Ayaan Ali Hirsi and the Big Bad Wolf

``.......and lives are being sacrificed at their altar. ``


Please substantiate your propaganda !!

``why is it that you think young girls are having more kids today than in the 1950s, what has changed? ``


Please enlighten us with your thesis along with empirical studies on this phenomenon.

``Did I say implenent the Quranic system? I know it would work better because it is a much superior system regarding the family to the BS we see today, but I did not mean that by institutional restructuring. ``

How is the Quranic system ``superior``? Please provide empirical studies to prove what you say.

``By that I meant making the family with its roles and status REAL, nowadays it is merely symbolic and that can never happen when the family as an institution is subordinate to the military and economic institutions. ``

What do you mean `REAL`.? What do you mean `symbolic`- family structure you talk about was moulded aroun the stupid goat and sheep economy with occassional loots and slave pushing - the term `family` has changed ....it is as REAL as anything else ............and your 4 wives and lots of slave is NOT the `family` modern educated people refer to!!! Stop pushing your unsubstantiated propaganda and buzz off to your madarassa.........

``Right now, society is designed for maximum benefit of a tiny elite and families and lives are being sacrificed at their altar. Families and societies don`t fluorish in this fashion and can never fluorish in this fashion. ``

Families have always been in sync with the prevalant religious , economic, political or legal order- to say that the modern FAMILY is an UNREAL family is another propaganda Islamists like you spread.............your `preferred` 4 wives 40 sheep and 20 slaves `Family` was a product of a specific economic-political order and gets destroyed when the economy and political order changes................the modern single woman `FAmily` is AS REAL as your tribal order you Islamists talk about..........

Re: #147 by zeemax on July 3, 2006 9:46am PT

{... Muhammad himself never went any further than that when Hafsa and Aisha both together made his life miserable once and he took to sleeping on a mat in the mosque. I don`t know of any instance when Muhammad hit any of his wives. Do you?}

How old was Muhammad, when Khadija passed away? Maybe his older age had something to do with it? And all these other women that came into his life was after Khadija`s death, correct?

Respectfully submitted,

#358 ballukhan writes <<< precisely the point of that AH Asadi as well.......... >>>

That was not my point at all. Mahr does not mean its open season for males to do whatever the hell they want with their wife. I never suggested any such thing at all. Once again this AH, stumped by knowledge attributes things to me for deception purposes

#359 soysauce writes <<< Assuming you`re right that there`s not the social structure to support poor families headed by single moms, there are some obvious approaches: 1. follow the northern european model of a welfare state where single moms either don`t have to work or have state support in raising children; 2. discourage young girls with little education or skills from having children - abstinence education, contraception, and abortion; >>

Your question is not a topic of discussion here, I will address it briefly but I suggest you all, including the two AHs ballukhan and hamidm return to the topic and address your questions to the author, you all have dragged me into this distractive discussion long enough. Your point of a welfare state will do nothing to strengthen families, it will break them up exactly what we see happening in the model you refer to regarding 2. why is it that you think young girls are having more kids today than in the 1950s, what has changed? What has changed is the structure of the family because of corporate intrusion and as that changed we saw poverty, regardless of any welfare, concentratiing among the famale population in the US. What would I do? Did I say implenent the Quranic system? I know it would work better because it is a much superior system regarding the family to the BS we see today, but I did not mean that by institutional restructuring. By that I meant making the family with its roles and status REAL, nowadays it is merely symbolic and that can never happen when the family as an institution is subordinate to the military and economic institutions. Right now, society is designed for maximum benefit of a tiny elite and families and lives are being sacrificed at their altar. Families and societies don`t fluorish in this fashion and can never fluorish in this fashion.

Now, I have said enough on this board, direct your questions elsewhere and ask the Chowk editors to give up their censorship and I might submit an article on the issue and we can interact on it then.

#353 masadi
Assuming you`re right that there`s not the social structure to support poor families headed by single moms, there are some obvious approaches: 1. follow the northern european model of a welfare state where single moms either don`t have to work or have state support in raising children; 2. discourage young girls with little education or skills from having children - abstinence education, contraception, and abortion; 3. Adopt the koranic model, whatever that is. Are there more? How would you go about this?

