Ladies Logic

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Sammenhold (or Offensive? Redux)

Two years ago (WOW has it been that long?) I joined a long list of bloggers writing about the Islamic world's over-reaction to a bunch of crass, tasteless editorial cartoons that appeared in the Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten. At the time I chastised our western media for their less than consistent reaction to the offense.


I am saddened, but not surprised, that our American media has choosen to kow-tow
to the fascists in radical Islam. For they are only more than willing to hand over their "cherished" free expression to a regime as long as that regime holds fast to the presses anti American sentiment. Shame on the US Media!

Now in the two years that have passed since Michelle Malkin's first Sammenhold blog burst, we have gotten some members of the media to admit what we have long suspected - that the media is afraid to criticize Islam, however we have also seen that the blogosphere has no such fear.

Jyllands Posten and every other paper that ran the cartoons two years ago apologized for "offending" the religion of the perpetually offended. Not content with that apology and burning down half of Paris (and any other city with a large Islamic population), a few members of the "Religion of Peace" decided to impose a little "justice" on cartoonist Kurt Westergaard (who drew the cartoon below).



This week, 5 European newspapers reprinted the "Mohammed cartoons" in a display of solidarity for Jyllands Posten and Kurt Westergaard and free speech everywhere!

Berlingske Tidende, was one of the newspapers involved in the republication by newspapers in Denmark. It said: "We are doing this to document what is at stake in this case, and to unambiguously back and support the freedom of speech that we as a newspaper always will defend," in comments reported by The Associated Press.

In a renewed spirit of Sammenhold (for Mr. Westergaard and Jyllands Posten), I am joining Michelle and Captain Ed in showing our solidarity for Mr. Westergaard, Jyllands Posten and every other paper that has reprinted the Mohammed cartoons in the last week. It is time for the religion of the perputally offended to "grow up" and learn to take editorial cartoons like the rest of the world does. With a shurg and a resounding "WHATEVER...."

Now if the US media would just man up and follow suit.

Labels: ,

Friday, December 07, 2007

A Two-fer

Two of my favorite TownHall.com logical ladies have wonderful columns up today. First, Mona Charen challenges the presses insistence at glamorizing mass murderers like the young man who shot up the Omaha mall this week.
The same dangerous pattern has been repeated again and again. The disturbed man who took hostages at Sen. Clinton's headquarters in New Hampshire told loved ones to "watch the news tonight." The shooter who terrorized an Omaha shopping mall by mowing down total strangers has achieved his goal (and I will not add to the problem by publishing his name). He left a suicide note in which he predicted "at least now I'll be famous." His picture is featured in every newspaper and is flashed on television hourly. His miseries are being dissected and analyzed. An unhappy and rejected young man is finally getting, posthumously, the attention he clearly sought but could not secure in life.

Maybe if this young man had gotten some positive attention in his short life things would have turned out differently. We don't know this for sure, but maybe if SOMEONE had reached out to him this could have been averted.

The other column is from Linda Chavez, whom I don't always agree with. This time, she hits a home run.

President Bush seemed at a loss for words this week when he was asked during a press conference if he would use his influence to help a Saudi rape victim who has drawn international attention. The young woman was raped 14 times by seven men and now faces her own imprisonment and 200 lashes in a sentence imposed by a Saudi court. So what was the victim's "crime"? She happened to be in the company of a man who was not a close relative when she was attacked.
The president hemmed and hawed...When the reporter pressed him on whether he had raised the issue with Saudi King Abdullah in the last few weeks, the president demurred. "We'll have plenty of time. [King Abdullah] knows our position loud and clear."
One of my biggest frustrations with President Bush (aside from amnesty for illegal immigrants) has been his enormous blind spot toward Islam. In the days following 9/11 he (rightly) made the extra effort to remind the American people that not all Arab looking people were terrorists. I applauded that effort and still do. However, he insists that Islam is a "religion of Peace" when every critical thinker who has ever read the Koran (and yes I too have read the Holy Book of Islam) will tell you that there is little about the Koran and the Hadith (the life and teachings of Mohammed) are peaceful! Couple that with the actions of the followers of Islam and one certainly gets the impression that they practice a rather barbaric religion. The brutality that women, gays, Jews and anyone who does not practice their version of Islam is on display daily. Yet this President hems and haws and hesitates to tell our "dear friends" the Saudis the things that they need to be told.....that this is simply NOT DONE in civilized society and if you want to be a part of civilized society you must stop these practices!

Ms. Chavez' main point is this.
The abuse of the rape victim, known only as the "Girl of Qatif," should shame the Saudi government. But it will only do so if the Saudi Royal Family is forced by the civilized world to account for the brutal society the House of Saud has created and rules. President Bush missed his opportunity to do so publicly this week. But it is not too late to do so quietly but directly. The fate of the Girl of Qatif could well turn on the president's intervention.

She is spot on - the President MUST intervene on this girl's behave. As the most powerful leader in the civilized world it is a political and MORAL imperative. Please Mr. President....do the right thing here and tell the House of Saud that this can not stand. For your daughters and grand-daughters sake - do it today!

Labels:

Thursday, September 27, 2007

Allah mocked....riots pending...

Oh wait - maybe not....

