"Giving birth can also have an impact on the cases she is dealing with being dealt with correctly"....this is such silly reasoning.

Being dealt with correctly? What, like pregnancy causes brain damage.

Posted by: champ at March 3, 2007 7:07 PM

Constance Baker Motley would not have been amused.

But in a spirit of recognizing diversity, and of doing nothing to tempt good Muslimahs from the straight path of Islam, it is important not to put female Muslims in any situation where they might have to violate the tenets of Islam, by being "alone with men." That rules out a number of occupations, which for the safety and security of Infidels should undoubtedly be ruled out anyway. If you are a Christian or Jew, would you have qualms about a Muslim pilot or co-pilot? Of course you would. Would you have any worries about the quality of care, or the possiblilty of hate-filled or resentful malpractice, from a female (or for that matter male) doctor. What about seeing justice done, if you are a Christian evangelical, or an Orthodox Jew, or indeed any kind of Christian or Jew or Hindu, and your case is to be decided by a female Muslim judge? Any worries? Any belief that justice might not be the only consideration?

There are very few occupations in the advanced West, very little that a faithful female Muslim, can do. But what about those female Muslims who tell us they are willing to be "bad" Muslims in order to serve in such a position? The only decent thing for any Infidel to do is not to believe them, not to tempt them, not to give them a chance to be "bad" Muslims (which is not how they would put it). If they are not apostates, then one should ascribe to them a desire to fulfill, ideally, the duties of a good Muslim, and so they should not be made an exception of, should not be allowed to stray because there are so many temptations here in the Lands of the Infidels, with its political and legal and social structures entirely the product of non-Muslims who wish to keep them more or less as they are, and certainly do not want those political and legal institutions, and social understandings, in any danger of being modified or done away with altogether by agents of the historic enemy of Judeo-Christian civilization, not Hinduism, not Buddhism, not Confucianism or any of th eother ways of China, but Islam, Islam, Islam.

Posted by: Hugh at March 3, 2007 8:04 PM

So becuase I might get pregnant or as the article puts it "will" get pregnant I can't hold an important job.

This reminds me of a scene in a book that took place in Pakistan. A man argues a woman can't be president of pakistan becuase *gasp* she might get pregnant and go into labor at some point! What if that happens during an important an event such as a war? Nope women can't be presidents.

When a woman points out that a male president could be a in the same situation and falls victim to say, a heart attack ,he replies that another man could just step in and take his place.

Muslim logic, entertaining but stupid.

Posted by: JadeDragoness at March 3, 2007 8:51 PM

Muslims accused of blackmail to make student girls convert:

http://sheikyermami.com/2007/03/04/quran-2256-there-is-no-compulsion-in-religion-except-when-there-is/

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at March 3, 2007 10:17 PM

Does this mean that Muslims believe that women's brains turn to mush when they are pregnant?Gasp! The woman might want to breast feed her baby whilst sitting on the bench - NOT!!

Posted by: Maggie4Life at March 3, 2007 11:12 PM

Pregnancy will NOT turn a woman's brain to mush ... it is already mush from the start, so says the Prophet Mohammed (pbuh). But pregnancy will make it even worse so the Americans had better hurry and get Justice Ginsburg OFF the court before she gets pregnant!!!

Posted by: Patrick at March 4, 2007 6:22 AM

"Being dealt with correctly? What, like pregnancy causes brain damage. "

in muslim women only

Posted by: FedUpagain at March 4, 2007 8:38 AM

An unpopluar view, no doubt, but IMHO it needs to be displayed:

At long last an Egyptian male with the correct Islamic attitude to women, whom we all know are the creatures of Satan with their perfumery, jewellery, scanty revealing clothing and 'wiles' which often corrupt innocent men and lead them to stray from Allah's ways.

To have such temptresses dole out justice in a court of 'Sharia', or indeed any, law would make a mockery of the intructions laid down by Mohammed (pbuh) to treat women as mere disfranchised chattels, as servants and as conveyor belts for the production of more and more children; offspring who can be instructed in the glories of martyrdom [both for themselves and for the parents] and consequently become instrumental in the furtherance of Islamoworlddomination.

'Women! Know your place!' has been a recurring exhortation throughout most societies, and it is churlish to condemn the male judge for simply harking back to what Infidels perceive to be the somewhat precivilised days of the 7th and later centuries.

It appears to an innocent, such as myself, that far too many posters on this and similar sites have far too little respect for far too much of the glorious Islamic heritage in which the religion of peace co-promotes the love thy neighbour philosophy of Christianity.

And, incidentally, American politics could well do without the input of the felines Clinton and Pelosi, et al of similar ilk, and [in no half measure] Ms. Con Rice.

Posted by: meekee at March 4, 2007 10:29 AM

If a female judge discusses a case in chambers, he will be with no more than 3 justices...In Islam it takes 4 witnesses to press rape charges...

Posted by: exsgtbrown at March 4, 2007 11:53 AM

Yet again more of Islam's fascination and fear with the other sex.
I mean, "What if she's pregnant! Allah save us from scary pregnant women!!!!"

