Doesn't Lula realize how "Islamophobic" this is? "Brazil offers haven to Iran woman in adultery case," from AP, July 31 (thanks to all who sent this in):
SAO PAULO - Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva offered on Saturday to provide refuge to a woman who has been sentenced to death in Iran following her conviction for committing adultery.The case created an international outcry when Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani initially was sentenced to death by stoning. Iran withdrew that part of the sentence earlier this month, but the mother of two could still face execution by hanging.
During a campaign rally for his party's presidential candidate, Silva appealed to Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, "to allow Brazil to grant political asylum to this woman."
"If she is causing problems there, we will welcome her here," Silva added, according to Brazil's official news service, Agencia Brasil....
Hm, this is a strange game Lula is playing. Is he having second thoughts about striking the Iran "sanctions" deal with Islamist partner Turkey?
Joseph: i was just thinking this.. something else is brewing here
"The case created an international outcry.."
That's good, but what about this case, no one seemed to care until...
Stoning in Somalia..رجم فى الصومال..Lapidation en Somalie (video)
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2010/05/soning-in-somalia-lapidation-en-somalie.html
This is a very good move, and it almost makes one want to forgive Lula his many geopolitical transgressions. But now this recent "friend of Ahmedinajad" has put the Islamic Republic of Iran in a spot tighter than a Cariocan tanga, perhaps almost inadvertently. For now what does the Islamic Republic of Iran do? Does it insult Lula, and therefore -- this is way these things are regarded in some countries -- all of Brazil? And doesn't the offer itself now highlight, for all Brazilians, and for many others, the mistreatment of women? The offer itself damages Iran, damages its image if it accepts, and damages its image if it rejects, Lula's offer. What's a poor fanatical Muslim (Shi'a or Sunni) to do, if this kind of thing comes even from your friends, supposedly steadfastly anti-American? Don't they know that they are never ever to embarrass a Third-World and especially, Muslim, new-true-blue ally like this?
Get with the program, Lula, they may be saying. But it's too late.
The damage has been done.
And it's not only Iran that now suffers. For in writing about this case, in Brazil, or speaking about it, inevitably the subject of how women are treated in Islam will have to be touched on, cannot be avoided.
And so Islam itself will find its image damaged in Brazil, and possibly elsewhere, in the only way that works -- the forcible imposition of new knowledge, because only such knowledge can help the public even discuss an issue.
And now we know, not only about women in Iran, but women in any country, or under any regime, that takes Islam fully to heart.
What's next?
What about a nine-year-old Afghan bride, who somehow asks for asylum in, say, Turkey? Wouldn't the remaining secular journalists in Turkey have a field day with that, as they try to explain what prevents Turkey itself from allowing brides to be nine, and what, in the Turkish "culture," is that, if it could prevail, if it could get around what Ataturk wrought, would be the minimum marriageable age of girls.
It should be the task of those carrying on a war of propaganda, in the light of the abdication of that task by our governments, to figure out other such cases that deserve attention, and where governments can be persuaded to make offers, like that made by the government of Brazil to the Islamic Republic of Iran, that can only help to enlighten, to wake up, those still too mentally drowsy to pay proper attention.
As I keep wondering and asking, why wasn't the man sentenced to stoning as well?
Nobody seems to have said a word about that.
Lula ought to invite Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the Brazilian
Carnival.
"why wasn't the man sentenced to stoning as well?"
But surely you know the answer to that.
Muslim men are children, led on, seduced, made mad by women. It is women who have to wear the chador, the abaya,the burga, the (your favorite term here). It is they who must cover up, lest they lead men astray. It is the woman who is responsible for whatever a man may do. He is not responsible. That's why.
And when Muslim men are in the West, and non-Muslim women insist upon dressing as they like -- for some unaccountable reason, still to be fathomed, non-Muslim Western man does not become an uncontrollable beast when in the presence of Western women not weraing the chador, the abaya, the burga, the (your favorite term here). No one can quite figure out why not. Perhaps it's something in the water.
