What is my crime? My crime is that I have found that Islam does not consider woman a separate human being. Man is the original creation and womankind was created secondarily for the pleasure of man. Islam considers woman a slave, a sexual object and a son-producing machine. The Hadith says that two prayers that never reach the heavens are: those of escaping slaves and of women who frustrate their husbands at night.
Islam considers women psychologically inferior. In Islamic law, the testimony of two women is worth that of one man. In a case where a man suspects his wife of adultery or denies the legitimacy of the offspring, his testimony is worth that of four witnesses.
A woman does not have the right to charge her husband likewise. Women cannot inherit property equally with their brothers.
And after all the rights and freedom, after getting all the sexual pleasure and pleasure of being the masters, men will be rewarded with wine, food, and 72 virgins in Paradise, including their wives on earth. And what is the reward for a pious woman? Nothing. Nothing but the same old husband, the same man who caused her suffering while they were on earth. It became clear to me that the male of the species had written the holy Quran for its own interest, its own comfort, its own fun. Then I studied other religions, and I found they, too, oppressed women. Far too many women are trafficked and sold into slavery. Men throw acid on their bodies, burn their faces, smash their noses, melt their eyes, and walk away with impunity.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: John Frum ||
05/10/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
In Europe and the US, I may find asylum but I will always stand apart as an outsider, either because of my colour or culture.
You misjudge us Americans Ms. Nasreen. We would happily take you.
#2
The world has been waiting for more than 12 centuries for the female part of the Islamic joke to catch on and put an end to the nonsense. You don't have to go anywhere. Organize amongst yourselves. Kill the imams who belittle you. Kill any males who subjugate you. Stop the nonsense.
#3
What's that aroma? Do I detect a whiff of Muslim chauvinism?
It became clear to me that the male of the species had written the holy Quran for its own interest, its own comfort, its own fun.
That's one thing she's got right.
Instead of being able to live where I was born and brought up, I had to go and live in western Europe, where I was condemned to a life term as an outsider. How to express that hopeless, helpless feeling: a stranger in my own country, and a stranger in the West.
Ummmm ... how to express that this is what pluralistic societies are all about. Not everyone is going to have curry on their breath. Please purchase a clue.
Since I started writing, I've faced lies and constant character assassination. Religion is the biggest obstacle in the path of freedom of women; but whenever I say this, I fall into the clutches of fundamentalists. They were angry with me from the beginning but gradually I found even moderate Muslims became my enemies.
Nice to see that she has realized this key element in Islamic stratification. There are only two types of Muslims, reformists and jihadis.
Western Europe saved my life
Yet she cannot bring herself to feel at home amongst those who would welcome her as a friend instead of wanting to hang her at the next possible moment. Strange, that.
In Europe and the US, I may find asylum but I will always stand apart as an outsider, either because of my colour or culture.
Smells like Muslim bullshit chauvinism to me. Make up your mind, do you want to live in the West or die in your homeland? Not too difficult of a choice so far as I can tell.
I can't help recalling those days when authors from the West joined together to save me. They not only put pressure on their own governments but also prevailed on the European Union to save a writer from oblivion. It was thanks to their efforts that governments in the West were compelled to save me from being hanged.
Bit it is still beyond you to demonstrate some gratitude and truly regard the West as your intellectual homeland where you stand a chance of surviving on the street for more than a few hours. Sounds like somone's got some "phobia" issues. If you really miss getting kicked around like a dog, go back home.
The world has been waiting for more than 12 centuries for the female part of the Islamic joke to catch on and put an end to the nonsense. You don't have to go anywhere. Organize amongst yourselves. Kill the imams who belittle you. Kill any males who subjugate you. Stop the nonsense.
Paging Loreena Bobbit to the white courtesy phone. Ms. Loreena Bobbit to the white courtesy phone, please.
#4
Cut her some slack. She is a true feminist. She sees shows like Sex in the City and Desperate Housewives and thinks it is not exactly what she has in mind when she thinks of escaping female oppression. Who wants to be part of a culture that idolizes Madonna and Paris Hilton?
#5
What is my crime? My crime is that I have found that Islam does not consider woman a separate human being.
No. Your crime is not being smart enough to leave this rape-cult. Your bed was made for you but you insist on lying in it. This in only my problem in so far as you continue to be the primary vector for a semantic plague.
