Female human rights in Moslem cultures

by ROB Thu Jul 05, 2012 5:24 pm

First topic message reminder :

Female human rights in Moslem cultures

Responding here to this “thread” title (in “links”), these two phrases, “female human rights” and “Muslim cultures” are in many instances mutually exclusive.

Context: The most populous “Muslim” nation, Indonesia, in its key document affirms its creation and status as a non-Muslim nation. Perhaps that’s why Indonesia seems not a breeding ground for Islamafascist terrorist murderers.

In stark contrast, “Muslim” nations like Iran and Saudi Arabia intentionally deny unalienable human rights to females. The intentional tolerance of this female-enslaving culture in Western nations, carried out under the guise of “multiculturalism”, sows seeds for the destruction of these nations’ democracies from within. To tolerate evil is to support evil, whether that evil be “secular”, “religious”, or “cultural.”

Snowyflake is “on it”, committed to doing all she knows how to do to break the chains of slavery which allow Muslim women in “Muslim” nations to be raped, tortured, hacked into pieces, executed by hit squads on the streets (a common taliban action), tortured, imprisoned in their own homes and in state-supported prisons, stoned to death, and subjected to other nearly unspeakable and unconscionable acts of state-endorsed violence.

by Bellatori Sat Oct 12, 2013 4:21 pm

stu wrote:Very true Bellatori, but do you not think that the muslem men do treat their women as second class citizens, having to walk behind them etc,and endure regular beatings at the hands of their husbands?

Many apologists for Islam point out that these things are not in the Quran. They also point out that, again, many of those things we associate with Islam, are in fact cultural e.g. Burka. Unfortunately the underprivileged and the less well educated cannot make that distinction and, of course, groups like the Taliban Evil or Very Mad

and Al Qaeda Twisted Evil

, do not think there is a distinction anyway. The end result is that 'nice' Muslims thumbsup

say one thing and the rest of the Islamic world is trying to put the non-Islamic world to the sword thumbsdown

.

by stuart torr Sat Oct 12, 2013 4:32 pm

I stand corrected Bellatori on the two defenitions, many thanks.

by Bellatori Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:04 pm

stu wrote:I stand corrected Bellatori on the two defenitions, many thanks.

Sorry, stu... there was no intent to correct you. It was just a comment.

Here's a thing. There is no death sentence for apostasy in the Quran. thumbsup

So that's a relief isn't it...??? scratch

Probably not confused

by captn daz Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:11 pm

oftenwrong wrote:Wow! What's the right name for a Christian Jihad?

Did you know that Muslims think that our habit of keeping dogs as domestic pets is indescribably filthy? They are totally repelled by the idea.

Do they know most Christian men are not too impressed with how Muslim men prefer to keep a woman than a dog as a pet.

by stuart torr Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:54 pm

Hi captn daz it isn't just christian men who think that way, atheist men are not to keen on the way they treat them either you know.

by stuart torr Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:59 pm

That's good then Bellatori.haha, cannot work these emoticons out yet though

by oftenwrong Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:04 pm

stu wrote:When it comes to the human rights for females in muslim countries I am afraid the answer is nil. the females are used as second class citizens in whatever they do. They are regularly beaten black and blue, why do you think they have to wear the clothing they do? The males are bought up that way from a very young age, and it will never change Im afraid, they are just barbaric.

The Paki-bashers have crawled out of the woodwork again.

by stuart torr Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:46 pm

WELL that is the first time I have been called anything so remotely racist as a Paki-basher, what disgusting terminology you use oftenwrong. So you think that the way muslem men treat their females, is totally and utterly acceptable do you? judging by your racist tone in your post, it seems to me it is you that has a problem to overcome is it not?

by AW Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:03 pm

stu wrote:So you think that the way muslem men treat their females, is totally and utterly acceptable do you?

Of course the way some Muslim men treat women is not acceptable. It has to do with their religious ideology, not their race. oftenwrong doesn't seem to know the difference between a religion and a race. scratch

Perhaps he can explain what seemed like a rather offensive remark, I may have misunderstood.

by Shirina Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:03 pm

A religion is not a race.

One cannot be a "racist" for criticizing a religion, even if the majority practicing a religion is of a particular race.

by AW Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:05 pm

Snap Shirina.

by stuart torr Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:37 pm

Shirina is someone in your honest opinion, being racist when they call somebody a paki-basher? when the person only said that it was utterly disgraceful the way some muslem men treat their females

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Oct 13, 2013 12:23 am

oftenwrong wrote:
stu wrote:When it comes to the human rights for females in muslim countries I am afraid the answer is nil. the females are used as second class citizens in whatever they do. They are regularly beaten black and blue, why do you think they have to wear the clothing they do? The males are bought up that way from a very young age, and it will never change Im afraid, they are just barbaric.
The Paki-bashers have crawled out of the woodwork again.

