let those show stupid cows set a council in saudi arabia,see if they can convince those muslims about their rights in their cult. they need to convince their clerics of their concepts of the koran.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at November 20, 2006 1:36 AM

From the Article:

"In our societies men hold power and they decide what Islam should mean and how we can obey that particular understanding of Islam," said Zainab Anwar

AND:

"Two misconceptions about Islam are that it is associated with terrorism and that Islam is an oppressor of women. These are two myths that we seek to demolish"

Ack!!! That's doublespeak! If men are in charge, then doesn't that imply oppression of females??? C'mon, it's a given!

I kept reading this article and thinking about a line I heard on South Park:

"We will not tolerate your intolerance!"

Their just fooling themselves...

http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com

Posted by: Doctor Bulldog at November 20, 2006 1:45 AM

Many in the newly formed group, the Women's Islamic Initiative in Spirituality and Equality, or WISE, said strict sharia law was not divine because it was created by men and should be changed to incorporate women's rights.
"In our societies men hold power and they decide what Islam should mean and how we can obey that particular understanding of Islam," said Zainab Anwar, executive director of Sisters in Islam, a Malaysian organization working on women's rights within the Islamic framework.
************************************************
Sisters In Islam were at the forefrong of the fight to keep Secular Law protection for women instead of having it replaced with Shar'ai Hudad.

Posted by: Dan Kauffman at November 20, 2006 2:05 AM

Get back to the kitchen!

Posted by: PRCS at November 20, 2006 2:10 AM

As they are Muslim femunists setting up a Koranic forum , they can only justify their case by quotation from the Koran that supports their contention that women HAVE equal rights under Sharia law .
This is BS as we all know . There are no such sura or hadiths whatsoever . They can't quote what isn't there . The Koranic evidence , though , in favour of continuing male dominance is overwhelming and entirely undeniable by even the dullest Islamic scholar .
These women should do themselves a favour and abandon Islam if they are serious about sexual equality .

Posted by: WeatherPermitting at November 20, 2006 2:37 AM

These zombies of islam now want to do their own bit in spreading disinformation about the evil cult to lull the infidels into a false sense of comfort.

Why are they doing this in NY? Why don't they preach all this to the faithful in muslim countries? Because they will laugh in their faces? Or may be kill them?

Posted by: Dunk at November 20, 2006 3:20 AM

Child marriage, in accordance with Muhammad's own
example:

Khadija died three years before the Prophet
departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or
so and then he married 'Aisha when she was a girl of
six years of age, and he consumed [sic] that
marriage when she was nine years old. (Bukhari
005.058.236)

Lecherous old rockspider!

Posted by: Xaragma at November 20, 2006 3:48 AM

About these "WISE" ladies, I'm sure Jawa would say "fatwah issued."

Posted by: Shy Guy at November 20, 2006 3:49 AM

American Society for Muslim Advancement, or Asma

As with 9-11 and 7-7, Moslem activists have a childish sense of humor. Cf., 624 AD, Yathrib, Arabia:

When Mohammed heard what she (Asma Marwan)had said he said, "Who will rid me of Marwan's daughter?" Umayr b. Adiy al-Khatmi who was with him heard him, and that very night he went to her house and killed her. In the morning he came to Mohammed and told him what he had done and Mohammed said, "You have helped God and His apostle, O Umayr!" When he asked if he would have to bear any evil consequences Mohammed said, "Two goats won't butt their heads about her" (Asma Marwan), so Umayr went back to his people (the Companions, the earliest of Moslems).

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at November 20, 2006 4:19 AM

when these Islamic feminists choose male warmongers to deprecate, whom do they choose? Ahmadinajad? Mahathir Muhammad? Bin Laden? Musharaf? Shaykh Nasrallah? No, they choose Bush and Blair. I am no admirer of either Bush or Blair, but choosing only infidel male warmongers is a sign of bad faith on the part of these women. Their choice of B & B makes them look like fakers.

Posted by: Eliyahu at November 20, 2006 5:32 AM

Nasseem,
Will you be attending. Perhaps we could meet?

Posted by: RecoveringPig at November 20, 2006 5:45 AM

I find it interesting that these women living in a Western democratic country where they do not have to face Shariah laws as a reality, think they've got something to say about female equality in Islam.

The only reason they have equality is because of where they are living, and I don't believe they were involved with the 'sisters' who fought for it, let alone their male counterparts joining with our Western men to demand it too.

They can go running to the Western secular judicial system for help, something their 'sisters' in Islamic countries cannot do.

"just imagine the power of peace that women can bring," Uddin said."

Get over yourselves with that one girls, don't agree that women are more 'peaceful', not when their backs are against the wall and that of their children, but anyway, Islamic women themselves are proving to be pretty violent for their cause, hardly peaceful.

Posted by: chrisse at November 20, 2006 6:00 AM

Incongruities in their stated premises notwithstanding, should we wish these women the best or dismiss them entirely?

Posted by: Cornelius at November 20, 2006 6:35 AM

Cornelius, we should wish them the best if their aims are toward Islamic countries where the people need more freedom. If they are aiming at the West, then just another propaganda package.

The way I see it, there are Muslim feminists in many Muslim countries, and for some of them it's dangerous. So they should use their muscle and freedom here to highlight the difficulties the Muslim sisters are facing, and try and bring world pressure. But from what they're saying, they'll be called reformists, and thereby apostates.

