Ayaan Ali Hirsi and the Big Bad Wolf

Re: # 222

Bina...........no need to accuse ``men`` in order to hide your own prejudices and collaboration with the Islamists who are constantly trying to pull down their critics.....................you must be promoting the Ferhat Hashmi designed hizabs...............

Hello Chowkies:

I have been following these interacts with great interest. You can call me an apologist, an extremist, and an Islamist until you`re blue in the face: Interesting how those of you who are doing that the loudest are the ones who claim to be in favor of women`s rights. But when a woman actually speaks up, you just want her to shut up. Interesting, indeed...

I just want to say one thing about verse 4:34. The word ``daraba`` has been translated as ``strike`` but it has thirty other meanings, including ``to separate from``. How about reading 4:34 and using the word ``separate from (them)`` instead of ``strike (them)``? You`ll find the verse making complete sense if you do. Especially given the fact that 4:35 talks about the proceedings for divorce and arbitration, which is a clear follow-through to verse 4:34 in that context.

``Nushuz`` is the word that has been interpreted to mean ``rebellion`` - and further interpreted to mean chastity and faithfulness to the husband. However, this is also not a correct interpretation. ``Nushuz`` refers to any behavior that may endanger the marriage - not sexual chastity. What`s interesting, however, is that a few verses later women are also instructed that if there is ``nushuz`` on the man`s part, they can separate (Verse 4:128, 130).

It`s amazing to me that the men on this board are discussing the emancipation of women with such passion when it`s men just like you that have been screwing up women`s lives for centuries and using any and all holy scripture (Bible, Quran, Torah, Bhagvad Gita) to justify it. This is what I meant when I said that ``Islam cannot be used to justify oppression over women or their bodies or their futures``. Patriarchy, like terrorism, knows no religion, but certainly finds it convenient to hide behind scripture to justify its evil actions.

Finally, for those of you who want to talk about the Quran, you all really need to study it properly instead of spouting off the nonsense and tripe that`s been force-fed to you by half-wit illiterates. Or are you all just too lazy to actually do some thinking for yourselves and find it easier to just regurgitate something you half-remember from studying maybe forty years ago with some dopey Maulvi?

#209 by sadna on July 3, 2006 6:12pm PT


Watched a TV program where Pervez Hoodbhoy said how about the 5 billion nonMuslims of the world, will they go to hell?


You probably already know this but it`s the same in christianity...only way to heaven is through JC..rest go to hell by default..adolf accepts JC..adolf goes to heaven..

#218, #219 by hamidm2

[…tomorrow, right after breakfast, i am going to strike mrs hamidm]

Ama yaar, before you build up the courage to strike that first blow to Ma’m Hamidm2, why don’t you practice some on the author of the current piece – Ms. Shah?!

I assure you – she will provide you much more legitimate grounds for such a drastic course of action than the gentle soul Mrs. ever could – even in a hundred lives!

Even more importantly, based on her track record here on this board – there is absolutely no chance that she will ever dare to stick her neck out and try to defend herself!

Hiding in caves is much easier for some creature than others – and they don’t have to be all rodents to accomplish that feat!

Squeak, squeak!

I mean – cluck, cluck!

beating plan on hold (for now) ........

...... mrs hamidm just informed me that i have to get up early tomorrow morning and make pancakes for the four thirteen year olds who are sleeping over tonight ........... i tried to argue, but she said, ``The Koran has given some duty preference to women over men`` ........... and according to her interpretation pancakes is in a man`s domain while women make toast only ......

...... i wonder if maulana masadi gets any toast .......burnt, i suppose ......

beat her !


according to maulana masadi ``the Koran suggests that the husband strike her, for her own benefit`` ............ so tomorrow, right after breakfast, i am going to strike mrs hamidm and when she asks me why, i will tell her, `` woman ! don`t you know that al-lah, the father of three daughters, says in the koran that it is for your own benefit `` .......... it is for your own benefit .... benefit ..... benefit ....

........ let`s see what happens ....... it was nice knowing you all .....

Re: # 206

Kachchi dhool ji, are you a msulim, by any chance ?
Your knowledge on the cult is more-then-average.

regards,

Re: # 215

``.....little wonder the the vast majority of the poor in the US are single women bringing up children- care to explain that? ``

My, my!! now you speak like a real mullah....single women are poor every where because bigots like you subdue them and consider them as: inferior, unfit for important jobs , un-competitive or worse - rising to the top by `sleeping around`..................... mouthing propaganda nth number of time does not make it either ``rational`` or ``real``......... Maulana Asadi ! you remain on the top of the dung hill as the torch bearer to the bigots.............

