Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: IK0N on March 26, 2004, 10:32:00 PM
-
On January 14, 2004, Sheikh Muhammad Kamal Mustafa, the imam of the mosque of the city of Fuengirola, Costa del Sol, was sentenced by a Barcelona court to a 15 month suspended sentence and fined € 2160 for publishing his book 'The Woman in Islam.' In this book, the Egyptian-born Sheikh Mustafa writes, among other things, on wife-beating in accordance with Shar'ia law.
On pages 86-87, Mustafa states: "The [wife-]beating must never be in exaggerated, blind anger, in order to avoid serious harm [to the woman]." He adds, "It is forbidden to beat her on the sensitive parts of her body, such as the face, breast, abdomen, and head. Instead, she should be beaten on the arms and legs," using a "rod that must not be stiff, but slim and lightweight so that no wounds, scars, or bruises are caused." Similarly, "[the blows] must not be hard." [1]
Mustafa noted in his book that the aim of the beating was to cause the woman to feel some emotional pain, without humiliating her or harming her physically. According to him, wife-beating must be the last resort to which the husband turns in punishing his wife, and is, according to the Qur'an, Chapter 4, Verse 34, the husband's third step when the wife is rebellious: First, he must reprimand her, without anger. Next, he must distance her from the conjugal bed. Only if these two methods fail should the husband turn to beating.
_____________________________ _______________________
Beat your wifes?! Strap your children to explosives and then send them to kill other children?! These people are not right!!!
Draw your own conclusions!
Maybe the above is some of the reason Christianity and Islam will never be at peace...
OF course the European islamic bleeding hearts will have a snappy answer that somehow makes beating women ok, this will be interesting!
IKON
-
Women have no souls, according to the Koran.
Islam is a backward, bloodthirsty, intolerant way of life. I don't care about all the the alleged good things that arise from their teachings. If the bad outweigh the good to such a degree, then the overall effect is negative.
'Good' muslims are exceptions to the rule. They are benevolent, understanding and tolerant. Being the exceptions, they should turn to a view of life where being 'good' doesn't put one into a minority among a vast population.
-
"And if you fear that you cannot act equitably towards orphans, then marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice (between them), then (marry) only one or what your right hands possess; this is more proper...."
The Book of Women 4:3
English translation by M. H. Shakir
"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):... "
The Book of Women 4.34
Translated by A. Yusufali
"Divorce may be retracted twice. The divorced woman shall be allowed to live in the same home amicably, or leave it amicably. It is not lawful for the husband to take back anything he had given her.... "
The Book of the Heifer 2:229
Rashad Khalifa
If you read the words, and interpret what they say with any degree of intellectual enlightenment, you will see that women are viewed as nothing more than objects. Yes, they are allowed rights in their relations with men. 'Allowed' being the operative term. Men are not their equals but their dominators, while women are nothing more than farm animals.
I don't care how you view me, Scholz. If I'm a bigot its because my far smaller race is up against a far larger, more powerful one in a war of ideology. In my opinion, you're neither involved nor your word pertinent. You're just another tourist, allowing himself the luxury of dispensing wisdom at no cost to himself. Keep your moral highground. Keep your opinions, and for godsakes, keep your stupid little sub-continent. Niether you nor it have any bearing on the real world.
PS: Bigots are racists. I'm a critic of belief systems.
-
I think all religions have a bad history of oppression towards women.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Capt. Pork
"Divorce may be retracted twice. The divorced woman shall be allowed to live in the same home amicably, or leave it amicably. It is not lawful for the husband to take back anything he had given her.... "
The Book of the Heifer 2:229
Rashad Khalifa
If you read the words, and interpret what they say with any degree of intellectual enlightenment, you will see that women are viewed as nothing more than objects. Yes, they are allowed rights in their relations with men. 'Allowed' being the operative term. Men are not their equals but their dominators, while women are nothing more than farm animals.
How does this quote corroborate your statement?
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
How does this quote corroborate your statement?
Tronsky
It doesn't. :rolleyes:
And we all know where Capt Pork is coming from, right?
-
PS: Bigots are racists.
Bigot (noun)-
Extremist
Opinionated person
Intolerant
Fanatic
Male chauvinist pig
Racist
Sexist
Narrow-minded person
look it up, before you corect someone next time. and for what it's worth, from the impression you give on the boards, you are a bigot.
-
So in Spain you can be sentenced and fined for writing books that express unpopular values.
I did not know that.
-
I wonder if Lazs is secretly a muslim, or a closet mullah. :D
-
So in Spain you can be sentenced and fined for writing books that express unpopular values.
maybe, I didn't see where they stated the exact charge. I don't know much about spanish law (the last I studied on it had to do with the inquisition), but possibly his sentence had to do with publishing a "how-to book", with instructions on the propper way to commit a crime.
