Danish Cartoon backlash, there embassy is blown up in pakistan!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why would you use Saudi Arabia (a heretic Muslim state as viewed by most Muslims) or India (Hindu majority country) to measure the treatment of women in the whole Islamic World. It makes no sense whatsoever to use the worse examples or unrelated ones.

The only reason is a blatant disrespect for intelligent discussion and a chance to further push an agenda (denomisation of Muslims).

Here is an idea, why do you individuals not ask Muslim women how they feel about this and receive this information first-hand, instead of from biased secondary sources?
 
I don't know of any country where they can prosecute for domestic violence unless the victim presses charges, do you?

Hell yes.

If we had to wait for the victim to request to press charges, no domestic abusers would ever be arrested, let alone charged.

You have to keep in mind that for many victims, they are absolutely terrified for their lives and that of their children or other family members. They live with the fear that if they press charges and their abuser knows of this... how can I put this.. these women fear retribution. So if there is enough evidence, she doesn't want to have to press charges. It is not really her decision to make. Hell, even if she says "don't arrest or charge him", he can still be arrested and charged. Domestic violence is against the law. It is not up to the victim to decide whether her/his abuser gets charged or not.

Hmm so in the US and Canada, you can prosecute a guy without testimony?

How do they find out about the cases?
Very easily.

The victim can refuse to testify (again, out of fear, for example). By that point in the case, there is enough evidence to charge the accused.. As BR said, photos of the injuries, the crime scene, evidence from the police officers who attended the call or happened to come across the domestic dispute, are some examples.

How do they find out about the cases? Neighbours calling in, sometimes anonymously, a family member calling because they feared for the safety and wellbeing of their relative in that home, sometimes the dispute is dragged onto a road and the police are driving by and happen upon it by chance, medical staff at a hospital where the victim has sought medical attention can and will contact the police if they suspect abuse in the individual's home or elsewhere.. in which case they will go over her files to see how many times she may have received treatment for injuries that could be caused by domestic abuse... (If the police suspect that she/he is in grave danger and the victim is refusing to admit to it out of fear or whatever reason, they can even apply to the court to issue a protection order without her/his knowledge or consent to ensure the victim's safety.. that's how it is in my home state of course). Sometimes even a small child hiding somewhere in the house will call the police because one of their parents is being beaten. Those children would never be called to testify.

So someone still has to complain. Which means you need at least neighbors within calling distance.
And many do, thankfully. And many do so without revealing their names or contact details. BR has also addressed this question.
 
diamond said:
That kind of distorted fixation perhaps explains the use of mass rape by the Pakistanis against the Bangladeshis, and similar events, but it will generally appear to be a perversion to a Westerner.

Lies. Find me one unbiased source to prove your point. You cannot. Many atrocities committed in the 1970s are simply fabricated. Pakistan has a strict law against rape of enemies' women, death of the soldier who committed this act. Pakistan has always remained true of its Islamic principals. Islam forbids the rape of women and there is very little leniency in Islam for this crime. The Bangalis themselves were engaged in a civil war amongst each other (this may be the cause of these crimes) and to this day a significant portion supports union with Pakistan. Many Biharis also were raped and murdered by the Bengali secularists and the Indian military which invaded Muslim territory during the war. The Biharis were genocidally murdered and are still living oppressed. It was Pakistan which accepted them, because Pakistan is a benevolent nation which respects the dignity of man and the rights of the oppressed. Pakistan also allowed Afghan refugees coming in the millions to enter Pakistan. nearly half of Afghans have lived in Pakistan for some part of their life. In a hostile environment, Pakistan has always held the respect of the Muslims of this region. Concerning Bangladesh, It is only the secularist and pro-India parties which do not support strengthening of ties with Pakistan and other Muslim countries.
Hit a nerve, apparently. This rape thing is kind of a live wire in the Islamic world. Actually, the genocide of the men and boys was the worse crime, but the mass rapes are what the fundies get bent out of shape about.