Posted by: chrisse at November 20, 2006 6:47 AM

I've wondered if the oppressed women under strict Islamic law could ever effectively use the public forum to lighten their burdens.
By combining these wishes with the stated intent of educating us about terrorist violence and Islam, such women are making a desperate attempt to divide Muslims and change Islamic laws to their benefit.
They may think change toward moderation is possible with the pressing eyes of the world upon them and their religion.
Having studied the Islamic texts and watched them in action, I have a bad feeling that only more female subjugation can result.
When you get to the bottom line, peaceful Muslims don't stand much of a chance of escaping being linked to the built-in violence of Islam.
The West will continue to expose it here and elsewhere, and pray that many will leave Islam before the bigger war.

Posted by: HawkWatcher at November 20, 2006 7:18 AM

I don't think there has ever been another culture, sect, cult or religion in world history as adept at deception and denial as the Muslims.

Posted by: Foehammer at November 20, 2006 7:36 AM

Women are mis-treated in many parts of the world including the US. Much of this mis-treatment is not endorsed by any religion or political ideology. Most abusers, abuse, because they can, and it is in their nature to do so.
This should be a concern to every clear thinking, rational and compassionate person. If you dont think clearly, are not rational nor compassionate, you are a prime candidate to abuse. The religion of rage, needs some anger management classes.
These women are on the right track even if it's a slow start. They wont succeed. They wont change the Quran, they wont get rid of Sharia, they wont change the power abuses of their husbands or society, but that is no reason not to try.
I dont think these muslimahs are WISE enough to pull it off, but I am with the 'wish you well' group...

Posted by: duh_swami at November 20, 2006 7:38 AM

I am interested in this:
Many in the newly formed group, the Women's Islamic Initiative in Spirituality and Equality, or WISE, said strict sharia law was not divine because it was created by men and should be changed to incorporate women's rights.

But do they mean created, or interpreted? Either way, does it not offer a small crack into which to plunge the crow bar and bring the whole edifice crashing down?

I gather that an Islamic objection to the West is that we live by the laws of Man, and not the laws of God. If we can show Muslims, especially those who live in our countries, that they actually aspire to live by laws created (interpretation is a lesser degree of self-creation) by Man, and not by God, then can we not show them that their supremicism has no authority?

I am interested in a National Islam for Britain if Muslim's cannot be persuaded to convert to Christianity (or other religions). We created a national form of Christianity which put our national interests above the interests of the collective which was Catholicism. Because ultuimately, I believe that we should be free to choose, and if we choose to be Muslim, or moony, then that choice should be respected.

However, just like the American Constitution sets the ultimate limits on just what liberties a government can take against it's own people, there must be a limit set upon National Islam so that it does not conflict with, but in fact acts to advance teh national interests.

In this way, there will be no bloodshed, no deportation, and freedom will be allowed to prevail. Driving a wedge into the received wisdoms of Muslims in Britain, would be a good place to start.

Of course Baroness Uddin clearly displays a set of her own prejudices, which she probably shares with the rest of her community, and which will obviously get in her way of seeing what is the shared national interest. This is why National Islam needs to be enforced from outside the Muslim community.

Posted by: FREE LEE at November 20, 2006 8:00 AM

I would think these women are serious when we see them burn their burkas and their hijabs.

I think muslim feminist is an oxymoron. The only way to change their sisters lives is to leave islam. Their own religion doesn't respect them. They will be unable to change what the muslim males feel is their "god" given right. They think they have it bad now, just wait until one of them tells their husband they can't take another wife or rape the family slave or daughter or goat. The muslim males are not going to give up their sex right easily.

The fact is, islam doesn't respect half it's followers, and the half it doesn't respect, is THEIRS.

Posted by: freewoman at November 20, 2006 8:13 AM

Re: "Muslim feminists from around the world vowed to create the first women's council to interpret the Koran and overcome two stereotypes about their religion: Muslims are terrorists and Islam oppresses women".

The problem for the "feminists" (a western idea?) is that there is so much truth in the stereotype. Islam has a supremacist view (as do all cultures and religions). However, the current Western Supremacist assumption of "Multiculturalism" tries to reduce culture to some piece of a "mosaic" (Armstrong-Esposito types) and blinds us to the supremacist assumptions-beliefs of Islam and other religions-cultures (including Western culture). All cultures and religions (from Aztec to Zulu) have supremacist assumption-beliefs. It is the critical examination of a belief-system's supremacist assumptions that make them interesting and we may pick and choose (by judgement) where the assumption-beliefs are valid and where they are oppressive to unbelievers.

I am convinced Jihadwatch has more respect for Islam than the "multiculturalists" because Robert and Hugh take the supremacist assertions of Islam seriously. They don't ignore the supremacist assumptions or condescendingly tell Muslims they are just a piece of a "mosaic".

Posted by: Frank at November 20, 2006 8:29 AM

Maybe this is the start of something good. Who knows what they might come up with?

I don't think one of their goals should be changing my ("the West's") perception of Islam because that sounds too much like political correctness being enforced by Muslim public relations groups. We don't want more pap, we want true reform.

It's very hard for a person to leave a religion they've grown up with, especially if that religion has rules for every aspect of life (when to pray, what to eat and where, etc.). It would be too hard for most people to go from being submissive believers to being apostates in one quick meeting. But if they are willing to examine their religious teachings and beliefs, that could be a really good start.

Posted by: Josephine at November 20, 2006 8:32 AM

I believe that we should be free to choose, and if we choose to be Moslem, or moony, then that choice should be respected.

