I got a 404esque thing...please repost URL.

try this one: http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=subjects&Area=reform&ID=SP56703 Special Dispatch Series - No. 567 September 5, 2003 No.567 Defending Muslim Women from Beatings A recent book by Muhammad Kamal Mustafa, the imam of a mosque in southern Spain, has sparked controversy in that country. The book, 'Women in Islam,' describes how men should beat their wives, citing the Koranic verse: "And [as to] those on whose part you fear disobedience, admonish them, expel them from the bed, and beat them [ 4:34]." Othman Al-Rawwaf, a Saudi columnist for the London-based Arabic-language daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, criticized the Spanish imam and other intellectuals who argue that the problem is not wife-beating, but the way in which it is presented to the West. The following are excerpts from Al-Rawwaf's article: [1] Discussing Wife-Beating with Non-Muslims "…I read an article… that criticized the [Spanish imam] for presenting a distorted picture of Islam regarding the issue of wife-beating. [The critic said that] it would have been better to speak about the fact that Islam instructs us to be gradual [about wife-beating] – namely, first we are instructed to admonish the wife [for her disobedience, and if that doesn't work] to expel her from the bed, and only if that doesn't work either, to beat her. [It would have been better also to recall the fact that] Abdallah bin 'Abbas ruled that the beating must be performed with a toothpick or a handkerchief. The critic concluded that such books serve the conspiracies of the enemies of the Muslim nation. "With all the respect I have for this Islamic critic… and despite my knowing how hard he strives to explain the true Islam to non-Muslims, and especially to the West, the issue of women in Islam and the way in which Muslims and non-Muslims perceive the relationship between men and women in Islam is a complicated issue that must be dealt with seriously [and substantively] by thinkers in the Islamic world. "Wife-beating cannot be explained in terms of necessity and non-painful methods when speaking with non-Muslims, and even with many Muslim women… A few years ago, I participated with a group of Arab and Muslim academics in a symposium on Islam and the West, hosted by the University of Washington in Seattle. "In the follow-up discussion to a research presentation, one of the university professors, who identified himself as a Turkish Muslim, posed a question for the Muslim lecturers. He asked their opinions on wife-beating in Islam. The [participating] Shari'a experts gave various answers, some of them explaining the reasons and justifications for wife-beating. When one of the professors of Shari'a used his pencil [to demonstrate], tapping his hand lightly and explaining to those present, 'Such is wife-beating in Islam, light and not painful,' cries of laughter and astonishment broke out in the hall..." Justifications and Explanations are Unacceptable to Westerners "Such justifications and explanations are unacceptable, because Western intellectuals are fundamentally opposed to the very principle of wife-beating. The best answer I heard from one of the Muslim lecturers at that symposium was not an attempt to explain or justify wife-beating; rather, he merely said that wife-beating in the U.S. is far more prevalent than in any Islamic society. "At a conference of the Middle East Studies Association of North America (MESA), held in Washington a few years ago, I saw a group of young Muslim women handing out [a copy of] a Fatwa issued by a Muslim cleric living in Canada, who said that men are forbidden from beating women. At that same conference, I heard an Afro-American Muslim woman… demand that Muslim clerics ban wife-beating, on the same religious grounds as the ruling banning slavery in Islam… "How is equality among people possible if there is no equality between women and men? How can there be equality between men and women when men think that religious law permits them to beat their wives?… Extremism and terror are transient occurrences in Islamic society, and will not last long. In contrast, the women's issue will continue to exist, because its social roots are ancient and it must be addressed thoroughly." Women Demand a New Interpretation of Shari'a "The issue of women in Islam should not be addressed because the West and international human rights organizations demand equality between men and women in the Muslim world, but because it is a need in Muslim society. Social, political, and economic needs demand that the problems of women in the Islamic world be addressed. Islamic societies suffer many financial losses because half their financial and human resources [i.e. women] are neutralized or not used in the best possible way. "To begin addressing the problem of women in Islamic countries, we must first of all recognize that the problem exists, and not delude ourselves into thinking that the situa

...condemned to this future?

