There must be violence against womenHere is the rest of the "article".
By: Maged Thabet Al-Kholidy email@example.com
This title may sound strange, but it’s actually not just a way to attract readers to the topic because I really do mean what it indicates. Violence is a broad term, especially when used regarding women. In this piece, I want to shed light on those instances where violence against women is a must.First, we should know the meaning of the word violence. Longman’s Dictionary of Contemporary English defines violence as “behavior that is intended to hurt other people physically.” However, the term violence mustn’t be confused with other concepts and terms such as gender inequality or absence of women rights. Occasionally – if not daily – we hear about events occurring in Islamic and Arab societies. Some human rights organizations recently have attacked violent acts against women, standing against any type of violence – even that between a father and daughter – and citing the cases of some women as examples. Consequently, they offer solutions such as complaining to the police, taking revenge or leaving them men, who are either their husbands, fathers or brothers – with no exceptions. One such case involved a woman whose husband allegedly had beaten her. Without revealing the husband’s reasons for doing so, such human rights organizations immediately urged the wife to complain to the police and the courts, while at the same time generalizing the instance and other similar solutions to any type of violence. If a man and woman are husband and wife, the Qur’an provides solutions, firstly reaffirming any logical and acceptable reasons for such punishment. These solutions are in gradual phases and not just for women, but for men also. For men, it begins with abandoning the marital bed, by opting to sleep elsewhere in the house. After this, they may discuss the matter with any respected person for the husband’s or the wife’s family, who could be in a position to advise the wife. If this also does not work, then the husband yields to beating the wife slightly. They do this because of a misunderstanding in the Quran, as the word says Darban, which is commonly understood today as beating. However, in Classic Arabic it means to set examples or to announce and proclaim. The more accurate meaning of this last one is that the husband finally has to set forth, to make a clear statement or proclamation, and if these measures fail, then divorce is preferable. Similarly, wives may take actions such as abandoning the marital bed, following by leaving the husband’s home for that of their parents, brothers or any other relatives. They may do this more than once, but if such action fails, they may not continue to live with their husband and via their relatives, they may request a divorce. Despite such instructions, beating is considered a type of violence, according to human rights organizations, which urge women to complain to the police. I just wonder what kind of families our societies would have if Muslim women started doing this regarding their husbands. Relationships between fathers and daughters or sisters and brothers also provoke argument from human rights organizations, which propose the suggested solutions for all relationships. Personally, I don’t think fathers or brothers would undertake such behavior unless there was a reason for it. Fathers are responsible for their daughters’ behavior, but human rights organizations deny this too. Brothers also should take action regarding their sisters’ behavior, especially if their parents are too old or dead. If a daughter or sister makes a mistake – especially a moral one – that negatively affects the entire family and its reputation, what’s the solution by such organizations? According to them, women should complain to the courts about any type of violence against them. Likewise, should fathers and brothers complain to police if their daughters or sisters violate moral, Islamic or social norms? Fathers should handle their daughters via any means that suits their mistake; thus, is it better to use violence to a certain limit or complain to the police? Shall such women then complain to the police against their fathers or brothers? It’s really amazing to hear this.
Removing Women's Only Cars in the Metro Away from the Driver's Cabin to Protect Drivers' from Chatter and Children's GamesCairo: In an effort to provide drivers with an atmosphere that would help them focus in work, the Metro management has decided to move women's two cars to the middle of the train. The decision to move women away from the driving cabin was taken so that their chatter would not annoy drivers. According to Al Massa' newspaper, it was because of women and their children who distracted the Helwan Metro driver and made him leave his cabin to chase the children that the train crashed against the station barriers leaving more than 43 injured. So you see, instead of punishing the driver, the management sympathizes with him and creates a lot of chaos in metro stations by changing the place where women only cars are. Of course since many sensible people don't buy the story that the accident was because of the women and since it is clear the management went along with it because that is better than saying that there was negligence on their part, officials are now changing their comments. You see, now changing where women are is for "the public good" since women's cars are usually empty while the rest of the train is crowded because not many women can walk all the way to the front of the train! Again, another huge lie! Anyway, back to my story. By the time I realised that the stories I had heard were true I was already in front of the front car (previously a women's only car) which I always took specially at rush hours to avoid potential harrassment in other mixed cars so I just walked into it and stood there with angry thoughts racing through my head. I was angry that misogynism has become so widely spread and acceptable that when a wacko guy blames women for his mistake he is believed and his absurd generalization is taken for a fact and reported about with no comments or criticism. The only thing that people questioned was whether that was the real reason behind the accident or not. The fact that action was quickly taken to move women away in a place and a country where action is hardly ever taken at all is very, very insulting. Standing inside the metro train I decided never to take women's cars again. These same misogynist officials found no other way to limit harrassment than to pack all the women in two out of the many cars of each train. If men are to respect us we will have to teach them to see us as the equal human beings that we are and that cannot be done by hiding away in "women only" spaces that they have allocated for us.
The authorities in Saudi Arabia have decided to end a ban on unaccompanied women staying in the country's hotels. A woman can now stay in a hotel alone as long as she carries identification. Based on a royal decree, the move marks a break from religious codes requiring women to be accompanied by a male guardian at all times. The decree allowed the Ministry of Trade to outline new regulations simply requiring women to show photographic ID to hotel managers. This must then be registered with local police. The decision was reported by the local daily al-Watan newspaper, which is considered close to the Saudi government, on Monday.
