Ayaan Ali Hirsi and the Big Bad Wolf

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 .....

#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)

Re: # 215 by masadi on July 3, 2006 7:44pm PT

Do women have any right to strike a man? ever?

Even if he does not make those pancakes as sanctioned, then what is she supposed to do?

Respectfully submitted,

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.............

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,

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.`

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.

#186 by masadi on July 3, 2006 1:09pm PT


http://women.rationalreality.com


Having a domain women.rationalreality.com doesn`t trump the reality of how women are treated by the majority of the Islamic world..as second class citizens..

either Islam condones this or a majority of muslims really suck at being muslim... including the land of the Islam`s holiest shrines and Pakiland, the land of allah`s chosen people...

well #205: Khadeeja`s (mohammad`s first wife) uncle Warqa Bin Nofal who was some sort of amateur mulla on judeo-christian sciptures preempted Allah Mian. So Allah had to send his angel to mecca as opposed to any x y z residing in subsaharan africa or china or siberia.

Without Nofal, Mohammad wouldnot have been able to decode the divine signal out of schizoid noise.

Re: # 206

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

regards,

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``.

one question lingers in my mind.

while did allah sent jibran to mo, inspite of knowing that mo has ``eccentricites``. why not send the message to someone who is not ``eccentric``. maybe some chinese guy, some aborigine feom siberia.... just a thought.

maybe my paki cousins can discuss it among themselves after jumma prayers and those fortunate to come back alive can give us the details.

mailk
[....Is there a person, current or historical, whose example you would have her follow?...]

Yes - Jinnah.... he was the perfect person [or so YLH tells us].. Now - let`s see if you can dig some dirt on him.... :))

rf786:

regarding your explanation about verse 4:3 (?),

you give some thoughts and then say something like ``compared`` to talmud and christians texts (?).

what is this: picking the least worst ``message`` of the god? surprisingly, its the same god who has sent these varying messages.

also, you are missing the point

you dont have to pick a message if it is incongruent to the reality and the totally out of whack with today`s world. however, less non-sensical it sounds.

simply because our parents said that the guy who came on a donkey had answer for all humanity or a monkey could fly across a strait doesn`t mean we follow it with blind faith.

why can`t we just use our one common sense, may be none of the potions suggested in the medieval and dark ages are applicable today!!!

bj,

...... no, i take that back - you DO NOT understand my dilemma ! ........ here i am, at home wasting my time on the chowk and not getting anywhere ........ at about three pm the alcohol level in my blood gets dangerously low and guess what do i do ?..... i know a hundred pathetic pakis whose honor i am trying to protect and i end up calling a fuc&in horrible hindoo to see if he can meet me at the bar ............ the first one i call is willing to drop whatever he is not doing (most desis do that the best - nothing!) and drives fifteen miles to have a drink with a mozlee, or whatever it is that you call us ......... on top of that he picks up the tab ........ tahmed just doesn`t understand the sacrifices i am making to defend him .......... ingrate !

#166 by malik99

[Couple of sincere questions hamidm sahib. Would you like her to follow your example? Is there a person, current or historical, whose example you would have her follow? I am fairly confident that you name me a potential role model for her, and I will be able to dig out some dirt on that person, even if that person is virgin Mary :)]


Yes of course. The very persuasive nobody-is-perfect line of argument. Jack the Ripper tried that line on the judge. Strangely enough, the judge wasn`t convinced.

Go figure!