No no no. We must actively disrepsect the choice to be Moslem. It’s a matter of self-preservation. After all, would we allow an AIDS victim to masturbate in a subway car and spread his seed all other patrons so unfortunate to witness such an act?

Well, now that I think about it, maybe:

Mohammed ordered us to change our intentions of the Ihram for'Umra and that we could finish our Ihram after performing the 'Umra and could go to our wives for sexual intercourse. The Moslems began talking about that. Jabir said surprisingly, "Shall we go to Mina while semen is dribbling from our male organs?"
--- Sahih Bukhari Vol. 3 Book 44 No. 683

Plus, the Moslem AIDS victim would probably blow up the subway car after he himself had exploded.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at November 20, 2006 8:35 AM

Maybe they should have this little get together in Gaza. That way, when Israel is ready to zap some terrorists they can be great Islamic feminists and become shields for their glorious menfolk.

What a funny story to start the week!
Muslim feminists, how droll. What's next? Muslim Hindus?

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at November 20, 2006 8:35 AM

So they're wanting to show up the stereotypes about Islam... I'll wait to see from what sources the most real opposition comes -- from stereotyping westerners or from Muslim men. (And, if the latter, whether we'll ever hear about it again.)

Reminds me of a story in the Houston Chronicle last month or so, three Muslim guys doing stand-up comedy. They seemed honestly surprised that non-Muslims think they're great and their only opposition comes from other Muslims. The Chronicle didn't run with that, though -- it only got a side mention, while much was made of how they were going against evil western stereotypes (which themselves made no appearance in the article).

Posted by: Adrianne Truett at November 20, 2006 8:38 AM

"Muslim feminists, how droll. What's next? Muslim Hindus"?

ISLAMSFORLOSERS,

I am afraid that could be true among many Hindus. I read during the war waged on Israel by Hezbollah recently, some Christians in Lebanon were giving shelter to fleeing muslims as they looked upon them as "fellow Lebanese" at that moment.

There are a lot of muslim sympathizers among Hindus , not to mention the commies.

Posted by: Crows&Cows at November 20, 2006 8:43 AM

Crows&Cows-

It appears that in addition to Muslims, the world is also afflicted with a huge surplus of stupid infidels. As I've said before, Islam would probably be on its last legs by now (if not gone already) were it not for the incredible stupidity of the infidels. When WILL people learn?????

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at November 20, 2006 8:47 AM

Agree with you. The infidels in India are a desensitized and apathetic lot. But concerned about islam's survival! Processions are taking place demanding the release of saddam in high decibels. I feel they cannot be changed. The government is planning to introduce sharia law too partially. As it is there is no uniform civil code here.

Posted by: Crows&Cows at November 20, 2006 9:05 AM

Muslim feminists?
Muslim feminists?

Stop the world, i want to get off.

Posted by: Sir Oinks Alot at November 20, 2006 9:14 AM

Off topic from the UK:

New iman sparks 'potentially dangerous' Muslim prison stand-off

Ummah News Links

Posted by: ummahnewslinks at November 20, 2006 9:32 AM

Marisol writes, "And whom do they aim to convince?"

That's just the point. Islam hasn't got a public relations problem, it's got a doctrine problem. If these ladies can help change Islamic doctrine, good.

Josephine may be right as well, that this WISE group is really a first step towards apostasy for at least some moslem women, and that is a good thing.

Posted by: tvdog at November 20, 2006 9:39 AM

Yes, these ladies sound confused, and yes, their stated goals seem pretty unlikely in light of the Koranic and Hadith foundation for Islam. Nevertheless, the statements they have made are sufficient for them to win a designation as "murtad" from the more extreme Islamists, which earns them a vote from me.

Robert, while I agree with whatever doubts you may have about the sincerity of this group in pursuing their stated objectives, and while the point-blank falsity of their outright claims about Islam are pretty plain to those with a smattering of knowledge of their foundational documents, I would suggest a "wait and see" approach in this case.

After all, you have, on a number of occasions, called for reform within Islam. Seeing the problems any group that tries to do so will face -- first of all, by the necessity of "reinterpreting" the many sinister aspects of their core documents, and second, because of threats from the orthodox, I think groups like this need cautious support until their true colors show. If they are genuinely trying to reform Islam (low probability) then they will face tough going slogging through some of the murkier texts, and they will face very real danger when they try to foist new ideas upon the Umma.

Posted by: Archimedes2 at November 20, 2006 9:43 AM

Alarmed Pig Farmer,

I had just finished vomiting from listening to Yusuf Islam's redux "Wild World (Bana, Bana)", and then read your post. Thank you for that enlightening reading from Bukhari. Funny, the Taurat says a man is ritually unclean after an emission:

Leviticus 15:16
Leviticus 15:18
Leviticus 15:32
Leviticus 22:4
Deuteronomy 23:10

Silly Jews, always trying to corrupt Allah's perfect revelation.

Ihram, sacred state into which a Muslim must enter in order to perform the hajj (major pilgrimage) or the 'umrah (minor pilgrimage). At the beginning of a pilgrimage, the Muslim stops at a designated station to perform certain ritual cleansing ceremonies; each male shaves his head, cuts his nails, and trims his beard before donning a white, seamless, two-piece garment.

