Harry Potter Star Afshan Azad Attacked by Father, Brother in attempted Honor Killing

please stop trolling

The traditional cultural practices of FGC predate Christianity and Islam. A Greek papyrus from 163 B.C. mentions girls in Egypt undergoing circumcision and it is widely accepted to have originated in Egypt and the Nile valley at the time of the Pharaohs. Evidence from mummies have shown both Type I and Type III FGC present.[44] (Note that the earliest evidence of male circumcision is also from Ancient Egypt.)

The UNICEF reported that: "... Al-Azhar Supreme Council of Islamic Research, the highest religious authority in Egypt, issued a statement saying FGM/C has no basis in core Islamic law or any of its partial provisions and that it is harmful and should not be practised."

Coptic Pope Shenouda, the leader of Egypt's minority Christian community, said that neither the Qur'an nor the Bible demand or mention female circumcision. (link)
 
Doesn't matter, it's an aspect of Islamic culture. Let us not confuse the real (Islam as it is practiced), with the virtual (Islam as written).
 
Religious circumcision is also practised by Muslims: the procedure is performed between the ages of four and 13 years. Curiously, however, the Koran contains no specific ordinance on this subject. However, according to the Sunnah (sayings and practices of the Prophet) "circumcision is a sunnah for men and excision an honour for women". In the literature, also medical reasons are mentioned (removal of the prepuce under which impurities may gather and allow germs to spread and cause infection), and historic, pragmatic reasons. Also within the Islamic doctrine, arguments against circumcision can be found, either based on the Koran itself, or on the Sunnah. However, these arguments are, to my knowledge, only used against female genital mutilation. (link)​

note: i cannot find any other instance of that alleged saying of the prophet as it appears in the bracketed text

sunna or hadiths are nothing but cultural baggage. it is more a reflection of, in this context, the pathology of the individual or the society at large. it would be interesting however to remove ourselves from the cultural milieu of the middle east and perhaps examine the practice of circumcision in other locations where islam predominates. for instance, does south east asia, specifically indonesia and malaysia, have a tradition of circumcision? does it predate the advent of islam or does it occur after the fact?

the point here is that in the me we have a cultural tradition mistakenly assumed to be a religious obligation. what then would be the case in the se asian communities?

 
quadraphonics said:
Or, failing that, where are the criticisms of huge swaths of Islam (and every other religion, ever) for incorporating vast seams of cultural artifice? Whence, for that matter, the supposition that the contents of the scriptures are not themselves simply codified cultural baggage in the first place?
Click to expand...

indeed
how could it be not so? are we really asked to believe that these religious texts are truly of divine origin?
 
on the other hand, we have the original scourge of mankind, the primary source of evil whence all other evil springeth forth ...


The religious origin of the Jewish practice of circumcision is written in the Torah where God promised Abraham,

I will make you exceedingly fertile, and make nations of you, and kings shall come forth from you. . . . I assign the land you sojourn in to you and your offspring to come, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting holding. I will be their God. . . . Such shall be the covenant between Me and you and your offspring to follow which you shall keep: every male among you shall be circumcised. (Genesis 17:6,8,10)

i mean, wtf?
i mean, really, WTF? :D
 
your point is debatable

Muslims, like Jews do not consume the flesh of swine.

need i go on?

/snicker
 
spidergoat said:
Another cultural trait that has become a religious one.
Click to expand...

Begs the question: can anyone name a single "religious trait" that wasn't originally a "cultural trait?"

Religions are typically formed by codifying certain existing aspects of the culture they arise in. They do not just fall from some distant source in the sky (religious assertions to the contrary notwithstanding).
 
This and that

S.A.M. said:

What difference does it make to the abused women if its culture, religion or apostasy?
Click to expand...

In the moment? Probably none. But in the broader view of the problem, we have more avenues of redress. Comparative progress no more means the job is finished than to say the the airplane has reached its destination simply because the wheels are up off the ground. We have a long way to go.

However, I would suggest that a great proportion of the American success in this world is the produce of our sins. We distort our religious faith, we routinely twist and flip our traditional principles; we are forever lying to ourselves. And, yes, that's a very important aspect of how we got to where we are, for both good and ill.

In the end, progress toward social justice is easier to make if the disagreeing sides aren't standing rigidly on the proposition that they represent God's will.