My mother used purdah. She wore a burqa with a net cover in front of the face. It reminded me of the meat safes in my grandmother's house. One had a net door made of cloth, the other of metal. But the objective was the same: keeping the meat safe. My mother was put under a burqa by her conservative family. They told her that wearing a burqa would mean obeying Allah. And if you obey Allah, He would be happy with you and not let you burn in hellfire. My mother was afraid of Allah and also of her own father. He would threaten her with grave consequences if she didn't wear the burqa. She was also afraid of the men in the neighbourhood, who could have shamed her. Even her husband was a source of fear, for he could do anything to her if she disobeyed him.
As a young girl, I used to nag her: Ma, don't you suffocate in this veil? Don't you feel
all dark inside? Don't you feel breathless? Don't you feel angry? Don't you ever feel like throwing it off? My mother kept mum. She couldn't do anything about it. But I did. When I was sixteen, I was presented a burqa by one of my relatives. I threw it away.
The custom of purdah is not new. It dates back to 300 BC. The women of aristocratic Assyrian families used purdah. Ordinary women and prostitutes were not allowed purdah. In the middle ages, even Anglo-Saxon women used to cover their hair and chin and hide their faces behind a cloth or similar object. This purdah system was obviously not religious. The religious purdah is used by Catholic nuns and Mormons, though for the latter only during religious ceremonies and rituals. For Muslim women, however, such religious purdah is not limited to specific rituals but mandatory for their daily life outside the purview of religion.
A couple of months ago, at the height of the purdah controversy, Shabana Azmi asserted that the Quran doesn't say anything about wearing the burqa. She's mistaken. This is what the Quran says:
"Tell the faithful women that they must keep their gaze focused below/on the ground and cover their sexual organs. They must not put their beauty and their jewellery on display. They must hide their breasts behind a purdah. They must not exhibit their beauty to anybody except their husbands, brothers, nephews, womenfolk, servants, eunuch employees and children. They must not move their legs briskly while walking because then much of their bodies can get exposed." (Sura Al Noor 24:31)
"Oh nabi, please tell your wives and daughters and faithful women to wear a covering dress on their bodies. That would be good. Then nobody can recognise them and harrass them. Allah is merciful and kind." (Sura Al Hijaab 33: 59)
Even the Hadis --a collection of the words of Prophet Mohammed, his opinion on various subjects and also about his work, written by those close to him-- talks extensively of the purdah for women. Women must cover their whole body before going out, they should not go before unknown men, they should not go to the mosque to read the namaaz, they should not go for any funeral.
There are many views on why and how the Islamic purdah started. One view has it that Prophet Mohammed became very poor after spending all the wealth of his first wife. At that time, in Arabia, the poor had to go to the open desert and plains for relieving themselves and even their sexual needs. The Prophet's wives too had to do the same. He had told his wives that "I give you permission to go out and carry out your natural work". (Bukhari Hadis first volume book 4 No. 149). And this is what his wives started doing accordingly. One day, Prophet Mohammed's disciple Uman complained to him that these women were very uncomfortable because they were instantly recognisable while relieving themselves.
Umar proposed a cover but Prophet Mohammed ignored it. Then the Prophet asked Allah for advice and he laid down the Ayat (33:59) (Bukhari Hadis Book 026 No. 5397).
This is the history of the purdah, according to the Hadis. But the question is: since Arab men too relieved themselves in the open, why didn't Allah start the purdah for men? Clearly, Allah doesn't treat men and women as equals, else there would be purdah for both! Men are higher than women. So women have to be made walking prisons and men can remain free birds.
Another view is that the purdah was introduced to separate women from servants. This originates from stories in the Hadis. One story in the Bukhari Hadis goes thus: After winning the Khyber War, Prophet Mohammed took over all the properties of the enemy, including their women. One of these women was called Safia. One of the Prophet's disciples sought to know her status. He replied: "If tomorrow you see that Safia is going around covered, under purdah, then she is going to be a wife. If you see her uncovered, that means I've decided to make her my servant."
The third view comes from this story. Prophet Mohammed's wife Ayesha was very beautiful. His friends were often found staring at her with fascination. This clearly upset the Prophet. So the Quran has an Ayat that says, "Oh friends of the prophet or holy men, never go to your friend's house without an invitation. And if you do go, don't go and ask anything of their wives". It is to resist the greedy eyes of friends, disciples or male guests that the purdah system came into being. First it was applicable to only the wives of the holy men, and later it was extended to all Muslim women. Purdah means covering the entire body except for the eyes, wrist and feet. Nowadays, some women practise the purdah by only covering their hair. That is not what is written in the Hadis Quran. Frankly, covering just the hair is not Islamic purdah in the strict sense.
