There MUST Be Violence Against Women

13 Responses to “There MUST Be Violence Against Women”

1. Roman Kalik on January 6th, 2008 1:30 pm

   Ugh! This man’s entire argument is that because women are naturally meant to be “protected” by their male relatives, then beating them to “show them the error of their ways” is “good beating”, and that human rights organizations should understand this and only focus on the “bad beating”.

   He also gives the “dishonoring the family” argument, and all the other “dishonor”-isms that eventually lead to honor killings.

   Because, in fact, the exact same logic Maged there uses is also used by fathers, brothers, cousins, and mothers who murder an “errant daughter” or “bad wife” to “protect the family honor”. Honor killings are widespread wherever the tribal mentality is stronger than any other moral compass, and there were several such cases among Muslim Arab families in my own region in Israel (Ramle and Lod). It is, in fact, a plague throughout Arab countries. I follow the matter occasionally, and it was quite sad to watch the King of Jordan try and bring down a legislation to clamp down on such cases, only to be rebuked by parliament with cries of “the whores deserve it”.

2. Oh no… He didn’t. « stash pocket on January 6th, 2008 1:31 pm

   […] I suggest you read the article wrote by this fuckass while I go join forces with my friend Drima of The Sudanese Thinker, and puke my inner organs out. I will hold my comments for I cannot calm myself down which may […]

3. Roman Kalik on January 6th, 2008 1:42 pm

   Oh, and before I forget, there is also the “cultural” argument, where the writer argues that not beating women would open the pathway to a “cultural invasion”.

   Well yes, I daresay it would. Tribal culture is in desperate need of an invasion, in my view. Perhaps someone should remind this asshole that Islam quite actively intended to erase tribalism, and that he is in fact acting in the most un-Islamic way possible just now?

4. Andrew Brehm on January 6th, 2008 4:20 pm

   What Roman said…

   It is sad to see how so many self-appointed “Islamic scholars” advocate philosophies that are so un-Islamic and so against everything it took humanity so long to learn.

   Open the pathway to cultural invasion…

   Yes, that is exactly what Islam was and is. That such knowledge now comes from the west rather than Islam doesn’t make “cultural invasion” wrong. If it was wrong, Islam is wrong, because Islam is cultural invasion.

   How can ideas be wrong if they are both western and Islamic? From what point of view could they be regarded as wrong? That would be an anti-Islamic and anti-western view, of course.

   I will also submit that using the power of parliament to oppose the King in this matter is an abuse of democracy (i.e. mob rule) and tantamount to treason. Parliament makes the law, the King enforces it. But the basic law that violence against women is wrong is above parliament and the King can and should enforce it even against the will of the electorate.

5. Drima on January 6th, 2008 4:36 pm

   It’s ironic how the supposed “pigs and apes” understand Islam so much better than those who call them “pigs and apes”.

6. Andrew Brehm on January 6th, 2008 5:45 pm

   Thanks.

   (I am not kidding.)

7. halalhippie on January 6th, 2008 9:40 pm

   @ last 2 comments: ha!

   Just as *some* ME Muslims confuse freedom=immorality, there are *some* Westerners who confuse Islam=medieval tribalism.

   I believe in evolution: I believe we -as a species-
   will eventually evolve into something a little less stupid.

8. ratedrsuperstar on January 6th, 2008 11:17 pm

   if this joker is right drima…and islamic ‘morality’ includes beating women into submission, I’ll take immorality 6 days a week and twice on sundays

9. Andrew Brehm on January 7th, 2008 9:28 am

   “I’ll take immorality 6 days a week and twice on sundays”

   But that would be CULTURAL INVASION!

   How dare you!

10. bambam on January 8th, 2008 1:40 pm

    well all that argument boils down to one verse in the quran in surat al nissa regarding the issue about whether you are allowed to beat your wife (not women as far as am concerned it places a limiting degree of intimacy) or not
    and based on the common interpretation it does allow you to do so.
    so crying foul about it is akin to crying over spilled milk.
    on the other hand there is nothing new there in terms of religious thought fermenting masochistic patriarchal mentality
    & so it goes, ENJOY !

11. The Raccoon on January 8th, 2008 11:55 pm

    Wallak, HH, you’re one optimistic individual. The hunam species is devolving, not evolving. There is no impetus for evolution in your species. And the stupid are breeding more than the smart. Sounds like a great way to devolve a species into amoeba without a couple of million years.

    But hey, don’t worry. Hunams are going to nuke themselves mostly off the planet soon anyway. Maybe even totally. The combination of a rapidly destabilizing Pakistan with Al Qaeda circling it like vultures, ever-more-belligerent nuclear Russia with its imperial ambitions, psychotic North Korea being kept in check only by its Chinese masters, lack of global will to stop Iran from going nuclear despite it being ruled by an Apocalyptic religious sect and the rising levels of intercultural confrontations… it just doesn’t paint a pretty picture.

    Fortunately, we Raccoons are perfectly suited to survive the approaching nuclear Holocaust. As a species, that is - I’ll probably die along with you.

    I’m a cheery little bugger

12. charlie316 on January 14th, 2008 10:26 pm

    Reading this makes you wonder whether reality is on the blink, as Douglas Adams would have it.

    It’s just another feeble excuse for treating women as property. No wonder the sound of vomiting is echoing around the blogsphere.

    It is interesting that at the bottom of the article he quotes a proverb “If the speaker is mad, the listener should be mindful”, without any sign of self awareness or irony.

13. Andrew Brehm on January 21st, 2008 11:55 am

    “and based on the common interpretation it does allow you to do so.”

    And again a prohibition of worse is understood as a recommendation.

    The Quran LIMITS the violence one may use. That doesn’t mean that beating women is a good thing or that it must be legal.

    It means that excessive violence is against Islamic law. It does not say that any other violence must be permitted or is considered polite.

Leave a Reply