I have decided to start my own "Black List of Psychopathic Woman Haters in Power". It will include all public figures (male and female) who make any sort of misogynistic comments in the media (believe it or not some women out there are more royal than the king). The ranks will be updated regularly so that the number one on my black list would be the one with the most outrageously sexist remarks.
Remember Judge Dakrouri, well he is currently number two on my list because number one is now the amazing Karam El Hafian the NDP MP (by the way his family name means in Arabic "the bare footed").
Sawt Al Ummah has quoted this wacko (who fainted in the middle of a parliamentary session after getting all worked up about Farouq Hosni's "insult" to Islam) saying that women should never become judges because of the menstruation cycle! What does being a judge have to do with having the period? I have been cracking up my head to understand the reason but couldn't find any except for the disgusting widespread belief that menstruating women are dirty creatures, if that is his attitude well….
Anyway, since women have, unfortunately, been appointed as judges, the poor man had to accept the status Quo. However, in a parliamentary session that discussed the retirement age for judges he decided he's not keeping his opinion to himself any longer and demanded that men should retire at 70 while women should retire at 60.
"This is not discrimination," he said, "This is due to the biological difference between men and women and their ability to give. Men become wiser and closer to God as they grow older but women become senile…. and their temper becomes more acute because of menopause." In other words, women can't judge when they have their periods because they don't think clearly when they do and they can't judge when they stop having their periods because, again, they can't think clearly when they do. Hmm, it seems like he's difficult to please!
I would really love to know what science books this guy has been reading. Maybe one of those twisted Victorian Age books that "proved" that women and colored people are less developed than the White Man? In that case he should definitely look in the mirror, he is "colored". Anyway, he doesn't look like the type that would waste their time reading anything.
What is even worse is that he is absolutely unaware of his male chauvinism. He thinks of himself in fact as a supporter of women, and his reasons? "
I'm gonna exert self control and hold back all the swear words that are echoing inside my brains just in case he decides to sue me BUT I have to admit that right now a lot of violent scenarios are taking place inside my head.
Anyway, since violence never turns stupid people sensible, I have a better plan for revenge. I think that he should be put in an office where his boss and colleagues are sturdy, broad shouldered middle aged women civil servants (the overweight type of mouwazzafat we see in governmental offices) so that he would think twice before ever speaking about women like that again. What do you think?
As most of you must have heard, late in February Al Azhar decided to report Nawal Al Saadawi, Egypt's most outspoken feminist, to the police because of a play that she wrote back in the time of President Anwar Al Sadat and which she just published by the end of 2006. The play, "God Resigns in the Summit Meeting," would have passed unnoticed if not for one thing, the role of Sadat is symbolically played by God.
"So what?" you'd think, "this is just fiction, it is not to be taken literally; besides, religion shouldn't interfere with creativity." Well, try explaining that to the honorable Azhar "scholars" who (after reporting the atheist writings of their student, Abdel Karim Soliman, to the police last year) seem to be successfully working towards the resurrection of the medieval inquisition.
Anyway, now Nawal Al Saadawi is being sued for insulting "The Divine Entity" and for blasphemy and all thanks to Sayed Tantawi and his Islamic Research Council who came up with the decision that her play is an insult to the Muslim creed after three hours of heated discussions!
Fortunately when that happened Nawal Al Saadawi was in Belgium and is now in the US as visiting professor, so I don't think we will see her serving any jail time soon.
As I mentioned earlier, this happened a while ago and I should have written something about the topic back then but I got very busy. So what is new?
Well, after news of her "blasphemous" play circulated around what I like to call the "Islamist blogosphere", an interesting rumor followed. According to this rumor, Al Sadawy was a Muslim Brotherhood member, and not just that, but she used to wear the veil (back in the 40s!!) and lead women in prayer and helped get many into the brotherhood!
The source of the rumor is a book, Wa Areftou Al Ikhwan (And So I Came to Know the Brotherhood), about the history of the Muslim Brotherhood written by a Mahmoud Game', an ex-MB member, in which he claims that Al Saadawi was his classmate and that they helped organize MB events together.
What is even worse than the rumor is the way it has been used by these Islamists. According to this website, Nawal Al Sadawy is living proof that pious people are liable to lose their faith if they are not careful and avoid deviating from the right path.
So how do the pious deviate from the right path? The blogger enumerates several reasons the most outstanding being: "by hanging around "perverts" a lot who will drag the pious slowly and inconspicuously away from doing good deeds and remaining with the good people; and by reading "skeptical" books that would make them lose hold of the "useful" knowledge that helped them remain pious."
The writer then enlightens us by revealing that the first symptom of losing your piety is "rebelling" because rebellion leads to questioning God's words and the words of the prophet and the scholars which will ultimately lead to the pious becoming atheists.
Well, and I thought it was my duty as a good Muslim to question everything!
Anyway, in the following interview Nawal Al Sadawy said that she never knew this Mahmoud Game' and strongly denied ever being a member of the MB and ever wearing the veil which she has always believed is not part of Islam.
Hmm, too bad for the "how the pious turn evil" theory!