#214 ballukhan writes <<< You come out as a bigoted mullah who cannot even understand the `principles` behind the verse >>>

Like I said, these people are masters at deception because all knowledge stumps them. He reproduces part of what I wrote, which was the explanation of the Quran`s statement `` given preference to one over the other``- which the bigots interpret as saying that MEN are preferred over women. That verse is not even remotely talking about that. As the context makes clear it is talking about duty preference. Now, the Quran does not stop women from working to earn their living, it says clearly, ``for men what they earn and for women what they earn,`` etc, but it is being realistic when it relegates to a man the duty to provide for the household given patriarchal societies- little wonder the the vast majority of the poor in the US are single women bringing up children- care to explain that?

Since this idiot is bent upon deception let me copy/paste the entire section that he deliberately distorts, and you all can see from his distortion the miserable liar that he is:

<<<< (quote) from http://women.rationalreality.com

The verse in the Koran that causes trouble to most liberals and is misused by evangelical Christians is:

``Men are the protectors (Qawamoon) of women, because God has given preference to some over others. And because men spend of their property on women. So good women are obedient, guarding even unnoticed that what Allah (God) has asked them to guard. As for those from whom you fear rebellion in this (i.e. guarding their chastity in your absence), i) talk to them, ii) leave them alone in their beds, iii) strike them. If they then obey you, look not for any way against them.. (Koran 4:34).``

The verse in question is quite clear if we don`t jump to hasty conclusions. Men have been given the duty to protect and support women. God has given preference to one gender over another in certain duties. Men have been given preference in being the providers of women and women are given preference in caring for a child. Even if divorce separates a man from his wife, he has to seek her help in caring for the child or another female if the mother agrees (Koran 2:233). Men are told to spend of their property on women and not ask the woman for anything even if she happens to be rich.


Now to the controversial part: The verse asks women to guard even when unnoticed, that which God has asked them to guard. If we have read the Koran carefully, we won`t have trouble in determining that God specifically asks women and men to ``guard`` their chastity (Koran 24:30-31). To the women who cheat on their husbands, the Koran gives a three step, braking mechanism to hasty divorce or worse still capital punishment for adultery.


Step one, the husband should talk to the wife and try to resolve it. Usually, given men`s image in popular culture, step one would normally be shouting and cursing and maybe even hitting. Around four million women in the US are severally battered each year. Two to four thousand of them die. Rather unfortunate and avoidable if a braking mechanism exists for people exercising their emotions. Contrary to this, the Koran suggests that talk be the first option.


Step two, the Koran recommends that marital relations be temporarily stopped between the couple, if cheating persists even after a talk. This would give the woman further opportunity to consider if she`d rather separate from the man and provide for herself after divorce or if she`d rather stay in the current marriage. If however the couple want to separate, which most people would if there was cheating going on, the Koran states in the next verse:

``And if you fear a breach between the two (husband and wife), appoint an arbiter from his family and an arbiter from her family. If they(husband and wife) desire amendment, God will make them of one mind. For God is Knowing and is Aware (Koran4:35).``

If however, the woman wants to stay with the man but doesn`t quit cheating, i.e. break up the extra marital relationship then the Koran says resort to Step three, which is implicitly for the woman`s own benefit especially in an economically harsh environment. In step three, the Koran says strike them. The word used signifies a single symbolic strike. The word strike in the verse does not represent beating up in any way. It is not supposed to injure the woman but is meant to be symbolic. Thus the same word Darab,is used in the Koran to ``strike or hit`` someone with an example, Darab al imsal (Koran 66:11). If it injures the woman than the woman according to law can have the authorities retaliate against the man as he would have broken the law, as for injury there is equal retribution according to the Koran [Koran 5:45].

Here is the situation that warrants step three: the woman doesn`t want to end the current marriage and also doesn`t want to put an end to her cheating episodes, the Koran suggests that the husband strike her, for her own benefit. This is very liberal. The woman on her own would be under financial hardship and so she wants to use the current marriage relationship. However she also doesn`t want to quit cheating on her husband. People, men or women normally aren`t so forgiving as to keep the marriage and accept that the other party remains cheating. Something has to be done to make the relationship compatible, after both talking and temporarily halting marital relationship hasn`t worked. However, in all sincerity, I can state confidently that step 3 will never arise since both the man and the woman are free to end the relationship during the course of step 1 and step 2.


