Another example of the mistreatment of women that the Sharia mandates. From The Telegraph, with thanks to jonascot:
Mahadad was resting on a cushion in her sitting room, with a thick bandage covering the burns on her legs. "I'm never going back," she said. "Look at my leg. How can I go back? In my heart, I never want to go again." Mahadad, 38, is one of the 12 survivors of last week's bomb attack by Taliban on a bus that was carrying women election workers and a child near Jalalabad in eastern Afghanistan. Two of the women and the child were killed in the explosion.They had been on their way to a registration site to hand out identification cards to women which would allow them to vote in the coming autumn elections. Despite the Taliban claiming responsibility, questions are still being asked about how such an atrocity could have happened.
Mahadad, who did not want her last name to be published, fell silent when asked about her attackers. She shook her head. Then, after a few minutes, she stood up. It was a cue to leave.
"It is very sad," Fahima Mojadeddi, the only female member of the shura, the province's tribal council, later said. "Mahadad used to be very active and outspoken on behalf of women. She could debate endlessly. Now she's too scared to talk."
As the United Nations tries to organise the registration of up to nine million voters, the number of women coming forward is limited. So far, of the 4.5 million registered, only 36 per cent are female. That figure has increased from 15 per cent from a few months ago but women are still made nervous by the extreme attitudes of men.
Those attitudes are formed and informed by Sharia provisions.
Feel irritated by what seems to be a deliberate media cover up, notice BBC in particular didn't report 14yr girl who was savagely mutilated by Muslim extremists, not a word about International Day Against Stoning either. Someone influential should be challenging BBC as its items are getting as biased and selective as those on Al Jazeera.Without these atrocities being reported,without full media exposure, situation is unlikely to change in Afghanistan or anywhere else.
The BBC will not change until John Simpson is removed, until the government looks into the charges made by, inter alia, Trevor Asserson and those who have compiled documents -- some on-line -- about BBC coverage, and until the complaints of many, such as Vladimir Bukovsky (a famous dissident in Soviet times, and now a biologist) begin to get a hearing.
A full inquiry would study the language employed by the BBC announcers. If, for example, they consistently avoid the word "terrorist" and take up words such as "resistance" for those bombing on behalf of reaction in Iraq, if they persist in calling disputed territories, to which Israel has a very considerable legal and historic claim, "occupied Arab lands" (oh, so that's what they are, is it? In that case we can just all just pack up and go home, can't we?), instead of "disputed territories" -- as they do for Kashmir, or even for Sakhalin at times; if the speakers (Judy Swallow, Lyse Doucet, Robin Lustig, each more unpleasant in voice and manner than the rest -- at the very least, what happened to all those wonderful voices that used to be heard on the BBC? Did they all disappear? Or is it no longer permissible to hire those with a hint of cultivation, including well-modulated voices? Really, it is having a disastrous effect on the young).
For more on John Simpson,head of the BBC World Service (and a real hater of the U.S., as his recent book on "his" Iraq War shows on every sneering page) do google "John Simpson" and "Peter Hounam" -- his great and good friend, with one obsession -- Israel's unconscionable nuclear program -- that is, when he is not obsessing about deep conspiracies involving Israel -- just look at Hounam's preposterous, practically Aryan-Nation-style book, "Operation Cyanide." Oh, I almost forgot -that book has an introduction by one John Simpson.
But for gods sake why what have the bbc to gain by covering up such important events and such stomach churning attrocites.What have they to gain by,seemingly, protecting, siding up with and white washing such an obviously vile and despicable enemy.
Why are cowardly muslim men so afraid of women??
Hugh,
Jeremy Paxman is said to often give the liberals a hard time and fire challenging questions at politicians opposing the war in Iraq.Tim Sebastian who presents Hard Talk at 4:30am every morning is also one to watch although he is forced to sit on the fence much of the time, and argue both sides. There's a guy who writes a political column in the Sun newspaper as well I can't think of his name right now but I'll find out. Now this guy could easily be a reporter for Jihad Watch.
USAgirl,
They're not afraid of them they simply have no respect for them whatsoever, they just see them as inferior beings who should not have any rights. If it was left to me thats exactly how I'd have all muslim men treated as they don't deserve anymore respect than would a hornet buzzing around a childrens birthday party. The fact that they treat women this way just proves what a shallow, arrogant, chauvenistic bunch of nobodies they really are, and also proves how far behind the rest of the world they are.Maybe when they come out of the dark ages they'll be took a little more seriously, as it stands now , all they are to me are god-fearing insects who have been made dangerous by being given modern weapons, like a child with a box of matches. Pathetic creatures indeed.
Wow, Bush sure has done a good job in Afghanistan, hasn't he? Next thing you know, the jihadis will welcome back the Buddhists they expelled 1,000 years ago.
Sounds like the Promise Keepers have some allies in Afghanistan.
USAgirl,
The mohammedan men fear us
because we are life,
we are sex,
read their texts,
the koran, the hadiths
by bukari, the life of mo . . .
These are tribal men
who believe
women are so dangerous
that they must be denigrated,
their bodies covered
because the animal men
can't control themselves,
these men fear not sex
but making love,
for love is not a name
for their god.
These men do not revere women
as mothers and companions,
they revere death,
and a false prophet
who called evil
the greatest good . . .
These men are not free
to go to the sublime heights
with their lovers or wives
for they are the slaves
of their pitiful war god.
Sounds like the Promise Keepers have some allies in Afghanistan.
Posted by: kj [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 14, 2004 03:09 PM
I see. The people promoting the "turn the other cheek" philosophy are really the same as the folks preaching "slay them where you find them." In that case, you'd better watch your car for car bombs from those radical Christian terrorists. I know I have to keep cleaning off all the Bible verse graffitti in my neighborhood. And all those Christian gangs raping women -- when is it ever going to stop?
What a liberal fantasia. Blech.
~NMJ
Could someone check Kj's ISP and find out if it is coming from the same place as Reza's? Because the Rant is starting to look just like hers.
I dunno...I think they are afraid. Muslim men are the most cowardly bunch going. They obvioulsy lack any kind of self control therefore putting the responsibility on women to cover up so they arent tempted. They attack non muslim women in other countries (wonder why this doesnt happen in the US...probably because an American woman would kick his ass) I would never back down to one of them, not ever. How I wish muslim women could be educated about standing up for themselves and have a bit of self esteem...but I guess there is none of that in islam. Perhaps the fact that mohammad was a rich womans bitch made him make sure that women would always be kept down (all the while making them THINK they were being respected) and thats obviously the worry of muslim men that if western values become intigrated that their women might want some freedoms, then they would be exposed for the impotent, unimportant, uneducated, sissys that they really are.