In the early Islamic period, Prophet Mohammed started the practice of covering the feet of women. Within 100 years of his death, purdah spread across the entire Middle East. Women were covered by an extra layer of clothing. They were forbidden to go out of the house, or in front of unknown men. Their lives were hemmed into a tight regime: stay at home, cook, clean the house, bear children and bring them up. In this way, one section of the people was separated by purdah, quarantined and covered.
Why are women covered? Because they are sex objects. Because when men see them, they are roused. Why should women have to be penalised for men's sexual problems? Even women have sexual urges. But men are not covered for that. In no religion formulated by men are women considered to have a separate existence, or as human beings having desires and opinions separate from men's. The purdah rules humiliate not only women but men too. If women walk about without purdah, it's as if men will look at them with lustful eyes, or pounce on them, or rape them. Do they lose all their senses when they see any woman without burqa?
My question to Shabana and her supporters, who argue that the Quran says nothing about purdah is: If the Quran advises women to use purdah, should they do so? My answer is, No. Irrespective of which book says it, which person advises, whoever commands, women should not have purdah. No veil, no chador, no hijab, no burqa, no headscarf. Women should not use any of these things because all these are instruments of disrespect. These are symbols of women's oppression. Through them, women are told that they are but the property of men, objects for their use. These coverings are used to keep women passive and submissive. Women are told to wear them so that they cannot exist with their self-respect, honour, confidence, separate identity, own opinion and ideals intact.So that they cannot stand on their own two feet and live with their head held high and their spine strong and erect.
Some 1,500 years ago, it was decided for an individual's personal reasons that women should have purdah and since then millions of Muslim women all over the world have had to suffer it. So many old customs have died a natural death, but not purdah. Instead, of late, there has been a mad craze to revive it. Covering a woman's head means covering her brain and ensuring that it doesn't work. If women's brains worked properly, they'd have long ago thrown off these veils and burqas imposed on them by a religious and patriarchal regime.
What should women do? They should protest against this discrimination. They should proclaim a war against the wrongs and ill-treatment meted out to them for hundreds of years. They should snatch from the men their freedom and their rights. They should throw away this apparel of discrimination and burn their burqas.
Posted by: John Frum ||
05/10/2007 16:57 Comments ||
Top||
#8
There were numerous fatwas against Taslima for this "burn the burqa" article.
Rather then leave islam and become apostate, a death sentence in Bangladesh, she stays within and challenges the very tenets of the religion.
Far more useful...
Posted by: John Frum ||
05/10/2007 16:59 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Bit it is still beyond you to demonstrate some gratitude and truly regard the West as your intellectual homeland where you stand a chance of surviving on the street for more than a few hours.
I wouldn't be too sure of that
Posted by: Theo van Gogh ||
05/10/2007 20:10 Comments ||
Top||
George Galloway sniffs a conspiracy. He wanted to have his picture in the National Portrait Gallery. Who wouldn't? But the gallery said no. In artist Darren Coffield's own words, "I've painted George Bush as if he were a cowboy made from the pages of the Financial Times. He's holding a gun to Galloway's head; he wants to make sure he keeps hold of his oil. Blair's having a go from the other side, brandishing a tomahawk and wearing a Native American head-dress." Apart from the fact that Egregious looks even more bronzed than usual, and that the Bush-cowboy is now holding his pistol to his crotch, this is a fair description of the portrait. The culprit is apparently Lord Browne, "Blair's crony" and, until last week, the chief executive of BP, which sponsors the NPG's annual portrait competition. It turns out Coffield's entry was one of just 1,810 that didn't make the cut this year and won't appear in the exhibition. Commiserations.
#2
So, Bush and Blair are two dwarfish paper men (which paper is Blair supposed to be made of?), attempting to menace real man Galloway, who's looking kinda like James Bond. Meanwhile in the background a bust of Charles Laughton looks pained at the whole sorry exhibit.
Oh, and it's Bush who's the oil-grubber, not George "Oil for Food" Galloway.
Secular and liberal Turks have had a rude awakening from years of deep slumber. Kemal Ataturks heritage is about to be destroyed not by an invading power, but from within by fellow Turks who yearn for an Islamic state.
