djibnet.com: Les Pretexts Utuliser Pour Attaquer L Islam - djibnet.com

Aller au contenu

Page 1 sur 1
  • Vous ne pouvez pas commencer un sujet
  • Vous ne pouvez pas répondre à ce sujet

Les Pretexts Utuliser Pour Attaquer L Islam la femme...liberte et etc... Noter : -----

#1 L'utilisateur est hors-ligne   Siranyo aka allahs slave Icône

  • Membre
  • Pip
Groupe :
Membres
Messages :
115
Inscrit :
20-mai 03

Posté 06 mai 2005 - 08:31

“Women’s Rights” Has No Legitimacy In Islam

Like secularism, capitalism and democracy, women’s rights also flows from the West to the rest. The various tentacles of the UN are dedicated to propagating women’s rights as universal values. It seems odd that universal values would require external effort to cajole nations into compliance! The issue (women’s rights) is predominantly raised to attack Islam and Muslims, even though it may be more applicable to other religions and cultures that indicate the ulterior motive behind the issue is one of making political gains against adversaries not the welfare of womankind.

In response to the attack, the Muslims in general have responded in a defensive mode; arguing that the women in Islam do have rights that are comparable to secular societies, which is an admission of defeat as secular values are made the real arbiter. Consequentially, this has helped to foster an apologetic mindset whereby there is a continuous apology for Islam by reinterpreting its laws and values to meet the standards set by the secular movements. In the name of Ijtehad (Scholarly exertion to interpret Islamic texts and deduce laws) and various other pretexts, even the established Sharia rules are being slowly rendered subjective and moulded to meet secular standards.

Listed below are some of the points frequently raised by the western intelligentsia to undermine the Islamic laws and values pertaining to women while promoting the alternative “woman’s rights”. It also gives us a glimpse of the real politics behind these rights.

The Islamic Veil (Hijab) or the Bikini?

The firepower of the west was going to be a liberating force for the women in Afghanistan, post 9/11, but the honourable women of Afghanistan did not strip their veils for the miniskirt. So, in an attempt to kick-start the process of ‘liberation’ a US based Afghani woman was paraded semi-nude in a beauty contest. Eventually, a Hollywood blockbuster would follow where the all American hero would seduce a Muslim woman out of the burqah into an adulterous relationship symbolising her ‘liberation’!

What is the underlying principle here? If stripping your clothes off to appeal to the male gender is a symbol of liberation, then the lap dancers, strippers, porn actresses and the likes must epitomise the concept of a liberated woman. Accordingly, if the US forces managed to replace the Mosques in Kabul with strip joints, lap dancers and brothels entertaining their soldiers that would have symbolised ‘liberation’ of the Afghan women.

Such arguments tend to indicate that woman’s rights are always and directly tied to her ability to appear in scanty revealing clothes as opposed to her education or other achievements in life. This is usually followed by the ludicrous argument of denial that the women appear in revealing clothes to ‘feel good’ and not to appeal to the male instincts. So, high-heel shoes must be more comfortable than flat shoes, scanty clothes in freezing temperature must be better than baggy warm clothes, tight clothes more comfortable than baggy clothes. I must admit as a male I am at a loss in trying to understand such ‘profound’ arguments. It does seem ironic that ‘emancipated’ women spend most of their energies trying to titillate to the opposite sex in their clothes, makeup and diet while this emancipation has only increased their dependency on the male gender!

Now that we know a woman is described as ‘progressive’ and ‘liberated’ for replacing the veil with the mini-skirt, then why draw a line with absolute nudity. The female emancipation barometer seems to be measured by how much she is willingly to strip off but the going beyond the bra and bikini is considered indecent. So, how did one conclude that is where the border of decency and indecency lies? Thus, the most pertinent question why the minimum dress code enforced by the secular societies any more correct than the limits imposed by the Islamic Sharia?

Polygamy or Sexual Freedom (Promiscuity)?

Polygamous relationships pre-dates Islam, it existed in Judeo-Christian traditions and most other religions. Therefore, why target Islam specifically on this issue of polygamy? I do find it astonishingly hypocritical for the West to incessantly argue against polygamy when one would be hard pressed to find a virtuous monogamous man amongst them! Do they seriously think that the upright ‘monogamous’ West is on some sort of moral crusade confronting the ‘depraved’ polygamous Islam? In reality, even from high school or earlier, the competition is fierce amongst boys to capture many virgins as possible in the West.