Laura Ingraham was talking about this yesterday and Michelle Malkin wrote about it today. The promotional poster for the Folsum Street Fair (Fun...Frolic...Fetish) features a mock Last Supper, replacing Jesus and the disciples with men and women dressed in provocative leather and masks, and the bread and plates and cups with whips and chains and other sex toys!

Laura and Michelle are both in high dudgeon over Miller Beer "sponsoring" this event and they are calling for their readers/listeners to call and protest. I am waiting to see if the outraged Christians are going to start rioting and looting and burning, a la their Muslim cousins. For some reason I think I will have a very, very long wait.

Labels: ,

Tuesday, August 21, 2007

Say what?

You just have to wonder what this guy was thinking when he said this.



"A Dutch Catholic bishop who once said the hungry were entitled to steal bread and advocated condom use to prevent AIDS has made headlines again, this time by saying God should be called Allah."Allah is a very beautiful word for God. Shouldn't we all say that from now on we will call God Allah?" Bishop Tiny Muskens said in an interview broadcast this week. "God doesn't care what we call him." (emphasis mine)



Oh really.....perhaps the Bishop would care to go a step further....maybe God wouldn't mind being called Satan. You up for that Bishop?



Actually Hal Lindsey came up with a really good response to this nonsense!



"If one doesn't believe that God is real, then it really doesn't matter what name one chooses.
It's like naming your 6-foot tall invisible white rabbit. You can call him "Harvey." Or you can name him "Peter Cottontail." He won't object either way – since he isn't real.
But if you try to rename your friend Fred from down the street, he may not be so pleased about being called George. Because Fred is a real person, you wouldn't think about calling him George simply because somebody else likes that name better.

Because God is as real as you or I, it isn't up to us to rename Him like He was a stray basset hound...

According to the God of the Bible, God's Name is very important to Him. "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain" (Exodus 20:7).
God's unique identity as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is very important to Him, as well. "And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. ... But My covenant will I establish with Isaac" (Genesis 17:21).
Have you ever noticed that it is Allah who is seeking to be identified with God, and not the other way around? "



I had indeed noticed that. It is something interesting to ponder.

Labels: ,

Monday, June 25, 2007

Are you ready?

Are you ready to hear the TRUTH? Do you think you can handle the TRUTH?

I refer to the truth of what it means to live under a TRUE theocracy....not the one that the left imagines Christians are plotting for them....the true theocracy of Sharia law. The Iranian government has started cracking down on dissent in that country.
Michelle Malkin and Captain Ed both have the pictures and the disturbing video that everyone MUST see.

One question that desperately needs an answer - where is Amnesty International? Where are the so called human rights organizations that are supposedly looking out for this kind of activity? Why is there no outcry or coverage from the US Press?

The reason why I tend to highlight these kinds of stories is because we Americans really don't have a clue what real torture is, what real human rights violations are. We are so abundently blessed in this country that we really don't know what real hardship is. We tend to critique that which we know and we forget that we are a part of a much larger world and that the much larger world has even bigger problems than we do. Retrospection and self examination is a good thing, but only if we do it in light of our place in the larger world. Yes, we have our problems and our abusers, but in light of what is happening in Iran today, can you honestly say that George W. Bush's America is the worlds worst violator of human rights?

Labels: ,

Wednesday, June 06, 2007

Where are the feminists?

Before I get into the critique of Islamic culture, a little history. Contrary to Some Made Up Name's allegations in the comments of this post, our "close" relations with Saudi Arabia did not start with George W. Bush and Halliburton. Au contrare, mon frere....they started with a Democratic President - Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Our close relationship is not "just" for oil either. The Washington Post addressed some of the Myths of the US/Saudi Relationship in a May 2006 article., including SMUN's favorite BDS classic.

"The Bush family and the House of Saud are too close for comfort. An overstatement. Filmmaker Michael Moore and others are fond of pointing to the personal and business ties between the Bush family and the reigning Saud family. Unquestionably, the two families are close, in no small part because Saudi Arabia contributed to Operation Desert Storm in 1991, one of the highlights of President George H.W. Bush's tenure. The late King Fahd provided extensive financial and political assistance to the operation, and allowed U.S. troops on Saudi soil.But there is little evidence to suggest that such support has led the Bush family to make decisions at odds with U.S. interests. All previous presidents have sought close relations with the kingdom, recognizing its value to the United States. Even presidents such as Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy, who were initially skeptical of the Saudis, found themselves drawn to this relationship for strategic reasons." (emphasis mine)

Gee Michael Moore exhaggerating or engaging in propoganda and all out falsehoods? Who'da thunk it?

So now that we have that little cannard out of the way, we can get on to Islam and it's eternal oppression of women. (HT Captain Ed)

"Riyadh, Saudi Arabia — THE hem of my heavy Islamic cloak trailed over floors that glistened like ice. I walked faster, my eyes fixed on a familiar, green icon. I hadn't seen a Starbucks in months, but there it was, tucked into a corner of a fancy shopping mall in the Saudi capital. After all those bitter little cups of sludgy Arabic coffee, here at last was an improbable snippet of home — caffeinated, comforting, American.I wandered into the shop, filling my lungs with the rich wafts of coffee. The man behind the counter gave me a bemused look; his eyes flickered. I asked for a latte. He shrugged, the milk steamer whined, and he handed over the brimming paper cup. I turned my back on his uneasy face.Crossing the cafe, I felt the hard stares of Saudi men. A few of them stopped talking as I walked by and watched me pass. Them, too, I ignored. Finally, coffee in hand, I sank into the sumptuous lap of an overstuffed armchair."Excuse me," hissed the voice in my ear. "You can't sit here." The man from the counter had appeared at my elbow. He was glaring."Excuse me?" I blinked a few times."Emmm," he drew his discomfort into a long syllable, his brows knitted. "You cannot stay here." "What? Uh … why?" Then he said it: "Men only." He didn't tell me what I would learn later: Starbucks had another, unmarked door around back that led to a smaller espresso bar, and a handful of tables smothered by curtains. That was the "family" section. As a woman, that's where I belonged. I had no right to mix with male customers or sit in plain view of passing shoppers. Like the segregated South of a bygone United States, today's Saudi Arabia shunts half the population into separate, inferior and usually invisible spaces." (emphasis mine)

