Article

2004-11-28 Afghanistan/South Asia

Afghan Girls Afraid to Attend School Because of Kidnappings and Rapes

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-11-28 1:01:46 AM|| || Front Page|| [11132 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 "Honor killings of women are a pre-Islamic practice"...

That has been exported from Arabia with the spread of Islam.

Posted by CornÃ®liÃ«s 2004-11-28 6:33:50 AM|| 2004-11-28 6:33:50 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Honor killing was a pre-Islamic practice that was approved and therefore was not criticized by Mohammed.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-11-28 9:02:53 AM|| 2004-11-28 9:02:53 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 ~1400 years. Now I get it: stasis.

NASA needn't have worried about those long "road" trips -- just institute Shari'a in the Astronaut corps - problem solved.

New problem: finding a reliable source of 8-14 year old femalian 'Nauts with relevant PhD's and intact hymen - for these inexplicable, yet suriously predictable, training accidents.

Posted by .com 2004-11-28 9:51:04 AM|| 2004-11-28 9:51:04 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 That's curiously... Doh!

Posted by .com 2004-11-28 11:31:50 AM|| 2004-11-28 11:31:50 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Honor killing was a pre-Islamic practice that was approved and therefore was not criticized by Mohammed.

provide links and evidence, UN/Islam-boy

Posted by Frank G 2004-11-28 11:52:48 AM|| 2004-11-28 11:52:48 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Frank, try to get a grip. Others are watching.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-11-28 2:11:42 PM|| 2004-11-28 2:11:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Frank G

Mike hasn't to carry the proof, it is you who has to carry the proof of Muhammad opposing a such repulsive tradition. In Jesus times, repudiation (a man-only right BTW) was admitted and Jesus opposed it. In Moses times most of the Middle East practiced human sacrifices and this was strongly opposed by Moses and his successors. If honor killings existed in Muhammad's times and he said nothing at all (while finding time for legistalting on about everything else) all we can deduce is he approved. Now google or read your nearest Coran or Haddith collection searching for Muhammad opposing honor killings

Posted by JFM 2004-11-28 2:16:01 PM|| 2004-11-28 2:16:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Mohammed didn't rape little girls, he married them, huh? Nice...

Posted by Frank G 2004-11-28 2:20:39 PM|| 2004-11-28 2:20:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Mohammed was supposedly a prophet. If the Islkamic moon god didn't approve, he would've said so, non? JFM - you should know better

Posted by Frank G 2004-11-28 2:23:59 PM|| 2004-11-28 2:23:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Thanks, JFM.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-11-28 2:25:57 PM|| 2004-11-28 2:25:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Frank G

You will notice that in addition to Coran (God's words according to Muslims) I allowed you to search into the Haddith (Muhammad's sayings). In them you will find recommendations about everything. About the need to pray five times a day, about using the Arab bow instead of the Persian one, about heirloom, about the relative weights of witnesses (a female witness doesn't equal a male one) and one telling the piss and shit of a Muslim's horse (meaning it has been well fed) will go in the balance of good actions when his soul will be judged for Paradise or Hell.
So Muhammad found time for caring about horse shit and he didn't find time for caring about honor killings? It can't be so. Now find a Haddith about it. If there isn't one it means he approved. Had he disapproved he would have talked about it instead of about horse faeces.

Posted by JFM 2004-11-28 3:09:38 PM|| 2004-11-28 3:09:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 we're at the same point - I agree he had no problem with it, it fits nicely with erest of his cult. I just disagree with Mike S's saying it preceeded Mo (I asked for evidence), therefore his OK'ing it was of no consequence. It fits part and parcel in the Islamic tenet of devalueing women

Posted by Frank G 2004-11-28 3:16:47 PM|| 2004-11-28 3:16:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 St. Paul implicitly endorsed slavery. The Jews of the Old Testament were ordered to commit genocide against the Amalekites and other indigenous Canaanites - God withdrew from Saul right to rule because even though he killed them all he spared (for a time) their King. Moses assassinated thousands of his opponents for such crimes as believing they could pray to God themselves rather than through the intermediaries of the priesthood (which was a vast source of revenue for his brother Aaron's family). If failure to comply with contemporary moral standards is the measure of the validity of a religion, the Judeo-
Christian tradition is equally bankrupt.

Posted by Michael E. Piston 2004-11-28 3:42:31 PM|| 2004-11-28 3:42:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Yikes! Nice Hufferlump Trap JMF! Think you got one!

Posted by Shipman 2004-11-28 4:30:46 PM|| 2004-11-28 4:30:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Mr Piston

In case you haven't noticed St Paul wasn't Jesus, and Christianty abolished slavery, even if it replaced it with serfdom (but a serf had many rights a slave hadn't: like not being put to death unless he had perpetrated a crime or not having his children or his wife separated from him).

About Moses. If my memory is any good the dissenters weren't praying God by themselves but returning to idolatry. And for the King of Cannaa he practiced human sacrifices.