The Umrah or (Arabic: عمرة ) is a pilgrimage to Mecca performed by Muslims that can be undertaken at any time of the year. It is sometimes called the 'minor pilgrimage' or 'lesser pilgrimage', the Hajj being the 'major' pilgrimage and which is compulsory for every able-bodied Muslim who can afford it. According to some schools of Islamic thought, the Umrah is not compulsory but highly recommended.

Mina is a desert location situated some 5 kilometres to the east of the Islamic holy city of Mecca (Makkah) in Saudi Arabia. It stands on the road from Mecca's city centre to the Hill of Arafat.
Mina is best known for the role it plays during the annual Hajj pilgrimage, when its tent cities provide temporary accommodation to hundreds of thousands of visiting pilgrims. It is also the location of the Stoning of the Devil ritual, performed between sunrise and sunset on the last day of the Hajj.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at November 20, 2006 9:45 AM

Alarmed Pig Farmer

That form of Jihad will hereafter be known as Busking For Muhammod.

Posted by: FREE LEE at November 20, 2006 9:46 AM

Frank...I think you are right about the commonality of supremism, but it is even more common than we think. Every individual wants to be 'right' all of the time. It is difficult to be 'wrong'. Most people can cope with being proved wrong, but just as many have a tantrum of some kind over it. Ask a question and you get, 'Are you calling me a liar'?
The willingness to fight and even kill to protect an opinion, or an action based on that opinion, is of a high order of egocentric evil. This is supremism in action. The main problem with supremism, is that everyone, every culture, every idea, is trying to gain, and maintain supremacy. If everyone was equally supreme, there would be no supremacy, only average.
You are right, Islam has a supremacy complex and has to fight to retain it. Since Islam has limited appeal spiritually, jihad is the method of maintaining supremacy.

Bukhari confirms: Book of Jihad, on page 580 of Maktba Dar-us-Salam’s publication of Sahih Al-Bukhari: “Jihad is holy fighting in Allah’s Cause with full force of weaponry. It is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its Pillars. By Jihad Islam is established, Allah is made superior and He becomes the only God who may be worshiped. By Jihad Islam is propagated and made superior. By abandoning Jihad Islam is destroyed and Muslims fall into an inferior position. Their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, and Muslim rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape this duty dies as a hypocrite.”

Islamic supemism comes from Allah, but according to Bukhari, by jihad, Allah becomes superior. Indicating of course that he is inferior, and needs jihad to elevate his position. This means never ending conflict untill everyone is equally supreme in the arms of superior Islam. This is why, all muslims are jihadists...to gain and maintain Islams supremacy...if they dont do that they will fall into an inferior position, and die hypocrites, as noted by Bukhari.
Islams supremacy has been challanged and jihadists are popping up everywhere to maintain it.
This is an insane path, but unfortunatly, it is the one we are on...

Posted by: duh_swami at November 20, 2006 9:49 AM

"The women also want to break down myths that exist, particularly in the West, said Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, Asma Society founder."
-- from the article above

So the "Asma Society" supposedly headed by one Daisy Khan who hopes "to create a fund to provide scholarships for Muslim women to study Islamic law so they could form a Shura Council of Women, the first with women interpreting the Koran(American foundations, get your checks and pens ready; American government, ditto) will be part of this Brave New, Phony New, attempt to -- what's that damned word? -- "empower" Muslim women, but really to offer one more false front to Infidels, one more distraction from the real matter at hand, which is not the treatment of Muslim women within Islam, but the treatment of, and attitudes toward, Infidels by all Muslms, men and women.

And who founded the Asma Society? Why, Faisel Abdul Rauf, whose name, along with "Jihad Watch," should be googled. Then you will discover what Faisel Abdul Rauf, who exhibits classic taqiyya-and-tu-quoque mode (and there are so many examples to choose from) is merely one more busy apologist and "war-is-deception" presenter of Islam.

Posted by: Hugh at November 20, 2006 9:54 AM

Here is just one such entry:

March 21, 2004
Feisal Abdul Rauf blames Christians

Feisal Abdul Rauf (ECTN)
Feisal Abdul Rauf, a New York imam, expects us to believe that jihad warfare was started by the West and can only be ended by the West. He is therefore either concealing or ignorant of the fact that violent jihad is a developed tradition within Islam and found in core Islamic texts (including but not limited to the Qur'an, as well as Hadith and books of Islamic jurisprudence). In those it has nothing to do with the behavior of infidels. It only has to do with the fact that they are infidels. Take, for example, this quotation from the Muslim prophet Muhammad:
When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them. (Sahih Muslim, book 019, Number 4294)
That is offensive jihad. It is buttressed by numerous other sayings of the Prophet, by the Qur'an, and by Islamic legal scholars. But Feisal Abdul Rauf puts it all on the West, and gets invited to Australia by Premier Bob Carr.
The US and the West must acknowledge the harm they have done to Muslims before terrorism can end, says an Islamic cleric invited to Sydney by Premier Bob Carr.
New York-based Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who impressed Mr Carr at an international conference last year, arrives in Sydney today for two weeks of meetings and public talks.
Speaking from his New York mosque, Imam Feisal said the West had to understand the terrorists' point of view.
In a move likely to cause controversy with church leaders, Imam Feisal said it was Christians who started mass attacks on civilians.
"The Islamic method of waging war is not to kill innocent civilians. But it was Christians in World War II who bombed civilians in Dresden and Hiroshima, neither of which were military targets."
This is outrageously specious, but it depends on the ignorance of the listeners. The bombings of Dresden and Hiroshima were not justified by the bombers on the basis of Christian theology. The bombings by terrorists -- 9/11, 3/11, etc. -- are justified on the basis of Islamic theology. By claiming that they are equivalent, Abdul Rauf obscures the Islamic roots of modern-day terrorism, thus hindering the prospects for the reform within Islam that is so desperately needed if jihad terrorism is ever going to cease.
Imam Feisal said the bombing in Madrid had made his message more urgent. He said there was an endless supply of angry young Muslim rebels prepared to die for their cause and there was no sign of the attacks ending unless there was a fundamental change in the world.
Yes indeed. But displaying a lack of the self-critical faculty that he shares with radical Muslims, he makes no mention, at least according to this report, of the Islamic roots of terror, and of the need for Muslims who truly (rather than deceptively) oppose terror to address this problem.
Imam Feisal, who argues for a Western style of Islam that promotes democracy and tolerance, said there could be little progress until the US acknowledged backing dictators and the US President gave an "America Culpa" speech to the Muslim world.
Of course. The historical depredations of jihad, they were all the fault of the West. The fall of Constantinople? Probably because of Byzantium's support for Israel.
[Posted by Robert at March 21, 2004 09:13 AM] |