Hi oftenwrong, you're way off on this one, stu has never said anything racist I'm aware of, and he was in fairness criticising a religion, and it's influences, not the people under it's influence per se.

by stuart torr Sun Oct 13, 2013 12:35 pm

Thanks for your support Sheldon, also I have never beaten up any pakistani person in my entire life.

by oftenwrong Sun Oct 13, 2013 12:53 pm

White supremacists are pleased to receive support from any and all sources, including those who do not recognise the impact of their remarks on different cultures, no matter how well-intentioned.

English Law is strongly opposed to discrimination, and the Police normally react promptly to allegations of what they term hate crime.

verb. sap. A word to the wise is sufficient.

by stuart torr Sun Oct 13, 2013 1:01 pm

It is ok oftenwrong, it was just the wording of your post that was a bit awry, do not worry all friends are we not?

by Shirina Sun Oct 13, 2013 4:17 pm

stu wrote:Shirina is someone in your honest opinion, being racist when they call somebody a paki-basher? when the person only said that it was utterly disgraceful the way some muslem men treat their females

No, I don't think being called a "paki-basher" is a racist remark as it isn't saying anything derogatory about anyone's race. And "paki" or "Pakistani" isn't a race, either. It's a nationality. Loosely speaking, I generally don't moderate posts that criticize nationalities (I've dealt with enough American-bashing here), but I would step in if the "bashing" became merely gratuitous and without a real premise. In other words, bashing just to bash is something I really don't care for about any subject.

by stuart torr Sun Oct 13, 2013 4:40 pm

Well Shirina, I am very glad that I do not go around in my life bashing pakistani's up as that inferred.

by snowyflake Sun Oct 13, 2013 7:15 pm

often wrong wrote:The Paki-bashers have crawled out of the woodwork again.

Oops I forgot to warn you about OW, stu. He's a bit of a prat. Smile

He confuses criticism with racism. It's easy enough to do.

Hi OW, hope you are well. Smile

by stuart torr Sun Oct 13, 2013 7:36 pm

No worries snowyflake that I had already gathered.
Cool

by oftenwrong Sun Oct 13, 2013 7:47 pm

"Hi OW, hope you are well."

Never better, thank you, snowyflake, and still trying to avoid giving hostages to fortune with unconsidered generalisations.

I have always thought Val Doonican's departing valediction particularly acceptable - "May your God go with you!" Inclusive without being exclusive.

by stuart torr Sun Oct 13, 2013 7:59 pm

Good old val,loved his jumpers

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Oct 13, 2013 8:34 pm

stu wrote:Thanks for your support Sheldon, also I have never beaten up any pakistani person in my entire life.

It was an unfair comment from OW, I know you're not racist stu. Good to hear from you btw.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Oct 13, 2013 8:40 pm

To get back on topic, the widespread abuses of women throughout Islam brings shame on their religion, and it's very telling that whenever the subject is raised theists unfairly try to label the people justly protesting against Islam's appalling record in this and other areas egregiously as racist. This video is not for the faint-hearted, and adequately demonstrates the appalling treatment of women in Islamic countries.

by Norm Deplume Sun Oct 13, 2013 8:44 pm

oftenwrong wrote:[i]I have always thought Val Doonican's departing valediction particularly acceptable - "May your God go with you!" Inclusive without being exclusive.

I don't remember Val Doonican saying that; are you confusing him with Dave Allen?

by Shirina Sun Oct 13, 2013 9:13 pm

What bothers me after watching videos like this is the amount of apathy people here in the West can have. This goes double for cultural apologists who feel that one culture has no right to interfere in another. I'm all for that notion when it comes to harmless customs, but those customs which clearly violate what any sensible person would consider "human rights," I think we have a duty to intervene.

One misconception people seem to have is that those who live within a specific culture are all freely participating in it; this is the culture they decided to have. Of course, this would be akin to saying that the Jews freely participated in the Holocaust.

We in the West have been gifted with an enormous amount of rights and I sometimes think we take that for granted. We simply do not understand the terror one would feel living under tyranical rule. We cannot "understand" it, we cannot even empathize as we have never really experienced it. That, unfortunately, allows us to dismiss it when we see it happening elsewhere; we can feel smugly righteous thinking non-interference is morally superior to stopping that which is morally wrong.

How do I know it is morally wrong? Because we are all human beings whether Muslim or Christian, male or female. And AS a human being, I know that NO ONE wants to be flogged and lashed in the street, no one wants to be stoned to death, no one wants to be forced to marry her rapist, or be burned to death in a fire because she ran from a burning building without the proper head covering. No one wants to be terrorized, to live in fear, or to be treated as a 2nd or even 3rd class citizen. Therefore, when I watch a video showing a woman being whipped for simply wearing pants, I know, as a human being, that such a punishment represents terror rather than rehabilitation. And for what? She isn't being whipped because she stole something or because she lied about something important or whatnot. No, she's being flogged because she wore pants. We in the West take the freedom to wear pants for granted - and we also take for granted the knowledge that even if we weren't allowed and got caught, the most that would happen would be a fine or a few days in jail. Not a beating that will most likely leave scars for the rest of her life.

by stuart torr Sun Oct 13, 2013 9:32 pm

Oh my word, what can one say after seeing that video? and the crowd were laughing too. Absolutely awful just because she wore pants.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Oct 13, 2013 9:40 pm

Shirina wrote:What bothers me after watching videos like this is the amount of apathy people here in the West can have. This goes double for cultural apologists who feel that one culture has no right to interfere in another. I'm all for that notion when it comes to harmless customs, but those customs which clearly violate what any sensible person would consider "human rights," I think we have a duty to intervene.

