Sunday, 18 April 2010

Education as Aberration

Clap your hands if you learned about Hoda Shaarawi at school. Now clap some more if you studied Nawal Saada’wi, Margaret Atwood, Agnes Varda…Silence, as I expected.

The issue of education in the Middle-East, but particularly in Lebanon can be easily paralleled in politics:

Just as the problem is NEVER about who is to acquire power, since laws and/or pacts generally regulate who is to become president, monarch or minister, the dilemma basically lies in the very transmission of power. How can we deal with this in-between state when a ruler dies and a new one is to take over? This period of transition is of utmost value and fragility thus it is usually when most coups d’Etat take place. To put it in the context of equal rights- even if the legislation stipulates that women can have and implement their full civil rights (by some miracle), how these very rights be transmitted? Having acquired them would indeed be a great first step, but what about their assimilation into our culture and that of our generations come? It makes no difference if a country- which is fresh out of wars, acquires by some divine outer hand- a very sophisticated constitution, its implementation would most likely be thwarted by the people who requested it in the first place and asked to be liberated from old regimes.
Think of it in terms of intellectual shift before legal shift, and the first is done by means of education at schools (which is more like passive, mind-numbing cerebral stuffing of data and little to no requirement of analysis), knowledge procured at a personal level and last but not least, the culture preached by the existing feminist NGOs.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that our curriculum is biased. Usually, that gets said exclusively about our history books which, for the life of them, cannot come to terms on a definitive account of events since the 1975 Civil War (reminder: it’s 2010 now) and has a hard time interpreting the period even before that. However, literature and philosophy deserve a relook as well; the disequilibrium is staggering and surprisingly NOT gender-based.

Thinking that only female authors are omitted from the curriculum is false for in fact, many male authors are as well: Both politically incorrect and women writers are equally disregarded or wrought to fit academia standards; think Sade, think Genet, think Vénus Khoury-Ghata, think Nizar Kabbani, think even Abou Nawas.
The issue that this brings about is not so much the need for a gender-quota in our education but the fact that diversity of authors should be a given. Not only are we restricted to mainly male literature (which I have no problem with, for the record) but precisely to politically correct male literature. Why are we restricted to Voltaire’s views on religion while his contemporary de Sade is conveniently “forgotten”? What’s wrong with Genet’s depiction of homosexuality? How come Saadawi’s fight against gential mutilation in Egypt was hurled into oblivion? Why wasn’t Venus Khoury-Ghata ever mentioned? In case you’re wondering why female authors do not make appearances as frequently as men do, the answer can be found in Virginia Woolf’s “A Room of One’s Own”.

Naturally, we’d think that all this would culminate in women wanting to revolt against this system and establish some NGOs or movements to retaliate, claim rights, spread awareness, and so on and so forth. Maybe we should think again. In all fairness, there have been numerous attempts. One would think that when a collective (or an individual) is preaching a certain ideology, the logical step would be to dig up a bibliography of oeuvres in relation, whether written or filmed.
But our NGOs are an exception, their work is reduced to annual dinners and poser meetings which amount to nothing productive (aside from shaming women nationally when they voice their opinions), or simply flaunting their body hair and their “let’s eradicate men” ideology. Add to this, their film-libraries are just about completely devoid of anything substantial, as if Sally Potter, Agnes Varda, Jane Campion never held a camera in their hands. So what we have here basically is people avidly preaching a certain ideology without so much as taking into account its manifestation in contemporary art. Why on earth would anyone want to talk Sara Teasdale?Atwood?Something?
For the life of me, I can’t possibly fathom it! Darn!

Written by Haneen H / Edited by Jay Feghali


Julia said...

True, we are not presented with certain male feminist authors or, even a diversity of authors (whether male or female) that address the topic of gender thoroughly in school. I agree with the general idea and I think that education must be reformed on several levels in addition to topic at hand right now. However we must realize that, as the educated class, we are the ones responsible for this situation.

assaad said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
assaad said...

Well done Haneen.
I totally agree with you, especially when it comes to history of Lebanon. I graduated from high school in 2000, the last history lesson we took (as I recall) was about something that happened before 1975; and till this day the very same lesson is being taught as the last history lesson but in different style. If we think of it, even education and history is linked to the 128 + 30 + 1 beasts that rule the country; or should I say, 'overtaking' it :)

You are doing a great job dearest, keep up the great work 9/10

mercury said...

yep didn't clap once..
what about wafa sultan? ayaan hirsi ali? susan b. anthony?
nahh..who cares about those? they're just women!
again i have to full heartedly agree that the education must undergo drastic reform in this country...we don't even have a unified history book for goodness sake.

anyways great post as usual haneen...however i would've also liked to have seen you directly tackle religion's stance on feminism (and women in general even) as well.

assaad said...

Wafa Sultan? The pro-zionist?
How'd you compare such a low-life racist thing to the great ones mentioned above?

mercury said...

wafa sultan pro zionist?

no no dude...wafa sultan the feminist/atheist..i'm pretty sure no atheist in their right state of mind would be supportive of any country using religion as it's only alibi..the so called "promised land" if god somehow is a real estate agent..where he made a contract with the jews.

anyways if one were to criticize muslims, that doesn't make you a zionist.

she's the author of the book "a god who hates" you should check it out...she gives her life experience and how she abandoned islam...and explains how the islamic god is a misogynistic entity undermining women all the time..whether through the quran or sharia.

anyways checked her wiki page...didn't read anything in there that shows her supporting israel dude.. here check it out yourself.

Walid said...


I agree with what you said, and I think that our education system needs radical restructuring, for, as Assaad also mentioned, it still follows a system we inherited/copied (mostly from the French) a long time ago.

I cannot recall a single moment in my entire life where I needed to use something I learned at secondary school, something I got a beating to memorize.

Haneen H said...

Assaad, do you think that one cannot be Jewish as well as feminist or part of any other activist movement?

Walid, you said a key word "memorize", had we been pushed more into thinking and assessing it would have made school more pleasant for us all.
An important question here is, what about personal initiative to learn "unorthodox" material, rather than just counting on schools and universities?

Beyond said...

ok .. theres a lot to say :P

1- Whats wrong with our schools!? ( religion's madness for power // what's there to learn when lebanon cant pick up a lesson! )
2- What makes a female author female? ( being feminist ? )
3- Religion + Politics = Today's government strategy ? ( profit buisness plan )
4- If i calp, i can hear the reverb slapping me back a second later!
5- Atheism! HA! ( enough said )

and finally i would love to say " Sanity is available in lebanon "

assaad said...

Pardon me, but when I wrote pro-zionist, I did mean it literally; she is an Arab lady that supports the rise of the Zionist regime. There are a whole bunch of videos of her and her extreme pro-zionist friend Noni Darweesh all over the internet, please look them up :)

She doesn't criticize Muslims, I have no problem with people criticizing us in order to improve ourselves; What she does is that she ATTACKS Muslims with hatred and hate and she spit it out loud and clear "Islam is not a religion and it must be stopped" - Aljazeera channel, Ittijah Al Moa'akis show.

My friend, you are relying on the weak website. Wikipedia, a website where anyone can change, edit, and update it's content. Now why would I read a book that's mentioned in it "Islamic God"? :) Are there Christian Gods, Jewish Gods? Don't we all worship (believers) the very same Deity? The thing is Wafaa Sultan has a mind, but she hasn't been using it except for attacking Islam and supporting "Israel" through Noni Dareweeh I really am looking forward for anyone to show me where Islam is subduing the women or if putting them in inferior level to men.

I'm pro-feminist Haneen, I am looking forward for the day when back-warded people in the Arab world accept the idea of having educated, and working women.

William said...

It should be pointed out that this discussion of "zionism" is a bit absurd since even as an American I know that the "zionists" aren't blood jews but rather European practitioners of Judaism who are merely perpetuating European imperialism in the middle east with the coerced support (by threatening to attack Iran, Iraq, etc and create a World War) from the United States and Europe.