#351 by arjun_m <<<

How about I come down to newport news and slap you in a way that won`t injure you..the way the koran says a husband is allowed to slap his wife...

can we practice what you preach? >>>


What can we expect from idiots but BS. Firstly you are not my wife or husband, secondly if you are not my husband or wife how can I cheat on you for you to carry on the system prescirbed by the Quran, and third, 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 and if the chowk editors are helping you locate me, I will be informing this breach to local authorities.

soysauce writes <<< masadi,
There`s not the grinding poverty in the US of the kind you see in 3rd world countries >>>

Actually it is much worse given relative deprivation and lack of family, especially among women. I know the poverty situation in the country quite well, I have studied and documented it thoroughly, you don`t have to inform me about it.

masadi,
There`s not the grinding poverty in the US of the kind you see in 3rd world countries. Even the homeless can take showers, stand in line at food banks and soup kitchens, and sleep in shelters on cold nights. Compared to the society as a whole, yes, the poor have it bad, but there is also so much more by way of social services and charity in this country.
Are you really that concerned about the society here (in the US)?

Re: # 352

``Are you really that concerned about the society here (in the US)?``

great satire soy ji..........:)

Re: # 352

``Are you really that concerned about the society here (in the US)?``

great satire soy ji..........:)

#350 by masadi on July 5, 2006 3:55pm PT

How about I come down to newport news and slap you in a way that won`t injure you..the way the koran says a husband is allowed to slap his wife...

can we practice what you preach?

Re: # 351

You`d have to marry him first (shudder)

<< That said, I am still not convinced about the `symbolic hitting` bit >>>

If your mother were to cheat on your father, and he talked to her asking her to stop but she persisted and then he quit marital relationships temporarily with her and asked her to quit and she persisted, and then finally he slapped her, the word used there is singular and it cannot injure the woman because that would be breaking another law, you find that too hard to comprehend? The woman would probably slap the man the first time she discovered he was carrying on with someone else and walk out of the relationship, here the man is being asked to be patient and forgiving.

Regarding concubines, ``maa malakat eemanokum`` does not signify concubine in any way, it signifies a pledge or a promise, the only difference between that and the nikaah based marriage is property sharing~ here again this law is enacted for the benefit of women who would otherwise have no family life.

Regarding hamidm`s caricature of poverty stricken single moms, that phenomenon is not race specific and in a society where most of the poor get minimum wage jobs and day care costs at a mimimum $6k a year, how will they exist on that meagre pay? Shore (the idiot) says they can visit a social service agency, what is their reach and have they made even a small dent in the population of the poor in this country. The answer is, they are mere distraction and nothing else and the so called social workers are giving people similar c@ck and bull stories like hamidm when fixing the problems requires institutional restructuring. And let me tell you, when you take away the function of the family and blur the roles that exist therein, families breakup, the family institution is weakend and that is exactly what the corporate economy is doing and we see its effects. They benefit, WOMEN lose almost all the time even though they carry happy images of ``liberation`` that does not exist in this society at all.

Re: # 350

`` They benefit, WOMEN lose almost all the time...........``

Lol............Boom-boom saheb and Asadi actaully mean the same. For them the dirty Amercian Capitalism alias Corporate Culture is destroying their control over their `family` of 4 wives and 40 sheeps . They are unanimous in their pity over the `liberated` women who earn as much as their spouses and do not change the nappies of the kids......... and on the top of all this they do not even allow him a light admonishing tap on their wives heads..............durty Amercian Capaitalists!!

IMO, Churchill`s opinion was the ``orientalist`` opinion of a century ago which one guesses Muslims like Bin Laden have themselves bought into as their self-image, a bit like if hindoos bought into Kiplingesque ``orientalist`` cariacatures of themselves as ``natives``(actually Kipling was among the more understanding of the orientalists).

For example, ``sluggish habits of commerce`` particularly doesn`t fit for example Gulf Arabs in the 20th century. Let us not forget Churchill created a lot of the current problems in the Middle East with his ``creation of nations before lunch`` attitude.

Ultimately people ought to be judged by their own actions not by what some dead white guy they never met said long ago(and this applies to religion too).

``So maybe Lord Churchill wasnt right all of the time.``

---

it seems an akward way of admitting that he might be right some times...particular this time under discussion?

guys guys...don`t get mad at Bina...Bina is probably alright a person...this is her annual I-am-muslim-too article..we know many muslim writers have to throw one of these once in a while to redeem themselves in the eyes of their ummah..or their own peers and immediate family....some times it is guilt of living a good life....even our Hamidm sahib has to throw mandateory rat worshiping dark hindus disclaimer in his posts once in a while...without such disclaimers what will people like Hamidm and Bina be? just another Arjun, gujju or at the best a Sadna. :)

BUT her biggest crime is to justify the murder of Theo Van Gogh...cast the blame on Hirsi Ali for it and indrectly instigiate the justification of such behaviour of killing people you don`t agree with. I think this is inexcusable..particularly since she claims to be a writer herself. Biggest weapon a writer has the truth..not the half truth. She had used half truth about Hirsi Ali (about her immigration scandal) and ingnored the whole truth of Hirsi Ali.