Outside of being simply denied outright by Pakistani fundies, the general facts of the matter are not seriously challenged, as far as I know. The feminist organizations in my area who were involved with charities dealing with the women who got pregnant from the rapes, on women who were consequently cast out from their homes and communities or fled threatened repercussions for the shame, can blister your ears about the "true Islamic principles" of the Pakistani soldiers, or the "true Islamic principles" of the Islamic community treatment of the victims, if you care to listen to women on the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Bangladesh_atrocities
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5346968.stm
diamond said:
The cartoons publication was an attack of the very heart of the worldwide Islamic community.
No, it wasn't. And the apparently deliberate and apparently successful attempt to blow it up to such proportions is not much of a recommendation for the "true Islamic principles" of anyone.
diamond said:
You know nothing, your ignorance is apparent. Please ask Muslim women if you are interested. I can't be bothered with your speculations.
And when I tell you I have listened to Muslim women, you say what - that I haven't ? There are Muslim women, and ex-Muslim women, who do not agree with you. And they say fewer silly things on subjects I can check for myself. And they recognize the obvious misogyny in people like "Kadark" on thsi forum, whom you describe as respectful and having a good heart.

SAM said:
Hmm so in the US and Canada, you can prosecute a guy without testimony?

How do they find out about the cases?
Not without testimony. There are doctors, neighbors, relatives, housemates, etc, as well as the victim herself - who can be subpeonaed to testify under oath.
 
Why would you use Saudi Arabia (a heretic Muslim state as viewed by most Muslims) or India (Hindu majority country) to measure the treatment of women in the whole Islamic World. It makes no sense whatsoever to use the worse examples or unrelated ones.

The only reason is a blatant disrespect for intelligent discussion and a chance to further push an agenda (denomisation of Muslims).

Here is an idea, why do you individuals not ask Muslim women how they feel about this and receive this information first-hand, instead of from biased secondary sources?

Because SAM as a Indian and Muslem, thinks her shit don't stink.
 
No, it wasn't. And the apparently deliberate and apparently successful attempt to blow it up to such proportions is not much of a recommendation for the "true Islamic principles" of anyone.

Actually, it was.

Any such demonisation or mockery of religious symbols would not be accpetable anywhere outside the apostate religious states in the west. Where even things like Hindu gods on flip flops have been taken off the shelves when groups have protested. And in fact, Jyllands pulled a Jesus cartoon for fear of hurting Christian sentiments, so its not like they are unaware of the fact that people would be offended. They just did not care.
 
Actually, it was.

Any such demonisation or mockery of religious symbols would not be accpetable anywhere outside the apostate religious states in the west. Where even things like Hindu gods on flip flops have been taken off the shelves when groups have protested. And in fact, Jyllands pulled a Jesus cartoon for fear of hurting Christian sentiments, so its not like they are unaware of the fact that people would be offended. They just did not care.

Now please reference the dead and dying from the mass protest by Christians over the Jesus cartoon, as for that fact please reference the cartoon, date and time.

The funny thing is these seen to all be, one of, Incidents.

But the only one that has a death toll is the Muslem one, why?
 
Now please reference the dead and dying from the mass protest by Christians over the Jesus cartoon, as for that fact please reference the cartoon, date and time.

The funny thing is these seen to all be, one of, Incidents.

But the only one that has a death toll is the Muslem one, why?

Like I said, they are apostate states; the Christianity is only an inconvenience. Anyone can piss and crap on their religious symbols, they don't really care.
 
SAM said:
No, it wasn't. And the apparently deliberate and apparently successful attempt to blow it up to such proportions is not much of a recommendation for the "true Islamic principles" of anyone.

Actually, it was.
Actually, no it wasn't.

Time to recognize when it's your turn to understand something that's a bit of a stretch.

SAM said:
Any such demonisation or mockery of religious symbols would not be accpetable anywhere outside the apostate religious states in the west.
So there is something going on you don't understand. You are in an alien culture, and your own culture has its peculiarities and blind spots. This is one of them.

Meanwhile, the people who use cartoons to whip up frenzies in manipulated crowds are not doing the crowd members any favors, are they.
SAM said:
Like I said, they are apostate states; the Christianity is only an inconvenience. Anyone can piss and crap on their religious symbols, they don't really care.
One of the common presentations of abused women is their conviction that at least their husband cares - that the abuse is proof of his caring.

Because he wouldn't abuse them if he didn't care about them. He wouldn't react violently unless he cared. If he didn't react violently, it would mean he didn't care.
 
Actually, no it wasn't.