"It should be the task of those carrying on a war of propaganda, in the light of the abdication of that task by our governments, to figure out other such cases that deserve attention, and where governments can be persuaded to make offers, like that made by the government of Brazil to the Islamic Republic of Iran, that can only help to enlighten, to wake up, those still too mentally drowsy to pay proper attention."
BRILLIANT suggestion, Hugh.
Not sung, or filmed, or anything but banned, banned, banned, in the Islamic Republic of Iran:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojo3I59Gn6c
This event is a good example about life's unpredictable nature... And a good example of life's being so vast as not to leave any chance to anyone to prison it in any conspiracy theory.
Things are not white and black... there are many grey variations in between. Antimericanism has not to do always with Islam, a murder incident happening in an Islamic country has not to do always with Muslim worldview, a clash between a 'Christian' country and a 'Muslim' country is not necessary to have always to do with Islam... it may have a purely ethnic reason, violence against women on this planet may not have necessarily and in every case a relation with Sharia law, a Muslim by family may do some benign things and a Christian, a Jew or a Budhist by family may do crimes, a Muslim may be found in some cases to face lack of justice from others, belonging to other beliefs, there are many other lies in this world that they are not 'taqiyyah' and so on...
I do agree wholeheartedly with the so serious call to be awake in this blog but... sometimes it seems that we push things to an extreme, making things look as if the only problem we face on this planet is Islam... It is not so... Islam's essential incompatibility with democracy is really one of the main Gordian knots we have to think about very seriously, as human beings longing for sanity, but it is not the only one... Trying to interpret things as if it was the only existing one makes mind go astray and not perceive reality in its nakedness. Making us, for example, remain in astonishment about how Lula said such a thing...
"As I keep wondering and asking, why wasn't the man sentenced to stoning as well?
Nobody seems to have said a word about that."
Great question! ...but didn't you know that women are always the whores in islamoland and their men can do no wrong. Even in islamic heaven, the women are sluts and the men are the rightful studs. Yeah double standards are a cultural norm for these people.
Per Islam hell is mostly populated by women. How can anyone who believes that treat women with any respect or fairness?
Champ, I wonder is this a case of rape without 4 upright men having been present to observe the rape or was it actual, GOD forbid, consensual sex. If consensual sex why would a woman who has had her twat sliced off and sewn closed want to have sex? And I too wonder what happened to the man? My guess....probably nothing happened to the man. Usually at most they get lashes. The evil woman is responsible by virtue of the fact that she has genitalia.(well a place where genitalia used to be anyway)
Is this a sign Brazil is easing up restrictions on womens clothing?? No more citations on suntans. Women may even be allowed to march in the streets??
Faye: iwas raised in coservative muslim house hold. Islam is one f....ed religion. however islam's hell is mostly populted by women, not true. let's not make the matters worse!!! slicicing their twats: this an africn thing. as for the man why was he not stoned, he is argument is/was that he was seduced or being led on.. something like that. he is off of the hook!! thank god we don't have Islamic laws fighr here in NYC, otherwise half of the women hhere would be stoned to death!!!
The Brazilian president's offer is rather like an international-level version of SIOA's bus ads about leaving Islam.
As Hugh observes..."Muslim men are children, led on, seduced, made mad by women. It is women who have to wear the chador, the abaya,the burqa, the (your favorite term here). It is they who must cover up, lest they lead men astray. It is the woman who is responsible for whatever a man may do. He is not responsible."
But, in addition, can any reader point to any studies or serious discussion suggesting that the wearing of whatever female covering by Muslim women in the West functions as a marker, as a warning, a hands-off, for Muslim men NOT to chat up or sexually harass a Muslim sister?
If this is so, then Muslim women who wear such identifying covering are in effect throwing their non-Muslim sisters under the bus.
Muslim women commonly claim they voluntarily wear the covering to prevent unwelcome male advances. Is the question ever raised with them that the preponderance of such advances comes from Muslim males?
