Tuesday, March 6, 2012

AFGHAN PRESIDENT ENDORSES SHOCKING ‘CODE OF CONDUCT’ FOR WOMEN THAT ALLOWS WIFE-BEATING

 
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — Afghanistan’s president on Tuesday endorsed a “code of conduct” issued by an influential council of clerics that activists say represents a giant step backward for women’s rights in the country.

President Hamid Karzai‘s Tuesday remarks backing the Ulema Council’s document, which allows husbands to beat wives under certain circumstances and encourages segregation of the sexes, is seen as part of his outreach to insurgents like the Taliban.

Both the U.S. and Karzai hope that the Taliban can be brought into negotiations to end the country’s decade-long war. But activists say they’re worried that gains made by women since 2001 may be lost in the process.

When the Taliban ruled Afghanistan prior to the 2001 U.S. invasion, girls were banned from going to school and women had to wear burqas that covered them from head to toe. Women were not allowed to leave their homes without a male relative as an escort.

The “code of conduct” issued Friday by the Ulema Council as part of a longer statement on national political issues is cast as a set of guidelines that religious women should obey voluntarily, but activists are concerned it will herald a reversal of the trend in Afghanistan since 2001 to pass laws aimed at expanding women’s rights.

Among the rules: Women should not travel without a male guardian and women should not mingle with strange men in places like schools, markets or offices. Beating one’s wife is prohibited only if there is no “Shariah-compliant reason,” it said, referring to the principles of Islamic law.

Karzai said, adding: “It is the Shariah law of all Muslims and all Afghans.”

So, there you have it. The religion of peace rides again in endorsing and promoting the abuse of women and taking them back to the stone ages. 

What baffles me is when the Muslims come here to escape Sharia Law, they decide they don't hate it after all and want to embrace it even more and then want to promote it as well as forcing non-Muslims to accept them, demand that we RESPECT their religious and archaic laws and if we don't, we are threatened, beaten or even killed for it. They don't want to adapt to the ways of Western Civilization, but want us to adapt to theirs. My whole argument is why in the hell come here in the first place?  

I am not sure what blogger posted about an atheist who dressed up as Mohammad for Halloween and was brutally attacked my an angry Muslim and guess what?  The, judge, did nothing. And the Muslim left the courtroom with a smug smile on his face. That sent a clear message to all Muslims that it's okay to hurt, beat or maim anyone who disrespects their false prophet and their false religion.

Sick of this political correctness rubbish. It needs to stop. 


41 comments:

dmarks said...

The president of Afghanistan supports savage and backward policies.

Realize also that this can't be pinned entirely on Islam, although the terrorist legal system known as Shariah does not improve matters. Such atrocious attitudes have deep roots going back millennia in that area.

Anonymous said...

Leticia,

again you simply do not get it. You blame the entire faith for the corrupted and unique Taliban version. I find it absolutely stunning that people cannot look a little bit past simple headlines and do a bit of research and add context to their judgements. In today's world of ready information, it does not take a rocket scientist to learn a bit about the world.

I am not having a go at you personally but simply put, you should know better.

The very disturbing backward step by the Afghani government is reflective of the very problems that country faces - especially their women. The Taliban's skewered theology represents only their own, nobody else. They mix the hard-line Salafi doctine with traditional tribal customs that any other Muslim nation would and does reject. A bit of research would let you know that, for example how the Taliban and Al Qaeda in fact could not stand each other and only their hatred for the West gave them the excuse to work together. Bin Laden and others regularly condemned the "tribal barbarity" of Talibani belief and considered their version of Islam to be "corrupted beyond belief".

Remember the diversity that exists within the the various Muslim communities and then make your judgements towards those that deserve it, such as the Taliban. For example, the Taliban will not allow women to even go to school let alone work yet Saudis will allow both. Both demand women to cover up including their faces, yet ultra-conservative Iranians allow their women to study, work, be even ministers, fight in the army and show their faces. We should also remember that Talban-abused Pakistan has had women as both President and Prime Minister, the current Foreign Minister and Ambassador to the US and five other Ambassadors are women.

Why the differences?

