Saturday, January 22, 2011

New York Teens Take an Interest in Preventing Muslim Oppression of Women

Surely these girls must be racist, Islamophobic bigots. After all, they object to Islam's oppression of women, and the only "tolerant" thing to do when confronted with Islamic teachings is to submit.


Unknown said...

"Glass Houses". We all know the adage, "People who live in glass houses should not throw stones." When I hear someone say something to the effect that "muslims don't treat their women well," then it's time to say, "Oh, and Americans do?" Here are some statistics on spousal (or significant other) abuse, murder, and rape that men commit against their women partners, here in America, in the twenty-first century.


MURDER . Every day four women die in this country as a result of domestic violence, the euphemism for murders and assaults by husbands and boyfriends. That's approximately 1,400 women a year, according to the FBI. The number of women who have been murdered by their intimate partners is greater than the number of soldiers killed in the Vietnam War.

BATTERING . Although only 572,000 reports of assault by intimates are officially reported to federal officials each year, the most conservative estimates indicate two to four million women of all races and classes are battered each year. At least 170,000 of those violent incidents are serious enough to require hospitalization, emergency room care or a doctor's attention.

SEXUAL ASSAULT . Every year approximately 132,000 women report that they have been victims of rape or attempted rape, and more than half of them knew their attackers. It's estimated that two to six times that many women are raped, but do not report it. Every year 1.2 million women are forcibly raped by their current or former male partners, some more than once.

THE TARGETS . Women are 10 times more likely than men to be victimized by an intimate. Young women, women who are separated, divorced or single, low- income women and African-American women are disproportionately victims of assault and rape. Domestic violence rates are five times higher among families below poverty levels, and severe spouse abuse is twice as likely to be committed by unemployed men as by those working full time. Violent attacks on lesbians and gay men have become two to three times more common than they were prior to 1988.

IMPACT ON CHILDREN . Violent juvenile offenders are four times more likely to have grown up in homes where they saw violence. Children who have witnessed violence at home are also five times more likely to commit or suffer violence when they become adults.

IMPACT ON HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES . Women who are battered have more than twice the health care needs and costs than those who are never battered. Approximately 17 percent of pregnant women report having been battered, and the results include miscarriages, stillbirths and a two to four times greater likelihood of bearing a low birth weight baby. Abused women are disproportionately represented among the homeless and suicide victims. Victims of domestic violence are being denied insurance in some states because they are considered to have a "pre-existing condition."

So please save us the crap about islam ordering the violence against women: it is only in your sick (and other fellow american) minds.

Juniper in the Desert said...

Thank you for this, I have shared it. However, just one look at the woman who was beheaded by her husband, told me she was being abused: her face was full of fear and bruises. Could this lawyer woman not have done anything before hand?

David Wood said...

Apparently Ahmed doesn't understand a basic point we make repeatedly on this blog. Yes, many men abuse women. Yes, spousal abuse is common in many cultures. But only Islam puts God's stamp of approval on oppression of women and violence against them.

So we're not living in glass houses. Americans do not approve of violence against women. Islam does. So your attempt to sidestep the issue and silence criticism of abuse fails.

Unknown said...


This is why I have shared the statistics. Lets say 100000 muslims abuse their wives. That leaves more than a billion who do not do that, really following our prophet's teaching (as they are the majority, obviously!!).

Americans do not encourage violence and so does Islam, Christianity and Jhudism. It is not a problem with religions; it is a problem of the male ego which mkes men think they are more superior.

characterbuilder said...


Do you have an answer to David's claim that Islam approves of the abuse of women?

Is he correct?

Is he misrepresenting the teachings of the Koran?

Is he lying?

We are all waiting for your answer!

David Wood said...


If most Muslims do not beat their wives (which is doubtful, given statistics from the Muslim world), it means that most Muslim women aren't upsetting their husbands, or that many Muslim men ignore the Qur'anic command to beat rebellious wives.

You say: "It is not a problem with religions; it is a problem of the male ego which mkes men think they are more superior."

Well, it certainly can be a problem of the male ego. But in Islam, it is a religious problem as well. Where do Muslims get the idea that men are superior to women? The Qur'an declares it!

Qur'an 4:34--"Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great."

So men are in charge of women, according to the Qur'an. Why? Because Allah made men superior, according to the Qur'an. What if women don't accept their position? Then men should beat them, according to the Qur'an.

