BLOG VIEW | HEADLINE VIEW

ALL

GEEK

Hurts So Good

WEDNESDAY JANUARY 9 2008 4:00 PM

Submitted by TheFuckOffKid. Edited By Uncognitive.

TAGS: violence against women, human rights

In the spirit of starting with "I'm not racist, but...", please don't consider this post as being anti-religion, but sometimes you get the feeling that some religious types really resent, not so much being told what to do, but being told what they can and cannot impose upon others. Damn those human rights organizations! (Seriously, how dare they?)

In the West, it tends to be issues like gay marriage and abortion rights that are red flags to a certain kind of religious bull. In Yemen, apparently, it's about the right of men to beat up women.

Yes, indeed. In a ... what's the right word? ... provocatively titled article ("There Must be Violence Against Women"), published in the Yemen Times, Maged Thabet Al-Kholidy states firmly that in certain situations, "violence against women is a must."

Here are some things we learn from reading Al-Kholidy's thoughts.

First:

the term violence mustn�t be confused with other concepts and terms such as gender inequality or absence of women rights.

Got that? The existence of violence against women doesn't mean that we're witnessing anything involving gender inequality or absence of women's rights. Just so we're clear, 'K?

Next, if a man beats his wife following the stages of dispute resolution in the Qu'ran, then what we may be seeing is a failure to communicate:

If this also does not work, then the husband yields to beating the wife slightly. They do this because of a misunderstanding in the Quran, as the word says Darban, which is commonly understood today as beating. However, in Classic Arabic it means to set examples or to announce and proclaim. The more accurate meaning of this last one is that the husband finally has to set forth, to make a clear statement or proclamation, and if these measures fail, then divorce is preferable.

Whoa there. If he beats her, it's because he misunderstands a word? Might it be possible to, well, correct this misapprehension? Just a crazy idea.

Next, assuming we're going to allow a bit of terminological ambiguity to slip past us, we can at least be assured that those men administering the beatings have pure motives.

Personally, I don�t think fathers or brothers would undertake such behavior unless there was a reason for it.

Well, OK then! Consider me reassured!

Further reassurance is just around the corner:

In some cases, violence is necessary, but there must be limits.

Phew! I was a little concerned.

I mean:

Will it be a better society once we see wives, mothers, sisters and daughters going from one police station and one court to another, complaining against their husbands, fathers, brothers and even sons?

Exactly! If ever a Napoleon-Dynamite "Gosh!" was well-deserved, there's one right there! Where I live, you can't walk the streets without being bowled over by angry women marching from police station to police station, from courthouse to courthouse. It's a public menace.

So, lastly, let us:

avoid the misleading propaganda of such [human rights] organizations, whose surface aims hide other destructive ones to destroy society�s religious, social and moral norms.

Just remember, as long as there are limits, it's all good, OK?

[Hat Tip: Theocrazy, via Saraah.]

105 Comments

PAGE:

1 ...

4 | 5 | 6 | 7

scylis

Seattle, WA

November 2004

JAN 10, 2008 02:57 PM

i simply cannot fathom how you, Inkonnu, as a "Qur'an only" Muslim, can defend the writer's position. by pointing out that the Qur'an specifically says something other than the modern interperitation, but that that fact doesn't matter (even if only in a "limited" manner), he is saying that he knows better than the All Knowing and Ever Merciful Allah. quite frankly, if you do not allow Muhammad and his family to do so, how can you actually permit the writer to get away with such actions? for does not turning Allah's sacred words into something else to better suit your own purposes earn one not but everlasting fire on the life after death?

scylis admits that he's only read through page 1, and so begs forgiveness if this is now a moot point.

nevermind, the zot got him afore I finished. 'bout time.

wildswan

I'm lost

June 2006

JAN 10, 2008 03:02 PM

Zarth said:

wildswan said:

jtemperance said:
And, he's gone.

I hope my flagging helped in some way.

I think there was a lot of that going on. Obviously, the fact that I kept calling him "Spike" enraged him, but, as hypocritical of me as it may have been, I flagged every single "Cunt" and "Self_Righteous_Bitch" he dropped.

