quote:Originally posted by welsafty: BY THE WAY: It is called "The World's Nightmare" not "American dream"
How so?-- considering the US has among the highest rates of human rights unlike many other nations such as Sudan.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by homing pigeon: At the same time, the same westerners do not focus on how much Islam has dignified women when it comes to other important life issues. If I say this is often used as a ruse to distract from the reality of Islam's dignifying of women, I'd be accused of buying into the consiparcy therory!
Thing is though Pigeon, Islam dignifies women in theory, but not in practice..
In many Islamic countries, women do have less rights than men do, and are treated as second class citizens much of the time.
The very laws that Muhammad meant to dignify women, are being used AGAINST them to keep them down by seemingly misinterpreting or denying them on purpose.
It is a fact that women in Western democratic nations today have more rights and freedoms than in any country, and at ANY TIME throughout History.
Yet these very same Western Democratic nations are not Islamic at all.
They are all secular.
Why is this?
You may argue that it's not Islam's fault why men in Islamic nations dominate women, but on the same token, why even claim that Islam "dignifies" women when it's not even happening in reality?
It's like the Bible saying "All Men are created equal," yet we all know that Christian nations engaged in slavery in the past.
It is evident that Religion and Morality are not synonymous with each other.
Moral people never commit offense against other people, man or woman.
But religious people do, often using their religion as justification.
I hope you don't find this offensive, but this is just the perspective of one non Muslim, non religious Westerner
~There is no space between us; but the crossings are infinitePosts: 1221 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The attitudes of Muslims to women are, in some respects, central to the religion. As Salman Rushdie wrote after the London bombings: "The Koran was revealed at a time of great change in the Arab world, the 7th-century shift from a matriarchal nomadic culture to an urban patriarchal system. It is possible to read the Koran as a plea for the old matriarchal values in the new patriarchal world, a conservative plea that became revolutionary because of its appeal to all those whom the new system disenfranchised, the poor, the powerless."
Before [Islam], arrived in the 7th century C.E., Arabia was governed by queens, matriarchal for over a thousand years of recorded history. "The land's original Allah was Al-lat, part of the female trinity along with Kore or Q're, the Virgin and Al-Uzza, the Powerful One, the triad known as Manat, the Threefold Moon." (p. 51, "Women's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets" by Barbara G. Walker)
In pre-Islamic Mecca the goddesses Uzza, al-Manāt and al-Lāt were known as "the daughters of god". Uzzā was worshipped by the Nabataeans, who equated her with the Graeco-Roman goddesses Aphrodite, Urania, Venus and Caelestis. Each of the three goddesses had a separate shrine near Mecca. Uzzā, was called upon for protection by the pre-Islamic Quraysh. "In 624 at the battle called "Uhud", the war cry of the Qurayshites was, "O people of Uzzā, people of Hubal!" (Tawil 1993).
Posts: 3188 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
1. تثبيت شرع الله سبحانه وتعالى وسنة نبيه صلى الله عليه وسلم.
2. تثبيت البديل الشرعي لمحاربة عادة ضارة (الختان الفرعوني)، مع مراعاة النواحي الاجتماعية والنفسية الناتجة عن التخلي المطلق عن الختان.
3. إعلاء شعيرة العبادة (الختان الشرعي) لا العادة (الختان الفرعوني).
4. مزيد الطهارة والنظافة، فإن القلفة من المستقذرات عند العرب. وقد كثر ذم الأقلف في أشعارهم، فهي تحبس النجاسة، فيصعب نقاء دماء الحيض والبول مما يؤدي إلى الروائح الكريهة ووجود النجاسة [فتح الباري، ص10].
5. ذهاب القلفة والشبق، وهي تعني شدة الشهوة والانشغال بها والإفراط فيها فذهابها يعني تعديل الشهوة عند المختونين من الرجال والنساء.
6. انخفاض حدوث السرطان للمختونين من الرجال والنساء.
7. التخفيض من كثرة استعمال العادة السرية لدى البالغين. لأن إفرازات القلفة تثير الأعصاب التناسلية حول الحشفة وتدعو المراهق إلى حكها والاستزادة من مداعبة عضوه.
8. منع التهابات نتيجة تجمع اللخن والميكروبات تحت قلفة الذكور والإناث [ختان الإناث في الطب والإسلام د. آمال أحمد البشير ص 24، وتأصيل ختان الإناث د. ست البنات خالد ص 9 – ورقة طبية قدمت في سمنار ختان الإناث بجامعة أم درمان الإسلامية وبالمجمع الفقهي].
أضرار الختان غير الشرعي (الفرعوني):
1. مخالفة الشرع في كيفيته.
2. تشويه وتغيير لخلق الله بقطع جزء أو أجزاء من أعضاء المرأة التناسلية. قال تعالى: (لقد خلقنا الإنسان في أحسن تقويم)[سورة التين: 4]. وقد لعن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم المُغيِّرات خَلْقَ الله.
3. الأضرار الصحية التي تتمثل في النزيف، الالتهابات، الأكياس والخراج، احتباس البول في الأيام الأولى، تعسر الولادة، تأثر الجنين بتعثر الولادة، حمى النفاس بعد الولادة، تهتك العجان، تكرار العدل.
4. الأضرار النفسية، الصدمة النفسية، الخوف والهلع عند الزواج والإنجاب مع صعوبة المعاشرة الزوجية.
5. الأضرار الاجتماعية؛ للزواج بالأجنبيات، الطلاق [الأبعاد النفسية والاجتماعية لختان البنات، د. آمنة عبد الرحمن. تأصيل ختان البنات (ورقة طبية) د. آمنة خالد].
Posts: 2728 | From: جمهورية مصر العربية | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
To the best of my knowledge, there have been four medical studies of circumcision of the clitoral hood (prepuce). The earliest report concerns a procedure that does not actually remove the clitoral prepuce, but stretches it in such a way as to obtain the result that "It is seldom that the prepuce will overgrow again once it has been opened." The other three report on results obtained from the actual surgical removal of the clitoral prepuce. All four report a striking percentage of those who had the procedure done experience enhanced sexual enjoyment.
McDonald, C. F. "Circumcision of the Female." General Practitioner 18.3 (September, 1958). 98-99. (Claims to have circumcised "perhaps 40 patients," including some adult women. Among the adult women who underwent the procedure, "Very thankful patients were the reward. For the first time in their lives, sex ambition became normally satisfied" [98].)