Ever since Ataturk, Turkey has been divided into those who want to run state affairs on Islamic principles and those who want to keep Allahs will from the public space.
The proponents of Islam in government such as Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Abdullah Gul and their Justice and Development Party have been remarkably successful. They have understood and exploited the fact that you can use democratic means to erode democracy. With this insight, they have employed a powerful strategy. Three pillars of that strategy are worth discussion.
The first is Dawa, a tactic inspired by Islams founder, Muhammad. Dawa simply means to preach Islam as a way of life, including a way of government, perpetually and with conviction. Every convert is subsequently obligated to preach Islam to others, which creates a grassroots movement.
The secularists in Turkey have underestimated this pillar and thus neglected competing with the Islamists for the hearts and minds of the electorate. Now they are faced with the shocking reality of polls that suggest that 70 percent of voters may elect Gul as president if Erdogan, Turkeys prime minister, succeeds in changing the constitution so that the president can be elected directly. Any protest from the secularists against this evident popular will sounds irrational and undemocratic.
The second pillar is the improvement of the economy. No one can deny that when the secular parties were in power, the Turkish economy was in tatters. Ever since Erdogan took office, the growth of the economy has been strong, with inflation down and foreign investment high.
The third pillar is taking control of two types of institutions in a democracy: those designed to educate the civilians (education and media) and those designed to keep law and order (police, justice and the secret service). In other words, the Islamists control the information that you get and have the power to shut your mouth.
After an initial attempt at Islamic revolution failed in 1997 when the military engineered a soft coup against elected Islamists, Erdogan and his party understood that gradualism would yield more lasting power.
They surely realize that Islamizing Turkey entirely is possible only if they gain control of the army and the Constitutional Court, the two institutions that have until today lived up to Ataturks expectations to preserve Turkeys secular state.
The current Constitutional Court ruling annulling the nomination of Abdullah Gul for the presidency after the military warned that it is the guardian of secularism is only a temporary setback for the Islamists. Erdogan and Gul have another trick up their sleeve.
If they show the same restraint and patience that has brought them this far, they may achieve their aim by continuing to court EU membership. Naive but well-meaning European leaders were manipulated by the ruling Islamists from the onset into saying that Turkeys army should be placed under civil control like all armies in the EU member states.
Seen from this perspective, Erdogan and his party have earned their success. Condemning them for getting as far as they have is a petty display of sour grapes, and certainly not effective in preventing them from getting total control of all power in Turkey.
In hindsight, Turkeys secular liberals have only themselves to blame. They have underestimated the power of Dawa, they failed at growing the economy under their reign, and they have not realized that members of the EU have been manipulated.
An important trait of liberalism, however, is the opportunity to learn by trial and error. The fact that Turkish secular liberals have erred does not mean they cannot try again to preserve Ataturks legacy and create the opportunity for progress of the Turkish democracy based on Western values.
Turkish secular liberals must devise a plan to start their own grassroots movement, one with the message of individual freedom. They must restore the confidence of the electorate in trusting Turkeys economy to them, and they must re-conquer the institutions of education and information, police and justice.
They must also make EU leaders understand and respect the fact that the army and the court in Turkey besides defending the country and the constitution are also, and maybe even more importantly, designed to protect Turkish democracy from Islam.
Bringing back true secularism to Turkey does not mean just any secularism. It means secularism that protects individual freedoms and rights, not the ultra-nationalist kind that breeds an environment in which Hitlers Mein Kampf is a bestseller, the Armenian genocide is denied and minorities are persecuted. Hrant Dink, the Armenian editor, was murdered by such a nationalist.
It is this mix of virulent nationalism and predatory Islam in Turkey that makes the challenge for Turkish secular liberals greater than for any other liberal movement today.
Other liberal democracies in the West must stand by Turkeys liberals in this difficult time. It is only a seeming paradox that support has to start by recognizing that the Turkish army is not like any other. The military has the unique task of safeguarding Turkeys secular character.
Someone e-mailed these photos, with captions, to me this morning. I thought RBers would appreciate them, so I searched and found them at Strategy Page (click on heading and click though the list of Pics). Thanks to Captain Alison Crane, RN, Mental Health Nurse, 7302d Medical Training Support Battalion for compiling and posting these observations on combat duty.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
By Taslima Nasreen
