Aasiya Zubair Hassan, Domestic Violence and Islam

The brutal and gruesome murder of Aasiya Zubair Hassan has prompted a great deal of soul searching in the Muslim community. National organizations, the local community, imams, Muslim social workers, activists and writers have all agonized over how the community did not do enough to protect Aasiya, despite evidence that her husband, the man charged with killing her, was known to be violent. They have called for imams to preach against domestic violence as against the standards of Islam, and for communities to stand in solidarity with Muslim women who complain of abuse, rather than counseling patience or questioning if there is anything they might have done to cause the abuse, or that they could change in order to avert future abuse.

To be sure, domestic violence is indeed against the teachings of Islam, and murder of family members is especially repugnant. The Qur'an teaches that men should remain with their wives in kindness, or separate from their wives with kindness, and specifically that they should not stay with their wives in order to do harm to them (2:229, 2:231). It offers a vision of spousal equality when it prescribes a decision making process within the family of mutual consultation (2:233), and labels both husband and wife with the term "zauj" (4:1 and others) and describes them as protecting garments for one another (2:187).

Physical and/or emotional abuse has no place in this vision of marriage. Indeed, when women came to the Prophet complaining of their husband's treatment, the Prophet admonished the men saying that those who treated their families poorly were not among the best of men. Mu'awiyah al-Qushayri, one of the companions of the Prophet, reports "I went to the Apostle of Allah and asked him, 'What do you say about our wives?' He replied, 'Feed them with the food you eat, clothe them as you clothe yourself, and do not beat them, and do not revile them." (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, the Book of Marriage, Number 2139)

Clearly, this understanding of Islam leaves no room for men domineering themselves over women, or for physical or emotional abuse within the family,

And yet, if all the soul searching the Muslim community has done these past few weeks is to have any effect, we must acknowledge that there are problematical verses in the Qur'an and there are certain hadith which must be countered. Unfortunately, the calls for the Muslim community to openly stand up against domestic violence, have been silent with regards to the parts of our scriptural heritage that have been and continue to be used to justify all sorts of barbarous treatment of women.

It is fact, nonetheless, that the Qur'an and hadith have been used to foster a culture of patriarchy so absolute that many Muslim men perceive it as their right to expect abject obedience from their wives. Some imams and scholars go so far as to say that it is a husband's duty to hit his wife if she errs, discussing at length the limits to such hitting: It must be done in such as way as to leave no mark, they say. It cannot be on the face or other sensitive areas, It should be done lightly, using a small stick, with little force. Others discuss the provocations that could merit such physical punishment -- ranging from those who say it is only in the case of adultery or flagrant breaking of marital vows, to those who say it can be for any sort of spiritual lapse, to those who allow it in any kind of open disobedience to the husband's wishes.

It should be acknowledged that none of these imams or scholars are advocating domestic violence as we think of it -- a man hitting his wife in rage, hurling abuse verbally and physically at her. Rather they are predicating a calm scenario, one in which the man first admonishes his wife about her lapses, then spends a few nights away from her bed, then finally resorts to a calm, reasoned, and limited physical punishment. Unfortunately, the effect of such pronouncements is that many men feel justified in their physical abuse, pointing to the fact that imams say it is ok to hit one's wife, while ignoring all the other limitations placed upon that hitting. Worse, they feel entitled and empowered by the patriarchal norms these imams and scholars preach, seeing themselves as the kings of their home, rather than as domestic partners as the Qur'an teaches and the Prophet modeled for them.

The fulcrum of this patriarchal interpretation is verse 4:34. Translations vary wildly, ranging from those defining men the the defenders of women to those who render it as men being in charge of women. (The Arabic word, qawamun, comes from a root which means to stand up, thus men are called to stand up for women.) The verse goes on to say that devout women protect that which Allah would have them protect in their husbands absences. Again, the interpretations vary wildly -- from those who read it quite literally, describing pious women as devoted to Allah, to those who take it mean women should be devoutly obedient to their husbands. It continues, saying that if men fear "nushuz" (understood variously as openly rebellion, adultery, spiritual negligence, or wifely disobedience), they should admonish their wives and then separate from them in sleeping arangements. And then the third phase -- the word used is "daraba."

Daraba is used for many, many things in the Qur'an, from sexual intercourse to parting company, from metaphorically striking a parable to physically striking a person or thing. The vast majority of commentators, have understood the meaning of 4:34 to mean hitting. Modern interpreters such as Ahmed Ali and Laleh Bakhtiar , have made a case that this interpretation is wrong.

Bakhtiar's argument is particularly strong. She described her approach to this verse in a lecture I attended two years ago. She told the audience that she went to many, many scholars and asked them, "Did the Prophet ever hit his wives?" To which all them replied, "No, he never hit his wives." This is directly supported by a hadith narrated by his wife Aishah, who reported "The Messenger of Allah never struck a servant of his with his hand, nor did he ever hit a woman. He never hit anything with his hand, except for when he was fighting a battle in the cause of Allah." Bakhtiar then asked the scholars, "And the Prophet always obeyed Allah, correct?" To which the answer was an emphatic "Yes, the Prophet was the embodiment of the Qur'an."

"Then, how," she asked, "do you explain that when he had problems with his wives, he admonished them, he refrained from sleeping with them for a month, but he never went to the third step and hit them? Was he being disobedient to Allah, or have we misunderstood verse 4:34?" To which, she says, the scholars had no answer.

Her answer is that we have misunderstood 4:34, and that we have to look at what the Prophet actually did after that month's separation -- which was to offer his wives the choice of divorcing him or remaining with him while resolving to avoid the behaviors he found so objectionable. While, she translates "daraba" as "to go away from them," (which is the most common usage of the term in the Qur'an), it seems that it might be better rendered as "to strike a bargain with them."

In either case, Muslim feminists often point to the fact that classical commentary also ignores a verse in the same chapter (4:128), which tells women if they fear "nushuz" from their husbands that they are free to reconcile -- presumably by admonishing and sending him to sleep on the couch for a week as described a few verses earlier when advising men what to do when they feared "nushuz" from their spouses -- or to seek divorce, which is either the third step in the process if you believe "daraba" means to go away from, or a final, fourth step after physically punishing him, if you believe daraba does indeed mean to hit.

Sadly, modern translators of the Qur'an infect the Qur'an with their own patriarchal assumptions, translating "nushuz" when it refers to women as "ill-will, "disloyalty and ill-conduct" or "rebellion" while translating it as "ill-treatment" or "cruelty or desertion" when it refers to men's behavior.

Again, we see the Qur'an setting up a parity between the spouses, each of whom has the right to a process of dealing with "Nushuz" on the part of their spouse, however one understands the meaning of "nushuz", and however one understands that process. But this parity has been completely ignored in classical commentary, and in modern Muslim culture.

Indeed, the overwhelmingly accepted interpretation of verse 4:34 posits men as being in charge of women to the extent that they become father figures, with the unilateral right to correct their wives as though those wives were children.

For any anti-domestic violence agenda within the Muslim community to be effective, we must come to term with this verse. We must be very clear that it can in no way be used to justify domestic abuse, and that it does not mandate the abject subjugation of women within the marital relationship. We must be firm that even under the most patriarchal interpretations, it does not give men the right to terrorize women, to harm them physically or emotionally, and to seek to dominate and control their lives.

Even more, it is time for the Muslim community globally to reassess the widespread belief that Islam mandates patriarchy. As a feminist and a Muslim, I believe that the Qur'an and hadith give us ample material to establish egalitarian families and societies. To do so, we will have to prefer hadith which establish the equality of all humankind and which show the Prophet living as a partner to his wives not a lord or boss over other other hadith which which subjugate women to men, much as advocates of patriarchy prefer the hadith which support patriarchy over those which support egalitarianism.

We will have to prefer interpretations of 4:34 that currently only a minority support, rejecting the notion of physical punishment for anyone, just as the Prophet rejected physical punishment. We must understand men as "qawamun" of women in light of verses that say, "The believers, men and women, are protectors of one another" (9:71). We must take 4:34 and 4:128 taken together, as echoing that sentiment, setting out how husbands and wives each can cope with a problematic spouse. We can no longer afford to look at 4:34 in isolation, as establishing the hegemony of men over women.

Similarly, we must look at verse 2:228 in it's entirety, rather than isolating the final line as though it gives men more rights than women. 2:228 begins: "Women who are divorced shall wait, keeping themselves apart three monthly courses. And it is not lawful for them that they should conceal that which Allah hath created in their wombs if they are believers in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands would do better to take them back if they (the women) desire a reconciliation." (Note: The form of "they desire" makes it clear that the party desiring the reconciliation is the women, not the men.)

It then proceeds with some very dense language. Literally it says, "For them the like of that which is over them, and men have a degree over them." Again, the form of "them" is the feminine plural, making it clear that for women are the same things that are against women. This has been translated in various manners, but the most popular is "And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable; but men have a degree of advantage over them."

This verse, then, commands women who are divorcing or being divorced that they should ascertain whether they are pregnant, and admonishes men to defer to women if the women wish reconciliation in light of the fact that they are pregnant, telling the men in no uncertain terms that women have as many rights as the men do, though men do have a degree (of flexibility, of advantage, of ease) over women in that they do not have to wait three months to remarry, and they are in an easier situation, as they do not face the physical, emotional and economic challenges of being pregnant and divorced.

Many have used this verse to shore up patriarchal notions, reading it to mean that men's rights are above women's rights universally and unequivocally. It is easy to read the verse that way, especially if the last line is taken out of context.

It is also easy to read in ways that are not patriarchal. Men's degree over women can readily be seen as 1) women having to wait three months before remarrying, a waiting period that men are not subject to since they do not get pregnant, and 2) women facing a more difficult situation regarding divorce because they also face physical, emotional and economic difficulties men do not face if they happen to be pregnant at the time the divorce is happening.

In fact, the verse is admonishing men to remember women's rights at a time when marital discord is likely to make men neglect those rights.

Like verse 4:34, verse 2:228 has been used to promote the notion of men's dominance over women. These patriarchal formulations contribute to a cultural atmosphere that enables domestic violence.

Domestic violence activists have long insisted that domestic violence is not about out-of-control anger, it is about controlling the life of one's spouse. They point to the fact that abusers such as Aasiya's husband, Muzzammil Hassan, do not lash out at, say, an employee who misses a deadline; they are able to control to whom and at what times they exercise violence. They usually hit women in places where bruises and cuts will not be visible, further evidence that it is not a matter of losing control, but of calculated intent to dominate, harm and manipulate a specific individual. Another example is that even in the middle of beating up their wife, if the phone rings, or police come to the door, the abuser is able to shut down his supposed rage, appearing and sounding calm and reasonable.

When religion is used to support notions that men are entitled to rule over women, we are only encouraging domestic violence.That is not to say that religion causes the violence; nor that Muslim abusers quote scripture as they lash out at their spouses; nor even feel justified by that scripture to commit the violence they do. It is quite clear that beating up one's wife, or hurling invectives at her, has no place in Islam; that even those who advocate a man's unilateral right to physically punish his wife do not enivision domestic violence, but a reasoned, calm, and limited response to severe provocation.

Rather, religion and cultural norms contribute to the abuser's feelings of manly entitlement. His expectations of being the boss of the home are validated and reinforced.

American Muslims are coming to grips with the fact that we have often turned a blind eye to violence in the home. Our leaders have come to understand when violence is ignored, or worse, when women are counseled to be patient, or asked what they have done to provoke such violence, they are complicit in the crime. That they have created a culture in which domestic violence carries no stigma, and thus abusers feel free to do as they like.

What we have not yet addressed, is how mainstream interpretations of Islam also contribute to an atmosphere where domestic violence can flourish.

The harsh reality is that even in cultures where domestic violence is soundly condemned, where abusers face stiff criminal sentences, domestic violence persists. Nearly 1200 American women lost their lives at the hands of a husband, boyfriend, or ex last year, according to the Center for Disease Control, and domestic violence is a problem in nearly 30% of all marriages.

Thus, we cannot expect to eradicate domestic violence among Muslims. But we can take strong and principled stands against patriarchal interpretations that enable abusers, and we can take concrete and significant action against abusers. I can only hope that the horrible death of Aasiya Hassan acts as a catalyst for much needed change.

By Pamela K. Taylor | February 27, 2009; 10:27 AM ET Save & Share:
Previous: Turning the Tragedy of Aasiya Zubair Hassan into Action | Next: Holding Our Brothers, Fathers, Sons Accountable

Comments

Please report offensive comments below.

Thank you for your blog post, Ms. Taylor.