Rathmann, W. G. "Female Circumcision, Indications and a New Technique." General Practitioner 20.3 (September, 1959). 115-120. (Sent out a questionnaire to women whose prepuces he had removed, and received 112 replies. Of the 72 women who reported having never experienced an orgasm prior to the surgery, 9 [12.4%] reported continued failure to achieve orgasm; 64 [87.6%] reported successful achievement of orgasm after the surgery. Of the 39 who reported achieving orgasm only with difficulty prior to the surgery, 5 [12.5%] reported no improvement; 34 [87.5%] reported improvement after the surgery. Rathmann provides a number of indications and contraindications for the surgery, and invented a new clamp for the procedure.
Wollman, Leo."Hooded Clitoris: Preliminary Report." The Journal of the American Society of Psychosomatic Dentistry and Medicine 20.1 (1973), 3-4. (Provides a "Statistical analysis of one hundred cases." Not clear whether the statistics Wollman reports include all one hundred women [32 of whom were not circumcisedösee below] or a statistical report of those who were circumcised. In this study, he reports the frequency of sexual intercourse before treatment as 3 times per week on average; after treatment as 5 times per week on average. 49 women were able to attain orgasm prior to treatment; 92 after. 92 subjectively report improvement in intensity of sexual response, rapidity of sexual response, and/or greater number of orgasms; 7 subjectively report no change, and 1 subjectively reports being worse off. The longest time since treatment was 20 years; 64 patients were followed up after 5 years since treatment. The treatment occurred in Wollman's office 98 times; in the hospital [at patient's request] 2 times.)
_______. "Female Circumcision." The Journal of the American Society of Psychosomatic Dentistry and Medicine 20.4 (1973), 130-131. (Reports on one hundred consecutive patients referred to him by psychoanalysts and clinical psychologists. "Sixty eight benefited by surgical female circumcision: of the remaining thirty-two, twenty-eight showed no need for this procedure; four refused to be treated by this technique.")
Crist, Takey. "Female Circumcision." Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality 11.8 (August, 1977), 77. (Reports on Crist's circumcision of fifteen women, and provides a list of four conditions for when the surgery would be indicated: "a) they could achieve orgasm only by masturbation and/or oral sex, b) they could have orgasm in the lateral or female-superior positions only, c) they stated, "it feels good, I get there, but suddenly it's over," d) they had a positive cotton-tip test, where patients felt a distinct difference when a cotton-tipped applicator was applied directly to the clitoris when the foreskin was retracted as opposed to application to the foreskin" [77]. Crist's study concludes, "Patients who have undergone this procedure have generally commented that they have enhanced sexual response.") III. Comparison of the Glans of the Clitoris with the Glans of the Penis Scott, F. Brantley. "Nerve Endings in Glans Clitoris vs. Glans Penis." Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality. 15.7 (July, 1981), 88. (Several argumentsösome, by famous sexologists, such as Masters and Johnsonöhave been published over the years claiming that the removal of the clitoral hood should not be compared to the removal of the male foreskin, on the ground that the clitoral glans was much more sensitive to stimulation than the male glans. Scott's brief answer to a question sent to the journal would appear to count against any such claim: "Anatomic studies have shown that on a per centimeter surface area, the number of nerve endings in the glans clitoris is equal to that in the same surface area of the glans penis" [88]. The same evidence would seem to support the surgical removal of the clitoral hood, for women who find its presence has the effect of dampening stimulation, on the simple ground that the clitoral glans is so much smaller, and thus offers less opportunity for stimulation than does the male glans.)Posts: 2728 | From: جمهورية مصر العربية | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
after we read th studie i quote upove. and let's tie with wat is it sunna. what is in sunna is to trim the clitoral hood to increase/adjust the feeling of the females during copultaion...
the sunna has nothing to say cut the clit but only to trim the clitoral hood this is what is kn as " female sunna circumsiosn"
other idiotic ignorant stuff that cut any other stuff in the female organs is not islamic....
Posts: 2728 | From: جمهورية مصر العربية | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Your obsession with this subject is too weird for words. It creeps me out. Please stop - it makes you look like some kind of fetish freak. Enough. Khalas. Get help, dude. Posts: 2953 | From: Slightly south of Azkaban. | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
Your obsession with this subject is too weird for words. It creeps me out. Please stop - it makes you look like some kind of fetish freak. Enough. Khalas. Get help, dude.
the intention is good to help women enjoy sex for the 1st time in thier lives
may b i can get Noble prize from such medical study Posts: 2728 | From: جمهورية مصر العربية | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Women have been and are enjoying sex, without your unhealthy concern or barbaric surgery. I have never heard of even one woman who 'needed' to have such a surgical procedure . The necessity for this operation is so rare that you would be better spending time advising women how to cope, if abducted by aliens. You shift and twist your position, according to the degree of outrage expressed, but your true feelings are transparent. You think FGM is Islamic. It is barbaric, sick and harms women. Thank goodness there are only a few 'men' on this forum who believe this utter RUBBISH. The more I read, the more I wonder if you, Sultan and a few other suspects are the same troll. Posts: 2953 | From: Slightly south of Azkaban. | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you gay, Batman? I'm not trying to insult you, as being gay is not a term I would use derogatively. You appear to be afraid of women. Why do you feel the need to advocate the butchery of females? Posts: 2953 | From: Slightly south of Azkaban. | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SayWhatYouSee: Are you gay, Batman? I'm not trying to insult you, as being gay is not a term I would use derogatively. You appear to be afraid of women.
IF THAT QUESTION IS INNOCENT NOPE AM NOT A GAY
AM NOT AFRAID OF WOMEN. BY THE WAY R GAYS AFRAID OF WOMEN?
Why do you feel the need to advocate the butchery of females?
MAY B CUZ FEMINISTIC WHO ADVOCATE BUTCHERY OF MALE N CREATE DOUBLE STANDARDS WAT DO U THINK? GUESS WAT MAY B AM BUTCHER HEHEH
WAKE UP DUDETTE, WOMEN SHOUDL HAVE SEX LIKE MAN Posts: 2728 | From: جمهورية مصر العربية | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are female circumcision advocates advocating the removal of the HOOD?