There are 13 out of the 56 Muslim nations that are ultra-conservative and have discrimination in their laws, statutes and regulations (I am a lawyer and study their laws for my work). The rest have various ranges of laws from very good to moderately OK and then there is the battle to enforce them. Remember that technically speaking "unescorted women after hours" is technically illegal in Belize, Hondurous and five states in Mexico.

Leticia, condemn the rotten policies that deserve it, codemn the abuses and the inability to collectively get out of these abuses - but get your facts correct and base them on those facts. Even dmarks whom has a lot of logic issues stated it, you cannot pin this entirely on Islam - he gets the rest wrong as well but the point is there....

Damien Charles

Always On Watch said...

We've spent 10 long years in Afghanistan. We've sacrificed blood and treasure.

For what, exactly?

Bin Laden is dead and gone. And we should leave Afghanistan, cut off all government-funded aid, and leave the tribals to wallow in their own barbarity. Afghanistan has century upon century of barbarity as their heritage and their way of life.

WE CANNOT CHANGE THEM!

Always On Watch said...

PS: Read Caravans by James Michener. A real eye-opener.

Silverfiddle said...

I will refrain from gratuitously bashing Charles. I've grown to like him...

I'm tired of arguing these things. We point out that this only happens in muslim lands, and an apologist pops up and points out where it happens in an animist pocket of Africa where two Christians happen to reside...

We need to get the hell out of Afghanistan and they can beat, burn and behead the hell out of one another for all I care.

Right Truth said...

How about a code of conduct for these Muslim men. Still living in the dark ages. Someone needs to teach them a lesson

Debbie
Right Truth
http://www.righttruth.typepad.com

dmarks said...

What logic issues do I have? And I was correct with the rest, especially about Shariah, which has no place in any decent government because it forces religion on people whether or not they believe in the Muslim god. Such matters are personal and not for the State.

Anonymous said...

SF - you said " We point out that this only happens in muslim lands, and an apologist ..... "

I make no apologies for any actions and thus cannot be called an apologist. However, besides the fact that I like you as well, you are wrong with that statement and that is the entire point I made. Why is it that the basic assumption is that all brutality and as such only happens in Muslim lands and thus it is being Muslim is why these countries are backwards. That falls flat with the basic truth that there are brutal and barbaric lands in other locations that are not Muslim.

The answer is three fold, first it is because we have soldiers fighting and dying in that part of the world, secondly the media likes a scandal and lastly because elements like to profit from targetting a group for their own domestic benefit.

There is no more nor less that that.

My "beef" is simple here, get facts right that is all and based on those facts then put up an argument. You, like I, have an appreciation for Kant, so think what he would say - the one argument that drove his own students and colleagues mad - his consistant question "what are the facts and is it really?" (Was sind die tatsachen und ist es wirklich?)

D Charles

Anonymous said...

dmarks' statement may sound nice but in fact fails miserably both in concept and the reality check.

The failure, of course, is inevitable basing its logic on there being "a Muslim god". Regardless if one believes that the God Muslims believe is the same Abrahamic God that we Christians and Jews believe (it is and only a fringe attempt to deny it), the fact remains that Islamic jurispudence accepts it as the same Abrahamic God and thus any argument must be based on that. To "blast" Islamic jurispudence requires therefore blasting Judaic and Christian values as well.

Also, even though I personally agree that a Sharia Legal system has no place in any society, the basis of all laws is a reflection of the majority belief of its population.

Having said that, there is still a mistake in logic when one does not put the reality test - my point again and again ad nauseum.

There are 56 Muslim nations, of which less than half (22) that have Sharia included into the legal system and constitutions. Of those that have it, again less than half (9) have a full blow Sharia court structure fun by theologists, the rest have only family law under Sharia and every single one of them has it supervised by a secular appeals court.

The other "reality" is that what is Sharia and its' interpretation? Is it the same everywhere? The answer is absolutely no!! What a Taliban based Sharia law has may have nothing in common in say Saudi, Iran, Northern Nigeria or in the Family Law Courts of Malaysia. What is in fact considered "Sharia compliant" in Morocco (that has a 100 per cent secular legal system) is nothing like what is considered in Indonesia (also totally secular) or in Somalia.

Facts please, base arguments on facts.

D Charles

Silverfiddle said...

Charles: So you are saying this is a question of perception? That Muslim brutalities bubble to the surface of the news more that non-Muslim ones because we are focused there?

