Islam's Continued Violation of Women's Rights

A person being of sound mind could, by use of reason, submit the position that a misogynistic mentality, coupled with intellectual vacancy, are  fuels by which Islamic fundamentalism draws its breath. The ethical and scientific illiteracy of its adherents alone can be viewed as a natural dispersant to humankind’s noesis. Such a diminished capacity invariably leads to the subjugation of the people within its sphere. Authoritarianism is all but guaranteed to manifest, and it tends to be decisive and brutal. Islamic fundamentalism is a testament to, among many other things,  the mistreatment of women. Its self-imposed nescience and their sophomoric views on the sexuality of women have led to torture, disfigurement, and murder.

Let us consider a recent article wherein an Islamic cleric in Europe proposes that women be disallowed from observing, touching, or purchasing specific food because of its erotic nature. Bananas, cucumbers, carrots and zucchini (to name a few) somehow have the ability to cause women to think about sex. The suggestion is made that a male relative slice up the food in private prior to serving them (wife, daughter, sister), thus stifling the provocativeness of what Allah, being all-powerful, created. I must state that there are claims that question the validity of his report. What cannot be questioned is the level of barbarism that women incur on a daily basis within Muhammad’s theocratic bastille.

Volume 1, Book 2, Number 29

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

The Prophet said: "I was shown the Hell-fire and that the majority of its dwellers were women who were ungrateful." It was asked, "Do they disbelieve in Allah?" (or are they ungrateful to Allah?) He replied, "They are ungrateful to their husbands and are ungrateful for the favors and good (charitable deeds) done to them."

Thirty-year-old, Rafiqul Islam, severed the fingers of his wife’s (Hawa Akther Jui) right hand for pursuing higher education. Apparently Mr. Islam, armed only with an 8th grade education, felt threatened and went so far as to cite, “severe consequences,” if she persisted with her college studies. The following is an excerpt from a BBC article;

“He also taped my mouth saying that he would give me some surprise gifts. But, instead he cut off my fingers.”

 “Doctors said my fingers could be re-attached within six hours but he refused to give them. After that time, another relative of my husband threw the fingers in a dustbin.” 

“Her permanent disfigurement will forever be a reminder of the crudity and unlearned nature of blind faith.”

Surely Islam must provide some insight with regards to the treatment of the fairer sex.

“Good women are obedient…As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them.” Quran 4:34

The idea that women maintain an equal standing with their male counterparts is fallacious, unless of course you mean death sentencing:

 

I will concede that women have some rights – although I would counter that they are simply minor concessions in a (male) chauvinistically driven system. Consider if you will Dr. Ajeel Al-Nashmi's (a Kuwaiti Islamic scholar) position that Islam prohibits women from running in elections. Although he magnanimously approves of allowing women the “right to vote” in said elections, he contends that, “Women from the physical point of view are not fit to practice politics that requires debating, staying awake for long hours at night, appearing before men and mingling with them.” Erudite indeed, and his cognitive dissonance is completely stifling. This, of course, is to be expected from such fossilized mentalities that draw their rationale - if it can be called that - from primitive devices. One such device (also cited above) is the Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Book 48:

Volume 3, Book 48, Number 826

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:

The Prophet said, "Isn't the witness of a woman equal to half of that of the man? The women said, "Yes." He said, "This is because of the deficiency of a woman's mind."

So here is their logic: Men are both physically and intellectually (used loosely here) superior to women; thus positions of authority and expressions of power are left to the bipedal Y-chromosomes of society. And how has that worked out so far? Tribal conflict, torture, famine, illiteracy on a grand scale, no significant infrastructure to speak of, high murder rate, virtually no scientific understanding, and no artistic expression. The postulation that women are inferior and incapable of "practicing politics" is utterly absurd. They maintain this view primarily because of their deluded religiosity; which in and of itself has no logical basis to stand on, nor can it provide proof sets that irrefutably show women to be substandard. No scientific narrative exists which illustrates the cerebral faculties of a female to be exiguous, relative to a man's, and unable to effect logic, reason, and sound judgment. Yet this sickening myth goes on and women continue to suffer at the hands of Allah, the All Merciful.