Night clubs, parties, holidays are the dedicated places encouraging the boys and girls to maximise their fun and experience licensed by ‘sexual freedom’. This is used constantly to push the boundaries of sexual taboos, permitting and encouraging sexual activities that involve multiple partners in the form of open relationships to sordid orgies and the likes. Only the arrogant hypocrite would refuse to see the contradiction of criticising polygamy while using the license of ‘sexual freedom’ to permit all sorts of sexual activities!

So, it seems that polygamous relationship is acceptable but as long as it is not a marriage with legal obligations. When a celebrity manages to engage several women in one night it becomes a selling point for tabloids, an example for the new generations, earning the envy of most men. Even more, a man can make an appearance on a national TV-show announcing that he has boyfriend to his wife or that he is literally in love with his dog or any other forms of perversion as long as it is not a second wife!

The power of propaganda is so immense that many of the Muslim apologists have started to deny the existence of a restricted practice of polygamy in Sharia laws. A classic and idiotic argument to deny Polygamy is made when they say “Islam has obliged you to give equal treatment to all your wives and since this is not possible, a task beyond human capacity, hence, Polygamy is only a theoretical possibility”. I do not understand why God would permit Polygamy if it is beyond the ability of the male gender! Why GOD would pronounce such meaningless statements? I guess you have to have the ‘wisdom’ of the apologists to understand such pronouncements or neo-Ijtehad.

Freedom of Choice and Enforcement?

Muslim women are denied a choice under the Islamic laws while the emancipated Western women have endless choices being free. But what are those choices and what is the implication for the society if the individuals are given those choices. Choice is not intrinsically a virtue; it can bring chaos, and if incorrect choices, are made than it causes more harm than good. As an example, from an Islamic perspective the huge flesh industry of porn and prostitution is viewed as exploitation and degradation of women. The West would reply by stating that those women decided of their own free will to pursue a career in that industry. There is no doubt woman’s flesh sells, it makes money like any another commodity in the free market economy.

However, the business of porn and prostitution by its nature is exploitative and degrading regardless of how it is produced, by choice or compulsion. It is predominantly produced to satisfy the lust of the male gender; the long term effect on society is that it inculcates a certain mentality and psyche amongst the youth. The implications are huge, from the growth in sexual crimes, single parent families, drug dependencies etc.

In any case, no society endorses absolute freedom of choice. Every society enforces certain laws and values to maintain order and stability. The restrictions applied to Muslim women are equally applicable to Muslim men, as the laws regulate the behaviour of both the male and female. If you separate the female from the male, the male too is separated from the female. But no one is interested the restriction on male because the real focus is on the access to Muslim women, removing the traditional barriers. Why, because we know flesh sells!

Gender Equality or Gender Harmony?

Gender Equality is a one-dimensional view focusing primarily on the relationship between two adult peers engaged in a marital relationship. What role does it play between father and daughter, mother and son, uncle and niece, grandfather and granddaughter relationships? Furthermore, why is the standard of equality measured by referring to the male gender as the base line? Consequentially, women are increasingly pushed to imitate men in every sphere to symbolise emancipation and equality. Surely this is the biggest insult to womanhood as it assumes her to be unequal until she does what men do!

Also are there any limits of gender equality? Should the gender differences become totally immaterial in determining the laws and values? If so, the long term implications would be that the concept of moms and dads, brothers and sisters, husbands and wives etc. lose any meaning. Similarly, the distinction between homosexual and heterosexual relationship would also vanish. In the name of gender equality should we reach a point where the only distinction remaining would be the bodily organs? And is it for the advocates of gender equality to clarify the limits to which this should be allowed and pursued?

In a previous article [1] I cited evidences from the three Abrahamic religions (Islam, Christianity and Judaism) highlighting the absence of ‘gender equality’ as espoused by the current secular trends. Also, I elaborated and provided corroborative evidences from history and human nature confirming the fallacy of gender equality. Throughout human history, the two genders have generally functioned to complement each other particularly in a husband and wife relationship as opposed to acting as adversaries competing in every sphere. Islam in line human nature espouses for the harmony between two genders and not a full scale war.

