Islamic Cleric Instructs Men On How To Beat Their Wives “Out of Love”

We have previously discussed tutorials from Islamic clerics on how to beat your wife (here and here and here). The latest such grotesque lesson is from a leading cleric Abd Al-Aziz Al-Khazraj Al-Ansari in Qatar. Using a young boy as a stand-in for his wife, Al-Ansari, explains how to beat a wife “out of love” and how some women secretly want beatings because their want “violent and powerful husbands.”

Al-Ansari instructs that Islam bars striking or slapping a women’s face: “The Prophet Muhammad… Look how merciful Islam is. The Prophet forbade striking the face. He forbade men from beating their wives on the face. Slapping the face, hitting the head, punching the nose – all of this is prohibited. The beating is for discipline.”

He further states that “we must understand that the man is the leader of the house. A leader has authorities, just like a company manager.” He instructs how to first admonish wives for failing to do what they told and then resort to “painless beating that does not leave bruises or cause bleeding.”

Al-Ansari is what passes for “an academic” in Qatar.

162 thoughts on “Islamic Cleric Instructs Men On How To Beat Their Wives “Out of Love””

  1. I think it is utterly pathetic that a man sees striking his wife as indicia of his masculinity. I would introduce him to one of my martial arts instructors to give him a chance to demonstrate on a more suitable person.

  2. It’s very sad that men still beat women in 2019. It’s worse to think that a husband would beat his wife. What is marriage if not a blending of two people who then become one person. If that is in anyway true then the man, is in a sense, mistreating himself.

    1. Human nature has no history. You have cycles of corruption and reform, and innovations in how human fallability is expressed. You’re not going to have zero domestic violence any more than you’ll have zero street crime. Gene Roddenberry was a putz.

  3. I watched a video, where it originated I don’t know, of a man in white robes and head gear beating a woman, for what I have no idea. At the same time men were removing some things, what? People were walking by but not one tried to stop this. Everybody just went about their own business. My definition of “their own business” is different from the lack of attention given by those ignoring a man punching a woman over and over. I would try to stop it!

  4. Well lets ask our supposedly elected and officially seated in accordance with the law and it’s four requirements (citizenship, age, votes, oath of office) let’s ask two or three of them how they square that with their refusal to fix the situation that has their party charged with victimization of women.

  5. why don’t you liberals who love the Muslim immigrants so much worry about their retrograde views on abortion? generally they sound like most conservative Christians on the topic

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/islamethics/abortion_1.shtml

    the BBC was moderating that, too, I suspect

    Democrats are nuts, they want to bring in some of the most anti-gay, conservative religious people out there in the third world, and they aren’t worried about the effect they will have on their other assorted factions. LOL good luck with that Democrats, Ihlan Omar is just the beginning!

    if Republicans were truly conservative on these issues, and to some degree I think that is mostly fake., they might WANT more Muslims coming here, to balance out the crazy feminists and aggressive pro-gay crowd.

    Somehow, very little makes sense about America unless you view it according to MONEY
    Then it all comes clear.

    1. Kurtz, ‘who’ says liberals and Democrats ‘love’ Muslim immigrants??

      This is one of instances where conservatives just arbitrarily assert that liberals are all in favor of something they may not necessarily be keen on. It’s reflects right-wing media; which is always telling conservatives ‘what liberals want’ or ‘how liberals feel’.

      During the Obama era arrangements were made to allow a certain number Iraqis and Afghanis to enter the U.S. Most had assisted U.S. forces which meant they faced possible retribution at home. They deserved safe haven here. Obama also had plans to allow a certain number of Syrian refugees. That wasn’t unreasonable since Europe was being inundated by said refugees. But once Trump got in, he sabotaged the status of numerous refugees that had already been vetted for asylum. ..What a jerk..!

      So here you come, Kurtz, trying to say that liberals want to throw open the door to Muslim immigrants; totally distorting the actual facts of recent history.

      1. Don’t give me the garbage about “Right wing media” that does not apply to me. I don’t need to run my sources by your Inquisition for approval

        As to what liberals appear to believe about Muslims and Muslim migration, I do not claim to understand it. Perhaps you did not read what I wrote. That’s understandable I am too wordy. But I am saying essentially that I DON’T understand what liberals want in respect of Muslim migration. I really don’t get it. But I have some hypotheses.

        You can speak for yourself.

      2. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/02/04/the-insurgents-behind-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-224542

        I guess I get the idea that liberals like Muslim immigrants because they want to Abolish ICE.

        Without ICE you have an open border and migrants will push in hard. And that includes Muslims who will push in through Mexico.

        Hence, for now, Muslims will make alliance with the Democrats, because they are willing to sabotage the nation state and keep the doors unlocked at night. But, once you have them camping out in your living room, telling you that you can’t eat bacon anymore, and beating their wives in front of you, per the video, however mildly, you guys may feel a little foolish.

        or not; I can only wonder how your mind works. feel free to enlighten me

        1. Kurtz, ICE is a fairly new agency going back only 16 years. I don’t think it needs to be abolished. But surely there was border enforcement ‘before’ ICE was created. And I believe that some conservatives wanted to abolish ICE.

          Your pivot to ICE and this bogus claim that liberals want ‘open borders’ is just a distraction from my reply to your assertion that ‘liberals love Muslim immigrants’. It’s just another round of right-wing media pronouncements of ‘what liberals want’.

          1. Border enforcement was in the hands of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, a notoriously ineffectual agency. Some of the 9/11 hijackers received visa approvals six months after the attack.

            1. Tabby, since you’re on the subject, should gun laws be revised to make sure potential terrorists (like the 9 /11 hi-jackers) can’t get their hands on high-powered weapons?

              1. No clue why you think this is relevant.

                1. Who is a potential terrorist?

                2. What’s a ‘high-powered weapon’?

                3. Who would be the enforcement authority and under what circumstances? (Recall general police power is reserved to the states).

              2. should gun laws be revised to make sure potential terrorists (like the 9 /11 hi-jackers) can’t get their hands on high-powered weapons?

                What, like box cutters?

                1. Hey Olly how is knife control working in US prisons? I cant seem to find numbers on how many people get shivved every year. But I gather it’s more than a few. They need to crack down on unlicensed shanks in jail!

                2. Olly, you’re making the classic mistake of bad generals: “They expect to fight the same war as before”

                  The box cutters was a one-time-only trick. The next attack could involve high powered rifles at a crowed public place. In fact, an attack at Rome’s airport in 1985 was carried out by Arab terrorists. Though right-wing nationalists have carried out similar attacks more recently in the U.S.

                  1. Peter Hill, the king of rationalizing bad behavior. For a limited time Trump wanted to prevent the entrance from a select few countries into the US for a limited period of time because there was no way to validate their papers or discover who they were. The list was almost completely the same as Obama’s list and as verification in some of those nations became easier those nations were dropped from the list.

                    The left doesn’t give a d-mn about legal citizens. They stopped that from happening. Their concern is for people that that are not citizens and might be mixed with terrorists and killers. They stopped Trump’s effort to protect American citizens on both sides of the aisle along with women and children.

                    Peter can continue with his rationals but I believe in protecting the lives of my wife and children.

                    1. Alan, what are you even babbling about???

                      It’s like you just popped in to yell at the first liberal you saw. Whether it was me, Anon or Diane made little difference.

                    2. Peter, you dance and sing, but you say very little. You love rationalization and justify bad behavior all the time.

                  2. you’re making the classic mistake of bad generals: “They expect to fight the same war as before”

                    Exactly what did I say that implied that? The fact I identified the weapon of choice for the terrorists you cited?