Lebanon's cultural issues are distinctly their own and shouldn't be disrespected by blaming it or associating it with a "nation" to the south that was formed after Lebanon.

assaad said...

We seek unity, and yes we are associated with the Arab world as we are an important part of it. We do not blame the "Zionists" for our failures, but we that we should change and that's the main point.

mercury said...

oh dear another indoctrinated victim i have to deal with.

you're pro feminism yet you worship that very same deity who considers women as half males?
bravo..never read a phrase in my entire life that made as much sense as you just did.

why don't you grab a quran my friend...i'll state a couple of verses for you..

let's start with the legalization of polygamy :
-surah 4: verse 3:

وإن خفتم ألا تقسطوا في اليتامى فانكحوا ما طاب لكم من النساء مثنى وثلاث ورباع فإن خفتم ألا تعدلوا فواحدة أو ما ملكت أيمانكم ذلك أدنى ألا تعولوا

And if you fear that you will not deal justly with the orphan girls, then marry those that please you of [other] women, two or three or four. But if you fear that you will not be just, then [marry only] one or those your right hand possesses. That is more suitable that you may not incline [to injustice].

-female inheritance = half that of a males.
surah 4:verse 11:

يوصيكم الله في أولادكم للذكر مثل حظ الأنثيين فإن كن نساء فوق اثنتين فلهن ثلثا ما ترك وإن كانت واحدة فلها النصف ولأبويه لكل واحد منهما السدس مما ترك إن كان له ولد فإن لم يكن له ولد وورثه أبواه فلأمه الثلث فإن كان له إخوة فلأمه السدس من بعد وصية يوصي بها أو دين آباؤكم وأبناؤكم لا تدرون أيهم أقرب لكم نفعا فريضة من الله إن الله كان عليما حكيما

Allah instructs you concerning your children: for the male, what is equal to the share of two females. But if there are [only] daughters, two or more, for them is two thirds of one's estate. And if there is only one, for her is half. And for one's parents, to each one of them is a sixth of his estate if he left children. But if he had no children and the parents [alone] inherit from him, then for his mother is one third. And if he had brothers [or sisters], for his mother is a sixth, after any bequest he [may have] made or debt. Your parents or your children - you know not which of them are nearest to you in benefit. [These shares are] an obligation [imposed] by Allah . Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise.

-as for punishment for adultery? there are a couple..
surah 4:verse 15:

واللاتي يأتين الفاحشة من نسائكم فاستشهدوا عليهن أربعة منكم فإن شهدوا فأمسكوهن في البيوت حتى يتوفاهن الموت أو يجعل الله لهن سبيلا

Those who commit unlawful sexual intercourse of your women - bring against them four [witnesses] from among you. And if they testify, confine the guilty women to houses until death takes them or Allah ordains for them [another] way.

and in surah 24:verse 2:

الزانية والزاني فاجلدوا كل واحد منهما مائة جلدة ولا تأخذكم بهما رأفة في دين الله إن كنتم تؤمنون بالله واليوم الآخر وليشهد عذابهما طائفة من المؤمنين

The [unmarried] woman or [unmarried] man found guilty of sexual intercourse - lash each one of them with a hundred lashes, and do not be taken by pity for them in the religion of Allah , if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a group of the believers witness their punishment.

-oh and let's not forget how god gave men the right to beat up their wives..
surah 4:verse 34:

الرجال قوامون على النساء بما فضل الله بعضهم على بعض وبما أنفقوا من أموالهم فالصالحات قانتات حافظات للغيب بما حفظ الله واللاتي تخافون نشوزهن فعظوهن واهجروهن في المضاجع واضربوهن فإن أطعنكم فلا تبغوا عليهن سبيلا إن الله كان عليّا كبيرا

Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.

oh isn't he grand indeed.

mercury said...

you were right man..women aren't being subdued in islam at all..that's why women have to cover their hair and men don't...that's why men have the right to polygamy while women don't...that's why when a woman commits adultery she is either given a 100 lashes (if she's unmarried..if she's married then that's a whole different story whereby sharia calls for her stoning to death)..or she is left to die as surah 4 verse 15 clearly demonstrated..
that's why a women inherits the equivalent of half of a male.

btw a quite interesting hadith from prophet mohammad says (and this is from bukhari book 1:volume 2: verse 28)
"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 the good (charitable deeds) done to them. If you have always been good (benevolent) to one of them and then she sees something in you (not of her liking), she will say, 'I have never received any good from you."

pretty much speaks for itself doesn't it?

i really did not want to go into this but you clearly need clear up some of the misconceptions that you have about islam..and get to know your religion better..and i just cannot stand those cliches that people throw in about islam being a tolerant and peaceful and in your case a preserver of women's rights!

mercury said...

as for wafa sultan...i checked the site...couldn't find anything related to wafa sultan...would like you to provide some references in that regard please..
but still as haneen said...let's suppose she is a pro zionist..what does that have to do with FEMINISM!?!

mercury said...

oh just for reference i got the arabic to english translations of the verses from (sahih international translation).

assaad said...

You associated Islam with the customs and traditions of small groups/Nations and/or people. That was not very smart, Islam is a religion for the entire world, pretty much like Christianity and Judaism. Those who enforce women to be in veil are going behind the laws of Sharia'a and Quran.

Women in a nutshell:


1- Childhood:
Before Islam, baby girls were buried alive and that's highly against Islam laws. Who used to bury them? Idol worshipers, or what-we-call the infidels.

"When news is brought to one of them, of (the birth of a female) a female (child), his face darkens, and he is filled with inward grief! With shame does he hide himself from his people, because of the bad news he has had! Shall he retain it on (sufferance and) contempt, or bury it in the dust? Ah! What an evil (choice) they decide on?"

The prophet Mohammad (pbuh) was recorded to have said - "Whosoever has a daughter and he does not bury her alive, does not insult her, and does not FAVOR HIS SON OVER HER, God will enter him into Paradise"

2- Wives
Before Islam women were beated, insulted, and treated as slaves

"And among His (God) signs is this: That He (God) created mates for you from yourselves that you may find rest, peace of mind in them, and He (God) ordained between you love and mercy. Lo, herein indeed are signs for people who reflect"

According to Islamic Law (Sharia'a), women cannot be forced to marry anyone without consent. Women cannot be forced to cover their heads.

"O ye who believe! Ye are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should ye treat them with harshness, that ye may take away part of the dower ye have given them, except where they have been guilty of open lewdness, on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing, and Allah brings about through it a great deal of good"

3- Mother
Islam considers kindness to mothers next to the worship of God

"And we have enjoined upon man (to be good) to his parents: His mother bears him in weakness upon weakness"

There is a famous saying to prophet Mohammad (pbuh) "Paradise is at the feet of mothers"


assaad said...

There are specific and very strict in Islam that no one, not even the prophet Mohammad (pbuh), can edit, modify or change.

The verse you pasted from Surat Al Nisa'a (وَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَلاَّ تُقْسِطُواْ فِي الْيَتَامَى فَانكِحُواْ مَا طَابَ لَكُم مِّنَ النِّسَاء مَثْنَى وَثُلاثَ وَرُبَاعَ فَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَلاَّ تَعْدِلُواْ فَوَاحِدَةً أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ ذَلِكَ أَدْنَى أَلاَّ تَعُولُواْ"

-is connected to another verse, it comes right after it:
"وَآتُواْ النِّسَاء صَدُقَاتِهِنَّ نِحْلَةً فَإِن طِبْنَ لَكُمْ عَن شَيْءٍ مِّنْهُ نَفْسًا فَكُلُوهُ هَنِيئًا مَّرِيئًا

وَلاَ تُؤْتُواْ السُّفَهَاء أَمْوَالَكُمُ الَّتِي جَعَلَ اللَّهُ لَكُمْ قِيَامًا وَارْزُقُوهُمْ فِيهَا وَاكْسُوهُمْ وَقُولُواْ لَهُمْ قَوْلاً مَّعْرُوفًا"
Now, why ignoring those two important verses?