Posted by: Hugh at November 20, 2006 9:58 AM

The only thing that counts for Infidels is what Islam teaches about Infidels. What happens between and among various kinds of Muslims has no bearing on, and should not be taken as signs of change concerning, the uncompromising division of humanity, in Islam, between Believers and Infidels. That is what Infidels should be watching for at every step, and at every step they will find no changes, nothing but the mixture as before.

Posted by: Hugh at November 20, 2006 10:00 AM

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/banerjee111006.htm

'Veiled Threat To Democracy'

Posted by: Crows&Cows at November 20, 2006 10:01 AM

duh_swami-

I think you are right. Supremacism, either at the individual level or the cultural-belief level, is just part of human nature. I think the supremacist beliefs of Islam are more clearly demonstrated than the stealth supremacist concepts that are behind "multiculturalism" and which do not take the supremacist beliefs of Islam seriously but try to reduce Islam to a "mosaic" that is equal to all other pieces of a mosaic.

It was Robert's comment re "multiculturalism" putting people in the media and elsewhere in a dream world that ignores reality that got me thinking about this. Multicultural concepts are a current Western Supremacist belief that is not self-evident and which needs to be challenged. In fact, it has occurred to me, that part of the reason we invaded Iraq is rooted in this multicultural supremacism. If we really took the supremacist concepts of Islam seriously (including Sharia law) we would have foreseen a bad outcome (as did Robert and Hugh).

Robert and Hugh are more aware of the true nature of culture and belief systems than condescending types like Armstrong-Esposito who refuse to address the supremacist beliefs of Islam and attempt to impose their multicultural imperialism on everyone. It's the supremacist concepts in a religion-culture that teach us much about human nature and that's also true with the supremacist multicultural "mosaic" concepts of people like Armstrong-Esposito. If the Mosaic is superior then Saudi-Arabia must be an inferior place. Multiculturalism is a stealth-supremacist and maybe even an imperialistic concept. It may be the reason we are in Iraq.

Posted by: Frank at November 20, 2006 10:17 AM

duh_swami-

In a sense, this crap about spreading western secular democracy is a Multicultural jihad that is a bad as Islamic jihad. Both are based on supremacist concepts. Multiculturalism and Islamic Jihad are equally based in supremacist concepts.

But in the final analysis, we are all supremacists. It appears to be a human trait.

Posted by: Frank at November 20, 2006 10:27 AM

Crows&Cows l just read that article from the link you posted, it is very revealing about the level of extreme violence from the muslim horde upon Hindus. its no wonder so many Hindu women killed themselves. poor Naseems does not seem to have any remorse or anger against what these arab muslims did to her ancestors! brain washing at its best seen in pakistan. l think the pakistanis want to prove they are more muslim than their arab muslims and so you see so more extremes from the likes of the taliban and their supporters.
these brave Hindu women must of seen so much violence to kill themsevles. but being a infidel from the West, l would take down as many muslims before l would get killed.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at November 20, 2006 10:27 AM

Hugh-

You take the belief-system's supremacist dogmas seriously and don't condensed.

Posted by: Frank at November 20, 2006 10:46 AM

If I could leave for a moment the motives of these American Muslims in promoting a pro-women agenda. I don’t know them and can’t comment on them.

Few things would be more effective in our anti-Jihad strategy that emancipating female Muslims. A vocal female Muslim community in the ME, supported by their sisters in Europe / USA would be an effective divide and conquer strategy.
I would recommend that we support this trend (and attempt to dominate its agenda). A useful manifesto is articulated by Ayaan Hirsi Ali in her book, ‘The Caged Virgin’. (http://www.amazon.com/Caged-Virgin-Emancipation-Proclamation-Women/dp/0743288335)

The emancipation of the Muslim female would be more effective in our anti-jihad fight than numerous military initiatives.

Posted by: protectalbion at November 20, 2006 10:50 AM

I'm surprised at the reaction here. These Muslim women are making a very daring statement--that the Islamic law of sharia isn't necessarily divinely inspired and can and should be reformed. Isn't that what we want? Unlike some other "spokespersons" for Islam, they are daring to call for the reform of Sharia itself. Has CAIR ever done that?