Further, you allege that if we had perfect perception, that we would see no difference in level/number of brutalities between Muslim and non-Muslim lands?

And btw, I would bet a crate of Bitburgers that your understanding of Kant is vastly superior to mine. I've read others commenting on him and I had a hard time even understanding that!

Anonymous said...

SF,

Right now there are wars and conflict in many Muslim lands, that is an obvious reality and it cannot be denied. How the perception fails is by assuming that it is because they are Muslim and not simply because there is conflict there. What are the causes of these conflicts? That is the real question.

Kant has taught me to question, question again and count facts and helped my work to no end when convincing a judge or tribunal because I presented facts and based my cases on that alone.

Getting back to the subject at hand, the argument comes down to the perception produced by another obvious reality, that militant and ultra-conservative Islamists claim that their faith directs them.

How do we distinguish between what we see, what they say and what is the truth? The answer is difficult but in the end, we should look at the total and thus the reality on the ground. Most Muslim countries are not run by these people, do not prescribe to their views and most are in fact victims or in conflict with them. Thus we can argue that the perception produced by them is false and the reality is actually different.

Have you tried Hasseröder? Two cases of Export are waiting if you ever come my way? It is 5.5 so a bit stronger than what you like....

Cheers

Damien Charles

christian soldier said...

Get our BEST out-now-and no more funding-right on AOW!

It is also time to call a boycott on the lib. entities such as AARP-Pro-Flowers- Carbonite-
I already refused a coupon for Pro-Flowers...
C-CS

Leticia said...

dmarks, he wants to go back to the stone ages where women aren't allowed to have a voice.

Damien, I know and see your points and they are valid. Basically, it is the women who suffer and their little girls. The message I am trying to convey is that Islam, or rather the Qur'an promote this kind of abuse towards women. I applaud any Muslim who does not wish to obey the laws of Mohammad and Sharia and allow their women to live freely as the men, but the majority are not like that. I have seen women, here, in Arkansas in full covered Burqas. Some of these women are so brainwashed and terrified to stand up for themselves and who can blame them when you hear of women being mutilated, have acid thrown on their faces and bodies, etc. As a victim of abuse myself, I cry out for these women. This is many of the reasons as to why I post against Sharia Law and the teachings of the Qur'an.

AOW, I couldn't agree more. It is TIME, NOW, to pull out our troops and bring them home. Their blood is being shed for no purpose. They are not wanted there. And to hear of their counter-parts turning on them?! That's gratitude for. Kill the person who's only crime was to try and protect and free them of oppression.

Silver, YES!! Amen! And let's get them out now! I don't think anyone believes they should be there any longer. They are only moving targets as far as I am concerned.

Carol, yes.

Anonymous said...

Leticia,

no, you did not get my point at all.

You consistantly repeat the same remarks that it is the teachings of Mohammed and it is the Quran, it is not and I have shown why it is not. Did you actually bother to read what I posted?

If it was the teachings of Islam then why is it only 9 Muslim countries are strictly Sharia and the rest are not? Why is it that Afghanistan and the Taliban treat their women like rubbish and claim it to be Islam whilst almost every other ridicules Afghanistan and allows women to study, work, lead, drive, etc, etc?

You jump to the quick emotive decision which is basically rubbish and you try and tell me you understand and know what I said.

My question to you is what is your source of information that provides you with such trash?

The point is again and again, base your opinions and condemnations on facts and there can be no response except respect.

A last comment, I agree that it is time to pull out of Afghanistan. I supported the invasion for the task of getting rid of the Taliban and Al Qaeda but the objective of creating a responsible government to take over simply will not work and thus it is time to go. Today six of my countrymen died for what I consider now to be a waste of effort.

Regards

Damien Charles

Leticia said...

Damien, yes I did read what you wrote, and agreed with most of what you said. But I have read a lot of the Qur'ran, of course, translated in English, and I know and I have understood what it teaches.

I am very well aware that not all Muslims are evil and out for blood, give me a break, I am not that close-minded. I know that are many times that I am way off the mark. No one is perfect.

However, this article specifically was speaking about the Afghan president and what he is endorsing and that is what I am condemning.

I am not as disagreeable as you may believe. Nor have I ever stated that I was an expert in Islam. But you must admit there are many evils and the lust for blood that originates from the teachings of the Qur'ran.