As you stated in your comment, there are specific policies for inheritance. You didn't bring up the verse that talks about the womens' rights after and before marriage! Everything in Islam is connected to each other.

Again, you paste a verse ignoring the one after it
"واللاتي يأتين الفاحشة من نسائكم فاستشهدوا عليهن أربعة منكم فإن شهدوا فأمسكوهن في البيوت حتى يتوفاهن الموت أو يجعل الله لهن سبيلا"

- the next verse tells
"وَاللَّذَانَ يَأْتِيَانِهَا مِنكُمْ فَآذُوهُمَا فَإِن تَابَا وَأَصْلَحَا فَأَعْرِضُواْ عَنْهُمَا إِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ تَوَّابًا رَّحِيمًا"

At last, be objective and know that you are not here to tell me "get to know your religion", I know my religion more than you think and didn't reach to this level blindly. If you have anything against Islam, state it and I will be more than happy to debate with you, but maybe not here.

As an Arab, I don't trust Zionists and those who support them since Zionism is a racist ideology that is based on destruction, killing and race-superiority.

I will provide you with all text links and videos about Wafa Sultan

Good luck

assaad said...

*There are specific and very strict rules in Islam that

mercury said...

assaad..the two verses you provided right after surah 4: verse 3 do not discredit the fact that males still have the right to polygamy and females don' eating their food and not complaining doesn't mean anything man :p the males still have their 3-4 wives!

as for the next verse you provided, the one after surah 4: verse 15...the one about where women have to repent for committing adultery..well you see's the thing...adultery is NOT a crime anymore..we are in 2010..not in 600 A.D!
we live in civil societies that do not punish nor ask people to repent for having sex with others (unless it's rape...but then again men get away with rape in our eastern societies too often).

and if anything...what you provided about prophet mohammad and quran proves nothing but the incredible and stupendous level of contradictions in a supposed infallible "holy book" providing the literal words of god himself...oh yes HIMself...not herself..not itself..apparently god has a penis that we're not aware of.

again...this is not a debate about religion...this is about education reform and feminism...i just provided how religion contradicts such a movement..(especially islam).

and as for prozionism...i couldn't agree more with is definitely a racist movement..whereby innocent people have been forced to move out of their lands by some mythical "real estate deal" the jews made with god..the so called promised land..and ofcourse not to mention western guilt for the holocaust.

but still...doesn't mean that feminism and zionism are not mutually exclusive...they are two separate things that have nothing to do with each other..

anyways still waiting for your references bro.

assaad said...

You guys (anti-Islam) don't want to get it, no? We, Muslims, are extremely happy and satisfied with our religion and we do appreciate the greatness and powerfulness of God; we love to bow to his will and cry while praying. We love to fear the Lord as much as we love to love Him.

You can be anti-Islam, I have nothing against anti-Muslims as long as they respect our believes; but obviously they just can't tolerate Islam :)

I did state before that everything in Islam is connected to each other, from polygamy to Mahir before and after marriage to inheritance shares to praying to loving others to life after death; everything is connected in extreme precise manner. There is not a single error in the Quran regarding science, life, economy, social life, and religion. That's not the subject anyway.

Let me ask you, do you think Muslim women are in lower level than Catholic and Jewish women? Catholic nuns are not allowed to get married or have children. Jews blame women for the first sin. So you want to change all religion policies to suit your own needs? That doesn't work my friend. All believers from Muslims to Christians to Jews, abide to their religion, respect and love what they do. Whether we like it or not, women and men are never equal not in mind and not in behavior and that has nothing to do with religion, it's proved scientifically.

What's with polygamy in Islam? Why do you find it hard to tolerate it? 90% if not 99% can't have more than a wife, it's not an word in the mouth to have more than a wife and it's mentioned clearly in the Quran that if you (man) can't be just to all of them, then you (man) will be put to punishment.

In Islam, we are equal in faith and rights. There is no difference between whites, blacks, indians, arabs, barbarians, etc. The only thing that differentiate a Muslim from another is faith. Women were given the right to vote 1400 years ago even before the new world knew what democracy is. Women in Islam also keep their identity and last name, they keep their property and earnings, while men MUST share. It is strange isn't it, a society like USA, has no problem tolerating sex without marriage; homosexuality; same sex marriages; sex without responsibility; children without fathers; and divorces are more common place than the measles. Yet, there is no tolerance for marriage between a man and a woman if it is not on their terms!

Since when Islam contradicts pro-feminism movements? :) Women in Islam have the right to choose whether to wear Hijab or not, to marry or not, to go by God's will or not, to support her husband or not. If a woman is happy with her veil or khimar (I'm against it and it's not mentioned in Islam, it's simply a tradition in KSA, Afghanistan and some other Muslim countries) and she is happy with it, what's wrong with that? I and you know that KSA FORCES women to wear it and millions of Muslims are against KSA since they do not abide to Sharia'a.

Check this verse
"ان المسلمين والمسلمات والمؤمنين والمؤمنات والقانتين والقانتات والصادقين والصادقات والصابرين والصابرات والخاشعين والخاشعات والمتصدقين والمتصدقات والصائمين والصائمات والحافظين فروجهم والحافظات والذاكرين الله كثيرا والذاكرات اعد الله لهم مغفرة واجرا عظيما" doesnt it show the simplest yet clearest relationship with God? Spiritual equality between men and women. This is Surat Al Twba, verse 71.

So, if you think that religions in general oppress women, so what does atheism offer to de-opress women ( if that is even a word ) what in atheism that is so liberating yet protects women's rights and gives them the respect they need? committing adultery? is that whats so cool about 2010? that a woman commits adultery , has a love child and is thrown to deal with the consequences on her own? or the same sex marriage that transmits diseases and creates psychological complications on society?

assaad said...

What is your idea of an un-oppressed woman? Being thrown in fire and dealing with it on her own because she is as strong as a man is , and she is so equal? I beg to differ! inorder to survive wihtout rights and protection is to be a monster living in the wilderness? Is that your image of a woman? Cuz its not the image of a woman in islam , in islam a woman is cherished , not created to struggle harder than a man , given the fact that a woman has more endurance for pain and stress than men!
Finally, I don't know know a Muslim man or woman who wants to get married to four :)

As for Zionism, what you wrote is true, but Zionism played a major role in the holocaust (regardless the numbers of victims)

Wafa Sultan: collecting all links and videos and will be sending them to you soon InshAllah

P.S: since I'm a believer in God, please use his name in respect, the penis part wasn't really nice and it did offend me.

J. said...

If you are to go with the actual Islam, the prophet's rules, and his preachings, then yes, women had much more rights back then than they do now with every retard coming up with a specific fatwa that is more oppressive than the last. With the evolution of Islam and the addition of each sheikh's understandings and "personal touches" and all, the oppression has increased.

With all due respect to all religions and the people who don't know better than to blindly follow without questioning, I have to say that I don't believe there is a single text that is completely holy. True, some are considered divine and "have come down straight from the Lord," but a bit of thought would tell me that even if it did, someone recited them to someone who wrote them, and in that case, you never know who might have added what "personal touch" to what. That aside, you said that there is "no single error." What do you say about, for example, and let's take the quickest and first example that comes to mind, the stance on alcohol in Islam? There is a part that says that you can drink "khamr" as long as it is in moderation, because of the effects that alcohol has on the body. Then there is a part that says since you won't stick to moderation, just don't drink. Perfect, eh? Anyway, that's not a big deal. Moving on.

Re: Let me ask you, do you think Muslim women are in lower level than Catholic and Jewish women?
No. They are not. Actually, in some cases they have it even better, and that is fact. The actual original untampered with Islam is not that bad towards women. Hasidic Jewish men wake up in the morning daily and recite something thanking god they weren't born women. Catholics in general suck, I won't even go there. But religions in general are patriarchal. Religions in general are speaking to men and not women. Religions in general consider women unclean. Women on their periods cannot fast during Ramadan, because they are "unclean." After "tawadde" men cannot shake hands with women, and many don't do that in general. Biblical texts also have women saying they can't leave their tents or their seated position to mingle because they had their period. From those basic things, women are taught that they are dirty and this roots in their minds. Which brings me to the next topic; the veil.

