This title may sound strange, but it’s actually not just a way to attract readers to the topic because I really do mean what it indicates. Violence is a broad term, especially when used regarding women. In this piece, I want to shed light on those instances where violence against women is a must.
First, we should know the meaning of the word violence. Longman’s Dictionary of Contemporary English defines violence as “behavior that is intended to hurt other people physically.” However, the term violence mustn’t be confused with other concepts and terms such as gender inequality or absence of women rights.
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.
If a man and woman are husband and wife, the Qur’an provides solutions, firstly reaffirming any logical and acceptable reasons for such punishment. These solutions are in gradual phases and not just for women, but for men also.
For men, it begins with abandoning the marital bed, by opting to sleep elsewhere in the house. After this, they may discuss the matter with any respected person for the husband’s or the wife’s family, who could be in a position to advise the wife. 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.
Similarly, wives may take actions such as abandoning the marital bed, following by leaving the husband’s home for that of their parents, brothers or any other relatives. They may do this more than once, but if such action fails, they may not continue to live with their husband and via their relatives, they may request a divorce.
Despite such instructions, beating is considered a type of violence, according to human rights organizations, which urge women to complain to the police. I just wonder what kind of families our societies would have if Muslim women started doing this regarding their husbands.
Relationships between fathers and daughters or sisters and brothers also provoke argument from human rights organizations, which propose the suggested solutions for all relationships. Personally, I don’t think fathers or brothers would undertake such behavior unless there was a reason for it.
Fathers are responsible for their daughters’ behavior, but human rights organizations deny this too. Brothers also should take action regarding their sisters’ behavior, especially if their parents are too old or dead. If a daughter or sister makes a mistake – especially a moral one – that negatively affects the entire family and its reputation, what’s the solution by such organizations?
According to them, women should complain to the courts about any type of violence against them. Likewise, should fathers and brothers complain to police if their daughters or sisters violate moral, Islamic or social norms?
Fathers should handle their daughters via any means that suits their mistake; thus, is it better to use violence to a certain limit or complain to the police? Shall such women then complain to the police against their fathers or brothers? It’s really amazing to hear this.
In some cases, violence is necessary, but there must be limits. Those “good human rights organizations” don’t make any exceptions in their solutions because their aim is to serve society. 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?
As the proverb goes, “If the speaker is mad, the listener should be mindful.” This proverb is good advice for every man and woman not only to keep their ears open, but also to avoid the misleading propaganda of such organizations, whose surface aims hide other destructive ones to destroy society’s religious, social and moral norms. This matter requires consideration.
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.
I hope my message is clear, since it’s really quite relevant to the future of our societies, which must be protected from any kind of cultural invasion.
By: Maged Thabet Al-Kholidy
Archive for the ‘News – Political’ Category
I can’t wait until all this is over! I don’t know what bothers me more – the false bravado or all the pandering that goes on during election time. It’s a shame you can’t run for office without negative ads, but this has been going on since the beginning, so it’s here to stay I guess. Negative ads I can understand … but now we get people talking about choking and knocking out the teeth of Mitt Romney? Gimme a damn break. How about you start saying that about the REAL enemies like Iran, North Korea, Syria. The world should be glad I’m not president … or RUNNING for president. Oh, and what’s with this fascination with Chuck Norris?? He’s a hack!
Hey Hillary, if you don’t know anything about Pakistan, maybe keep your mouth shut or have Bill stand a little closer to you so he can get his hand in your back to help you with the harder foreign policy tasks. (Not that HE was much better with his foreign policy decisions) God help us all if Bill’s Hillary-puppet makes it into the white house.
The Delaware senator was responding to news that Clinton suggested in two recent interviews that Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf is up for reelection this month.
Musharraf was actually reelected in October, and the upcoming Pakistani elections are parliamentary, not presidential.
“We have a number of candidates who are well-intentioned but don’t understand Pakistan,” Biden said at a campaign event Tuesday. “One of the leading candidates — God love her.”