I couldn't help but notice the impetus of your post on domestic violence, and your initial language about Aasiya Zubair, closely mirroring the issues I raised a few hours earlier in the comments section of Ken Bower's "On Faith" post on the same topic in a Baha'i context.

I wrote:
"The recent murder in NY of Aasiya Zubair by her husband (co-founders of Bridges TV) has provoked a great deal of soul-searching in the US Muslim community about the violence women experience in their Faith community."

Reading through the comments section here, I see a similar problem faced by both Muslims and Baha'is in the US, that any mentioning of our community's issues with violence and the unequal status of women brings an onslaught of ignorant and racist comments from non-Muslim and non-Baha'i Americans. This is a very difficult thing to withstand, and creates additional obstacles for Muslim and Baha'i women who dare to speak out and critique their own traditions. In addition to facing patriarchal silencing from within our communities, we face racist and religious-based prejudice from mainstream Americans. Given the violence that America has visited upon people in the Middle East in recent years, this puts Muslim and Baha'i women who are trying to name their own experiences in an embattled position between two intersecting sources of violence.

I have a great deal of respect for the goals of the Musawah movement, and think some of the points you raise here are sound. But I think we must resist the temptation create change in our communities by attempting to sanitize the past. We should put our eye on changing the *future* to create equality, but we cannot do that with integrity if we lie about the misogyny embedded in our own traditions. I think that requires rejecting those teachings that are clearly sexist. Not re-imagining them as other than they are.

Posted by: Amanda4 | March 8, 2009 8:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment

It’s misleading to look at the panelist information and read “Pamela K. Taylor co-founder, muslims for progressive values” or “Taylor is a strong supporter of the woman movement...” and then read the full entry and find out that Miss Taylor accepts some “light” abuse from men but nothing violent, of course. Only “limited physical punishment” when the wife has a few “lapses”. I wonder what happens when the muslim husband has a few “lapses”. Maybe they just don’t have any, ever.

Like I said below, Miss Taylor’s progressive twist is far from complete but her honesty could also be questioned. She does recognize the fact that the koran is interpreted in a patriarchal way by men. And then she sneaks that “limited physical punishment” is ok for women to suffer but men, of course, are untouchable. This paragraph is like disguised in the middle of the column.

What is she trying to say?

Where is the progressiveness in this speech?

Are women buying this “light” version of islam?

Posted by: Bios | March 2, 2009 11:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment

A very carefully worded piece, so carefully worded as to make any serious reader have to do a double take.
To apologize for or excuse any degree of domestic violence is pathetic.
Ms Taylor the following words are yours from the article;
"it should be acknowledged that none of these imams or scholars are advocating domestic violence as we think of it -- a man hitting his wife in rage, hurling abuse verbally and physically at her. Rather they are predicating a calm scenario, one in which the man first admonishes his wife about her lapses, then spends a few nights away from her bed, then finally resorts to a calm, reasoned, and limited physical punishment. Unfortunately, the effect of such pronouncements is that many men feel justified in their physical abuse, pointing to the fact that imams say it is ok to hit one's wife, while ignoring all the other limitations placed upon that hitting."

So now a method of judging the various degrees of abuse has been established, so who gets to make the judgement call? Ms Taylor abuse is never acceptable, apparently certain degrees of abuse or abuse with limitations are acceptable to you. It is unfortunate that anyone, in particular a woman, would be able to excuse "hitting" or "limited physical punishment" in any form. To accept, condone, pardon or excuse physical abuse is being an accessory to the crime. The people and books that teach this should be branded as inciting violence against women.

Posted by: svengerald | March 2, 2009 6:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment

If Islam does not undergo radical reform to civilize it, it will never be accepted by civilized people. Islam as it is practiced today is intolerable and has no place in the West. The subjugation of women and the violence Muslim men perpetrate against women is incomprehensible.

Islam is barbaric.

Posted by: Maryann261 | March 2, 2009 4:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"....suffer 24/7 under the heels of millions of Muslim men. This is all done via the guidance of the "worst book ever written" aka the koran."

Americans have a holier-than-thou attitude...
it's OK to kill others to free them? Collateral damage is OK as long as it's THEM - problem is that's how both sides think.

You're probably another "fake" christian... using the old testament for revenge yet claiming to be a follower of jesus (turn other cheek).

You are as insane as the other side and you make my point again, monkeys with car keys.

Posted by: geomguy | March 2, 2009 11:27 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Lancet study: Fire a major killer of Indian women
By SAM DOLNICK, Associated Press Writer

Monday, March 2, 2009

(03-02) 06:08 PST NEW DELHI, India (AP) --
More than 100,000 young women were killed in fires in India in a single year, and many of those deaths were tied to domestic abuse, according to a new study published Monday.

Young Indian women are more than three times as likely to killed by fire as their male compatriots, according to an article published on the Web site of the British medical journal, The Lancet. The victims largely fell within a 15 to 34-year age group.

Posted by: kkrimmer | March 2, 2009 11:15 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Spark, Spark, Spark,

There might be a billion brainwashed Muslims out there but there are five billion others who will never buy into your hallucination-based religion.

And again from the CCNL, the singularity:

Millions of Muslim women with the exception of a lucky few like the PM of Bangladesh (the female PM of Pakistan was not so lucky) suffer 24/7 under the heels of millions of Muslim men. This is all done via the guidance of the "worst book ever written" aka the koran. Said book was generated by the hallucinations of one long dead Arab who supposedly got his instructions from a "pretty, wingie, talking, flying, fictional thingie" named Gabriel. It all makes one scream out "THE SIGNIFICANT STUPIDITY OF IT ALL!!!!

And a Muslim male with four wives, is he not guilty of raping the last three i.e. polygamy is simply legalized rape??? spousal abuse??

We await your answers!!!!

Posted by: CCNL | March 2, 2009 9:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment

CCNL _ Helxcel1 - Abhab

(You! Three names used by one person)

What you think about a frog in a well?

Your shallow knowledge shows your cut and paste throught out on fath forum.
Islam is a religion practiced by one billion people and it covers all spheres of life.

I wonder how shameless can be a person who himself is an aethist and quote from the Book which he do not believe. Your interpertations
shows you just need to release your pain.

Posted by: SPARK1 | March 2, 2009 9:24 AM
Report Offensive Comment

This is by far the best explanation thus far:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101106235

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDEKJDgXO-U

Posted by: rednova | March 2, 2009 3:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Perhaps the only way anything will really change is if those who believe that religious diatribe is real, believe someone new is a prophet and if that prophet comes out of the wilderness or somewhere and writes new script that tells believers what now to believe that changes all from violence to love and peace. Or, perhaps that new and updated prophet would say that everything written before was written by someone who was delusional and that it was all bunk. Perhaps we are still too stupid and barbaric, too unevolved, too unenlightened to understand truths and live by them without having to follow those who shouldn't, but still do, hold sway over others - psychopathic/sociopathic power hungry prophets and the like. How could so many still blindly follow such dogma from so long ago if we have advanced - because they are afraid not to. Meanwhile, of course, there are those in many communities who fear they will be ostracized if they aren't Christians or Mormons or from other religions. God, of course, if there is one, likely won't be able to stand most religious fanatics. No wonder there are only so many thousand, according to the Jehovah Witnesses, going to heaven. It is amazing there are that many, although, of course, that is from the whole of time and perhaps those souls were reincarnated many times over. It is said there are as many souls on earth today as there have been over the whole of time. I wonder if that is true or if anyone really knows that. Anyway, perhaps when we die, in a blaze of transcendent awareness we will see that we should have loved each other more and how stupid we were to waste our short time on earth being such violent and abusive dunderheads.

Posted by: glistens1 | March 2, 2009 3:15 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Shaheed Kamal opines:

“Had he understood Islam, he should have divorced her in a decent manner if there was no hope of reconciliation.”

He does understand Islam and had he been living in an Islamic country he would have divorced her and let her father or brother kill her under the guise of defending the family’s honor, the penalty of which no more than six month jail. In this country if he had divorced her he would have to share with her all their possessions; something he is not used to in his previous Islamic culture. He is not open to the idea that a woman can divorce his behind and worse yet be rewarded with half of the possessions he is programmed to believe is his sole property. This includes the wife who is no more in his worldview than a live-in housemaid.

Posted by: abhab | March 2, 2009 12:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Again:

And a Muslim male with four wives, is he not guilty of raping the last three i.e. polygamy is simply legalized rape??? spousal abuse??

Posted by: CCNL | March 1, 2009 11:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"To be sure, domestic violence is indeed against the teachings of Islam, and murder of family members is especially repugnant."

Shouldn't the "murder of family members" (or any other person) be CRIMINAL, rather than just "especially repugnant" ?

Here, Wasn't the "husband" Hassan specifically trying to portray Muslims in a better light than they have been in the West after 9-11 ? Is this the RIGHT image that Hassan was trying to convince us to remember ?

WHAT HYPOCRISY ???

Posted by: cantabb1 | March 1, 2009 11:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Either:
1. allah is a violent wife beater and wants to teach his followers to be the same

2. allah is not those things but just a bad writer. This creator of the universe is not smart enough to give his word in a way that will not be easily misread

3. the koran is just the word of a medieval man.

I choose 3. How bad other religions are does not change the fact that islam seems to be the worst of the lot.

Posted by: tony32 | March 1, 2009 10:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Here are some results from google search ... Good Christian men?
Man Kills Wife for Changing Facebook Status to 'Single'
Man Installing Satellite TV Shoots, Kills Wife - Kansas City News
LA Man Upset Over Job Kills Wife, 5 Kids, Himself
Man kills wife, shoots himself at Enid drug store
Miami music teacher kills family, self
Southern Ohio man kills wife, 11-year-old son, then self
Man Kills Wife In New Jersey Church, Second Person Also Killed
Man kills wife - Then cooks her for dinner!
Man kills wife, leaps from bridge
Man kills wife, then himself then doused the condo and his wife with gasoline, ignited it and then shot and killed himself
Man kills wife, self amid dazed shoppers
Miami Man Kills Wife, Daughters, Self

Posted by: kkrimmer | March 1, 2009 9:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Christians swear they are "new testament" neighbor loving, turn the cheek, help the poor... but whenever they want to drop their fake commitment to the teachings of Jesus they embrace the "old testament" to justify violence, murder and wars.

Monkeys with car keys.

Posted by: kkrimmer | March 1, 2009 9:28 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Where are the statistics comparing American domestic violence with Iran or any other Arab country, or whites vs arabs, christian vs moslem, etc?

Show me a culture/country/religion where women are predominately on top.

Domestic abuse is a human sickness, in every country, every religion, every race.

Posted by: kkrimmer | March 1, 2009 9:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment

infantry11b4faus :

Your diatribe and emotional outburst without any substance reminds the readers of the NEOCONS during the 8 years of the dismal Bush Administration.

Posted by: hsnkhwj | March 1, 2009 9:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Aasiya Zubair Hassan's violent death has nothing to do with Islam. It is a murder committed by an individual. Islam should no be brought under discussion on this issue. We cannot blame Islam by saying what Muzzammil Hassan did was a patriarchal act permitted under Islam. He is a criminal from an Islamic point of view as well. Had he understood Islam, he should have divorced her in a decent manner if there was no hope of reconciliation.

Posted by: shahidkamal | March 1, 2009 9:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment

My letter to editor Mike Vogel of the Buffalo News, was rejected. I was not surprised. It's below.

"I want to thank the Buffalo News for providing reading a wonderful insight into how misogyny is revealed in media. Three men reporting on a husband murdering his wife, including a mention of police knowledge of years of abuse. As for the many years of police inaction? Completely ignored. Readers were not reminded it's not the job of the victim to make the case.

Thus, in a male-dominated media, the Buffalo News chose three men to provide readers no insight at all.

My focus would have been on the police not doing their job. I would have reminded readers a basis for these murders is from the U.S. Supreme Court 2005 ruling (Castle Rock vs. Gonzales) which stated the police aren't legally required to enforce restraining orders.*

I would have reminded readers police officers have the power to make arrests with or without he victim's assistance. I would have reminded readers misogyny exists in government, particularly in law enforcement; and true throughout the country.**

Not reporting the long, storied history of police inaction - continuing reporting murders, getting the facts correct, yet entirely missing the story, isn't merely journalistic malpractice, it's Exhibit A for ensuring the public remains uninformed and ignorant to underlying problem, because media owns a part of the problem. This in part, is why www.FamilyLawCourts.com/badcop.html exists.

It's only when media investigates why the police aren’t doing their job, when media fundamentally changes how murders are reported that they'll slow. And not a moment before.