The Koran by making the symbolic strike step 3 is actually controlling human tendency of hitting,given popular culture, which usually come before talking and reasoning. It makes it virtually impossible that a man going through 1 and 2 will resort to 3 also and not break the marriage before. Where there are difficulties that need to be settled, the Koran provides a very modern and just arbitration system (see above Koran 4:35). The Koran is concerned to the utmost about women`s rights. Human society has usually not given equal opportunity to women, even today in the west. The Koran wants to protect women in a harsh society and at the same time change men`s ``control-oriented`` minds to one that is more reasonable. The method the Koran uses is more result oriented than dogmatic, where both parties are dealt with equitably and with justice.

By making the strike step 3 the Koran effectively controls the anger emotion that is often spontaneous in such situations. Good reasoning and communication, arbitration to settle differences and short suspension of marital relations should effectively do away with any tendency to hit. The Koran is thus not just putting a count of ten between a man and his anger but days and weeks between it. It thus gives anger and mistrusts a long time and a systematic procedure to get reasonable resolved.

Contrary to being discriminatory towards women, this law can be seen as discriminating against men [if everything else were equal, ceteris paribus] as it asks them to hold on to women that cheat in marriage with them, in order to protect the woman. However since it compensates for the ``advantage`` that men initially have in society, it is very egalitarian and not discriminatory towards either side.

Compare the Koran`s breaking mechanism for controlling anger to the fact that wife beating was not outlawed in the United States until 1871 [over 13 centuries after the Koran]. Even after being outlawed, in the absence of such procedures contained in the Koran, domestic violence affects at least a third of all women in the United States over four million annually [this figure is over 80% under represented as most cases go unreported] (Newman 1998). According to the FBI Uniform Crime Report of 1991, it is the leading cause of injury to women 15 to 44. Over a third of women who die in the United States die at the hands of husbands or boyfriends (Kilbourne 1999). I can confidently state that if such a procedure as the Koran presented was internalized and implemented, not only would women not get injured, there would be more talking and communication and little or no violence in the home, and poverty and the fall in the standard of living of a woman due to divorce would be reduced. The system prescribed by the Koran works where just saying, ``Don`t do it`` would not and has not.


This attitude of the Koran to protect women in an economically harsh environment is seen in many places throughout the book. For example, men married to women who then become guilty of lesbianism or bisexuality are told not to throw the women out of their homes but to keep them there till some way is found (Koran 24:3).


The Koran has given some duty preference to men over women and some to women over men. This was mentioned briefly before. However, this doesn`t mean that the Koran forbids women from earning their livelihood if they have no man to support them. Koran 4:22 for example states that for men is what they earn and for women what they earn and that both men and women should seek God`s bounty collectively.

(end quote)>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (from http://women.rationalreality.com)

Asadi Saheb,

on your exalted site I found your exposition of 4:34 :

``The verse in question is quite clear if we don`t jump to hasty conclusions. Men have been given the duty to protect and support women. God has given preference to one gender over another in certain duties. Men have been given preference in being the providers of women and women are given preference in caring for a child. ``

In your interpretation of 4:34 I could see was this stupid mullah ``reality``:

1. Men have been given the duty to protect and support women.

2.God has given preference to men over women (in certain duties).

3. women are given preference in caring for a child.


You come out as a bigoted mullah who cannot even understand the `principles` behind the verse. Remember that the Holy Prophet (PBUH) remained loyal to Khadija and subdued before he wife because she was providing for him.......by the same principles a working women in the modern world who equally contributes to the household economy has the right to claim obedience and (light) violence on her men....think clearly and you may see the light and apply the principles that can be derived from the Holy Quran to the modern world more `rationally`......


regards,

Re: # 186

Asadi Saheb,

Calling your ``reality`` as ``rational`` is the cheapest propaganda ploy.............much like your ``pure`` land....................

infact my interpretation of 4:34 is much more ``rational`` because it culls out the `principles` behind the verse`s recommendations and applies it to the modern world..................

So , if you have a wife from whom you draw sustenance because she pays for your bills or cooks for you and does your laundery then you should be obedient to her and accept her (light) spankings................