                    The box cutters was a one-time-only trick. The next attack could involve high powered rifles at a crowed public place. In fact, an attack at Rome’s airport in 1985 was carried out by Arab terrorists.

                    Or a vehicle, or a machete, or a garrote, or a drone, or a chainsaw, or a hammer, or a 2×4, or a glass shard, or arson, or a tall building, or a steam roller, or a derailed train, or an Exocet missile, or, or, or, or…

                    What you fail to grasp is that people exist in the world that intend to do harm to innocent people regardless of laws, or the limited supply of weapons. They are motivated to do harm by any means available.

                    1. Oh I get it, Olly, this is one of those ‘guns don’t kill, people do’ arguments. Right. Nothing to worry about them.

                    2. Oh I get it, Olly, this is one of those ‘guns don’t kill, people do’ arguments. Right. Nothing to worry about them.

                      No, you apparently do not get it. There is a common denominator here that you refuse to acknowledge. And it ain’t the weapon of choice.

              3. I have not heard that question before considering they were wielding box cutters. want to ban box cutters too? thanks for the easy pitch!

          2. Peter you can taunt me with right wing media but let me give you a deep source of my own view that liberals appear to want open borders

            I was in law school many decades ago, and my fine constitutional law teacher, something of a mentor, an ACLU member, elaborated on how place of birth as it is enshrined in various American laws, such as citizenship laws, and various residency permit regimes, conceivably was as much a theoretical denial of “equal protection” as were gays being denied the “right to marry” at the time.

            And this was decades before the SCOTUS fabricated the right to gay marriage.

            So she clearly knew where things were headed.

            A poential outcome of the SCOTUS presuming to “strike down” such laws which quite literally DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF NATIONAL ORIGIN– something that is forbidden in other arenas of law– but such laws if struck down, could necessarily lead to “open borders.”

            They’re clearly headed for open borders in the minds of many. If you aren’t aware of that, I am pleased to so inform you.

            Yet, it’s great to hear you are not one of them.

            1. Let’s wait for that decision, Kurtz. Professor Turley will probably post it here for us to comment on.

        2. Haha. So sorry for your paranoia and lack of understanding regarding the law in the United States of America. You see, there is no “consent” defense to assault upon a family member. Moreover, convictions for such assaults routinely are garnered even without the testimony or assistance of the victim. Assuming arguendo that your claim to be an attorney is accurate, you might want to brush up on the law through remedial CLE before you embarrass yourself further by revealing your utter lack of familiarity with black-letter criminal law. So sorry for your loss, and condition.

          this is to “but that’s not how judge judy ruled” kurtzie

    2. I agree. On the national level, the GOP feigns disdain for abortion. A first year medical student can provide a proper dissertation w/overwhelming scientific evidence that that a zygote can properly be defined as one thing and one thing only: a one celled human being.

      Go ahead and prove my point right now pro abortionists: use no legal language. We already know the “legal” definitions (just like blacks were not too long ago “3/5ths a human being). Just use plain language and tell the audience exactly what qualities do you have that make you human that a zygote lacks.

      Whatever specific quality that specifically defines only humanity, a zygote shares that exact same quality.

      Reagan, Bush, Trump, any of them…within two weeks after taking office, they could have called in two dozen scientists from every branch of science, making a case with video and images, confirming what I just typed, followed by an executive order ceasing all abortions as a crime against humanity. On a national level, the GOP simply baits stupid ignorant SBC members by feigning a distaste for abortion.

      Then, after the proof was out there for all to see, the Supremes could have shown their true colors on the subject whether they obeyed the Constitution or mob progressive rule.

  6. Al-Ansari is doctrinally correct. Beating a wife is in the Qu’ran, as well as the Hadith. So is withdrawing from the marital bed to get compliance. So is sexual slavery, rape, anti-semitism, and killing non believers to create a global caliphate. So is the jizya, a fine on non believers in exchange for being allowed to live. So is slavery. So is female genital mutilation.

    The difference between the Bible and the Qu’ran, is that the former was written by prophets inspired by God, and the latter is the direct word of Allah, memorized faithfully and then transcribed. Allah is all knowing. Mohammad declared that his own life was the model by which all other future Muslims should live, and that each successive generation of Muslims would be less perfect than he. Mohammad was a rapist, pedophile (by today’s standards, which Allah would have known), slaver, racist (referred to black slaves as shriveled raisins worth only half of a white one), anti-Semite (kill every Jew behind every rock where he hid), plagiarist (copying the myths of Alexander the Great finding where the sun set in a pool of muddy water), he kept a pagan tradition of kissing the black stone, a tradition in place for eons before Islam, wife beater, defender of wife beaters, and he killed people because they were not Muslims, and raped and enslaved their women. He taught that a wife cannot say no. Her husband can have sex with her while she is riding her camel, if he chooses.

    By today’s standards, he was a vicious war lord. The Religion of Peace only refers to the peaceful verses before he had any military power. After that, it was all blood and sword verses.

    That is the inherent problem with Islam that it is not polite to mention. The alignment of the Left with defending a religion responsible for the brutality of women and gays across the globe is inconceivable. It is a religion of war and conquest and slavery.

    Westernized Muslims ignore about 2/3 of the Qu’ran. This is a conundrum, because Mohammad instructed that his own life was the model for all future Muslims. Modern Western Muslims do not force their neighbors to pay a jizya, nor do they rape and pillage.

    Muslims behave very differently in the West, where they are in the minority, then they do in Muslim majority countries under Sharia Law, or based upon Sharia Law. Under the latter, women are in a sad plight, indeed. There is no denying that Muslim majority countries abuse human rights, as the West sees it. Their beliefs are incompatible with Western values.

    However, if they are willing to be Muslim Protestants, and ignore most of the Qu’ran, the Peace Verses are indeed lovely and comforting.

    Islam should be reformed. I believe that Western values of equality and freedom are, indeed, better than the alternatives. However, the insurmountable impediment to Muslim reformers is that the Qu’ran is the timeless word of Allah. Allah could see the present day while He spoke to Mohammad. Mohammad’s life was the model by which all future Muslims are to live. Mohammad was a warlord.

    I do not know how to reconcile this problem. Westernized Muslims may be considered reformers. They would not have the freedom to pick and choose what to believe in the Qu’ran were they in a Sharia Law country.

    It is shocking, but true, that the Muslims most closely following the Qu’ran are ISIS. A global caliphate was, indeed, the purpose of Islam.

    So, what do you do with the knowledge? Personally, as long as people follow our laws, they are free to subscribe to any faith they want, or none at all. Following the Qu’ran would break multiple laws. If they are willing to ignore most of it, then they can be great friends and neighbors. Following the Qu’ran would align them with ISIS. Criticizing Islam is a terrible insult to Muslims, many of whom are ignoring the Qu’ran and living peacefully. Islam, like any other faith or lack thereof, should be open to criticism.

    It’s a conundrum.

    1. It is not anti-Catholic to truthfully criticize the sex abuse and pedophilia scandals. It is not Islamophobic to truthfully criticize Islam, and hope for reform.

      1. I believe it’s our duty as fellow human beings to call out abuses of natural rights wherever they occur. We should try to find the root of the abuse, expose it and move to end it.

      1. “Female circumcision” is a deliberate misnomer in order to hide the fact it is designed to mutilate.

        Male circumcision developed during a time when personal hygiene was more difficult. It is a choice.

        There are multiple levels of female circumcision. Even the lowest level is designed to remove all sexual gratification, by removing the clitoris. The more severe versions involve cutting away the labia completely, along with the clitoris, and sewing her up tight. Only a tiny hole is left for menstruaion. Infection, both during the torture, and after during menses, is very common. The wedding night requires a knife to cut her open.