Or are they wanting to mess with the CLIT itself?
This is an important distinction.
If they are talking about the removal of the hood, then it's not a big deal, and could result in enhanced sexual pleasure for the woman because the sheath on her clit has been removed.
However, if they are talking about messing with the clitoris itself, then they should shoot themselves!
I didn't have the inclination to read through this entire thread with all of the cut and paste articles to find what the pro female circumcision crowd has been advocating
Anyway, female circumcision as practiced by Medical doctors in the West is completely different from what you see in African nations where the "surgery" is performed by some "tribal elder" with a dull, rusty tool who doesn't have a f*cking clue about the basics of Medicine and female sexual anatomy.
~There is no space between us; but the crossings are infinitePosts: 1221 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Conditioned: Are female circumcision advocates advocating the removal of the HOOD?
Or are they wanting to mess with the CLIT itself?
This is an important distinction.
If they are talking about the removal of the hood, then it's not a big deal, and could result in enhanced sexual pleasure for the woman because the sheath on her clit has been removed.
However, if they are talking about messing with the clitoris itself, then they should shoot themselves!
I didn't have the inclination to read through this entire thread with all of the cut and paste articles to find what the pro female circumcision crowd has been advocating
Anyway, female circumcision as practiced by Medical doctors in the West is completely different from what you see in African nations where the "surgery" is performed by some "tribal elder" with a dull, rusty tool who doesn't have a f*cking clue about the basics of Medicine and female sexual anatomy.
~There is no space between us; but the crossings are infinite
Hey Alistair,
Glad you make the distinction but you need to know that the vast majority of women do not need to have their HOOD's removed! As Homing pointed out, while there may be exceptional cases where an overdeveloped or excessive hood actually is preventing the woman from fulfilling her sexual satisfaction this is NOT THE NORM!
Furthermore, the advocates of FGM such as Batty and Sultan first began their argument that removal of a part of the clitoris is SUNNA because it CURBS and CONTROLS a female's sexual desire. It is obvious that the Sheiks they run and cry to have now tried to backpeddle on this issue with all the international heat they are catching and now trying to use examples of Western clitorectomies (where the hood has been removed to enhance desire) as an argument for FGM. First they say, to curb desire is Sunnah and now they try to say, enhancing desire is Sunnah AND IT IS ALL A BUNCH OF BULLSHIT.
And as you so rightly pointed out, most of these morons are having their daughters butchered by midwife types and/or physicians who are poorly trained about female anatomy and sexuality.
And we all know you know your clit's well Alistair. That's what we love about you. Posts: 407 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by humanist: Hey Alistair,
Glad you make the distinction but you need to know that the vast majority of women do not need to have their HOOD's removed! As Homing pointed out, while there may be exceptional cases where an overdeveloped or excessive hood actually is preventing the woman from fulfilling her sexual satisfaction this is NOT THE NORM!
Yes O' Seeker of Truth, I'm aware that most women don't need to have their hoods removed
Much in the same way that most men don't need to have their foreskin removed..
Why would we be born with a clitoral hood or a foreskin if God wanted us to chop them off?
But I just wanted to know what exactly was being debated, because there is a HUGE difference between removal of the hood, and removal (even partial) of the clitoris.
quote:Furthermore, the advocates of FGM such as Batty and Sultan first began their argument that removal of a part of the clitoris is SUNNA because it CURBS and CONTROLS a female's sexual desire. It is obvious that the Sheiks they run and cry to have now tried to backpeddle on this issue with all the international heat they are catching and now trying to use examples of Western clitorectomies (where the hood has been removed to enhance desire) as an argument for FGM. First they say, to curb desire is Sunnah and now they try to say, enhancing desire is Sunnah AND IT IS ALL A BUNCH OF BULLSHIT.
Ahh. This doesn't surprise me at all.. I wondered what Battyman was going on about when he started posting Medical Reports of clitoral hood removal; which is completely different from FGM.
Actually, this was what prompted me to ask what the hell the pro female circumcision crowd was advocating.
quote:And we all know you know your clit's well Alistair. That's what we love about you.
For God's sake woman, you make it sound like I have a bloody clit myself
Actually I do in a way I suppose. A penis is basically a much larger INVERTED clitoris, and a clitoris is a much smaller inverted penis
~There is no space between us; but the crossings are infinitePosts: 1221 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: . I wondered what Battyman was going on about when he started posting Medical Reports of clitoral hood removal; which is completely different from FGM.
ya alistair feministic WHO may cut ur inverted penis if u tell hoodectomy is not FGM Posts: 2728 | From: جمهورية مصر العربية | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Furthermore, the advocates of FGM such as Batty and Sultan first began their argument that removal of a part of the clitoris is SUNNA because it CURBS and CONTROLS a female's sexual desire. [/QB]
yeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaah humanist
i never advocate cutting the clitoris i teel about clitoral hoodectomay whch will satiasfy the female sexuality n control her desire as a result.
like when women don enjoy sex they have desire in their brains but no satisfaction so wat. they desire gonna b out of control cuz they can not recieve any saifaction.
soooo yes circumsion( hoodectomy) control her sexual desire on other words it give her a chance to have sex feel
Posts: 2728 | From: جمهورية مصر العربية | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
For God's sake woman, you make it sound like I have a bloody clit myself
[/QB][/QUOTE]
Nah, just that you know them intimately well.....how about starting a consulting business...I'll pay for Batty and Sultan's first lesson...no wait, for their entire course! Posts: 407 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by homing pigeon: So, to answer your question. I wouldnt recommend its routine performance either on account of health or hygiene but I wouldnt dissuade people who want to do it from doing it and would encourage them based on the bulk of evidence pointing towards its protective effect. This isnt a contradictory standpoint, by the way. It is perfectly defendable in terms of statistical figures.
I agree for the most part but again my opinion is to not even encourage.
quote:Originally posted by homing pigeon: Now, what I see u doing here is bringing the social context into the medical one and expecting the medical professional to take a standpoint based on social/cultural concepts of right and wrong which are more debatable than medical statistics by far
No I'm not. This point was completely separate from what I believe to be lack of medical evidence tipping the scale in favour of circumcision. I mentioned it in passing and as something that struck me as illogical but I don't see it as worth arguing.
quote:Originally posted by homing pigeon: In lack of medical evidence that "MGM" will leave a man with a long term health problem,
I have read medical research pointing toward circumcison affecting the quality of life of men who had the procedure done. Not health problems and certainly nothing to be compared to FGM. In time I wouldn't be surprised if research shows that it has adverse affect.
quote:Originally posted by homing pigeon:
I dont understand how I made ur point for u. Maybe I didnt quite get ur point from the start.