* Ruling is on the top left of this page.
www.FamilyLawCourts.com/domestic.html

** See http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1052440734466 and http://www.purpleberets.org/macias_instead.html)

*** www.FamilyLawCourts.com

Most sincerely,

Bonnie Russell
www.FamilyLawCourts.com

Posted by: info12 | March 1, 2009 9:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment

hey
alterego55 :
All sects of Islam and Christianity both bank on the fact there will be self-destruction of human culture before there is spiritual redemption. Given this fact, why is inter-personal violence so surprising?

YOU ARE ALL WRONG FOOL!

you confuse bad acts with commands for bad acts. lots of so called christians fail to follow the teachings of christ.

then there is islam. it commands hate of jews and christians and hindus, it commands to kill or convert, it commands torture, ransom, and every vile act one can commit - but under islam it is commanded that you do it.

there is no difference between nazis and islamics. and neither one was following the commands of any god.

think about this. there were two groups that belived in the god of abraham, jews and christians. then, according to islam, this same god told moho - between his having sex with a 8 year old girl - to kill the only two groups on the face of the world that believed in him.

does that even make since to you?

Posted by: infantry11b4faus | March 1, 2009 8:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I spent years trying to "reinterpret" the Bible to eliminate the anti-female portions and allow myself to be a Christian AND a modern human being at the same time. I stopped as I realized I was a follower of secular philosophy who didn't want to let go of my Christian upbringing.
I admire your attempts to re-interpret Islam into a religion that holds women in high regard but you're interpreting Islam to what you WANT it to look like rather than how it has been interpreted and practiced for the last 1400 years. Stop wasting your time forcing a square peg in a round hole. Belief in God does not have to be abandoned but your efforts fool only yourself. Follow your own philosophy on life and justify it using logic and reason, you do not need to justify it with the Koran or any other ancient text. As Galileo once said, "God did not give me the gift of reason with the intent that I abandon it." Amen.

Posted by: em71 | March 1, 2009 8:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment

One last thought. As one who has known lots of intelligent, thoughtful, logical, reasonable and "moral" men and women during my 61 years on this planet, I would have to say that the vast majority of these individuals (including me) don't give a flying f**k about holy books or the (mis)interpretation of same.
We just care about leading a peaceful life, respecting our fellow human beings (even if and when their behavior begs our respect)and recognizing the FACT that fairy tales and religious fantasies are just that: Fairy tales and fantasies.
If religion has shown mankind anything during its run, it's that gods simply do not control behavior, good or bad. Indeed, man has not adapted to god's ways--it's the other way around.
It's up to the individual to relate to his fellow man in a respectful, "humane" manner.
You religious fanatics out there have a problem with this? If so, why?

Posted by: hyjanks | March 1, 2009 8:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Pardon the typo in my post

I meant to write: The West is in an ideological struggle with Islam, which the West better win.

Posted by: mmm1110 | March 1, 2009 8:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment

HSNKHW quotes the following verse as a proof of equality between men and women in Islam

“O mankind! Verily we have created you from a single (pair) of a male and female, and made you into nations and tribes that you may know each other.” (49:13; cf.4:1)”

I do not see the logic in this. A chemist can pass an electric current through brine and get sodium, hydrogen, chlorine and caustic soda. Do all those elements and compound have the same value?

He further quotes the following paragraph to prove what he calls “women’s human rights”.

“Women would pose questions directly to the Prophet (sal) and to other Muslim leaders and offer their opinions concerning religion, economics, and social matters. (Qur’an 58:1-4; 60:10-12)”

It is true that at the time of his prophet and before women had some rights. A vivid example was Khadija, Mohammad’s first wife, who had a thriving business and who hired him to work for her as one of her many employees. But the Muslim prophet put an end to all of that. After Khadija died he collected nine wives, shrouded them with what is known as niqab and stuck them in his compound, not to leave and not to remarry after his death.

Posted by: abhab | March 1, 2009 7:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Halozcel1:

I have read so many negative comments of yours and responded. You just express your prejudices without making any effort to educating yourself about Muslims and Islam. Don't you feel inadequate in your knowledge?

Here is another prominent Muslim woman of Pakistan:

Fatima Jinnah Medical College, Lahore, Pakistan

Madr-e-Millat Mohtarma Fatima Jinnah

An icon of twentieth century politics, the architect of Pakistan (Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah), who founded a nation despite mighty odds and in-surmount able difficulties in reshaping Muslim identity and redrawing the World map, was convinced that it could have been hardly possible without his sister Fatima by his side.

It would not be out of context, neither a misnomer to state that Mohtarma Fatima Jinnah sacrificed the comforts and pleasures of an affluent life to help Jinnah overcome vicissitudes and bequeath a homeland to the Muslims.

She is the best example of a modern Muslim female person and a role model for Pakistani women. Being the replica of Quaid's ideas, she encouraged the Muslim women to come in the vanguard of Pakistan movement along with men. A fearless, courageous lady who always stood shoulder to shoulder with Jinnah during the Pakistan movement. After independence she worked for progress and development of Pakistani nation especially the women in all walks of life including the politics.

Miss Jinnah lived with her brother for about 28 years - including the last nineteen trying years of his life.
Quaid discussed various problems with her, mostly at the breakfast and dinner table. Paying tribute to her sister, the Quaid once said,

"My sister was like a bright ray of light and hope whenever I came back home and met her. Anxieties would have been much greater and my health much worse, but for the restraint imposed by her."

There is FATIMA JINNAH MEDICAL COLLEGE IN PAKISTAN.

Posted by: hsnkhwj | March 1, 2009 6:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Islam cannot be respected as it is practiced. The religion is rooted in violence. Muslims practice it as if they are living in the Middle Ages, not the 21st century. I doubt Islam can be reformed for the modern world. It is completely incompatible with Western values. The West in is in an idealogoical struggle with Islam, which the West better win. Otherwise, the values of freedom and equality for all will disappear.

I have nothing but contempt for Islam and those who practice this barbaric religion.

Posted by: mmm1110 | March 1, 2009 6:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment

So how dare you write the truth!?

Posted by: georgegjones | March 1, 2009 6:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Halozcel1:

No, 1.3 billion Muslims are not murdering their women as some portray based on one case in Buffalo. Here is a summary of Muslim Faculty members in Egypt along with their counterpart male members:

PERCENT FEMALE FACULTY MEMBERS IN EGYPT
Faculty members
Faculty Males Females Total Percent f

Medicine 4717 1913 6630 28.9
Vet medicine 730 118 848 13.9
Dentistry 372 253 625 40.5
Pharmacy 357 273 630 43.3
Sciences 2767 941 3708 25.4
Engin & tech 2727 283 3010 9.4
Agriculture 2525 402 2927 13.7
Source: Egyptian Supreme Council of Universities (1995-96).

Posted by: hsnkhwj | March 1, 2009 6:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment

There is some merit to interpreting the stories of the Bible or Qu'ran allegorically - much like Aesop's fables.

The extreme danger occurs when one person or groups of people interpret them literally. The Qu'ran doesn't trump the Bible when it comes to violence.

Posted by: alterego55 | March 1, 2009 6:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment

hsnkhwj,

In the her autobiography (Infidel) Ayaan Hirsi Ali explains in great detail the situation with her visa and her fears of retribution from her family, imams and radicals for being an apostate. Unfortunately, Infidel is banned in Islamic theocracies and considering the fear of Muslims even in free countries of family, radicals and imams, no Muslim will admit to reading the book no matter where they live.

Posted by: CCNL | March 1, 2009 6:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Halozcel1:

Here are some more examples of famous Muslim women:

Muslim Women as Rulers, Warriors and Slaves:

a. Fatimid Princess in Egypt, Sitt al - Mulk "was intelligent and careful enough not to violate any of these rules and requirements [of a caliph who must be a male], and while she carried out virtually all the functions of caliph, she did so and directed the affairs of the empire quite effectively as Regent (for her nephew who was too young to rule). She had the title of 'Naib us Sultanat'. She died in 1024 C.E., having brought order and stability to the state. Other women leaders are also discussed at this site: "In Islam, no woman who has held power has borne the title of caliph or imam. Caliph is a title exclusively reserved to a tiny minority of men because of its religious and messianic dimension. However, although no woman ever became a caliph, as such, there have been women who became sultanas and malikas (queens)."

b. One such famous woman was Razia (or Raziyya) Sultana of India, who took power in Delhi in the year 1236 C.E. Read another biography of Raziyya and her four-year reign over India. "The Princess was adorned with every qualification required in the ablest kings and the strictest scrutinizers of her actions could find in her no fault, but that she was a woman. In the time of her father, she entered deeply into the affairs of government, which disposition he encouraged, finding she had a remarkable talent in politics. He once appointed her regent (the one in control) in his absence. When the emirs (military advisors) asked him why he appointed his daughter to such an office in preference to so many of his sons, he replied that he saw his sons giving themselves up to wine, women, gaming and the worship of the wind (flattery); that therefore he thought the government too weighty for their shoulders to bear and that Raziyyah, though a woman, had a man's head and heart and was better than twenty such sons." [Firishta, sixteenth-century historian of Muslim rule in India, quoted in "Muslim Women Through the Centuries" by Kamran Scot Aghaie, Nat'l Center for History in the Schools, UCLA,1998, p. 32.]

c. Another queen bearing the title of sultana was Shajarat al-Durr, who gained power in Cairo in 1250 C.E. like any other military leader. In fact, she brought the Muslims a victory during the Crusades and captured the King of France, Louis IX." Read more about her at "Women in World History Project: Female Heroes".

Posted by: hsnkhwj | March 1, 2009 6:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment

All sects of Islam and Christianity both bank on the fact there will be self-destruction of human culture before there is spiritual redemption. Given this fact, why is inter-personal violence so surprising?

Posted by: alterego55 | March 1, 2009 6:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Halozcel1:

Here is one famous Muslim woman of the Indian sub-continent:

Chand Bibi
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chand Bibi was also the name of Humayun's wife.

Chand Bibi Hawking, an 18th century painting

Chand Bibi (1550-1599), also known as Chand Khatun or Chand Sultana, was an Indian Muslim woman warrior. She acted as the Regent of Bijapur (1580-90) and Regent of Ahmednagar (1596-99)[1]. Chand Bibi is best known for defending Ahmednagar against the Mughal forces of Emperor Akbar.
Contents
[hide]

* 1 Biography
* 2 Bijapur Sultanate
* 3 Ahmednagar Sultanate
o 3.1 Defence of Ahmednagar
* 4 See also
* 5 References
* 6 External links

[edit] Biography

Chand Bibi was the daughter of Hussain Nizam Shah I of Ahmednagar[2], and the sister of Burhan-ul-Mulk, the Sultan of Ahmednagar. She knew many languages including Arabic, Persian, Turkish, Marathi and Kannada. She played sitar, and painting flowers was her hobby[3].

Posted by: hsnkhwj | March 1, 2009 5:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment

My opinion is this: some perpetrators of violence against women use religion (any religion will do as long as it has a God who must be obeyed and who the male can speak for) to focus their misogynistic rage cuts across cultures. Especially those religions that include the Old Testament, the home of the vengeful hatefully violent tribal God. Rush Limbaugh, de facto leader of the Republican Party, derides and humiliates women who speak out as feminazis. Americans are cowards about gender issues as well.

http://www.aidv-usa.com/Statistics.htm
http://www.now.org/issues/violence/stats.html

Posted by: mickster1 | March 1, 2009 5:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Thanks Pamela, for a wonderful article. This is exactly the kind of discussion needed for everyone (Muslims and others).

Posted by: smize | March 1, 2009 5:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hirsi Ali is certainly not lying. The things she is telling, are also told by many other witnesses.

In Sweden, we've had honor killings. One murdered girl, Fadime, a very intelligent young woman, spoke to our parliament months before her death to try and inform the members of this so called "culture". She was shot by her father because she had had a boyfriend - who also died mysteriously.

Sweden was in shock and Fadime got a televised funeral, close to a state funeral. Her coffin was carried by women exclusively. I think nobody would have been able to bear the sight of her body being carried to the grave by men.

The deaths continue to occur. Now he have so called "balcony girls". They are pushed off a balcony and fall to their death, and law enforcement find murder hard to prove.

Posted by: asoders22 | March 1, 2009 5:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Islam is ALL about the men keeping the women down. If not for "honor" rapes, most Muslim men would never have a woman sexually until (supposedly)the afterlife. That the uber-rich Islamic males have many, sometimes dozens of "wives" (concubines, nothing more), the lower caste Islamic males go without. Interesting the lower-class Islamic men are tempted to Islamic terror tactics with promises of 72 virgins in the hereafter. This is modern Islam. Well, not all. Then there's the REST of modern Islam that horsewhips and stones to death the women who are raped, said stoning and whippings considered Islam's just and due punishment for the female rape victims' having been with a man not her husband. Most of Islam IS about the rape of the women, keeping the women down, uneducated, and thoroughly, utterly, in their Islam and Allah-designated place. It's beyond barbaric and disgusting.