-
When was the last time a woman was stoned to death in Israel for adultery?
-
Originally posted by beet1e
I wonder if Lazs is secretly a muslim, or a closet mullah. :D
Well American constitutionalists still cling to their right to regard their wives and children as possesions. But it's mostly for tax purposes nowadays.
Sounds like he was publishing a book about the proper way to administer corporeal punishment. I'm just surprised that it is punishable by law in a european country.
-
Originally posted by Suave
Well American constitutionalists still cling to their right to regard their wives and children as possesions. But it's mostly for tax purposes nowadays.
:rofl :rofl :rofl You crack me up Suave. :aok
-
Jordan may be the most civilized, but it still has a little way to go.
In fact, as author Norma Khouri explains, honor killings — which derive from laws codified in 1200 B.C. — remain an accepted part of Middle Eastern life. Article 340 of Jordan's penal code allows killers to be prosecuted for "crimes of honor" (punishable by three to twelve months' imprisonment) rather than murder (punishable by death). The "honor killing" defense is permitted if the woman killed has been surprised in an act of adultery, or in a "situation" of adultery. Merely to be seen with a male stranger qualifies as a situation of adultery.
Khouri knows these laws well. In 1996, a girl named Dalia — with whom she had been friends for 22 years, since the girls first met at the age of three — was killed by her father for having been seen in public with a man. The dead girl was buried in an unmarked grave, and her killer ultimately served no prison time. "I want the world to know Dalia the way I knew her," Khouri recently told the New York Times. "I want them to know that she represents thousands of women who are still dying."
http://www.nationalreview.com/nr_comment/nr_comment030703.asp
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
:rofl :rofl :rofl You crack me up Suave. :aok
It wasn't a joke, I meant it literally. I grew up around them. They'll do just about anything to get out of paying taxes, but they have no qualms about enjoying the fruits of others' tax dollars.
-
Originally posted by Suave
It wasn't a joke, I meant it literally. I grew up around them. They'll do just about anything to get out of paying taxes, but they have no qualms about enjoying the fruits of others' tax dollars.
I didn't even know there was a "cult" called American constitutionalists....:eek:
-
Well they call themselves just constitutionalists. But it's the American constitution that the name is refering to.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Still ... now we're back to nations. Capt. Pork was attacking the religion based on its original text ... like I did.
Still there is no semblence of that law still practiced in Isreal or by Jews anywhere.. but the Koran is still the basis for law in many countries. It will be the basis for law in Iraq.
-
hehe its wonderfull how many people can determine that muslim are sooo bad and muslim girls are sooo poor w/o any single visit of muslim country
-
Originally posted by maslo
hehe its wonderfull how many people can determine that muslim are sooo bad and muslim girls are sooo poor w/o any single visit of muslim country
I've been to Egypt, Jordan, Israel and Indonesia. Bravo on the assumption though.
-
I've been to Morocco,Alegeria and Tunisia they are muslim country but can't be compared to "Egypt, Jordan, Israel and Indonesia"
Btw I think Isreal is a typo ;) I don't think the majority of the Isrealy are muslim ,even if a non-negligeable portion of Isreal population is muslim.
-
they are if you count their palestinian and arab populations straffo.
The one BIG difference though, is that Israel nor any of what many of the above debaters would term 'civilized' nations (aka european , N & S american, nations to the right side of india) have their laws, 'constitutions' and military based on RELIGION.
In short, those nations and cultures that have learned to separate religion and state and who have learned to (mostly) tolerate different religions as a SOCIETY.
In comparison, Islam WAS the 'enlightened' religion of its times... in comparison to judaism/christianism in its early stages that is. Remember that Islam was the only religion that preached tolerance (back in crusade and precrusade times) whereas the christians just came in and converted or killed the 'heathens'. Its all in the history books.
Then one day the power of the church was broken, 'western' civilizations drifted farther and farther apart from religion-based governments and laws..fueled perhaps by the industrial revolution (which really didnt impact the arab world until so, so much later) and the beggining of the Age of Reason. Sadly though, many Islamic societies are still in the medieval ages and power hungry INDIVIDUALS have kept them that way... for just like with the church, its whoever controls the belief of the massess that wields power over the people and consequently rules them. Taliban Afghanistan, Iran etc etc etc prime examples.
If they began to drop books from them B52's and 'carpet book' the arab world... :D
-
hey at least islam wasnt created by a con man who needed an excuse to have a bunch of wives...
-
Originally posted by IK0N
"The [wife-]beating must never be in exaggerated, blind anger, in order to avoid serious harm [to the woman]." He adds, "It is forbidden to beat her on the sensitive parts of her body, such as the face, breast, abdomen, and head. Instead, she should be beaten on the arms and legs," using a "rod that must not be stiff, but slim and lightweight so that no wounds, scars, or bruises are caused." Similarly, "[the blows] must not be hard." [1]
You call THAT a "Beating?" I have rougher foreplay than that. C'mon- who DOESN'T spank their wife?