Muslim women have won a few small victories here and there. In Pakistan they just got the rape laws reformed, over the vehement objections of fanatical Islamists. Of course they met first in the U.S. To even organize such a meeting in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan would be to fear assassination. But once organized they can spread their message in many ways, thru the media and the Internet, back to their home countries. We should be encouraging that because it puts the Islamists on the psycho-moral defensive. They can't dismiss all the women in their countries as "puppets of U.S. imperialism" or whatnot.

The problem is, there are too many people here at JW who still hold out this pipe dream of "ending Islam"--that the only option Muslims have is to leave Islam altogether. Forget it. When you're talking about well over a billion people in dozens of countries in every continent on earth, you're not going to "end Islam" without global war involving all manner of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Which is something I would prefer to avoid.

Posted by: Steven L. at November 20, 2006 11:12 AM

Do muslim women have what it takes to become emancipated? Without being taught right from wrong , from birth to grave, muslim males are going to have a field day with insolent women. Are these women going to risk allah and her husbands ire if she refuses to have sex? Is she going to stop FGM on daughters? After telling her husband she wants rights, and of course after her beating, is he going to divorce her and tell her she has all the rights she wants, and then can't find a job to support her and her children? In Afghanistan, she can't work or leave the home without a male escort.

Muslim women in America and the free world have all the rights as the rest of us, under the law. They can speak their minds. No problem.

I would think, starting with baby steps, take control of their male children. Less islam and mosques and madrassas, and more mothers saying no to using their children as weapons, to learn to kill, and learn respect. The young boys need to be taught their sisters are equals, they shouldn't be hit or raped or even married away to old geezers at age 9. Mothers should see to it girls are educated.

Religion is fine as part of life, but there is a lot of living and learning that doesn't come from just memorizing the koran.

So the women of islam....demand respect from your muslim males. Demand respect for your children. Demand education. Raise your young children to know right from wrong, and include the "Do unto others", instead of the normal muslim thinking that everything revolves around the males.

Muslims must learn to take responsibility for their actions. Mothers need to teach this to them from birth.

Posted by: freewoman at November 20, 2006 11:20 AM

Yeah, Islam doesn't oppress women at all. We're all just too stupid too interpret the Koran properly.
And of course Islam never commits terrorist acts-that's called freedom fighting.

Islam is indeed the opposite of everything normal people believe. Islam thinks wife beating is swell. We don't. Islam thinks killing infidels is wonderful. We don't. Islam thinks everything Mr. Perfect said and did are admirable. We don't. We're just destined to never understand each other because everything they deem great we deem evil. Of course, that makes us the stupid ones and the Muslims the master race, right?

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at November 20, 2006 11:22 AM

APPARENTLY NOT ALL STEREOTYPES ARE FALSE

The reason these Muslim women look so absolutely absurd to anyone who knows anything about Muslim DOCTRINE which is derived from the KORAN, and objectively looks at the status of women in MUSLIM SOCIETIES as well as the perpetrators of terrorism world-wide, is bc it is irrefutable that women are subjugated in Islam and terrorism is an ACT OF WORSHIP for Allah.

Soundbytes, pc spin, ecumenical peace rhetoric, and other lies will not be able to disguise this cold hard fact. What are they seriously saying? Don't tell me about stereotypes. I can read the newspaper. You better address the real hard questions...which of course they will avoid. I am more than willing to listen to you if you can explain why Arab Muslims have got it so terribly wrong and why they are not practicing true Islam; and that goes for all the Arabic Muslim countries, including Saudi Arabia.

And Thank God Bush and Blair were willing to take a stand and oppose the growing insanity and threat of true Islam.

These women are just Muslim deceivers who will prey upon the moral sensibilities of Westerners who feel guilty every time someone from a minority, such as Islam, etc, and someone with presumably good motives, such as concerned mommies, tell them they are unfairly stereotyping them.

Posted by: Tookson at November 20, 2006 11:26 AM

ZenaWarriorPrincess,

You said it! Ironically many Arabs simply detest pukistanis and bangladeshi muslims as they are so untrustworthy. Routinely embezzling and absconding, drug trafficking ,drugs concealed in their rectum is exxtremely common for which they are often hanged publicly and not a whimper of protest ensues. Muslims living in the midst of Infidels in countries like America, Europe and India are the most protected.

In fact Hindu women who lost their husbands were forced to shave off their heads and wear a lustreless khakhi coloured saree to deglamourize themselves (no jewellery absolutely nothing at all)so as to avoid rape/capture by the barbarians. And historians distort the truth blaming everything on the " backwardness of Hindus"(Sic). As you know , how capable of introspection muslims are!

Posted by: Crows&Cows at November 20, 2006 11:32 AM

Crows&Cows-

I don't know how you can stand living there in the middle of all that madness. Compared to you most of us in Europe and the US have it easy!

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at November 20, 2006 11:37 AM

most of the times, the women are even more backward than the men.

Posted by: StillFedUp at November 20, 2006 11:36 AM

They must be. When was the last time anyone heard of a Muslim woman beating her husband? Judging from what we know of Islam the women have far more justification in beating their husbands than vice versa.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at November 20, 2006 11:42 AM

BS

Posted by: US_infidel at November 20, 2006 11:40 AM

Now now. We don't have tens of millions of the "peaceful ones" living here. Yet.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at November 20, 2006 11:44 AM

ISLAMSFORLOSERS,

Honestly, I am looking forward to the Day, when a fairytale ending is promised. If we all get to meet that would be wonderful!