THIS is Islam today, please don't attempt to re-write the real and modern experience lived by Islamic women pretty much throughout the world.

Posted by: JamesChristian | March 1, 2009 5:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Halozcel1: Here is the answer to your question:

Listen to Samples

To hear a song sample, click on the button:

1. FAMOUS WOMEN CD 3 sample
2. CD 3 sample2

Description

Famous Women in Islam

Islamic history has one of the most remarkable legacies of famous women in human history. This CD set is primarily biographical and focuses on a select number of prominent women in Islamic history from the Age of the Prophet until modern times in a wide variety of areas from scholarship, mysticism, and poetry to social patronage, war, and politics. It shows that the status of women in Islamic societies has never been uniform or monolithic but has shifted from place to place, from age to age, and from class to social class. The greatest disparity, however, has been between the norms of the Prophetic period and those of subsequent ages. Prophetic society lacked the rigid divisions of social space that became characteristic of many traditional Islamic societies, and, as a rule, Prophetic society was more open and less patriarchal, giving women greater freedom and allowing them a conspicuous role within the matrix of social and civic life. A second major shift in women's status occurred during the colonial, post-colonial, and modern periods, when the position of Muslim women often deteriorated markedly. Although the class focuses on the legacies of particular women, it will look at their lives as an index of a number of concrete theological and legal issues pertaining to gender and sexuality in Islamic Law and Muslim culture. This set is not intended for women alone or just for Muslims.

Includes Class Notes!

Dr. Umar Faruq Abd-Allah

Chairman of the Board & Scholar-in-Residence

Dr. Abd-Allah (Wymann-Landgraf) is an American Muslim, born to a Protestant family of the Midwest. In 1970, he embraced Islam in New York while studying English literature at Cornell University as a Woodrow Wilson honorary fellow. He received his doctorate, with honors, from the U. of Chicago for a dissertation pertaining to the origins of Islamic Law. He taught at the U. of Windsor (Ontario). Temple, and Michigan from 1977 until 1982. He then left the US to teach Arabic in Granada, Spain. In 1984, he was appointed to the Department of Islamic Studies at King Abdul-Aziz University in Saudi Arabia and taught Islamic studies and comparative religions until 2000. During his years abroad, Dr. Abd-Allah studied numerous classical Islamic disciplines under several traditional teachers. He is fluent in English, Arabic and is acquainted with several modern and ancient tongues. Dr. Abd-Allah returned to Chicago in August of 2000 to work with the Nawawi Foundation as its Chairman and Scholar-in-Residence. Accordingly, he teaches throughout Chicagoland and conducts research in Islamic studies and cognate fields. Dr. Abd-Allah resides with his family in the suburbs of Chicago.

Posted by: hsnkhwj | March 1, 2009 5:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment

CCNL:

Didn't Hirsi lie in her visa application? If she lied once, couldn't she lie again?

Posted by: hsnkhwj | March 1, 2009 5:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment

In ancient times women were not allowed to learn to read or write. The men were the stronger and lorded over the women. They even had the nerve to make the decision that god was in the exact likeness of man,beard and all. These bullies lied and claimed that they (always alone and in some far away place) talked man-to-god with the almighty, and wrote the early books of whatever religion they were into. The men demeaned the
women and carried this sexist notion into their religions to this day. It amazes me that civiized and educated modern men and women continue to swallow this line of baloney and make it a part of their religions, laws and lives!

Posted by: central1942 | March 1, 2009 4:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"It should be acknowledged that none of these imams or scholars are advocating domestic violence as we think of it -- a man hitting his wife in rage, hurling abuse verbally and physically at her. Rather they are predicating a calm scenario, one in which the man first admonishes his wife about her lapses, then spends a few nights away from her bed, then finally resorts to a calm, reasoned, and limited physical punishment."

I don't believe that 'we' think of domestic violence in the way you describe in the first sentence. This might be new information to you, but I doubt that most people buy the notion that domestic violence is some sort of blind rage. Anyone who has witnessed even a little of it knows better, and it's common enough that I'd say most people have witnessed a little, or thought they were about to.

Point being, what you are saying that these imams advocate *is* what I, at least, view as domestic violence: A tightly managed and controlled, calculated attempt to control a significant other through violence and intimidation.

I've worked in the mental health field, and it is a common comment that sending a spousal abuser to an 'anger management' class is a joke, unless they're going to teach it. Abusers are masters of managing their anger, selecting exactly where, when and whom they will abuse, and usually taking some time to prime their victim before starting with physical abuse.

What you describe on the part of the intentions of these imams is basically aiding and abetting that process of 'grooming' a victim, by selling them and their abuser on the notion that it is religiously correct to do so, and to endure it.

Posted by: HarrisTheYounger | March 1, 2009 4:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment

When I see just ONE mass march by Muslims to protest the violence of the "minority extremists" I will begin to believe that your religion is really tolerant...

That said, I find it horrible that anyone would entertain the idea that their religious book condones a "calm and measured" punishment of a wife by her husband, or anyone else. That is the insanity I can't get my arms around. Here is a "moderate" Muslim woman saying that such a thing, is essentially, a better alternative than the current opinion held by the majority of Muslim men. She seems to be willing to go with that because getting the Imams to embrace equality is impossible?

Grates on me when Muslims and Christians question my morality because I'm an atheist, especially when I read articles such as this.

Posted by: datdamwuf2 | March 1, 2009 4:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment

hsnkhwj,

Was there muslim Madam Curie in islam history ?
Which education ? and which knowledge for women ?

What you mentioned(verses) have no any correlation with *man-woman equality*
Which equal rights ? Are you kidding ?
Can woman divorce her husband ?
Can woman take Four Males ?
Can woman have *equal inheretence right* ?
Can woman be *equal witness* ? Islam requires 4 males(only males) for adultery case and *two women* absence of one man for other cases.
Can woman dress as she likes ?
Why dont you ignore 33.33 which says *women,stay at house* so,how can she enterprice and earn ?

And,your second Methodology mistake(such as many muslims);
Dont tell about verses,but,show me any islamic country where man and woman are equal.
Dont say *that book writes so and so.....*,but show any Real Life samples from islamic lands.
*Man-Woman Equality* in submission/islam is a myth,nothing else,and you know this absolute reality very very good.

Posted by: halozcel1 | March 1, 2009 4:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I think wife cheating, beating, burning and beheading are some of the worst forms of the behavior of men in any society . This is an old news , which becomes a breaking news if it is committed by a president , priest or an anchor of a cable network . We all know that domestic violence is not confined in a particular people or country . Let us all look into this as an opportunity , and make sure that people with domestic violence behavior and sickness are helped and get treated . I believe that some people in the media are trying to brand a wife killing crime in New York last month , a murder to malign Islam or Muslims , in general have a hidden agenda . This killing should be dealt in the media in a fair manner like similar killings in the past, in communities across the U.S. by members of any other religious belief . A crime was committed and let the law and order agencies deal with it . Please do not try to single out Islam or Muslims for a divisive agenda . Killing of an innocent human being is crime , not condoned by any religion including Islam and is punishable according the Laws of the Sate of New York .

Posted by: dmfarooq | March 1, 2009 4:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Contemporary Islam as seen from the inside:

From Ayaan Hirsi Ali's autobiography, "Infidel".

"Thus begins the extraordinary story of a woman born into a family of desert nomads, circumcised as a child, educated by radical imams in Kenya and Saudi Arabia, taught to believe that if she uncovered her hair, terrible tragedies would ensue. It's a story that, with a few different twists, really could have led to a wretched life and a lonely death, as her grandmother warned. But instead, Hirsi Ali escaped -- and transformed herself into an internationally renowned spokeswoman for the rights of Muslim women."
ref: Washington Post book review.

four excerpts:

p. 47 paperback issue:

"Some of the Saudi women in our neighborhood were regularly beaten by their husbands. You could hear them at night. Their screams resounded across the courtyards. "No! Please! By Allah!"

p.68:

"The Pakistanis were Muslims but they too had castes. The Untouchable girls, both Indian and Pakistani were darker skin. The others would not play with them because they were untouchable. We thought that was funny because of course they were touchable: we touched them see? but also horrifying to think of yourself as untouchable, despicable to the human race."

p.309

"Between October 2004 and May 2005, eleven Muslim girls were killed by their families in just two regions (there are 20 regions in Holland). After that, people stopped telling me I was exaggerating."

p. 347

"The kind on thinking I saw in Saudi Arabia and among the Brotherhood of Kenya and Somalia, is incompatible with human rights and liberal values. It preserves the feudal mind-set based on tribal concepts of honor and shame. It rests on self-deception, hyprocricy, and double standards. It relies on the technologial advances of the West while pretending to ignore their origin in Western thinking. This mind-set makes the transition to modernity very painful for all who practice Islam".

Posted by: CCNL | March 1, 2009 3:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment

First, put a bag on your head. Then I will tell you how equal you are.

Posted by: edbyronadams | March 1, 2009 3:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Matt_Phill:
Bravo my friend. Well said and totally true. Ms Taylor and all those who come to this blog should read and re-read Matt's comments. As true as it comes. The likes of Patel and Taylor try so hard to paint the sands of Arabia as the green grassy plains of paradise on these pages. You can not turn a vulture into a swan no matter how many times you wash it. Islam is violent, intolerant and unworthy of the admiration of anyone who cares for individual freedom or freedom of speech. Their goal is to stealthily spread Islam in the USA to ultimately bring us under Islamic caliphate and sharia law. Beware of the Trojan horse, it is already on our shores. Once in, it is easier to escape from the maffia than from Islam.

Posted by: samchannar | March 1, 2009 3:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment

From the Internet: Hammuda Abdul Ali, Ph.D. wrote (abbreviated):

# Woman is recognized by Islam as a full and equal partner of man in the procreation of humankind.
O mankind! Verily We have created your from a single (pair) of a male and a female,m and made you into nations and tribes that you may know each other... (Qur'an, 49:13; cf. 4:1).

# She is equal to man in bearing personal and common responsibilities and in receiving rewards for her deeds. God says:
And their Lord has accepted (their prayers) and answered them (saying): 'Never will I cause to be lost the work of any of you, be he male or female; you are members, one of another... (3:195; cf 9:71;33:35-36;66:19-21).

# She is equal to man in the pursuit of education and knowledge. When Islam enjoins the seeking of knowledge upon Muslims, it makes no distinction between man and woman.
# She is entitled to freedom of expression as much as man is.
It is reported in the Qur'an and history that woman not only expressed her opinion freely but also argued and participated in serious discussions with the Prophet himself as well as with other Muslim leaders (Qur'an, 58:1-4; 60:10-12).
# Historical records show that women participated in public life with the early Muslims, especially in times of emergencies. Women used to accompany the Muslim armies engaged in battles to nurse the wounded, prepare supplies, serve the warriors, and so on.
# Islam grants woman equal rights to contract, to enterprise, to earn and possess independently. Her life, her property, her honor are as sacred as those of man. If she commits any offense, her penalty is no less or more than of man's in a similar case. If she is wronged or harmed, she gets due compensations equal to what a man in her position would get (2:178;4:45, 92-93).

# Islam has taken all measures to safeguard them and put them into practice as integral articles of Faith. It never tolerates those who are inclined to prejudice against woman or discrimination between man and woman. Time and again, the Qur'an reproaches those who used to believe woman to be inferior to man (16:57-59, 62; 42:47-59; 43:15-19; 53:21-23).

# Apart from recognition of woman as an independent human being acknowledged as equally essential for the survival of humanity, Islam has given her a share of inheritance. Before Islam, she was not only deprived of that share but was herself considered as property to be inherited by man. ....

Posted by: hsnkhwj | March 1, 2009 3:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gnomek2,

Before I "go back and read my history," perhaps you would do me the favor of going back and reading my post.

My concluding sentence was:

"Islam's history is no more violent than Christianity's, and to suggest otherwise is pure foolishness."

I stand by this statement. Both Christianity and Islam were conceived and perpetrated through violence. Christians wouldn't even have their religion if violence against Jesus had not occurred.

And, despite your attempt at creating parallels, Jesus and Muhammad did not fulfill the same function in the "founding" of their respective religions. Jesus had no involvement in creating Christianity -- and he would certainly be appalled at what was created in his name.

But the fact remains that both religions -- and most of the other world religions, as well -- have long histories of intolerance and violence against those who would not believe.