        Mutilated women do not enjoy sex. Scar tissue does not flex like normal, healthy tissue. The ones with the higher level FGM feel unbearable pain during intercourse, and fear it. Other wives are considered a relief. It permanently divides husband and wife.

        This torture is done without anesthesia or local anesthetic, usually with a dirty knife or even a thorn, in Africa. Girls as young as 5 are not warned what is going to happen, taken there by their betraying female relatives, held down, and mutilated while they scream. Afterward, while they are walking around like they are holding a ball between their knees, in a desperate attempt to avoid the torn tissue from touching, they are admonished never to speak of it.

        Arranged marriage is common, often to much older men. The men can have up to 4 wives, who constantly squabble for power. Therefore, they want their women adultery-proofed as much as possible. Destroying their sexual gratification, forever, makes these women less likely to seek out love or personal gratification in loveless marriages. It destroys any chance at true intimacy and trust between a husband and wife.

        It is perpetuated by the women of a family, who believe they will be unable to arrange a good match for their daughters without it.

        FGM is a tragedy and child abuse.

        Ilhan Omar is from Somalia, where this happens to virtually all girls. Therefore, she is very likely promoting a religion that mutilated her. That is my suspicion, and not based on any knowledge of her personally.

    2. there is a lot of diversity inside islam. the sunnis regard the shiites as dissenters and the extremist wahabists consider them heretics. but in many of the “secular tyrant” regimes that were overthrown by the US, there was relative peace and calm between the groups, until we stirred up trouble. Like Iraq and Syria, most of all.

      1. Shiites and Sunnis are as peaceful as their borders are stable. The US is not responsible for their animosity, which is all about a war of succession to Mohammad.

        Right now, the reason why Iraq and Saudi Arabia are at odds, and playing a chess game with MIddle Easatern countries, is because of Shiite and Sunni adversity. The US is a pawn in this game. Saudi Arabia has aligned with us to help its dominance, while Shiite Iraq aligned with Russia.

        This is going to boil over, and it’s going to be bad.

        1. With respect, I believe that the US incites smaller groups against bigger ones as a long geopolitical policy of destabilization of our strategic adversaries. The US specializes in making smaller problems of our foes, bigger ones.

          This is why the US gave arms and support to the Sunni Mujahadeen to bother the Russians; this is why we helped the Shiites establish a democratic majority in post Saddam Iraq. That those Iraqi Shiites are now against us, vaguely at least, was probably inevitable given the US backing Sunni Wahabist militias against Assad in Syria (Al Nusra-al Queda in Syria, at a minimum)

          Shiites and Sunnis were not at all at each other’s throats in Syria and Iraq. That all was heat fanned up by the US and the Saudis. If not US then our Saudi “allies”

          Baathism is a form of pan-Arab National Socialism and it was fundamentally secular and it tamped down the Sunni-Shiite split. Take out pan-Arab secular national socialism and it will be back to civil war stuff. That’s why we opposed it. it had nothing to do with moderation or freedom or democracy or any of the customary shibboleths. It was a simple cunning calculation and the middle east is a hellhole now because of it and a million or more refugees have flooded Europe. A mess because of US policy most of all.. A secondary factor for that is the overly generous EU welfare state and favorable butt-kissing of refugees.

          1. Again, Iraq’s President in 1969 arranged for the appointment of a cousin to the position of VP. The cousin had displaced him substantively by 1974 and formally by 1979. Whatever Ba’athism supposed itself to be, the pre-eminent element in the Iraqi government for nearly 30 years was a Sunni tribe from the area around Tikrit, supplemented with others from their social circle (e.g. Tariq Aziz, an old schoolmate of Saddam Hussein). In Syria, by 1970, a clique drawn from the Alawite minority and others married to Alawites had pre-eminence in the regime.

            The notion these regimes were non-sectarian is a fantasy.

            1. Sir, this is not a fantasy. Aziz was a Christian. You supply the example.

              Alawites are a shiite subgroup. But Assads have had broad support from Sunnis too. And Syria has long been a refuge for persecuted Christians fleeing Turkey (our NATO ally) and also other assorted nearby regimes.

              Michel Aflaq, a founding theorist of Baathism, was a Greek Orthodox Christian by upbringing.

              Usually people fault Baathism for being fascist. I have never heard nor read anyone argue that it was religiously bigoted as compared to its alternatives.. But then again very few people have ever heard of it. So we are in a small pool to have any opinion at all. You may wish to try and make the case if you like, I will be amused to read it and welcome the opportunity. You are a good writer and knowledgeable about many things.

              1. No, it’s a fantasy. Aziz was a personal associate of Saddam’s.

                Whatever airy conceptions Aflaq may have traded in, actually existing Ba’athism is fascist. All the indicia are there (which they aren’t in the case of the Salazar or Franco regimes).

                1. 1,500,000 Christians in 2003, versus about 250,000 now. I think it is fair to say Saddam’s Iraq was more hospitable than whatever came since then. but you may regard it as fantasy if you like.

                  You have also ignored what I said about Syria. The Assad government has been a protector of the religious minority and such persecution as happened there has mostly come from the groups backed either directly or indirectly by the US which opposed the Assad government. Of course the US media can’t report such things.

                  As for it being fascism or not, that doesn’t trouble me one way or another. I am not an anti-fascist.

                  1. No clue where you got the idea there were 1.5 million Christians in Iraq in 2003. More like 600,000. Iraq has suffered severe internal disorders in the last 15 years, which has had an adverse impact on the physical security of many. The Christians were present under a long succession of governments in Iraq prior to 1968, so no clue why you regard their presence as a particular mark in favor of Ba’athist rule.

                    You have also ignored what I said about Syria.

                    So sue me.

                    The situation of Christians in Syria was imperfect but roughly adequate prior to 1963. Again, no clue why that’s supposed to be a mark in favor of Ba’athist rule.

                    1. You have no idea, but the figure is widely quoted.

                      By whom? Never seen a contention that the Christian population of Iraq exceeded 2% of the total. We can check old volumes of The Statesman’s Yearbook.

                      Baathist party ideology was fundamentally secularist. Are you really disputing that?

                      No, I’m not disputing that. I’m pointing out that both regimes were built around lineages (which incorporate confessional bias if not confessional uniformity). Martin Peretz caustic description of Arab government was thus: ‘cohorts of cousins’.

          2. The Ba’athist Socialist Party was controlled by Sunni. The majority of Iraq was Shiite.

            If you mean that Saddam Hussein tamped down the Sunni-Shiite split by murdering any Shiite who opposed his Sunni rule, going so far as to create a Red Room where he tortured people to death, then you are correct.

            Ba’athism was a socialist movement and so, by definition, tyrannical and murderous. It sought to unify all Arab countries. It most emphatically was not secular. It was originally intended to unify all sects of Islam, but, of course, it became ruled by factions. It was the Sunnis who ran the Ba’athist government in Iraq, and they used their political party to silence Shiites.

            Saddam Hussein was Sunni. The majority of Iraqis were Shiites. His ruling Ba’ath party in power was comprised of Shiites. It was true that anyone could belong to the Ba’ath socialist party, but it was Sunnis who ruled Iraq under Saddam.

            He silenced faction strife with violence. It was not secular. For instance, there was then 1979 Purge.

            There are many people who thought the Ba’ath party was secular, because anyone could be a member. But the reality is that those in power under Saddam were Sunni. Arab nationalism was defined as Islamic. The fact that sometimes other religions were barely tolerated did not make Iraq a non-Islamic country.