I am being told today on a FaceBook page that stoning of course is most un-islamic. Very well, but then the same go on telling me that the 100 lashings are "symbolic lashings". I am told that Quran 24:2 means "social pressure, public witnessing of the symbolic lashing, is the basic punishment"
I find this to be twisting the actual text of 24:2 pretty severely: "The adulteress and the adulterer you shall give each of them a hundred lashes. Let no pity for them cause you to disobey God´s law, if you truly believe in God and the Last Day. And let a number of believers witness their punishment"
steffen: the reason they had lashes back then is because they were mosr likely intp S&M!!1
Stoning un-Islamic? Try this on such FaceBook "friends":
If stoning is un-Islamic then the most authoritative hadith collection of all, that of Sahih al-Bukhari, is also un-Islamic. The references include Book 008: 082: verses 802, 803, 804, 805 (where Muhammad himself explicitly orders stoning of an adulterer), 806 (likewise), 807 .... the verses go on and on.
Call them on their pitiful ignorance. Tell them it is not too late for them to get up to speed. All they need is five minutes on the web.
Miriam...islam's hell is mostly populted by women, not true.
How do you know that hell is not populted by mostly women?
Miriam...slicicing their twats: this an africn thing.
Who taught you to talk like that? Filthy... And what about Egypt?
How will the mullahs gather enough stones in the Brazilian rain forest?
Brazil offers haven to Iranian woman awaiting death by stoning in adultery case
.................
Well, it's good to see Lula do something decent, after schmoozing with Ahmadinejad, Erdogan, Chavez and Castro. Brazil has been lying down with some pretty nasty dogs recently, but clearly is still civilized enough to be disturbed by the specter of stoning.
How many Brazilian women would face stoning in Iran? Just the though of Carnival in Rio would give most of the Mullahs heart failure!
But now Iran is *retrying* Sakineh Ashtiani on murder charges, even though she has been acquitted. (I doubt there is any concept of "double jeopardy" under Shari'ah). They seem determined to hang her, if they cannot stone her.
More:
"If she is causing problems there, we will welcome her here," Silva added, according to Brazil's official news service, Agencia Brasil....
.................
"If *she* is causing problems"! Oh, well, it just might work. I am generally not a big fan of Lula, but I heartily applaud what he is trying to do here.
Hugh is absolutely right, this is a public relations nightmare for Tehran. If the asylum offer had come from the West, it would not have nearly the resonance than it does coming from a third-world ally of Iran.
And Hugh is also right that no matter what Tehran does, the damage is done. Release her to exile or stone her, the narrative is the same; Islam not only mistreats its women, it does so with medieval punishments.
If Sakineh gets off the plane in Rio or Sao Paulo, she's an instant celebrity and Islamic misogyny will have a human face and a story to tell. If she is stoned, Iran's image suffers even more for obvious reasons.
There is an out for Tehran...and don't be surprised if it is taken: Sakinah may be granted clemency inside her native Iran and then, after the story dies down, she disappears. But even this course has its risks. The mullahs don't want to send a message to their own people that encourages promiscuity, lest there be other Sakinehs.
It's a sticky wicket...heh heh.
MUHAMMAD REPEATEDLY ORDERED STONING:
In the most canonical hadith collection, Sahih Bukhari:
In the Qur'an "Allah" says repeatedly that Muhammad is to be obeyed. That is one reason why the vast majority of Muslim scholars accept the Bukhari hadiths and a few other hadith collections as authoritative for Muslims: canonical hadiths show what Muhammad did and said, permitted and forbade.
Listed in this post are 25 instances of Quran verses (all of them linked to several online Qurans) ordering Muslims to obey Muhammad.
Miriam,
There is a passage in the koran I have seen quoted many times that says hell is mostly populated by women. Sorry I do not know the book of hate as well as others on this site but I have seen that quoted many times.