Do you really not see a connection between Islam and the abuse of women? If you choose to ignore what the Qur'an says, I'm happy for you. But the fact that you ignore what the Qur'an says doesn't mean that all other Muslims ignore what the Qur'an says.

Negeen Mayel said...

The little girl in the beginning of the video is Afghani not Iranian. -I just had to clarify that.

Anonymous said...

"Glass Houses"

Pretty vague statistics especially since you have no idea how much of those statistics are from what culture. They could all be committed by muslims as far as you know.

muslims, as a family, celebrate the abuse since the woman deserves it. Normal societies ostracized spousal abusers.

armand said...

nice to see a new, improved and dramatic change to the overall design of the site, david

abel said...

David & co.,congs upon the new everall design of the site.Best wishes & lots of success in 2011.

Christie said...

Do Americans hurt their wives, yes sometimes, but this is the difference. If my husband comes home and beats me for whatever reason (maybe I did not make the dinner to his liking) I call the police and he is hauled away. It is called a crime and he is sent to jail and I am brought to the hospital and my wounds are treated. If that happens in an Islamic country and I call the police, if they even come, I would then be berated for not making the dinner right and my husband would beat me again.

It the difference between a crime in one country and an accepted practice in another.

minoria said...

Nice new look.Antoine Martin has begun a new blog in English called

Just like Ali Sina who has a new blog called

The great thing about a blog is that the info stays there forever,it is a reference source.I can not wait for the Spencer-Zayed debate on 28 Jan at 8pm

Unknown said...

"Beat them". Only when separation fails to work, then it is suggested that men use beating. To this suggestion of the Holy Qur'an there have been two extreme reactions on the part of some Muslims. The first reaction is being apologetic or ashamed of the suggestion. The second is to use it as a justification for indulging in habitual wife battering. Needless to say that both these reactions are wrong. The Quran as we believe is the word of God and is thus every word in it is full of wisdom and love. To be apologetic about any part of the Quran is to lack both knowledge and faith. As for the second response, the suggestion to use beating is made specifically to deal with nushuz on the part of the wife, that is, to deal with her deliberately nasty behaviour that poses a threat to the marriage. Beating is to be done after due admonition and separation in beds and therefore by husbands who have some moral standards and have sufficient control over their sexual passions. Moreover, this beating is not to go on and on but is to be tried as a last step to save the marriage. Once it is clear that it is not working it is to be abandoned in favour of some other steps involving relatives of the husband and the wife mentioned in the next verse (4:35). There is therefore, absolutely no license here for the type of regular and continual wife beating that goes on in some homes, where each time the husband is angry with his wife or with someone else he turns against her and beats her up. In most such cases, the husband has no moral superiority over the wife: the only rule of Shariah that he cares about is this suggestion about beating. He also does not have the kind of control over his sexual passions needed to separate the wife in bed and often beats her the day before or the day after making love to her, an action specifically condemned by the Prophet.

In regard to the suggestion about beating, the following further points should also be noted:

a) According to some traditions the Prophet said in his famous and well-attended speech on the occasion of his farewell pilgrimage that the beating done according to the present verse should be ghayr mubarrih, i.e. in such a way that it should not cause injury, bruise or serious hurt. On this basis some scholars like Tabari and Razi say even that it should be largely symbolic and should be administered "with a folded scarf" or "with a miswak or some such thing". In other words, it should neither seriously hurt the wife nor reduce it to a set of meaningless motions devoid of emotions.

b) The wife has no religious obligation to take the beating. She can ask for and get divorce any time. The suggestion applies only in the case when the husband is seriously disturbed by a prolonged nasty behaviour on the part of the wife but neither he nor the wife is as yet seriously thinking of breaking up.

c) If the husband beats a wife without respecting the limits set down by the Quran and Hadith, then she can take him to court and if ruled in favor has the right to apply the law of retaliation and beat the husband as he beat her.

Unknown said...


I have copied the previous reply from a website,, which you can visit to become more "enlightened".


Sources are :
"Violence Against Women: A National Crime Victimization Survey Report", U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., January 1994.

"The National Women's Study," Crime Victims Research and Treatment Center, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, 1992.

"Five Issues In American Health," American Medical Association, Chicago, 1991.

Bullock, Linda F. and Judith McFarlane, "The Birth Weight/Battering Connection," Journal of American Nursing, September 1989.

McFarlane, Judith, et. al., "Assessing for Abuse During Pregnancy," Journal of the American Medical Association, June 17, 1992.

Federal Bureau of Investigation statistics, 1992.