Hmm...I hope I am making myself clear. I am not feeling well and I may be babbling for all I know. :(

Just know that I have read your comments. I read everyone's comments.

Anonymous said...

Leticia,

I find it interesting when someone says they read the Muslim's Koran and then say they understand it and yet have not studies their faith, known how Muslims live and what they think and believe.

For someone who reads the Koran you can take it literally and thus your being "puritanical" and like radicals, ultra-conservatives like the Salafis will do so.

You can also read it like most theologians, clerics and students of Islam do, which is dividing the entire book into three segments - a historical account of events, a set of examples to learn from and a message.

What you have done is taken the historical account and examples and taken them as being a message and you have by default supported the radicals and puritanical view as being the real Islam and ignored the 90 per cent who do not.

That is why when I hear someone say they have read the Koran and seen the blook, death and instructions for killing as being "Islam" then I know they have simply wasted their time (and mine).

The best examples that always get used/confused/abused about the Koran is the two items in various versus that says 'kill them all' and another about 'turning Jews into apes and pigs'.

The first one is part of the historical element discussing the war waged on the newly founded Muslims by the Quareshi tribe. As a war-leader, Mohammed said that in this particular battle to "kill them all". What is not quoted by most is that he said afterwards that when arriving at the Qureshi homes to not touch the families or their belongings. The item about the Jews is part of the example - and talking about the afterlife, not about the present. He said that when the Day of Judgement is upon us that those Jews who still deny the prophethoods of Jesus and Mohammed will be punished beyond words as they have denied God's Messengers not once but twice.

The biggest mistake anyone can have when reading their Koran is reading as if your reading the New Testiment and then judging it verbatum (and somehow not doing so to the NT).

I have read their Koran in English and Spanish and almost can in Arabic. When I was shown how to read it (based on above), it is a very different result. Though I am Catholic and obviously discount any divinity, the fact that the original Koran (one of three surviving copies from 35 hand-written), it is in fact an amazing book of history, poetry and social commentary. What is most certainly is not, is a blood thirsty book of hate. I consider such a comment to be based on obvious ignorance and a product of media/internet bigotry.

Cheers and thanks for clarifying you do read our comments in full and no, your words were not incoherant or ranting.

Damien

dmarks said...

DC said: "The failure, of course, is inevitable basing its logic on there being "a Muslim god"."

Whether or not there is one, I don't know. I'm not one to force religion or decide matters here. Muslims believe there is a Muslim god, so I accept that.

"Regardless if one believes that the God Muslims believe is the same Abrahamic God..."

Hardly anyone believes that. Only a fringe believe it. The rest knows these are different faiths, different Gods.

"the fact remains that Islamic jurispudence accepts it..."

Islamic jurisprudence is an unjustice to those who do not worship the Muslim god. Why should it be forced on them?

"To "blast" Islamic jurispudence requires therefore blasting Judaic and Christian values as well."

You are wrong one way and right in others. In my comments, I only singled out for condemnation nations that force Islamic law on people. Which is different the laws of of the other religions you name. However, I oppose forcing these other faiths on people as well.

"Of those that have [Shariah], again less than half (9) have a full blow Sharia court structure fun by theologists, the rest have only family law under Sharia and every single one of them has it supervised by a secular appeals court."

So you have listed a large number of nations which force the laws of the Muslim god on everyone whether they like it or not. That's not good.

"The other "reality" is that what is Sharia and its' interpretation? Is it the same everywhere? The answer is absolutely no!!"

So? Hardcore communism isn't the exact same thing if you go from Pol Pot's Cambodia to North Korea... but this is just splitting hairs. The important point is lost that it is outrageous that this is forced on anyone at all.

"Facts please, base arguments on facts."

I have been. And the claim that these very contradictory deities are the same one is certainly no fact.

It's pure ignorance, in fact.

Teresa said...

I am leaning more and more to thinking that we should get the heck out of Afghanistan. This type of violence and discrimination against women consistently happens in Muslim countries. Their cultural life and religious life goes hand in hand so to say don't blame Islam is absurd. These people follow Islam which propagates violence against women. It is the only religion which promotes violence against women. The ones who are peaceful Muslims are bad Muslims, or non-Traditional Muslims who have accepted the norms of western society for the most part.