Imagine, if you will, for one moment that instead of "Men only" the barista had said "Whites only". Do you think the silence from the left would be as deafening as it is in this case? Do you think that for one moment there would be any calls for "understanding a different culture"? To the author's credit, she asks that question of herself.

"I spent my days in Saudi Arabia struggling unhappily between a lifetime of being taught to respect foreign cultures and the realization that this culture judged me a lesser being. I tried to draw parallels: If I went to South Africa during apartheid, would I feel compelled to be polite?"

The abaya was more than a garment, it was nothing more than soft shackles....designed to keep the woman bound to her "superiors".

"The sleeves, the length of it, always felt foreign, at first. But it never took long to work its alchemy, to plant the insecurity. After a day or two, the notion of appearing without the robe felt shocking. Stripped of the layers of curve-smothering cloth, my ordinary clothes suddenly felt revealing, even garish. To me, the abaya implied that a woman's body is a distraction and an interruption, a thing that must be hidden from view lest it haul the society into vice and disarray. The simple act of wearing the robe implanted that self-consciousness by osmosis."

To be fair, not all Saudi men want to keep their wives and daughters enslaved.

"Over coffee one afternoon, an economist told me wistfully of the days when he and his wife had studied overseas, how she'd hopped behind the wheel and did her own thing. She's an independent, outspoken woman, he said. Coming back home to Riyadh had depressed both of them."Here, I got another dependent: my wife," he said. He found himself driving her around, chaperoning her as if she were a child. "When they see a woman walking alone here, it's like a wolf watching a sheep. 'Let me take what's unattended.' " He told me that both he and his wife hoped, desperately, that social and political reform would finally dawn in the kingdom. He thought foreign academics were too easy on Saudi Arabia, that they urged only minor changes instead of all-out democracy because they secretly regarded Saudis as "savages" incapable of handling too much freedom."I call them propaganda papers," he said of the foreign analysis. "They come up with all these lame excuses." He and his wife had already lost hope for themselves, he said."For ourselves, the train has left the station. We are trapped," he said. "I think about my kids. At least when I look at myself in the mirror I'll say: 'At least I said this. At least I wrote this.' " (emphasis mine)

He's right - these propoganda papers do nothing but continue to promote the kind of "soft racism" that the liberals tend to pedal. They talk about civil rights all the while keeping minorities tied to dependence on the government (welfare) to take care of them. He's right and we are just too blind to see it!

Finally the author tells a story that should make a cold shudder run down the backs of ALL western women.

"WHEN Saudi officials chat with an American reporter, they go to great lengths to depict a moderate, misunderstood kingdom. They complain about stereotypes in the Western press: Women banned from driving? Well, they don't want to drive anyway. They all have drivers, and why would a lady want to mess with parking?The religious police who stalk the streets and shopping centers, forcing "Islamic values" onto the populace? Oh, Saudi officials say, they really aren't important, or strict, or powerful. You hear stories to the contrary? Mere exaggerations, perpetuated by people who don't understand Saudi Arabia.I had an interview one afternoon with a relatively high-ranking Saudi official. Since I can't drive anywhere or meet a man in a cafe, I usually end up inviting sources for coffee in the lobby of my hotel, where the staff turns a blind eye to whether those in the "family section" are really family.As the elevator touched down and the shiny doors swung open onto the lobby, the official rushed toward me."Do you think we could talk in your room?" he blurted out.I stepped back. What was this, some crazy come-on? "No, why?" I stammered, stepping wide around him. "We can sit right over here." I wanted to get to the coffee shop — no dice. He swung himself around, blocking my path and my view."It's not a good idea," he said. "Let's just go to your room." "I really don't think … I mean," I said, stuttering in embarrassment.Then, peering over his shoulder, I saw them: two beefy men in robes. Great bushes of beards sprang from their chins, they swung canes in their hands and scanned the hotel lobby through squinted eyes."Is that the religious police?" I said. "It is!" I was a little mesmerized. I'd always wanted to see them in action.The ministry official seemed to shrink a little, his shoulders slumped in defeat."They're not supposed to be here," he muttered despondently. "What are they doing here?" "Well, why don't we go to the mall next door?" I said, eyes fixed on the menacing men. "There's a coffee shop there, we could try that." "No, they will go there next." While he wrung his hands nervously, I stepped back a little and considered the irony of our predicament. To avoid running afoul of what may be the world's most stringent public moral code, I was being asked to entertain a strange, older man in my hotel room, something I would never agree to back home."

