There must be violence against women
…according to an article that appeared in the Yemen Times.
Occasionally – if not daily – we hear about events occurring in Islamic and Arab societies. Some human rights organizations recently have attacked violent acts against women, standing against any type of violence – even that between a father and daughter – and citing the cases of some women as examples.
Consequently, they offer solutions such as complaining to the police, taking revenge or leaving them men, who are either their husbands, fathers or brothers – with no exceptions.
One such case involved a woman whose husband allegedly had beaten her. Without revealing the husband’s reasons for doing so, such human rights organizations immediately urged the wife to complain to the police and the courts, while at the same time generalizing the instance and other similar solutions to any type of violence.
He concludes his article by stating that his intentions are noble:
Dear readers – especially women – don’t think that I hate or am against women; rather, I simply mean to preserve the morals and principles with which Islam has honored us.
When women are passed from the ‘guardianship’ of one male (be he her father, husband or even her own son) to another – how is that an honour?
When men are told they may ‘discipline’ their wives by beating them, instead of respecting her as a mature adult and discussing any disagreements – how is that an honour?
When a woman’s testimony is equal to half of that of a man’s – how is that an honour?
When women are terrorised into blindly obeying their husbands, because he is the “key to Jannah” – how is that an honour?
When women must veil, lest they lead the poor, powerless men astray – how is that an honour?
Join the Conversation
And I should add that while men are instructed to start the ‘disciplinary’ process by abandoning the martial bed, that option is not available for women.
After all, a woman who refuses her husband’s ‘right’ to sexual intercourse is cursed by angels throughout the night
Assholes like these make me sick. And how cute of him to end it with the usual “Islam told me so” argument. What a heinous tactic. Sure, go hide behind that sick interpretation you believe in and which you try to shove down everybody’s throats. Hide behind and play “the God told me so” card everytime you face criticism.
many interesting points here but this one in specific is a key point
very interesting example on the sad reality of some Muslim youth today. parrots whose only source of information on Islam is evangelicals books and neocons liratures
next time spend more extra effort to double check your “information”
here is what Ibn Taimmyah (the salafist terrorist bogeyman accroding to your neocon mentors) had to say about this specific topic
ومن جميل اختيارات ابن تيمية في هذا الباب رأيه في تفسير البيِّنة (البيِّنة على المدّعي) في باب أدلة الإثبات القضائية وأنها كل ما أبان عن الحق وليست مجرد الشهادة بحيث يدخل فيها جميع الإثباتات الممكنة ومن ضمنها أدلة الإثبات الحديثة كالتحليل والتصوير وغيرهما.
ومن ضمنها رأيه في أن شهادة المرأة هي من النصف من شهادة الرجل في ما لا تحسن حفظه عادةً وعرفاً بحيث لو تغيرت العادات وأصبحت المرأة تاجرة تكون شهادتها مثل الرجل تماماً، واختيارات الشيخ في باب النكاح والطلاق مثلاً كلها مبنية على مصلحة الأسرة والمرأة بالدرجة الأولى كعدم وقوع طلاق الحائض وطلاق الثلاث وهي وإن كانت مبنية على نصوص مختلف في فهمها أو ثبوتها إلاّ أنه يشير إلى دافع المصلحة عند ترجيحه لهذه الآراء، ومن أبرز آرائه المرتبطة بتحقيق المصالح جواز استلحاق الوالد لولده من الزنا في النسب عند عدم وجود الفراش (أي الزوج) وذلك لمصلحة المولود ولأن للعاهر الحجر عند وجود الفراش، ومن ضمنها تصحيحه لاشتراط المرأة على زوجها بألاّ يتزوج عليها في عقد النكاح لأنه شرط فيه مصلحة أحد طرفي العقد ولا يناقض مقتضى العقد.
let me know if you need a hebrew translation for this
A big problem in the Middle East is the marginalization of women. Women are the givers of life and the caretakers of life. They don’t have the time or the inclination for ideological nonsense. When we put women down, we allow the ideological nonsense of men to flourish, and to run rampant. No society can afford that.
To my mind, strange as it may seem, the Prophet Muhammad was probably the ancient world’s first feminist. He married a woman, Kadijah, 15 years his senior, who was wealthy, and who ran a bunch of thriving businesses. It was she, in fact, who proposed marriage to the young Muhammad, and who helped finanace the new religion. And Muhammad advocated partnering with your wife, and protecting her rights. His daughter became one of Islam’s greatest theologians. But after Muhammad’s death, the tribal customs of the day, including treating women like property, came to be enforced, and integrated into religious teaching. Such was not Muhammad’s intent.
As the natural givers of life, and as the natural caretakers of life, women are uniquely qualified to reconstitute their societies consistent with a Vision of Hope, and their inclination toward peace must become part of the political landscape of the Middle East.
Would love an english translation of your crappy argument or are u too scraed cos u know your arguments are rubbish!
neo liberals snap, neo liberal throw reason out of the window
you said that my argument is crappy….let’s forget for a minute that it is not my argument but Ibn Taimmyah’s argument
a)you read it
or
b) you didn’t read it
or
Spanky, I’d appreciate an English translation of Ibn Taimmyah’s statement, if it’s not too much trouble. I’ve seen many different interpretations, including some which claim a woman’s testimony is useless, period.
Salaam! Great analysis; reading this Yemeni Times article really incensed us all at MMW. What a load of crap!
Spanky,
While it is true that some scholars are of the opinion that the testimony of a female well-versed financial transactions can be equal to that of a man’s, the fact remains that most scholars are of the opinion that women cannot testify in cases of punishment, marriage and divorce.
yes, this is true….in case of punishments the testimony of women is not accepted. i can understand that…..a testimony which can send someone to the death row is an emotional burden for some men, and for most of women.
this is nature.
anyway, here is an article from a salafist backward medieval Islamofasict linked website discussing the whole thing about women (brief read but interesting)
http://www.saaid.net/daeyat/nohakatergi/57.htm
and more importantly here is another interesting article from the same salafist backward medieval Islamofasict linked website. a research about domestic violence (including honor killing)
it’s in DOC (word file) format
http://www.saaid.net/book/9/2799.doc
and it can be viewed in html format here
I think it’s hilarious when people associate men with “pure logic” and women with “misleading emotions” and claim that it’s nature’s intention for us not to be taken seriously or treated with respect.
and this is why i emphasized on
there is exception of course.
but it is still nature that women are generally more emotional than men, it’s a feminist retardness to assume the opposite.
I guess it’s also nature to assume that most men are dumb and violent.
so much feminist venom here
but i do agree that most men are violent by nature
It is in our genetic wiring. The error is to assume that having or being emotional is wrong or useless. Can you imagine being raised by an nonemotional mother? There is drama, hystronics and then there is emotion. It is the universal concept that emotions are worthless that I object to. It is a rationalization for some to hold power over others. It has also rendered it acceptable for humans to work out differences through violence. Emphathy is an emotion, understanding is an emotion. So according to current paradiegm these qualities are bad and of no importance. The differences between the genders are not wrong, right, better or superior. They are just that……different. The Siox have a saying that what good is it to only see out of one eye? How will you ever understand the whole situation. This is what has been happening under the current paradiegm. Humans fear differences, especially those they don’t understand. Fear is a very motivating factor for supressing others. You see it in bigotry of all kinds.
Pingback: amal hijazi