Saturday, August 30, 2008

Support for the repression of women of Islam

Terry Glavin:

"A Pakistani lawmaker defended a decision by southwestern tribesmen to bury five women alive because they wanted to choose their own husbands, telling stunned members of Parliament this week to spare him their outrage.

.. “Only those who indulge in immoral acts should be afraid.”

The women, three of whom were teenagers, were first shot and then thrown into a ditch. They were still breathing as their bodies were covered with rocks and mud...

TG helpfully adds:

Anti-war activists, anti-imperialists, UCU chapels and Code Pink members may send their expressions of support directly to Mir Israr Ullah Zehri here: Party: BNP (Awami), 302-E Parliament lodges, Islamabad. Home phone: 051-9207477."

I didn't have to look long and far for such a possible supporter:

According to Naomi Wolf:

"When Americans were being prepared for the invasion of Afghanistan, the Taliban were demonised for denying cosmetics and hair colour to women; when the Taliban were overthrown, Western writers often noted that women had taken off their scarves."

Please note the ease of her dismissal of Taliban crimes against women as"demonization".

Please note that not once does she mention the "burqa" which is what Afghan women are forced to wear when they go out: not veils and not chadors, but burqas. That should arouse some scepticism in the reader about the authoritative credibility of her account, or how much she was paying attention. After all, she does claim that she had acquired her more intimate knowledge during her "[travels] in Muslim countries" where she was privy to "a discussion in women-only settings within Muslim homes".

She further teaches us that she:

"... learned that Muslim attitudes toward women's appearance and sexuality are not rooted in repression, but in a strong sense of public versus private, of what is due to God and what is due to one's husband. It is not that Islam suppresses sexuality, but that it embodies a strongly developed sense of its appropriate channelling - toward marriage, the bonds that sustain family life, and the attachment that secures a home."

So what is due to one's husband? Did she ask for details?

According to 'Uweid Al-Mash'an, head of the psychology department at the University of Kuwait:

The husband has certain rights, and the wife has certain duties towards him. Similarly, the wife has rights, and the husband has duties towards her. These rights and duties are inseparable. The husband has certain rights to which he is entitled. Does a man marry a woman so she can doll herself up and leave, or does he marry her so she can serve him? So she can serve him... It is a duty according to the Shari'a for the wife to serve her husband.... By "serving," I mean that the wife should give her husband whatever he asks for – his rights. That's what I mean. Does he have rights, yes or no? She should provide these rights.

And this Saudi scholar expands the issue a bit:

The husband's rights are very great. Therefore, according to a reliable Hadith, a woman said: "Oh Prophet of Allah, I will not marry before you tell me what my husband's rights from me are." The Prophet said: "Do you really want to know?" She said: "Yes." He said: "If pus or blood comes out of your husband's nose and you lick is up, you still will not have observed all his rights.
" The rights of the husband are great, and you must observe them. "


At 10:27 AM EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wanted to just point out The last hadieth is not reliable,

god dont let us lie at our prophet or change what you said as the previous did.

and to go furthermore, a reliable hadeith says" who ever lies and say something i didnt say gurntees his seat in the hell" this is for scholers big or small who use unreliable hadieths.

just for clarification.


At 10:40 AM EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Robert Fisk got it to the point.

"Not that we'll pay attention. And why should we when the Canadian department of national defence – in an effort to staunch the flow of Canadian blood in the sands of Afghanistan (93 servicemen and women "fallen" so far in their hopeless Nato war against the Taliban) – has brought in a Virginia-based US company called the Terrorism Research Centre to help. According to the DND, these "terrorism experts" are going, among other subjects, to teach Canadian troops – DO NOT LAUGH, READERS, I BEG YOU DO NOT LAUGH – "the history of Islam"! And yes, these "anti-terrorism" heroes are also going to lecture the lads on "radical (sic) Islam", "sensitivities" and "cultural and ideological issues that influence insurgent decision-making". It is a mystery to me why the Canadian brass should turn to the US for assistance – at a cost of almost a million dollars, I should add – when America is currently losing two huge wars in the Muslim world."


At 11:39 AM EDT, Blogger The Contentious Centrist said...

May I ask, what your comments have to do with the subject of my post?

At 3:29 PM EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I dont know, but who decides what are the reliable hadiths and what are the false hadiths?

Inquiring minds want to know.


Post a Comment

<< Home