            1. I think that it is safe to say that it sucked to be an Iraqi. Although there were periods of time when other religions were tolerated, Saddam ruled with an iron fist and killed dissidents. It was also a Muslim majority country, with all that this entailed.

              1. Maybe without Islam, the peoples of the Middle east revert to an even more barbaric state, did anybody consider that?

                just as without tyrants like Saddam or the Assads or Qadaffi you get a chaotic situation of a thousand petty tyrants which is even worse.

                At least for them; for American strategic interests, it may be preferable. but it is not necessarily more humane.

                1. just as without tyrants like Saddam or the Assads or Qadaffi you get a chaotic situation of a thousand petty tyrants which is even worse.

                  Iraq wasn’t chaotic prior to 1958 and Syria was not chaotic prior to 1963 and Libya was not chaotic prior to 1969. As working political societies, they had problems and deficiencies. Latin American countries of that era did as well. Very few saw the advent of a totalitarian regime with a six-figure sum of slaughter to its credit. See by contrast the Hashemites in Jordan or Bourguiba and Ben Ali in Tunisia, who constructed effective and orderly authoritarian regimes. Not an asylum like Qadafi’s Libya or charnel houses like the Ba’athist regimes in Iraq and Syria.

                2. Examples of the Middle East without Islam are Israel, and a few pockets of Christians like the Copts.

                  Israel is the only non-Islamic Middle Eastern country, and the only one considered to have Western values.

                  My Dad traveled to Saudi Arabia frequently for work. He said they have a long memory for ancient tribal warfare.

                  It is true that extremist factions often take advantage of a power vacuum.

                  It’s a mess but I don’t think we can Westernize any country against their will.

              2. “Saddam ruled with an iron fist”

                Saddam ruled with an iron shreading machine, legs first.

                What Kurtz may be confusing a lot of things with is stability and absolute power.

            2. I didn’t say it was non-Islamic. I just said Baathism was fundamentally secularist.

              it was. Preceeding governments for centuries were officially religious regimes and then the Caliph went away and after that among others, the Baathist regimes were officially secular, however dominated they were by one faction or another.

              It’s like saying France was not secular because most of them were Catholics. No, laicite was and is very real there.

              The definition of what is secular varies in the west and it does in the arab world too. nonetheless my assertion was well grounded.

              You can pick at my sources if you like. Here is one that supports my assertion and i can produce an abundance of these. I won’t concede the point but you are free to think what you like about it.

              “Faris Nimr and Ya’qub Sarruf, intellectuals and journalists from Lebanon who relocated to Egypt in the 1880s and Salama Musa, who is a Coptic Christian Egyptian and founder of the Egyptian socialist Party in 1920 – Fauzi Najjar: the debate on islam and secularism, Arab Studies Quarterly; 1996, Vol.18 Issue 2”

              1. I think just about every Arab state has the following locution in its Constitution: “Islam is the religion of the state”.

                Over the period running from 1920 to 1968 you had in Iraq quasi-parliamentary ministries, grandee ministries, military governments of various dispositions. These were also ‘secular’ in the sense you’re using the term.

        2. the Sykes Picot borders at the end of WW I were not based on any deep understanding about middle eastern society in the first place. those borders were a factor in the problem right on down to today a hundred years later

          you might like book “A Peace to End all Peace” about that

          1. The borders weren’t defined by Sykes-Picot and emerged in stages over a period of about 7 years. The most salient problems have been the division of the Kurds and the confessional jumble in Lebanon. The latter was the result of a discretionary decision by the French government in 1920, which added a mess of territory populated by Muslims to Lebanon’s Christian core.

            1. ah that kind of seems like hair splitting. 1916 agreement, to the end of the war and then some treaties and more negotiations and meetings etc etc over 7 years which ended up not too far from the original agreement. in which both diplomats continued to be involved over the duration.

              you can explain how that is wrong if you like, I would be pleased to learn more.

              I agree the Kurds are a salient problem but a problem in that the Turks were smart enough to want them divvied up and that was accomplished at Lausanne and the turks are still keen now to keep them divvied up today.

              A problem we would be unwise to try and “solve” through any active means beyond quiet diplomacy.

              Lebanese Christians have failed in their own ambitions, not just due to whatever you said, but ironically, apropos of the subject, over a century, partly due to their preference to relocate Westwards, and partly due to the relative fecundity of the Muslims nearby, ironically

              See, “patriarchy” with all its horrible things like “hierarchy” and “organized religion” and “construction of gender identity” etc etc etc, including BIG FAMILIES, and– horror of horrors- men as heads of household—- but patriarchy as a social system, actually has a direct relationship to national POWER.

              Both in the time of the ancients when the Greeks conquered and vanquished the Minoan-Myceneans and Amazons and whatever other relatively more “feminine” cultures were in that place before hand, right on down to now, when “patriarchal” cultures like the religious Muslims breed like rabbits by comparison to the effeminate respectful West and invade our countries and demographically replace us, as our women divorce, abuse, and abort and “educate” us into nutless insignificance.

              1. No. Again, the French added a mess of territory to the Mt. Lebanon Mutasarrifate which altered the demographic balance radically. That made necessary jerry-rigged power-sharing arrangements which eventually broke down in 1975. The territorial additions occurred in 1920 and were not part of Sykes-Picot.

                1. Maybe so but there is a demographic element too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Lebanon_Mutasarrifate#1895_and_1913_censuses

                  the conservative, religious, patriarchal, etc etc etc Muslims are more prolific, fecund, and have bigger families. this is almost a universal dynamic across ethnies and religious groups, moreover.

                  i am waiting for the feminist-secularist advocates like peter to explain how the feminist, secularist West particularly Europe is supposed to maintain its liberal norms in the face of a rapidly multiplying Muslim population intent on coming here. Without walls or any kind of “nativist” restrictionists whatever.

                  by 2030, a quarter of the globe’s population will be Muslim. Where will it be in 100 years?

                  Of course the liberal plan is to get them to agree to abortion, contraception, and feminism. People like Ihlan Omar is key to that plan. Again, this explains a lot of why the secular liberal feminist left is so protective of her. And why people who criticize her piss them off so badly.

                  The lliberal plan is that all the Muslim women see how awesome it is in America to be a woman, and think they can be like Ihlan Omar, and then they will accept the norms of gender equality, pro gayness, pro abort, whatever, and this will allow the liberal West to save itself from demographic annexation.

                  Somehow, I doubt it will work out that way.

                  1. Seems like political constructs are facile.

                    For example, did the atheist Chinese communists ever establish the supposedly communist norm of gender equality? Ha. It was great to be a man in China 100 years ago and it still is. Sure they abolished polygamy, slavery, and foot binding. But that was about it.

                    And contraception and abortion were of course not only legal, but, mandatory. On severe pain to women who didn’t accept it. But that is the worker’s paradise for you!

                    I hear in China a divorce is about as hard as going to small claims court. The rules are easy: the man always gets the house! And the woman is always wrong. Unless she can arrange a big enough bribe for the judge in advance. Funny system huh?

                    And they aren’t very much into gay marriage, either it seems. Why not? Is that the benighted racist patriarchal Western Capitalists holding them back? if only they would listen to the communists in the American universities they would know better (boo hoo)

                    I guess “the patriarchy” in China is kind of like their attitude to gambling. It’s officially illegal, and everyone likes to gamble at mah jong and the illegal underground casinos all over the place, same time.

                    Silicon Valley loves those Chicoms. California! But maybe they have something to teach us just like the Muslims do?

                    Liberals. So smart, so cunning. Yet in the long term, so stupid.

