Ladies, don't wear pants. Don't stick up for a woman who wears pants. Keep silent, and know your place. An update on this story. "40 held for backing trousers woman," from the UKPA, September 7 (thanks to James):
Sudanese police have detained 40 women protesting outside a courthouse in support of a female journalist on trial for wearing trousers in public.Lubna Hussein's trial was set to resume and she could receive 40 lashes and a fine if found guilty of violating Sudan's indecency law which follows a strict interpretation of Islam....
She has described the law as un-Islamic and oppressive to women....
Un-Islamic?
It takes a lot of balls for those women to openly protest in a Shariah-bound state like Sudan.
I'm waiting for the campus protests in the West to support them. It'll be a long wait...
Hussein thinks this indecency law is un-Islamic yet its creators and enforcers believe it to be Islamic.
Would she have accepted it if she believed it to be Islamic? She seems to be saying that she would.
So, what we have here is a problem of interpretation then?
Here she had a chance, on the world's stage, to protest a law which violates basic freedom and gender equality. Instead she can only mutter that it's un-Islamic.
This may be a defence mechanism for Hussein -- she can't really believe that Islam could do this to her; she's now the one caught in the net of non-compliance with Islamic rules, and so she protests the "Islamic" component instead of fighting tooth-and-nail for basic human freedom, including the separation of religion and state.
Marisol, this should be posted on the “Flying Jews transferring impurity…” thread, but I want my fellow-commenter to read it as it is important for me that others will not see me as a writer of “genocidal comments” as you have alleged. Placing it in its proper thread, which more or less has "expired", would substantially limit the number of possible readers of my reply.
These deletions resulted from a direct request from Robert. This has happened before on threads dealing with similar topics. He can speak for himself, but I can think of a couple reasons:
1. What is at issue is a supremacist ideology. The "Muslims are stinky" angle is childish and petty. Besides, no culture has a monopoly on sweat glands or body odor. For further reading, Taro Gomi has some enlightening titles.
2. We don't use the slur "Muzzies" here or any variation. It has been a long-standing policy to delete that word -- since before I joined the staff here. Hence some deletions above.
3. There was also one that hinted at removing Muslims from the face of the earth. Just a reminder: we ban people for genocidal comments.
Posted by: MarisolJW at September 6, 2009 2:43 PM
Thomas_h: That wasn't the sole reason I removed it. I mentioned item 3 above because it was getting too close for comfort. As I said, on this occasion Robert sent me a specific set of comments to delete.
Posted by: MarisolJW at September 6, 2009 4:00 PM
“Too close for comfort” is a caricature of explanation. It is a misrepresentation of what I said differing only in degree from your absolutely untrue charge that my comment was genocidal. It wasn’t and you know it.
This, of course, is your website and you have the right to block my comment for whatever reason you fancy. I have no problem with that. You don’t even owe me an explanation. But once you do choose to defend your decision you should not use a made up “fact”.
And nobody said “Moslems are stinky” any more than you and Mr. Spencer are saying that “Moslems are murderers” despite that many of your postings are about Moslem murderers.
Commenter Epistemology came up with a very true observation and I confirmed it. The message was not that “Moslems are stinky”, but that “supremacist ideology”, or “the issue” as you say, is responsible of sealing women in a bag and make them stink. Exactly as it is responsible of Moslems chopping off the heads of infidels, which you always duly report. Both what you and what Epistemology report is directly caused by “the issue”. The latter is no more “childish” then the former sensationalist and lurid.
PS. I never used the word “Muzzie”. Where did you get that one from?
The victim of Islam in this story, Lubna Hussein, "described the law [that is punishing her and which she is protesting ] as un-Islamic and oppressive to women...."
By describing the law as "un-Islamic", Lubna Hussein is doing little different than what the Islam apologist trolls do here in JW comments. She is on one level little different from "dave" or "Mikhail" or all the others -- both here in JW comments and at large throughout the West: Lubna Hussein is forcefully supporting the paradigm by which, whenever something unjust (or dangerous or evil) happens in the orbit of Islam, it is immediately disconnected from Islam and ascribed to other sources (usually "culture", or "economics", or "geopolitics", often with the ultimate blame somehow found in the West's "meddling" in the Muslim world).