Jersey McJones said...

Ya' know, I can't help but laugh when I read conservatives complaining about people acting conservatively.

JMJ

Magpie said...

"he wants to go back to the stone ages where women aren't allowed to have a voice."

Early 20th century actually. Full sufferage in the US came as late as 1920.

Afghani women had some rights at various times from 1923 till Cold War politics gave the radical Islamists the chance to seize power and take it all away from them. Ooops.

Right Wing Theocrat said...

The obama administration needs to put an end to this crap. He seriously cannot go down as the president who oversaw American sponsored sharia. Heavens above, if the west cannot even demand these savages civilize after pouring billions in money and the priceless blood of our sons into Afghanistan, what's the point of us being there.

The savages don't need us to return to their barbaric ways.

Right Wing Theocrat said...

And in case anyone thought it's not in the quran -
Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand. - Qur’an 4:34, Sahih International.

dmarks said...

Jersey said: "Ya' know, I can't help but laugh when I read conservatives complaining about people acting conservatively."

I don't see that they are.

dmarks said...

Magpie said: "Afghani women had some rights at various times from 1923 till Cold War politics"

Specifically, when socialism arrived in Afghanistan, forced on it by the USSR. Which included women being slaughtered and raped by their socialist overlords.

Anonymous said...

Teresa, can you back up your comments? What I see in your comments is the very example of utter ignorance that pushes the divide and does not deal with it. If it was not for the obvious fact that your an armchair ignorant I would have labelled you a bigot.

Let us see your how ignorant your remarks are:

"This type of violence and discrimination against women consistently happens in Muslim countries."

Apart from being a wide-sweeping and contextualess comment - the reality is not correct. Accuse Moroccans, Algerians, Tunisans, Egyptians, Mauretanians, Lebanese, Kuwaitis, plus 40 other nations and you simply will find your argument to be "trash".

"Their cultural life and religious life goes hand in hand so to say don't blame Islam is absurd."

No Teresa, your comment is mindless, factless and frankly arrogant. The fact that the life and habits of say the Taliban in comparison to an Indonesian, compared to say an Albanian or say an Ismaili-Indian is not the same at all. As I pointed out, even amongst ultra-conservatives and radicals such as Salafis considered the Taliban to be heritcal.

"These people follow Islam which propagates violence against women. It is the only religion which promotes violence against women."

No Teresa, it does not - explain how it does and please provide references in texts as well as sanctioned support by any of the 56 countries (minus, Afghanistan, of course). Quoting R Spencer does not count as he is neither qualified nor does he have independant motives.


"The ones who are peaceful Muslims are bad Muslims, or non-Traditional Muslims who have accepted the norms of western society for the most part."

That Teresa is the laughable statement and the ancient excuse of islamphobes to try and imply that only radical and ultra-conservatives are "real Muslims". Obviously you have never been to a Muslim country, bothered to study the life and habits of their people and your only source is the internet and your vast imagination.

Somehow 90 per cent of all Muslims are not serious, they do not go to mosques, nor do they pray five times a day and somehow they do not love their children or their wives and are plotting to take over the world.

Teresa, I found your comments and arguments (let alone name calling on other blogs) to be childish, I find that I can add a few more....

There is a good saying that comes to mind at this point - "we may hate evil but do not forget the two hidden evils amongs us, the ignorantly arrogant and the arrogantly ignorant".

D Charles

Anonymous said...

Right Wing Theocrat quotes the Koran and immediately assumes that he or she has put it in context and that it must be interepreted word and word. Sure, some puritanicals do so but the reality is that most do not and thus loses the context totally.

If we look at this logically, we know three things about such quotes.

1. The vast majority of Muslims and all but 5 countries neither endorse nor support that puritanical view. Why is that? Are they bad Muslims as Teresa pathetically quotes Spencer's view?

2. That if you ask the majority of scholars and clergy, they will point out that there are examples and instructions in the Koran for life in the 7th century. That Muslims can learn from that IF you put all the Koran into consideration and not "cut & paste". The harsh reality for women before Islam in that part of the world was far worse and we should also add the reality of women globally at that time.

3. If you wish to quote religous texts verbatum in a puritanical manor then you must do so to all religous texts. Read Judaic texts and note the right to beat, mutilate and kill women.