Sheehan, Myra A. "An Interstate Compact on Domestic Violence: What are the Advantages?" Juvenile and Family Justice Today, 1993.

Sherman, Lawrence W. et al. Domestic Violence: Experiments and Dilemmas, 1990.


Please read the last section of my previous reply, it is for you. And by the way, where do you think we are living, where the police does not stop a man for hurting his wife and where doctors do not treat battered women!!???!! If that was the case, and all domestic violence cases were hushed, how would you ever hear about them??

In addition, divorce is always an option for such ladies; it is legal for us by Shria (unlike Christians, who decieve themselves into divorce by "law", ignoring their religion). So why would I take the beating as a woman when I can go to court and get a divorce easily?

Zack_Tiang said...

I look forward to see this 'debate' unfold with Ahmed... It's been a long while since a Muslim challenge the commenters and blog here... =)

Anthony Rogers said...


The copy and paste job is singularly unimpressive. The article attempts to draw distinctions that would be uninteresting even if they were true. The idea that wife-beating is something Muslims believe and engage in "unapologetically" and "as a last step", as opposed to other cases of battery against a wife where it is done, apparently, "apologetically" and "habitually", strikes me as much ado about nothing. The end result is the same: the wife is beaten.

But the fact is Muslims do attempt to give an "apologetic" for the Quranic teaching on wife beating (as well as for the act after they do the dirty deed). Case in point: the article you copied and pasted above. It is also not something done as a last step, all other means being exhausted. You yourself mentioned further steps afterwards (parents, divorce), so it would seem that it is one of the earlier, "less extreme" steps according to Islam. To say the least, that is hardly a consolation, especially to the wife.

The idea that separating from the wife and witholding sex from her shows some kind of moral restraint and superiority on the part of a husband who will eventually beat her if she doesn't get in line - a husband who, according to the Qur'an, has other wives in the meantime as a tilth - is not only to try to give an apologetic, it is to give one that isn't very good.

Finally, the idea that "beating" one's wife is more than a symbolic gesture but it is not to amount to a "seriously disturbed" husband actually doing anything more than using a folded scarf or miswak to show his "emotions", strikes me as inconsistent not only with the trajectory of the verse that says this step comes after admonishing the wife, and then after banishing her to her couch, but also with other hadiths, such as those that report that Muhammad hurt and bruised Aisha as well as that other "believing" women were hurt and brusied by their husbands. I would post all the relevant hadith, but it would be too painful. I am sure you understand.

Unknown said...

No Mr. Rogers, I don't understand. It would be nice to see those hadiths, but just put them in COMPLETE, not only the part you want people to read, like Mr. Woods here. And for those, I am going to reply to you with double the number of hadiths regarding how you should treat your wife in Islam.

As for the beating part, I have completely clarified the issue, and the beating is intended for psychological trauma, not physical one, and any muslim who batters her wife is not following the teachings of our beloved prophet; unfortunately they are a lot (just like the millions of christians who don't go to church).

The question that I like to ask is this: Why do people always link muslim bad-doings to Islam and nonmuslim bad doings ot human illnature??? Why is it that when Hitler killed numerous Jews it was: Cause he is an asshole, while muslim suiciders are doing it for god. Why is George W Bush's (Who said Ameroca was going on a holy war) actions of killing and rendering millions of Iraqis homeless, rendered to him being insane and not to Christianity?? Please answer me, if you can.

hugh watt said...


Does the Koran not say a Muslim should "kill and be killed...for Allah?" Where does the Bible say such a thing regarding +ians?

Bush, Obama or anyone else for that matter, have no biblical mandate nor authority to do whatever they want to do. You may say this is the same with Islam, but your gonna be arguing against a lot of Islamic sources.

hugh watt said...

Oh, one other thing: When these Muslim homicide bombers kill and are killed, have you never watched or heard them say why and who they are doing it for?

Traeh said...

Percentage of honor killings done by Muslims

According to the article "Worldwide Trends in Honor Killings," published in the Middle East Forum, Muslims do 91 percent of honor killings worldwide and 96 percent of honor killings in Europe. If you click on the above link, those percentages can be found five paragraphs below the heading "Methodology."

Traeh said...