  7. Here’s what the Mayo has to say about domestic violence against men

    “It might not be easy to recognize domestic violence against men. Early in the relationship, your partner might seem attentive, generous and protective in ways that later turn out to be controlling and frightening. Initially, the abuse might appear as isolated incidents. Your partner might apologize and promise not to abuse you again.

    You might be experiencing domestic violence if your partner:

    Calls you names, insults you or puts you down
    Prevents you from going to work or school
    Stops you from seeing family members or friends
    Tries to control how you spend money, where you go or what you wear
    Acts jealous or possessive or constantly accuses you of being unfaithful
    Gets angry when drinking alcohol or using drugs
    Threatens you with violence or a weapon
    Hits, kicks, shoves, slaps, chokes or otherwise hurts you, your children or your pets
    Forces you to have sex or engage in sexual acts against your will
    Blames you for his or her violent behavior or tells you that you deserve it”

    https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/adult-health/in-depth/domestic-violence-against-men/art-20045149

    some authorities say it’s 10% of men who suffer domestic abuse. but when i read this i laughed because under those standards it’s um more like damn near every wife I have heard about over three decades past, tries one of those things or another. That kind of stuff is TYPICAL of the American wife and i think many foreigners too.

    Maybe the Muslims know something we don’t!

  8. Did anybody watch the video? He said DONT hit or slap them. At worst, give them a little shoving or a small shake. Hell I had a lot worse than that.

    Not a big deal. Pretty well within the range of “cultural diversity” level type national differences

    I would add, many American WIVES would consider that type of physical “push back” well within THEIR spousal rights just against their husbands. Needless to say a lot of them don’t hesitate to throw punches even! Physical abuse of husbands, a very under-reported crime!

    a better translation than beating, might have been, a “physical correction” because nothing he suggested would amount to what we call a beating even if it were technically a very mild battery under our laws.

    I am ok for criticizing the Arabs and Muslims over whatever but try and find something worth complaining about an not a trifle.

    1. Mr Kurtz – you are not allowed to date anyone unless you run her by me first! What you are describing is not normal, but toxic. If you are consistently finding yourself in toxic relationships, then you might have a wound that makes you vulnerable to them. Your wife is supposed to be the person you can turn your back on with confidence she won’t stab it. The one who will fuss over you when you are ill. The one who will hold vigil by your hospital bed. The one who loves you.

      1. i don’t need to address my own situation on a public forum, private things can stay private. I only speak in general, based on the specifics known to me as a middle aged lawyer in flyover with many friends and clients and who has had the confidences not just of many women but also men.

        there is a TON of abuse of men happening and oftentimes it comes right along with some kind of feminist nonsense. But sometimes it comes from nice church-ladies too. men don’t want to blow the whistle on it, it makes them look weak

        police know, mercifully, when on a domestic call, they are wise to be on the lookout for false charges of abuse coming from women who have freshly bullied their own husbands

        judges know it too. the courts are CLOGGED with domestic protective order hearings many of which are ex parte and in violation of basic due process which by and large are filed by women many of which trot forth the most flimsy, phony, accusations and not-credible accusations simply in order to get the husband out of the house en route to a favorable divorce position. it’s almost TEXTBOOK STRATEGY for some rotten lawyers who like to aid and abet these frivolous and yet common tactics.

        the system people try to be fair but the praxis result is generally net bad for men.

        1. Sending you a hug and support, Kurtz. No one should be abused, or have a miserable time, man or woman. Anyone can be mean, man or woman. I hope my comment didn’t make you uncomfortable. That wasn’t my intention.

  9. VIDEO IS NUTS!

    BUT AMERICA’S RELIGIOUS RIGHT BORROWS FROM MINDSET

    The Cleric in this video is almost too comical to be taken seriously. But sadly he ‘is’ serious. He advocates a mindset that seeks to infantilize women. In fact, during his sample lecture to the ‘woman’ (boy), he refers to her going outside without his permission.

    One realizes in viewing this the grim reality women face in the Arab – Muslim world. Imagine how many petty tyrants will watch this video and fancy they are ‘good Muslims’ by bullying their wives.

    Here in the United States we fancy ourselves as more enlightened than Arabs regarding women’s rights. That is mostly true but not entirely. The anti-abortion movement seeks to infantalize women. Said movement, like this Arab cleric, believes that women are not capable of making their own determinations.

    The anti-abortion forces are largely driven by devout Catholics and Evangelicals. That first group is an institution where men, of course, hold all the power. And that second group believes that God intended for men to make all the decisions regarding their families.

    Therefore the anti-abortion forces are primarily religious in nature. They believe their religious views should shape public policy. And they are encouraged and enabled by the Republican party which values them as a crucial voting block.

    1. I could care less anymore about immoral women getting abortions. anymore. I used to be pro life but now I am so experienced in the evil ways of the world, I understand, that probably the ones who want to will end up abusing the kids and their fathers anyways. They did not love their unborn and they will not love them born either.

      I think it’s immoral, however, but this is not worth arguing about. It’s not like we have a vote on it. We don’t. So there is no sense in fussing too much over it.

      And there is so much immorality to go around now it’s pretty much whistling past the graveyard anyways. Lots of things are immoral and fully accepted by society and even things which victimize people plenty badly.

      oh and Peter never loses a chance to kick the religions. But let me get in a little jab too. Now, just TRUST ME ON THIS. Christian religious authorities in America are very tolerant of women abusing their husbands and putting them through hell. Mostly the churches are run by a sort of female mafia, and that INCLUDES the supposedly patriarchal Catholic Church. They may suggest the man is the head of the household but in America we basically have a gynaeocracy and the church-men, pious frauds that they are, mostly are just shining men’s apples when they say they are in charge. Ha. What a joke. More like men are second class citizens here, in reality

      Yeah, don’t worry too much about Qatar. It’s America which we should focus our attention.

      1. I used to be pro life but now I am so experienced in the evil ways of the world, I understand, that probably the ones who want to will end up abusing the kids and their fathers anyways.

        Yes, we were awash in ‘abuse’ in this country 50 years ago. And Malta is just a horrible place to be young.

        1. i dont quite understand you, being mostly ignorant of malta.

          Here is our American Democracy:

          We didnt get a vote on desegregation, SCOTUS took the vote

          We didnt get a vote on contraception, SCOTUS took the vote.

          We don’t get a vote on abortion, SCOTUS took the vote

          We didn’t get a vote on “GAY MARRIAGE” — SCOTUS took the vote.

          what was once bad or unnatural, now is considered virtuous.
          And what is the point of having an opinion and fighting these lost causes?
          It’s as much a waste of time as refighting the war between the states.

          I don’t just fault the Democrats for their victories in these contests, I also fault the Republican leadership for being a bunch of kayfabe phony fighters on things

          1. Of course desegregation was mostly a “Win” for the Republicans, the Democrats being the party of segregation at the time. ha.

          2. i dont quite understand you,

            Yeah, you’re pretty much talkin’ to your navel today.

    2. The anti-abortion movement seeks to infantalize women. Said movement, like this Arab cleric, believes that women are not capable of making their own determinations.

      Woman ‘infatuated’ with Columbine captured following massive manhunt.

      Do you see any problem with this woman making her own determination? After all, she was just a woman doing something.

    3. P Hill – this video of a typical Islamic attitude towards women is nuts! Let’s blame Christians!

    4. P Hill – why are you unwilling to acknowledge that pro-life men and women believe abortion is infanticide? Pro-choice men and women who believe there should be limits to abortion, believe it is murder. They do not have some evil ulterior motive of controlling women. They don’t want to kill babies.

      Is arresting a woman who gives birth in secret, strangles her newborn, and dumps it in the trash a war on women? Controlling her? Or is it because newborns should be protected?