Good night! Sleep well!!

Posted by: Crows&Cows at November 20, 2006 11:53 AM

"The problem is, there are too many people here at JW who still hold out this pipe dream of "ending Islam"--that the only option Muslims have is to leave Islam altogether."
-- from a posting above

Not at all.

Constraining Islam, dividing and demoralizing the Camp of Islam through exploitation of its sectarian (chiefly Sunni and Shi'a --we can leave the Ibadis of Oman out of it), ethnic (resentment by non-Arab Muslims of Arab supremacism, of which Islam is a natural and deliberate vehicle), and economic (the Muslim states endowed with oil wealth, the Muslim states and peoples unendowed with such wealth) divisions, is what is called for, not "ending Islam."

And if that is to happen, a cold eye must be cast on all those media developments and hype -- just what Faisel (or, most likely, Feisal) Abdul Rauf ordered -- about some supposed, most unlikely changes, in the role of women in Islam. For that cold eye must not be taken off the ball, the ball of Muslim hatred of Infidels.

Posted by: Hugh at November 20, 2006 11:53 AM

Yes, we must stop that myth that islam is connected to terrorism.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

Posted by: Carolyn2 at November 20, 2006 11:58 AM

What about tolerance of other faiths?

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/int/long.html

Posted by: Carolyn2 at November 20, 2006 12:08 PM

Oinks a Lot got it right.
Muslim Feminists??????????

It is clear that the author of the article spent too much time actually listening to her college professors and working for "causes". She really should have thrown in more bromides, such as the term "grassroots movement" and maybe the tried and true, "community activist".

Maybe they can take a clue from the 60's, and go to Tehran, or Nepal, or Pakistan, or some other stan, and march for equal rights and abortion, and burn their burkahs (instead of bras). I am sure the local clerics and councils will be happy to give them a parade permit and safe passage.

Posted by: GrimReaperxxx at November 20, 2006 12:10 PM

And the treatment of women?

http://www.middle-east-info.org/gateway/womenchildab
use/index.htm

Posted by: Carolyn2 at November 20, 2006 12:12 PM

http://www.middle-east-info.org/gateway/womenchildabuse/index.htm

try try again
http://www.middle-east-info.org/gateway/womenchildabuse/index.htm

Posted by: Carolyn2 at November 20, 2006 12:15 PM

Are the women really any better than the men?

Posted by: americaningermany at November 20, 2006 12:26 PM

Nope. Both are equally worthless. And deadly.
This is sexual equality, Muslim style.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at November 20, 2006 12:36 PM

How could muslim men and women look a little child in the eyes (ex. Beslan school children) and then stab, shoot and blow them up?

aig, I heard the terrorists were high on drugs at Beslan. Not that they couldn't have killed the kids without drugs.

Posted by: Carolyn2 at November 20, 2006 12:36 PM

It's DAWA, stupid!

ASMA=American Society for Muslim Advancement
ASMA=American Society for Muslim Advancement
ASMA=American Society for Muslim Advancement
ASMA=American Society for Muslim Advancement
ASMA=American Society for Muslim Advancement
ASMA=American Society for Muslim Advancement
ASMA=American Society for Muslim Advancement
ASMA=American Society for Muslim Advancement
Muslim Advancement
Muslim Advancement
Muslim Advancement

It's the DAWA stupid!

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at November 20, 2006 12:48 PM

tookson; " I am more than willing to listen to you if you can explain why Arab Muslims have got it so terribly wrong and why they are not practicing true Islam; and that goes for all the Arabic Muslim countries, including Saudi Arabia."

All good muslims, Arabs and otherwise, practice 'true Islam', unless they are muslims for identification purposes only.
According to Tabari, "Allah said, A true believer is one who says the prayers, pays the tax, bows in homage and renounces agreements with jews".
Of course there's more to that story because a true believer must participate in jihad, in order to ensure Islams supremacy as noted elsewhere. As a submitter, they must suspend personal judgements/and moral values and ethics, and allow the spirit/demon of Allah to possess them. This makes them Abdallah (slave to Allah). The Master wrote a book, dictated by his highness, and passed on by the demon imposter, posing as Gabriel. What is in this book, is the very words, and thoughts of Allah. No muslim who worships Allah and desires paradise, will cross this god, or doubt him.
In his book and from his mouthpiece Mohammad, Allah makes it very clear what he hates, and instructs his submitters to war against it.
What Allah hates is Jews, Christians, Hindus, Zoroastrians, as well as Wiccans, a small tribe of pigmys in the Congo, and assorted other non-believers including Jews and Christians and a few Eskimos. He hates those who go against the flow of his 'true godness'. Those who participate in Jihad...fighting in Allahs cause', which by decree is 'obligatory', are practicing 'true Islam'...

Posted by: duh_swami at November 20, 2006 12:50 PM

duh-swami wrote:

"What Allah hates is Jews, Christians, Hindus, Zoroastrians, as well as Wiccans, a small tribe of pigmys in the Congo, and assorted other non-believers including Jews and Christians and a few Eskimos."

I would add females to the list of things the muslim creator of the universe hates in the "for-muslims only universe" HE created.

Posted by: ynkedoodl2 at November 20, 2006 1:21 PM

"Three-quarters of the state legislatures will ratify
an amendment to the United States Constitution
banning all adherents, practices and forms of Islam based on the Qur'an."

No, that's not a MSM headline, YET. Let me explain.