• • •​

Quadraphonics said:

So what?

Are we going to exempt, say, the consumerist inanities of Christmas celebrations from criticism of Christianity because it has no basis in the Gospels? When people refer to "Religion X," it ought to be understood that they're referring to the totality of customs, beliefs and practices associated with said religion, and not simply the subset that enjoy ironclad theological pedigrees.
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of exemption. Look, if I want to get to Portland, Oregon, I'm going to drive south on Interstate 5. Don't get me wrong, east on Interstate 90 is a fascinating drive, and west on a boat would be a hell of an adventure. Canada is lovely this time a year, so why not go north? Oh, right: I'm trying to get to Portland.

My point being that if you actually want real progress in any given issue, it would behoove you to learn earnestly about the circumstances you are criticizing. Leaping to bigotry just because it's your whipping boy du jour doesn't actually help a damn thing. Maybe you feel better and stronger, and maybe even a little more macho bashing on Muslims, but the clueless are the clueless, and can't really do much to help since they haven't a clue.

I mean, look at the idiotic language going around:

• "I know it's the traditional liberal view to ignore religion, but I feel that's a mistake." (Spidergoat)

• "That just means that it is their culture (or at least that part of it) that we need to eradicate instead." (WillNever)

• "Are we going to exempt, say, the consumerist inanities of Christmas celebrations from criticism of Christianity because it has no basis in the Gospels?" (Quadraphonics)​

Ach! He'p us, he'p us! Ignore, eradicate, exempt! These words are included originally more for the satisfaction of the authors than any useful communication. Spidergoat needs to learn it's not a matter of ignoring religion insofar as not everyone who doesn't hate the way he hates is ignoring what he wants them to hate. Will needs to figure out a little about how the components of cultures operate and affect one another. You, sir, need to learn to stop using stupid and ineffective comparisons in lieu of a real argument. Cultural dynamics are far more subtle than anything the Islamophobes ever demonstrate themselves capable of comprehending.

Think of a light bulb. Now, you could stand there shouting, "Why won't it work? I'm flippin' the switch." Uh, dude, you might want to screw it in, first. "Don't oppress me! Goddamn conspiracy! Utility companies and mannafactchers and guv'mint agents tryin' to tell me how I have to use a light bulb!"

Sometimes, it's not a conspiracy. Sometimes Tab A necessarily fits into Slot B. Sometimes you have to screw in the bulb before it will light. Sometimes you have to add the eggs before you put the cake mix in the oven. And yes, sometimes you need to be able to comprehend the components of what you criticize before you make your point.

Islam is an easy target these days. Look at this thread: A proposition is put forward, the proposition is rebuffed, the thread turns into a bitch parade about what's wrong with Muslims. One could probably have predicted this at the outset, but some actually prefer to hope their neighbors will actually rise above the petty bigotry that makes up so much of what passes for discussion around here.
 
Bells said:
Where did I say that the police and the courts had addressed this incident as "domestic violence" or anything at all? Allow me to point out something you obviously missed entirely.

:
Click to expand...
You didn't. I completely misread your post. I apologise.
 
Something about the word "oral" goes here

Gustav said:

i mean, wtf?
i mean, really, WTF? :D
Click to expand...

And people think Freud was perverse. He, like so many other people in history, worked with what he had.

The thing that I don't understand is how circumcision arose in history. I mean, one day, someone had to get the idea that they should cut off part of their penis. What must that internal debate sound like? And how did he explain it to the next guy? No wonder they put it in God's mouth. The argument, I mean.
 
Tiassa said:
It's not a matter of exemption.
Click to expand...

I'd be a lot more impressed by that assertion if it were packaged in a context that supported it. As it is, you've not argued anything other than that religion ought to be excluded from analysis of this phenomenon in favor of some unnamed, other cultural factors, which you never even get around to specifying (let alone, showing us why they're a better, exclusive explanation/rhetorical lever/whatever than religion).

All I'm seeing here is a lot of high-level hand-waving about the need for a holistic approach to cultural analysis that avoids focussing narrowly on religion, and the danger of being carried off by currents of religious bigotry generally. Which, okay, great, but that's a bit short of actually identifying where any particular analysis has gone off the rails, let alone providing a superior one (even if you are correct in identifying bigotry on the parts of certain posters). So, again, that all looks less like an honest analytical criticism, and more like an effort to avoid being seen as on 'the same side' as FOX News and certain local bigots. Which is of course understandable, but let's call a spade a spade, shall we?