Let the khusraa clones of AyanaliHearsay enjoy the Netherland nose rubbed in dirt. This shall be the fate of all Secularoons, Liberaloons, & Munaafiquoons.

The Kanjar lifestyle aka Westernism is no longer ``in``--the The Imperial & colonial baboons are retreating to their Darwin-Dads.

---

BERLIN, Germany (UPI) -- The Netherlands has been plunged into a serious political and social crisis after the collapse last week of the center-right coalition government in the row over the citizenship of Islam critic Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Dutch Queen Beatrix Saturday handed the job to form a new government to Ruud Lubbers, the country`s prime minister from 1982 to 1994. But even Lubbers, one of the most veteran Dutch politicians, will not be able to eradicate the inherent weakness that has gripped the country`s governments of the past years.

The Dutch government has now collapsed for the third time since April 2002, with Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende failing to keep his team together.

The political instability in the Netherlands has seriously damaged the country`s image. Moreover, with the row over Hirsi Ali`s citizenship bringing down the government, Amsterdam has been accused of bowing to radical Islam.

Prof. James Kennedy of Amsterdam`s Free University told Radio Netherlands: `(Hirsi Ali) is regarded in the United States as an important critic of Islam who`s had her mouth gagged in the Netherlands,` he said. `I think this is a misconception of what`s happened here in the Netherlands, but it hasn`t done the country`s reputation any good. The Netherlands now has the image of being a country which has a problem with tolerance and which doesn`t allow different opinions.`

Since arriving in the Netherlands in 1992, Hirsi Ali has been a fierce but controversial critic of Islamic fundamentalism; she has called on immigrants coming to Europe to assimilate or leave, and once worked with Dutch director Theo van Gogh on an incendiary short film called `Submission,` which depicted the abuse of Muslim women.

The film angered radical Islamists so much that Mohammed Bouyeri, a Dutch-born Muslim, in 2004 stabbed van Gogh to death. Bouyeri left behind a death threat addressed to Hirsi Ali pinned to the director`s bloody chest.

The case of the slender, attractive woman had initially unleashed a wave of anger at the Somali-born former lawmaker: When a TV show earlier this year punched holes into her story of an honest immigrant and exposed her as giving false information upon her arrival in the Netherlands in 1992, much of the country felt betrayed, prompting Interior Minister Rita Verdonk to announce she would strip Hirsi Ali of her citizenship.

But the tide soon turned, after Dutch cultural and political figures called on Verdonk to revoke the decision. After calls for her resignation became louder, Verdonk last week announced Hirsi Ali could keep her citizenship. By that time, however, her role in the scandal had evolved into a catastrophe for the government.

After Verdonk`s party, the conservative VVD (also Hirsi Ali`s former party), stood by the immigration minister, the small D66 coalition partner resigned, rendering Balkenende`s coalition a minority government. The prime minister had no choice but to call for dissolution of his coalition.

The likely outcome is a minority government of the Christian Democrat Alliance and the VVD, and an election in November, said Jos de Beus, a political scientist at the University of Amsterdam.

The two remaining government parties, Balkenende`s Christian Democrats and the VVD, have said they would like a `grace period` to deliver the country`s budget and organize a Dutch mission to aid United Nations forces in Afghanistan.

The opposition center-left Social Democrats had initially called for elections as early as September, but now seems to accept the grace period, de Beus said.

The government, which would be led by Balkenende, would lack five seats to a majority in the 150-seat lower house but has been informally assured the support of the LPF party, a smaller group founded by the murdered populist Pim Fortuyn, which used to play a strong role in government but has since lost voters.

`The LPF would hate to see the Social Democrats in government,` de Beus told United Press International in a telephone interview, adding that by supporting the minority government, `it would be the LPF`s last chance to matter.`

De Beus added the elections would be `a totally open fight,` after the Social Democrats some months ago had led all opinion polls. Thanks to an improving economy, however, the Christian Democrats recently made up for lost ground.

But the international community still scoffs at the political instability in the Netherlands, which de Beus says is caused mainly by an increased level of populism.

`Mrs. Hirsi Ali is a populist Islam critic who is against appeasement policy toward Islam, and Mrs. Verdonk is a neo-conservative who is very tough on immigration,` he told UPI. `The gamble of the political elite in Holland to include populist parties has clearly destabilized politics.`

De Beus added he was in favor of a grand coalition, based on the German model, between Holland`s two biggest parties.