Examine the following statements that I extracted from another website - they're in response to a post discussing the dangerous aspects of Islam.

"You simply are not looking for the value and beauty of Islam, and hence you miss the point altogether."

"I am an adult revert to Islam from Christianity, and it is my personal experience that Islam is, indeed, a religion of peace and tolerance."

Individuals of this sort tend to have a kaleidoscopic reality; constantly fabricating phase changes in order to make their own world view more palatable. Regardless of logic, reason, and evidence to the contrary. Islam, which means submission or surrender to Allah,  is a reciprocal relationship where people of said faith "surrender" their will to the All-Powerful. And what do they get for such an act? Allah provides them with peace and safety. One could argue that such a deal is one-sided; certainly the women presented in this post would affirm that no such provision was provided for them.  

If one needs other examples to illustrate the innate barbarity of the faithful, consider the following story. Ghulam Qadir, a 22-year-old Pakistani male who took to beating his 17-year-old wife, Salma Bibi. After that he then bound her hands and feet with a rope. Allah's reciprocal covenant could not shelter her from what would happen next; Mr. Qadir took a razor and proceeded to cut pieces from Salma's face. From the article:

The pictures do not depict Salma Bibi 

"He repeatedly slapped my face and then went into the room and brought with him a locally made, sharp razor," she told AFP, speaking Baluchi in remarks translated by her uncle from a hospital bed in central Mulan City.   

"I started shouting in panic. He tied my hands and foot with a rope and chopped off my nose and lips," she added.

The teenager said police refused to register a case when her family complained about the attack, and threatened to kill herself without justice. 

"I want justice and if it is not delivered to me, I will immolate myself in front of the Supreme Court."  

The ensuing postulate is widely asserted by the adherents of Islam.

• Islam is a religion with many followers
• Islam is a religion of peace and non-violence
• Therefore; Followers of Islam are peaceful and nonviolent

This is a specious argument and a logical fallacy. While it is true that Islam has many followers, several passages within the Quran and the Hadith can be shown to advocate and justify violence. This violence can be seen time and time again and it cannot be refuted - their faith is their standard. 

 "Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace..." Quran 9:14

Women are just as intelligent and just as capable as any man; respect and consideration should be equally afforded with an emphasis on individual liberty. Chauvinism backed by religious dogma destroys a society and keeps their citizens in chains. The lack of intellectual progress keeps the quality of life, if it even exists, stagnant - with each successive generation mired in hardship. Women will continue to suffer at the hands of Islam, unless of course, it can be replaced with enlightenment and justice for all.

Mysogyny, Suppression, & Ignorance in Islam

Islamic cleric bans women from touching bananas, cucumbers for sexual resemblance 

Manar Ammar | 6 December 2011 | bikyamasr.com

CAIRO: An Islamic cleric residing in Europe said that women should not be close to bananas or cucumbers, in order to avoid any “sexual thoughts.”

The unnamed sheikh, who was featured in an article on el-Senousa news, was quoted saying that if women wish to eat these food items, a third party, preferably a male related to them such as their a father or husband, should cut the items into small pieces and serve.

He said that these fruits and vegetables “resemble the male penis” and hence could arouse women or “make them think of sex.”

He also added carrots and zucchini to the list of forbidden foods for women.

The sheikh was asked how to “control” women when they are out shopping for groceries and if holding these items at the market would be bad for them. The cleric answered saying this matter is between them and God.

Answering another question about what to do if women in the family like these foods, the sheikh advised the interviewer to take the food and cut it for them in a hidden place so they cannot see it.

The opinion has stirred a storm of irony and denouncement among Muslims online, with hundreds of comments mocking the cleric.

One reader said that these religious “leaders” give Islam “a bad name” and another commented said that he is a “retarded” person and he must quite his post immediately.

Others called him a seeker of fame, but no official responses from renowned Islamic scholars have been published on the statements.

