So you support beating women. The truth about you finally comes out.
Feminism: It's OK When Bashing Islam.
Be honest, if this sort of protest happened for anything else, the C word would be dropped a plenty.
Progressive critics enamored of the semantically fraudulent junk label Islamophobe are de facto aiding the assassins of free-thinkers, abetting the oppressors of women, and shielding razor-happy butchers slicing off the clitorises of little girls. And at no time do they betray the ideals for which they supposedly stand more than when they call ex-Muslims living in the West Islamophobe.
To understand why, lets examine the case of Ayaan Hirsi Ali. No one exposes the faulty thinking, moral incoherence and double standards pervading the Western liberal reaction to Islam better than this Somali-born, self-professed infidel and heretic. Herself a survivor of female genital mutilation, civil war and forced marriage, and, for more than a decade now, the object of Islamist death threats, Hirsi Ali deserves the respect of all who cherish free speech, equality between the sexes, and the right to profess the religion (or no religion) of ones choosing.
Brought up a Muslim and once so devout she joined the Muslim Brotherhood, Hirsi Ali deserves, to say the least, a fair hearing when speaking of Islam. Yet in the constitutionally secular United States, Hirsi Ali often finds her views about her former faith treated with suspicion, even contempt. Her media appearances and publications occasion slews of sanctimoniously ignorant commentary from liberal Islamophobia scolds. The publicity tour she has been making for her recent book Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now is no exception.
Before I proceed, a statement of what should be obvious: Islam is not a race, but a religion, one with universalist pretensions and followers of all skin colors. Understanding this, one easily sees through the linguistic sham that is the essence of Islamophobia and Islamophobe, terms that inveigle well-meaning progressives to conflate skin color with religion and impute racism to critics of a belief system. The terms are inherently political, and serve one purpose: to squelch honest debate about Islam. Islam, though, like all religions, is nothing but a hallowed ideology falling within the purview of free speech. People deserve respect, whatever their ideology. The ideologies themselves? Not necessarily.
Back to Hirsi Ali and Heretic. Hirsi Ali summed up her books theses in an Op-Ed for the Wall Street Journal. Radical Islam now motivates terrorism and warfare across the globe, but by far, she writes, the most numerous victims of Muslim violence . . . are Muslims themselves. She considers it foolish to insist, as Western leaders habitually do, that the violent acts committed in the name of Islam can somehow be divorced from the religion itself. Her conclusion: Islam is not a religion of peace. (Italics hers.)
Hirsi Ali does not, however, contend that most Muslims are violent. On the contrary, peaceful followers of Islam are the clear majority throughout the Muslim world. But the jihadi-minded account for, by her conservative estimate, at least 3 percent of the religions 1.6 billion votaries, or 48 million people. The problem, for her, lies in the call to violence and the justification for it . . . explicitly stated in the sacred texts of Islam. To counter this, she proposes an Islamic reformation, one that would lead Muslims to reject their canons calls for violence, as do, by and large, Jews and Christians today.
Holy crap! You said something I actually agree with. Must be a coincidence. One of those 1 out of 1,000 thingies.
Yes Mr. OutHouse, sir, whatever you say Mr. OutHouse, sir.
...
Reportedly, the Prophet had only hit Aisha once, and it wasn't intentionally either.
It was night and she went sneaking on him after he went out in the middle of the night, went to some place to pray. Soon he discovered that and punched her in the chest a slight bunch questioning about her trust in him. Later Aisha told that it hurt her...
Admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery. Seek help for your closet misogyny, dear boy.
Yes Mr. FerrelGeek, sir, whatever you say Mr. FerrelGeek, sir.
You spend a lot of time posting on this forum. Why spend any time at all posting comments like this? What is it that you hope to accomplish?
It is always interesting when the people who do the political finger pointing and ranting about the war against women, are among those who instantly throw women under the bus, when convenient. These clerics might well have had a conference on whether gays should be beaten or not, or even worse. The same posters I'm sure would throw gays under the bus as well. We now know who you are, and what you are really thinking beyond the rhetoric. You comments here will come back to haunt you.
And apparently it was one man that punched Ray Rice's girlfriend -- I guess it doesn't count as an attack if it's less than, what, 10 men. How many men kicking a woman does it take to matter?
Brian
I'm sure I remember someday that I raised my hand upon my own mother, in a moment of strong anger. As you might not know, it's considered one of the greatest sins.How was it not intentional? Did he mean to do something else and his had hit her?
Neither the place nor the appropriate time to discuss such matter by those clerics.
As we often say, free-time is enemy of the youth.
Religious wise, the beaten that was mentioned in Quran is agreed on by old scholars to be a slight hit that doesn't hurt (and not in the face - no slap) and only as a last resort.
Reportedly, the Prophet had only hit Aisha once, and it wasn't intentionally either.
It was night and she went sneaking on him after he went out in the middle of the night, went to some place to pray. Soon he discovered that and punched her in the chest a slight bunch questioning about her trust in him. Later Aisha told that it hurt her.
That was the only time it happened, among his ten wives, and it wasn't "beating" by any means or intentionally humiliating her.
I'm sure I remember someday that I raised my hand upon my own mother, in a moment of strong anger. As you might not know, it's considered one of the greatest sins.
Mohamed was no God, just a human. Why not accept that such behavior be considered normal, especially from a man among 10 legal wives. (actually, the story tells that it was Aisha's night that time, and she feared he was slipping into another wife while she was sleep)
Point is, he wasn't practicing the alleged right to hit your own wife.
So "women saved from attacker by group of Muslims" then? :sneaky:That's some job with selective quoting there, given what the next sentence says:
Don't go so far with your imagination. I remember it was a slight hit, back in my teenage days.How could you hit your own mum? Are you muslim by any chance?
Heh, your trying to justify it ?
Like what currently happens ?
Quite the opposite to what I meant to state here....You just stated that domestic violence should be considered normal.
The hell is wrong with you?
I'm sure I remember someday that I raised my hand upon my own mother, in a moment of strong anger. As you might not know, it's considered one of the greatest sins.
Mohamed was no God, just a human. Why not accept that such behavior be considered normal, especially from a man among 10 legal wives. (actually, the story tells that it was Aisha's night that time, and she feared he was slipping into another wife while she was sleep)
Point is, he wasn't practicing the alleged right to hit your own wife.
You spend a lot of time posting on this forum. Why spend any time at all posting comments like this? What is it that you hope to accomplish?
Perhaps "incident" is more appropriate.People are not perfect and they get angry. I was questioning your use of the word accident. I know English is not your first language so that might be why you used that word.
I think what you are trying to say is that he made a mistake in anger and hit his wife. At the time when he was angry, he intended to hit her, but afterward he felt he should not have hit her.
The word accident would imply that he was moving his had and had no intention of hitting her, but did unwillingly. He may not have hit her because he felt he could, but it was also not an accident.
Perhaps "incident" is more appropriate.
I guess it was an act of reproach, not a punishment at all.
Now one point I believe it deserve some attention. To have a ten legal wives under your custody while treat them by fair and respect as much as it's possible is something of an accomplishment, to say at least.
Divorce rates these days are as high as it ever been. Two partners that can't get their crap together and be responsible for their upcoming kids.
That's good for the US. Personally I don't care much for both parts, as much as I do care for the children whom could eventually suffer a considerable mental instability, even carry part of it for the rest of their lives.Actually, here in the US divorce rates have been going down for a while now. Divorce rates were projected to get up to 50%, but it never happened.