Posted by: kelisw at March 4, 2007 1:02 PM

It appears to an innocent, such as myself, that far too many posters on this and similar sites have far too little respect for far too much of the glorious Islamic heritage in which the religion of peace co-promotes the love thy neighbour philosophy of Christianity.

And, incidentally, American politics could well do without the input of the felines Clinton and Pelosi, et al of similar ilk, and [in no half measure] Ms. Con Rice.

Posted by: meekee at March 4, 2007 10:29 AM

I had to read the first paragraph (sentence) three times to make sure I was putting the "far toos" in the proper perspective; lucid prose this is not! Now that we're on the same page, I assume you're being sarcastic, right?

The putative "religion of peace" promotes the antithesis of Christianity's "love thy neighbor" philosophy. There are absolutely no similarities between islam and Christianity, least of all love, which is non-existent in islam. Muslims claim to love their children but eagerly sacrifice them as martyrs and murder them in honor killings. Women are too evil and inferior to be worthy of love, and islamic marriage is merely a contract in which a muslim woman agrees to be a sex slave, personal servant, and brood mare in exchange for room and board, and this contract may be nullified at any time by the husband. Muslims might "love" their demonic prophet and satanic allah, but I'm inclined to believe that they're terrified of allah and servile groupies to muhammad, the "prophet" that gave them a license to kill. He is islam's excuse for primitive savagery.

Clinton and Pelosi are two vile witches and Clinton is a Marxist sow to boot. Clinton is by far the most evil and dangerous of the two and unfortunately, she will probably long outlast Rice in the political arena. Rice isn't much better. She claims to be a historian yet knows nothing about islamic history and can't be bothered to learn. Conducting diplomacy in the islamic world without an understanding of islamic history, culture, and eschatology is tantamount to being deaf, dumb, and blind. That sums up the Bush administration.

But these aren't the only women in government; there are many capable, intelligent, hardworking women who actually care about America and work hard to make it better, not a socialist replica of Europe.

Posted by: Susanp at March 4, 2007 10:21 PM

FAO: Susanp ..

I am afraid that your inability to construe my 'far toos' at first, or indeed second, reading says more about your own inabilities than about the lucidity of the sentence construction and phraseology of my innocent self.

Did you intentionally aim to prove that the Egyptian judge was correct in his condemnation of females as unfit for purpose? Or was this, in your irresponsible haste to castigate me, solely an unthinking, accidental error on your part?

It is an unfortunate feature of life's mysteries that people without literary competence, and self-evidently lacking in historical knowledge, who degenerate into issuing unprovoked personal abuse may end up exposed as arrogant idiots, out of habitat on an intellectual message board such as this.

It is a shame that you have placed yourself in such a position. However, we are in the Jihad wars together, and therefore, as a fellow combatant, I shall try to overlook your unedifying transgression and pray that you will eventually grow into a mature lady of irreproachable character.

Peace Be Upon You

Posted by: meekee at March 5, 2007 7:49 AM

meekee:

You have already shown your dislike for Canadians. It appears you don't care much for women, either. Do you have anything good to say about anyone besides yourself ?

No need to be so arrogant - get over yourself. And kindly drop the (pbuh) after mentioning mohammed's name. That isn't likely to win friends here.

Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at March 5, 2007 11:41 AM

FAO: ImNoDhimmi:

Thank you for being able to spare a few moments in commenting on my original posting and on my response to Susanp above.

You make a few points but:
I do not dislike Canadians .. indeed I have friends living in Ontario .. but I do feel contempt for those residing in that country who hate and criticise the USA whilst [in many instances] profiting from America's economic and military strength.

I do not dislike women in general .. how could I having been married to the same lady for almost fifty years ... though naturally I am not over-enamoured with those mentioned above.

I was merely indicating to Susanp that if she resorted to uncalled for, and indeed unnecessary, criticism of a poster's humble efforts and thereby cattily implied that such a poster was intellectually substandard, then she should deserve to receive responses in a similar vein.

And I ventured to hope that some time in the future she would develop into a more charitable, mature lady, a valued ally in the Jihad wars.

Your statement that I glorify only myself is, I am afraid, unsubstantiated nonsense, and as for "get over yourself" IMHO meaningless cliche.

If I wish to put (pbuh) after Mohammed's name I shall .. profits are to be consolidated .. and whether I win friends here, or not, does not affect me; unless you are to issue a fatwa on me, or burn dead vermin over a camp fire whilst incanting my name in tongues, I shall merrily continue to hum 'I shall not be moved'.

The purpose of Message Boards such as this is to learn about Islam from all contributors, the expert and the ordinary. I classify myself as 'ordinary'; you will have to decide on your own 'rank'.

It is a pity that I learnt nothing from your posting, but, sadly, we cannot win them all.

Posted by: meekee at March 5, 2007 10:25 PM

O.K. then.
So the Egyptian male judge has had his fifteen minutes of fame and now,I assume, we all move on to a new revelation in the tales of the oh-to-be-expected.
Good .. a new dawn on a new day.

Posted by: meekee at March 6, 2007 10:22 PM