Posted by: kjohnson3 | March 1, 2009 2:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment

It is not just Muslims who need to think about the results of what they teach. Fundamentalist Christians are also preaching ideas of female submission that can unintentionally lead to domestic violence. In areas of the south were fundamentalism is strong, the domestic violence rates are similarly high.

Posted by: linda2009 | March 1, 2009 1:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment

ISLAM WILL NEVER CHANGE - GET IT!
if you are islamic you must follow the koran and the hadith - it's not like being christian, or jewish, where you can pick and choose what you want to do and still say you are christian or a jew.
islam demands - that is what islam means - SUBMISSION!
not submission if you feel like it today, but EVERY DAY. that is why you do your prayer stuff 5 times a day, to remind you to submit.
if moho did it - beat his wives, had sex with a 9 year old girl, as the last perfect man under islam, you can too.
quit putting your touchy feely face on.

YOU EITHER SUBMIT TO ISLAM OR THEY GET TO KILL YOU AND IN DOING SO THEY ARE FOLLOWING ISLAM!

islam is not a religion it's a death cult, nothing more.

Posted by: infantry11b4faus | March 1, 2009 12:57 PM
Report Offensive Comment

abhab Author Profile Page:

HSNKW pontificates:
“IF YOU READ THE QURAN YOU WILL FIND THAT WOMEN ARE MENTIONED ALONG WITH MEN EQUAL NUMBER OF TIMES.”

I have read the Quran many times in its original Arabic language and three different English translations and did not read anything that remotely suggests an equality between men and women. This is what I found...."

************************************************************

If you read the Quran in the original and translations, did you find the verses on Human Rights, Women' Rights quoted in the my post earlier and extracted from the article mentioned in that or are you bent upon a campaign of disinformation?

I did not claim it to be the author of that article.

Posted by: hsnkhwj | March 1, 2009 12:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment

It's always a good idea to quote from fairy tales to prove one's point.

Here are some exerpts from Hansel and Gretel by the Grimm Brothers. Equally relevant today:

"Light the oven," she told Gretel. "We're going to have a tasty roasted boy today!"
"The witch is now burnt to a cinder," said Hansel, "so we'll take this treasure with us."

In this spirit, you can quote more from other story books or simply make something up. Like Mohammed did...

Posted by: semidouble | March 1, 2009 12:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I was enjoying your reasoned arguments until I read: we must look at verse 2:228 in it's entirety. Please understand that, to have faith in your interpretations of a foreign language, I need to know you understand the language in which you are writing.

Posted by: JulieinFallsChurchVA | March 1, 2009 12:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Islam, as it is practiced in some countries, has no place in today's world. From the Sharia and genital mutilation of women, from punishment by stoning to death, to forced wearing of veil and women's rights, as long as Muslims want to live according to antiquated scriptures they will not earn respect of people who believe in rights of individuals. In a free society one's religious beliefs or lack of them should not matter. Such conditions are unthinkable in Islamic nations.

As some readers pointed out, fundamentalist Christian groups do not stand too far apart from the Muslims. Given the power enjoyed by Muslims in predominantly Islamic countries the Christians would gladly persecute those whose lifestyles they find abhorrent. From the Inquisition to Crusades, history is full of examples of brutality sanctioned by Christians. There are unresolved questions about the Vatican's silence when the mass scale slaughter of Jews took place during the Third Reich.

The religious should have full rights to practice their faith, but not to impose their beliefs on others. The same principle applies to those who are not religious. They should have the right to declare their position without fear of persecution but they must never force their views on those who differ.

Posted by: probashi | March 1, 2009 12:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment

HSNKW pontificates:
“IF YOU READ THE QURAN YOU WILL FIND THAT WOMEN ARE MENTIONED ALONG WITH MEN EQUAL NUMBER OF TIMES.”

“A book with no chronology of events or a sustained theme other than a supremacist diatribe , incitement against the other and obsession with sex and violence. It is riddled with inconsistencies and outright contradictions. It lists legends and myths from Arab, Persian and Sumerian pagans along with embellished stories and quotations from the Old and New Testaments as well as the Jewish Talmud and pre-Islamic Arab poets. It is full of scientific heresies, mathematical mistakes, historical blunders, grammatical errors and logical fallacies. The book talks of flying horses, speaking ants and arguing birds. It describes an afterlife gardens with rivers of wine and honey and brimming with young black eyed receptive beauties placed there along with preteen boys, who double as bartenders, to service the believers in Mohammad and his message.

As for Kjohnson’s claim”
“And what were the Crusades about, if not proclaiming the Christian God "the one true God"?

No sir: It was a reaction to a series of Muslims’ encroaching upon the land of the Christians as documented below;

“The first Crusade began in 1095… 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies, 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies, 453 years after Egypt was taken by Muslim armies, 443 after Muslims first plundered Italy, 427 years after Muslim armies first laid siege to the Christian capital of Constantinople, 380 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies, 363 years after France was first attacked by Muslim armies, 249 years after Rome itself was sacked by a Muslim army. It is only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions of Christians that some Europeans finally acted. This is self defense case if there ever was.

Posted by: abhab | March 1, 2009 11:34 AM
Report Offensive Comment

An elaborate apology for a systemized superstition (religion) which treats 1/2 of its adherents as if they were inferior. You wear a headscarf in your picture not in reverence to God but as a reminder to you of your status as property under Islam. When you brainwash young female children into accepting their secondary status as the will of God in a book created and written by and for men then they will never truely be free.

Posted by: pwelvr | March 1, 2009 11:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment

ADULT TOY SHOP FREAKS OUT [KING STREET] CITY OF ALEXANDRIA, VA.
================================================================

Considering that ConfedeRACIST Gen. Robert Lee grew up on King St, I'll say that La Tache is an IMPROVEMENT over the usual crimes to which King St+Alexandria+Virginia is accustomed.

La Tache is: NOT A SEX SHOP, NOT A PORN SHOP; it is AN ADULT ACCESSORIES SHOP

The hypocrisy of Redneck Riveria like Alexandria, Virginia is beyond laughable.

1. America's #1 Terrorist Organization, the Ku Klux Klan has its historical HQ near King St, Alexandria, VA

2. Slavery [auctioning, branding of Human beings] was just OK on King St

3. Lynching of Blacks was celebrated in King St, Alexandria.

4. Mass rape of African American women was a daily staple in Alexandria

5. Execution of White Americans who spoke up for Blacks was celeberated in King St

6. Treasonable felony of Seccession from the U.S.A. was celebrated in King St.

Yet, somehow, the morally-upright citizens of Alexandria are shocked, shocked, shocked that women should have the option of not wearing wollen lace, dark corsets and chasity belts.

To paraphrase ex-Sen. George 'macaca' Allen of Virginia, "Welcome to the Real World of Hypocrisy"

Posted by: Sacred_Whor3 | March 1, 2009 11:16 AM
Report Offensive Comment

kjohnson3 writes:

"Do you realize that everything you've [gnomek2] said here applies to Christianity, as well?

"Violence and intolerance" certainly describe the events around the killing of Jesus.

And what were the Crusades about, if not proclaiming the Christian God "the one true God"? Remember that the Crusaders weren't just going door-to-door to ask non-Christian citizens if they'd heard the "good news." They were raping, pillaging, murdering, and burning to the ground those communities that were not practicing Christian worship.

Islam's history is no more violent than Christianity's, and to suggest otherwise is pure foolishness."

I reply:

This argument is old, lame and without any merit. Although there is violence associated with Christianity, it wasn't Jesus who perpetrated it. Quite the opposite. Jesus was the victim of violence, not its instrument. The only "violent" act in which Jesus engaged was the scolding of the money changers in the temple, for which he paid by being nailed to a cross. Jesus's message throughout his ministry was one of love and peace, nothing else.

And the crusades, though bloody and in the end totally counterproductive, were a reaction to the violent Muslim expansion begun in the 600's. In fact, the Crusades were more political than religious. The only way to get the masses excited about fighting Muslim expansion was for the popes then in power to play the religion card. Otherwise, most people in medeival Europe couldn't have cared less about what was happening in the middle east. Read your history.

So, violence and intolerance involved Christ as its victim, not its instrument; the complete opposite of Mohammad who not only began his campaign by inflicting violence and intolerance on those "unbelievers" around him, but encouraged his followers to continue said violence and intolerance in his name and in the name of his unholy god, Allah. This he called "Jihad," which in English means "struggle." That is what you should do before accusing me of foolishness: struggle to read and learn your history before displaying your ignorance in public.

Posted by: gnomek2 | March 1, 2009 11:07 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Mercy and urine in Islam have honored places.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 82, Number 794:

Narrated Anas:

Some people from the tribe of 'Ukl came to the Prophet and embraced Islam. The climate of Medina did not suit them, so the Prophet ordered them to go to the camels of charity and to drink, their milk and URINE . They did so, and after they had recovered from their ailment they turned renegades, left Islam and took the camels away. The Prophet sent some people in their pursuit and so they were caught and brought, and the Apostle of Allah ordered to cutting off their hands and legs and their eyes to be branded with heated iron pieces. They were thrown then thrown at Al-Harra, and when they asked for water to drink, they were not given water. (Abu Qilaba said, "Those were the people who reverted to disbelief after being believers (Muslims), and fought against Allah and His Apostle").

Posted by: jailkkhosla | March 1, 2009 10:54 AM
Report Offensive Comment

As a non-muslim who grew up to adulthood in muslim country.....I got to watch Muslims & practise of Islam up close and personal.

I find these "endless essays" from better educated Muslim community trying their darndest to explain away these pathologically deviant Islamic inspired practices to be somewhat disturbing, tiring, and utterly pathetic.

I am glad to see that readers of this newspaper are not taken in by the bunk from the likes of Miss Taylor.

The reason that so many sick practises are found in Islam is because Islam engenders a hatred towards anyone who turns away from it and rejects it. In Islam...there is no such thing as respect for other values or traditions or the freedom to choose one's own spiritual path. It is a form of fascism.

To put it simply.....Muslims view all non-abrahmic faiths as pagans who worship idols and inanimate objects. In an ideal Islamic society, all these folks who either be converted or simply killed.

To help the readers truly understand what Islam is all about...... I have a simple question that I would like to put before Miss Taylor (who I am sure is a Muslim convert) and the rest of the readers of this column.

Question: What do you think will happen to Miss Pamela K.Taylor if she lived in a Muslim majority country and wanted to convert her religion to say Christianity ??

Answer: She would either be killed, or be in hiding from religous zealots who wanted to kill her, or be sent by the authorities to a concentration camp for religious retraining.

Finally I would like to add......The point in raising this question is to highlight the fundamental difference between Islam and all other faiths. Only in Islamic world are individuals persecuted and killed for choosing their own spiritual path.

That in itself should tell anyone, everything you need to know about Islam.

Posted by: matt_phil | March 1, 2009 10:50 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I found the following article titled, "Status of women in Islam" by Mitra Abdul Rashid. Here are some excerpts:

“For Muslim men and women, for believing men and women, for devout men and women, for true men and women who are patient, for men and women who humble themselves, for men and women who give in charity, for men and women who fast, for men and women who guard their chastity, and for men and women who engage much in Allah’s praise - For them all has Allah prepared forgiveness and great reward.” (33:35)

III. Human Rights:

Woman is recognized by Islam as equal partner in the procreation of humankind. Man is the father, woman is the mother, and both are essential for life. By this partnership, woman has an equal share in every aspect; she is entitled to equal rights; she undertakes equal responsibilities, and she has as many qualities and as much humanity as her partner. So, fourteen centuries ago, Islam made men and women equally accountable to God in glorifying and worshiping Him - setting no limits on her spiritual progress. In the Qur’an in the first verse of the chapter entitled “Women”, God says:

“O mankind! Be careful of your duty to your Lord Who created you from a single soul and from it its mate and from them both have spread abroad a multitude of men and women. Be careful of your duty toward Allah in Whom you claim (your rights) of one another, and towards the wombs (that bore you). Lo! Allah has been a Watcher over you.” (4:1)

And again in the Qur’an:

“O mankind! Verily we have created you from a single (pair) of a male and female, and made you into nations and tribes that you may know each other.” (49:13; cf.4:1)

IV. CIVIL RIGHTS:

When we then consider the area of civil rights, education is of greatest importance. The Prophet (pbuh) said: “Seeking knowledge is a mandate for every Muslim (male and female).” Keeping people ignorant equals oppression; whether man or woman. In the case of women their civil rights were considered necessary for the proper functioning of the community.