Nowhere in Islam does it say that women should wear the veil. The whole concept originated from when the prophet wanted to protect the women who were toiling to get water back to their camps. And so that they don't get hit on or fucked with, he told them to put veils on their heads so that people know that they are part of that tribe and so that they are left alone. Slowly, that practice spread. He never FORCED them to wear it. Then it evolved into women should be veiled so that they don't provoke "shahawet." You want to tell me that has anything to do with feminism? The proper rules of hijab are that it can't be "zeeneh" so all those women you see with pink veils and kharaz on them are actually doing wrong. Any m7ajjabe with make up and tight clothes and HEELS (do you know how wrong the clacking is? It attracts attention. Women are supposed to be discreet because we can't control our sex drives? Wow. W feminism ta illak.) is worse than a non-m7ajjabe to be honest. I know many women who wear the hijab because they are afraid of their communities, because they live in Da7ye, because their fathers locked them in their room and told them they can't leave until they are veiled.. I know many who are convinced they should because they firmly believe that women are inferior. Think of what the point of the veil is, and what it implies, and what the root of it is. Then tell me, can a RADICAL feminist woman ever want to wear it? But lo and behold, I know some who do just because of the brainwashing and fear (or takhweef) that they have grown up with.

J. said...

Polygamy? Don't get me started on that. The prophet himself says in 3adaltom WA LAN TA3DILOU.. Meaning DON'T. And the point of it was in order to help women and children whose husbands/fathers had been killed or whatever. Not for men's sexual pleasure or, as I have often heard some friends saying, "shu kill yom mjaddara?" Ma3le. And don't tell me they don't want to do that, because they do. There is a percentage that doesn't, but another that does. Don't generalise or use your own personal opinion of wanting to marry just one woman (which if you believe in, I respect) as that of the masses. Mention Tibet's fraternal polyandry to them kamen, and see how they get. They start bashing women and they get this sort of phobia enno shu mara with several husbands.. And akeed you know of the issue of virginity, let us not even go there.

Ba3den in general, religions are oppressive. All of them. And when you have violent radicals/extremists on the front of those religions, things get fucked up. I'm not saying atheism is the answer, but at least it doesn't threaten you in as many ways as religion does (eg. see this: I'm sure you heard of that poet who wanted to express her views on religion and got death threats like there is no tomorrow... Oh and PS. she wears a burqa and is scared shitless for her family's safety now, just because she dared to say that religious leaders are fuckers. I don't believe in a system that byekma3 its people and their mental processes. If I were to believe in a god, I would believe in my own ideology of what that god is based on the analysis of all that I have heard that I deem logical in ways, and not in organised religion, because that is bullshit.


J. said...

By the way, just for your own information enrichment, I needed to mention this: When I was in middle school there was this AIDS project and some organisation that specifically deals with this kind of research came to give us a whole day workshop about the matter. One of the pamphlets said that 73% of the disease spreading occurs between heterosexual couples. I'm not saying a man having sex with a man does not transmit diseases, but you can't solely blame it on same sex couples. And since you said same sex and didn't specify, women having sex with women actually has the least percentage of disease spread.
Wear a condom, Assaad. :)

Julia said...

Okay, first of all I'm glad to hear a perspective ( Assaad) that supporst Islam, because it is a topic I am very curious about. Is the religion in itself oppressive? or have people corrupted it into something it is not?

I also enjoyed J's comments concerning the veil, for I've always been skeptical of its origins and whether a woman wearing the veil really can be a feminist? Some say it is just for the sake of modesty and has nothing to do with oppression. Other muslim girls tell me it is because they are trying to protect the men from themselves because they cant control their sex drives ( which is oppressive in my opinion--men should change, not women in that case).

Howevever, I want to propose that you dont need to rely on religion or atheism to attain women's rights. Reason is tool people use in fighting for their rights. Secondly I disagree with Assaad's comment about same-sex relationships creating "psychological complications on society". In the feild of psychology homosexuality is no longer classified as a "disorder" because it does not fall under the criterion of a disorder. Homophobia on the other hand does---and many savage techniques from rape to electric shock have been used on gay/lesbians to make them "normal". Nevertheless Homophobia has the same logic as sexism : You are a homosexual, hence you do not deserve human rights. Just replase "homosexual" with "woman" and you will get the same thing.

assaad said...

J, I'm enjoying your comments for you are being very subjective. I will reply to you as soon as I finish reading them.

Just one little thing to say, Mohammad (pbuh) was just a prophet, a human being who died long time ago. The Quran was not written by him, so the verse that says "wa lan ta3dilo" is the word of God and not the word of Mohammad. Concerning the veil, it's God's decision and not Mohammad, and yes it's required for women to cover their bodies except their faces, hands and feet and men must be covered from their belly to their knees. We have the right to follow this strict policy or not, but if we choose not to we will simply face specific consequences (punishment), but since God is The Most Merciful, we wouldn't know whose going to be punished and whose not. The good deeds cancel the bad deeds (wal 3ilmo lilllah wa7doh).

I will reply to your comments as soon as I finish my work :)

Haneen H said...

Regardless of what Islam, Christianity or Judaism might have to say about rights, the veil, gender "superiority" or such, cannot be taken as a criteria pro or against the religion itself.
It brings us back to post.2 questioning the premise of such cases. If a Muslim man treats his wife amazingly and a Christian one beats her to death, it doesn't mean Islam is better than Christianity in respect to women or vice versa; it simply means that this person X is a religious believer and is decent enough as a person to know that people (men and women) should be treated with decency and care. Let's not make the mistake of putting on a pedestal another -ism, another concept, idea or ideology way up in the air, but strive to understand how it is being implemented pragmatically.

It may or may not be the will of God that women wear veils, but as soon as religion becomes means of oppression then I have a huge problem with it. Why don't men wear veils too? If it's because women are objects of desire and thus need to cover their flesh to avoid being constantly perceived as such, then I believe the same should apply to men because women do actively desire and lust for them. It is not one-sided.

Also, I don't believe that in 2010 homosexual couples should be belittled, misperceived or forbidden to get married, those rights should be available to EVERYONE with complete disregard to their race, sex or sexual orientation.

assaad said...

I honestly couldn't care less about homosexuality being the main cause of AIDS or not! Based on what I know, it could be a result of homosexuality, having more than one sexual partner…etc at the end of the day it's a sexually transmitted disease which, if we follow the religious rules of any of the 3 holly ones we will come out that AIDS is basically the result of breaking religious laws! Regardless of what religion it is or what law it is. Based on the new discoveries we find in Quraan daily that are related to science, we never know what we will learn next.. we are still learning and it will keep on going.

We need to get one fact straight, religion is here to put guidelines to people so as to help them get along in life peacefully, not to oppress women nor to make them feel inferior. You all have the choice to follow which ever religion you want.

I agree with J, women had much more rights back then than they do now, but of course after having so many scholars tampering with the Islamic rules you don't know who or what to trust anymore. I basically think that I don't need a medium with Allah, that's it I have the quraan, I follow that, I don’t question a lot because I honestly believe in Islam and am very convinced. If for any reason I have doubts about something or so I ask someone of whom I can trust, I don't search online or ask someone who has read a book or two about Islam; and in case this fails, I dig it myself even if it takes years. (I'm neither Sunni nor Shiite)

I advice you to do the same, with all due respect, in order to interpret Quraan you need to learn 32 tools of research ( al nasekh wa al mansoukh) , ( al mo7kam wa al mutashabeh) , (asbab nozoul al ayah)…etc. And I don't know any of that, so I won't just interpret Quraan based on what I like it to be about.

As for J’s comment about Alcohol in Islam. You see, the Quraan has been brought down through stages. At the beginning, people were allowed to drink, then Allah started gradually to make them stop drinking, thus the verses that you mentioned. I know that because I wondered about that too, and I asked someone I trusted and she gave me very explicit discussion regarding this issue. So yes my friend," ma tarak kabeeratan wala sagheera ella wa a7saha".

assaad said...