One misconception people seem to have is that those who live within a specific culture are all freely participating in it; this is the culture they decided to have. Of course, this would be akin to saying that the Jews freely participated in the Holocaust.

We in the West have been gifted with an enormous amount of rights and I sometimes think we take that for granted. We simply do not understand the terror one would feel living under tyranical rule. We cannot "understand" it, we cannot even empathize as we have never really experienced it. That, unfortunately, allows us to dismiss it when we see it happening elsewhere; we can feel smugly righteous thinking non-interference is morally superior to stopping that which is morally wrong.

How do I know it is morally wrong? Because we are all human beings whether Muslim or Christian, male or female. And AS a human being, I know that NO ONE wants to be flogged and lashed in the street, no one wants to be stoned to death, no one wants to be forced to marry her rapist, or be burned to death in a fire because she ran from a burning building without the proper head covering. No one wants to be terrorized, to live in fear, or to be treated as a 2nd or even 3rd class citizen. Therefore, when I watch a video showing a woman being whipped for simply wearing pants, I know, as a human being, that such a punishment represents terror rather than rehabilitation. And for what? She isn't being whipped because she stole something or because she lied about something important or whatnot. No, she's being flogged because she wore pants. We in the West take the freedom to wear pants for granted - and we also take for granted the knowledge that even if we weren't allowed and got caught, the most that would happen would be a fine or a few days in jail. Not a beating that will most likely leave scars for the rest of her life.

that video is not for the faint hearted, it was truly nauseating to hear that girl scream and beg for her mother. No sane objective person could defend any world view that permitted, let alone condoned or even encouraged such egregious behaviour. I'll be interested to see Cusick's response given his defence of Islam's treatment of women.

by stuart torr Sun Oct 13, 2013 10:05 pm

Sheldon he will probably defend it? he is a cross between spin and cwb is he not.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Oct 13, 2013 10:08 pm

stu wrote:Sheldon he will probably defend it? he is a cross between spin and cwb is he not.

He strikes me as having a lot of the same idiosyncrasies as Slade tbh....the same wishy washy beliefs as well

by stuart torr Sun Oct 13, 2013 10:30 pm

I have just given up with him sheldon, he just keeps coming back with the same b/s

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:31 pm

It appears the apologists for the Islamic suppression of women's rights did not like the video I posted. They've become very taciturn.

by timeout Mon Oct 14, 2013 1:05 pm

Shirina wrote:
Did you know that Muslims think that our habit of keeping dogs as domestic pets is indescribably filthy?
Perhaps this is because some Muslim societies keep women as domestic pets instead.

well said.

by Dan Fante Mon Oct 14, 2013 1:21 pm

Norm Deplume wrote:
oftenwrong wrote:[i]I have always thought Val Doonican's departing valediction particularly acceptable - "May your God go with you!" Inclusive without being exclusive.
I don't remember Val Doonican saying that; are you confusing him with Dave Allen?

It was definitely Dave Allen. Not knowing oftenwrong, I don't know if he's being ironic or not. It's probably equally funny either way though. Val Doonican Laughing

by stuart torr Mon Oct 14, 2013 2:03 pm

just for his jumpers eh

by Dan Fante Mon Oct 14, 2013 2:11 pm

stu wrote:just for his jumpers eh

And cardigans.

by stuart torr Mon Oct 14, 2013 2:16 pm

to true Dan my man.

by oftenwrong Mon Oct 14, 2013 3:52 pm

The origin of the species?

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-11/30/anti-muslim-influence-on-us-media

by stuart torr Mon Oct 14, 2013 4:09 pm

So Oftenwrong, if Islam means peace why do they get involved in so many wars that basically religion based?

by oftenwrong Mon Oct 14, 2013 4:15 pm

Exchange the word Christianity for Islam in the above sentence for a clue, stu.

by stuart torr Mon Oct 14, 2013 4:49 pm

I do not think I need to oftenwrong as Islam have been involved in so many. 1)crusades 2)islam spain v portugal 3) indian subcontinent 4)west africa 5)caucasus 6)mahdistsin sudan 7)wahabbists 8)ottoman empire 9)afghanistan 10)algeria 11)china 12) the past holy wars...enough to convince you?

by Sponsored content