An Egyptian man forced his 20-year-old wife to be circumcised after a year of marriage, resulting in her hospitalization for acute bleeding, the state-run news agency reported Saturday.
According to the police commissioner of the Cairo’s gritty northern suburb of Shubra el-Kheima cited by the Middle East News Agency, a dispute erupted between Shaaban el-Menshawi and his wife because she had never been circumcised, a once common operation in Egypt that has since been banned by the government.
When her husband started beating her, Ashgan Riyadh Abdelati fled to her mother’s house. Once there, however, her mother brought in a doctor to conduct the illegal operation on the spot, said the news report.
Abdelati was later admitted to Nasser General Hospital for acute bleeding. Hospital officials declined to comment on her condition.
A problem arises when translating from Arabic to English in that English has no word to equate with a neutral gender, hence “he” is used when the Arabic term covers both male and female.
It is my understanding that the Quranic verses relate when one dies intestate, otherwise one is free to leave their belongings to whomever they wish.
Also, although males do in these cases received a larger part of the inheritance, it goes with the obligation to assist in supporting those in the family who do not receive such a share.
If one considers these guidelines and compares them to the ‘winner take all’ attitude prevalent in other cultures at the time they were promulgated, they show great consideration.
A new video tape purportedly made by al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden has urged the American people to embrace Islam in order to stop the war in Iraq….
The chief reason for this, of course, is because in traditional Islamic law, the invitation to Islam must precede an attack on non-Muslims. The Islamic prophet Muhammad makes this clear, directing Muslims to issue this invitation first, and if the unbelievers refuse, to invite them to enter the Islamic social order as second-class dhimmis, and if they refuse both, to go to war with them:
Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war, do not embezzle the spoils; do not break your pledge; and do not mutilate (the dead) bodies; do not kill the children. When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them….If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya [the poll tax on non-Muslims]. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them. (Sahih Muslim 4294)
“Big events like this always prompt a call for a ‘debate about multiculturalism,’ as if multiculturalism is this new thing that was invented by some liberal think tank in the 1990s. The subtext is that multiculturalism is something that can be reversed. Yet every society is multicultural…”
There’s something fundamentally dishonest about deliberately conflating “many cultures” and “multi-culturalism”. The former is a statement of fact; the latter a particular solution to living in a many-cultured society. There are competing solutions with different aims, theories and methods. For example, “the Melting Pot”. It is inconceivable that the writer is unaware of this distinction, which is in common usage, and this rather undermines the whole article.
If the writer believes in multi-culturalism then it would be better to defend it, rather than create a straw man.
>There’s something fundamentally >dishonest about deliberately >conflating “many cultures” and “multi->culturalism”.
There is something fundamentally wrong about multiculturalism itself. It is disguised moral relativism.
It is the rights of every member of
a society that what matters not the nightmarish “right of cultures” to perpetuate themselves and their practices of, say, killing their “unmodest” daughters in honour killings in London.
In fact much of what the Islamic religion (norms, values, commandments) and culture consists of is simply morally wrong.
No accomodation is possible here. It would be aberrant to accept such things only for the sake of avoiding conflict, of being “tolerant” and “open minded”.
Sep 1, 2007 20:26
Egyptian man forces his wife to be circumcised
By ASSOCIATED PRESS
An Egyptian man forced his 20-year-old wife to be circumcised after a year of marriage, resulting in her hospitalization for acute bleeding, the state-run news agency reported Saturday.
According to the police commissioner of the Cairo’s gritty northern suburb of Shubra el-Kheima cited by the Middle East News Agency, a dispute erupted between Shaaban el-Menshawi and his wife because she had never been circumcised, a once common operation in Egypt that has since been banned by the government.
When her husband started beating her, Ashgan Riyadh Abdelati fled to her mother’s house. Once there, however, her mother brought in a doctor to conduct the illegal operation on the spot, said the news report.
Abdelati was later admitted to Nasser General Hospital for acute bleeding. Hospital officials declined to comment on her condition.
response to HuFiz (the letter from 01/09)
That man should be arrested. He did something illegal.
Qu’ran and Lagacies:
A problem arises when translating from Arabic to English in that English has no word to equate with a neutral gender, hence “he” is used when the Arabic term covers both male and female.
It is my understanding that the Quranic verses relate when one dies intestate, otherwise one is free to leave their belongings to whomever they wish.
Also, although males do in these cases received a larger part of the inheritance, it goes with the obligation to assist in supporting those in the family who do not receive such a share.
If one considers these guidelines and compares them to the ‘winner take all’ attitude prevalent in other cultures at the time they were promulgated, they show great consideration.
Good article, up until the second last paragraphs, which is couched in the extremist language of the pub grumblers.
Gatecrashers? Are not most Muslims here legally? Are ALL of them threatening, or only some?
Given this, I am not sure what soltion author was leading up to. Making Islam illegal?
A new video tape purportedly made by al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden has urged the American people to embrace Islam in order to stop the war in Iraq….
The chief reason for this, of course, is because in traditional Islamic law, the invitation to Islam must precede an attack on non-Muslims. The Islamic prophet Muhammad makes this clear, directing Muslims to issue this invitation first, and if the unbelievers refuse, to invite them to enter the Islamic social order as second-class dhimmis, and if they refuse both, to go to war with them:
Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war, do not embezzle the spoils; do not break your pledge; and do not mutilate (the dead) bodies; do not kill the children. When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them….If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya [the poll tax on non-Muslims]. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them. (Sahih Muslim 4294)
A group of young Muslim apostates launches a campaign today, the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on America, to make it easier to renounce Islam.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2426314.ece
The provocative move reflects a growing rift between traditionalists and a younger generation raised on a diet of Dutch tolerance.
Re: Murder in Amsterdam
“Big events like this always prompt a call for a ‘debate about multiculturalism,’ as if multiculturalism is this new thing that was invented by some liberal think tank in the 1990s. The subtext is that multiculturalism is something that can be reversed. Yet every society is multicultural…”
There’s something fundamentally dishonest about deliberately conflating “many cultures” and “multi-culturalism”. The former is a statement of fact; the latter a particular solution to living in a many-cultured society. There are competing solutions with different aims, theories and methods. For example, “the Melting Pot”. It is inconceivable that the writer is unaware of this distinction, which is in common usage, and this rather undermines the whole article.
If the writer believes in multi-culturalism then it would be better to defend it, rather than create a straw man.
>There’s something fundamentally >dishonest about deliberately >conflating “many cultures” and “multi->culturalism”.
There is something fundamentally wrong about multiculturalism itself. It is disguised moral relativism.
It is the rights of every member of
a society that what matters not the nightmarish “right of cultures” to perpetuate themselves and their practices of, say, killing their “unmodest” daughters in honour killings in London.
In fact much of what the Islamic religion (norms, values, commandments) and culture consists of is simply morally wrong.
No accomodation is possible here. It would be aberrant to accept such things only for the sake of avoiding conflict, of being “tolerant” and “open minded”.