Again, one more time I agree with J , although I am pro hijab, my sister and most of my cousins don't wear (they are religious in a way). However I believe that the main idea behind hijab is to look less attractive and less noticeable, so regarding today's hijab in the muslim world, well some women are better off without it, or at least they should call themselves ( mu7tashemat ) not veiled. But then again, I think so many people need to work on al 3ibadaat al gheir zahera first, they need to work on the inside, THEN, they could start working on the outside. I mean, hijab is useless if u lie, kill, betray , steal.. etc. People really need to get beyond the outside look.

Please let us not look at hijab as means of oppression, it's just a dress code. So you have no problem with homosexuality and got pretty offended I it causes AIDS and asked me to wear a condom instead but you are totally against hijab? C'mon :) I went into too many sexual intercourses with women and I ended up getting some kind of infection that not only affected me physically, but mentally as well. I'm not saying everyone should go through what I went through, I'm just saying even with condom it's not safe. (Condoms are man's invention after all, Humans are the worst when it comes to safety - *points at he Ozone layer :))

As for the psychological analysis that you mentioned, it is very interesting , I personally didn't know it. But, my friend, you see , I have been studying different branches in psychology recently , and I can assure you , psychology is basically ( al ra2y , wa al ra2y al mu3akes ) it is based on theories and hypothesis that are being criticized and refuted all along the way , so lets just say that homosexuality is basically something that is out of the norm, so yes , it is very likely that it has psychological impact on societies. But why are we supporting homosexuality as a human right but we cant accept a piece of cloth a woman uses to protect herself?

I know of a lot of veiled women , and I assure you , they are not oppressed at all. They are only oppressed if they were raised to keep a narrow mind , a crippled way of thinking , if we don’t accept differences ( as long as they don't harm us ) if we only argue to win.

Again, please do not connect Islam to peoples' cultures and traditions. The Saudi and Iranian government do is far from being a Sharia'a Laws, and sometimes it's extremely against the Islamic Laws. I will give you a fast example, the former Azhar Shiekh (Tantawi) approved a stupid fatwa a few years ago, I don't know if you heard about it, but in a nutshell it reads "a man should suckle on a woman's breast when they are working alone in an office"; o.O?! Imagine the thousands of Tanwati-like clerics coming up with their own fatwa, another example a Saudi Shiekh "protesting for the liberation of Southern Lebanon, Gulan and Palestine is forbidden", wtf?! All their fatwas are connected -directly- to their superiors (leaders).

Since when organized religion is bullshit? Here in Lebanon we have been striving for years to have a real STATE with a government, parliament, follow the constitution and all the good organized stuff; do you think it's bullshit? The answer is NO. Organization is required in everything we do. If you have anything against religion or God, you can express it freely but with respect, please :)

assaad said...

Haneen, I couldn't agree with you more :)

As for the hijab part, I stated it before, it's in our religion it's the word of God and we simply choose to accept it or not. Women are to cover themselves from hair to ankles, men are to cover themselves from bellies to knees. I forgot to bring the book with me where it shows the hugs differences between women and men, but I shall bring it with me tomorrow and share them with you guys.

I'm against everything abnormal, everything against mother nature is simply not right. I do not wish to see same-gender couples raising a child, that's absurd and against all values, not Islamic or Arabic values, but Human values. I have nothing against homosexuals or gay people, they have all the right to live the way they want as long as they do not harm others; as for me, as a father (later on) will teach my children about right and wrong and according to me and my values being gay is wrong, I do have the right to show my kids the way and later on they might choose to become gay or transform themselves into Gidai masters.

Thank you all and goodnight :)

Special thanks to Mrs. Mae Khalil from Egypt. Much love and respect

assaad said...

Oh I forgot this
"oh dear another indoctrinated victim i have to deal with."
You are not here to deal with me, you simply can't. The only thing you can do is to express your opinion/idea w bas mish aktar :)

mercury said...

your indoctrination is beyond obvious..and so is the level of intolerance that you have...whether towards homosexuals or women..(you have no problem with polygamy...and consider homosexuality as unnatural and immoral).

do not ask me to respect that piece of shit sadistic, barbaric, immoral, misogynistic, mythical god of yours at all.
for you see, i do not tolerate intolerance.

i will not further discuss with a caveman such as yourself.

assaad said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
assaad said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
assaad said...

Since you are an ignorance with no self respect and to others, attacking me personally not me idea simply proves how weak you are and thus ineligible to debate. And by the way you weren't discussing, just attacking and showing disrespect and making fun and promoting bias; you were slammed against 1000k walls and that did hurt you deep. I'm accepting everyone but you are not accepting Muslims, we are there 1.5 billion and increasing, live with it.

You should have uncovered your true ugly self from the very beginning instead of pretending to be subjective and willing to debate.

Last but not least, inti wa7ad bala 27tiram w ana ma 2ili sharaf mish 2i7ki, 2ittala3 feek aw b amselak tfeh

assaad said...


Sam said...

Any discussion prone to provoke religious sentiments should be tackled from a 2-level platform.

The first premise being whether those involved in the discussion believe in the existence of a supernatural deity or not.

If not, then they are expected to bring forth rational arguments and explanations only.

If they do, then they have to explicitly answer the following question before they produce any arguments:

Can it be from god if it doesn't make sense to the human mind?

If they say yes, then they're fundamental fanatics unfit and unequipped to take part in rational discussions. Therefore any debate is fruitless. It will remain stuck in the first stage of discussion.

If they say no, then they should be able to stand their grounds WITHOUT the necessity of invoking so called sacred texts, but rather by appealing to the rational mind and convictions.

The final verdict, therefore, is to keep god out of every mundane discussion, or it will waste your time in a sterile, mind numbing and eventually violent practice.

On the other hand, and on a similar basis:
the provocation coming from the likes of mercury, who can't help pigeonholing others in his religious boxes, also leads to sterile discussions. Because it doesn't matter how atheist you can be, you can still recall the religious factor and bring the discussion back to its first stage, by accusing others of having religion as their initial premise instead of tackling their arguments (which could, or could not be logical or true).
The "indoctrinated" atheist/agnostic can fail miserably in hearing the arguments of whoever he considers being religiously indoctrinated, because he simply cannot see through the veil he made them wear.

Because it involves a very delicate and complex structure of thoughts, atheism is rarely equivalent of intellect. In most cases, it's like wearing a green beret suit without learning how to handle a gun. You think you impress people on the first impression, but your weakness shows miserably when it comes to objective rationality and handling delicate issues.

I think that has something to do with our education system, don't you agree Haneen?


Sam said...

assaad, my friend, what do the 1.5 billion prove, exactly? is that a solid argument you're advancing into the discussion?

Now if i bring forth all the millions of cases of muslims guilty of anti islamic practices such as adultery, drinking, etc.. you would tell me to consider the "true muslims", and not those. I wonder how many muslims we would be left dealing with (considering there is one unified common muslim belief).

You mentioned something that has to do with "abnormal practices" or those of "mother nature". Both those terms are highly relative, and you know that. For me, it is against mother nature's way for any human being to constantly cover their face or hair. What about you?

Dont pretend to be something you're not. It is better if you clearly state, from the beginning, that you're an unresolved islamic thinker and save us all the hassle of reading through a lot of garbage from all sides. (Ref to the first stage i talked about in my previous post).

Maybe sometime later we can talk about how "just" islam really is in the 21st century. The progression it brought about to 7th century societies is nothing of a brag. It's like sticking to Atari game consoles because they were an upgrade to marbles. Society is in a continuous evolving motion, Islam isn't. Period.

Haneen H said...

Back to our discussion which was about education and the lack it suffers from.