In core Islamic texts, Muhammad makes sacred a shame/honor culture of hypocrisy, in which the appearance of virtue is more important than virtue itself

For example in Sahih al-Bukhari, the most canonical hadith collection:

Volume 8, Book 73, Number 95:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

I heard Allah's Apostle saying. "All the sins of my followers will be forgiven except those of the Mujahirin (those who commit a sin openly or disclose their sins to the people). An example of such disclosure is that a person commits a sin at night and though Allah screens it from the public, then he [the sinner] comes in the morning, and says, 'O so-and-so, I did such-and-such (evil) deed yesterday,' though he spent his night screened by his Lord (none knowing about his sin) and in the morning he removes Allah's screen from himself."

As another commenter put it on another site, "With regard to 'sins' in the Islamic world, it seems to me that a sin is only a sin when someone finds out about it. This meshes seamlessly with the honour/shame dynamic."

On 1/17/2011, Robert Spencer, commenting on certain Islamic modes of behavior, referred to "...a culture of hypocrisy in which the appearance of virtue is far more important than virtue itself."

Think for a moment about the above canonical hadith, which says Allah will forgive all the sins of Muslims, if Muslims conceal their sins from each other. Does that not help explain the Islamic shame/honor culture, with its tendency to promiscuous lying to cover any flaw?

A justification sometimes given for the hadith quoted is that it stops the sinner from giving a bad example to others to follow. It prevents contagion.

I agree. The problem is the price Muhammad paid for that prevention of contagion: forgiveness of all sins provided only that you don't reveal them. This is barely distinguishable from saying that God permits you to do anything, so long as you can get away with it.

Was it not something like diabolical genius when Muhammad shrouded that absolutely immoral perspective -- anything you can get away with is forgiven -- behind an admonition to hide your sins so others won't copy them?

Obviously there are countervailing statements in the core Islamic texts. Many people by now have read Quran verses where we find that Allah knows what a person hides within. We read that Allah will punish those Muslims who only pretend to be Muslims. So that sort of hypocrisy, at least, will be punished and not forgiven.

But the tendency to value the appearance of virtue much more than the reality of virtue itself is one deeply rooted aspect of Islamic doctrine. It surely explains the shame/honor culture that causes Muslims to do over 90% of the honor killings worldwide.

There are other hadiths where Muhammad indicates a preference that his followers keep their sins to themselves, for example a hadith from Sunan abu Dawud, a canonical hadith collection:

Book 38, Number 4363:

Narrated Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-'As:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Forgive the infliction of prescribed penalties among yourselves, for any prescribed penalty of which I hear must be carried out.

Muhammad's giving of blanket permission slips for all sins, in exchange for shrouding them in darkness (as in the Bukhari hadith I quoted near the beginning of this comment), is a terrible exchange. Muhammad gave away a treasure (inner conscience) in exchange for an empty strong box (mere discretion). He thus achieves an outlandishly immoral result.

Traeh said...

Ahmed said:
The question that I like to ask is this: Why do people always link muslim bad-doings to Islam and nonmuslim bad doings ot human illnature???

The reason is not hard to find.

For example, when Christians do violence in order to spread Christianity, or to force Christianity on others, those "Christians" are going against the teachings of the central figure of the New Testament. By contrast, when Muslims do violence on behalf of Islam, they are imitating Muhammad's example in the core Islamic texts.

That's part of the answer to your "question." I put that in quotations, because I don't know if you are really open to the question you "asked."

Also, the work of Tina Magaard is relevant to your question. Tina Magaard is a linguist who got her Ph.D. in Intercultural Communication at the Sorbonne. She did a three-year study of the original texts of the ten largest religions. One of her findings was that the Islamic core texts are the most aggressive against other groups.

Unknown said...


- Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed

- They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman

- Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him

-Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death

That is quite odd for you. It should not. It is in the bible.

Exodus 22:19 NAB
2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB
Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT
Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT

It is easy to do this, cherrypicking (ask Mr. Woods; he is a master!!) verses without complete reading of the whole book. A lot of you guys are brainwashed into believing what is not true.

hugh watt said...



Does the Koran not say a Muslim should "kill and be killed...for Allah?"

You ignored this and posted Scripture that have nothing to do with my Q.

"Where does the Bible say such a thing regarding +ians?"

Context is important, Ahmed. My Q still stands.

"Bush, Obama or anyone else for that matter, have no biblical mandate nor authority to do whatever they want to do. You may say this is the same with Islam, but your gonna be arguing against a lot of Islamic sources."

So, argue against them, with sources. Why be silent about this?

"Oh, one other thing: When these Muslim homicide bombers kill and are killed, have you never watched or heard them say why and who they are doing it for?"


"It is easy to do this, cherrypicking (ask Mr. Woods; he is a master!!) verses without complete reading of the whole book."