“There are good people running,” continued the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who has made his foreign policy credentials a centerpiece of his long shot presidential bid. “But to say Musharraf is up for election! Musharraf was elected — fairly or unfairly — president six months ago. It’s about a parliamentary election!”
Clinton’s comments came in an interview with ABC Sunday, in which she said, “[Musharraf] could be the only person on the ballot. I don’t think that’s a real election.”
The New York senator also made similar comments during an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer last week, saying then, “”If President Musharraf wishes to stand for election, then he should abide by the same rules that every other candidate will have to follow.”
Both gaffes were first noted by conservative Thomas Houlahan, writing for the Middle East Times.
The Clinton campaign has not yet returned a request for comment on Biden’s comments, but said yesterday the New York Democrat was referring to Musharraf’s party, not himself in particular.
Republican Mike Huckabee took heat last week for also getting key facts about Pakistan wrong in the aftermath of Benazir Bhutto’s death. He first suggested the country remained under martial law (it was lifted a few weeks ago) and later said that Pakistan shares its eastern border with Afghanistan (it shares its western border.)
I can’t wait to hear how this all plays out. My guess is that CAIR will try to settle quietly, but Savage won’t let them. Sweeeet!
WASHINGTON – It’s no longer just a charge of copyright violation in the case of Michael Savage v. Council on American-Islamic Relations.
Now the radio talk star is going for the legal jugular in his battle with the group that bills itself as a Muslim civil rights organization.
The San Francisco-based talker has amended his lawsuit against CAIR for misusing audio clips of his show as part of a boycott campaign against his three-hour daily program to include charges the group “has consistently sought to silence opponents of violent terror through economic blackmail, frivolous but costly lawsuits, threats of lawsuits and abuses of the legal system.”
The amended lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Northern California, also charges CAIR with using extortion, threats, abuse of the court system, and obtaining money via interstate commerce under false and fraudulent circumstances – calling it a “political vehicle of international terrorism” and even linking the group with support of al-Qaida.
The federal government recently named CAIR, based in Washington, D.C., as an unindicted co-conspirator in an alleged scheme to funnel $12 million to the terrorist group Hamas.
Thompson: ‘Not particularly interested in running’
WASHINGTON, Iowa (AP) — Fred Thompson acknowledged Saturday he’s not especially fond of running for president, but he thinks he’d be a good choice for the White House.
Asked at a town hall meeting in Burlington whether he had the desire to be president, Thompson said it wasn’t his idea to seek the office, and he wasn’t enamored with campaigning.
“I am not consumed by personal ambition. I will not be devastated if I don’t do it,” he said. “I’m not particularly interested in running for president.”
But he said others convinced him to run.
“I approached it from a standpoint … of kind of a marriage. You know if one side of the marriage has to be really talked into the marriage, you know it probably ain’t going to be a good deal for either one of them. But if you mutually think that this is a good thing — in this case you think it’s a good thing for the country — then you have an opportunity to do some wonderful things together,” he said.
“I’m offering myself up. I’m saying that I have the background and capability and the concern to do this.”
People who question his commitment should note that he’s dropped lucrative television and radio contracts and no longer accepts paid speaking tours.
“I and my family have made sacrifices for me to be sitting here today. I haven’t had any income for a long time because I’m doing this,” he said. “I guess a man would have to be a total fool to do all those things and to be leaving his family, which is not a joyful thing at all, if he didn’t want to do it.”
Thompson said candidates have become too absorbed by the process and have lost sight of the ultimate need to serve the country.
“Nowadays, it’s all about fire in the belly. I’m not sure in the world we live in today it’s a terribly good thing that a president has too much fire in his belly,” he said.
Thompson said that unlike his opponents, he’s honest about why he’s running.
“I like to say that I’m only consumed by very, very few things and politics is not one of them. The welfare of my country and my kids and grandkids are one of them,” he said. “But if people really want in their president a super type-A personality, someone who has gotten up every morning and gone to bed every night thinking about for years how they could achieve presidency of the United States, someone who could look you straight in the eye and say they enjoy every minute of campaigning — I ain’t that guy.”
