Ayaan Ali Hirsi and the Big Bad Wolf

#353 by masadi

[… I am not a homosexual to have a realationship with a male so you can give up your fantasy and finally if you are trying to locate where I am and you found ``newport news`` then you are hundreds of miles in error…]

On first glance you do appear to have a point. Now that Arjuna has pinned you down to within a hundred miles or so of Newport News, you are likely located either in Virginia or in North Carolina – neither of which two states entertains the formality of marriage between men – what to say of its consummation!!

However, you must not discount Arjuna’s ability to solve such problems.

Difficult as it may appear, it is NOT insurmountable!

The thing to worry about is not so much Arjuna’s direct promise of beating you up – whether consistent or otherwise with stipulations in the Book on that procedure.

The thing to worry about is also not so much his direct promise of marrying you (obviously against your wishes).

The true cause of worry is his implicit promise of marrying you CONSISTENT with the laws of the state.

By conducting the necessary gender change operation first!

re. ballukhan:
``It is well known that the western civil marriage courts order greator compensation and maintenance than any of your Hadith or non-Hadith inspired Islamic court do...``

Good point, there! Since Asadi goes to great pains to show how even the prescripton to beat (lightly, according to his reading) is actaully indicative of how humane and gender-equal Islam is on this matter, perhaps he would care to throw some light on the Qur`anic laws re. alimony and patrimony, and indeed, the grounds on which a man can, if he wishes, divorce his wife, who, in the Islamic scheme of things, is almost always dependent on him financially.

``The definition adjustment came after the structure adjustment so you cannot throw out a definition to prove anything, comprendey? ``


Asadi Miyan..........tumhara jawaab nahin hai!!!

Lol!!

In addition to #373, when half of all marriages attempted end in divorce, when marriage age is being pushed up, when fathers are missing from the household and mothers languish in poverty abandoned, when childbearing and sex outside of marriage becomes the norm, you cannot talk about a ``superior`` family instituion. Rather, due to its domination by the political economy, this family institution has been enslaved and is sick and dying in the US and most Western societies.

Re: # 374

``this family institution has been enslaved and is sick and dying in the US and most Western societies.``

Thanks God..............that horrible Patriarchal god ordained ``durable` institution called `Family` is breaking............and it is great to see some western cultures supporting the new families albeit slowly......... that is what the Islamists get worked up on, when people like Ayan Ali Hirsi speak against this horrible institution of a Patriarchal-Family` and the violence and slaverly that it offers to the women they start spouting nonsense about `durability` .....................we can all see how Asadi`s propaganda fits with the Anti-Hirsi propaganda on this board.............

#369 Ballukhan writes <<< ..........Asadi how did you get your graduation degree in Sociology I wonder? >>>

It is not ``graduation`` degree it is graduate degree. And unlike you who copy pastes from a website, I have actually read the books I give refs from in my writings. If anything and everything can be described as a family, it ceases to be a social institution. Institutions by definition are durable, unlike the modern day family, have been setup to perform functions for society- which is extremely blurry regarding the modern family, it does not provide for wealth consolidation, sexual regulation, economic provision, role teaching (when one or the other parent is missing that cannot be done) or any of the functions associated with the family. You marrying the rat that lives in your kitchen, that can just as easily be termed (symbolized) as a family but it does not make it so. As the family instituion has altered and become of a fluid structure, sociologists have adjusted their defintions. The definition adjustment came after the structure adjustment so you cannot throw out a definition to prove anything, comprendey?

Now, you have proved yourself to be an ignoramus and not much else, might I suggest politely that you quit humiliatiing yourself further by proving yourself to be a bigoted illiterate and leave this thread to people who care about genuinely sharing ideas, AH.

Re: # 373

``Institutions by definition are durable,``

You mean `durable` like my car..........Listen AH, you play around with words like REAL or `Durable` thinking people would be taken by your bombastic propaganda ............ I really doubt you have been reviewed by any of your academic peers. ............Social orders are not STATIC but dynamic and ever changing . Like a typical Islamist you assume a REAL social order which is ordained in some religious book and when the fact is that social orders keep on changing as per the economic and political situations of the day..............Each changed social order is as REAL as any of your godly ordained patriarchical Family with 4 wives and upteen number of slaves............ by calling modern civil family as SYMBOLIC you only indulge in the Islamist propaganda which we all hear from the uncouth ones...... except that now this propaganda is coming from somebody who like the Mullah Omar graduated from the western universities .............