The problem with the comments posted here back and fro is not so much about Mercury and Assaad as individuals but the fact that (once again, I'm telling you this) we are debating an -ism when what should be highlighted is its practical implementation AND if, in fact, it makes sense to the human mind aside from the notion of "this is God's Will" because the latter differs between different religions and minds.
I add to this that, regardless of my views of atheism, it remains another -ism, meaning one can be fanatic about it. This same problem would have occurred between people had we been discussing CapitalISM and CommunISM.

Honestly, I was hoping we can discuss why certain authors I mentioned are left out curriculums and how that can be changed so that we introduce different approaches to the generations to come as well as ourselves...And that, my friends, has little to do with God and a lot to do with Man.

assaad said...

I don't pretend to be something I am not, i don't know where did you get that from. I was very clear and obvious and straight forward in every post, I didn't attack nor did I offend anyone of you (non-muslims or anti-Muslims). In return I was attacked several times, dissed, and called backwarded. I have my believes, you have yours. I call for nothing but RESPECT to my religion. If you have something against it, state it out rationally and we will discuss it freely. That thing, mercury, did nothing but proved how much of a low-life he is.

Hijab is abnormal to you, that's fine and you are right it's abnormal to too many people. Don't you think wearing clothes is abnormal as well? We are natural-born-naked beings. I have nothing against homosexuals, they are free to choose as much as I am free to choose the way I look and think of things. I follow a specific text, the text that took me 10 years to believe in it. Respect that.

Ya akhey I used to drink, adultery, use God's name in vain; but later on I stopped. Most Muslims practice anti-islamic practices. And I did state before, in Islam being a sinner is different than being an infidel.

Again to mercury shukhran 3ala ta7addorak ya jehil

ali said...

Hello All
Who's the atheist here?

ali said...

A Question for the Atheist:

Suppose that your belief is right (there is no God), then what are we (who believe in Allah) going to lose after death? But on the other hand what will happen to you if we are right?
Nothing but hell.

M said...

hmm, you know whats so interesting? Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist that there is no God.

ali said...

Yeah exactly, if they don't believe in God then why they always jump and deny his existence LOL and when we give them proofs they run like Rats!!

M said...

Its absurd , I pity atheists , when something goes right in their lives they have no one to thank , lol i bet that ruins the whole thing. But then again I have to give them that , if there was no God there would have never been atheists.. so my friends before you sleep here's a little prayer for you.. "thank God I am an atheist!" :)

ali said...

1- //-female inheritance = half that of a males.
surah 4:verse 11://

Before islam woman inherited nothing The main reason of the deprivation of woman of inheritance was the prevention of transfer of wealth from one family to another.
Islam came and gave the woman her right to inherit! But The only thing, which is objectionable in the eyes of the upholders of equality between man and woman, is that the share of woman is half that of man. According to the Islamic law, a son receives twice as much as a daughter, a brother twice as much as a sister and a husband twice as much as a wife.

The Qur’an decrees that the male shall receive the portion of two females (in inheritance).
The Qur’anic injunction of inheritance is perfectly just and a perfect mercy for women. It is just because, in the majority of cases, and according to the Islamic Law, the husband provides both for the wife’s and the children’s livelihood, whereas the wife is not under any legal obligation to provide either for him or for herself. Thus she is compensated for the half-share less that she is allocated from any inheritance than the man. It is a perfect mercy because a girl is delicate, vulnerable and so is held in great affection by her father who, thanks to the Qur’anic injunction, does not see her as a child who will cause him loss by carrying away to others half of his wealth.

ali said...

2- إن خفتم ألا تقسطوا في اليتامى فانكحوا ما طاب لكم من النساء مثنى وثلاث ورباع فإن خفتم ألا تعدلوا فواحدة أو ما ملكت// أيمانكم ذلك أدنى ألا تعولوا

Notice here Mercury did not continue the verse.

ولن تستطيعوا أن تعدلوا بين النساء ولو حرصتم

ali said...

3- وَاللَّاتِي يَأْتِينَ الْفَاحِشَةَ مِنْ نِسَائِكُمْ فَاسْتَشْهِدُوا عَلَيْهِنَّ أَرْبَعَةً مِنْكُمْ فَإِنْ شَهِدُوا فَأَمْسِكُوهُنَّ فِي الْبُيُوتِ حَتَّى يَتَوَفَّاهُنَّ الْمَوْتُ أَوْ يَجْعَلَ اللَّهُ لَهُنَّ سَبِيلًا (النساء 15).

وَاللَّاتِي : اسم موصول لجماعة الإناث ، وذلك خاص باكتفاء المرأة بالمرأة .

وماذا يقصد بقوله : فَاسْتَشْهِدُوا عَلَيْهِنَّ أَرْبَعَة ؟

إنه سبحانه يقصد به حماية الأعراض ، فلا يلغ كل واحد في عرض الآخر ، بل لا بد أن يضع لها الحق احتياطا قوياً ، لأن الأعراض ستجرح ، ولماذا ((أربعة)) في الشهادة ؟

لأنهما اثنتان تستمتعان ببعضهما ، ومطلوب أن يشهد على كل واحدة اثنان فيكونوا أربعة ، وإذن حدث هذا ورأينا وعرِفنا وتأكدنا ، ماذا نفعل .؟

قال سبحانه : ((فَأَمْسِكُوهُنَّ فِي الْبُيُوتِ)) أي احجزوهن واحبسوهن عن الحركة ، ولا تجعلوا لهن وسيلة التفاء إلى أن يتوفاهن الموت ((أَوْ يَجْعَلَ اللَّهُ لَهُنَّ سَبِيلًا )) وقد جعل الله .

والذين يقولون : إن هذه المسألة خاصة بعملية بين رجل وامرأة ، نقول له : إن كلمة ((واللاتي)) هذه اسم موصول لجماعة الإناث ، أما إذا كان هذا بين ذكر وذكر ففي هذه الحالة يقول الحق سبحانه :

وَاللَّذَانَ يَأْتِيَانِهَا مِنكُمْ فَآذُوهُمَا فَإِن تَابَا وَأَصْلَحَا فَأَعْرِضُواْ عَنْهُمَا إِنَّ اللّهَ كَانَ تَوَّابًا رَّحِيمًا {النساء/16}

الآية هنا تخص بلقاء رجل مع رجل ، ولذلك تكون المسألأة الأولى تخص المرأة مع المرأة ، ولماذا يكون العقاب في مسألة لقاء المرأة بالمرأة طالباً للمتعة هو الإمساك في البيوت حتى يتوفاهن الموت ؟ لأن هذا شر ووباء يجب أن يحاصر ، فهذا الشر معناه الإفساد التام ، لأن المرأة ليست محجوبة عن المرأة ، فلأن تحبس المرأة حتى الموت خير من أن تتعود على الفاحشة . ونحن لا نعرف ما الذي سوف يحدث من أضرار ، والعلم مازال قاصراً ، فالذي خلق هو الذي شرع أن يلتقي الرجل بالمرأة في إطار الزواج وما يجب فيه من مهر وشهود . وسبحانه أعد المرأة للأستقبال ، واعد الرجل للإرسال ، وهذا امر طبيعي .

فقول الحق سبحانه :

وَاللَّاتِي يَأْتِينَ الْفَاحِشَةَ مِنْ نِسَائِكُمْ فَاسْتَشْهِدُوا عَلَيْهِنَّ أَرْبَعَةً مِنْكُمْ فَإِنْ شَهِدُوا فَأَمْسِكُوهُنَّ فِي الْبُيُوتِ حَتَّى يَتَوَفَّاهُنَّ الْمَوْتُ أَوْ يَجْعَلَ اللَّهُ لَهُنَّ سَبِيلًا (النساء 15).

فالمقصود بـ ((نسائكم)) هنا المسلمات ، لأننا لا نشرع لغيرنا ، لأنهم غير مؤمنين بالله ، وطلب الشهادة يكون من أربعة من المسلمين ، لأن المسلم يعرف قيمة العرض والعدالة ... أما في اليهودية او المسيحية فحدث ولا حرج ففضائح المعمودية وزيت الميرون دمرت القيم والمباديء فالكل عراه ، هذا ولم نخفي على حضراتكم ما يحدث بالقبلة المقدسة داخل الكنائس والكل يُقبل بعضه من رجال على نساء .