Get your facts straight, add context, do not cut & paste and judge on the paste and being double-standards should be tossed out. Basic academic and quality of life standards, right?

D Charles

Right Wing Theocrat said...

"Right Wing Theocrat quotes the Koran and immediately assumes that he or she has put it in context and that it must be interepreted word and word."

I didn't assume anything nor demand anyone interpret it in any particular way. I merely pointed out that it's in the koran and left the readers to make up their own minds, so you can stop with the hand waving and getting angry and defensive about it. I was also responding to your earlier claim - "You consistantly repeat the same remarks that it is the teachings of Mohammed and it is the Quran, it is not " - this one is, but you can deny it if you like. I doubt anyone will believe you because they can google it themselves.

"If you wish to quote religous texts verbatum in a puritanical manor then you must do so to all religous texts."

Really, 'must'? Who's going make me? Besides it would be kind of stupid to start quoting on the other religions when the post is about islam. But feel free to do so yourself, i wasn't trying to stop you from saying anything.

"Get your facts straight, add context, do not cut & paste and judge on the paste and being double-standards should be tossed out."

That last bit doesn't make much sense, but i understand you were highly irritated at the time.

And I'll do whatever the heck i want to charlie, i'll cut, i'll copy, i'll paste whatever i want to and people can make up their own minds on it. And while i'm on the subject, why don't you outline your view on islams treatment of women, let's see if anyone here is convinced by your side of it. And please try to keep it brief, we're all busy and don't have time for long-winded meandering speeches, even if they've been endorsed by the scholars and clergy.

Anonymous said...

RWT,

your free to do what you want just as i am free to point out what I think is basically wrong, double-standards or ignorance or bigotry.

That you support the art of cut & paste as being something difinitive tells a great deal.

Your quote was obvious as was your motives, trying to hide behind excuses serves nobody's interests.

My point is simple enough, trying to combine complex issues, emotions, modern day politics, theological pissing competitions and then using that to put broad-sweeping judgements based on arm-chair expertise (as apposed to academic) - just does not work and only makes one look stupid.

As for women in Islam - that is actually easy as I have a strong opinion on the subject.

In a nutshell, unless your puritanical such as Salafi or Wahhabi, Islam has no negative affect on the condition of women. Having said that, Arabic, Turkic and South Asian culture, sexism and tribalism is exceptionally sexist, abusive and detrimental to women. The greatest single facit that holds back the Muslim world is not Islam but the arrogance by some Muslims that their own culture is Islamic. Talk to non-Arab peninsular Muslims and you very quickly get the picture that those from that part of the world simply consider that they own their faith and that the way they do things must therefore be Islamic. Tell an Indonesian or a Moroccan Berber that and they will laugh themselves silly.

D Charles

Leticia said...

Jersey, you crack me up as well. But at least we can all laugh at each other.

Magpie, yes, the women who sacrificed so much in the movement are heroines. I won't argue that. It's the physical and emotional abuse that concerns me when it comes to Muslim women. If you recall, many women had strong positions in society as early as Queen Cleopatra, Nefertiti, Queen Ester and even a general, Debra, who went to war. Muslim women are kept in proverbial chains and are gagged and bound. Big difference.

Teresa, you and me both. Our soldiers need to come home.

MK, you are so right. None of us, except Muslims want Sharia Law here in the West, except our closet Muslim, Obama.

Damien, we will probably always disagree, because what I have read from the Qur'an, it belittles and degrades women as non-citizens and are disposable.

Right Wing Theocrat said...

Glad to hear you say that I’m free to do as I please Charles, I’ll cut & paste in joy and you can point out in joy or irritation, whatever does it for you.

Yes my motive was to point that it’s in the Koran, I’m not hiding behind anything.

And you agree that my quote was actually from the Koran right; I know it didn’t serve your interests, but it's from there wasn’t it? You were earlier demanding facts be straightened and all that, so will you accept that it was from the koran?

And thanks for your view on Islam’s treatment of women, much appreciated.

Magpie said...

"specifically, when socialism arrived in Afghanistan, forced on it by the USSR. Which included women being slaughtered and raped by their socialist overlords."

Ah dmarks you always make me chuckle with your reds under the bed froth.

