The advancement of human rights in Islamic countries is perennially blocked by Sharia. It's promoters argue that, sure, it allows for human rights, but all the "rights" one is allowed -- supposedly by divine fiat -- are spelled out in Sharia. Stories like this show the obvious limitations on Sharia's respect for human rights by modern standards, and should serve as a cautionary tale for the West. "Amman accused by Islamists of "destroying the family," from Ennehar Online, August 22:
AMMAN- The Jordanian authorities are facing a hardening of the Islamists, who accuse them of having seriously damaged the families of the country in recognizing new rights to women, including freedom of movement.
To these Islamists, a wife is at home instead, with her husband or his family members, and any attempt to change this situation constitutes a flagrant violation of family values.
The government decision approved by King Abdullah II, to lift its reservations on paragraph 4 of Article 15 of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, has had therefore the effect of a thunderclap.
This paragraph, taken from a text signed by Jordan in 1980 and ratified in 1992, stipulates that "States Parties shall accord to men and women the same rights with regard to legislation on the right of movement and the freedom to choose their residence and domicile".
By removing its reservations on this point, "the government has violated the constitution and the country's religion, Islam. It should be fired", denounced to the AFP Chief of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hammam Said.
"Giving a woman the right to leave the domicile of her husband and move where she wants, will destroy their families," he tried.
The Board of fatwas of Jordan, an authority that issues religious rulings, has also expressed its disapproval.
"Anything that contradicts the Sharia in the Convention (UN) is prohibited. A woman should not live and work as she wants because this would eliminate the sense of the word family, according to the Sharia," he said in a statement....
Islam is tolerant . . . except when it is not, which is most all the time.
Islam is progressive . . . except when it is not, which is most all the time.
Islam respects women . . . except when it does not, which is most all the time.
When will we all learn that the same words coming from Islam mean almost the opposite of what we have been taught that they mean?
Trying to get along with Islam in western society is like trying to be friends with a group of full grown komodo dragons: eventually you WILL be eaten.
Well, it's about time the lawmakers in the wonderful, islamic state of Jordan got off their duffs and changed this regressive, repressive law!
Can't have the women running around getting all uppity and stuff. Nope, these "poor things" need the constant attention and guidance of the men-folk. You know: At home, barefoot and pregnant. Nothing but the best for allah's slaves.
/sarc
They MUST oppose the UN regarding rights or else Islam would collapse.
Imagine what would happen if:
a. Muslim women could marry non-Muslims
b. Muslims could leave Islam without fear of death
1948 - Universal Declaration of Human Rights
1962 - Convention on Consent to Marriage and Minimum Age for Marriage and Registration of Marriages
1967 Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women
1981 - General Assembly adopted Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion and Belief
The above once again are meaningless to Muslims.
Islam is a wonderful religion. Its founder, the well-known, self-appointed prophet was the paragon of best behaviour. F'cking little children was his favourite pastime. Give me a break, please. I'm quoting our dear friend Alaskan, cheers to you.
Islam is a lie and the truth is killing it. Period.
""Giving a woman the right to leave the domicile of her husband and move where she wants, will destroy their families,"
He is talking about Muslim families...and yes it would...Women would leave not only the home , but they would leave Islam in the dust....and they would leave in a hurry...
Muslim women should leave Islam...it has nothing to offer them...
Off the point
What happened to all the posters, trolls etc? Seems like post-Intense Debate activity on the site has ebbed to a trickle.
Not that Intense debate was working well at the end, putting up weeks old postings.. but the move seems to have sapped the activity.
At the risk of becoming the subject of ridicule, I am beginning to think Intense Debate was better than type key.
I have seen Intense Debate work properly on other sites, was our system under hack attack? or did we need better site support from them?
Muslim women are too stupid to leave Islam. allah said so Tabari 1:280.
And remember, Jordan is an "moderate" Islamic state.
I do miss the taquiyya gang, but then, it's probably better for my blood pressure.
"What happened to all the posters, trolls etc? Seems like post-Intense Debate activity on the site has ebbed to a trickle.
"At the risk of becoming the subject of ridicule, I am beginning to think Intense Debate was better than type key."
Posted by: GrimReaperxxx
The nice thing about Intense Debate (when it was working) was that one could reply to a comment, and reply to a reply, directly. Of course, that was also what attracted the trolls: they could throw in some stupid remark, and then keep replying to each reply to it. Some postings would have 40 or 50 replies.
Islam is an anti-Constitutional, anti-Universal Declaration of Human Rights despotic movement to establish an violent, intolerant, misogynistic, global theocratic tyranny
To hell with that!
FOREVER.
"Islam is an anti-Constitutional, anti-Universal Declaration of Human Rights despotic movement to establish an violent, intolerant, misogynistic, global theocratic tyranny"
But brown people who wear cool ethnic clothes believe in it, so it must be OK, and of course, it must be "respected".
Tanstaafl - if you go back through the jihadwatch archives, all the way back to 2005 or 2006, you will find, preserved in their entirety, many a lengthy and heated exchange with assorted Mohammedtrolls, aka boggarts (who merely try to shock, frighten and annoy) and dementors (who try to confuse, demoralise and dismay). They come and go in waves.
The handy thing about IntDeb was that a Mohammedtroll might post something: but the replies were then all bunched together and could be thus skipped over, without having to be read, if one did not feel like entering the labyrinth. Here, one has to scroll on down past such exchanges.
dumbledoresarmy - I notice that all m-trolls follow the same pattern.
1) Denial - Where does it say that? Prove it, infidel.
2) Then after you cite the Koran text or aHadith, you get more denial - it does not really mean that and that is a weak sura or hadith
3) Red herrings - Did you know that the Bible lets Christians eat as many goldfish as they want?
4) Play the indignant victim - Who are you to say that!!!!?
5) Threaten you with heck - You're going to roast in a crock pot in hell!
6) Go away only to reappear lately with an equally insane comment.
The problem with Islam is the pesky Qur'an, aHadith and Sira. A muslim cannot deny any of the disgusting information in them, to do so is to become an apostate and we all know what that means.
Fortunately for Muslims, Islam allows Muslims to deceive infidels and Muslims if it advances Islam. "The end justifies the means" is a saying that the prophet would whole heartedly agree with.
Still, it takes just a little knowledge to lead anyone to the truth. I remember reading the Qur'an and saying to myself "The Qur'an is a loaded gun pointed at the head of every human being on the planet".
Rifqa Bary realized the truth about Islam, I hopeful that others will as well.
Jordan's Board of Fatwas: "Anything that contradicts the Sharia" in UN anti-discrimination convention is prohibited
...............
For anyone who has wondered how it is possible for Afghanistan--which was supposedly liberated by the enlightened West--to have passed a law that says a man *may starve his wife* if she is not sufficiently sexually submissive, this is the nub.
a number of Muslim countries--including Jordan, Afghanistan and Iraq--look relatively decent on paper. But all have that kiss of death caveat--they grant human rights--*unless it might contradict Shari'ah*.
I imagine few Westerners even understood what this meant--although they bloody well should have. It renders any constitution or body of laws entirely meaningless.
And the reference to "family values" makes me want to gag--as though this means the same thing in Islam that it does in the West. It's like referring to rabid proponents of Shari'ah as "conservatives"--as though honor-killing your uppity family members were a cornerstone of the Republican party, say.
Language is important. There are no human rights if they can be trumped by Shari'ah. Conservative Muslims and culturally conservative Westerners are not the same thing.
And restricting your Wife's (or wives') freedom of movement--or, God help us, access to food--doesn't exemplify anything we would recognize as "family values".