If the non medical public are aware that they cant interpret the medical research data, then they shouldnt necessarily want it handy over the internet in its raw form.
My point is, based on the information available to the general public there's no evidence to support the benefit of circumcision. Everything I posted stated exactly that. The fact that you can read in them something other than what was clearly stated in simple English is irrelevant. We simply look for simple and clear statement.
For example when the British Association of Paediatric Surgeons states the following, it is over. Most of the general public in UK will take that and not be interested in the rest of the research.
"There is no current evidence to support an increased risk of penile cancer, Human Immunodeficiency Virus infection or cervical cancer in uncircumcised males. Circumcision to prevent Unary Tract Infection (UTI) is unproven except in boys with abnormal renal tract"
What you did was tell me that based on research that is not easily available to me and one that I am unlikely to understand, all those statements I read and posted are flawed or flat out wrong. That unknown campaigners with unknown agendas have been putting out false information for some unknown reasons! All very mysterious.....all very scary
quote:Originally posted by homing pigeon: Are you sure that the recommendations are only valid for African countries? and are based only on a the two African studies?
It is my opinion that the recommendations were aimed at Sub-Sharan Africa as I am certain no western health authority would ever consider adopting them. People would laugh at them. And yes, everything I read clearly stated that the research was based on those African studies.
quote:Originally posted by homing pigeon: I very much doubt that the WHO woul up and issue a recommendation overnight based on two studies. This is not how the WHO works. There must be "other evidence". And do you think that the WHO would recommend a procedure that is controversial in terms of safety or long term effects? You might want to check these:
LOL, unlike you I don't presume that there must be "other evidence". I believe their decision was politically motivate(campaigners with secret agendas ). I am not in any way convinced of their position on circumcision as a way to combat HIV. If they are ever able to get this going what is going to happen is people will get circumcised and continue to engage hi risk sexual activities believing they're now immune. And who's going to perform the circumcision? They can hardly provide them with basic medical care now they're going to have extra staff to perform the surgery and follow up care, all within WTO(western) standards! Really?
Posts: 63 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I am most definitely not "assuming" the prescence of other evidence. I KNOW there is other evidence. I presented you with some. I cant understand how you missed them. What's more the WHO state that in their report. I copied the sentences and highlighted them. This is typical cheryy picking. If I like this study, it exists. If I dont like this study, it never happened.
And I am under the impression that I explained what the Paeditraic Society means by saying no need for "routine" male circumcision for health or hygiene and gave the example of chicken pox vaccinatin and no need for routine vaccination against chicken pox. I would have thought this is clear enough to understand.But again, you are cherry picking. So British public will stop doing circumcision soley for its protective effect or its health benefits? I have no problem with that. I never said to do it just to be able to clean the glans!!
There is a world of difference between the following two sentences:
1- " Is it worth doing circumcision routinely for every male child on account of health or hygiene?"
2- "Is it worth banning male circumcision on account of health reasons?"
While the answer to the first is : not particularly, because the available evidence does not warrant routinity, the answer to the second is : hardly because the available evidence does not point that way but to the other i.e. that circumcision has its benefits
I dont think I'm obliged to go on clarifying this any further.
As to the spooky "secret"campaigners (I have no idea how campagining can happen in secret but no problem, if u say I said so !), look me in the eye and tell me that activists against circumcision dont exist, that the site called nocirc or something along those lines dont exist ....and u dont exist ..... Really, making fun of something someone says and trying to make it sound ridiculous doesnt change facts. The fact that I ignore them and never pay attention to who they are doesnt make them "secret"...it just shows u that there is at least one medical professiona who thinks them irrelevent. Again, You're free to disagree.
I lost interest in this conversation. I am used to discussing research results with people I dont need to explain them to and who have enough academic integrity to look at the whole picture AND do not rely on sarcasm to undermine the opposing opinion.
When it comes to that, I dont see why I should carry on talking. The public can have whatever opinion they want but its the medical profession who change the policy.
Posts: 670 | From: alex living in leeds, UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Batman, non-stop, righteous machine:
quote:Originally posted by SayWhatYouSee: Are you gay, Batman? I'm not trying to insult you, as being gay is not a term I would use derogatively. You appear to be afraid of women.
IF THAT QUESTION IS INNOCENT NOPE AM NOT A GAY
AM NOT AFRAID OF WOMEN. BY THE WAY R GAYS AFRAID OF WOMEN?
Why do you feel the need to advocate the butchery of females?
MAY B CUZ FEMINISTIC WHO ADVOCATE BUTCHERY OF MALE N CREATE DOUBLE STANDARDS WAT DO U THINK? GUESS WAT MAY B AM BUTCHER HEHEH
WAKE UP DUDETTE, WOMEN SHOUDL HAVE SEX LIKE MAN
Batman you are quite right to defend gay men. I agree that the word 'afraid' was badly chosen, in the given context. I didn't intend to imply that all gay men were afraid of women. I know this is not true. What I meant to say was that I have observed some gay men (by no means the majority) make negative comments about female genitalia. Your views on sexuality are plain freaky. I have seen you describe butchered girls as '"hot and cute.'' FGM is barbaric and you know it, but try to pretend that women benefit from less drastic levels, to cover up your sinister desire to repress sexuality. You and your few soundalikes have squirmed like worms on a hook, retreating from previous statements supporting FGM, as a means of controlling sexuality. You think such distortion is effective. It isn't.
I have no double standards for men and women. Male circumcision is a cultural practice, not a medical necessity, for the majority of the male population. The numbers needing surgery are small, compared to the procedures being carried out. The number of girls or women needing surgery is so low that it is not worth mentioning. It has only been brought into this debate, to counter the morons using the rare need for such procedures, in an attempt to justify mass FGM. I repeat, I have never known even one woman whom has required such a procedure. Your knowledge of human sexuality is severely lacking. Your interpretation is just sickening.