 

Barbarism Has Never Left Religion

Australian sentenced to 500 lashes in Saudi Arabia

 

SYDNEY (AP) — An Australian man has been sentenced to 500 lashes and a year in a Saudi Arabian jail after being convicted of blasphemy, officials said Wednesday.

The 45-year-old man, identified by family members as Mansor Almaribe of southern Victoria state, was detained in the holy city of Medina last month while making the Muslim pilgrimage of hajj.

Family members told Australian media that Saudi officials accused him of insulting the companions of the Prophet Muhammad, a violation of Saudi Arabia's strict blasphemy laws.

Australia's ambassador in Saudi Arabia has contacted Saudi authorities in a bid for leniency, the Department of Foreign Affairs said. Consular officials are providing support for the man and his family in Australia.

"The Australian government is universally opposed to corporal punishment," the department said in a statement.

Almaribe was convicted of blasphemy on Tuesday and initially sentenced to two years in jail and 500 lashes. The court later reduced his jail sentence.

Almaribe's son Jamal told The Age newspaper that his father was reading and praying as part of a group when he was arrested.

Almaribe's son Mohammed said he feared for his father's well-being. "Five hundred slashes on his back, and he has back problems. I wouldn't think he'd survive 50," he told Australian Broadcasting Corp.

An Atheist Libertarian on God and Government part 2

“When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.” Sinclair Lewis

One can, without any difficulty, find obtuse statements from various politicians that invoke the name of God. Very often, the substance of these statements endorse a legislative policy and or a military course of action. Said to be mandated by an insubstantial architect is a typical strategy employed to garner support from the body politic, and it has an appreciable success rate. George W. Bush has utilized this very tactic.

“God told me to strike Al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East.”

So here we have an individual that admittedly states that God spoke to him and instructed him to bomb ‘non-Christian’ terrorists. If the average person were to have stated the same, and tried to enact the same, this person would have been jailed and forced to undergo psychiatric therapy. A rational thinking individual could conclude that politicians are exempt from such penalization.

Of course it doesn’t hurt to have Christian militarism to help implement divine policy as well; take for example the Christian Fundamentalist, Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin. A quote from the Los Angeles Times:

“He went on CNN and he laughed at us, and he said, 'They'll never get me because Allah will protect me. Allah will protect me.' Well, you know what? I knew that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol."

Then there are these insightful words:

"As a Christian I believe that there is a spiritual war that is continuous as articulated in the Bible. It is not confined to the war of terrorism."

Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin

On September 26, 2009, Boykin gave an address at a How to Take Back America Conference in St. Louis, Missouri  - hosted by the Eagle Forum. According to the Canada Free Press, General Boykin asked the audience. "What are you prepared to give up for America? Are you willing to pay the ultimate price?" He followed up with warning, "there is no greater threat to America than Islam.”

 “Here is the way I want to enter the gates of Heaven. I want to come skidding in there on all fours. I want to be slipping and sliding and I want to hit the gates of heaven with a bang. And when I stand up and I stand before Christ, I want there to be blood on my knees and my elbows. I want to be covered with mud. And I want to be standing there with a ragged breast plate of righteousness. And a spear in my hand. And I want to say, "Look at me, Jesus. I've been in the battle. I've been fighting for you." Ladies and gentlemen, put your armor on and get into battle. God bless you.”

When God-inspired politicians and militarists aren’t itching to bomb impecunious and necessitous foreigners, they focus their noisome rhetoric at home. Rick Santorum states it quite succinctly;

“Unlike Islam, where the higher law and the civil law are the same, in our case, we have civil laws. But our civil laws have to comport with the higher law. … As long as abortion is legal—at least according to the Supreme Court—legal in this country, we will never have rest, because that law does not comport with God’s law.”

What other laws are considered by the religious aristos to be contrary to divine law? In a similar vein, what laws must be enacted to facilitate a transformation from secular law and order to a quasi-theocratic model? If God’s laws are to replace society’s laws you will inevitably have the usurpation of individual liberties; "you may not believe in our god, but you damn well will follow his laws. We, the anointed of course, will make sure that said laws are followed or we’ll pray you to jail." How beneficent indeed. Try to imagine what form our country will take if this manifests; we’ll have the egocentric trappings of political power interlocked with archaic religiosity. This form of politico-religious inertia needs to be stifled at all costs. The moral and ethical values within a society can evolve without the injection of pseudo-Christianic virtues. Watch the proceeding video and draw your own conclusion.