Of course, I'm not sure how much moral high ground I really possess. And I suppose that's really the difference between him and me. He was pretty damn sure, after all.

Well, it's rather like comparing a shard of glass to a cotton ball. Calling him Spike, was not remotely like what he was throwing out there.

Coyotemike

Kearney, NE

May 2006

JAN 10, 2008 03:03 PM

wildswan said:

jtemperance said:
And, he's gone.

I hope my flagging helped in some way.

Do you accept hero worship?

Chainlink

Christmas Island

August 2005

JAN 10, 2008 03:05 PM

don't dare to assume that you have the right to accuse me of being a troll. YOU DON"T KNOW ME !!

wildswan

I'm lost

June 2006

JAN 10, 2008 03:05 PM

coyotemike said:

wildswan said:

jtemperance said:
And, he's gone.

I hope my flagging helped in some way.

Do you accept hero worship?

Short answer: Yes. Even if it's not deserved.

TheFuckOffKid

NEWSWIRE

Australia

JAN 10, 2008 03:14 PM

Well gosh. Things sure moved on, didn't they.

PointBlank

New York, NY

November 2004

JAN 10, 2008 03:17 PM

I guess we figured out why Spike became a Muslim.

jtemperance

Chicago, IL

January 2004

JAN 10, 2008 03:18 PM

wildswan said:
Well, it's rather like comparing a shard of glass to a cotton ball. Calling him Spike, was not remotely like what he was throwing out there.

Agreed. And, at least with Zarth, there was some history. His treatment of _Margot_, who asked a simple question, was even more uncalled for.

jtemperance

Chicago, IL

January 2004

JAN 10, 2008 03:18 PM

PointBlank said:
I guess we figured out why Spike became a Muslim.

I wish I had said that.

Colinism

Atlanta, GA

July 2005

JAN 10, 2008 03:21 PM

He never even responded to my most inflamatory post. And now he never will.......

_Margot_

Santa Monica, CA

December 2007

JAN 10, 2008 03:22 PM

jtemperance said:

wildswan said:
Well, it's rather like comparing a shard of glass to a cotton ball. Calling him Spike, was not remotely like what he was throwing out there.

Agreed. And, at least with Zarth, there was some history. His treatment of _Margot_, who asked a simple question, was even more uncalled for.

I was just trying to get clarification of something, and was not trying to poke at him. I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, so I figured maybe I was misunderstanding something. I wanted to hear what he had to say before I said something that would make me look like a fool.

I am glad you saw that. Thank you.

jtemperance

Chicago, IL

January 2004

JAN 10, 2008 03:22 PM

I'd kind of love to be a fly on the wall when he calls a friend to tell him what a martyr he is.

TheFuckOffKid

NEWSWIRE

Australia

JAN 10, 2008 03:22 PM

That really was a stellar display of ducking, weaving, goalpost-shifting and water-muddying on his part. Impressive, in a deranged sort of way.

jtemperance

Chicago, IL

January 2004

JAN 10, 2008 03:26 PM

TheFuckOffKid said:
That really was a stellar display of ducking, weaving, goalpost-shifting and water-muddying on his part. Impressive, in a deranged sort of way.

It actually reminded me a lot of the pro-slavery theorists in the antebellum South, whose overall strategy seemed to be obfuscating the forest by means of trees.

Chainlink

Christmas Island

August 2005

JAN 10, 2008 03:27 PM

_Margot_ said:

jtemperance said:

wildswan said:
Well, it's rather like comparing a shard of glass to a cotton ball. Calling him Spike, was not remotely like what he was throwing out there.

Agreed. And, at least with Zarth, there was some history. His treatment of _Margot_, who asked a simple question, was even more uncalled for.

That's very true.
Your question was completely legit. His post was an unintelligible garble of bullshit and his reaction was totally uncalled for even if you twisted his screenname.

PAGE:

1 ...

4 | 5 | 6 | 7