So, if you are not gay, are you Sultan? I see little to separate your views. I have a few other suspects, 'Fess' up, Batman, or The Chippendales are being sent to your cave. Josette has been outed . Might just be your turn soon. Posts: 2953 | From: Slightly south of Azkaban. | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^LOL How did this discussion turn from the status of women in Islam into gays?
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Batman, non-stop, righteous machine: RESTART UR CPUTER swys NOW A WORM IS IN
There are quite a few worms in ES, ya Batman. Impotent little worms don't worry me in the least. U Restart UR computer, before I 'skelp yer lugs.'Posts: 2953 | From: Slightly south of Azkaban. | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Conditioned: Thing is though Pigeon, Islam dignifies women in theory, but not in practice..
In many Islamic countries, women do have less rights than men do, and are treated as second class citizens much of the time.
The very laws that Muhammad meant to dignify women, are being used AGAINST them to keep them down by seemingly misinterpreting or denying them on purpose.
It is a fact that women in Western democratic nations today have more rights and freedoms than in any country, and at ANY TIME throughout History.
Yet these very same Western Democratic nations are not Islamic at all.
They are all secular.
Why is this?
You may argue that it's not Islam's fault why men in Islamic nations dominate women, but on the same token, why even claim that Islam "dignifies" women when it's not even happening in reality?
It's like the Bible saying "All Men are created equal," yet we all know that Christian nations engaged in slavery in the past.
It is evident that Religion and Morality are not synonymous with each other.
Moral people never commit offense against other people, man or woman.
But religious people do, often using their religion as justification.
I hope you don't find this offensive, but this is just the perspective of one non Muslim, non religious Westerner
~There is no space between us; but the crossings are infinite
Hi,Alistair. I respect your opinion but I still dont agree. While I acknowledge your right to chose "no religion" as a personal stance , I cant see the logic of holding religion responsible for the way people twist it...i.e. If people routinely screw up religions, it cant mean that we better not have religion. Maybe we better not have people ...Seriously, if religion was a man and he was consistently being misrepresented by Mr. Religious where Mr. Religious falsely claims that every atrocity he commits is Mr.Religion's instructions. Then one day Mr. Religion decides to sue Mr.Religious, what would be the fair ruling?
No, seriously,now, I promise ..... You say that religions and morality clash and I query this statement because I cant accept that there is something innately evil in any religion. All religions revolve around offering their followers a cut and dried way of life based on goodness. What moral people call right and wrong/moral and immoral is the halal and haram of any religion (lawful and sin). I think this is where you disagree with me because u see that some religions condone immoral acts. I dont agree because I believe that religions dont but there will always be people in the world who would want to blur the edges in order to squeeze in their own fucked up views. If we leave the world without religions, these people will find another reason to do the same thing. They'll claim it is one of the pillars of morality! It's true that some people commit atrocities from a moral standpoint;look at animal activists and look at the at the concept of freedom fighting and I'm sure there are lots of examples. My claim is based on the idea that moral people who have a solid sense of responsibility and honour will behave well with or without religion. The rascals will behave badly with or withour religion but there is a group of people in the middle who just need an extra reason to behave well and religion gives them this. So I think on the whole, the world is doing better with religion than without.
Now talking about women's rights is a different matter.Take religion out of the equation and have agood look. Even the West have not been treating women well for such a long time as it is (check the state of women's rights in 19th century Britain).....and really, we should take a close look at the reality of women's lives in the west and elsewhere. I believe that there is a profound cross-cultural ignorance and generalisations are being applied based on anecdotal information. Lets take domestic violence, for example. Domestic violence exists in the west. It isnt the sole property of religious people in third world countries....I would even confirm that in the Egyptian culture, a man hitting a woman is seen as the lowest of the low. It's totally unacceptable in all levels of society. It's part of the cultural code. You just dont hit a woman. If u even watch the movies,old and new, u will often find the phrase "R u going to raise ur hand on a woman?" indignantly thrown about. But for some oblique reason I find that Egyptians or Muslims generally are accused of condoning domestic violence....while we forget the rate of such things in western countries. Official position aside, what is the reality on the ground, Alistair? The differenc is not that huge.
Again, women's work....Am I not an Arab Muslim woman? I am having difficulty convincing my husband and my parents that I'd like to give up my career, for God's sake. I never had to fight my way to a career. I was practically manhandled into it and I cant even buy my way out.
I'm not saying the position of women in religious countries is ideal but neither it is as bad as u people seem to think......and , more importantly, neither is life ideal for a woman in western societies. Ah, I remembered something that I find absolutely demeaning for women in western countries; the "show me your assets" culture all over the place! A woman is nothing but boobs and ass; a sex object. In Muslim countries, the whole ethos is against this. People are not allowed to judge women by the size of their bras and when women cover up or wear decent clothes it is basically about refusing to be treated as a sex object.It's strange how westerners perceive this as exactly the opposite of what it is....so u see, there is a lot of misunderstandiong going on.
Posts: 670 | From: alex living in leeds, UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^LOL How did this discussion turn from the status of women in Islam into gays?
Tis the magic of ES.
Characteristically, no thread ever sticks to the title. The day this happens on this board, u have to realize something's gone awfully wrong! Posts: 670 | From: alex living in leeds, UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
I would even confirm that in the Egyptian culture, a man hitting a woman is seen as the lowest of the low. It's totally unacceptable in all levels of society. It's part of the cultural code. You just dont hit a woman. If u even watch the movies,old and new, u will often find the phrase "R u going to raise ur hand on a woman?" indignantly thrown about.
Alarming portrayals
How does Egyptian television portray violence against women? Lina Mahmoud investigates
On 8 May the New Woman Research Centre (NWRC) and the Media House (MH), an independent video production company, held a meeting entitled "Together We Can Confront Violence Against Women" to release the results of a media monitoring project conducted by both organisations during Ramadan 2002.
The project is the first of its scale to study the way the Egyptian media portrays violence against women. "The project comes at a time when there is a general political trend that recognises the importance of women as an integral part of society. Efforts are being made to combat things that impede women from participating effectively in society," said Nawla Darwish of the NWRC.