وقد عرفنا في العصر الحديث هذا التشريع ولكن بمسمى آخر وهو الحجر الصحي الذي نضع فيه أصحاب المرضى والعدى . وهناك فرق بين من أصبن بـ (مرض معدٍ) ومن أصبن بـ (العطب) .

فإن كنا نعزل أصحاب المرض المعدي فكيف لا نعزل اللاتي أصبن بالعطب ؛ لذلك يقول الحق (فَأَمْسِكُوهُنَّ فِي الْبُيُوتِ حَتَّى يَتَوَفَّاهُنَّ الْمَوْتُ أَوْ يَجْعَلَ اللَّهُ لَهُنَّ سَبِيلًا) . أي أن تظل كل منهما في العزل إلى أن يأتي لكل منهن ملك الموت .

ali said...

4- الزانية والزاني فاجلدوا كل واحد منهما مائة جلدة ولا تأخذكم بهما رأفة في دين الله إن كنتم تؤمنون بالله واليوم الآخر// وليشهد عذابهما طائفة من المؤمنين//

What’s wrong with this verse? What if your mother, sister or you wife was a B**** what would you do?

5- //oh and let's not forget how god gave men the right to beat up their wives..
surah 4:verse 34://

استوصوا بالنساء خيراً ، فإنهن عوان عندكم ، ليس تملكون منهن شيئاً غير ذلك ، إلا أن يأتين بفاحشةٍ مبينة ، فإن فعلن فاهجروهن في المضاجع واضربوهن ضرباً غير مبرح ، فإن أطعنكم فلا تبتغوا عليهن سبيلاً ، ألا إن لكم على نسائكم حقاً ، ولنسائكم عليكم حقاً فأما حقكم على نسائكم فلا يوطئن فرشكم من تكرهون، ولا يأذن في بيوتكم لمن تكرهون ، ألا وحقهن عليكم أن تحسنوا إليهن في كسوتهن وطعامهن

ali said...

6- //oh isn't he grand indeed.//

Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.


ali said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ali said...

OH AND Mercury do you follow the pagan religion or you just believe that you were created from the root of monkeys?

Sam said...


shou el ossa ya khayye. You're so ambitiously trying to "prove" that Islam is fair towards women? By quoting the quran? which century are you still living in?

Let's assume that Islam was a societal upgrade for 7th century nomadic arabs. Does that mean it can still be viewed as "revolutionary" in modern society?

You see, my friend, the problem with islam is NOT the fact that it brought a bit of justice into a barbaric, nomadic culture (although mainland arabs were so much more enlightened in sciences and research in pre-islamic arab peninsula). The problem resides in the fact that islam locked the path for further progress and evolution in its societies.

On average, a paradigm shift occurs at least every century in any culture. On this account, islamic nations are 13 centuries behind (oh, surprise!).

An american successful divorced businesswoman in her 40s, supporting her 3 children and herself, would have to sit at home, cover herself with burqa, inherit half as much as her brothers, be the fourth wife, take a beating because her husband "saw her" wink at another, etc... if she was to embrace islam. A true revolutionary progress in her life, wouldn't you say.

No one swallows these lies anymore ya ali. We are not 7th century illiterate barbarians anymore.

Islam is regressive and that's that.

ali said...

Beating in Islam is totally forbidden:

ze word (adribouhon) doesn't mean beating at all Sam i will show you some proof that this word should not be translated as beating from the quran itself ;)

Read carefully:

(((وقل للمؤمنات يغضضن من ابصارهن ويحفظن فروجهن ولا يبدين زينتهن الا ما ظهر منها وليضربن بخمرهن على جيوبهن ولا يبدين زينتهن الا لبعولتهن او ابائهن او اباء بعولتهن او ابنائهن او ابناء بعولتهن او اخوانهن او بني اخوانهن او بني اخواتهن او نسائهن او ما ملكت ايمانهن او التابعين غير اولي الاربة من الرجال او الطفل الذين لم يظهروا على عورات النساء ولا يضربن بارجلهن ليعلم ما يخفين من زينتهن وتوبوا الى الله جميعا ايها المؤمنون لعلكم تفلحون )))


فهل ترى معنى الضرب هنا بأن تمسك المرءة خمارها وتصفع به وجهها بستمرار ؟؟!!
إن الضرب في القرآن الكريم يأتي بمعنى الممانعة أو البعد أو إخفاء لنفسي عن الأخر كنوع من التعبير عن الغضب أو الإضراب

Another proof from hadith and you judge:

قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه واله وسلم : أما يستحي أحدكم أن يضرب امرأته كما يضرب العبد يضربها أول النهار ثم يجامعها آخره.

Back to the verse:

توعيتها وموعظتها , والخطوة الثانية أن يمتحن مكانته عندها فيظهر الجفاء ويهجرها مع بقائه إلى جانبها في الفراش . والخطوة الثالثة عبّر عنها القرآن بكلمة " واضربوهن " . فماذا تعني هذه الكلمة ؟ هل تعني الضرب باليد أو العصا ؟ إنها لم تنشز بعد . هل يضربها على ذنب لم ترتكبه بعد ؟ ماذا تعني هذه الكلمة ؟

الفعل "ضرب" هو من أفعال الأضداد. ضرب في الأرض أي سافر. ضرب بنفسه الأرض أي أقام.

Sam if you have problem with another verse just let me know brother i am not here to change your belief or force you to believe in something but i give you my oppinion and try to explain if you understand something wrong. at the end everyone is free to believe what he want.


Sam said...


why are you being so unidimensional in your approach? Is that the only way you can display rationality? If i need a "ali" to be there for me every time i need to understand such a seemly obvious verse, eh nyyelna. I need someone to help me understand the word "ضرب" please!!!

It is not about this or that word ya ali. It's about the way quran refers to women in general, and how it clearly refers to men as being superior creatures and mentors/judges/godfathers over the women around them (sisters, mothers, daughters, etc..). Enno 2alile, a 50 year old mother in KSA can be given the consent of her 18 year old kid to be able to travel! lol, who's saying islam is degrading to women?

It is enough that we have to stop at a verse such as 4:34 and "analyse" it, as real men do ;) , to decide what to make of "our women".
The whole act described in the above paragraph is inherently chauvinistic no matter the outcome of the discussion.

As for your proclaimed "proofs", i will answer them in more detail next. It's easy to copy and paste "proofs" from a source that soothes your mind and mollifies the facts that islam is, indeed, a backward thinking religion.

Sam said...

First of all, it is common knowledge that no matter what explanation you may strive to forcefully give the word "ضرب" or "beat" in the quran, muslim husbands feel it is their right to beat their wives physically, and most clerics preach it (by comparing women to electrical appliances, for instance).

and we all know to kind of power the clergy have over the people, with all their emotional "fatwas" bursting all over the place. (which reminds me, please do google "رضاع الكبير". Another hilarious islamic fatwa forcing the woman to breastfeed her male coworker 5 times if she was to work with him in a closed space. Talk about her rights!

On another hand, lets discuss the verse 4:34. The reason (asbab al-nuzul) behind the "revelation" of this verse is detailed by various Muslim scholars. The quote below comes from Razi's commentary, "At-Tafsir al-Kabir," on 4:34

"A women complained to Muhammad that her husband slapped her on the face, (which was still marked by the slap). At first the prophet said to her: "Get even with him", but then added: "Wait until I think about it". Later on, Allah supposedly revealed 4:34 to Muhammad, after which the prophet said: "We wanted one thing but Allah wanted another, and what Allah wanted is best."

Will you discredit At-Tafsir al-Kabir ya ali? What is "it" that they wanted, but Allah supposedly didnt?

Stop embarrassing yourself, ali, and stop wasting our time with pointless blabber. You cannot hide the sun. I can quote dozens of instances in Hadith where women are beaten with the consent of mohammed, including aisha and hafsah, two of his own.

This will be my last post on this particular issue, unless it is something worth my time, other than your "fierce" copy/pastes.

ali said...