Recognizing her individuality, Islam grants a woman freedom of choice and expression. We are encouraged to contribute opinions and ideas. Women would pose questions directly to the Prophet (sal) and to other Muslim leaders and offer their opinions concerning religion, economics, and social matters. (Qur’an 58:1-4; 60:10-12)

Actually it was 1400 years ago that a right to vote was given to the woman. When the women came to Prophet Mohammad (sal) and swore their allegiance to him, he had to accept their oath. This established the right of women to publicly participate in the selection of their leader. Nor does Islam forbid a woman from holding important positions in government.

NOTE: IF YOU READ THE QURAN YOU WILL FIND THAT WOMEN ARE MENTIONED ALONG WITH MEN EQUAL NUMBER OF TIMES.

Posted by: hsnkhwj | March 1, 2009 10:32 AM
Report Offensive Comment

jailkkhosla Author Profile Page:

orpheus2004

Please dont fabricate.

here are some facts:

1. There is nothing in the Hindu scriptures that commands men or anyone else to burn or beat their wives. The practice of sati started when Muhammadan invaders defeated Rajput kings and then started to take the widows as sex slaves in emulation of Prophet Muhammad who took Saffiya, Juwariyah and Rayhana as sex slaves after murdering their husbands. Sati is not practiced throughout India. Most importantly sati is banned. ..."

******************************************************************

Hindus of India are known for urine drinking, burning alive brides for the sake of dowry (it is never "enough"), burning widows alive in the name of Sati (subserviance to men and death after his death),prohibition of widows to remarry, painting homes with cow dung, inequality from birth to death in the caste system.

Hindu women can not enter heaven. Only men can.
Ancient Hindu philosopher Manu designated head representing Brahmans, arms representing kshatriya (warriors), belly (Vaish, business), Sudra (legs-low in hierarchy), and feet (Dalit--the untouchables). Blame it all on Muslims.

Mr. Khosla, they are selling bottled cow urine as a soft drink in India. Blame it all on Muslims.

Posted by: hsnkhwj | March 1, 2009 10:17 AM
Report Offensive Comment

The religion of Islam is the most evil religion that I have ever seen. Any religion that teaches women and children to strap bombs onto themselves and blow themselves up is a religion that needs to be wiped off the face of the earth. Islam needs to be soundly rejected by all modern societies...

Posted by: charko825 | March 1, 2009 10:17 AM
Report Offensive Comment

The mockingly clad Ms. Taylor is off base. The problem was not with Christianity when Hitler said he “was doing God’s work” or when Muslims were thrown in jails and subjected to rendition without trial in the country of a respected constitution; And the problem is not with Islam when Muslim women are battered. Ms. Taylor would know if she ever lived with the poor Muslims that thousands of male-Imams are living in misery and are abused every day and it is not because of Islam. Islam has in historic and real sense given women the rights they should have so much so that the Prophet made men absolutely responsible for women welfare. The problem is with battered women of all denominations in not having a place to go when they are abused. They cannot afford alternate housing, medical help and legal help and no Ms. Taylor would take up that mission. I am sure Ms. Taylor is making lot of hay for herself in the mean time. (Prof. Zubairi, author: The Purpose of Islam ).

Posted by: yameenzusnet | March 1, 2009 10:13 AM
Report Offensive Comment

One finds it hypocritical to focus on the Muslim domestic problem in such volume while the escalating frequency of spouse,partner, and child abuse in the western world exists. Perhaps we should clean our own house first?

Posted by: elizabeth6 | March 1, 2009 10:10 AM
Report Offensive Comment

"We can't expect anything less than violence and intolerance from a religion that was born in violence and intolerance. Mohammad's first act after re-entering Mecca as a muslim was to desecrate what was up till then a tolerant, accepting, and peaceful shrine: the Ka'ba. He entered and destroyed all the icons, all the representations of other beliefs. He did this to show that the only "true religion" had "Allah" at its core, and that only "Allah" should be worshipped. What was previously a tolerant and accepting shrine of peace was transformed into an intolerant, unaccepting monument to hate, bigotry and violence. What can we expect from a religion based on such an act besides hate, bigotry and violence?"

Gnomek2,

Do you realize that everything you've said here applies to Christianity, as well?

"Violence and intolerance" certainly describe the events around the killing of Jesus.

Islam's history is no more violent than Christianity's, and to suggest otherwise is pure foolishness.

Posted by: kjohnson3 | March 1, 2009 10:06 AM
Report Offensive Comment

ALL the mental midgets that believe in the rantings of cavemen and their imaginary sky daddy's should be confined to a mental ward. These mental midgets have spread hate & murder for centuries. Its high time ALL religions were outlawed.
One has to be insane to believe the tripe these morons spew. Might as well believe in the science of 1500BC.
Religion has no place in modern society.

Posted by: norcalworm | March 1, 2009 10:03 AM
Report Offensive Comment

THe following story is from India. It would have made big headlines in newspapers around the world if it happened in some Muslim country:

Press Trust Of India

Virudhunagar, March 01, 2009

School headmaster kidnaps, marries 14-year old girl

An elementary school headmaster of a village near here kidnapped and married a 14-year-old girl, the same age as his daughter recently, police said.

The headmaster Arumugam (42) was arrested on Saturday after a complaint filed by the girl's parents.

Read the full story:

http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/Print.aspx?Id=7ace9034-9795-4dff-801a-c894810a0b0e

Posted by: hsnkhwj | March 1, 2009 10:02 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Spark1 writes *No religion(cult) allows beheading a wife(wives,Islamic Saudi King has forty),including Islam/submission* Wrong,completely wrong.
Quran/islam justifies *beheading of disbelievers and infidels/non-muslims*

8.12(and 47.4) says *I(Allah) will cast Fear/Terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve.Therefore Strike Off their heads...*
If the Husband/Master of women at house believes that his wife or one of his wives becomes disbeliever,then he can punish her.Beheading is a style of killing.

VJG3,

Let me remind you,Panelist,Dear Pamela K.Taylor is also a *science fiction* writer.
The verses mentioned in her article dont mean what she writes and dont mean *man-woman equality*(man-woman equality in islam can not be imagined) and *Woman/Human Rights*

This kind of Articles(Alice in Wonderland) dont address *traditions,teaching that lead to domestic violence*(She accepts/commits that there is domestic violence in islamic countries)

Muslims have to face the Realities.
Submission/islam is the Cult of Violence.
Submission/islam is not Compatible with Democracy and Contemporary Values.
Woman in islam is the second(even third) class citizen(indisputable)
Submission enslaves women,and Headcsarf is the Mark of Subjugation and Oppression.
This is *core issue*

Posted by: halozcel1 | March 1, 2009 9:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Islam cannot be reformed, only abolished. It is insanity that this country after 9/11 still permits Muslim immigration, especially from some of the most backward violent nations in the world: Yemen, Somalia, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan. Our country is a mess, economically and socially, thanks to the Democrats, who refuse to restrict any form of immigration. They want to destroy America, and the job is almost done. Seen California, recently?

Posted by: greg3 | March 1, 2009 9:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment

How about if we did this, Pamela. DISPENSE WITH ALL RELIGIONS!
Sounds kind of extreme, doesn't it? But this crap concerning religion's hold on humanity for no other reason than to control one's everyday existence has outlived its usefulness (if there ever was a reason).
As an atheist, I do not need a spook, a devil, a ghost or a god to prompt me to view my fellow man with dignity and respect. I certainly don't need a god a FORCE me to behave in such a way.
Why do you need a religion to "show you the way"? Why can't you just do what is morally and ethically correct to deal with life's everyday occurrences?
The religious--and you are no exception--just love to cherry-pick their holy books to show what a great guy their respective god is. The problem with this exercise is that your holy book--just like the bible--is CHOCK FULL of murder and mayhem against infidel and believer alike. How can you be so hypocritical as to state that there are no instances in you book supporting this violence?
Get rid of religion and the preoccupation with ethnic differences and you take away a major reason for hatred among men. Care to dispute this observation?

Posted by: hyjanks | March 1, 2009 9:51 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Salma, alias Um Zhiml, was a first cousin of Uyaina. Her father too was a big chief, Malik bin Hudaifa, of the Ghatfan. Not only was her father a noted chief, but her mother, Um Qirfa, also was a great lady, held in esteem and veneration by the tribe. In the time of the Holy Prophet, the mother had fought against the Muslims and had been captured in battle and killed by the Holy Prophet but memories of the chieftainess had remained alive among the Ghatfan. Salma had been taken captive and led to Madinah, where the Prophet presented her as a slave to his wife, Aisha. But Salma was not happy, so Aisha set her free, and she returned to her tribe.

After the death of her parents, Salma rose in stature until she began to command the same respect and affection in her tribe as her mother had enjoyed. She became-and this was unusual among the Arabs-a chief in her own right. Her mother had owned a magnificent camel which was now inherited by Salma, and since the daughter looked just like the mother, whenever she rode the camel she reminded her people of the departed grande dame.

Salma became one of the leaders of the apostasy and an implacable enemy of Islam. After the Battle of Buzakha and the action at Ghamra, some of those who had lost to Khalid, along with many die-hards from the Hawazin and the Bani Sulaim, hastened to Zafar, at the western edge of the Sulma Range, and joined the army of Salma. 2 (See
Page 8

With the killing of Salma by the Apostle of Allah , all resistance collapsed and the apostates scattered in all directions. Salma had given Khalid the hardest fight since Tulaiha.

The Salma Range-a range of black, rugged hills standing some 40 miles south-east of the town of Hail-is believed to have been named after Salma, Um Zhiml…a fitting tribute to a grand lady who had the courage to stand and fight against the greatest soldier of the day, and who went down fighting.

The Battle of Zafar was fought in late October 632 (late Rajab, 11 Hijri). For a few days Khalid rested his men. Then he gave orders for the march to Butah, to fight Malik bin Nuwaira.

Posted by: jailkkhosla | March 1, 2009 9:17 AM
Report Offensive Comment

We can't expect anything less than violence and intolerance from a religion that was born in violence and intolerance. Mohammad's first act after re-entering Mecca as a muslim was to desecrate what was up till then a tolerant, accepting, and peaceful shrine: the Ka'ba. He entered and destroyed all the icons, all the representations of other beliefs. He did this to show that the only "true religion" had "Allah" at its core, and that only "Allah" should be worshipped. What was previously a tolerant and accepting shrine of peace was transformed into an intolerant, unaccepting monument to hate, bigotry and violence. What can we expect from a religion based on such an act besides hate, bigotry and violence?
Ms. Taylor's long-winded, meandering and ultimately unconvincing attempt to re-interperate what is obvious ("daraba" in Arabic means hit and nothing else) fails on all fronts.

Posted by: gnomek2 | March 1, 2009 9:15 AM
Report Offensive Comment

orpheus2004

Please dont fabricate.

here are some facts:

When we find something wrong with our faith we ban it. For example we have banned the caste system based dicriminations. Today 40% of all jobs are reserved for teh so called lower castes and so are the seats in colleges. We never claim our faith is perfect but we are trying to make it perfect.

Remember the Ramayan is not scripture and in the original version Sita dies when the earth opens up and she is swallowed. The Ramayan is fiction written to illustrate how a good King would rule.

The Uttara Khanda was written many hundreds of years later and in it Ram is depicted as a sorry figure at the end and I believe in it Sita jumps into a fire. The Uttar Khanda is also fiction written by rebels. Nothing wrong with that.

Again we do not claim Hinduism is perfect.

2. The Koran clearly commands Muslim men to beat their wives if they disobey their husbands. Muhammad did beat Aisha as the hadith I posted fro Sahih Muslim proves. In the last sermon Muhammad said"...you have the right to beat your wives but not too severely."

All we are asking Muslims to do is pass laws that prohibit men from beating their wives and wives from beating up their husbands.

Is that too much to ask?

Will you support the ban?

If all Muslims urge the banning of wife beating and refrain from wife beating then what the Koran says or what Muhammad did is moot.

Posted by: jailkkhosla | March 1, 2009 9:11 AM
Report Offensive Comment

You have to love the chutzpah of the obvious Hindu comment posters who hate Islam. Talk about a major blind spot to their own faith. what about wife-burning (sati), which is still practiced throughout India? What about the hundreds and hundreds of cases annually of women burned by gas-fires and cooking oil by others-in-law and husbands over dowry collection and other domestic issues? Hindus claim to be vegetarian but they practically cannibalize their women through brutal murders. Maybe some of them should hold off on their criticism of other religions till their next life.

Posted by: orpheus2004 | March 1, 2009 8:52 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Pamela says:

“Worse, they (Muslim men) feel entitled and empowered by the patriarchal norms these imams and scholars preach, seeing themselves as the kings of their home, rather than as domestic partners as the Qur'an teaches and the Prophet modeled for them.”