Time to recognize when it's your turn to understand something that's a bit of a stretch.

So there is something going on you don't understand. You are in an alien culture, and your own culture has its peculiarities and blind spots. This is one of them.

No its not. Its the same everywhere. There is no "equal opportunity" in humor. Making fun of the people in power is not the same as making fun of the disenfranchised and unempowered. The latter makes oppression acceptable, implies it is funny. Like in the Katrina crisis, while jokes about FEMA were commonplace and acceptable, jokes about the poor and black would not have been. The people who pulled a Jesus cartoon and published (and re-published) the Mohammed cartoons recognise that. The intention was to offend.
 
Like I said, they are apostate states; the Christianity is only an inconvenience. Anyone can piss and crap on their religious symbols, they don't really care.

Especially Muslem, HUH?

SAM's has just proven why Islam is a gutter religion.
 
Hit a nerve, apparently. This rape thing is kind of a live wire in the Islamic world. Actually, the genocide of the men and boys was the worse crime, but the mass rapes are what the fundies get bent out of shape about.

No, all crimes which dishonor, kill, or deny human rights to human beings are crimes. You are the one interpreting my views this way to attempt to say I somehow justify this. This is very dishonest.

Outside of being simply denied outright by Pakistani fundies, the general facts of the matter are not seriously challenged, as far as I know. The feminist organizations in my area who were involved with charities dealing with the women who got pregnant from the rapes, on women who were consequently cast out from their homes and communities or fled threatened repercussions for the shame, can blister your ears about the "true Islamic principles" of the Pakistani soldiers, or the "true Islamic principles" of the Islamic community treatment of the victims, if you care to listen to women on the subject.

No, there are crimes carried out in Pakistan, just as there are in America. It is when you try to use a dozen or so incidents occurring over several years to try to charge the entire population of more than 160 million when it becomes a propaganda mouthpiece. I don't deny that women are mistreated in parts of Pakistan, especially its tribal areas, but that has more to do with lack of education, economic situation, and pre-Islamic practices than the religion. When you realize to judge it this honest way, then you avoid the risk of misevaluating the situation as you clearly have.

And when I tell you I have listened to Muslim women, you say what - that I haven't ? There are Muslim women, and ex-Muslim women, who do not agree with you. And they say fewer silly things on subjects I can check for myself.

Who are these Muslim women you have talked to? I want to have names and books so I can evaluate what kind of foundation you base your knowledge on. Is it at all possible that you have been misinformed on this subject, do you accept there is this possibility? Have you ever gone to an Islamic center and honestly talked with Muslim women concerning their experiences?

First-hand information is the best information, when do not pursue it, you run the risk of becoming misinformed.

And they recognize the obvious misogyny in people like "Kadark" on thsi forum, whom you describe as respectful and having a good heart.

I admit it without shame that Kadark is a good friend of mine. I don't see how this has anything to do with the topic at hand. As a matter of fact, Muslim women would more likely agree with Kardak's viewpoints than yours or other people on this forum, which is quite telling of the Muslim women viewpoint in itself.

Not without testimony. There are doctors, neighbors, relatives, housemates, etc, as well as the victim herself - who can be subpeonaed to testify under oath.

In essence, ignorance makes people support ridiculous viewpoints. This is obviously what is happening here. When you actually talk to Muslim women in your personal life or using internet to do so, please write your response of your experiences and the responses received. I look forward to hearing from you about this.
 
Not really all that clear cut. If a foreign country invades and occupies my country and bombs the citizens of my country for seven (or sixty) years and I am not wealthy enough to bomb them back, what are my options? What would you suggest?

That bombs are not the answer and that two wrongs don't make a right.
 
They should understand that even with all our faults, the US does not mean the Iraqis any harm. The Iraqis already understand that, they read the papers. The insurgents are fighting each other for power, some of them want revenge for what their lives have become, for their loved ones who were casualites of our invasion, some of them want us to leave. I would suggest leaving until the mess is sorted out one way or another, millions already have and have not been treated well by their neighbors. But you know, we didn't invade Pakistan.
 
That bombs are not the answer and that two wrongs don't make a right.

Thats pretty easy to say when you are the one doing the bombing. If there was a 7/7 everyday all over the country, would you still feel the same?
 
Back
Top