Now if you read the Bible you will find that it is an ascension toward civilization. Even men favoured by God perform deeds who are later declared heinous sins (Lolth's nieces sleep with their father, Abraham with his sister Sarah). Judaism evolved with time and ended forbidding slavery and massacres.

Islam didn't and can't evolve: Coran is told to have existed from all eternity without a single sign changed (in reality there were several versions of it but Muslims deny it). About Muhammad, Islamists will try to imitate him in every thing, even in what they eat, even in how they dress (I remember of an Algerian mocking them because they wore clothes and shoes a la 7th century Arabia, unadequate for Algeria who is noticeably colder, and protected their eyelids against deset's sun with kohl despite iving hundreds of miles of the closest desert and the Algerian concluded "if the Prophet had put a stick in his ass, they would put a stick in their asses).

Not even the most orthodox Jew would endorse incest because Abraham did it or genocide because Moses did it. But orthodox Muslims will gladly declare holy any action performed by Muhammad. Like raping nine year old girls or mass murder of infidels (including non-wahabist Muslims).

Now, while we are at equally bankrupt traditions how about the Democratic party tradition who had some of its members meet the ennemy, calumniate their comrades and never repenting for being an indirect cause of the Cambodian genocide?

Posted by JFM 2004-11-28 5:22:25 PM|| 2004-11-28 5:22:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Not even the most orthodox Jew would endorse incest because Abraham did it or genocide because Moses did it. But orthodox Muslims will gladly declare holy any action performed by Muhammad. Like raping nine year old girls or mass murder of infidels (including non-wahabist Muslims).

Now, while we are at equally bankrupt traditions how about the Democratic party tradition who had some of its members meet the ennemy, calumniate their comrades and never repenting for being an indirect cause of the Cambodian genocide?

That was so well done I thought it was worth repeating.

Posted by Crusader 2004-11-28 6:40:20 PM|| 2004-11-28 6:40:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Re: JFM - Too many points in your message to respond to except to say that the fact that some Christian successfully fought other Christians to abolish slavery in the 18th and 19th centuries, some 1500 years after Christians gained control of the West world hardly proof of that freedom loving nature of Christianity.

Also,read Numbers 16. The crime of Korah was being so audacious as to say to Moses that "And they gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them, Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them: wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the LORD". For this Moses had God (supposedly) kill Korah and his supporters "two hundred and fifty princes of the assembly, famous in the congregation, men of renown" and when the Hebrews protested this grievous crime, God wiped out another 14,700 of them with plague (biological warfare). I don't recall any accusations that the Amalekites engaged in human sacrific, but it wouldn't suprise me since the practice of having children "walk through fire" (be dumped into a furnance inside an idol) was apparently quite widespread at the time, but that wasn't the crime for which the Amalekites were condemned, but rather failing to give the Hebrews safe passage when entering the land of Canaan (hundreds of years in the past at that time of Saul). Still God, through Samuel, commanded Saul to "smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass" 1 Samuel 15. When he temporarily spared the King Samuel withdrew from him the right to rule Israel. There are many similar and even worse incidents of divinely directed genocide in the Old Testament, e.g. Deuteronomy 2-3, Joshua 11, Judges 2:.

As for Crusader, you seemed to be unaware that the Reagan Administration as well as the Carter Administration funded the Khmer Rouge from 1980-1986 to the tune of about $85 million, as well as imposing international sanctions on that Vietnamese because they wouldn't hand the country back over to Pol Pot's murderers.

My point is simply that of Jesus's - "Judge not, that ye be not judged." Mathew 7:1. Or, as St. Paul pointed out "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one" Roman 3:10.

Every religion and ideology falls short when measured by contemporary moral standards. Rather than focussing on how evil our opponents, perhaps we could for once actually try following our own religion (those of us who are Christians anyway) and concentrate on improving ourselves, and helping others to improve themselves with love, not hatred, ridicule and an entirely unjusitified sense of moral superiority.

Posted by Crinerong Unomotch9331 2004-11-28 7:31:38 PM|| 2004-11-28 7:31:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Crinerong Unomotch,
"Rather than focussing on how evil our opponents, perhaps we could for once actually try following our own religion ... and concentrate on improving ourselves, and helping others to improve themselves with love, not hatred, ridicule and an entirely unjusitified sense of moral superiority."

Holy sanctimony!

Ya know, maybe you should go to Iraq and locate Zarqawi and discuss with him your finer points.
He is a kind of healer, you see, he can relieve you of any potential headache permanently, chanting "Alalhu Akbar" and maybe adding something akin "No pain, no gain".

Posted by Conanista 2004-11-28 7:51:32 PM|| 2004-11-28 7:51:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Oh, baby, what's that smell?

Posted by .com 2004-11-28 7:54:25 PM|| 2004-11-28 7:54:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 Rather than focussing on how evil our opponents, perhaps we could for once actually try following our own religion (those of us who are Christians anyway) and concentrate on improving ourselves, and helping others to improve themselves with love, not hatred, ridicule and an entirely unjusitified sense of moral superiority.