Who Are The Chivalrous Knights Of Woman’s Rights?

Apart from the idea of woman’s rights, it is important to get glimpse of those, in particular the male gender, on how to uphold such lofty values. Men in the West are caught in between by a culture that constantly agitates their sexual instincts and also demands ‘respect’ for women by complying with the codes of being politically correct. Nominal respect shown by the men is due to the fear of being subjected to the laws of sexual harassment and thus being politically correct is simply pretentious.

It is the constant agitation of their sexual instinct that will always be the dominating factor in their behaviour. Their macho minds are filled with a culture of porn with images of women as sexual object transmitted by the lewd pop-fashion-film industry: pieces of flesh to consume. They showed their inner traits when they can get away with it. Rape in the Western society is constantly on the increase, it also prevalent within the army. That is why many of the soldiers raped in Iraq as given the opportunity they will shed their mask as soldiers of woman’s rights.

At night they hunt in the clubs and parties for women’s flesh. There is even sex-tourism organised so that the flag bearers of woman’s rights routinely raid the cheap and poverty stricken flesh market in the Far East! These are the men who have been busy ‘scoring’ by hunting females from an early age who are going to teach the Islamic world about the merits of virtuous monogamous relationship! It is laughable and absurd as the criminals like Bush, Blair and Sharon talks about lofty values as peace, morality and now eliminating poverty. When these men are drunk just see how they regard the opposite sex, their discussion barely rises above the waistlines. At this point the liberated woman would definitely feel less secure amongst these chivalrous knights.

If there was genuine enthusiasm towards woman’s rights in general, then all women would be treated with respect. An elderly woman in the West is rarely treated with respect as a motherly figure but often a subject to mocking, the familiar term of the old bag, witch etc. Because her youth has passed, she is no longer a valuable commodity in the free market and quarantined into old peoples home.

Genuine respect is fostered by an environment where the two sexes relate to each other by values that are not driven by their carnal desires and whims. In a permissive culture one loses real respect for women; the loss of sense of shame and modesty and the notion of honour of a woman becomes meaningless. Sexual crimes are viewed as trivial, which is why lenient punishment is dispensed for it, where as in Islam the punishment is most severe as the crime is recognised as severe, because Islam places value on the honour of a woman!

The old cliché, judge them by their fruits, shows that ‘liberated’ societies with emancipated women and men have not attained greater levels of happiness and stability. In fact the social trend shows the reverse, breakdown in family life, soaring divorce rates, increasing dependencies on drugs. Rape, domestic violence and all sorts of social crimes are constantly on the increase.

Media Manipulation

Recently, a TV documentary referred to the Turkish producers of porno films not as “Turkish pornographers” but as “Muslim Pornographers”. It is truly amazing that even the most non-practicing, westernised liberals who are engaged in the most un-Islamic acts are coloured with the Muslim brush. Another vivid example is the Kurdish father who killed his young daughter for engaging in an adulterous relationship that was immediately identified as an act of a Muslim. However, the entire Kurdish population in Iraq have been labelled only as Kurds rather then Muslims from 1991. Likewise, the media deliberately shows the punishment given out to the adulterous woman (not the man) to reinforce the image that Islam only target women.

The picture of the Taliban punishing the women who was already convicted in a court was presented in the western media whose audiences have already been brainwashed with the idea that the Taliban target women indiscriminately. In reality the women prisoner of the Taliban included the famous Western journalist Yvonne Ridley who later embraced Islam testified otherwise. Even in Iraq, it is the ugly US soldiers that are deliberately raping and killing women in Fallujah and Abu-Ghraib. Where as all the women prisoners at the hands of the Muslims from Private Jessica Lynch to the Italian journalists were freed unharmed, they were treated very well according to their own words.

In general every effort is made by the media to link to Islam as an underlying factor whenever any unpleasant incident occurs that is contrary to the teachings of Islam. Likewise the cultural baggage the Muslims carry that often leads to un-Islamic practices like honour killing, forced marriages, unfair denial of education are all linked with Islam by the media rather than the absence of Islam.