Moreover, I don't see any basis for lumping anyone who questions the (unsubstantiated) exclusion of religion from analysis of honor killings in with anti-Muslim bigots. If you are serious about wanting elevated, academic discussion, then picking sides and flinging shit is counterproductive. On the other hand, if you're more interested in waging some kind of meme war against spidergoat and WillNever, you'd do better to drop the bullshit intellectual posturing. And of course, to the extent that you continue to refuse to choose between those two goals, you will continue to be highly ineffectual at both of them. But, then, why be effective when can pat yourself on the back for defending The Muslims by calling bigots idiots?

Anyway, while the remainder of your post was ironic enough to elicit a chuckle, given the context and ostensible point - and the childish petulance - I'd say it still warrants a hearty "fuck you, asshole!"
 
Bells said:
You have never heard displeasure being expressed from people because their child is not dating 'one of them'?
Click to expand...

Displeasure, yes. Physical abuse and threats? Not that common.

It happens in all religious circles Geoff and in many families. Time for you to get out there, meet new people and broaden your horizons and realise just how fucked up some people really are.
Click to expand...

You're right: Of course they do occur everywhere; I misspoke. Mea culpa. But by "circle" you mean "of the Islamic religion", yes? In this case we're back to the earlier argument that this has to do with the religion of the boyfriend; for a while there I thought you meant not in the same mosque or sect; the latter does occur, but I've never heard of the former.

I mean I could go on.. but you get my drift? This isn't just a Muslim problem. It happens everywhere.
Click to expand...

?? I never said it was. I did wonder whether the prevalence was higher; this goes for both Muslim and non-Muslim populations in the ME.

Even a simple slap is domestic abuse Geoff. So regardless of what they did, it does amount to domestic abuse. At the end of the day, that is what it is.. domestic violence:
Click to expand...

Well, that's what I was trying to advise you of: you'd presented an example in which the assault was a slap, and my impression was that you were downgrading the seriousness of the attack - I think you mentioned that you thought her injuries were light, previously, and I was saying that I don't think it sounded like a slap. It sounded like a protracted fight. There's no legal differentiation, and I'm not sure why you're trying to make it sound like that was my point. Anyway, in reference to your earlier point: it wasn't 'only' a slap, and it wouldn't matter if it was.

I agree that the phenomenon is nothing more unique than violence against women; but there's also the issue of its ongoing legal protection in the ME. Much of this probably derives from misogynistic religious interpretations; no one would seriously argue, I think, that some of the misogyny of Western culture derives no force from religion. It's hard to argue that it isn't the case here also.

So why is it not sanctioned in the Qu'ran?
Click to expand...

Isn't it? The Quran does sanction beatings; and (in response also to Tiassa, above) it does beg the question of "what comes next?" if threats and abuse fail. Cultural or otherwise, it draws strength from conservative interpretations of religion. This is common to all the "Abrahamic" faiths, but is seemingly stronger in Islam because of the failure of the separation of mosque and state.

My dear boy.. tipsy does not even come close..
Click to expand...

Then, old girl, I wish you well of the evening.
 
spidergoat said:
I don't know about Brazil or Columbia, but compare Muslim with non-Muslim families in countries like Zimbabwe, and it's only the Muslim men who try to exert this kind of control. I'm sure you can find exceptions, but it's a well-known phenomenon.

The Hindus have traditionally controlled their women in the same ways.
Click to expand...

Wow so anal about attacking Islam you don't even realize you have acknowle3dged your bigotry.
 
spidergoat said:
Yes. We are more advanced. It's one thing to kill some woman because she cheated on you, it's quite another to kill your own daughter for chatting on facebook. That's just insanity. It does seem to be centered in Islamic communities. I think that's because Islam supports an extreme form of patriarchy. It's the same motive behind female circumcision.
Click to expand...

IT seems that way for you because that's what you want. You want to hate and demean them rather than in a more humane way. For you Islam must be evil and if something bad happens in an Islamic community it must be because of Islam and muslim. No you just say fuck it to the facts and reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top