In a previous post to JW, Limes outlined language for an amendment to the US Constitution essentially outlawing Islam.
I followed up with a commitment to write an affirmation in support of said amendment becoming a reality, hence the opening line, i.e. affirmation for bringing about said amendment.

Any input is appreciated.

Posted by: Malinois at November 20, 2006 1:41 PM

Veiled women protest Pakistan rape law amendments

Ummah News Links

Posted by: ummahnewslinks at November 20, 2006 1:56 PM

Muslim feminists??? What a joke! They can organize in the united states because of the freedoms infidels have created and died for.

They would be legitimate if they would start those councils in muslim countries. Then they would be more believable. See how tolerant those imams and mullahs would be in saudi arabia, oman, bahrain, uae, egypt, libya, iran, pakistan would be.

Posted by: callmeinfidel at November 20, 2006 1:56 PM

Muslim feminists is the latest in a long list of oxymorons from the ummah. Others include "Moderate Muslims" and "Islamic Thinkers Society". This list seems to grow on an almost daily basis.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at November 20, 2006 2:02 PM

Women are worse. They accept the idea of being worth 1/2 of a muslim as coming from God and then they want to force this on all women in the world.
Kind of like the older women holding down the young girls as they get their clitorises clipped off.

Making all women suffer equally is the goal of these disgusting enablers. You make me sick. Please keep standing in front of jihadis and terrorists... after all, allah ta'allah knows best for you you goddamned bitches

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at November 20, 2006 3:32 PM

All religions, in one way or another oppress women, the very essence of religion is misogyny, in fact the misogyny of religion is one of the major carrots, the motivation for men to promotoe and perpetuate a religion..

A man making "legal pronouncements and social statements" on the basis of his own authority is a joke and easily refuted, but invoke "God's word" and it's a different story.. what "mere human" can refute gods' word.. that is why Muhammad used Allah as a ventriloquist dummy, that is why people of all faiths and their leaders use "God" as a ventriloquist dummy.

There is a lot of misogyny in the Old and New Testament and in the Talmud..and despite our advances, the undercurrent of misogyny (patriarchialism, male supremacy) still pervades and dominates our culture, our social expectations, our economy, our practises and expectations.

Anyway a "feminist muslim" is an oxymoron.

Posted by: Nariz at November 20, 2006 3:50 PM

It is funny. How can there be reform if no one admits there is a problem with Islam? A gaping wound in the head will not heal if it is ignored.

This is why, in my opinion, Islam will never reform. It seems that nobody wants to take responsibility and say the truth. This will inevitably, of course, cost millions of lives and an eventual world war. Good show, boys.

Posted by: TheVoiceofTruth at November 20, 2006 4:33 PM

Nariz,

I do dare to disagree. Take a closer look at Jesus, whom I call the greatest feminist who ever lived. Starting with the Archangel Gabriel who witnessed the "yes" response from Mary, his virgin mother. Over the couse of his life he treated women with love and esteem. Also Paul in one of his letters has said that there is "no difference between Jew and Gentile, slave of free, male or female". Women in the Christian faith have faired a lot better then in the Muslim world.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at November 20, 2006 5:08 PM

Maybe I was just to preoccupied with Theo Van Gogh's murder for telling it like it is; or honor killings for wearing makeup,or female genital mutilation to see all the positive strides women in islam are making worldwide. Yeah, just maybe. (reaches for barf-bag)

Posted by: We need G.C. Scott at November 20, 2006 6:39 PM

More cheap PR for dhimmi dimwits ! These are not "Muslim feminists" (which would fall in a categoty of phrases as brilliant as "Catholic rabbi" ), they are being put in front by their clerics and Muslim community in general, so we can see that they don't feel opressed.
They are trying to swindle us by posing as "independent female group " , but we all know who's behind that. This is not a group of women who decided to start this campaign on their own, but we are meant to believe they are.
Better luck next time !

Posted by: deusvult at November 21, 2006 2:37 AM

Muslim feminists???? I think I met some at the Islamic nudist beach in Iran.

Posted by: Provoslavni at November 21, 2006 9:54 AM

Last week the San Francisco Chronicle ran an idiotic article on the (supposed) similarities between women working in high-tech fields in Silicon Valley and women living in impoverished villages outside Amman, Jordan. A group of California women traveled to Jordan--apparently just so they could feel properly chastened.

Some nuggets of wisdom from the article:

"In the West, there is this idea that women in the Middle East are downtrodden compared to us, but it's not the case." (yes, the glass ceiling and the mommy track are really just as bad as forced marriages and honor killings).

"For many Westerners, the Middle East is seen as a region of...oppression--particularly for women--as symbolized by the hijab, the traditional Muslim head-covering.

"The veil is something they wear as a matter of individual religious choice--it's not a symbol of being oppressed" (Note there is no reference here to places like Iran or Saudi Arabia where the religious police beat or arrest women who are "improperly" veiled).

"We've seen really dynamic, positive and effective women here...and they've all worn head scarves. In the West, we've got to get over the mental block that this is an obstacle to overcome."

Finally, there is an acknowledgement of an actual problem women face in the Muskim world--honor killings. But then it goes on to imply that one of the real obstacles to dealing effectively with the problem is those Western (especially American) feminists, who are just so culturally-insensiive. Of course their protests against the practice ran into "resistance" from "a conservative cuture". Bad Americans!

Posted by: gravenimage at November 22, 2006 12:26 AM