What Islam Says

The Islamic perspective is clear: women are not equal to men and men are not equal to women. Neither party are inferior or superior to each other. Their positions are defined with a set of rights and responsibilities. A husband may have rights over his wife but the husband is subordinate to his mother. Similarly, a mother may have rights over her son, but she is in turn subordinate to her father. The relationships between the two genders are complex and multifaceted. It is the Islamic laws that shape the relationship in terms of designating rights and obligations between the two genders at various positions.

It is only rational and consistent to protect the rights of everyone including women by invoking the Islamic laws instead of resorting to secular arguments that are rooted in feminism. If secular values are the criteria then it makes little sense to interpret Islam to fit into the secular garb but far greater sense to simply abandon it. Why go for secular compatible Islam instead of pure secularism? It simply makes no sense. Unfortunately there are even feminists in Hijab along with their male apologists in leash are using Islamic texts to promote non-Islamic ideas like woman’s rights, gender equality as Islamic, wittingly or unwittingly. If a man or a woman has been denied their rights we invoke the Islamic laws not some arbitrary foreign principle like woman’s rights or men’s rights.

Had Islam and Muslim men been oppressive to women, the feminist movement would have arisen from within the Islamic societies as opposed to being imported wholesale from the west. The origin of such movements perhaps reflects where the real oppression of women exists! No one can explain why Islam supposedly anti-Woman stance continues to attract more women than men. Both ration and Islamic texts dictates that “women’s rights” has no place in Islam, those who speak in its name have the worst track record in violating the rights of womankind and it is a political tool employed selectively against its opponents.

halla back

"hypocrisy is the only evel thats invisible except to allah alone"
"when straying and searching for the sympathy of the west"
0

#2 L'utilisateur est hors-ligne   Desaxee Icône

  • Membre Avancé
  • PipPip
Groupe :
Membres
Messages :
6 658
Inscrit :
11-mai 03

Posté 06 mai 2005 - 07:15

I hope this text would attract more djibnautes! =D> First of all, thanks Sitanyo it's the most interesting intellectual piece I read since............Da Vinci Code. (I know I have crap taste for books B) )

Ok dude!!! This guy has a lot of things to say !!! Bravo for him then... But he's saying a lot of crap too!!
His analysis of western societies and how women are treated over there are correct. But I'd have wanted him to say more about muslims societies and the treatment reserved to women. As he hasn't talked about that, one would assume (it's the author's goal), that in muslim societies women are treated better than in the west.
Which is false , absolutely false. But then We don't have the same definition of a "good treatement" perhaps ;)

First of all let's put appart ISLAM AND MUSLIMS. They are two things that cannot be inteerwined. Islam is not responsible about Muslims' behaviour. And muslims CAN ACT AGAINST their religion (all muslims are not a homogene group which can be hold as representative of ISLAM).
Western women who are attracted to Islam know that equality exist in Islam and in some muslims societies (unfortunately not in all of them).

Citation

The issue (women’s rights) is predominantly raised to attack Islam and Muslims, even though it may be more applicable to other religions and cultures that indicate the ulterior motive behind the issue is one of making political gains against adversaries not the welfare of womankind.


We live in an age of paranoia :blink: , women' rights are promoted everywhere in the world even in PapuaNEwGuinea or in South America. Or In China which is still a country babies girls are killed or abandonned due to restrictive gouvernements policies.



[QUOTE]In the name of Ijtehad (Scholarly exertion to interpret Islamic texts and deduce laws) and various other pretexts, even the established Sharia rules are being slowly rendered subjective and moulded to meet secular standards. [/QUOTE]
Ya walad, improving womens' rights (which basically means outlawing that she can be killed or abused by men) IS NOT SECULAR. By stating that , this guy would make you believe that Islam ADORE and condone that some women are mis-treated, And thus by defending women, you are against a religion. This guy is definitely wicked

Citation

I do not understand why God would permit Polygamy if it is beyond the ability of the male gender! Why GOD would pronounce such meaningless statements? I guess you have to have the ‘wisdom’ of the apologists to understand such pronouncements or neo-Ijtehad.