In what context? This is a post of Muslim treatment of their women, with an emphasis on Saudi Arabia. If you want to confine your comments to that, I will engage in a discussion. If you want to go off topic, and ask rhetorical questions, have fun with yourself, like the sound of one hand clapping. swhitebull

…Bombing muslim women... is that violence?… You make a throwaway comment about bombing muslim women, and then switch to accusing me of denigrating Islam - I asked you what context that comment was made in, and you failed to respond. Were you trying to make some political statement, or linkage to another issue? If so, please spell it out, so that the rest of us know your POV. Instead, you ask me to clarify my very obvious. My posting comments regarding the justification in the Quran of the beating of Islamic women, and their reaction to such practices, are entirely within the purview of StrategyPage's Rules of Use, and needs no further clarification - except to you, it seems. The post stands on its own, and if it shows Islam in a less than bright light, so be it, since the customs and laws are from the Quran. If my post were a violation of the Rules of the Board, I am sure the thread would have been deleted by now - and it hasn’t been. If you construe the actual words of the Quran and the Prophet that were cited in the article as promoting hatred, that’s YOUR interpretation, not mine, since I made no judgments. I suggest you read the article again - I am merely pointing out what is in the Quran, and how Islamic women have reacted to the law and the practice.. But don’t shoot the messenger that merely relates it. Unless you don’t like what you read. As it says in the Torah, if thine eyes offend thee, pluck them out. My posting quotes Arabic and Islamic sources, as translated by MEMRI, and illustrates NOT my ethnocentrism or denigration of the most populous religion in the world, but the practices in the Muslim world as related in their own writings. You have a problem with that? Take it up with the sources quoted. If you think the article is faulty in what it quotes and relates, then YOU must on some level have concluded that there is something wrong with the Quran and the Fatwahs of Imans promoting the practice. Maybe cause you are embarrassed at either the exposure of the practice, or the verity of the practice- take your pick. Nor have I commented on the incidence rates or statistics regarding domestic abuse among Arabic or Islamic cultures, merely citing what is ALLOWED by the Quran, and what Muslim women do have issues with. Again, you have a problem with the facts, that’s your problem. It doesnt take away from the argument that Islam isnt all goodness and light, and the exposure of the warts is fair game. If you want me to provide you with such statistics, it would be an honor to do so. My guess is that we can start with the status of women in Afghanistan during the Taliban, and move onto the beheadings and stonings of women in Saudi Arabia and Nigeria, as State law? I will do so upon your request. NO denigration intended, just the straight statistics. swhitebull - how about we post on honor killings in Islam next? And cite the references and customs in the Quran for those as well? From the horse's mouth, so to speak. Any information that I can show that doesnt sanitize the idyllic ideal Islamic world that Islamic authorities would have you believe is fine in my book. If you dont like that, I am sincerely sorry.

..You are passing yourself off as an Islamic scholar, whatwith your unqualified interpretations of selected Koranic scripture. I think we all know not to take the allegories of ancient texts as literal instructions.. I haven’t passed myself off as any kind of Islamic scholar, and nowhere make that claim, but thanks for the complement anyhow. I merely post an article citing MUSLIMS writing about MUSLIMS practices. If you don’t like what you read when MUSLIMS bash their religious practices, too bad. Take it up with them. And don’t let the door hit you on the backside on your way out. And are you saying that the words of the Quran are False? Can I have your name, Email address, and phone number? I will gladly pass them off to the Iranian Ayatollahs, the former Taliban who had street police publicly beat women, the Nigeria Imans who have imposed Sharia and stone women to death, and all of those wonderfully peace-loving Wahhabi clerics in Saudi Arabia. They may want to have a long discussion with you. Preferably in a dark dank cell, after cutting your tongue out for preaching blasphemy and heresy. Under those circumstances, I’d watch your tongue, if you would still have one left. I thought EVERY word of the Quran was the Word of Allah, and therefore True? Do you know otherwise? Swhitebull - I have nothing but CONTEMPT for a religion that imposes itself on everyone, preaches violence as a way of life, and tolerates NO other religious beliefs as an equal in lands that Islam is practiced, If you don’t like that, I really don’t care WHAT you think – feel free to find it hateful and racist, I doubt that my posting an piece written by ISLAMIC writers writing about THEIR OWN religious practices and attributing it to ME would as MY racism or ethnocentricity would hold up very well in a court of law, even an Islamic one. And what was your email address again? Oh, and btw – given the hatful and racist comments you made on the Israeli board with your inflammatory use of language, I wouldnt be casting the first stones here, bucko.

"I think we all know not to take the allegories of ancient texts as literal instructions." You're right - after all, none of us are Islamic scholars capable of appropriately interpreting those texts. To better understand Islam, we should go to the works of real Islamic scholars who do interpret those texts: i.e. the numerous fatwas pronounced daily around the world, and the Islamic sharia law formulated by Islamic scholars and enacted into law in countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Pakistan. Would this be better methodology?

