We live in the free world and have legitimate educations, and we're not in a cult with pervasive milieu control. We read, we think, we live in the world. We discuss and challenge ideas. I know that's hard for you to imagine, but you can't hide the truth about Islam no matter how much you lie about it. Furthermore, non-Muslims who already know about Islam are uninclined to ever believe a Muslim. Not just because you guys lie to try to hide truth about your horrible death-cult, but because you come from a shame culture and therefore you have incredible difficulty living in reality with the rest of us and owning to your and your people's shortcomings, failures, and ineptitude. I would never claim that we're perfect, far from it, but we admit our failures and shortcomings, examine them along logical and truly, objectively moral lines, and we try to improve ourselves, and in the long-run we've always been successful. Muslims can never admit there's a problem, which is why from our perspective Muslim countries appear to be trapped in 10,000 BC. That's why Muslims never improve. That's why every Islamic paradise is shaded forever in backwardness and darkness.

ANd that passage that Daphne brought out is invoked in Sharia courts everyday to justify not just sex-slave beating, but murder and disfigurement, along with the one that says that husbands should not be asked why they hit their women. And your tu quoque arguments about Christianity and Judaism are irrelevant. No Jew or Christian has ever abused another individual and invoked some fake divine sanction to do so. And the Bible doesn't take matters of civil and criminal law like ISlam, because Christianity and Judaism are religions, whereas Islam is a cult which proscribes everything including which creepy-ass 'prayer' to say before you rape your cousin in a lame-ass position and during which time of the month for God's sake, then the proper procedure for washing after, since, of course, women are dirtier than dirt in Islam.