The guy is not even enough honnest to understand that polygamy has a social context which doesn't exist ANYMORE. That's why it's been abandonned even in muslim socities as Djibouti or Somalia, where there are less and less polygamous marriages.


Citation

Muslim women are denied a choice under the Islamic laws while the emancipated Western women have endless choices being free.
I am glad that he's admitted that :)

Citation

Choice is not intrinsically a virtue; it can bring chaos, and if incorrect choices, are made than it causes more harm than good.

Ah Ah I understand now, why all muslims countries are under the rule of dictators. This is what I was talking about few weeks earlier, that for sheikhs and imaams you will be an Peter Pan, a child who would never be mature enough to make decisions. That them or a Prince, Or a dictator would do it for you.


[QUOTE]Furthermore, why is the standard of equality measured by referring to the male gender as the base line? Consequentially, women are increasingly pushed to imitate men in every sphere to symbolise emancipation and equality.[/QUOTE]I'd reply to this : why is the standard of unequality in muslim societies measured by referring to the male gender as the base line? Man command, women obey.



Citation

In a previous article [1] I cited evidences from the three Abrahamic religions (Islam, Christianity and Judaism) highlighting the absence of ‘gender equality’ as espoused by the current secular trends
BECAUSE THEY WERE PATRIARCHAL RELIGIONS actually before Judaism came and until Christianity transfrom itself as a powerful religions, societies are matriarchal, people were adoring "female gods"( they were pagans). Feminity was important then.

Citation

Throughout human history, the two genders have generally functioned to complement each other particularly in a husband and wife relationship as opposed to acting as adversaries competing in every sphere
That's not true , ancient societies were matriarchal (pre-christians, pre-judaic), women were impowered as the pagans saw her "superiority" (she gives birth). Patriarchal societies came with religions and the creation of military cities (ancient greek) where manly qualities like warrior, physical trenght were admired.

Citation

It is the constant agitation of their sexual instinct that will always be the dominating factor in their behaviour.
That's common to all men not only westerners, do you want me to give an example of arab shopkeepers in Rue des mouches a djibouti? and their nasty behaviour!!

Citation

That is why many of the soldiers raped in Iraq as given the opportunity they will shed their mask as soldiers of woman’s rights.
Oh for honnesty' sake, no arab, muslim soldier has never raped women in the chaos of a war? In the borders of Somalia and Kenya there are countless refugees camps filled with raped somali women during the civil war. You can find their testimonies everywhere even in the net. It's the chaotic situation which lead men to commit such crimes it's not a western privilege.

Citation

Sexual crimes are viewed as trivial, which is why lenient punishment is dispensed for it, where as in Islam the punishment is most severe as the crime is recognised as severe, because Islam places value on the honour of a woman!
:lol: :lol: and most of the case only muslim women end up being punished!!!



Bref, Bref, this guy is misleading a lot people here, I understand that some arab muslims are obsessed with the West because there is an ongoing war. But let's be honnest here.
The rest of muslims don't give a damn about the west, ( we are 80% of muslims). We believe that Islam is a good religion, that women rights like children rights, peasants rights, ethnic minority rights should be promoted so we can all live together in a righteous, impartial society. That no one can be left behind.
Arab or middle east people have a problem with the treatement of women, this is due to their tradition and culture. They should not be interpreted that as part of ISlam. (killing honours have nothing to do with ISlam).

Ce message a été modifié par Desaxee - 06 mai 2005 - 07:24 .

0

#3 L'utilisateur est hors-ligne   ANGE FELIX Icône

  • Membre Avancé
  • PipPip
Groupe :
Membres
Messages :
861
Inscrit :
02-avril 05

Posté 06 mai 2005 - 09:04

franchement tu deconnes partout.tu es pire que IOG :angry:
0

#4 L'utilisateur est hors-ligne   ayanna Icône

  • Membre Avancé
  • PipPip
Groupe :
Attente Validation
Messages :
518
Inscrit :
20-janvier 05

Icône du message  Posté 06 mai 2005 - 09:17

je suis partiellement d accord avec toi
alors que je suis une parfaite "feministe", figure toi ...

