Violence against women OK.

[village_person]

Muslim leader Keysar Trad tells Andrew Bolt violence against women is 'last resort'

A controversial Muslim community leader has said violence towards women should be a "last resort".

President of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils Keysar Trad appeared on Sky News last night when host Andrew Bolt brought up domestic violence.

The presenter quoted from the Koran, saying "It is permissible for him (husbands) to beat her (the wife) light with his hands".

"Violence is a last resort," Trad responded.

"Before you even consider using your hand before you consider any act of violence have you checked box number one, which is counselling. Have you checked box number two?

[...]

http://www.9news.com.au/national/2017/02/23/06/33/muslim-leader-keysar-trad-tells-andrew-bolt-violen...

Given the priapic identity of the alleged religion in question is it any wonder we see such views trotted out from time to time.

I'll bet we'll see an avalanche of criticism directed at Mr Trad after what he had to say. At the same time we'll see a flight of pigs soaring high.

Julia Gillard phone your office.

[ambercat16]

The part I find strange is that the religion believes in female mutilation,(which of course is a man thing as no "god/deity would condone it as it's inferring with what they created).

ummmm - what about male circumcision.  Juadism has male circumcision as one of the main tenets of the faith.

[davidc4430]

cant speak for all circumsized men only myself.

does missing a bit of skin on my willy bother me?

not in the slightest.

i have no wish to track down the perps and sue their butts off.

i'm sure there are men that feel the exact opposite.

i dont consider it mutilation.

i think womens version is very different but only a woman whos had it done would be able to say.

is it like men, some are fine with it others fully against it?

[go-tazz]

---

@ambercat16 wrote:

The part I find strange is that the religion believes in female mutilation,(which of course is a man thing as no "god/deity would condone it as it's inferring with what they created).

ummmm - what about male circumcision.  Juadism has male circumcision as one of the main tenets of the faith.

---

I would think that it would be for all religion to be an interference with how their god/diety made man and

woman and that they would be punished for that interference.

Considering the turbulence that those two religions have gone through they may have been getting punished

from the time that they started believing in a god,

[mr.tip]

male circumcision has no effect on the man's "pleasure"

but cutting away the cliterous etc prevents any enjoyment.

no idea how anyone can make this comparison.

any excuse i guess rather than face the truth.

[johcaschro]

"Because their belief is that their holy book has never changed so it's still stuck in the middle ages."

Slight correction needed here, I think:

Because their belief is that their holy book is the literal word of God, it has never changed and nor shall it, so it's still stuck in the middle ages and probably always will be.

[springyzone]

---

@mr.tip wrote:

male circumcision has no effect on the man's "pleasure"

but cutting away the cliterous etc prevents any enjoyment.

no idea how anyone can make this comparison.

any excuse i guess rather than face the truth.

---

I agree that there isn't any real comparison.

Circumcision of males had a practical reason back in the past. People were living in a warm climate, infection was more of a possibility.

I think quite a few religious mandates had their roots in what was safe or sensible in those times.

Women's circumcision though had no such advantages and to me, was just for male dominance, rather like hobbling.

[the_great_she_elephant]

Actually Islam does not advocate female genital mutilation. There is no requirement for it in the Koran and while it is practised in some  Islamic countries- mainly in central Africa -  so is it in at least two predominently Christian countries, Ethiopia and Eritrea.

Experts say the practice stems from social pressure to conform to traditions passed down for centuries -- one that predates not just Islam but also Judaism and Christianity. (The origins of the practice are subject to some dispute, but some scholars say it may correspond to areas of ancient civilizations, in which the cutting of females "signalled controlled fidelity and the certainty of paternity," the UNICEF report states.).  

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/oct/02/reza-aslan/fact-checking-reza-aslans-ret...

[mr.tip]

Wow..........anything to play down the abuse of Women.

World Health Organization - "F.G.M. reflects deep-rooted inequality between the sexes and constitutes an extreme form of discrimination against woman and girls. The practice also violates their rights to health, security and physical integrity, their right to be free from torture and cruel inhuman or degrading treatment and their right to life when the procedure results in death"

accoding to the U.N. it's in the hundreds of millions and worldwide.

[mr.tip]

In many trauma hospitals in the U.K. it's no longer car accidents that are the main patients, its little girls who have been mutilated by this procedure and like so many other things related to the "religion of peace" it was prevented or lied about so the information would not be released or played down.

there was some press releases last year that the same thing was happening here in hospitals in Melbourne.

Why are so many, especially western women in denial of the inhuman, degrading way muslim women are treated by the teachings of that ideology?

[springyzone]

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

Actually Islam does not advocate female genital mutilation. There is no requirement for it in the Koran and while it is practised in some  Islamic countries- mainly in central Africa -  so is it in at least two predominently Christian countries, Ethiopia and Eritrea.

Experts say the practice stems from social pressure to conform to traditions passed down for centuries -- one that predates not just Islam but also Judaism and Christianity. (The origins of the practice are subject to some dispute, but some scholars say it may correspond to areas of ancient civilizations, in which the cutting of females "signalled controlled fidelity and the certainty of paternity," the UNICEF report states.).  

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/oct/02/reza-aslan/fact-checking-reza-aslans-ret...

---

That is interesting. So it pretty well backs up what I said. It is about male dominance, a form of hobbling.

The reasons are exactly as I suspected. A woman who will not enjoy sex or finds it painful is a whole lot less likely to be unfaithful.

It is not about stopping infection, it is a form of social control.

No matter who does it, it is a trauma on the body and a form of mutilation, more so than circumcision. I think the stats on this sort of thing should be open, should be released. I would be extremely surprised if you found that over here at the moment, 99.9% of the victims aren't muslim girls.

To me, you have to be practical about things. It's all very well saying islam does not advocate etc. It does not mandate hijabs either but again, I would imagine 95% of the women wearing them are muslim. The other group would be some Christian nuns, although that practice is much rarer now.

So if you want to stamp out the practice of mutilation in Australia, you have to target where it happens. That's the muslim community.