In fact, Lubna Hussein is doing more damage than those JW comments trolls: her heroic stance in resisting this law (and more importantly from the perspective of the PC MCs, her ethnicity and gender) gives her potentially enormous prestige in the eyes of the dominant and mainstream PC MC throughout the West. That prestige would be dashed, of course, were Lubna Hussein to clearly declare that what is victimizing her is, in fact, Islamic. But with that crucial observation of hers, that it is "un-Islamic", Lubna has effectively ruined her heroism. Even a Naomi Wolf would perk up and pay concerned attention to Lubna Hussein, feeling comfortably certain -- for after all, the victim herself said so! -- that this outrage against women has nothing to do with Islam.
jewdog:
I presume you mean "balls" in the psychological sense rather than the physiological!
I am waiting for the vocal feminists to protest en masse concerning the oppression of Muslim women everywhere, not only regarding dress codes but freedom of association, freedom to attend school, to work, to supervise men, to have equal property and legal rights, freedom from genital mutilation, and so forth. Or does multicultural political correctness trump women's rights? It sure seems that way!
jewdog:
I presume you mean "balls" in the psychological sense rather than the physiological!
I am waiting for the vocal feminists to protest en masse concerning the oppression of Muslim women everywhere, not only regarding dress codes but freedom of association, freedom to attend school, to work, to supervise men, to have equal property and legal rights, freedom from genital mutilation, and so forth. Or does multicultural political correctness trump women's rights? It sure seems that way!
jewdog:
I presume you mean "balls" in the psychological sense rather than the physiological!
I am waiting for the vocal feminists to protest en masse concerning the oppression of Muslim women everywhere, not only regarding dress codes but freedom of association, freedom to attend school, to work, to supervise men, to have equal property and legal rights, freedom from genital mutilation, and so forth. Or does multicultural political correctness trump women's rights? It sure seems that way!
She has described the law as un-Islamic and oppressive to women....
Un-Islamic?
.................
To Hesperado and other posters, I fully take your point--Lubna Hussein and others are all too quick to consider any injustice like this to be a "misinterpretation" or "twisting" of Islam, either out of a misplaced piety, or a deep-seated fear of appearing "un-Islamic" themselves.
That being said, i still have a lot of respect for this woman and her courage. She is already suspected of being "un-Islamic" for wearing pants--if she is branded a full "apostate" for her resistance to this law, she could face a lot more than 40 lashes and a fine, as draconian as this is.
She could be killed.
I think her taking anything other than the stance that the law is "un-Islamic"--no matter how ludicrous this is--would be suicidal.
I still consider her suit--and the public protests of her supporters, at risk of arrest and worse--to be a brave, positive sign of resistance to Shari'ah.
I also agree with you that challenges and protests of this sort are by their nature severely flawed, since they do not tackle the root cause of such oppressive laws--Islam itself.
PS. I never used the word “Muzzie”. Where did you get that one from?
Posted by: Thomas_h at September 7, 2009 10:14 AM
Er, That was me. Altough I spelled it differently.
Sorry if I upset anyone, but I don't see it as a 'Slur' We use that term in England quite a lot.
I don't believe I'll bother commenting anymore.
gravenimage,
"I think her taking anything other than the stance that the law is "un-Islamic"--no matter how ludicrous this is--would be suicidal."
That might be defensible were she powerless here -- and we've seen a few stories about various individuals who appear to be dhimmis whose lives are in danger (or whose dhimmitude can possibly be explained by their fear of getting killed by Muslims, a fear they may also be too afraid to directly avow): but then, in most of those situations, I recall Spencer rather criticizing them for their cowardice than praising them.
Lubna Hussein, however, chose to return back into the frying pan. She was perfectly free to remain outside of Sudan to pursue her career, but she gave that up in order to pursue this matter. It would have been better for the anti-Islam movement had she stayed away from Sudan and written an op-ed piece that clearly indicted Islam, published in mainstream newspapers and put up a YouTube video, rather than go back to make an activist point on precisely the wrong issue -- how "cultural" and "political" legal practices are wrong effectively because they are "un-Islamic".
It would have been better for the anti-Islam movement -- but then, she doesn't appear to care much about that, does she?
We use that term in England quite a lot.