This is a very long, very important article. Anyone who is a woman or knows a woman needs to read it and understand that Osama bin Ladin and his Wahhibist teachers come from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Oh sure, the House of Saud says they are modern and understanding, but after this article, we all now know better!

Labels:

Friday, April 13, 2007

What's the difference?

Can you tell me what the difference is between this...

The front of the Quran, Islam's holy book, read "Mohammad pedophile." An expletive was written inside, smeared under two strips of bacon, according to a Clarksville police report. The report labeled the incident a hate crime.

and this?????

"Someone wrote "Free Palestine" on the door in English as well as Arabic writings, said. Izzie Weinzweig, president of the congregation. "Death to Israel" and similar language was spray-painted on signs posted on the side of the building, he said."

And why is this kind of "art" ok...

"Described as the ultimate arbitration between politics and Christianity, “Christ Killa” is a video game linked to video projectors and television monitors. A first person shooter in which the player shoots hordes of homicidal Jesus Christs, the game landscape is filled with Googled images of Christian propaganda posters, religious shrines such as St. Peter’s in Rome, and clichéd representations of Christ who constantly mumbles messages of tolerance and compassion. "

while this kind of art is censored because it might offend someone?

" Word began to spread about the comic strip, titled 'Yes to Pistachios', and rumors soon swirled about repercussions if it were ever to be published on our website. These repercussions included walkouts, mass de-enrollment at MCTC, and even unconfirmed threats of violence."

I'm sorry - defacing a book - holy or otherwise is not a crime. Vandalizing private property is! And if drawing a cartoon about the Islamic prophet is offensive, why must Christians put up with a first person shooter game that lets players KILL THEIR PROPHET?

I keep thinking back to some comments that were made at Congressman Kline's townhall meeting. A speaker got up and admonished the audience to "respect Islam". WELL RESPECT IS A TWO WAY STREET!!!!! If you expect Christians to respect Islam, then people need to start "respecting" Christianity! It's really that simple.

As frustrating as this double standard is (for someone who deeply believes in fair treatment FOR EVERYONE) it does not surprise me in the least. For in the Bible, Christ predicted this very type of "prosecution". While it certainly does not fall into the same category of "suffering" that Christians in Islamic countries or in China face, it is a fact of life that we should all wear with pride.

Labels: , , ,

Thursday, April 12, 2007

Equal treatment...Required or not?

Every time the left tries to disuade the so-called "Christian right" they trot out the supposed wall of separation of church and state. Yet in an effort to "embrace diversity" we have state funded support of Islam.

"Where Christianity is concerned, the college (Minneapolis Community & Technical College - ed) goes to great lengths to avoid any hint of what the courts call "entanglement" or support of the church. Yet the college is planning to install facilities for Muslims to use in preparing for daily prayers, an apparent first at a public institution in Minnesota."

Not to be outdone, the City of Minneapolis is offering special financing for Islamic small businesses. (H/T AAA at Residual Forces)

"The City of Minneapolis is joining with the African Development Center to offer a new financing option for small businesses, aimed primarily at Muslims.
The program allows Muslim Minnesotans, as well as others, to repay loans without traditional interest. Many Muslims avoid conventional loans because paying or receiving interest goes against their religious beliefs. "

Okay......here we have a public school accomodating Islamic prayer and the biggest city in the state offering special interest free financing to Muslim businesses. I wonder if the City of Minneapolis would be so accomodating to a Christian businessman who wanted to not do business with homosexuals (for example). After all, just as charging interest on loans is against Islamic teaching, condoning homosexuality is against Christian teaching.

The First Amendment is quite clear. Government shall MAKE NO LAW respecting the establishment of religion. If the administration of the Minneapolis Community and Technical College is going to accomodate Islamic prayer, they had best make similar concessions to Christians and Buddhists! If the City of Minneapolis is going to make special dispensations for Muslim businessmen, they had best be ready to make similar dispensations to Shinto and Jewish businesses as well!

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, March 20, 2007

WIS*

The guys (and gals now) over at Anti-Strib have a long running series on Islam and why Americans have a hard time understanding it. Ok - I just can sugar coat it that much...the series is entitled "Why Islam S*cks" (this is a PG rated blog guys...). This story, I think, wraps all the reasons up with in one tidy package...

"Insurgents in Iraq detonated an explosives-rigged vehicle with two children in the back seat after US soldiers let it through a Baghdad checkpoint over the weekend, a senior US military official said Tuesday.
The vehicle was stopped at the checkpoint but was allowed through when soldiers saw the children in the back, said Major General Michael Barbero of the Pentagon's Joint Staff.
"Children in the back seat lowered suspicion. We let it move through. They parked the vehicle, and the adults ran out and detonated it with the children in the back," Barbero said."

The brave mujahadeen used two kids to get past a security checkpoint and then BLEW THE KIDS UP while they did their best Sir Robin imitation and bravely ran away!

When ever I see stories like this I think of the Golda Meir quote "Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us." and I weep for us and for the children.

Labels: ,

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

Sharia in Minneapolis?

We have all heard the controversy at the Minneapolis airport with the taxi drivers. However, there is a new workplace clash of civilizations happening here in Minneapolis.