If those men were to model themselves after your prophet, they would have to marry nine wives each and have an unlimited number of concubines and marry their daughters’ in-law as he had done with Zainab bint Jahsh and stab to death or tear apart any woman that criticizes them as your prophet had done to Asma bint Marwan and Um Qirfa. Is that how you wish to solve domestic abuse?
As for the terms “darab” and "qawwmoun", the Arabs know full well what those terms mean and do not need someone who cannot even speak the language to put a spin on their meanings to justify her thesis.

Posted by: abhab | March 1, 2009 8:51 AM
Report Offensive Comment

My questions are : Do Muslim men really need four wives? Is it because most Muslim men are dying in wars and suicide and homicidal attacks on civilians?

Why did Mohamed need nine wives, including a 6 year old child? Is not that immoral- at least if you are a prophet?

Why do Muslims need 57 exclusive Islamic nations- with little or no non-Muslim population? What does it say to non-Muslims?

Posted by: vjg3 | March 1, 2009 8:50 AM
Report Offensive Comment

This article is too long and full of fiction. Did not Mohamed kill one Jewish girl's family in front of her and then said he felt sorry for her and married her (legalized sex slave).

In any case, we are living in present. There is domestic violence among all religions. The only thing different in this NY case was the hypocrisy (very common among Muslims) of the alledged murderer who was showing a fictional account of "moderate" Islam on a TV show meant for Americans.

Posted by: vjg3 | March 1, 2009 8:41 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Here is the hadit which proves Muhammad did hit his wives.

Sahih Muslim Book 4, 2127

Book 004, Number 2127: Muhammad b. Qais said (to the people): Should I not narrate to you (a hadith of the Holy Prophet) on my authority and on the authority of my mother? We thought that he meant the mother who had given him birth. He (Muhammad b. Qais) then reported that it was 'A'isha who had narrated this: Should I not narrate to you about myself and about the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him)? We said: Yes. She said: When it was my turn for Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) to spend the night with me, he turned his side, put on his mantle and took off his shoes and placed them near his feet, and spread the corner of his shawl on his bed and then lay down till he thought that I had gone to sleep. He took hold of his mantle slowly and put on the shoes slowly, and opened the door and went out and then closed it lightly. I covered my head, put on my veil and tightened my waist wrapper, and then went out following his steps till he reached Baqi'. He stood there and he stood for a long time. He then lifted his hands three times, and then returned and I also returned. He hastened his steps and I also hastened my steps. He ran and I too ran. He came (to the house) and I also came (to the house). I, however, preceded him and I entered (the house), and as I lay down in the bed, he (the Holy Prophet) entered the (house), and said: Why is it, O 'A'isha, that you are out of breath? I said: There is nothing. He said: Tell me or the Subtle and the Aware would inform me. I said: Messenger of Allah, may my father and mother be ransom for you, and then I told him (the whole story). He said: Was it the darkness (of your shadow) that I saw in front of me? I said: Yes. He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you? She said: Whatsoever the people conceal, Allah will know it. He said: Gabriel came to me when you saw me. He called me and he concealed it from you. I responded to his call, but I too concealed it from you (for he did not come to you), as you were not fully dressed. I thought that you had gone to sleep, and I did not like to awaken you, fearing that you may be frightened. He (Gabriel) said: Your Lord has commanded you to go to the inhabitants of Baqi' (to those lying in the graves) and beg pardon for them. I said: Messenger of Allah, how should I pray for them (How should I beg forgiveness for them)? He said: Say, Peace be upon the inhabitants of this city (graveyard) from among the Believers and the Muslims, and may Allah have mercy on those who have gone ahead of us, and those who come later on, and we shall, God willing, join you.

Posted by: jailkkhosla | March 1, 2009 8:32 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Reading this was like being on an airplane in turbulence: In need of Dramamine (from the writer's obviously turbulent need to squeeze justification, or lack thereof, from historical minutia) and hoping that the oxygen masks would soon drop from the ceiling (one for me and one for the writer). One would hope that no religion could be founded--and then propagated---upon a philosophy that included brutality or dominance. But adjusting the focus to where things generally stand for Muslim women in the 21st century (with regard to freedom from dominance and, well, just the sweet oxygen of freedom), the proof of the pudding is symbolized in the persistence of the burqua, isn't it?

Posted by: dlsayers | March 1, 2009 8:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Why interpret 4:34 for your convenience? Why not be honest and reject the verse?

Prophet Moe did hit Aisha once and the reason there is no hadith about him hitting his wives is that the raconteurs did not know. Even if there had been no hadith him hitting his wives does not mean he did not hit his wives. All it proves is that there is no hadith that says he his wives.

There is no hadith that says he sang. Does it mean he never sang.

Musims should not worry about what the Koran says or does not say about hitting wives. they should simply ban the hitting of wives.

Posted by: jailkkhosla | March 1, 2009 8:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Ms. Taylor.
How many mainstream Christian clergy give instructions to their male parishoners on how to beat their spouses? Certainly not any in the last century or three? You have already mentioned that inams even now give instructions on how Muslim men can beat their wives. That mere fact shows that Islam's law and tradition sanctions the physical abuse of women, especially when the leaders of Islamic communities, the clergy openly acknowledge and condone the use of violence upon women. You whitewash the many Quran verses that overtly detail the how, when and where on the use of corporal and capital punishment against women (and anyone not submitting to Sharia as well). This does not represent the wishes of the one God who Abraham worshiped and that Jesus of Nazareth taught of. Since the Quran is full of such un-Godly themes, then its source can only one other. Unless the followers of the Quran utterly eliminates all text from it and the Surahs that are representative of violence and intolerance to all in this world, then it will continue to not represent God's will in a very significant way. You cannot say the same of what Jesus taught or the live that He lived. He truly lived as God wanted and taught God's truth in every way. Jesus taught forgiveness, not that anyone's head should be separated from their neck in order to preclude them going to heaven.

Posted by: honorswar26 | March 1, 2009 8:17 AM
Report Offensive Comment

The fundamental problem with Islam is its ideology. Its attitude towards 'unbelivers' and women.
Till Islam changes that ideplogy to'live and let live', nothing is possible.
Pakistan has recently come to its knees and accepted dubious pact with Taliban. The people who look at a women as a sex toy and a slave.
When countries like Pakistan have no back bone to stand against the fundamentalists what hope there is for a peaceful world.

Posted by: dvsikka | March 1, 2009 8:15 AM
Report Offensive Comment

What a bunch of crap. This woman needs some serious psychological counseling. Religion may not be required for the violent and controlling nature of men, but it surely provides a nice recipe textbook for those men who want creative and justifiable support for their actions. Why do you not ask a large number of Muslim women if they really want to wear the headscarf and total body covering if given the choice not to do so?

Posted by: whitetrash4u | March 1, 2009 8:02 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Islam was born of and is simply another form tribalism. A key principle of tribalism is the need to survive, including its culture. Most tribes expend considerable effort ensuring that they grow at the expense of other tribes (Jews, Sunnis, Shiites, etc). Islam, as a form of tribalism, has violence as a core principle because violence is necessary to keep the tribe intact and to grow.

Proof of its violent nature lies not just in the Qur'an, but in Islam's apologists, who continue to spout garbage that Islam is all sweetness and light. We remain unconvinced.

Posted by: dmt3 | March 1, 2009 7:28 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Oh, and another thing... if what the author says were to hold water, I am tempted to ask, "Where are the street protests, the outcry, the demonstrations, the campaigns... against this brutal act against a woman? Against any of the brutalities that women and girls continue to suffer... the burning down of girls' schools in Taliban-controlled areas?" These are but two examples.

One remembers the many outrages over "the cartoons", and so on. Where is the same outrage against the way women are treated? Why are there no street marches and protests?

These are troublesome questions. But no one seems to tackle them head-on and bluntly.

If the proposition I quoted in my earlier post is adopted, I think we would have far less of this. (I dare to dream.)

Posted by: ChandraShekharBalachandran | March 1, 2009 7:22 AM
Report Offensive Comment

"In half a verse I shall tell you what is said in millions of scriptures
That which is unwholesome to yourself, do not do unto others."

What need to deal with "variously interpreted as" and all that in any religious text? It is so simple.

The more interpretation needed, the more powerful the interpreter (read the priestly class), the more obfuscation.

Why can't people take that simple approach? Priestly classes of any kind (imams, etc.) become irrelevant if this common sense approach is taken.

The situation we find is directly a result of people wanting some other source to tell them how to organize the minutiae of their lives. "Should I wear jeans?", "Is use of lipstick allowed?", ... Why???

One's goodness is not in one's externalities, but in one's heart; what that heart harbors and the actions that it engenders/instigates.

When an individual reaches that stage, life is simplified and we have time to live a good life instead of wasting time seeking justifications in some book written by someone long ago.

All this hand-wringing and bemoaning the misinterpretation and begging for "proper" understanding... waste of time.

Back to the Fundamental of "do unto others...". THAT is the fundamentalism we need. Not what obtains today.

Posted by: ChandraShekharBalachandran | March 1, 2009 7:09 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Ms. Taylor is intellectually dishonest. The Qur'an blesses not just polygamy, but child marriage and wife-beating (sorry, 4:34 frankly endorses it). And what about "Women are your fields, enter your fields whichever way you please" (2:223)? Oh, and Ms. Taylor, lose that silly head scarf: veiling, complete or partial, is a sign of male ownership and patriarchal fear of female sexuality.

Posted by: peterheinegg | March 1, 2009 7:08 AM
Report Offensive Comment

What a beautifully written article, even though it is about such a terrible subject. The explanations of verses and their interpretations are extremely enlightening. I hope that people will think seriously about the topic and reconsider their views.

Posted by: JellyJ | March 1, 2009 6:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Nice try, author, but I do believe you've missed the important point: the Koran, Bible and other religious documents were penned a long time ago and under completely different circumstances. All of them should be understood and examined thru the prism of their own times, and the basic fundamental guidance adopted to our own.

Clearly, as written, and as still interpreted by many in the Muslim community, the Koran authorizes chastisement, and abuse, and "correction" up to and including beheading of the wives by the husbands.

On the other hand, just what, exactly, would happen in a religious court in Saudi Arabia, where one of the purer forms of Islam is practiced, were positions reversed, and the woman spoke up to the husband for some transgression? I doubt she'd be applauded for "upholding the Koran."

These documents were penned by 14th century and earlier nomadic tribesmen in societies far different from our own. To continue to imagine that they are applicable as writtne--in a way to give one part of the society power and control which it no longer deserves, earns, or merits--over another which has progressed, represents nothing more than a continuation of slavery, under another name.

Posted by: Va_Lady2008 | March 1, 2009 6:33 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Last month a Christian man in California shot and killed his wife and all of his children in the house. The reason given was the loss of job.This act should not be connected to the Christian religion.
Now would you suggest that a different explaination of bible in required ?

Posted by: SPARK1 | March 1, 2009 6:08 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Domestic voilence can happen in any society. Those societies where learning, education and awareness of social issues are neglected have the highest rate of such killings. Things like honor killings are prevalent in people with little or no education. The social environment and culture around that place do play the role but not the religion.Rather many such persons are non-religious. The drug abusers and alcholics are mostly non-religious and domestic voilence in prevalent in such homes.
No religion allows beheading a wife, including Islam.

Posted by: SPARK1 | March 1, 2009 5:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Ms Taylor wrote: "It should be acknowledged that none of these imams or scholars are advocating domestic violence as we think of it -- a man hitting his wife in rage, hurling abuse verbally and physically at her. Rather they are predicating a calm scenario, one in which the man first admonishes his wife about her lapses, then spends a few nights away from her bed, then finally resorts to a calm, reasoned, and limited physical punishment."

Is this supposed to be okay somehow? A "calm, reasoned, and limited physical punishment" is still a punishment and still abuse. The idea that a husband has the right to punish his wife, rather than the severity of the punishment, is the real problem.

Posted by: tdonova2 | March 1, 2009 5:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Islam is a gutter 'religion' that glorifies violence and subjugates women.

Posted by: tjhall1 | March 1, 2009 4:40 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I find it interesting and sad that forward thinking people such as the author still try to find answers to present day questions in a book that was written more than 1300 yrs ago and dealt with the society and culture of those times. Same goes for the Bible, Old testament, Bhagvath gita, Vedas, etc. Why do we have to find the verse and interpretation to corroborate our answers in those texts? Dont you think we as humans are much smarter now, more progressive and the cultures much more integrated with each other so that we can step out of the shackles of those outdated advices and make decisions which are logical and practical for our present day situations? I say, use them as references if you wish but base your answers on the current facts and situation and conclude accordingly.
Once you do that, its simple to argue that in our modern times in a marriage one does not own the other..be it the man or the woman. Both are free people wishing to live, share and procreate for their own well being and society's. Hitting or punishing each other does not come into the picture whatever way you try to position it.
Enough said... its time we look at religion and religious text for what they are, that is a set of rules set in mythological stories to keep ancient society in line and most of which has no place in these times.