This is something that we do, but we still have the right to DEFEND ourselves. The "Lets all hold hands" strategy didn't work well for early Christians when they became lion food.

Posted by Charles 2004-11-28 7:59:16 PM|| 2004-11-28 7:59:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 And one stood before them all and, with a straight face, said unto them, "My shit stinketh not, so I shall cast the first un-stone. I shall make many moral equivalences in a seemingly rational pattern of carefully selected piles of poopery. I shall make it as though a fine pastry, yet it is, indeedy-do, total fucking bullshit. I shall obfuscate the now with the then and say yeah, verily, they are the same. I shall maketh you feel the queasy feeling. Then shall I hide behind the words you call your own, so you may not see through to find your way, again. With much polish and flash I blind you with the light of historical reference, for I am smooth and have pulled this off before. Amen."

And then they knew the truth of it - some people are as gullible as a fucking box of rocks.

*golfus clappus*

Posted by .com 2004-11-28 8:00:48 PM|| 2004-11-28 8:00:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 I have to commend Fred's genius reflected in the script generating these nicks. Crinerong Unomotch sounds like a wartfull toad. Add the content and it's a match! :-)

Posted by Conanista 2004-11-28 8:01:26 PM|| 2004-11-28 8:01:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 Crinerong Unomotch9331, nicely self-righteous rant. You go ahead and improve yourself; I intend to do all I can as a little civilian housewife to permanently discourage the Islamofascists who are working to convert us all by sword and fire to their form of Islam. All except my daughters and me ... and my co-religionists.... because they believe, like the Nazis my parents fought against, that Jews are subhumans suitable only for killing (or did you think they were speaking rhetorically about "the descendents of pigs and monkeys"?).

I do not judge others' religions as such -- nor do most here -- but those who choose to justify their basest and most murderous impulses explicitly by their religion have thereby opened themselves to criticism, don't you think? At least insofar as they are failing to improve themselves, and in point of fact could be judged to be disimproving themselves.

God helps those who help themselves -- and I refuse to commit suicide by passively allowing those who desire to murder me to do so.... suicide being an end to all my efforts at self improvement (I wouldn't dare presume to advise others how to improve themselves), clearly the highest sin in your own hierarchy.

JFM: evidence found in digs in Egypt clarifies Abraham's use of the term "sister" when referring to his wife, Sarah. In the hierarchy of wives at the times, there were, in order from lowest to highest: slave, wife's handmaiden, concubine, wife, and "sister-wife". Unlike the senior wife, who ranked highest by stature, the "sister-wife" ranked even higher, by means of acquiring her husband's affection as well, and with the title attained certain legal rights beyond that of any other of his wives. By naming Sarah as "sister-wife", Abraham actually signified that she was completely off limits unless King Abimelech wanted to initiate a blood feud with a nomad dignitary such as Abraham had then become. While amongst the Egyptian royal class incestuous marriage between half-siblings was common, the Hebrew nomads did not generally so indulge themselves (e.g. the marriage of Isaac to his cousin Rebekkah, and Jacob to his cousins Leah and Rachel). I'm afraid I can't give you citations, but I'm sure you are better than I at finding them anyway ;-)

The Biblical exegesis of the whole Abraham/Sarah thing I find rather interesting. In Genesis 11:29, Abram takes Sarai (as they were then) to wife, but her lineage is not given, even as his brother Nahor's wife is defined as being the daughter of their other brother Haran, i.e. his own niece. In contrast, it is not until Genesis 20:12 that Abraham explains that he and Sarah are half-siblings through different wives of their father.... and I wonder if this is because the writers of the text were not aware of this earlier usage.

Michael Piston: you seem to fail to recognise the ability of religions to evolve with time. The Jews no longer allow slavery as was explicitly allowed in the Old Testament -- read the laws on the taking, freeing, and rights of slaves and their offspring. Nor do they take multiple wives, as did Abraham and King Solomon. The Christians no longer are involved in slavery, unlike, e.g. the Saudis who treat their female and black servants as they slaves they were legally as recently as the 1960s. Do all Muslims copy those aspects of Mohammed's behaviour abhorrent to the modern sensibility, such as taking child brides or attempting to kill of all those who do not practice what they consider to be the correct version of Islam? No, but enough do, across Islam-dom, to make this a matter for sensible minds to render judgement.

Posted by trailing wife 2004-11-28 9:33:35 PM|| 2004-11-28 9:33:35 PM|| Front Page Top

00:16 RWV
23:16 lex
23:01 lex
22:58 lex
22:52 Barbara Skolaut
22:49 lex
22:37 BH
22:34 Ian F
22:32 mojo
22:19 Zenster
22:10 jackal
22:08 jackal
22:03 Zenster
21:59 Richard Aubrey
21:57 jackal
21:53 Frank G
21:52 Frank G
21:46 Monk
21:45 lex
21:44 jackal
21:43 Random thoughts
21:38 Matt K.
21:38 RWV
21:37 Zenster