"I'm a reporter who covers Target for the Star Tribune and the other day, I got a call from someone who said that an employee at the Target store downtown refused to run his bacon through a scanning machine. He was mighty upset, arguing that the cashier had "no right to work as a cashier at Target" if she wasn't prepared to swipe his groceries.
But he was a little vague on the details, so I decided to check it out myself. At the Target store on E. Lake Street, a cashier wearing a hijab looked uncomfortable when I showed up at the cash register with a frozen pepperoni pizza. She immediately called for help, and another employee rang up the pizza and placed it in the basket.
I asked her if it was because she was Muslim, and she nodded her head. "I can't even touch it," she said.
The E. Lake store has only has a few aisles of food. How do Muslim workers adapt in Super Targets where there are full-fledged grocery sections? And is anyone other than this caller bothered by this? Are there some Muslim workers at Target who feel they have to suppress their beliefs to avoid conflicts? "

The comments were almost as instructive as the post itself was. A majority of my fellow Minnesotans said "if you can't do the job, you should look for other employment". That is a logical statement. When a bunch of Christian pharmacists said that they would not fill a prescription for RU486, a lot of lefties said (along with yours truly) "if you can't do the job, you should look for other employment". That is the logical answer to that particular complaint. However, there were many in the comments who just not understand that logic. Their response to the above logic was to call those that said it "racists" and worse!

The beauty of this country is that you are not forced to work in one job versus another. You can chose to apply to all kinds of jobs. If your religion prohibits contact (versus consumption) of alcohol, don't take a job at the local liquor store! Likewise if you can not touch a vacuum sealed package of pork or a pepperoni pizza, don't work in a grocery store. Find a video store or a fast food outlet (most fast food outlets do not serve pork as a safety precaution) to work for. For me, I can not work part time in my chosen industry, so because I need to have the flexibilty to work part time, I took a different job. It is one of the daily choices that millions of Americans have to make every day.

It's a matter of priorities. There is no "right" under the Constitution to have a job. There is a right to practice ones religion as one sees fit. If your religous dictates are more important, then so be it.

Labels: ,

Friday, March 09, 2007

Two way streets

I don't normally fisk Star Tribune letters to the editor because there are others who do it so much better. However, this one just blew my mind.

"'THE POPE AND THE WITCH'
It's only a play
As someone who received 12 years of Catholic education, one of the principles I was taught was tolerance. I also have a strong belief in looking at oneself with a critical eye. Some self-deprecating humor never hurts either.
It seems to me that Catholics in an uproar over the play "The Pope and the Witch" miss these points.

R.S. Minneapolis"

I wonder, if R.S. held the same point of view last year when the Danish newspaper Jyllans-Posten published a set of cartoons that were seen as insulting to Islam. I seem to recall many, like R.S., who chastised the editors at Jyllans-Posten for not being "sensitive" to the feelings of the Muslims....

Nope - no double standard here...

Labels: , ,

Thursday, March 08, 2007

How my eyes were opened to the barbarity of Islam

I'm not going to editorialize this one. I'm just going to let this brave lady speak for herself. Some emphasis added.

Once I was held captive in Kabul. I was the bride of a charming, seductive and Westernised Afghan Muslim whom I met at an American college. The purdah I experienced was relatively posh but the sequestered all-female life was not my cup of chai — nor was the male hostility to veiled, partly veiled and unveiled women in public.
When we landed in Kabul, an airport official smoothly confiscated my US passport. “Don’t worry, it’s just a formality,” my husband assured me. I never saw that passport again. I later learnt that this was routinely done to foreign wives — perhaps to make it impossible for them to leave. Overnight, my husband became a stranger. The man with whom I had discussed Camus, Dostoevsky, Tennessee Williams and the Italian cinema became a stranger. He treated me the same way his father and elder brother treated their wives: distantly, with a hint of disdain and embarrassment.
In our two years together, my future husband had never once mentioned that his father had three wives and 21 children. Nor did he tell me that I would be expected to live as if I had been reared as an Afghan woman. I was supposed to lead a largely indoor life among women, to go out only with a male escort and to spend my days waiting for my husband to return or visiting female relatives, or having new (and very fashionable) clothes made.
In America, my husband was proud that I was a natural-born rebel and free thinker. In Afghanistan, my criticism of the treatment of women and of the poor rendered him suspect, vulnerable. He mocked my horrified reactions. But I knew what my eyes and ears told me. I saw how poor women in chadaris were forced to sit at the back of the bus and had to keep yielding their place on line in the bazaar to any man.
I saw how polygamous, arranged marriages and child brides led to chronic female suffering and to rivalry between co-wives and half-brothers; how the subordination and sequestration of women led to a profound estrangement between the sexes — one that led to wife-beating, marital rape and to a rampant but hotly denied male “prison”-like homosexuality and pederasty; how frustrated, neglected and uneducated women tormented their daughter-in-laws and female servants; how women were not allowed to pray in mosques or visit male doctors (their husbands described the symptoms in their absence).
Individual Afghans were enchantingly courteous — but the Afghanistan I knew was a bastion of illiteracy, poverty, treachery and preventable diseases. It was also a police state, a feudal monarchy and a theocracy, rank with fear and paranoia. Afghanistan had never been colonised. My relatives said: “Not even the British could occupy us.” Thus I was forced to conclude that Afghan barbarism was of their own making and could not be attributed to Western imperialism.
Long before the rise of the Taleban, I learnt not to romanticise Third World countries or to confuse their hideous tyrants with liberators. I also learnt that sexual and religious apartheid in Muslim countries is indigenous and not the result of Western crimes — and that such “colourful tribal customs” are absolutely, not relatively, evil. Long before al-Qaeda beheaded Daniel Pearl in Pakistan and Nicholas Berg in Iraq, I understood that it was dangerous for a Westerner, especially a woman, to live in a Muslim country. In retrospect, I believe my so-called Western feminism was forged in that most beautiful and treacherous of Eastern countries.
Nevertheless, Western intellectual-ideologues, including feminists, have demonised me as a reactionary and racist “Islamophobe” for arguing that Islam, not Israel, is the largest practitioner of both sexual and religious apartheid in the world and that if Westerners do not stand up to this apartheid, morally, economically and militarily, we will not only have the blood of innocents on our hands; we will also be overrun by Sharia in the West. I have been heckled, menaced, never-invited, or disinvited for such heretical ideas — and for denouncing the epidemic of Muslim-on-Muslim violence for which tiny Israel is routinely, unbelievably scapegoated.
However, my views have found favour with the bravest and most enlightened people alive. Leading secular Muslim and ex-Muslim dissidents — from Egypt, Bangladesh, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Pakistan, Syria and exiles from Europe and North America — assembled for the landmark Islamic Summit Conference in Florida and invited me to chair the opening panel on Monday.
According to the chair of the meeting, Ibn Warraq: “What we need now is an age of enlightenment in the Islamic world. Without critical examination of Islam, it will remain dogmatic, fanatical and intolerant and will continue to stifle thought, human rights, individuality, originality and truth.” The conference issued a declaration calling for such a new “Enlightenment”. The declaration views “Islamophobia” as a false allegation, sees a “noble future for Islam as a personal faith, not a political doctrine” and “demands the release of Islam from its captivity to the ambitions of power-hungry men”.
Now is the time for Western intellectuals who claim to be antiracists and committed to human rights to stand with these dissidents. To do so requires that we adopt a universal standard of human rights and abandon our loyalty to multicultural relativism, which justifies, even romanticises, indigenous Islamist barbarism, totalitarian terrorism and the persecution of women, religious minorities, homosexuals and intellectuals. Our abject refusal to judge between civilisation and barbarism, and between enlightened rationalism and theocratic fundamentalism, endangers and condemns the victims of Islamic tyranny.
Ibn Warraq has written a devastating work that will be out by the summer. It is entitled Defending the West: A Critique of Edward Said’s Orientalism. Will Western intellectuals also dare to defend the West?
Phyllis Chesler is an Emerita Professor of Psychology and Women’s Studies at the City University of New York