The MH, the NWRC and a group of participants including professors of mass communication conducted a study of 18 television dramas shown on Egyptian national television during Ramadan 2002. Among the serials watched were Asa'd Ragul fi Al-Alam (The Happiest Man in the World), Al-Atar wa Al-Saba'a Banat (The Herbalist and His Seven Daughters), Qassem Amin, Ayna Qalbi (Where is My Heart?), Amira fi Abdeen (A Princess in Abdeen), together with six films shown on the two main Egyptian channels, Channel One and Channel Two. Among these films were Al Hafid (the Grandson), Al Zawga 13 (Wife Number 13).
The group counted the number of cases of violence shown on the programmes. The study was conducted during the month of Ramadan because it is the month with the highest television viewer rates. According to Darwish, "Audiovisual media has a great influence in shaping the collective consciousness of Egyptians. The extremely high illiteracy rates in Egypt, among women in particular, give media an uncontested role in dictating people's behaviour and ideas."
The study concluded that 67 per cent of the characters presented on television last Ramadan were men and only 33 per cent were women. "In reality, the number of women in society is almost equal to the number of men. Why do they represent only a third of the characters on TV?" said Darwish.
The report of the findings of the study shows that all of the programmes reviewed last Ramadan included scenes of violence against women. "The problem is that those who perpetuate the violence are the heroes of the episodes, are those who are closest to the hearts of the audience and hence have the largest impact on them," said the report.
The report also addressed the ways viewers react to violence. Just as disturbing as the portrayals of violence against women is the lack of public outrage to them. In many cases, observers responded with either indifference or approval, making such aggression seem commonplace or justifiable.
The majority of the women portrayed in the television episodes were housewives, followed by a large number of students. Unemployed individuals comprised 5.1 per cent of the characters. The report argued that this is not an accurate representation and that the actual unemployment rate for women is much higher. The report also noted that 31 per cent of the characters are middle class, 23.4 per cent upper class and only 15.9 per cent are part of the lower class. For some characters, the social class was not identified. The focus on the upper and middle classes makes the drama unrealistic. Many of the soap operas featured educated characters, particularly university graduates, ignoring the fact that half of the Egyptian population is illiterate.
Beating was the most prevalent mode of physical violence against women in the dramas, accounting for 42 per cent of all physical aggression. Other forms of violence included killing (13.1 per cent) and forms of sexual abuse. Incidents of verbal and sexual harassment were found in many of the shows and withholding sex from wives was portrayed as a form of punishment.
In all of the cases of violence against women, 41.9 per cent of the "heroines" displayed active resistance whereas 31.1 per cent accepted the abuse. This resistance was usually verbal in form, although one woman reacted by killing herself and another became physically paralysed. Further, 67.3 per cent of the men who acted violently against women displayed no remorse. Thirty per cent felt guilty and shameful.
Most of the women in the programmes played negative roles. The few women who were portrayed positively were shown as naïve or harmless wives, lovers and mothers.
Darwish expressed her uneasiness at the results of the report. "In 12 serials, there were 500 violent episodes. This means there are one or two scenes of violence in each part of a serial. This is too much. Moreover, not a single series was free of violence against women."
After the completion of the report, a documentary was filmed in which people were questioned about their reactions to violence in television dramas. "Women deserve to be beaten," responded one viewer. "A husband should beat his wife if she does something wrong," said another. One woman said that "men are so cruel to women. They should be merciful." A young man commented that beating a woman makes her "more stubborn".
The meeting convened by the NWRC and MH posed several important questions. What is required of the media? Should the media portray violence against women? Should television programmes condemn violence against women or reflect it as it is? Most everyone seemed to agree, however, that television should stop stereotyping women negatively and avoid showing violence against women in a positive light.
The dominance of men over women is accepted to varying degrees among Egyptians of both genders. For example, the 1995 Egyptian Demographic and Health Survey found that a significant number of women, especially among lower and middle income women and those residing in rural areas, believed that wife beating was justified under certain circumstances. Another study - carried out between January and March 1997 on a sample of 100 women aged between 14 and 65 years old (married or having been married) from Manshier Nasser, an informal settlement located ten minutes from the city of Cairo - reveals that 30% of the women questioned admitted to being subjected to domestic violence on a daily basis, 34% on a weekly basis, 15% on a monthly basis and 21% occasionally.
For 75% of these women, the main reason for this domestic violence was found to be sexual. Women are beaten, raped or abused for having refused to have sex with their husbands. Other reasons cited were spending (65%), visiting (32%), housework (25%), religion (8%), jealousy (6%) and disobedience (5%). Sixteen percent of the women suffered injuries necessitating hospitalisation, such as broken arms, broken ribs, internal bleeding and wounds in the head or the arms requiring stitches, while 9% of them attempted to commit suicide.
Following this violence, most of them (53%) suffered in silence; 13% went to the police, although all of them subsequently withdrew the charges, the objective being only “to teach the husband a lesson”, not really wanting to cause him any harm.
Only 6% of these women demanded a divorce. Of the remainder, 26% called their neighbours; 25% tried to leave their homes at least once; 23% got help from family members (either their own or their spouse’s), while 15% responded to the violence. The fact that 87% of these women did not mention the violence to the police is due to embarrassment (65%), for the children’s sake (32%), fears for their husband (19%), fear of their husband (13%), and fear of their own families (7%). Four percent felt that it was a waste of time, while 11% cited other reasons.
The researcher specified that although this study is not representative of Egyptian society as a whole, she feels that “the instances of violence even among different social classes within Egyptian society is widespread.” OMCT welcomes the promulgation of Law No. 6 of 1998, mentioned in the fifth and fourth government report on page 15, which criminalises the phenomenon of intimidation and the threat of the use of force or violence against a wife, offspring or parents. However, it believes that this measure does not provide women with sufficient protection from domestic violence as wife battering in Egypt is only dealt with as a crime if it exceeds the accepted limits of disciplining or if it results in certain injuries. Social and other interpretations of religious values reinforce the wife’s duty to obey and serve her husband, a role reinforced by the media. Moreover, the custom of a man paying a dowry for his future wife also perpetuates the idea that a wife is her husband’s property.
Domestic Violence
III.2 Marital Rape
In Egypt, a husband who forces his wife to have sexual intercourse is not considered by the law to have committed a criminal offence, “because the woman is legally obliged due to the marriage contract to obey her husband and to follow him to his bed each time he asks her, and she can only refuse for a legally valid reason.”
A study conducted by the New Women Research Centre and El-Nadim Centre has found that 93% of the women in the sample considered intercourse under such conditions as rape. However, 46% of the men in the sample said that they were entitled to force their wives to have intercourse.