`But we will have to see if the voters and the political leaders are ready for that,` he said.

And the crisis in the Netherlands has reached beyond politics into everyday life; observers say the country in the past years had turned from a tolerant, multicultural society into one dominated by xenophobia. Some 1 million Muslims live in the Netherlands -- a very high number for such a small country.

The Netherlands had long been praised as Europe`s beacon of tolerance, with predominantly liberal views and relaxed immigration laws. But that may be over now, de Beus said.

`Most countries in Europe have had an identity crisis for long and a problem of how to treat its immigrants,` de Beus said, noting the examples of Britain, France and Germany. `While Holland had been the odd boy out, it is no role model anymore. Holland`s model is obsolete.`

He asserted that the Netherlands has to prepare for instability, much like in France, where immigrant youth took to the streets last year in protest of lackluster social conditions.

`The Dutch may have only one way out,` he said. `And that`s open and radical debate.`

Re: # 210

balluji:

``coming from hindoos whose puranas are full of mindless violence and bigotry........... ``

fortunately puranas are not the ``words of god himself`` they are dispensable.

when was the last time you heard a hindoo reciting puranas....... or claiming that those texts are the final words of god to humanity.

contrary to that, al-koran is the ``word of the god himself`` to humans till eternity.

Isn`t it scary !!!!!!!!!!

Re: # 191

No need to spout hatred around ......... coming from hindoos whose puranas are full of mindless violence and bigotry...........

Watched a TV program where Pervez Hoodbhoy said how about the 5 billion nonMuslims of the world, will they go to hell? How about Hindus and Ahmedis? The religious scholars there were unequivocal- accepting Islam is the primary method. Those who did not have the opportunity to know about the Prophet and his message and become Muslims would be judged based on those extenuating circumstances. Those who did ``know`` about the finality of the Prophet and his message and still did not accept Islam will be punished. I am not sure what they mean by ``those who know``- do they mean ``those who have been told``, which is very different?

Pervez Hoodbhoy said but these were matters of faith and belief and how about those with a natural-born inclination to question and look for proof of who is a prophet and who is not? The religious scholars` answers were 1) questioning is usually done with mischievous intent because the proof of finality of the Prophet and message exists but still the questioner questions for the sake of questioning. 2) it is not a question of faith and belief because the Quran proves the finality of the Prophet and his message.

Pervez Hoodbhoy said but what is to happen in the hereafter is to be judged in the hereafter, not here. The religious scholar`s reply was well just like scientists express their points of view on scientific matters, so too do we have a right to express our opinions on these matters.

A couple of points.
1. These were normally `moderate` clerics, yet it is no surprise that they make it clear that people who don`t accept Islam inspite of being told to do so, have it coming to them. They wouldn`t be clerics if they didn`t think so. But still, to draw such distinctions between man and man and to give one set a higher `moral` standing than the rest on public TV ?

2. It is a wonderful circular argument - if you don`t see the proof of the divinity of the message and finality of Prophet in the Quran then you are either an apostate/heretic(if Muslim) or a wilful disbeliever (if nonMuslim) and always of a ``lower`` moral standing whatever you do. The guy demanding that you accept the message and accusing you of wilfully rejecting it inspite of being told about it, is always of a ``higher`` moral standing whatever he does.

3. Once such reasoning is brought into civic life, public affairs or public law, it is the start of a slippery slope. Defending the ``true`` message acquires a ``higher`` moral standing than defending the lives of people of ``lower`` moral standing aka mischievous questioners, apostates and nonbelievers.

4. The only way out of this circular reason that I see for people like Pervez Hoodbhoy, who I presume are believers in equal rights for all irrespective of religion is to press for individual rights for all, instead of trying to negotiate with the circularly reasoned ``god-given`` rights of the ``Muslim collective``.

I am reminded of evangelist Christians who of course have the same circular arguments about why one must convert to Christianity, but they don`t go to such lengths to put others down in day to day civic interactions. Hindus do have the still-alive tradition of putting down people of `lower` castes than themselves as having ``lower`` moral standing than themselves, but Hindus decided long ago that that was to be dispensed with in public affairs and for whatever its worth, discrimination based on caste has been made illegal in the Constitution.

Re: # 206

is allah a common noun (``god`` in arabic``) or it is the name of the god?

i also read that allah was a pagan arab god before being made a god of muslims by mo. mo wanted him to take the same position as christians ``god``.