Labels: ,

Tuesday, March 06, 2007

Women, in context

I have been attacked (anonymously of course) in the comments for my continued posts about the abuses that women who live under Sharia law are subjected to. My anonymous friend seems to think that I am somehow hypocritical in saying that women here have it sooooo good, especially compared to women in 3rd world and Islamic countries, and that the so-called womens rights movement needs to concentrate on making life better for these poor women as opposed to working on meaningless UN resolutions. Anonymous refuses to see the real hypocricy that is right under his/her nose....the hypocricy of the movements that claim to help women and yet stay silent on the daily abuses that happen to women outside of this country. Well I will not ignore these abuses. I will continue to point out abuses...like this:

"When she was one, Rasheeda Begum’s late father promised to marry her off to a relative to settle a poker debt. Fifteen years later the man came calling to collect his winnings.
The teenager’s fight to escape being handed over despite alleged threats to her family is the latest case highlighting how women’s rights in Pakistan are still threatened by conservative customs. "

Many apologists for Islam say that there is no justification in Islam for this.

"For Ali Bardakoğlu, who heads Turkey's Religious Affairs Directorate, there are two common mistakes that underlie problems faced by women in the modern world; one is the failure to acknowledge the true value of woman as the “perpetrator of the adventure of existence,” and the other is the attempt to seek support from religion in justifying this failure."

Unfortunately that is not an accurate statement. Here are some direct quotes from the Koran regarding the treatment of women.

"Men are the managers of women for that God has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property" (Suraal-Nisa´ 4:34).

"[4.11] Allah enjoins you concerning your children: The male shall have the equal of the portion of two females"
In Islam, a woman's testimony is worth half the testimony of a man's, as both the Qur´an and the Hadith state. The Qur´an says, "...if the two be notmen, then one man and two women, such witnesses as you approve of, that ifone of the two women errs the other will remind her..." (Sura al-Baqara2:282). Muhammad accounted for this rule by the deficiency of woman'sintelligence: Once the Messenger of God went out to a prayer place to offer the prayer of Greater Bairam or Lesser Bairam. He passed by the women andsaid, "O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell- fire were you [women]." They asked, "Why is it so, Messenger of God?" He replied, "You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands.I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you.

"Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all)," (4:34). "

"If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice," (4:3).

Now when arguing Bible passages with others, I am the first to remind that you are to remember context....context of the passage and context of the times when the passage was written which is why I add that the Koran is a not a collection of stories, as the Bible is. It is a collection of sayings...sayings of the prophet Mohammed. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong necessarily with that...just that you lose some of the context. As far as the context of the time goes - that is another story. Take for example the time context of Sura 4:3 - marry women of your choice, two or three or four...at the time this was written it was important that the tribes had as many children as possible in order for the tribe to grow and survive. Life then was harsh...most children didn't make it out of childhood, women didn't often survive childbirth so having multiple wives was a necessity. Plus there is the admonition not to take more than one wife if you do not feel that you can treat her "justly". Now I am still trying to figure out the context for beatings...