III.3 Crimes against Women Committed in the Name of Honour
As already discussed above, there is a notable difference in the penalty for the murder of one’s spouse upon discovery of adultery. Whereas men are given a light prison sentence of not more than three years for murdering an adulterous wife, women are often sentenced to hard labour for life for murdering an unfaithful husband. This difference is justified by the widespread attitude that a man’s honour is dependent upon his wife’s virtue. Consequently, his violent reaction to his wife’s adultery becomes excusable, especially if committed in the heat of the moment. Moreover, although under the penal code, only the husband is “afforded” a lesser sentence for “provocation”, the woman’s family is often given a provocation defence by lenient court officials. Judges allegedly impose light sentences in such cases as an appreciation of the family’s suffering.
Most (87.4%) of the women surveyed in the 1995 Egyptian Demographic and Health Survey subscribe to the view that husbands are justified in hitting their wife sometime (El-Zanaty et al., 1995), whereas women between the ages of 20 and 29, according to El- Zanaty et al.’s (1995) study, agree that violence was justified if a woman “talked back” to her husband (70%), for talking to another man (65%), for neglecting children (50%), for spending too much money, (42%), and for burning dinner (26%). Yount (2005) reports that “only 27% of respondents reported that a husband is never justified in beating his wife, whereas 52% reported that a husband is seldom or sometimes justified, and 21% reported that a husband is often justified” (p. 587). Other research conducted in rural Egypt (Forman & Ghosh, 2000) shows that 80% of women surveyed have said that beatings are common and often justified, particularly if the woman has refused to have sex with her husband. Even though Egyptian women are not unique in their belief that the battered wife deserves it, cultural values and the criminal justice response make it a more pervasive issue. Although women possibly do report the violence to their family or their neighbors (Tadros, 1998; Yount, 2004), the prevailing attitudes that tolerate wife battery as “well-intentioned discipline” or as the fault of the victim lead to a more passive acquiescence in its inevitability. The prevailing social norms, which lead to such understandings of the nature of spousal abuse, are at issue here and need to be addressed systematically.
quote:Originally posted by homing pigeon: Hi,Alistair. I respect your opinion but I still dont agree. While I acknowledge your right to chose "no religion" as a personal stance , I cant see the logic of holding religion responsible for the way people twist it.
Hi Pigeon. Let me explain my thoughts further..
The Abrahamic Religions Judaism, Christianity and Islam are thousands of years old collectively.
They were formulated in a time where women were seen as property, chattel etc, and as such, there is a CLEAR bias AGAINST women in the Holy Books.
A woman's testimony is worth half that of a man and all that etc..
As Time progressed, people began to ask questions about these Religions, and noticed that many things did not make sense; or were clearly wrong.
The rapidly evolving Science also began to show us things about Life and the Universe in such depth and detail, that even more scrutiny was thrown upon Religion.
Secularism then came about, and much of Religion's power and control was diminished; and as a result, womens' rights and freedoms grew by leaps and bounds..
This was the Western World.
Now in the Islamic World, the above never occurred. There were Scientific advancements to be sure, but they were constrained under Islam; which seeks to dominate all aspects of Life.
Secularism....what is that?
Islam was the foundation of the Muslim World, and the basis of the Society so secularism was non-existent.
Now here we are in today's World, and women in the Muslim World universally have LESS rights, freedom and dignities compared to their Western sisters.
Why? The answer to me is obvious.
While Western Civilization outgrew Religion, the Islamic World is still firmly grasped by it.
When Christianity held a similar amount of power in the West that Islam does in the Middle East, women had far less rights and freedoms.
Once Christianity's power was diminished, womens' rights and freedoms increased dramatically.
So Secularism was instrumental for womens' rights here in the West.
In the Muslim World on the other hand, women are still held captive by Religion.
This might sound weird to you, but think about it.
The most "Islamic" countries in the Middle East ie Saudi Arabia, Iran etc that operate firmly under the auspicies of the Qu'ran and Hadiths, all have terrible track records when it comes to women's rights.
Only in the more secular Muslim nations do women have greater rights and freedoms.
Is this a coincidence? No it's not.
quote:No, seriously,now, I promise ..... You say that religions and morality clash and I query this statement because I cant accept that there is something innately evil in any religion.
Not even Satanism? Dear Pigeon, there's been religions on this planet that advocated the ritual slaughter of humans and animals; even children to appease the false gods they worshipped.
Believe me, lots of Religions have had an evil taint to them.
Is Islam like this? No, I don't believe so.
However, being an Abrahamic Religion, Islam suffers from the same bias towards females that Judaism and Christianity do, which explains why women in Muslim countries will never have the rights and freedoms that women do in Secular nations.
Islam was stamped by the Age in which it was made, and it has many aspects found within it which are simply "out of date" in modern times.
quote:All religions revolve around offering their followers a cut and dried way of life based on goodness. What moral people call right and wrong/moral and immoral is the halal and haram of any religion (lawful and sin).
My point when referring to Morality and Religion were that truly moral people, don't NEED religion to teach them whats right and wrong.
Morality precedes Religion when it comes to determining whats right, and whats wrong.
Also, whats considered right and wrong can be subjective.
Muslims consider eating pork a sin, while Christians have no problem doing so for example..
quote:My claim is based on the idea that moral people who have a solid sense of responsibility and honour will behave well with or without religion. The rascals will behave badly with or withour religion but there is a group of people in the middle who just need an extra reason to behave well and religion gives them this. So I think on the whole, the world is doing better with religion than without.
Yes, this was what I was trying to say! However, I'm not so sure that the World wouldn't be a nicer place if Religion never existed.
Look at all the Wars, violence, conflicts that have been waged over the centuries due to Religion.
quote:I believe that there is a profound cross-cultural ignorance and generalisations are being applied based on anecdotal information. Lets take domestic violence, for example. Domestic violence exists in the west. It isnt the sole property of religious people in third world countries....I would even confirm that in the Egyptian culture, a man hitting a woman is seen as the lowest of the low. It's totally unacceptable in all levels of society. It's part of the cultural code. You just dont hit a woman. If u even watch the movies,old and new, u will often find the phrase "R u going to raise ur hand on a woman?" indignantly thrown about. But for some oblique reason I find that Egyptians or Muslims generally are accused of condoning domestic violence....while we forget the rate of such things in western countries. Official position aside, what is the reality on the ground, Alistair? The differenc is not that huge.