Thompson said voters know what to expect from him.
“I go out of my way to be myself cause I don’t want anybody to think they’re getting something they’re not getting. I’m not consumed by this process. I’m not consumed with the notion of being president. I’m simply saying I’m willing to do what’s necessary to achieve it if I’m in synch with the people and if the people want me or somebody like me,” he said.
The man who asked the question, Burlington attorney Todd Chelf, said he appreciated Thompson’s reply.
“It’s almost refreshing to see that kind of response as opposed to what we get normally,” he said. “I think there’s a passion there. I think that it’s an old-fashioned passion.”
Later at a stop in the community of Washington, Thompson joked about Democrat John Edwards, who had an event at the same time just a few blocks away.
“I understand my friend John Edwards is in town. He’s over at the library. I hope he learns something while he’s over there,” Thompson said. “I like our bus better. Go out and check them out.”
On Saturday, Thompson was accompanied by Iowa Rep. Steve King.
Again, Islam proving that it wants us to cease to exist, but not before they take the cash out of our wallets.
And a majority of Pakistanis said their opinion of the United States would improve if, among other things, there were increases in American aid to Pakistan, American business investments and the number of visas issued for Pakistanis to work in the United States.
President Bush may soon have a new reason to avoid left-leaning Vermont: In one town, activists want him subject to arrest for war crimes.
A group in Brattleboro is petitioning to put an item on a town meeting agenda in March that would make Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney subject to arrest and indictment if they visit the southeastern Vermont community.
“This petition is as radical as the Declaration of Independence, and it draws on that tradition in claiming a universal jurisdiction when governments fail to do what they’re supposed to do,” said Kurt Daims, 54, a retired machinist leading the drive.
As president, Bush has visited every state except Vermont.
The town meeting, an annual exercise in which residents gather to vote on everything from fire department budgets to municipal policy, requires about 1,000 signatures to place a binding item on the agenda.
The measure asks: “Shall the Selectboard instruct the Town Attorney to draft indictments against President Bush and Vice President Cheney for crimes against our Constitution, and publish said indictment for consideration by other municipalities?”
The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment Friday. The press office did not immediately respond to an e-mail.
In no way is Pakistan our ally in this war on terror. I wish our leaders had the balls to call a spade a spade and tell it how it REALLY is – this is a war against Islam.
Andrew McCarthy has a great article on our problems with Pakistan.
A recent CNN poll showed that 46 percent of Pakistanis approve of Osama bin Laden.
Aspirants to the American presidency should hope to score so highly in the United States. In Pakistan, though, the al-Qaeda emir easily beat out that country’s current president, Pervez Musharraf, who polled at 38 percent.
President George Bush, the face of a campaign to bring democracy — or, at least, some form of sharia-lite that might pass for democracy — to the Islamic world, registered nine percent. Nine!
Well file this under thank the lord for Candada!
It’s about time our brothers to the north call out Iran. We know those harsh words from the nicest people on the planet will put a scare into the nutjob president of Iran and the rest of the cook leaders of that terrorist state.
Found at JihadWatch.org
Full Story at Ottawa Citizen
Iran behind flood of weapons to Taliban?
But…but…the Shi’ites would never aid the Sunnis, right? Right? Isn’t that what the learned analysts always tell us?
Wake-up call for the learned analysts, were it possible to wake them up: “Iran behind flood of weapons to Taliban, MacKay charges,” from the Ottawa Citizen (thanks to Jeffrey Imm):
KANDAHAR AIR FIELD, Afghanistan – Canada has challenged the Iranian government over concerns that weapons and bomb-making equipment are slipping across the border to Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan, Defence Minister Peter MacKay said yesterday.
“We’re very concerned that weapons are coming in from Iran,” Mr. MacKay told reporters, while visiting Canadian troops with Gen. Rick Hillier in Kandahar province.
“We’re very concerned that these weapons are going to the insurgents and are keeping this issue alive. We’ve certainly made our views to the Iranian government about this known.”
I’m sure the Thug-In-Chief will be quaking.