      You ascribe evil motives to a movement you do not understand. You apply gender bias, in your assumption that it is only men who feel this way.

      I believe abortion is a tragedy. There should be limits. I am open to a discussion on what those limits should be. Most Americans believe there should at least be limits on abortion. Most Americans are not engaged in a war on women, or re-enacting the Handmaid’s Tale.

      In some parts of Europe, it is required for OB/GYNS and obstetric nurses to perform and assist abortion. They are not allowed to abstain due to their personal beliefs, but are forced, against their will, to participate or abandon their profession.

      Before you criticize, try to understand their point of view. At least then your critique will be fair.

      https://youtu.be/53tzMV9OmvY

      1. Karen, doctors should have every right to giver their patients the best medical advice they can. There shouldn’t be any gag rules! If a pregnancy faces extreme complications, doctors must advise on the best course of action.

        So-called ‘pro-life activists’ refuse to acknowledge that criminalization will lead to prosecutions and injustices. Women’s health will most certainly suffer. So-called ‘pro-lifers’ refuse to address the ramifications. Instead they wage a war against women’s rights while using loaded words like ‘infanticide’ to bludgeon perceived opponents.

        1. P Hill – there is no gag rule. A doctor can say whatever he wants.

          Please understand that a late term abortion takes days. It is not true that it is an option in a medical emergency.

          There could be a very good reason to deliver a baby early. There is not a reason to give the baby a lethal injection or dismember him alive in the womb. An emergency C-Section happens in minutes. I know. I had one.

          Please watch the video of a former abortion provider testifying before Congress on how a 2nd trimester abortion is performed. He also discusses medical emergencies.

          The problem is that you are not hearing me. You clearly did not watch the video. And so you persist in telling me what I think, which is wrong.

          I do see both sides to the issue.

          1. Karen, if you think women should be forced to carry babies that will never leave the hospital and require 24 hour medical care then ‘no’, I don’t hear you.

            1. Almost none of the abortions contracted in this country are of children who would be on 24 hour care.

              You need better talking points. They don’t train their trolls well at Correct-the-Record.

              1. Tabby, late term abortions account for less than 2% of the total. But among that small ratio there are definite case where the babies would never be medically viable. For that reason late term abortions ‘are’ a genuine necessity.

            2. Is that what I said, P Hill? That women should be chained to hospital beds? No. This indicates you do not understand my position.

              1. Responding to the position you staked out wasn’t in the day’s talking points.

        2. doctors should have every right to giver their patients the best medical advice they can. If a pregnancy faces extreme complications, doctors must advise on the best course of action.

          Careful now Peter, you’re venturing into Pro-Life territory. With a little more effort, you should reasonably conclude advising women to kill unborn babies and those babies that survive despite those efforts, for no reason other than it’s her prerogative, is the very definition of infanticide.

          1. Okay, Olly, then we need to have police detectives totally involved in women’s health. That’s you’re saying here.

              1. Tabby there was case in Ireland just two years ago where a woman actually died from a pregnancy complications. She had sought an abortion but was denied. Her death was a travesty!

                Her death led to a referendum that ‘legalized’ abortion in Ireland. Nevertheless abortion hardliners have sought to make legal abortions almost impossible to get. Sounds like the U.S.

                  1. Yeah, Olly, that’s the case. Though I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here. But this one passage from your article stands out:

                    “During an interview with one of the consultants on the case, investigators heard that “under Irish law, if there’s no evidence of risk to the life of the mother, our hands are tied so long as there’s a fetal heartbeat”.

                    The consultant went on to state that if risk to the mother was to increase, a termination would have been possible, but that it would be based on actual risk and not a theoretical risk of infection [as] “we can’t predict who is going to get an infection”.
                    …………………………………………………………………………………………
                    It would seem, based on your article, Olly, that prohibitions on abortion created a climate of legal confusion regarding this case.

                    1. It would seem, based on your article, Olly, that prohibitions on abortion created a climate of legal confusion regarding this case.

                      From the article:

                      Under Irish law, if there’s no evidence of risk to the life of the mother, our hands are tied so long as there’s a fetal heart[beat].

                      First of all the parent’s weren’t looking for an “abortion”. They wanted the child. As the timeline clearly indicates, they were requesting the doctors proceed by inducing the miscarriage, which the doctors had already diagnosed was going to happen.

                      There was no legal confusion. The law is clear; the doctors simply did not properly diagnose the risk to the life of the mother.

                    2. Olly, if what you’re claiming is true, then why did the Irish referendum on abortion spring up in the aftermath?

                      And secondly, a high ratio of late-term abortions involves babies the parents wanted to keep. That’s why the pregnancies went late term.

                    3. if what you’re claiming is true, then why did the Irish referendum on abortion spring up in the aftermath?

                      It was you that brought up the story in the first place. I merely provided the article you failed to cite. You read the article, had you found anything to disprove what I stated, you would have pointed it out. I don’t live in Ireland, so I have no idea what motivates them. You can do your own research and find out why the referendum.

                    4. Olly, you’re just pursuing a pointless argument. Ireland’s abortion referendum sprang to life shortly after that woman’s death. And all the coverage on that woman’s death revolved around Ireland’s abortion laws. Yet here you are trying to say Ireland’s abortion laws had no relation to her death. It’s a lie.

            1. then we need to have police detectives totally involved in women’s health.

              Are you suggesting women’s health doesn’t deserve to have the protection of law enforcement? Are you suggesting the security of human life is not the duty of the state? You’re making an irrational argument.

              1. Olly, if we criminalize abortion the police and courts will have to be totally involved. Few people under 60 want to go that route.

                1. Olly, if we criminalize abortion the police and courts will have to be totally involved.

                  Great. It’s time we put Planned Parenthood’s employees in prison where they belong.

                  1. There ya go, Tabby, saying exactly what I know the so-called pro-lifers are thinking.

                    You ‘want’ to prosecute; which totally validates everything I have written about the pro-lifers.

                    1. saying exactly what I know the so-called pro-lifers are thinking.

                      I’m a pro-lifer and I wasn’t thinking that at all. So no, that doesn’t validate everything you’ve written about pro-lifers. In fact, I haven’t seen you be validated in nearly everything you’ve written. But hey, that’s just me.

                    2. People who commit crimes should be prosecuted, Peter. This isn’t that difficult. Soaking an unborn child in caustic brine is properly deemed a felony.

                2. if we criminalize abortion the police and courts will have to be totally involved.

                  Yeah, that’s how our justice system is supposed to work.

                  Few people under 60 want to go that route.

                  Yeah, criminals of any age would agree.

            2. What exactly differentiates your humanity from that of a zygote (AKA “one-celled human being”)?

              How quickly we chose to forget/ignore “3/5ths a human being.”

              Re. the 40% abortion rate for American blacks: are you neutral, negative, or positive on this fact? https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/state-indicator/abortions-by-race/?currentTimeframe=0&selectedDistributions=black&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D

              For anyone denying Kaiser Health Hospital’s report: if Kaiser is wrong, what’s the right #, and post your source. Why does Kaiser report a false rate? Are they stupid, liars, or did Putin make them do it? Did Putin hack Kaiser’s server?

              Do persons asking the above questions deserve the death penalty?

        3. ha now an opinion is compared to assault. bad words!

          and men’s opinions never count on abortion Peter unless it’s the opinion that you have voiced which is the “Right” atitude for a man, allowed by the framers of the debate per “Political Correctness”

          pro life is patriarchy etc etc etc. marriage is slavery Luxembourg.

          today, the “Fetuses” of men are killed without any legal consideration, I observe, and I observe that Rosa’s assertion applies now more than ever just in reverse. Like, it’s enslavement of MEN

          How? Let’s just start with that. a slave gives birth to a slave owned by the master.
          likewise a man is a slave, and his wife, his master, “owns” the fetus until it is outside her body and the cord is cut. that is what all this “pro choice” legislation takes as a legal and cultural assumption.