1- U begin to lose the debate Sam by switching to personal attack rather than addressing my points and u try to ignore my logic explanation based on Arabic language and other verse from the quran showing that the word daraba is not beating!
As for me this is my last comment regarding this issue not yours!

2- You gave me example of woman in KSA.. who told you eno they follow true islam there? As for roda3 el kebir fatwa this is not from islam and is not based on any quranic verse! Clear? Do not use specific cases and push them into islam.

As for sura 4:34 : I will give you other verses where the word kawwamoun is used(btw the quran doesn’t need anyone to explain it, it explain itself lol)
"O you who believe! Be qawwamin with fairness..."
"O you who believe! Be qawwamin for God as witnesses to fairness..."

Thus to be a qawwam over something or someone is to guard, maintain or take care of that something or someone in a proper and fair manner. If there is any single word in English that can convey the meaning of the word as used in the present word it is “ guardian.”
The first reason then why men are qawwamun over women is their physical ability to protect women. The second is that "they ya3ne men spend out of their wealth." Although the Holy Qur'an permits women to earn and own wealth, it expects that men will generally be able to earn more than women because of the natural differences between them. This means that they will generally be responsible for the economic needs of women and this responsibility also makes them qawwamun.

ali said...

As for inheritance I already explain why women inherit half what men inherit! The case of inheritance is closed!

Yes I don’t say I am not copying and pasting from internet but also I use logic and my brain to understand. you also copy and paste don’t you? ;)

You said muslim feel that they must beat women well look I am here to explain the quran and not what the others feel. Even if some muslim scholars say about it it is there opinion. Just like Christianity some say that jesus is the son of God and some say eno he is NOT son of God and not even God. But here we are talking about women rights in islam which is 1000 times better than women rights in Christianity 

For رضاع الكبير
This guy is wahabi who said it and I am not supposed to defend any extremist speaking in the name of islam. For a very simple reason is that nothing in the quran speaks about this issue.

It’s clear that you begin to run away by bringing specific cases that has no origin in islam like this subject! It only shows how you lack knowledge about islam. You just want to show that islam is bad I know it ;)

Beware also that not all hadith are credible ! many of them are inserted in order to make islam look bad. It is better to always refer to the quran and never read all thing from internet.

Once again I make a resume:
1- I showed you from the quran which was not been altered like other books that the word daraba is not beating
2- The world is full of fatawa and fake hadith… always refer to the quran. If any of them doesn't have a quranic reference then do not COPY PASTE it here :)

Do u have other problem in islam ? or just women issue?

ali said...

haha did u look at inheritance and women rights in the bible before you talk about islam? :D

Robert said...

Haneen, sorry for writing this comment really late, u know my circumstances ;)
First I'd like to tell you that the article is so true, i enjoyed reading it though it's not so joyful to remember the bad situation we're living and that you described so well.
I want to be annoying in just one comment and that is omitting the name of one of my favorite filmakers "Catherine Breillat"
but well, I'll forgive you for that... ;)

Sam said...


i am glad that you changed your discussing tactics, for a change. I would rather answer arguments fresh out of your head than points you copy from the net.

However, when i see the amount and magnitude of fallacies you're committing, i am even more amazed of what's coming out of your head. But again, squeeze a rotten orange...

Anyway, let's see who's really chickening out on the rational debate:
1. You don't want me to consider saudis as muslims
2. You want me not to be able to quote any muslim cleric and their fatawas
3. You want me to discredit the Hadiths (wtf???) or at least part of them (conveniently, those that do not conform with your "knowledge")
4. You want me to ignore the common "feelings" of millions and millions of muslims simply because you have a different interpretation of a word (and yes, "interpretation" is different than "proof", a term you seem to be using so loosely)

... by now i am starting to wonder what kind of "islam" you're following, and whether you're the last perfect muslim on planet earth...

moving on...

4. You claim that the quran is self explanatory yet you have wasted more than a dozen posts trying to explain a single word :)
5. You started pointing towards other religions' books (typical islamic scholars behavior, by the way) in order to divert the attention from your deficiencies. Note here that i never claimed to defend any book, or prefer one over another. Heck, i never stated my religion to begin with. And i won't, because i am a rational being.

As for the concept of qawwamoun that you so vehemently uphold, i will have to repeat what i said before (as is always the case when debating a muslim):
Islam may have brought some progress into a mainly barbaric society. There was a time when a woman needed to be physically protected by her man. There was a time when the man was exclusively the one to bring food to the table and provide for his family. But times have changed ya ali. Women do not need physical protection for savanna lions anymore. We have brick houses now. Women are often as responsible in supporting the family as their husbands are.

See how regressive Islam is, blocking the way for any possible evolution within the society? have men over time shown more responsibility than women in providing for their families?

On another note: women's rights in islam 1000 times more than in christianity? lol, i would love to hear you ridicule yourself trying to "prove" that point. Again, i will not side with a book against another, but as i always say, you cannot hide the sun.

Food for thought: If the Hadiths were altered at some point in time, what makes you so sure the quran wasn't altered in the same manner?

I am waiting for your "because it is the word of god" answer :)

don't you love circular reasoning.

ali said...

1- Using personal attack only shows how civilized you are so I’m not going to treat you the same way. A full confident man doesn’t need to act like you do.
2- Yes some of the hadith were inserted to islam but the quran was kept as it is.
3- Not all muslims are following the true islam.And yes people in KSA are not considered muslims for many reasons that disagree with the quran itself we know history and know the origin of bani sauoud and you chose the most extremists on earth to give me example about the islam and muslims… nice try.
4- No not those that do not “conform with my knowledge” but with the true teaching of the quran. Any hadith must be based on the quran or it can’t be considered as credible one. Even if it was used by many people and even if million of muslims feel and act the same way that doesn’t mean eno they are right. Be carefull ! not be deceived by the number!! Look for example what happened to Christianity after it was hijacked and altered by the Roman pagans and mixed with the greek mythology!
5- You said “and yes, "interpretation" is different than "proof", a term you seem to be using so loosely”
Answer: yes I agree that this is an interpretation of the word wadribouhon. Again I repeat that I say what I have to say and you are free to believe what you want to believe we are not going to debate for the same word over and over simply because I know you and me are not going to change our beliefs but we are exchanging our knowledge and try to give you maybe some sort of reasoning and shed light on the true islam. If this not you aim and you want to fight instead then maybe you should do it with another one.

ali said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ali said...

6- Don’t wonder what kind of muslim I am and not I am not perfect and I don’t pretend to have the truth. I’m just answering some questions I don’t really care what you think about them. Why should I?
Moving on .. (it seems that you are not good in counting )

7- In fact islam has no deficiency as u claimed maybe fake muslims but not true ones. I know you are a Christian thats why I mentioned the bible just to remind you about the religion you are following and don’t worry I am not making distortion of the subject you can keep asking and I will keep answering with pleasure.
8- Yes I agree that islam came to abolish barbaric actions done by old arabs and Christians and jews at that time. I agree with this.
9- You said: //On another note: women's rights in islam 1000 times more than in christianity? lol, i would love to hear you ridicule yourself trying to "prove" that point.//
It’s clear how this pissed you
10- You said : //what makes you so sure the quran wasn't altered in the same manner?//
Simply because it has a code inside it that is one word is changed the whole thing will collapse and the calculation formula will not work. This will be another subject because you need a calculator and you need to be good in counting otherwise you won’t be able to understand the hidden codes.

assaad said...

Quran is not just a holy book, it's a science book as well. You really need to dig more into it, or let Ali grab the thousands scientific verses from the Quran.

We live by it, it's out (Muslims) law after all and you guys have got to respect that.

Clarify what you said about Hadeeth! Did you mean the a7adeeth al madsosa? Please elaborate.

ali said...

Times on line: Thousands of british people convert to islam every year:

Why European women are turning to Islam:

Anis said...

Very interesting Haneen !
Well done .
I totally agree with you, we should address your text to universities and educational authoroties....