Yes I agree, there are erroneous facts being propagated by both sides..
But I must say, I don't think domestic violence is a womens' rights issue.
Instead, it's a family problem.
However, women in the West can and do use the Law to protect them from abusive husbands or boyfriends.
The question is, would they get the same protection from the Law in Muslim countries?
Perhaps not. But, thats not to say that they are left defenseless.
Women probably rely more on their family to resolve domestic violence issues in Muslim countries I'd wager.
quote:Again, women's work....Am I not an Arab Muslim woman? I am having difficulty convincing my husband and my parents that I'd like to give up my career, for God's sake. I never had to fight my way to a career. I was practically manhandled into it and I cant even buy my way out.
Well, I'd say it was time to put your foot down then eh?
quote:Ah, I remembered something that I find absolutely demeaning for women in western countries; the "show me your assets" culture all over the place! A woman is nothing but boobs and ass; a sex object. In Muslim countries, the whole ethos is against this. People are not allowed to judge women by the size of their bras and when women cover up or wear decent clothes it is basically about refusing to be treated as a sex object.It's strange how westerners perceive this as exactly the opposite of what it is....so u see, there is a lot of misunderstandiong going on.
I agree, that the sexualization of women in Western culture is demeaning to them; but the fact is, none of them are being forced to do it.
The women that you see walking around with their tits hanging out and their thong showing are doing so because they WANT TO.
Anyway, I think issues like the breakdown of family values and morality in the West is a fallout from less religious influence.
While there are many negative aspects of Religion, there are positive ones aswell, and the focus on men and womens' roles in the family were probably one of the better traditions.
Western Society is going to have to learn to get by without religion though.....or Religion itself is going to have to change dramatically to keep up with a forward, progressive culture and Society.
posted
The Italian man said, "Last week, my wife and I had great sex. I rubbed her body all over with olive oil, we made passionate love, and she screamed for five full minutes at the end."
The Frenchman boasted, "Last week when my wife and I had sex, I rubbed her body all over with butter. We then made passionate love and she screamed for fifteen minutes."
The Jewish man said, "Well, last week my wife and I also had sex. I rubbed her body all over with schmaltz (chicken fat). We made love, and she screamed for over six hours."
The other two were stunned. The amazed Frenchman asked, "What could you have possibly done to make your wife scream for six hours?"
The Jewish man said, "I wiped my hands on the bedspread."
This is where the joke normally ends. However, considering the plight of all women who are trapped in Islam, I would like to add another ending:
The Muslim man said, "Well, last week my wife and I also had sex. She enjoyed it so much that for punishment I poured hot boiling oil all over her body and she screamed all day until she died.
Posts: 173 | From: Sun | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
The dominance of men over women is accepted to varying degrees among Egyptians of both genders. For example, the 1995 Egyptian Demographic and Health Survey found that a significant number of women, especially among lower and middle income women and those residing in rural areas, believed that wife beating was justified under certain circumstances. Another study - carried out between January and March 1997 on a sample of 100 women aged between 14 and 65 years old (married or having been married) from Manshier Nasser, an informal settlement located ten minutes from the city of Cairo - reveals that 30% of the women questioned admitted to being subjected to domestic violence on a daily basis, 34% on a weekly basis, 15% on a monthly basis and 21% occasionally.
OK, that's right. I point out the following, though: - Apparently from what you copid that the prevalence is between 15-34% ... this is what ? 1/3rd? So the majority of Egyptians reject this behaviour as I said.
- This study that is cited by the EDHS was conducted on 100 women ; which you must admit is too small for a population surveyr and not enough to generalize from. So it is effectively 15/100 women and 34/100 women in raw numbers, mind u.
-This study says it is conducted among women of Manshiet Nasser. You can find a description of manshiet nasser on wiki. I'll leave it to u to decide whether this neighbourhoud is representative of the majority of egyptians or not. And also to infer what possible health and social problems could typically be prevalent in such a community, comparing it to western neighbourhoods of the same type.
quote:Originally posted by Dalia*: [QB] For 75% of these women, the main reason for this domestic violence was found to be sexual. Women are beaten, raped or abused for having refused to have sex with their husbands. Other reasons cited were spending (65%), visiting (32%), housework (25%), religion (8%), jealousy (6%) and disobedience (5%).
This is 75% of the 34 who reported violence, right? This means it is about 25 women in all. We have to keep our eyes open when we look at the data and especially, when we present it to public view....or else we are at risk of drawing wrong conclusions and further propagating the myths.
When I say myths, I dont mean domestic violence is non existent but as I said earlier, it is existent and stigmatised; more stigma against the man than the woman. The kind of man who accepts for himself to be a woman beater is despised by his peers in the majority of the sectors of egyptian society. I dont see for whose benefit it is to direct attention away from this because this, in itself, is a protective social concept that contributes to limiting violence against women
Posts: 670 | From: alex living in leeds, UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whoever thinks of satanism as a religion, Alistair? . I can see why you take a position against religion if u include these cults into what qualifies as religion.
When I say religion, I mean real religions. Not only the Abrahamic religions, though. I take a broad sweeping look around at Bhudism, Hiduism, Sikhism and other major religions. I dont count cults.....or else anybody can write a 100 page holy book and start a new religion can claim entry into the category .
-------------------- Noha Posts: 670 | From: alex living in leeds, UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ZAME: Dalia ...I always knew muslim woman are masocist they think it's ok hosbond beat them, now an then
Shows u know absolutely nothing that has a remote resemblence to being right.....as I am a Muslim woman who was never beaten by her husband or anybody and I dont think it is OK. Morever, I dont know anybody (friends, neighbours, relatives, colleagues...and they're lots!) who think it's OK either.
Unless of course, you think u know my countrywomen more than I do Posts: 670 | From: alex living in leeds, UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
[98].)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
It creeps me out. Please stop - it makes you look like some kind of fetish freak. Enough. Khalas. Get help, dude. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
The necessity for this operation is so rare that you would be better spending time advising women how to cope, if abducted by aliens. You shift and twist your position, according to the degree of outrage expressed, but your true feelings are transparent. You think FGM is Islamic. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
HEHEH![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic