feminine-genius

Violence necessary for stability

A seventeen-year-old girl was talking to a British soldier in Iraq, so her family took action: butchering her. After arrest, her father was released within two hours with no charges. Her brothers assisted in the murder. She was buried with no mourning rites. Her uncles spit on her body as it was put in the ground.

The British are collecting the facts, and will emphasise that their men refrain from associating with local women, considering this compelling local "custom."

An MoD spokesman said troops received "cultural awareness training", including the sensitivities of talking to Muslim women, but this focused on issues such as body searches rather than the potential dangers of striking up friendships. He added: "They are not told, 'Don't go and fall in love'."

[The victim] Rand Abdel-Qader confided to her closest friend Zeinab that she fell in love the moment she saw the young soldier at the charity for displaced families, and she dreamed of a future with him. Zeinab claimed the soldier gave Rand small gifts, including a cuddly toy. Rand said she met Paul only four times, always in public.

Unacceptable. Understanding the local customs is essential to avoiding calamaties like this one, but more importantly, it is an indicator of the mindset of the large number of those emigrating. Often, these Muslima have strong religious values, but that is not enough to preserve family "honour."

Despite her feelings, there was no physical relationship. "She never did anything more than talk to him," said Zeinab. "She was proud to be a virgin and had a dream to give herself to the man she loved only after her marriage."

Recalling Rand's murder, her weeping mother Leila Hussein said: "I screamed and called out for her two brothers so they could get their father away. But when he told them the reason, instead of saving her they helped him end her life."

Abdel-Qader Ali stood on the girl's throat until she suffocated and then stabbed her, all the time shouting that his honour was being cleansed.

The enviroment in the Middle East is relentless in its views:

In 2003, the Jordanian Parliament voted down on Islamic grounds a provision designed to stiffen penalties for honor killings. In a sadly typical consequence of this early last year, a Jordanian man who murdered his sister because he thought she had a lover was given a three-month sentence, which was suspended for time served, allowing him to walk free. The Yemen Times just last week published an article insisting that violence against women is necessary for the stability of the family and the society, and invoking Islam to support this view.

Honour killings incidents are growing in the West, including the United States. While British troops in Iraq may have to tread lightly around "the way things are," we must condemn them from the rooftops, so that their customs are not one day our customs.

Two justice systems

There is a comprehensive piece in City Journal, outlining the appeasement of Islamic fundamentalists in the name of multi-culturalism. Where this concerns women is the establishment or jurisdiction of shari'a in democratic countries, allowing two legal systems to co-exist as an accomodation to the Muslims therein.

Experts Ian Buruma of Bard College and Timothy Garton Ash of Oxford, while furiously denying that they advocate cultural surrender, have embraced “accommodation,” which sounds like a distinction without a difference. In his book Murder in Amsterdam, Buruma approvingly quotes Amsterdam mayor Job Cohen’s call for “accommodation with the Muslims,” including those “who consciously discriminate against their women.” Sharia enshrines a Muslim man’s right to beat and rape his wife, to force marriages on his daughters, and to kill them if they resist. One wonders what female Muslims who immigrated to Europe to escape such barbarity think of this prescription.

Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury and one of Britain’s best-known public intellectuals, suggested in February the institution of a parallel system of sharia law in Britain. Since the Islamic Sharia Council already adjudicates Muslim marriages and divorces in the U.K. [did you know that??], what Williams was proposing was, as he put it, “a much enhanced and quite sophisticated version of such a body, with increased resources.”

Western legislatures and courts have reinforced the “spirit of appeasement.” In 2005, Norway’s parliament, with virtually no public discussion or media coverage, criminalized religious insults (and placed the burden of proof on the defendant). Last year, that country’s most celebrated lawyer, Tor Erling Staff, argued that the punishment for honor killing should be less than for other murders, because it’s arrogant for us to expect Muslim men to conform to our society’s norms. Also in 2007, in one of several instances in which magistrates sworn to uphold German law have followed sharia instead, a Frankfurt judge rejected a Muslim woman’s request for a quick divorce from her brutally abusive husband; after all, under the Koran he had the right to beat her.

Of all the West’s leaders, however, few can hold a candle to Piet Hein Donner, who in 2006, as Dutch minister of justice, said that if voters wanted to bring sharia to the Netherlands—where Muslims will soon be a majority in major cities—“it would be a disgrace to say, ‘This is not permitted!’ ”

In July 2007, a planned TV appeal by British cops to help capture a Muslim rapist was canceled to avoid “racist backlash.” And in August, the Times of London reported that “Asian” men (British code for “Muslims”) in the U.K. were having sex with perhaps hundreds of “white girls as young as twelve”—but that authorities wouldn’t take action for fear of “upsetting race relations.” Typically, neither the Times nor government officials acknowledged that the “Asian” men’s contempt for the “white” girls was a matter not of race but of religion.

And on our side of the pond:

This spring, Harvard law professor Noah Feldman, writing in the New York Times Magazine, actually gave two cheers for sharia. He contrasted it favorably with English common law, and described “the Islamists’ aspiration to renew old ideas of the rule of law” as “bold and noble.”

Lest anyone think this blog is mindlessly banging the gong by disparaging Islam, remember the dignity offered to women in the Christian worldview. If this is true, then we would take advantage of the First Amendment which allows us to speak about it, count on the Constitution to defend the legitimate rights of women, but rely primarily on faith to guide us in our response to any legal system that demeans them.

Women deserve better than multi-cultural platitudes -- especially those that end up writing their own death sentence.

UPDATE: Always searching for the reason that such folks cannot see the contradiction between supporting feminists principles and promoting the diversity found in Islam, is it possible that these men who have toed the line with the feminists for so long are subtly signing onto this idiotic plan as the only way to shaft the women they've come to despise through radical feminism? Could they be laughing in their sleeves, wondering if shari'a can finally silence what has become to them a hideous shriek? We know they are no gentlemen; is it possible they are no men at all?

Two-tiered health care

Belgium has come up with a plan:

More rigid regulations in the Flemish hospitals for Muslim patients, who refuse gynaecological care of male doctors: from today their desire will be respected, but not in cases of emergency, circumstances under which the doctor will be allowed to ignore the request of the patient for the sake of their health. The female gynaecologists have elaborated a real code of good conduct in order to treat the Islamic patients in cases of emergency or during night watch, when a female doctor is not always available. According to the new regulations, the medical personnel will have to indulge the patient's request only if it is put in writing or only if the ill patient herself asks for the intervention of a female doctor and not her husband or her family. The code of good conduct has obtained the approval of the female gynaecologists, of the association of the doctors' unions of and the centre for gender equality and fight against racism. (ANSAmed).

Doctors already have tremendous burdens. This is only one more.

By what standard?

In a similar vein to the story highlighted below, this piece on the status of women in Muslim nations is unhelpful:

According to the Global Gender Gap (GGG) report, the planet's ten-worst offenders are: Yemen, Chad, Pakistan, Nepal, Saudi Arabia, Benin, Morocco, Turkey, Egypt and Oman. Of the ten, nine are Muslim-majority states. At the other end of the spectrum, the planet's best countries for women to live in are: Sweden, Norway, Finland, Ireland, New Zealand, Philippines, Germany, Denmark, Ireland and Spain. Not even one of the top-ten is a Muslim-majority state

The study used four criteria by which to assess the status of women across the globe:

• Economic participation
• Educational attainment
• Political empowerment
• Health care

Obviously women [appear to be] doing well in the Nordic countries listed above because of universal access to birth control and abortion and gender quotas throughout business, academia and government.

Certainly, health care for women is an essential thing, but as this story shows, full-disclosure of contraindications are also essential, because without them, you're opening a pandora's box of problems down the road.

Likewise, no one argues against female education, but interestingly, the UN uses this as a propaganda tool against marriage and motherhood, which are important foundations for strong communities.

I simply want readers to realise that there are challenges from both angles as we promote what is in the best interest of women. It's tricky, when we argue against the violence and indignities against women within some religious traditions, because some take this to be a green light to trash all religion -- as though the secular state, with its version of "health care" (often highly eugenic in nature) will lead the way.

Benedict reminded us to participate in the public square with our firm support of all that honours the human person. Our delicate path amidst the ruins of failed ideologies is to show authentic dignity which requires collaboration between men and women, between Church and state, and unswerving support of the vulnerable among us.

New link

Please note the new addition to my blogroll: Women Against Shari'a. Difficult reading, but necessary. Check in regularly to keep up to date -- the backdrop hasn't changed for centuries, only the victims.

The laws under Islam are explained thusly:

To be sure, we must understand why Sharia is the life-force of Islam, and why Islam must impose (by force, if needed) Sharia to the entire world. Once we grasp this tenet, then we can understand how and why myriad specific Sharia laws affect lives.

The basic tenets of Sharia emanate with the assumption that Allah has chosen the believers (i.e., the Muslims) to rule the world. It might sound fascistic, but make no mistake: the Qur’an is absolutely determined to hand over the rule of the world to the followers of Islam: more specifically, to the Bedouin Arabs. Because Islam = Arabism. In the Qur’an (3:104, 3:110) Allah says that Arabs are the best of people ever created.

And the effects on women:

It is our position that shariah law imposes second class status on women and is incompatible with the standards of liberal Western societies and the basic principles of human rights that include equality under the law and the protection of individual freedoms. The shariah code mandates the complete authority of men over women, including the control of their movement, education, marital options, clothing, bodies, place of residence and all other aspects of their existence. Further, it calls for the beating, punishment, and murder of women who don’t comply with shariah requirements.

The objectives of this group are:

Education of the American public about the inherent human rights violations and the attempt to undermine or replace U.S. law and American statutes with Islamic shariah

Publicizing of important issues related to sharia requirements such as honor killings, forced marriages, child marriage, polygamy, female genital mutilation, violence against women, etc.

Alerting policy makers and legislators to potential human rights and equal rights violations and working toward the development of possible remedies and legal actions

Building coalitions with like-minded organizations to develop policy initiatives and interventions for victims of shariah.

Worthy goals. Oremus (and spread the word.)

This is chivalry, folks

The primary goal of this priest is to save souls, naturally, but in taking on the absurdities of Islam -- many of which degrade women -- he manages to offer hope to those subjugated by it's widely-observed tenets. Speaking both Arabic and classical Arabic, Father Zakaria Botros has a wide audience in the Middle East and can use the Koran and writings of Koranic scholars to make his points, such as the following.

Botros spent three years bringing to broad public attention a scandalous — and authentic — hadith stating that women should “breastfeed” strange men with whom they must spend any amount of time. A leading hadith scholar, Abd al-Muhdi, was confronted with this issue on the live talk show of popular Arabic host Hala Sirhan. Opting to be truthful, al-Muhdi confirmed that going through the motions of breastfeeding adult males is, according to sharia, a legitimate way of making married women “forbidden” to the men with whom they are forced into contact — the logic being that, by being “breastfed,” the men become like “sons” to the women and therefore can no longer have sexual designs on them.

To make matters worse, Ezzat Atiyya, head of the Hadith department at al-Azhar University — Sunni Islam’s most authoritative institution — went so far as to issue a fatwa legitimatizing “Rida’ al-Kibir” (sharia’s term for “breastfeeding the adult”), which prompted such outrage in the Islamic world that it was subsequently recanted.

Er, they cannot be serious. Who makes this stuff up? When God limits conjugal relations to those validly married, that should be the end of it. What sort of religious tries to add emphasis to the commandments by forcing women to expose themselves to this indignity. What part of "no" don't they understand? Unless perverted minds are thinking up the rules. But then we find that conjugal relations aren't limited to marriage under Islam after all:

The most dramatic example of this occurred on another famous show on the international station, Iqra. The host, Basma — a conservative Muslim woman in full hijab — asked two prominent ulema, including Sheikh Gamal Qutb, one-time grand mufti of al-Azhar University, to explain the legality of the Koranic verse (4:24) that permits men to freely copulate with captive women. She repeatedly asked: “According to sharia, is slave-sex still applicable?” The two ulema would give no clear answer — dissembling here, going off on tangents there. Basma remained adamant: Muslim youth were confused, and needed a response, since “there is a certain channel and a certain man who has discussed this issue over twenty times and has received no response from you.”

The flustered Sheikh Qutb roared, “low-life people like that must be totally ignored!” and stormed off the set. He later returned, but refused to admit that Islam indeed permits sex-slaves, spending his time attacking Botros instead. When Basma said “Ninety percent of Muslims, including myself, do not understand the issue of concubinage in Islam and are having a hard time swallowing it,” the sheikh responded, “You don’t need to understand.”

No, my dear Sheikh, we understand all too well. And we salute our brother and protector, Father Botros, who knows that his faith is not only true, but the true emancipator of women. For if an angel came from heaven with another Gospel, let him be anathema. And if that "angel" claimed that women were chattel and sex toys, it's all the more evident that he is from the Dark Lord himself.

A different kind of limbo

Consider a culture where single women are mocked and married women are to obey their husbands in all things. Marriage is not a mutual gift of self, but a contract benefitting the man, who has "purchased" a spouse. The husband is chosen by the father, whose paramount concern is not his daughter's happiness but the family honour. A recipe for disaster -- if you're a woman.

Today Asma [aged 33] still lives with her father as her husband refuses to divorce her and also refuses to let her live with him. Due to the social customs that prevent interactions among unrelated men and women, the latter — who are more likely to be financially harmed by being single than men — find the closed social upbringing a great hindrance to their ability in finding spouses. Asma’s problem illustrates some of the issues that can arise under this system. [...]

She is a disgrace, through no fault of her own. She has no options. She has no life. After months of verbal abuse from the "husband" [he had paid the dowry, but not taken the next step] he changed his mind about marrying her.

Asma said her husband then called her father and told him the wedding ceremony would be delayed for six months because of job obligations. It was then that her husband told her she would “rot” at her father’s house.

Asma now was caught in a limbo between living with her husband and being divorced. She said her father ruled out divorce, meaning she had no family support in taking the second option. “My father was consumed by the shame it would bring on the family if I got divorced at this point,” she said. “And surely no one would marry me afterward.”

I found this comment at the bottom touching:

Wow - what a sharp contrast this story presents from how my Dad treated me. My Dad protected me from any and all harm and no one was EVER good enough for his daughter....

...while this so called father allows abusive losers to court his daughter thus exposing her to danger and heartache - how depressing.

So we have trouble on two levels. Fatherhood is not what it is supposed to be -- a vocation to protect and to provide. And fatherhood as signpost to the nature of God the Father is sorely compromised, to the point of blasphemy. That is the result of besmirching the essence of God, Who asked us to call him Abba. Poor Asma; poor millions who do know know of the saving love of God, and the Bridegroom Who laid down His life for such as these. Prayers.

Lifting feminine morale

I've looked on the latest horror from the Middle East with disgust, not being able to add anything to the story. But to his credit, Roger Kimball has done a nice job.

Modern. Day. England.

Thousands upon thousands of young girls growing up in England suffer genital mutilation, since being in Europe offers no protection from the Peverse Ritual That Will Not Die.

The girl is 15 years old but looks much younger. Her face has the fine-boned elegance typical of her native Somalia, but her accent belongs to the streets of East London. She is plainly terrified. That much is clear from the way she avoids eye contact and constantly fidgets in her chair.

"Promise you won't print my name or anything?" she implores repeatedly. "Promise no one will ever know that I've spoken to you? If people in my community find out, they'll say that I've betrayed them and I'll have to run away. And anyway, I don't want my parents to be sent to jail."

With great courage, this British-Somali girl - she asks that we call her "Lali" - is about to describe a barbaric act of ritualised cruelty which has been perpetrated against her. Knowing the danger to which she is exposing herself, her anxiety is entirely understandable.

For by speaking about it, Lali will break the ultimate taboo among Britain's 600,000 ethnic Africans. In Norway, where this brutal act is also prevalent, a young Somali woman was recently beaten, almost to death, for talking to TV documentary programme-makers.

It involves horrid pain -- now and throughout life, betrayal by the women these girls have trusted, life-threatening side-effects, and the humiliation that their "dignity" must be tied to the trauma.

By conservative estimates, 66,000 women and girls living in Britain have been mutilated. This figure, accepted by the Metropolitan Police, came in a report by a volunteer organisation funded by the Department of Health and carried out with academics from the London School of Tropical Hygiene and the City University.

And thousands more girls are at imminent risk as families club together to fly professional "cutters" from Africa to Britain. These women "elders" perform the crude operation for up to £40 a time, often on kitchen tables or floors, without anaesthetic, using filthy, blunt knives, razor blades or scalpels.

I found it bizarre and ironic that this article was surrounded by the typical Daily Mail trash -- both adverts and articles. Such reality only fuels the immigrants' fear that the West will corrupt their daughters. The women in the sidebars are suffering in their own way -- a whole potpourri of indignity all in one fell swoop. Much to pray for, dear readers.

[UPDATE: the above horror is for the British girls who live. Many don't. And later, they can risk this. All in "Jolly Olde England."]

Intentions of the Prophet

More and more westerners are becoming aware of the predicament that women endure under Shari'a (the legal system based on the Qur'an). Abu Daoud cites the explanation given by Robert Spencer for the way rape victims are treated in Islamic countries.

[The] rape victim [is] liable to being prosecuted for adultery if she could not produce four male Muslim witnesses who would testify that they had actually witnessed the rape. This law comes from the Qur’an. Accusations of adultery against Muhammad’s favorite wife, Aisha, and Muhammad’s desire to exonerate her brought about the requirement that four male Muslim witnesses must be produced in order to establish a crime of adultery or other sexual indiscretions: “Why did they not produce four witnesses? Since they produce not witnesses, they verily are liars in the sight of Allah” (Qur’an 24:13; see also 24:4 and Bukhari, vol. 3, book 52, no. 2661).

Aisha’s own word counted for nothing to establish the falsity of the accusations against her -- so to this day Islamic law restricts the validity of a woman’s testimony, particularly in cases involving sexual immorality. Says the Qur’an: “Call in two male witnesses from among you, but if two men cannot be found, then one man and two women whom you judge fit to act as witnesses; so that if either of them commit an error, the other will remember” (2:282). And Islamic legal theorists have restricted women’s testimony even farther, limiting it to, in the words of one Muslim legal manual, “cases involving property, or transactions dealing with property, such as sales” (‘Umdat al-Salik, o24.8). Otherwise only men can testify.

This situation is doubly bad for the relationship between men and women and an injustice against women in particular. Usually, a rape occurs when the man believes he can overpower a woman with impunity -- without witnesses. Even if there were four witnesses that a woman could call upon to verify the events, then it would mean that none of the four (who could easily collaborate to overpower the perpetrator) came to her defense. To witness it means that they either condoned it or were indifferent.

Could God have really put this religion into place? No, Mohammad did -- for his own reasons, which Spencer delineates. It is unconscionable that women have suffered so grievously for his private ends since the seventh century. It is also unconscionable that western feminists turn a blind eye to this unjustice -- why? For the sake of multi-culturalism? Please explain it to me.