You saying to understand wife- beating Islamic style, the whole Koran needs to be read?

"A lot of you guys are brainwashed into believing what is not true."

This is how Abu Bakr became Abu Wakr:

"Sahih Muslim #3506:

Jabir b. 'Abdullah reported: Abu Bakr came and sought permission to see Allah's Messenger. He found people sitting at his door and none amongst them had been granted permission, but it was granted to Abu Bakr and he went in. Then came 'Umar and he sought permission and it was granted to him, and he found Allah's Apostle sitting sad and silent with his wives around him. He (Hadrat 'Umar) said: I would say something which would make the Holy Prophet laugh, so he said: Messenger of Allah, I wish you had seen (the treatment meted out to) the daughter of Kharija when she asked me some money, and I got up and slapped her on her neck. Allah's Messenger laughed and said: They are around me as you see, asking for extra money. Abu Bakr then got up went to 'Aisha and slapped her on the neck, and 'Umar stood up before Hafsa and slapped her saying: You ask Allah's Messenger which he does not possess. They said: By Allah, we do not ask Allah's Messenger for anything he does not possess…."

hugh watt said...


Notice why these Muslims started slapping the females? Muhammad was looking sad, so to cheer him up the females were slapped! What does that say to you? Notice too how Muhammad responded to the slappings.

Kash-shaf of al-Zmakhshari, vol.1, p.525.

"On the authority of Muhammad, he said: "' Hang up your scourge in a place where your wife (or wives) can see it'. And this; " I ( Asmaa the daughter of Abu Bakr El Sedik), was the fourth wife (among four) of al-Zabayr Ibn al-Awwam. Whenever he became angry at one of us he struck us with a hook rod until it was broken."

How should I interpret this?

Traeh said...

You do not notice a key difference between the violence in the Old Testament and that in the core Islamic texts. That in the OT is presented descriptively by the Old Testament as something that happened in the past. The violence in the core texts of Islam is prescriptive and applies to all future times, against all non-Muslims who do not submit to the rule of Islamic law. There is no such prescription in the OT.

Traeh said...


Even if the violence in the OT were prescriptive not descriptive, there are only about 15 million Jews in the world, and they are not seeking to impose Judaic law on the globe. There are 100 times as many Muslims as Jews, and many Muslims are seeking to impose Islamic law on the globe. Because of their large numbers, they have some possibility of succeeding in part.

Traeh said...

Here's a very incomplete list of organizations or people self-censoring, hiring bodyguards, going into hiding, or taking other measures after receiving death threats from Muslims following the example of Muhammad, who said there would be no punishment for murdering someone who had insulted him.

Yale University Press; the Metropolitan Museum of Art; director of the museum in the Hague, Wim van Krimpen; the National Archives of Canada, 150 Austrian Coptic Christians; see also 100+ Canadian-Arab Christians; artist Molly Norris; the producers of South Park; journalist Lawrence O'Donnell; cartoonist Lars Vilks; philosopher Robert Redeker; filmmaker Theo Van Gogh; authors Hirsi Ali and Salman Rushdie; Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten; and again Jyllands Posten;

[continued in next post]

Traeh said...

[continued from above]

atheist Sabri Husibi; lyricist Javed Akhtar; cartoonist Kurt Westergaard; the director of the film 2012; the comedian Penn Jillette; the British potter Grayson Perry; lawyer Majed Moughni; author Taslima Nasreen; disc jockey/musician Jakub Rene Kosik; Coptic Orthodox priest Zakaria Botros, pop star Deeyah, politician Shiria Khatun, Christian minister Dr. Peter Hammond; actor Omar Sharif; artist Sooreh Hera; artist Sarah Maple; Beatle Paul McCartney; and Volvo and Ikea, and countless others.

The growth of Islam means the death of civil liberties. It's time to resist, limit, and contain Islam's political aspects in every legal way possible.

mikeyh428 said...

It should also be noted that the OT passages Ahmed quoted from concern part of the covenant that the Israelites made with God - that they would take no other gods before him. This covenant was confirmed by Joshua and the people again once the land of Palestine/Canaan was taken (a promise God fulfilled to Abraham/Isaac/Jacob). In that land idolatry would not be permitted by any Israelites nor their descendants because of their oath before God at Sinai. There is no mention of non-Israelites that may be living in the land. The covenant requirements were only upon the Israelites and only in the land that God had given to them.

Unknown said...

Ahmed, two words... Child brides... Does Aisha ring a bell?