Posted by: Unveiled
Another heartening sign (if accurate) of the excruciatingly slow roll-back of PC MC, the latter of which maintains its dominance as reflected in myriad ways, including its swift removal even from websites otherwise dedicated to mostly strong criticism of res Islamicae. After all, in the late 30s and into the 40s, most Westerners had no problems with "Jap" and "Kraut" and didn't worry about "offending" any Japanese or Germans who might not be enabling or supportive of the mass-murderous evil ideologies of Japanese Imperialism and of German Nazism -- much less was there then a prevailing culture throughout the West that effectively forced Westerners to censor themselves on this matter.
Er, That was me. Altough I spelled it differently.
Sorry if I upset anyone, but I don't see it as a 'Slur' We use that term in England quite a lot.
Posted by: Unveiled
Unveiled,
You certainly didn't upset me. I only meant to say that you used the word but my comment was removed. Strange, no?
And what is wrong with that cute sounding word? I wonder what association the word triggers in the minds of the censors of the JW. The only association it evokes in my mind is fuzziness. Rather cute.
Seems that the next thing we will have to observe is referring to Mohammed in language of deep respect and approved by Mohammedans trolls here.
Cheers,
Thomas
PS. It would be pity if you should stop commenting. Stick around a bit longer. just for the hell of it.
Off topic, sorry, but just saw this gem:
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/07/white-house-officials-said-sunday-that-president-o/
Look how Ellison is portrayed:
"Liberal Democrats, meanwhile, reiterated their interest in the public plan, threatening to vote down any bill without it.
"I'm hoping that he understands the essentiality of the public option," said Rep. Keith Ellison, Minnesota Democrat and vice chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, on CNN's "State of the Union." The president "said he preferred a public option. So we're trying to give him the political backing he needs to get what he prefers, which I think is the right thing."
When asked by host John King whether liberal Democrats should vote for a bill that has no public option "or should progressives say, 'No, that's not real reform' and walk away?" Mr. Ellison responded that "progressives should say it's not real reform" and added that a refusal to support a bill would not be their fault.
"Why should the progressives, why should the liberals always cave?" he asked, blaming a hypothetical failure to pass any bill on "the insurance industry and people in Congress who are beholden to them stopping reform."
Who is on who'se side? He knows the importance of "fundamentally transform(ing) America"
www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2008/10/30/obama-speaks-crowd-40000/
Yup!
(CNN) -- A woman put on trial for wearing clothing deemed indecent by Sudanese authorities was jailed Monday for refusing to pay a court-ordered fine, her lawyer said.
Is refusing to pay a fine also un-Islamic? Will they now sentence her to lashes?
This entry has been posted twice. A mistake surely...
jew dog--I think we'll be waiting 'til our hair turns gray for students or feminists or any other left leaning folks to stand up for this woman...they're too busy dismanteling the USA.
The Muslims just want to be clear about who wears the pants.
She was also smoking shisha and was in the restaurant after closing time - it wasn't just the trousers. In the wrong place at the wrong time.
As for Islam, Sudanese Muslims are amazingly ignorant about their religion, despite the fact that they can read the texts in Arabic. She probably believes Mohammed was a nice bloke.
Although she might be "guilty" of wanting to have a good time with the other girls, she is probably cool with jihad and death for apostasy, I'll bet; in short, incorrigible.
But her defence, that the law is un-Islamic, is the only way to go, legally apeaking. What else could she say, as a Muslim living under Sharia?
Cases like this will be repeated everywhere else if Islam's spread is not stopped before it is too late.
could Muslims be Elvis fans?...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sf64ps6MwcA&feature=related
"What else could she say, as a Muslim living under Sharia?"
PG, from what I have read, she wasn't some Sudanese villager woman, but a Sudanese career woman working for the U.N. who didn't even live in Sudan anymore (or who at any rate had easy opportunity to leave Sudan if she wanted to), but gave up her job and went back to Sudan to fight for this cause. Unfortunately, merely fighting for a cause isn't enough; the cause itself has to be the right thing, and the way she frames her cause is just plain wrong. It would be like a person bravely taking a stand against German Nazism, but then insisting that the problem is not Nazism.
But that's it, Hesperado: I don't think she is taking a stand against Islam, just about trousers and other minor freedoms. If she took a stand against Islam she would probably end up in the street with her throat cut. They like to think they are tolerant and progressive over there, but they're not, it's only a surface thing.
So were is Naomi Wolfe on this?
or Hillary
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_of9ue2vob2g/SqT_EiMhOUI/AAAAAAAAKYQ/XY86bT9BniM/s1600-h/0827-hilary-clinton-pantsuits_fa07.jpg