You will be getting your islamic laws there pretty soon if things keep going like they are and half the women in the world will be stoned in stadiums.
btw they still are sadists.
Faye, I don't know whether it's in the Qur'an. There is something like that in Bukhari:V1B22N28.
IN CORE ISLAMIC TEXTS, WE LEARN THAT MUHAMMAD ALLOWED HIS MEN TO RAPE THEIR CAPTIVE WOMEN:
From Sahih Bukhari, the most canonical hadith collection:
Volume 5, Book 59, Number 459:
Thus we find that Muhammad has led a raid on a tribe from which women were captured. Notice that in answer to his soldiers' queries Muhammad doesn't say "You must not force your captives to have intercourse with you." He says only that coitus interruptus, withdrawing prior to ejaculation, is pointless, because souls predestined to exist will exist regardless.
Again in Sahih Bukhari:
Volume 7, Book 62, Number 137:
Thus again Muhammad does not forbid his men to rape their captives, but merely says that it's better not to do coitus interruptus. His men should keep going till coitus is complete.
Again, this time in another canonical hadith collection, Sahih Muslim:
Book 008, Number 3371:
In the Qur'an "Allah" says at least 25 times that Muhammad is to be obeyed. That is one reason why the vast majority of Muslim scholars accept the Bukhari hadiths and a few other hadith collections as authoritative for Muslims: canonical hadiths show what Muhammad did and said, permitted and forbade.
The news gave me a bit of excitement about Lula and Brazil since I like Brazil for other reasons too. But looks like Lula has been supping with devil (s).
If so, at least he washed some of his sins with the offer.
True, Faye :)
The real story is as follows: Iran is under tremendous pressure not to stone this woman. They are sensitive to this because the PR consequences will be enormous. Lula is giving Ahmedinejad an out. Deport her to Brazil. Ahmedinejad kicks her out and thereby saves face. He didn't back down and he doesn't have the repercussions of executing her. Lula is helping his pal out of a spot. No credit to Lula.
"thank god we don't have Islamic laws fighr here in NYC, otherwise half of the women hhere would be stoned to death!!!"
Another underhanded insult, or should I say veiled insult against the West. I bet you thought no one would notice.
Re stoning:
Yes, but the point is that they throw the Hadith right out the window, and the Quran is mathematically coded and unchanged, no stoning verses EVER: "Symbolic lashing is what the Quran, actually means in "lashing".. You understand this by doing a deep study of the Quran which tells you that God loves his creatures and that He is, "Compassionate", " Loving", "Kind" and "Merciful"... There is no way, God of Abraham, Joseph, Moses, David, Jesus or Muhammed would want to inflict pain on wrong doers".
This is all good fun and I am waiting for a reaction as to the contradictions in the Mecca Quran vs the Medina Quran.
I, too, think this was a good move by Lula and would guess his offer was in response to a suggestion made by Brazilian women's groups. Although it's possible that it was a diplomatic play, I'd like to think it was done without cynical ulterior motives. In any case, it was a humane offer to make and boxes A'jad in, as Hugh pointed out, whether that was the intent or not.
Latin America's developing relations with the Islamic world will be fascinating to watch unfold. The vast majority of Central and South Americans are unapologetically Roman Catholic, but there is also a vigorous and growing Evangelical movement. There is almost a gentle quality about Brazilians, who possess cultural attitudes that remind me of what the U.S. was like during the 1950s. This includes their innocence and naivete about things Islamic, although I think this is bound to change if they, too, become regular targets of jihad.
The image of Brazil outside of Latin America as being somewhat hedonistic, largely because of Carnival, is somewhat misleading in the same way that images of the U.S. presented by Las Vegas and Hollywood are not accurate. The Brazilian educated class is, in fact, extremely socially conservative, and society at large is still very family centered. (A not unrelated fact that is probably not well known but worth pondering is that it's not unusual in Brazil for women to still be virgins when they marry at age 30+.) And if one wants to see how a racially mixed society can actually function without the kind of racial animosity we still find in the U.S., Brazil is as close to a successfully functioning model of this as one can find anywhere.