Posted by: nanda_ramesh | March 1, 2009 3:20 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I'll have to agree with Dolph. Islam is a totalitarian religion - your headscarf, Pamela, that you of course think you are wearing gladly and voluntarily, is a symbol of exactly that. It's a religion that preaches absolute obedience, and like any other totalitarian movement, it lacks profound humanity.

Posted by: asoders22 | March 1, 2009 2:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Yeah, yeah, sure. Domestic violence is against the teachings of the Koran. Terrorism is against the teachings of the Koran. There are lots of non-violent folks in the Islamic world. Right. But degredation of and violence against women is common and the world's terrorists are now pretty much all Islamic. Time to clean your house if you want the world to see Islam is anything but a religion stuck in the 7th century that abuses women and kills randomly in support of an ignorant fealty to superstition. Sorry, can't work up any tolerance here. If American Muslims want respect in America they need to earn it by standing up and not by trying to recite reasons for all the violence or excuses for the abuse of women, including so-called honor killings and mutilation of girls. I just don't see much of that; I see attempts to pretend it isn't "really" a part of Islam, when in fact it appears to be right at the core.

Posted by: dolph924 | March 1, 2009 1:50 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Religion is never the cause of violence - it's the excuse. Men have always found, and will always find, excuses for violence. if it isn't religion, it's the "honor", or booze, or lack of female obedience, or something else. Anything goes.

But religion makes it more difficult to tackle the problem, since religion is man-made - and I mean that literally - to cater to MEN. Imams asking what the women have done to make their spouses (or brothers, or fathers) violent are cowards and idiots - sorry, but that is the truth.

There is no excuses for violence and threats. Too many women and children live in an atmosphere of fear and intimidation, and they don't get enough help.

Put the violent men in prison at the first strike or first threat! Show them there is no acceptance of their behavior - none what so ever. Send them to prison with mandatory counseling for a year at least. And grant the wife immediate divorce.

Posted by: asoders22 | March 1, 2009 1:09 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Very nice column ignores that Islam has addressed violence against women. That is a problem which romanticism and religious cant will never change.

Posted by: maxiceska | March 1, 2009 12:57 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Dear, I strongly suspect that moral adherents of Islam would be far, far better off without you as an advocate. Perhaps, you could take a brief vacation with that fool, Stevens-Arroyo, a Hack Colleague of yours, go on a Hacks-Only Interfaith Retreat, and drop us a line or two every other decade, what say?

Posted by: ivri5768 | February 28, 2009 5:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Miss Taylor,

You are taking one step ahead and two steps backwards. At least you recognize that there are problematic verses in the koran and also mention that concrete and significant action against abusers should be taken. That’s a lot more than what muslim organizations are doing.

However, you then go back to the typical slave mindset by stating that:
“..even those who advocate a man's unilateral right to physically punish his wife do not envision domestic violence, but a reasoned, calm, and limited response to severe provocation.”
“It should be acknowledged that none of these imams or scholars are advocating domestic violence as we think of it -- a man hitting his wife in rage, hurling abuse verbally and physically at her. Rather they are predicating a calm scenario, one in which the man first admonishes his wife about her lapses, then spends a few nights away from her bed, then finally resorts to a calm, reasoned, and limited physical punishment.
Limited response to severe provocation??? Predicating a calm scenario??? Limited physical punishment???

You cannot say this and hope to address the problem of islam and domestic violence or wonder about patriarchal interpretation.
If it isn’t clear that NO PHYSICAL PUNISHMENT whatsoever is appropriate in Western society then there is no hope for islam to adapt to Western society.

Does the beheading have anything to do with religion? The beheading itself, in this case, is the link to islam.

I wonder why muslims leaders are so slow at grasping their own reality. Simple observation of the muslim world is all that is needed to see that men think they are superior to women. Muslim leaders know it, they just do not speak about it. They think it’s right because their god said so, and that’s they way it will stay for them.

And then come other problems, why adapt to a decadent country that does not share islamic belief? Why come to such a country? Is it just coincidence that throughout the Western world muslims keep all their customs and do not easily integrate to their community? What is their fear?

Posted by: Bios | February 28, 2009 3:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I should be clear that I think all forms of religion is just a short cut around rational thought.
That said, at one time it seems that most religions were religions of violence. Christianity certainly was (Crusades, pogroms, etc.). Judaism was, and still is (see Israel). But, as of right now, the religion of stupidity and violence is most certainly Islam. That doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of rational, non-violent Muslims out there, but the "true believers" are some pretty violent people.

Posted by: billy8 | February 28, 2009 12:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment

600 million Muslim women with the exception of a lucky few like the PM of Bangladesh (the female PM of Pakistan was not so lucky) suffer 24/7 under the heels of 400 million Muslim men. This is all done via the guidance of the "worst book ever written" aka the koran. Said book was generated by the hallucinations of one long dead Arab who supposedly got his instructions from a "pretty, wingie, talking, flying, fictional thingie" named Gabriel. It all makes one scream out "THE SIGNIFICANT STUPIDITY OF IT ALL!!!!

And a Muslim male with four wives, is he not guilty of raping the last three i.e. polygamy is simply legalized rape??? spousal abuse??

Posted by: CCNL | February 28, 2009 9:04 AM
Report Offensive Comment

From William E. Elliots article:

1.....This week's "On Faith" questions hit me with a flurry of questions:
1.1.....Have any non-American Muslim leaders condemned the beheading?
1.2....."Quick" after the beheading, could anybody know whether, in the murderer's mind, religion had anything to do with his crime?
1.3.....Since beheading is a solid Muslim tradition & contemporary practice, how could any Muslim leader say that a particular beheading by a Muslim had "nothing to do with religion"?
1.4.....Since the beheader was religious, and of a religion that practices beheading, how - in light of this event - could anyone ask whether there is "a connection between religion and domestic violence"?

Posted by: US-conscience | February 28, 2009 7:38 AM
Report Offensive Comment

http://www.lemondrop.com/2009/02/10/8-year-old-married-off-to-47-year-old-man/

What more is there to say?

Posted by: tbarksdl | February 28, 2009 5:58 AM
Report Offensive Comment

And a Muslim male with four wives, is he not guilty of raping the last three i.e. polygamy is simply legalized rape??? spousal abuse??

Posted by: CCNL | February 28, 2009 5:35 AM
Report Offensive Comment

And a Muslim male with four wives, is he not guilty of raping the last three i.e. polygamy is simply legalized rape??? spousal abuse??

Posted by: CCNL | February 28, 2009 5:27 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Civilized World :)

TIME magazine has published a revealing report entitled, "When the Date Turns to Rape":

Susan, now 22 and a college senior, was raped almost 3 years ago on a first date. She met the man in a cafeteria at summer school and went to his dorm that evening to watch television news and get acquainted. After 45 minutes of chit chat about national affairs, he began pawing and kissing her, ignoring her please to stop. "YOU REALLY DON'T WANT ME TO STOP," he said, and forced her to have sex. TIME, March 23rd, 1987

TIME's report shows how common 'date-rape' has become. "Date rape," according to some researchers, is a major social problem so far studied mostly through surveys of college students. In a three-year study of 6,200 males and female students on 32 campuses, Kentucky State psychologist Mary Koss found that 15% of all women reported experiences that met legal definitions of forcible rape. More than half those cases were date rapes.

Andrea Parrot, a lecturer at Cornell University, estimates that 20% of college women at two campuses she surveyed had been forced into sex during their college years or before, and most of these incidents were date rapes. The number of forcible rapes reported each year - 87, 240 in 1985 - is believed to be about half the total actually committed.

Says Koss: "You're alot more likely to be raped by a date than by a stranger jumping out of the bushes."

Some feminists argue that the U.S. has a "rape culture" in which males are encouraged to treat women aggressively and women are trained to submit. (TIME, March 23rd, 1987, pg. 35)

Posted by: silentvoices786 | February 28, 2009 3:28 AM
Report Offensive Comment

· Results of a questionnaire that was done on six thousand American families showed that 50% of the men continuously abuse their wives and children physically.

· Children who were subjected to physical abuse by their fathers usually grow up to be violent people with their wives and abusive of them three times more than other men who did not experience abuse from their fathers in childhood. Additionally, children whose fathers were very harsh and abusive are one thousand times more likely to be abusive to their wives.

· More than three million kids are endangered by parents’ abuse per year.

· One million women per year suffer being the victim of abuse by a family member that does not reach the extent of death; this statistic is one of the most moderate ones.

· Four million American women a year experience life threatening abuse by their boyfriends. Moreover, one out of every three grown up women face physical abuse by their boyfriends at least once.

· In 1993 five hundred and fifty seven men were arrested for their abuse to women.

· In 1994, 21% of physical abuse cases against women were done relatives, while only 4% of the attack cases against men were done by female relatives.

· 90-95% of the victims of domestic violence were women.

· Children who live in homes were the husband and wife attack one another are subject to physical abuse fifteen hundred times more than other children.

· 40-60% of the men who ill-treat their wives physically abuse their children.

· In one of the studies done, 27% of the murder cases inside the same family were children.

· 90% of children who get killed before the age of ten were killed as a result of a family dispute, and 56% of them were younger than two years of age.

· In 1994, two hundred and forty three thousand of those who received medical care in the “Emergency Room” were treated for injuries resulting from physical abuse done by a relative, and the ratio of men to women in this number was 1:9.

· There are at least four million reports of violence against women yearly, and around 20% of them happened in the house.

· In 1991, more than ninety women were killed weekly; nine out of every ten were killed by a man.

· In around 30% of the family violence cases weapons were used.

· 95% of family violence cases were attacks by men on women.

Regards

Posted by: silentvoices786 | February 28, 2009 3:23 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I am sorry, Ms. Taylor, but you really missed the mark here. I don't care what kind of Islamic code a woman or child breaks, physical punishment by the husband/father is always reprehensible whether it's done in a calm state of mind or not.

Muslims need to come out of their medieval mindset and come into the 21st century.

Posted by: Gaby1 | February 27, 2009 7:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Ms. Taylor pontificates thus:

"to establish egalitarian families and societies, we will have to prefer hadith which establish the equality of all humankind and which show the Prophet living as a partner to his wives not a lord or boss over other hadith which subjugate women to men"

The Muslim Sunna, which includes the Hadith , the alleged sayings of the Muslim prophet, Quran, the supposedly literal commands of Allah and Seera, the history of the prophet; they are all infected with inconsistencies and outright contradictions, as admitted above by Ms Taylor. It has something for everybody; like a supermarket with food to please everyone. Each can pick what suits his taste. Some Muslims who call themselves "Quranics", have dismissed all components of Sunna except the Quran. The catastrophe is that the Quran too has more contradictions than you could shake a stick at. One verse , for example, states “there is no compulsion in religion"’ and the next states ”Fight those who do not believe in Allah and his Prophet….” meaning Mohammad.

Posted by: abhab | February 27, 2009 6:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Sorry, I meant "14 century-old"

Posted by: WmarkW | February 26, 2009 5:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Ms. Taylor jumps through a lot of hoops to re-interpret 14th century writing in a 21st century way.

If we just accept that it's a chronicle of the doings, sayings and preferences of a medieval cheiftan who often claimed to have revelations that worked to his benefit, and did not drop from the sky written by Allah, that whole issue goes away.

Posted by: WmarkW | February 26, 2009 5:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment

ISLAM, WOMEN AND GENDER JUSTICE
http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~rtavakol/engineer/genderj.htm

Posted by: avp_65 | February 25, 2009 7:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"Indeed, the overwhelmingly accepted interpretation of verse 4:34 posits men as being in charge of women to the extent that they become father figures, with the unilateral right to correct their wives as though those wives were children."

________________________________________

That is all that needs to be said. The common interpretation of the Koran sanctions domestic violence and sets its adherents on a slippery slope to atrocity. I wish it wasn't so but it is what it is.

Posted by: edbyronadams | February 25, 2009 3:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment

In Memory of Aasiya Hassan:

Posted by: CCNL | February 25, 2009 3:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Pamela K. Taylor

Posts By Category

Posts By Date

Aasiya Zubair Hassan, Domestic Violence and Islam

Comments

Post a Comment