A few `definitions` to decimate this AH`s propaganda against the modern day families:


``Society’s definition of ‘family’ is rapidly expanding and has come to include single parents, biracial couples, blended families, unrelated individuals living cooperatively, and homosexual couples, among others. Unfortunately, family policy has been slow to catch up to changing trends in modern lifestyles” (Crawford, 1999, p. 271).

“Ultimately, I define ‘family’ as the smallest, organized, durable network of kin and non-kin who interact daily, providing domestic needs of children and assuring their survival” (Stack, 1996, p. 31).

http://wfnetwork.bc.edu/glossary_entry.php?term=Family,%20Definition(s)%20of

Re: # 370

Asadi you not only throw unparallaled propaganda against modern day civil famlies which are far more `superior` and give greater freedom and choice to the women and men . The civil insitution of marriage gives greater protection to the women than what your Islamic Order (with or without Hadiths) would offer. You have been making wild claims without any substantiating empirical study. It is well known that the western civil marriage courts order greator compensation and maintenance than any of your Hadith or non-Hadith inspired Islamic court do.............not to talk about criminal prosecution for beating the wife in the name of Quran inspired `light` peck on the head............

buzz off to your madarassa than waste our time here with your nonsense.......You are an Islamist who has infilterated the American campus and needs to be weeded out.........

``when I said ``real`` families. ``

Listen Asadi AH please tell us what you mean by REAL families???


``When all functions and structures of families become fluid, it is reduced to mere symbolic value``

And then tell us all what are the `functions` and `structures` of family that are REAL and how a single working mother household is NOT a Family..........Asadi how did you get your graduation degree in Sociology I wonder?

ballukhan writes <<< this Asadi AH thinks that a REAL family means a patriarch with 4 wives.................and he says that he has taken a course in sociology!! >>>

Look AH, division of labor within a family has been set upon patriarchal lines based in a large part on biological precedent- men cannot bear children- this setup is the case not only in the US but in most human societies as well- that should have nothing to do with status, there would be no society without women. Further I never mentioned a 4 wives scenario with goats and cattle, when I said ``real`` families. When all functions and structures of families become fluid, it is reduced to mere symbolic value, as we see happening in most Western societies. I mentioned the 1950s in the US, how many goats were you hearding to make a living in that era?

And I have not taken ONE course in sociology, I happen to have a graduate degree in the subject and have taught it at the university level.

Attention Hamidm: Please review the quote from teshah scumbag that I posted below and advise if these disgraceful remarks he makes are the result of:

1. Reading the Quran,

or

2. Being raised in a home where no one taught him anything better.

Thank in advance for an honest reply.

teshah #354 ``Only a few like Bina would aspire to follow Mukhtaran Mai to achieve glamour, glory and wealth by parading themselves as victims of gang-rape. ``

Scum like you should be gang-raped. Then strung upside down and given a good solid chhittar beating in order to get a lifetime of shamelessness out of you.

Re: # 366

I would, of course, welcome being gang-raped but only by the opposite sex including, if you like, those you mentioned in you post. I won`t mind even `Chhitrol` after that.

Faiz had said:

Aae kuchh abr kuchh shirab aae
phir iske bahd aae jo azaab aae

BTW, are those good ladies related to you? The way you took offence on my post it appears that you are a low-caste brat and Mai is your real sister as it was her family who took her to the punchayat whereby she was allegedly gang-raped by Mastoies. Why don`t you try yourself the charishma of Mastoies` rape which has made Mai the envy of all women, nay, a role-model of a sort. They, the Mastoies, would be saying:

Ham ko duaaein do tujhe qaatil bana dia

In fact you are showing the same attributes.

``By that I meant making the family with its roles and status REAL, nowadays it is merely symbolic ``

this Asadi AH thinks that a REAL family means a patriarch with 4 wives.................and he says that he has taken a course in sociology!!

#347 Netizen: thus proving you are another empty matka from India who can call names but hides in a closet when asked to back his namecalling with a simple cut and paste. and thus inadvertantly but most definitely you prove that for you - as it true for too many ``educated`` hindus on chowk - being a muslim and being comfortable with being a muslim is enough to label a man an evil ``mullah``.

bye bye.