Hi Steffen Larsen,
The only Muslims who throw the canonical hadith right out the window are the "Qur'an only" Muslims. And they really are a tiny minority. A crucial part of the Sunnah (practice, habit, custom) of Muhammad is contained in the Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim hadith collections. As you know, Islamic apologists when speaking to Westerners will sometimes pretend they throw the canonical hadiths out the window, or pretend that all hadith collections are considered worthless by Muslims. After all, Westerners find some of the canonical hadiths shocking and horrifying. Certain hadith collections are rejected by Muslims, but not Bukhari hadiths. The vast majority of Muslim scholars all around the world take Bukhari hadiths and Sahih Muslim hadiths as true sources for understanding what Muhammad did, said, permitted, and forbade. The canonical hadiths are for Muslim scholars something like what the Bible is for Christians: divinely "inspired," though not verbatim from God's mouth. And the Qur'an is for Muslims somewhat as Jesus Christ is for Christians: the Incarnation, or rather Inlibration, of God. Except that the former claim is not as far-fetched as the latter claim. The figure of Jesus is morally powerful enough, and the testimony around him powerful enough, that an unbiased person, even if he doesn't himself believe, can often sort of see why many might believe JC was God. Many who do not believe he was God seem to think he was nevertheless the greatest man who ever lived. So even if you are not a Christian, there is a kind of plausibility or partial plausibility to Christian claims. But I for any at least half objective person I think there is no plausibility to the notion that the Qur'an is the Inlibration of God. It's just a totalitarian theocratic tract.
Correction: But for any at least half objective person I think there is no plausibility to the notion that the Qur'an is the Inlibration of God. It's just a totalitarian theocratic tract.
yup!
We see it too in the
"Hadith of the Day!"
and
"Non Quranic, Hadith Based Islam is a PROBLEM!"
groups on FaceBook. FaceBook is quite a fine place for looking around and getting to grips with convictions and movements. Discussions do become fossilized and tiresome after a while, but that cannot wonder: no one moves an inch.
I'm Brazilian. I think Hugh has got it wrong in many respects. I tend to concur with RahmanbinRahman, especially because of the sentence "if she's causing trouble" - "oh, my mate Ahmad has got himself in a situ, I'll offer him a helping hand" - while never criticising the barbarity and totalitarian character of what caused her to become a "problem" in the first place (Iran and Islam).
Also, I think many of you are being extremely naïve regarding some assumed aspects of Brazil. "Does it insult Lula, and therefore -- this is way these things are regarded in some countries -- all of Brazil?". First of all, he's offering a helping hand, with absolutely no condemnation of either Ahmadinejab or Iran (or Islam). It is not an insult to refuse a helping hand. Besides, the vast majority of the Brazilian population don't know s**t from shinola regarding the matter: 70% are functional illiterates, and the majority of the remaining 30% who can read and understand are either oblivious to the matter (preferring to discuss football, crimes, soapies etc.) or already have some bias - again, what you see is pro-Palestine views, hate against Israel and America (and total blindness to Islam and jihad). Also, things are forgotten very quickly down here; Iran nukes Tel Aviv or something of the sort, I can assure you 90-95% of the Brazilian population will not even remember Iran or stonings. It doesn't ring an emotional bell, cause said bell is conditioned to be connected to Israel and America (even though almost no one has the slightest idea of what Israel is, and everybody consumes happily American products - cultural ones like music, movies, series etc. are a must).
The context of Lula's declaration is: we'll be having presidential ellections in October. Period. He knows he can say things like that (or else mildly criticise Chavez, f.i.) because they'll be forgotten. I believe there's no going back from the fact that Lula's aligned with China, Chavez and Iran (and so with Islam); Dilma Rousseff, Lula's candidate, will most probably be elected, and so Brazil will be another pro-Islamic force in the region - no matter who Lula offers helping hands to.