We are led to believe, to the point of inculcation, that we are a Judeo-Christian nation. All objective morality is derived from this source. If this true and thus becomes the standard, what are we to expect from individuals that embody this principle? Let me provide for you a few specimens that are a suitable reflection of this moral system.       

Former Governor of South Carolina, Mark Sanford, is a ‘practicing’ Episcopalian that showed us the measure of his faith. Mr. Sanford was found to be having an affair with an Argentinean woman named, Maria Belen Chapur. To his credit, if such can be extended, Sanford stated that he sought counsel from a fanatical religious organization called, The Family (also The Fellowship); apparently it provided little assistance in this matter. One can’t help but remember Sanford’s devotional statement, “It is my personal view that the largest proclamation of one’s faith ought to be in how one lives his life.” Indeed Sir.

Next on our list is John Edwards, former U.S. Senator of North Carolina. Mr. Edwards was indicted on June 3, 2011 by a North Carolina grand jury on six felony charges; four counts of collecting illegal campaign contributions, one count of conspiracy and one count of making false statements. The trial date for this United Methodist is set for January 30, 2012. A man, who opposes gay marriage due to his religion, cheated on his wife – a brave woman that died of metastatic breast cancer in December of 2010. “My faith informs everything I think and do. It’s part of my value system.” Interesting isn’t it, a religious man that wants to preserve the sanctity of marriage, yet he himself is a philanderer.  

      

"I have two grandchildren — Maggie is 11, Robert is 9, I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they're my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American."

Finally there is Newt Gingrich, the former Speaker of the House, and probably the closest representation of politico-religious duplicity. Gingrich, a Roman Catholic, also had extra-marital affairs and has been married three times. His first affair was with Marianne Ginther, and the second was with Callista Bisek – his current wife. What can be considered the vertex of his hypocrisy, Gingrich was leading the Congressional investigation into the allegations that President Bill Clinton lied under oath with regards to his affair with Monica Lewinsky. I guess he forgot the idiom, “people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.” Among his other lurid details were his eighty-four ethics charges that were filed against him during his term - Gingrich was ultimately sanctioned $300,000 by the House Ethics Committee.

Electing politicians that believe in god is one of the primary vehicles used to manifest a Judeo-Christian nation. Do you believe that it is even remotely possible that an outspoken atheist could be elected to public office? Pick any position in any field for that matter. It is true that religiously infused policies aren’t necessarily the norm; points, however, can be made to illustrate the attempts to make it so. The collusion between politics and religious institutions are plainly evident. Prayer needs to be brought back in school, intelligent design must be taught, homosexuality is ruining the American family and society – so don’t teach this aberrant behavior in schools, and abortion must be stopped for fear of incurring god’s wrath.

   

Arguments abound whether this country was specially constructed to be a Judeo-Christian Nation; I personally believe that we were not promulgated with such intent. While it is true the Declaration of Independence references “Creator,” “Nature’s God,” and “Divine Providence,” one must specifically understand that said declaration is not a governing mechanism. To extend further, “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” clearly indicates that the Bible’s standard of divine authority is irrelevant with respect to government. What must also be acknowledged is the conspicuous absence of God from the Constitution. Why is that I wonder? From a personal perspective, God is not a necessary utility.

The faithful are vehement about injecting their religiosity within the various macro and microcosms of society. If one will not convert and become a proselyte, you'll be forced to conform by way of legislative mechanisms. Be a heathen if you wish, but you will follow God’s laws one way or another. I recall one conversation with a person that reiterated this very sentiment. How quaint it is to hear the acerbic tone of the faithful. In part 3, I will provide more insight into the American public's perspective to the atheist/secularist view. At the end my elenchus will be provided.