"I think we all know not to take the allegories of ancient texts as literal instructions." We? Who? The world is full of people who think like this. A few have talk shows in the US. Millions have automatic rifles and RPG's in the middle east.

A bit strident in tone, but Gaffney has a way of telling it like it is. If it insults some islamic terrorist or the islamic terrorist supporter, oh well: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/gaffney_2003_10_21.php3 Know thy enemy By Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. The biggest imponderable concerning the war on terror is whether the American people and their leaders are clear on a central question: Exactly who is the enemy in this war? We are, after all, not fighting some abstraction called "terror." The truth is we are engaged in a death struggle with people who use terror — usually involving the deliberate murder of innocent civilians — as an instrument to advance their agendas. As to precisely who those people are, the past twenty-five months have brought to light a bewildering array of terrorist organizations pursuing a variety of stated objectives, usually with help from this or that rogue state-sponsor. But one thing should be clear post-9/11: The most determined, numerous and dangerous of these enemies are radical, violent Muslims known as "Islamists." Most experts believe that the Islamists are, at present, a small percentage of the Muslim faithful worldwide. The danger is that, since there are approximately 1.6 billion Muslims, even a small percentage could mean there are millions available to serve as cannon-fodder for the radicals. Worse yet, all things being equal, their numbers will continue to grow, thanks in no small measure to the assiduous efforts of Islamist regimes in Saudi Arabia and Iran (the former of the Sunni Wahhabi stripe, the latter favoring Shiite extremism). All too often, such efforts are accompanied — and systematically advanced — by an insidious disinformation campaign. Its main thrust is that anyone who dares to point out the threat posed by the Islamists is a racist, bigot or ignoramus. Why? Because, we are told, such observations impugn all Muslims. This is, of course, absurd. Law-abiding and tolerant Muslims first and foremost understand that there are real differences between themselves and the Islamists — so much so that the radicals view their peaceable co-religionists with at least as much hostility as they do people of other faiths. Among those most aggressively promoting the idea that Islamists are indistinguishable from any other Muslims are a number of Arab-American and Muslim-American organizations long associated with jihadists and their causes. Since 9/11, they have tried to obscure their true colors by promoting the fiction that they are defenders of all people of the Islamic faith, rather than what they actually are: apologists for the radicals among them, focused on initiatives that have the effect of excusing, protecting or otherwise benefitting the latter. Fortunately, some of these organizations (notably several founded by or associated with Abdurahman Alamoudi - the Islamist-sympathizer indicted last month for receiving illegal funding from Libya) have recently come under increasing scrutiny from law enforcement and the Congress. The American Muslim Council, the American Muslim Foundation, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America and the Muslim Student Association have had officials arrested and/or troubling questions raised on Capitol Hill about their activities in our prisons, military chaplain corps, mosques and colleges. In light of the arrests and worrisome revelations, it is all the more astounding that such groups enjoy any credibility at all when they denounce those who warn of Islamists hijacking and perverting the Muslim faith. The latest example of this phenomenon has been an attack mounted in the past week by the Islamists' proponents on one of the Nation's most highly regarded, experienced and decorated Special Forces officers, Lieutenant General William "Jerry" Boykin. Gen. Boykin recently assumed the post of Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence. In that capacity, he is charged with the priority tasks of hunting down Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and their ilk. This respected Pentagon official became the subject of intense and mostly hostile media attention after an inveterate leftist activist-turned columnist and TV commentator named William Arkin circulated videotaped and other materials. In them, the general professed his Christian faith and reviled Muslim extremists — yes, extremists — on both religious and strategic grounds. Whatever one thinks of Gen. Boykin's obviously deeply held personal beliefs, he must be credited with one thing: He understands that Islamists have declared war on this country and that we have no alternative but to defeat them. For stating this truth, the general has been roundly criticized by the Islamists' admirers and their friends. Notably, one of the most visible of the professional Muslim agitators — CAIR's executive director, Nihad Awad — has accused Gen. Boykin of "ignorance," having "extremist v

"I think we all know not to take the allegories of ancient texts as literal instructions" I'm not so sure that Prophet Muhammad, after killing the Jews at Khaibar and taking Safiya Bint Huyai as his "wife" while still drenched with her husband's blood, whispered in her ear, "Lighten up, baby. I'm just making an allegory."