Also, @Eastview:
"it's not unusual in Brazil for women to still be virgins when they marry at age 30+"
where have you seen that????? I've NEVER met a 30+ virgin in Brazil (apart from nuns, presumably or alledgedly virgins). it's customary (especially in large towns) for girls to lose their virginity at 12-14. 18 and virgin is very, very rare (the evangelic people notwithstanding).
* UNLESS Iran nukes Tel Aviv or something of the sort.
Rengo,
I miss the old commenting system that allowed corrections to be made after a post is submitted.
I said "...not unusual in Brazil for women to still be virgins when they marry at age 30+" but should have said "...not unusual in Brazil for women to still be virgins at the time they got married, even if they were 30+"
It's true. I have known several, and they were/are quite beautiful. It would not be gentlemanly for me to give details, but suffice it to say that they were somewhat religious, although when wearing typical Brazilian bathing attire, shall we say, at Caraguatatuba they would hardly be mistaken for nuns! From your statement it appears my sampling is skewed - apparently I've been visiting the wrong people. ;-)
[OT: I'm a great fan of your country, having been there many, many times over the past 25 years, usually to INPE at Sâo José dos Campos, and environs. Later this week I'm going back for my second visit this year. This time it's to Foz do Iguçu, where I hope to pop over the Rio Parana for a visit to Ciudad del Este (Paraguay) and then hit Puerto Iguazú (Argentina) on the same day.]
I AM BRAZILIAN..and I am sooo happy with this news!!! I was very scared of Lula´s "naiveté" toward Islam when he asked Armadinejjad "not to be saying around that he wants to kill Jews and blow-up Israel or why he denies the Holocaust". I am sure my president must have got some advising toward what Sharia comes from. Here in Brazil we really do not have Muslims. Evangelicals here are everywhere, and I prefer them to Islam. My city is 3 million people, and there is only 1 ..yes ONE mosque here, and I have looked around there and it´s always empty. I have never seen a veiled woman here since I arrived 2 months ago from Canada where I lived for 8 years. There, Islam is growing like weed. I am really glad we are not facing ´yet´these problems Europe and North America are having. But it´s obvious, we do not have Muslim immigration, because we reproduce like rabits. Now I understand why the catholic church does not want to approve the use of condoms...so not to decrease the numbers of christians...I, with all not approval of any religion, I tend to ´support´the church on this one. The problem lies of course with AIDS contamination.
Anyway, applause to Lula.
What Lula did was not intended to damage the Islamic Republic of Iran but merely to comply with a request made by a fellow Brazilian, a female politician who is his likely successor. I did not maintain that he, Lula, was attempting to do otherwise.
My point was different: that by making this offer, by raising the issue at all, Lula has given (inadvertently) prominence to the matter, that is the Islam-based mistreatment of women, and done so in a way that cannot be ignored, either in Brazil (and possibly elsewhere in Latin America) or in Iran.
egypt is a north african country
Faye: i will be very intrested to know what passage you are reffering to.I for one would never allow that f...ing shit here new york, nor would my 22 year old son, a marine serving in afghanisiistan who is there to protect our way of life.
m
" I am really glad we [in Brazil] are not facing ´yet´these problems Europe and North America are having. But it´s obvious, we do not have Muslim immigration, because we reproduce like rabits."
You hit the nail on the head, Hugo! In virtually every European country, the birth-rate is below the population-replacement level. This has made the Europeans think they need immigration [mostly Moslem] to maintain their economies. That this idea is false is demonstrated by the fact that all of these countries have high unemployment rates. A large proportion of the Moslems don't work, but just go on the dole; using up resources that could go to native Europeans.
Moslems remind me of cowbirds, which lay their eggs in the nests of other birds. Their chicks are larger than those of the nest's builder, and they grab most of the food brought to the chicks by the mother bird, starving the real chicks. Sometimes they even crowd the real chicks out of the nest.