1923 is a bit before the USSR invaded I think you find.

The later Marxist regime, which – though pretty nasty in many ways - did have some notion of equality of the sexes and women having rights to education.
Top job to replace all that with the Taliban eh? Vast improvement, do you think?
And just look what the Taliban have done for us since 2001.

dmarks said...

Magpie: Pointing out the unprecedented damage that socialists have done to the world is not "Reds in the bath froth". The reds aren't in the bath, but they have caused a bloodbath and the vast majority (but not all) of the major massacres of hundreds of thousands or millions in the 20th century.

"The later Marxist regime, which – though pretty nasty in many ways - did have some notion of equality of the sexes..."

Mid 1970s Cambodia was similar. Socialism in its purist form: equal proportion of the sexes represented in the vast piles of skulls.

"Top job to replace all that with the Taliban eh? Vast improvement, do you think?"

Indeed. Could be better, but the death toll there over the decades even with the Taliban in power is but a fraction of what it would have been had the socialists stayed on.

Anonymous said...

RWT,

Any cut & paste how ever small can be claimed to be from "the source".

I suggest, though I suspect you may have heard the word before, you look up in the dictionary the word "context". I will help you:

noun
1.
the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect: You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context.

2.
the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc.

Regards

Damien Charles

Right Wing Theocrat said...

Charles, I was going to type up a cocky response but I don’t really want to. To borrow from you, I don’t think it’ll serve anyone’s interests. I think yours is the better way of saying – it’s a nice day out there and I don’t want to fight.

Thanks again for your view on Islam’s treatment of women, I hope people read that.

Leticia said...

There is nothing wrong with cutting and pasting content from a book or whatever.

Most bloggers do it to save time and most readers are intellectual enough to look the entire passage of the where the content was gotten.

I don't see how anyone can defend the abuse of women or a religion that not only allows it but condones it.

Leticia said...

There is nothing wrong with cutting and pasting content from a book or whatever.

Most bloggers do it to save time and most readers are intellectual enough to look the entire passage of the where the content was gotten.

I don't see how anyone can defend the abuse of women or a religion that not only allows it but condones it.

Magpie said...

dmarks

The USSR did not invade Afghanstan till 1979.

And I doubt Afghani women would agree with your idea that they are much better off under the Taliban.

By the way it's "reds under the bed" not "reds in the bath". If they're in your bath they must like you more than you thought.

Lone Ranger said...

OK, let's stop this ignorant idiocy about Islam being corrupted by radicals such as the Taliban.

From the Koran, 4:34, "Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Surely God is high, supreme."

From the Bible, Ephesians 5:25, Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it.

Whenever given a moral choice, liberals always come down on the wrong side of the fence.

dmarks said...

Magpie said: "And I doubt Afghani women would agree with your idea that they are much better off under the Taliban."

They probably would. Remember, they were being conquered by the same Soviet Union that had done things like officially order troops to rape all the civilian women in territory they had conquered. As bad as Shariah is, rape is not part of it.

The Taliban are extremely brutal, true. It is hard to define them as "Better" than anyone else. During their rule, they killed 400,000 (1986 - 2001), about 27,000 per year. During a much shorter time, the Soviets killed twice that much, working out to 300,000 per year. A record of mass slaughter in Afghanistan 10 times worse than the Taliban.

I suppose your point is true if you believe that these hundreds of thousands of dead women would think they were better of killed during Afghanistan's few years of socialism than to have kept their lives under Taliban rule. Or the living ones, whom under the Soviet policies encouraging gang rape by soldiers had a living situation hardly better than under the Taliban.

Leticia said...

Lone Ranger,good show, mate!

Dmarks, I see no fault in your logic, non-whatsoever.

Anonymous said...

Lone Ranger,

I missed your last rather sad comment. Perspective and context, obviously, is not your strong point.

If you want to take things literally then try these for size:

"And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire." (Leviticus 21:9)

"Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up." (Hosea 13:16)

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything." (Ephesians 5:22-24)

"Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you." (Deuteronomy 22:24)

"Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (I Timothy 2:11-14)

Now, why did I post these? Simple, playing the cut & paste quoting game results in basicall you saying what your cut & paste effort wanted, not the context of what it actually was written for or the intentions of the writer. That is academics 101.

Damien Charles