There is also little context for gambling away your 1 year old daughter. Nor is there context for punishment like this.

"A Saudi woman who was kidnapped at knifepoint, gang-raped and then beaten by her brother has been sentenced to 90 lashes — for meeting a man who was not a relative, a newspaper reported yesterday.In an interview with the Saudi Gazette, the 19-year-old said she was blackmailed a year ago into meeting a man who threatened to tell her family they were having a relationship outside wedlock, which is illegal in the kingdom."

Men - is this what you want for your wives and daughters? Women - you ready for this?

Labels:

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Sure they care.

Phyllis Schlafly brings our attention to this lovely gem floating around the halls of Congress.

"Feminists have cooked up a new plan to raid the U.S. Treasury for more feminist pork. They want Congress to pass the International Violence Against Women Act.
They are using a report issued in October by former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan called "In-Depth Study on All Forms of Violence Against Women." The report is said to be based on interviews with 24,000 women conducted by the World Health Organization.
Who better to introduce the act than Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., the leading advocate of ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women? Biden never saw a U.N. treaty or a radical feminist spending bill that he didn't like. "

As a child of the 1970's, and a woman whose parents raised their girls to not be second fiddle to anyone, I am not afraid to stand up for "my rights" when appropriate. Because I have a position where I can, I am obligated to speak up for women who can not - which is why I write so much about the treatment of women in Islam. With all that said, the last thing women in this country need is a UN dictate that is overseen by countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Nigeria, India and Columbia.

"Pakistan has ratified the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. That's the country where a tribal council ordered a young woman gang-raped to avenge her brother's crime of being seen with an unchaperoned woman from another tribe. Gang rape is common in Pakistan.
Nigeria has ratified the convention. That's a country where women are stoned to death for the crime of adultery. Islamic law, called shariah, calls for death to women who commit adultery, but a lesser punishment for adulterous men.
Saudi Arabia has ratified the convention. That's the country where 14 girls died inside a Mecca school that went up in flames. Religious police kept rescuers from entering the building because some of the girls were not wearing their head coverings.
Colombia has ratified the convention. That's a country where thousands of women a year are sold into sex slavery. Similar outrages take place in India, Nepal and Thailand, which have also ratified the convention.
All these countries are eligible to sit on the convention's monitoring committee of 23 "experts" who monitor "progress" and order compliance. All U.N. projects to improve the lot of women follow the feminist model: Break up the family, force women into the work force, and send kids to day care. "

Shoot - with that kind of a track record, I'm surprised that Iran isn't on the list.

Ms. Schlafly gets to the dirty little secret of this bill.

"The International Violence Against Women Act is based on the lie that violence against women is the same problem in all countries. Many non-Western countries have social norms that justify abuse (such as genital mutilation, forced marriage, and polygamy), and "international standards" would vastly diminish the rights and benefits U.S. women now enjoy. "

Women here in the US don't need the kind of help the United Nations is offering here. The women that do ned help need help get it from the various church, government and mentoring programs that are available. The truth is, American women are the most fortunate of women in the world. Rather than bring ourselves down to the level of the rest of the world, let's elevate the rest of the women of the world to our level. Let's insist that those societies that treat women as objects and chattel join America in the 21st century when it comes to the treatment of women.

(H/T reader J Ewing)

Labels: , , ,

Monday, February 26, 2007

Insulting the Prophet

Expect riots and religious edicts calling for death to all who dare insult the Prophet!

"Claims by a Canadian documentary filmmaker to have found not only the burial place of Jesus, but his DNA and evidence he had a son, are being dismissed as "fanciful and absurd" by both church leaders and archeologists."

Oh.....we're talking about Christians here...never mind - insult away!

Seriously, to claim that Jesus was married, had children and died and never resurrected is a direct slap in the face to the billions of Christians worldwide. It is, in essence, calling Christ a "false prophet"!

So are Christians rioting in the streets, burning cars, houses and businesses along the line. Has any so-called Christian leader called for film-maker James Cameron to be murdered (as Islamic leaders have called for the deaths of Theo Van Gogh, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Salman Rushdie)? Of course not! Instead, they are simply taking a critical look at the theory and expressing their doubt.

"Stephen Pfann, a biblical scholar at the University of the Holy Land in Jerusalem who was interviewed in the documentary, said the film's hypothesis holds little weight.
"I don't think that Christians are going to buy into this," Pfann said. "But skeptics, in general, would like to see something that pokes holes into the story that so many people hold dear."
"How possible is it?" Pfann said. "On a scale of one through 10 — 10 being completely possible — it's probably a one, maybe a one and a half."
Pfann is even unsure that the name "Jesus" on the caskets was read correctly. He thinks it's more likely the name "Hanun." Ancient Semitic script is notoriously difficult to decipher.
(Amos) Kloner (the first archeologist to go over the site where the ossuary was found) also said the filmmakers' assertions are false. "The names on the caskets are the most common names found among Jews at the time," he said.
William Dever, an expert on near eastern archaeology and anthropology, who has worked with Israeli archeologists for five decades, said specialists have known about the ossuaries for years.
"The fact that it's been ignored tells you something," said Dever, professor emeritus at the University of Arizona. "It would be amusing if it didn't mislead so many people."