          Men, you’re slaves! Deal with it. Get to work on making those tax dollars for the Govt!! There’s hungry immigrant refugees to feed, poor folks who need your medicaid money, endless wars to win, and old people who havent been put to sleep yet,who need your ss money! Especially you white male oppressors. Git yo bch azzes movin! So your ex wives can take your “child support” and buy more junk from wal mart and bezos, manufactured by slaves owned by chinese communist billionaires!

    5. BUT AMERICA’S RELIGIOUS RIGHT BORROWS FROM MINDSET

      Peter couldn’t be more inane. The ‘Religious Right’ seeks to return state law to an approximation of what it was in 1966. Just to remind you, Peter, that American women were not sequestered in 1966 and you could be arrested and prosecuted for assaulting your wife.

      The anti-abortion movement seeks to infantalize women.

      Pretty amusing that Peter’s conception of what an ‘adult woman’ does is to hire a perverted gynecologist to dismember her unborn child.

      1. Tabby, you’re advocating a return to the 1950’s. But instead you reference ‘1966’ to sound faintly more ‘progressive’. What a joke you are!

        I think you actually mean 1965, the year Griswald Vs Connecticut was decided by the Supreme Court. In that case Connecticut was actually defending its dated but still official ban on birth control information.

        Apparently Tabby thinks that states should have the right to ban birth control and all related literature.

        What a hip guy Tabby is He wants to bring back Comstock laws!

        1. Tabby, you’re advocating a return to the 1950’s.

          I didn’t have that precisely in mind, but since collective behavior was better at that time in most respects, that’s certainly an illustration of where we should be headed.

          1. Thank you, Tabby, that’s honest. I’m certain too many Republicans share that view. It’s a strange nostalgia for the days of “Father Knows Best”; a 1950’s that existed in only Black & White sitcoms.

            1. You have a penchant for condescending cliches and don’t realize it makes you sound stupid.

              In general, the era featured more social capital (manifest in particular in more durable family relations), higher standards of personal conduct (and that included personal modesty), more rapid transition from juvenile life to adult life, and a superior aesthetic. These are things worth pursuing.

        2. that was democracy in action peter. you are right to cite Griswold. it overturned democratic laws. Same, Brown v Board

          remember that next time you are flogging the merits of “democracy”

          it’s all about who counts and who counts the votes.

          only 9 votes matter here for the most important stuff. that’s our “democracy”
          9 votes.

          hell the Chinese Politburo has more people voting than our SCOTUS Politburo does.

          1. the day the SCOTUS , if ever, dares to end the electoral college?
            is the day the pitchforks come out and drink the blood of tyrants

          2. The ‘democratic laws’ annulled by Brown were (with some exceptions) enacted by malapportioned state legislatures elected in contests in which blacks were debarred from participating (de facto). Also, the premise was that parallel school systems were ‘separate but equal’, something achievable only in venues where you had a critical mass of blacks. Note, the Commonwealth of Virginia insisted on segregation in it’s Appalachian counties, where there are very few blacks. Blacks were transported all over hell and gone to attend tiny county high schools.

    6. “The anti-abortion movement seeks to infantalize women. Said movement, like this Arab cleric, believes that women are not capable of making their own determinations.”

      Peter, the movement to limit abortion and even to pass laws making it a crime to let a newborn baby to die on the table has various views as to when abortion should be allowerd. That is not infantalizing women which is what you are doing, rather it is that most believe that at a certain point an abortion becomes murder and there are laws against murder …And some states consider it a double murder when one kills a woman and the baby she is carrying is killed as well. Your desire to remove responsibility from grown adults is infantalizing both women and men. You do that to blacks as well but do not recognize it.

  10. I just can NOT WAIT to see Trump’s reelection ads with the racist religious bigot low IQ mental case Ilhan Omar video “Muslims dindo nut’n” followed by video of Americans jumping from the Tower, followed by the progressive chorus “DEATH PENALTY FOR ALL UNWANTED SPEECH AND VIDEO DEEMED TO DELAY PROGRESSIVES DESTROYING WESTERN CIVILISATION!!!”

  11. If this was a classical “Western” religion, the entire progressive apparatchik including their banking industry cudgels would wipe it off the face of the Western map within about 6 months.

    But instead, because progressives view Islam as being against Western civilization, and Western civilization has birthed Satan (white male chauvinism) and must be destroyed. Hence instead of being eliminated, Islam is adored, in spite of being absolutely contrary to most of progressive’s other memes, e.g. men and women are the same/no biological difference, and other literally insane science denial that would make medieval Rome blush with envy.

    Progressive high sacrament: white male Western civilization bad, all else good, even religion comprising the absolutely worst male chauvinism against women.

    Progressives: why the hell did Ilhan Omar want to leave her African hell hole and come to the US if it’s so damn evil? Compared to the US what’s the rate of female politicians in Islamic nations?

    1. dig.

      And remember, any criticism of progressives is a death sentence crime against humanity! And any Q deemed so by progressives is also a death sentence crime!

    2. I feel sorry for Ilhan Omar. She is a Muslim Somali. Almost all Muslim girls in Somalia undergo FGM. The trauma can have lifelong consequences.

      I thought of this when I learned that Omar spoke out against a Republican authored bill in Minnesota expressly making FGM a felony. She voted in favor of the bill, but said she would have preferred to use exiting laws against parents. She has exhibited other symptoms of brainwashing, especially in her anti-Semitic comments. It must be very difficult to overcome prejudices ingrained since childhood.

      It struck me, then, what that means, that she was a Muslim Somali woman…

      http://www.fox9.com/news/female-gential-mutilation-bill-passes-minnesota-house-committee

  12. From what’s reported by soldiers who’ve served in the Middle East, who were ordered to stand down and look away from culturally acceptable norms they found disturbing, that young boy is a stand in for the wife in more ways than one.

      1. bacha bazzi is what the disgusting practice of Afghan tribals is called

        I also hear that the Taliban put a lid on it, but our non-Taliban “allies” in the former socalled Northern Alliance were the worst abusers by far

        1. Bacha bazi translates to “boy play” in Dari. “Bacha” means boy. It had a long history in Afghanistan, and was outlawed by the Taliban in 1990 as homosexuality, haram under the Qu’ran. However, the practice and cultural approval of the abuse did not go away. It just came more out in the open when the Taliban was overthrown.

          Unfortunately, the idea of cultural relativity infested the military, and our personnel were barred from interfereing in child rape by pedophiles. One of the reason why it’s been popular is because women are so guarded by their families. A beardless boy, or bacha bareesh, however, were available for the rich to either buy or kidnap.

          A green beret was reinstated due to public outcry, when he beat up a pedophile rapist. The rapist was an officer in the Afghan army, as you say, one of our allies.

          Really horrific.

  13. This guy deserves scorn, but why is JT writing about this? Do we know if this guy represents a majority, or even major position among Muslims? JT doesn’t give us any idea, and so comments on something of dubious importance to anyone. I’m a stone cold atheist who thinks Islam is complete nonsense, but then so is Judaism and Christianity to me – I don;t have a dog in this fight. Domestic violence is a problem among pretty much all demographic groups and some of the worst examples are indeed with Muslims, but in fairness, there is not uniform agreement among them on these issues as at least a good number of them struggle with squaring their beliefs with modern civilization – as did most Jews and Christians over the last century. Apparently there is disagreement on even the text which supports wife beating:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/25/world/americas/25iht-koran.4.5017346.html

    It is one thing to combat the ignorant beliefs this guy represents, but another to feed the equally ignorant religious warriors – see comments here for example – who pleasure in painting black and white pictures of the world’s varied human population.

    1. My earlier post above: “…any criticism of progressives is a death sentence crime against humanity! And any Q deemed so by progressives is also a death sentence crime!”

      Now re-read High Progressive Pope “Anon’s” words: “why is JT writing about this?” TRANSLATION: TURLEY COMMITS THE SIN OF SPEECH AGAINST ISLAM, WHAT SHOULD BE A DEATH SENTENCE CRIME. ALL WESTERN CIVILISATION MUST BE DESTROYED. IF HALF THE POPULATION (ALL FEMALES) MUST DIE AND/OR BE TORTURED TO THAT END, SO BE IT.

    2. Hey Anon, some readers here including myself are curious. You are an obvious progressive genius, so I’m sure you’ll step right up and enlighten us.

      Why did Ilhan Omar not stay in Africa and come to the US instead? Why did she not become a female politician in her African wonderland? I mean, there’s so few whites there, and mostly blacks, so it must be an angelic progressive heaven, right? And why don’t you and all your progressive buds go and live there in Africa, and further their enlightenment, etc.?

    3. Europe’s native birth rate is now 1.3. No culture, no people, nowhere on earth has ever recovered from such a low number. Instead of birthing, Europeans have been about enjoying themselves, enjoying their socialist wonderland, enjoying retiring at age 50, etc.

      Conversely, Europe’s Islamic immigrants have extremely high birth rate. By year X, certainly in most reader’s life time, Europe shall positively become an Islamic wonderland, like Africa and the ME is now.

      Q: how exactly do readers think they’d enjoy visiting Europe today vs. a later date when Europe is an Islamic wonderland?

      See what this lovely, very black, well educated Canadian woman reports about life in modern Africa where natives now live under black native rule, and long for a “new white colonialism,” so says not me, but her reporting what African blacks are saying: https://nangalama.blogspot.com/search?q=africa+refugees

      And finally, behold the progressive feces HQ of America, once-beautiful San Francisco: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-04-16/behold-shit-map-mapping-san-franciscos-132562-cases-human-feces

    4. Anon – YES, domestic abuse is a common problem in Muslim countries. The rate of domestic abuse is higher there than here in the US. The Middle East does not hold Westernized views, in general, and towards women specifically. There is justification for beating wives in the Qu’ran. Some interpretations translate it as “scourge”, some as “beat lightly.” It was considered forward thinking a thousand years ago, when wives could be beaten to death. But it is not a modern view, now.

      There is intense pressure on Muslim women not to make a fuss about a beating, and to stay in an abusive relationship out of honor.

      Of course, it occurs everywhere. It’s not only Muslims who engage in domestic abuse. Since it is justified in their religious texts, it is a common problem. I was following the plight of women under the Taliban, for example, before the war. For about 5 minutes, the world cared about those faceless shapes in faded, dusty purple burkas.

      There are different reasons for domestic violence, and they should all be dealt with, individually. The following website seeks to deal in a positive way with the Muslim community to enact change.

      https://www.api-gbv.org/culturally-specific-advocacy/community-and-systems-engagment/muslim-women/

      You should keep in mind that gays are killed in the MIddle East. Women are killed for adultery. Many areas still flog and stone. It is not the same as the West.

      1. I am very aware of the repulsive stone age practices among many Muslims, and I completely denounce that behavior and those beliefs.There are many Muslims – or non-believers of that tradition – who don’t believe or behave that way, both in the ME and in the West. As I linked, there is debate about even the proper translation on which this specific behavior is based. Remember that even in the ME, where there has been democracy, the most fundamental politicians have not been elected and places like Pakistan have had women leaders. It is not a monolith beyond hope and we should be encouraging the less fundamentalist muslims to join with us, not lumping them all together and declare a new holy war as people like Mespo are encouraging. There is no future in that., literally .

    5. Anon, before you comment you should learn a few things about Sharia Law. Omar and Tlaib likely ascribe to Sharia Law. The video shown by Turley is not as abusive as many of the videos that I have seen in the past.

      1. I ‘m not interested in Sharia Law, because I don;t have to be and I’m even less interested in what Omar and Tlaib ascribe to, They are relatively powerless publicity seeking freshmen House members who’s only threat is to other democrats and hopefully they’ll both be primaried in 2020.

    6. Anon……C’mon! Stop ignoring me. You said you were atheist and didn’t have “dog” in fight…I assumed you wrote backwards because you must have meant “god.”
      That’s gold, son! Gold!! LOL.. Try to pay attention 🤣

  14. When do we come to grips with the manifest fact that Mohammedism is incompatible with Western culture? If we do, we can deal with this insanity. If we cling to the “all religions are the same” mantra, we’ll just be complicit in the mayhem. It’s our choice and our daughter’s necks.

          1. Sorry, no. None of these people will be hired on any American faculty, or will be hired only by comparative religion programs. Degrees in comparative religion account for 0.15% of all baccalaureate degrees awarded in this country and most schools have no department.

            Sarah (‘Sally’) Deutsch is a social ideologue whose book is corrupting the study of American history to propagate her noxious ideology. That she has an endowed chair at a swank private research university says something BAD about that place and about her subdiscipline. The number of history diplomas awarded each year exceed the number of diplomas in comparative religion by a factor of 10 and the number secularist enforcers in our judiciary exceed the number of pious Muslims by a factor of 100. The study and dscussion of American history is of cardinal importance in influencing the quality of the political culture. That it’s crucially influenced by people like Deutsch is a frank horror.

            1. How can you belive that? The American University system is known for hiring some of the most extreme persons of this or any other culture. That is a fact.

              1. They don’t just hire any obnoxious person. They hire obnoxious individuals who hate the right people.

      1. Everyone should read the entire Muslim Brotherhood Declaration. It is only about 8 pages. Here is a sample.

        4- Understanding the role of the Muslim Brother in North America:
        The process of settlement is a “Civilization-JihadistProcess” with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who chose to slack. But, would the slackers and the Mujahedeen be equal.

    1. Many people cannot come to grips that Sharia Law is incompatible with our Constitution.

  15. In the video, the young boy appears to be uncomfortable with the “lesson”. One can only hope that most “Muslims” are closet Freethinkers who fake religiosity to avoid head chopping.

  16. And we are told, repeatedly, that this is the religion of “Peace”. I think we are being scammed.

    1. Actually, the utterance was made once, by George W. Bush. And almost certainly made for reasons of state.

  17. Al-Ansari is what passes for “an academic” in Qatar.

    So what? College faculties in this country are shot through with people who advocate all manner of asinine things. The Boswell of the American Communist Party in this generation of academics is one Ellen Schrecker of Yeshiva University. She isn’t a fringe figure; she was elected President of the Organization of American Historians. Howard Zinn, quondam Communist Party hack, devoted much of his career to denigrating the country which gave him a comfortable place to live; he didn’t have much cachet among historians who produce scholarly research, but his texts were much in demand by teachers at the secondary level. Can we talk about Noam Chomsky? Can we talk about the faculty and apparatchiki at most schools whose entire research program and professional activity is based on the notion that men qua men are toxic and pathological?

    All this is going on around you at your own institution, and you’re fussing over what some guy in Qatar has to say about domestic relations.

    1. @this is absurd x 3

      Ditto on the above but I’m concerned that the good professor will lose his liberal card for criticizing the ‘Religion of Peace’ and now ‘Love’.

      antonio

Comments are closed.