-
Originally posted by straffo
Btw I think Isreal is a typo ;) I don't think the majority of the Isrealy are muslim ,even if a non-negligeable portion of Isreal population is muslim.
I threw that in there as it is a country that is heavily effected by a muslim presence. I guess by that reasoning I should also include Washington DC in that list... Oh well.
-
The Shar'iah law is merely an application how a certain sect of Islamic teachers have translated their text.
In the days of Mahomet, brutality or cruelity towards women, children, and non-Muslims were not allowed.
In the days between 11th, 12th and 13th century, the fanatic Crusaders have wrecked havoc across the Arabic lands.
With the downfall of the Arabic rulers and dynasties, a fiercely radical and militaristic Turkish rulers have taken hold of the populace, whom were beginning to question themselves that the lenient and forgiving way of social control the Kur-an states, may not be able to protect them from outside incursions any more.
Then the society was locked up in an enclosed state of internal dictatorship of the religion.
The 'Old' Muslims used to have three major concepts when it comes to translating controversial aspects of their religion:
* Ilm - judging and translating the text based on all knowledges accountable to man
* Ijma - A consensus of the society on what sort of translations are acceptable
* Ijtihad - Reasonable analysis and thinking towards the consequence the religion brings
Compared to what the medieval Europe was like in those days, those three concepts was what made Islam the most forgiving and tolerant religion that was to be seen in the world.
Unfortunately, with the events I have described in the beginning, all the major concepts of faithj declined, as "Ilm" was limited to "judging and translating the text based on religious knowledge accountable to religious hierarcgy", "Ijma" was stripped down to "A consensus of the religious hierarchy on what sort of translations are acceptable", and "Ijtihad" was all together dismissed.
In short, with the emergence of the political absolute dictatorship of the Seljuk Mamluks, and then the emergence of ruthless Osman Turks, the religious hierarchy of Imams and Alims set forth upon to the populace their own version of mental dictatorship, which stripped the populace from all rights in regards to religion.
What the populace was once allowed to talk about, were forbidden. The important debates concerning laws and religion where philosophers and free thinkers took part, were now strictly limited to a handful of previliged, religious hiearchy.
If one condemns the Islamic faith without taking the history behind it, that's pulling the whole thing outside of context and distorting it. It's like saying the brutal and primitive nature of the medieval European society where they used to burn, cook, drown, and hang people when they "went to court", started massive anti-Judaistic genocides in Germany and Hungary during the Crusades, and then cannibalized Muslims in conquered lands, is what Christianity is really about.
Of course, I won't condemn the true essentials of the Christian faith based on the facts what the Crusaders themselves did alone, so why should any of you do the same to the Islamic faith?
..
Again, the Shar'iah Law, which modern day Islam Governments consider to be the basis of their faith, is basically nothing but a bullshi* scam fad started from Ayatola Homeini. It's not even based upon Kur'an itself.
Such "Shar'iah Law" never existed in Mahomet's days. The word "Shar'iah" meant something totally different. It meant "a process, set of rules, and important concepts concerning the values of a society to abide by when people must form a law" rather than "law" itself. It was based upon the Kur'an, Sunnah, Ijma and the Quiyas.
Nowadays, it's not - the Shar'iah Law of modern Middle East, is based upon a handful of radically conservative retro-Islam religious officials. It would be equivalent to something like the Neo-Nazis making a constitution of their own, and saying that's what the "New Democracy" should be - oppressing other races, taking away freedoms, and ruling the populace under terror.
Now, if someone encounters the Neo-Nazi version of the constitution, would he go say that's what Democracy is? A backward political belief?
-
Originally posted by Airhead
You call THAT a "Beating?" I have rougher foreplay than that. C'mon- who DOESN'T spank their wife?
Poor Stephanie :(
-
Beatle, in Texas it's still legal to spank miscriant employees, provided you've given them two repremands, spank them only on the derriere and use nothing larger than a ping pong paddle.
In fact there was a rumor concerning a well known Internet gaming company (which shall remain nameless, as I like posting on their boards) where spanking was quite common.
Personally I can relate to the humiliation of that type of punishment- I've always suffered from bladder control problems and have had to wear a diaper my entire life. Until my mid 20s, and the discovery of Depends, I always wore cloth diapers and rubber pants, along with tennis shoes and a t-shirt. I have felt the pain of the humiliated.
-
Originally posted by Airhead
You call THAT a "Beating?" I have rougher foreplay than that. C'mon- who DOESN'T spank their wife?
I playfully swatted my wife once over 20 years ago, haven't made that mistake since.