concernant pornographie ,
ca a tjrs existe mon cher :o les males sont comme tu dis differents des femmes
je pense pas que ca creer plus de violeurs non car ces derniers prendraient autres raisons pour agir ...
l inquietant c est plutot la facilite d acces pour les gamins (internet ...) et le "toujours plus trash" qui va avec : j ai lu dans journal qu une certaine pratique formellement interdite par les religions monotheistes est dorenavant demander avec insistance par les petits amis avec comme discours "oh mais mon amour , c est courant maintenant :lol: " surement dans les films qu ils regardent ! :)

sinon concernant le besoin de seduction des femmes :
c est un trait de caractere donc certaine l on ;d autres pas
eh oui c est vrai y en a un nombre qui adore qu a chaque coin de rue
des males leur rapelle qu elles sont "b...."
c est un trait de caractere et c est pas tres grave warya
y en a qu aime les voitures ;d autres seduirent! ou est le mal ?
ces filles ne sont pas nympho pour autant ...

sinon je te propose la lecture d un conte d une femme moderne occidentale que j adore car il transpire la verite et ne fait que conforter celle qui recherche le veritable Amour
:wub:

"Annabelle ressemble à une princesse de conte de fées. Yeux verts, longue chevelure blonde, elle a cette beauté “qui rend les hommes silencieux sur son passage”..Cependant, le conte de fées tournera vite au portrait tristounet d'une jeune femme qui a raté sa vie.
Ce n'est que peu à peu qu'Annabelle prend conscience qu'elle est belle, la malheureuse. Au fur et à mesure que celui qu'elle aime, le seul qu'elle aime, qu'elle aimera, Michel, son petit fiancé du collège, se tait, tandis que les dragueurs parlent.Annabelle pensait tout le temps à Michel. Etait heureuse quand elle le voyait. Elle avait envie de lui parler. Elle avait une grande confiance en lui.
Elle l'aime tout naturellement. C'est comme ça. Mais Michel ne fait rien. Ne dit rien. Alors, son premier baiser, c'est un crétin de discothèque qui lui vole.
”.Elle sera ensuite séduite par David, la rock star aux 500 femmes. Pendant ce temps, Michel ne danse toujours pas. Annabelle avorte. Elle écrit à Michel. Elle fait l'expérience concrète de la liberté. A 40 ans, elle est encore jeune et belle. Et elle pense encore à Michel. Elle est bibliothécaire, non mariée et elle se dit qu'elle n'a pas eu une vie heureuse.Elle est une femme issue de la libération sexuelle. Elle a eu des expériences diverses. Elle aurait pu ne pas s'ennuyer. Mais la liberté ne comble pas le vide. Elle donne l'illusion qu'on peut le remplacer. Annabelle est passée à côté de sa vie. Pourquoi ? Si elle avait construit une vie familiale, si elle avait été l'épouse de Michel, la mère de ses gosses ou simplement sa compagne, son soutien, aurait-elle rempli son vide ? On peut penser que oui, dans la mesure où elle accordait beaucoup d'importance à l'amour. Et que son amour, dans l'innocence de sa jeunesse, était tout naturellement tourné vers Michel. Avec une pureté tenace
Elle est victime de la libération sexuelle, de la liberté d'avorter, comme d'autres femmes ont été les victimes de l'intolérance et de l'interdiction d'avorter. Le conservatisme sexuel a aliéné les femmes et rendu les hommes pervers, le libéralisme sexuel a aliéné les hommes et laissé les femmes seules."

Cette sublime fille , tu vois , a connu des hommes on peut dire qu elle etait tres tres liberee mais a la fin de sa vie sur son lit de mort aucun ne meritait qu elles s en souvienne car elle n a pas epprouve d amour a leur egard c etait du sexe
ces gars la ne l ont pas aime; il l ont utilise ;elle s est donne trop vite ...
le seul l unique Amour de sa courte vie :c est Michel ,son boutonneux,maigrichon petit copain de lycee..

COMME TU DIS FEMMES ET HOMMES SONT BIEN DIFFERENTS
0

Partager ce sujet :


Page 1 sur 1
  • Vous ne pouvez pas commencer un sujet
  • Vous ne pouvez pas répondre à ce sujet