Michelle Malkin has many long running series on how Islamists react when their prophet is "insulted" and how the dhimmi's in the media have given them the kid glove treatment - refusing to print or broadcast anything that might upset Muslim sensibilities. It sure would be nice if Christians, Jews and other religions could get the same consideration.

Labels: , , , ,

How NOT to handle a disobedient child.

I know that there are those who dislike my posts on this subject, but this is a subject that really needs to be driven home.

"A father killed his wife and four daughters in their sleep because he could not bear them adopting a more westernised lifestyle, an inquest heard yesterday.
Mohammed Riaz, 49, found it abhorrent that his eldest daughter wanted to be a fashion designer, and that she and her sisters were likely to reject the Muslim tradition of arranged marriages."

So he finds it abhorrent that his daugher wanted to work outside of the home. Fine....so what does a father do?????"

On Hallowe'en last year he sprayed petrol throughout their terraced home in Accrington, Lancs, and set it alight.

Caneze Riaz, 39, woke and tried to protect her three-year-old child, Hannah, who was sleeping with her, but was overcome by fumes. Her other daughters, Sayrah, 16, Sophia, 13, and Alisha, 10, died elsewhere in the house."

He burns his family to death????? If he didn't like "western society" why didn't he just move back to the Middle East where the culture was more to his liking?

The reason that I comment about the lives of women in Islamist society is because people need to see the mindset that is becoming prevelant in our society. My grandmothers and great grandmothers fought long and hard for womens rights and I will not let those rights be taken away from me, my sisters and my sisters daughters because certain members of a society think that women are property! I will not sit idly by and watch as this mindset is ignored by certain strata within our society who have no problems trashing Christianity but will not criticize Islam. The hypocricy needs to be pointed out for all to see and for all to deal with!

Labels:

Sunday, February 18, 2007

Peaceful Tolerant Islam

I was cleaning out the mailbox and I came across a few things that, rather than go into great deatail, I will link the articles and let you decide for your selves just how peaceful Islam is.

First - a couple of articles on Women's Rights in Islam

"One of the more controversial issues in Islam is the Quran’s authorization for husbands to beat disobedient wives. This is found in chapter 4, called “Women”, verse 34. Additional information on Islamic wife beating is found in Muhammad’s Traditions (Hadith), and Sira (biographical material). Many people have criticized Islam because of this harsh sanction, and many Muslims have written articles seeking ways to mollify or defend it. In review of the actual teachings of the Quran, Hadith, and Sira, Islam is rightly criticized. This command is not only a harsh way to treat one’s wife, it portrays the degraded position of married women in Islam. It will be shown from the Quran, Hadith, Sira, and other Islamic writings that this “Islamic” wife beating is physical and painful.

Please note that wife beating is not only an Islamic problem. It is a common occurrence throughout the entire world. Some cultures accept it more readily than others. However, Islam accepts the practice to an extent that Muslim societies do not see it as a problem."

"The reality, of course, is different. There are millions of illiterate people subjected daily to pressures by ignorant clerics to force women to wear the veil and, in most extreme cases, the niqab (total coverage of the woman’s body from head to toe) which is tantamount to subjugating her identity for no reason other than preserve the patriarchal society. "

"The letters are delivered in the night, dropped on the doorsteps of female Kandahar professionals. The anonymous missives warn the occupants that they will "bleed" if they don't stop working.
Other threats are more urgent. A female employee at a United Nations agency in Kandahar was warned by an unknown caller to leave Afghanistan within half an hour. More than half a dozen female government workers in the southern and western provinces have complained of death threats.
These are a few examples of the rising tide of violence against women in Afghanistan, especially in the south. Five years after the fall of the repressive Taliban regime, women -- in particular working women -- are increasingly being targeted by extremists."

Along those lines is this Der Spiegel interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali where she talks about the existance of free speech in Islam..

"SPIEGEL: Why have the protests escalated to such an extent?
Hirsi Ali: There is no freedom of speech in those Arab countries where the demonstrations and public outrage are being staged. The reason many people flee to Europe from these places is precisely because they have criticized religion, the political establishment and society. Totalitarian Islamic regimes are in a deep crisis. Globalization means that they're exposed to considerable change, and they also fear the reformist forces developing among émigrés in the West. They'll use threatening gestures against the West, and the success they achieve with their threats, to intimidate these people. "

A free press gets our attention next.

"Last week a book publisher told Nancy Kobrin, a psychoanalyst and lecturer on counter—terrorism, that they were withdrawing the publication of her book, The Sheikh's New Clothes, because they were afraid of fundamentalist repercussions, according to Kobrin.
According to Kobrin, Mary Loughrey, a vice president with the book publisher, called to tell her that "because of security reasons they feared for the safety of the staff and themselves."
he said Loughrey mentioned Muslim reaction — including calls for assassination — following Pope Benedict XVI's recent speech as part of the reason they were concerned."

Then there is this on the imposition of Shariah law on the west.

"Muslim populations in Britain and Canada are pressing for the adoption of the law of Shariah - the radically oppressive law of Islam. If the law was adopted in those countries, it wouldn't be restricted simply to Muslims. Proponents of the Law of Shariah want it not only for themselves, but for all citizens of those countries. They have avowed to enact this law by force if necessary. Islam was founded by violence. "

Do you still think that Islam is a peaceful, tolerant religion?

Labels: