The women's branch of Hizb ut-Tahrir has made a video demonstrating how a husband is allowed to hit his wife. There has been general outrage. Now while I'm a critic of Islam, I'm finding it hard to get caught up in the outrage.

If a woman wants to voluntarily submit to such a regime, for me, that is her problem. Just as many non-muslim couples voluntarily submit to violent practices within their own marriage.

To say that it is assault is to beg the question. We have lots of assault in our society which is celebrated. This weekend there will be hundreds of football matches where people will be thrown to the ground, some of them seriously injured, and others will be intimidated and menaced, simply because they are carrying an oval ball, or might be.

And in Queensland we have the state government subsidising a world title boxing match which will involve two healthy males trying to knock the other senseless.

The level of violence advocated in the Hizb ut-Tahrir video is trivial compared to all of this, or probably much of what happens in 50 Shades of Grey.

What makes our sporting and sexual assaults acceptable is that the parties voluntarily submit to it. That would appear to be the case in Islam (ironically perhaps translated as "submission") as well. So why differentiate?

If Australians are really serious about this violence, then they need to persuade these women that they shouldn't submit. Simple outrage is unlikely to do that. An intelligent attempt to convert people from Islam to something else, might.

Hello Graham,

You ask, "What's the difference between beating your
Islamic wife and boxing?"

One would assume that either in sports such as football,
where clashes occur or in boxing where people slug it out,
they do so voluntarily. The difference with wife-beating
one would assume is not done with the wife's permission.
And in this country it's against the law and is considered
as "domestic violence."

We also cannot assume that all Muslim men beat their wives.
I can't imagine that a modern Muslim like Waleed Aly would
do it, or that his educated Muslim wife would stand for it
and allow it to happen.

Finally, for those vulnerable women that do have to bear
the brunt of their males beating them - the key may lie
in getting their communities and the leaders of their
communities (male and female) involved and educating them
so that they all understand their rights in this country.

The following link explains the action taken in Melbourne:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-16/women-muslim-leaders-given-crash-course-in-legal-studies/8030398

A small group of Muslim women have been given a crash legal
course on family violence, family law, the courts, dealing
with police in the hope they will help their Melbourne
communities better understand their rights. A three month program,
overseen by the Women's Legal Service Victoria, gave the
women information on identifying legal issues and accessing
relevant services for help.

Dear GrahamY,

Great topic, hopefully one that can be explored with a degree of civility.

This has been a issue dear to my heart. My sister-in-law's christian fundamentalist ex husband began 'disciplining' her on her wedding night. After 3 months of marriage she raised the matter with her church. To her deep concern the meeting was conducted between three male elders of the church and her and her husband. She felt unable to fully articulate what he was doing to her much less reveal the deep bruising on her legs. After some so called wise words from the elders on how to make a marriage succeed she returned to a life of abuse. Imbued with notions of control, legitimised possessiveness, and a perceived right to physically resolve differences her husband later stabbed her multiple times.

After he was convicted I went to see the pastor of the church and delivered a piece of my mind. All I got was some platitudes about the husband being the head of the household but needing to exercise that role with restraint, but absolutely no indication that the practices of the church would change.

Later discussions with others revealed a support for versions of the Christian Domestic Discipline (CCD) movement within many fundamentalist groups within the area.
http://www.christiandomesticdiscipline.com/home.html

This too is worth a read as the author addresses many of the arguments against physical disciplining of wives.
http://biblicalgenderroles.com/2015/10/03/7-ways-to-discipline-your-wife/

I felt this quote is pretty indicative of the mindset;

“If your wife is un-submissive in the sexual arena and chronically denies your sexual advances (without legitimate medical or psychological reasons for doing so) then perhaps that upcoming trip you were going to take her on gets canceled.”

Besides the creepy vibe it is the ambiguous language around an appropriate response that is the most worrying. Does continual refusal permit more physical punishment? How then is that not sexual assault?

Looking forward to seeing what others think.

Sorry, meant to include a link. I think if you look at the video Foxy you'll see that it is consensual http://www.9news.com.au/national/2017/04/13/07/49/its-never-okay-to-hit-your-wife-ben-fordham-calls-out-islamic-group.

Which wife, they are allowed to have more than 1 too bad the Australian taxpayer has to support them all.

Dear Steele,

I'm so sorry to read about your relative's behaviour.
And it is frightening that in this day and age
this behaviour still exists. Some people are beyond
help.

Dear Graham,

Education is the key to these women. They obviously
don't know what their rights are in this country.
Their mind-sets have to be changed. Not an easy task.

Dear Foxy,

This is not as much about a particular individual because violent people come from all walks of life, it is more about fundamentalist religions being enablers. There would be many Christian and Muslim men who would never think about rising their hand to their spouse. But when those who do receive affirmation from their faith it compounds the violence and abuse.

But more to Graham's question, why is this not deemed okay because we we regard BDSM in consensual relationships as permissible.

The point surely must be that where strong religious and cultural imperatives are at play it is hard to accept that the women involved are there entirely of their own free will.

As a result I think society owes them a duty of care.

Dear Steele,

I agree totally and you've said it far better
than I could have.

Isn't Hizb ut-Tahrir a declared terrorist organisation everywhere in the Western world expect silly old Australia? I suppose the women could call themselves martyrs by allowing the old man to knock them about as practice for the big one when it comes.

Any woman that needs to be 'educated' that physical violence is wrong has serious problems. The most basic instinct in human nature is to protect yourself and to keep safe. If you haven't worked that out by the time you marry then you probably never will.

phanto,

It's rather difficult saying that to a woman who
was raised in a religion that taught her - it was
a husband's right. And as far as our culture is
concerned - there are quite a few women who for
one reason or another (financial, emotional,
for the sake of the family and children) are unable
to leave the man who regularly abuses her.
If it was so simple then we would not have the problem
of domestic violence in this country.

foxy:

Then the problem is not the violence but the emotional attachment to religion or to marriage or relationships. If you value these things more than your own well-being then your values are all askew.

It might not be easy to turn you back on these things but that cannot be an excuse. You have to take responsibility for your own well-being. So long as you continue to blame others for your own situation you will never get out of it. No one has to be in a domestic relationship and no one has to be religious. These women have far more power than they are prepared to take up.

If you continue to see them as powerless victims then you are part of the problem and not part of the solution.

phanto Quote part "emotional attachment to religion == If you value these things more than your own well-being then your values are all askew."

Or blind belief in religion.

Probably why there are suicide bombers etc.

Somehow people have to be shown things are wrong, what they have been taught is not true.

Women can be fundamentalists too and they can model and teach fundamentalism in the home. Catholicism and Islam are similar in a number of respects, differing in degree of course. Examples, could be the one just given, that while men are the obvious leaders and beneficiaries up-front, women are the strength in the home and encourage religious observation and ritual. The women also derive benefits such as predictability, avoidance of freedom and the headaches and accountabilities freedom brings, not being required to take part in dangerous activities required by society, for instance being having to put the body and all else on the line in dangerous and dirty occupations and in war.

Muslim women keep telling Australians and the West that they want Islam, the Koran and Sharia law and they do wear the uniforms for instance to make their commitment obvious. They let their walking do the talking. Some like Yassmin Abdel-Magied and others already mentioned here and who also are regularly given a podium by the taxpayer-funded ABC, have plenty to say as well and put the most positive (and usually undeserved) burnish on Islam.

It should be enough to recognise and understand the Islam of Muslim women fundamentalists (their male equivalents too) as the antithesis of modern Christianity and its civilising aspects and practises. The common core of most religions and certainly Christianity is the timeless philosophy of goodness and to add, the Big Three, being Goodness, Beauty and Truth.

To be frank, where Muslim women are unwilling to admit and challenge abuses and treatment that will affect their own girl infants and they are deceitful and hide the obvious truth from accepting, tolerant Western societies who have welcomed them in, they should not be surprised if they are in turn asked to explain why others should bother to defend and look out for them.

Great topic,

In regards to boxing, football and bdsm, those all have rules, legal and/or social to ensure no one partipating is at a severe disadvantage within the exchange.

Woman raised in certain Islamic households often have neither the mental, emotional or physical resources to defend themselves. They believe that their husband is allowed to beat them and for them to resist is to bring further shame to themselves and their families. Furthermore during an exchange were subconscious self preservation instincts might kick in these woman are also generally at a physical disadvantage and any instinctual dissent is likely to be met with further abuse which functions just like aversion therapy.

Many be wondering then why a group of Muslim women, 'high-profile writers, academics and activists' (according to the publicly-funded SBS that gave them plenty of column space(!)), in Australia and NZ petitioned to censor and exclude Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who had to cancel her speaking tour for security fears.

Difficult questions answered frankly,
Richard Dawkins 2017 -, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris & Ayaan Hirsi Ali

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3-tU4mHq_Y

In fact one the subject of 50 Shades of Atrocious Crap,

No offense to anyone whom liked it but... no wait what the hell dude?

Moving on. I argue Anastasia can teach us a lot about why abused woman allow themselves to be abused and on the surface they do, the civilized world has rules which prohibit abuse so if a woman is abused repeatedly that must be silent consent right? If she didn't want to be abused she'd leave right?

Anna when she meets Christian clearly lacks self confidence, in fact I'd argue that just about any three paragraphs in the first book can give a reader an apt understanding of how little Anna thinks of herself and this lack of self worth is already obvious in her relationship with the people around her.
Her mother doesn't attend her college graduation which Anna has no problem with, Kate expects Anna to fill in for her last moment even though Anna has zero journalism experience and is clearly really uncomfortable with the idea. Before Anna and Christian meet Anna is already doing things she has no interest in for the sake of others. She doesn't think she has enough to offer as a friend or a daughter to make any demands of any of the people in her life. In essence she is already submissive to the people in her life who offer her nearly nothing in return... the saving grace here is is that they aren't domineering prats by nature. Having said that when next to nothing is the value Anna clearly places on her willingness to do everyday things that make her uncomfortable and miserable for people is it really any surprise that she willing to accept horrendous abuse from a man who also lavishes her with attention and money and even shallow possessive douchebaggery some call love.

As Andrew Bolt said on 2GB tonight, the women involved were only repeating what the Koran tells them - that it is OK for Muslim men to beat their wives. So, the outrage should be directed not to this particular video or the women involved,but it should be directed to where it belongs - the Koran. The Koran is a very nasty, violent book.

I always get edgy where a woman's agency is diminished. Feminists for example do a lot of that, with the object of controlling what women think and do. They represent the 'feeble-minded, incompetent women who cannot make up their own mind and would most likely get it wrong if they were allowed to do so'.

This writer displays a talent for humorously unpacking the B.S. that women lack the agency to take care of themselves.

http://omegavirginrevolt.wordpress.com/the-most-dangerous-idea-in-the-world-women-have-agency/

I am not dismissing the myriad of influences on agency and the socio-economic limitations especially, but the adage, 'If it is going to be, it has got to be me', applies equally to women.

Muslim women in the West have no excuses and the ball is at their toe. Especially where their girl children are concerned and to whom they really shouldn't be modelling that 'beating is glorious' bull.

Moving on to Anna and Christians meet horrendous. Honestly that book owes me therapy money and I'm not kidding.

Anna and Christian meet just as Anna is finishing college. This already shy, self-conscious girl is about to enter an especially turbulent and uncertain transition in her life. In fact one could argue that for some college graduation is where adulthood truly begins.
Christians incredible wealth doesn't just buy Anna shiny junk it potentially buys her freedom from that transition, from that turbulence... can't find a job... I'll buy a company and make you boss... old car, here's a new one... speeding ticket... you would never speed, the officer who wrote it now says so, cross his heart and hope to die.

Now to the red-room. Hang-on... sorry tasted vomit for a minute. Their relationship and the abuse of their relationship. Lets start with the contract... consent especially within BDSM relationships (I don't practice but I know people who do) but in all relationships (healthy relationships) consent is not a constant. It isn't something that has concrete policies and procedures and two static states. It's complicated and messy and we build an understanding of it through research, relationships and community. We build it over years. Anna has little understanding of the roles consent and trust play with healthy relationships.

I raised this issue because it touches on so many things. If you believe in freedom of religion, then surely something which someone conscientiously believes, and which is not physically harmful, has a right to be practiced and should be tolerated.

While I don't have a lot of time for Islam, I find a lot of the criticism of this video to be manufactured. Often it comes from the same people who would defend a parent's right to hit a child. Or if two blokes came to blows in a pub would reckon it was just male bonding. If the women weren't Islamic, I don't think they would be getting this attention.

They're not advocating unrestrained assault. They are saying that there are rules, and they are laying them out.

We actually have court cases where spanking a child has been ruled to have crossed the boundary into being criminal assault, or violence on the football field. It would be interesting to see how a court treated it if a woman who had been beaten by her husband in line with this video suddenly decided she'd changed her mind, and went to the police. Would the judge take cultural factors into account? (He would if the people involved were aboriginal, in fact we actually incorporate spearings as punishment into law at some levels).

I personally think these women are silly, that no harm is done by the video, and that we all ought to stop hyperventilating about it. We are animals, and physical confrontation is actually part of how we are made to operate.

There's a continuum from real violence and threat to life to play, and these women are probably somewhere in the middle. Don't forget that some feminists, such as Andrea Dworkin, think that sexual intercourse is assault, and at one very trivial level, they're right. But it's a lot of fun and should never be made illegal.

As people raised in restrictive homes often do. Anna doesn't date, or have frank conversations about sexual relationships with her one friend... nor does she feel particularly comfortable independently researching sex and the only person who's pushing her to do any of those things is a man who has a vested interest in her learning and believing very specific things about how relationships of a specific ilk function. A key one being that Anna signing some stupid contract can actually grant him constant consent to do per-agreed things to her with impunity.
If I go on I'll vomit, so lets move on to Anna's other relationships, of which there are not many. Any significant man in her life is either emotionally distant or attempts to carry out his own brand of sexual assault upon her and all of the women in her life share a general neglectful disinterest in Anna's comings and goings and all judge Christian a charming catch within 10 seconds of meeting him. Sigh.
So to sum up, Anna doesn't think she has much worth as a person, a view that is reinforced constantly by every man and woman in her life, save that one super hot, super rich guy who would like her to believe she isn't anything without him. And oh so painful... he isn't exactly wrong is he? Besides he wants her consent, he doesn't want to do anything until she signs the contract giving her absolute consent...

50 Shades of Grey:

When it happens in a mansion, it's a romance.

When it happens in a shack, it's an episode of Criminal Minds.

Burning books is wrong and evil. We should burn E. L. James (not his real name) to set an example for others.

Who the hell is reading this shite anyway? Don't they know that there are well-written books for the reading? Available for FREE at their local library?

Here's the thing, I argue Anna isn't capable of giving consent anymore than those Islamic woman are. As a society we agree that certain conditions must be met before a person can given consent. Depending on the situation and what the person is consenting to they have to be mentally stable, free of economic, physical of emotional coercion, they have to have a reasonable understanding of what it is they're consenting to, etc...
Islamic woman come from households where their mothers are abused by their fathers, the concept of men abusing woman with impunity is instilled from birth. It is shamefully to the woman that she has behaved in such a way that her husband needs to abuse her in order to correct that behavior. Their friends fathers abuse their mothers and when they marry their friends husbands will abuse their friends. It is not just thoroughly normalized in those woman's minds but it is normal within that culture. Moreover some of these woman are dependent upon their husbands for everything. Not just financially. Some Islamic men exert such complete control over their wives that they struggle to take any independent action even in something as simple as choosing what clothes to wear.
That in mind you really expect these women, these profoundly abused women to have the strength and tools (emotional, social, psychological) necessary to turn their backs on their family, their culture, their religion and possibly their children too? For another body of people whom are often no less hostile towards them than their own husbands and fathers and brothers? When they don't jump at the sparkling opportunity your going to tell them they deserve to beaten, just like their husbands?
I argue these woman don't have the ability to consent for a multitude of reasons, like Anna. They are disadvantaged across the board.
But mostly you know why these woman can't say yes really... because to choose to say yes you must be able to say no and I doubt any of these woman are afforded the option of telling their husband not to abuse them.

Toni,

I am disgusted and fascinated by the phenomenon that is 50 shades of crappy crappy crap because I think it so adequately shows what so many people think of some many things.
It highlights so many issues regarding socioeconomic standing and criminality, the constant convert and overt criticism of feminine sexuality, gender identity, confusion and sexuality, consent and coercion and it's sort of really fascinating except it's all unintentional and actually it's really freakin awful.

Zeil:

You seem to be saying that women are victims of their culture and unable to fight against it. Then you seem to be blaming men for their behaviour towards women which is also part of the culture.

Are men any less victims of the culture? If they do not treat women according to the dictates of their religion then they will become victims themselves. They will be seen as weak and non-observant of Islam. They can be ostracized and terrorised for their lack of observance. They could even lose their jobs and be unable to support their families. What would you have them do?

Not everything is about gender and it is a very naive attitude to project western freedoms onto men who live in oppressed cultures.

If you truly cared about people you would see the whole picture and dedicate yourself to the dismantling of the culture which impinges on human rights and not just women’s rights. You would not use the plight of such people to score cheap points about domestic violence.

Hey Phantom,

Happy Good Friday if you obverse. Some good points there however I don't believe I levelled any attacks at the men whom do the beating. My critique was for the people in this society judging those women. Of course those men are victims, of course they are caught within the same system. Hell even Christian Grey is a product of his upbringing. My point was that's it's incredibly naive, insensitive and actually forms part of the problem to say that once these woman migrate to a country where they are protected by law that if they choose not to utilise that service then they are complicit. It's similar to the questioning some people do of rape victims who choose not to report.
As to the climate of domestic abuse in australia I could write a whole book about the culture of misogyny but that's an entirely different issue and no I don't need to score any cheap points on it Phantom.

Also I will point out that at this point that I'm a sociologist at heart. I will always look at things from the stance of 'what conditions in society contributed towards you doing x,y or z' it's important because as a society we can't chance individual people but we can change our own and cultural attitudes and conditions that lead to negative situations. Having said that I don't absolve people of personal liability. Everyone is in control of there own actions in the end and it would be naive and insensitive to suggest otherwise. It is also equally naive thoygh to go 'oh well but they choose to do it, no one had a gun to there heads... every action has consequences... this one time I did something even though I knew I'd face this consequence and I did it anyway...' and so on. Easy answers are no ones friend.

Zeil:

Those women comply with the behaviour towards them. No one who is raped complies with the behaviour toward them. Those women agree to let the behaviour continue. No rape victim would agree to be repeatedly raped.

In Muslim countries it might be reasonable to comply with the behaviour because complaining about it would be pointless. It would not stop. In Australia it is not pointless. You can complain and it can be stopped so there must be some other reason why they are prepared to accept it.

It is acceptable to these women because they are emotionally dependent on their religion and you cannot cherry-pick which parts of Islam you accept. Either that or they are emotionally dependent on domestic relationships. The problem is their emotional dependence. They are not free of their emotional dependence. It is reasonable to question this dependence of anyone.

It is good that such questions be put to them because emotional dependence on religion is detrimental to society and if they become part of our society it is important to challenge that dependence for the good of society.

Dear Zeil,

I've got to admit that I liked the movie -
"Fifty Shades of Grey." As well as its sequel -
"Fifty Shades Darker." And I'm looking forward to
the third upcoming film to find out what were the initial
causes of Christian Grey's behaviour (abused as a
child?) and whether or not he is capable of changing.

Can we change human behaviour through certain influences
like love, education, and so on. I really don't know the
answers to those questions. However, I do know that in
the case of domestic violence we have to at least try to
let women know the options that they have available in
this country and what their rights are.

Foxy,

Sorry I should've been less judgemental regarding 50 Shades' audience. Many people enjoyed it for a wide variety of reasons.

I'll even admit the bare bones premise of the story makes for an interesting concept. As I said it and societies reaction to it unintentionally highlights some really big issues.

Having said that I think in its entirety there's no getting around that the cons outweigh the pros of it. The largest issue of which being that many people view it as a fun kinky romance without subtext or social commentary.

Also on a personal note I found Christians justification for his treatment of woman and his distortion of a subculture tissue thin, egocentric, vaguely sociopathic and at the same time really boring.

Would it be fair to say that some women do voluntarily submit to being beaten while others do not?

In that case, it becomes an issue of doing our best to distinguish between the two, then acting on the most sincere balance of probabilities.

But we need to tread very carefully here, because who is to judge without bias whether a person accepts their situation voluntarily or not?

As individuals, we have every right to judge and employ non-violent means against the perpetrators, such as boycotting those who beat their wives and avoid employing them or providing them with goods and services, etc.

The state, however, may only use its coercive powers in self-defence of those who wish to be defended by it, or at most, in defence of those who are unable to communicate when on the balance of probabilities it is sincerely believed that they would have sought the state's help if they could.

Beating a woman is not in any ways healthy or a good act. I see no reason why a man could beat his wife in any ground of offense.

I am not sure we should be discussing this topic at all. Wasn,t family violence a un world wide initiative. To bring violence to the surface and condemn it for what it is. I don,t remember any proviso,s that consensual violence is ok.

This is all about one group giving their approval for consensual violence. Can violence have classifications. Or should their concerns be passed on to the United Nations for approval or not.

As a single nation we are stepping into dirty work by even giving the subject air time.
The proposition is bigger than any one single country to contemplate.

Look, if these silly Muslim woman are OK with being knocked about, who are we to worry about it. I don't care at all, actually. I do care about normal, non-Muslim women but, if they don't report it, nothing can be done about it.

Conspicuous compassion about domestic violence has become damn boring. Police, hampered by gutless courts, can't stop out-in-the-open public violence. Nothing can be done about domestic violence, much of which is known by only the victim and the perpetrator. And, a recent report reveals that there are as many female assailant as there are male assailants.

So, male or female, if you are being assaulted, fight back, report it; do something, because nobody else can do it for you.

Come on Tuesday and new topics.

Dear Doog,

«Can violence have classifications»?

Yes!

Violence can be dissected in several ways.

1)
Physical violence
Verbal violence
Thought violence

2)
My violence, which is my duty to eradicate.
Others' violence, which is not my duty to eradicate.

3)
Unprovoked violence, which should always be avoided.
Violence in self-defence, which though less than ideal, is generally acceptable.
Violence in defence of others who agreed to come under my care, which is commendable for certain classes of people.
Violence in defence of others who have not agreed to come under my care, where permission to respond violently on behalf of the offended must be sought first.
Violence in defence of others who do not wish to come under my care, which should be avoided.

That is where our out of date system is falling down. You are reciting a minefield of litigation and courtroom inaction. And not the fault of the judge.

Yuyutsu:

I think the definition of violence should be that it is physical. The other behaviours are aggression. There are many types of aggression of which violence is only one.

Violence hurts everyone because our bodies are all made the same way. 'Verbal violence' or 'thought violence' are much more subjective and dependent on the attitudes of the victims.

But conceptual and descriptive ambivalence in the definition of violence is necessary to prop up jobs and careers, all of that sloppy research, and media campaigns to keep the usual suspects in clover.

Next you will be asking for the funds allocated by government to show some difference in the bottom line, the final outcome.

Well said, leoj. There are too many cooks spoiling the broth (at taxpayer expense.) Common law, the police and the judiciary should be more than ample to deal with the problem of violence.

ttbn,

And what will common law, the police, and the judiciary do to prevent crime? Or learn how to best do that?

Yeah, exactly...

Dear Phanto,

A breeze, a storm and a hurricane are all wind. While it could be practical for certain purposes (legal, for example) to give different names to different levels of 'violence', saying that lesser violence is "only" aggression, such divisions are artificial and only a matter of degree.

«'Verbal violence' or 'thought violence' are much more subjective and dependent on the attitudes of the victims.»

But apart from the victims, what matters most is the subjective experience of the perpetrator.

Objectively, on the physical level, there could be consequences - one could be punished, but then this is not always the case and one could hope to be lucky and get away with violence.

Emotionally, you feel guilty, still a few psychopaths can get away with that too.

Mentally, this enhances the notion as if you are separate from others, so that their pain is not your pain. That creates constant background fear, but what if you never thought otherwise anyway?

Ultimately, the reason to avoid violence is spiritual: while you truly are God, so are also the ones that you hurt, so when you reinforce this mental and emotional notion of separateness from others, when you subjectively increase the wedge between you and them, you are in fact distancing yourself from God, you prevent yourself from experiencing your true divine nature, because if you did experience it, then you would be feeling the pain that you caused to so-called-others, realising that you have actually hurt yourself.

Violence is the number one hindrance to spiritual progress, this is why one should do their best to avoid it, even in thought.

"What's the difference between beating your Islamic wife and boxing,...."

Well, for starters, in boxing one is allowed to hit back, in fact, it's a requirement.

Dear Graham, the date on this Topic is the 13th, April, 2017. It arrived in my Inmail late today the 18th April, 2017. This happens very frequently. Is there a reason for the five day delay?

Beating anyone for any reason is unacceptable. End of argument. & the idea that moslims use a little twig is laughable. I know it, you know it & they know it.

steelie: where strong religious and cultural imperatives are at play it is hard to accept that the women involved are there entirely of their own free will.

No, like all religions there is a great deal of Dogma that is impressed on these people from an early age. They believe that this is just normal for everybody so they accept their condition or burn in Hell.

PhS: Somehow people have to be shown things are wrong, what they have been taught is not true.

Now you are invoking violence from the moslim community by saying what is in the koran is not true.

tbn: Isn't Hizb ut-Tahrir a declared terrorist organisation everywhere in the Western world expect silly old Australia?

Yes, strange Ay.

Phanto: So long as you continue to blame others for your own situation you will never get out of it.

Exactly & when you do get out of that situation going into another just as bad is crazy. (which happens a lot.)

leoj: Women can be fundamentalists too and they can model and teach fundamentalism in the home.

Whooa! That's one of the reasons why moslim men beat their wives.

leoj: Catholicism and Islam are similar in a number of respects, differing in degree of course. Examples, could be the one just given, that while men are the obvious leaders and beneficiaries up-front,

Why would Catholicism get a mention ahead of Southern Baptists, SDa's, JW's & Chaismatics who are very fundamental in just who is the head of the household?

cont
ttbn: The Koran is a very nasty, violent book.

& therefore must be banned in Australia.

GY: If you believe in freedom of religion, then surely something which someone conscientiously believes, and which is not physically harmful, has a right to be practiced and should be tolerated.

The problem with that is that Islam is a Political System (unpalatable to the West) masquerading as a Religion, taking advantage of the liberty enjoyed by the West & using that against us.

GY: Don't forget that some feminists, such as Andrea Dworkin, think that sexual intercourse is assault,

Nobody takes feminist seriously really, just an annoyance.

Yutsie: Violence can be dissected in several ways.

1)Physical violence, Verbal violence, Thought violence.

Now you have introduced another aspect & some crossover. Physical violence is usually committed by the male. (but not always) Verbal Violence is equally shared. Thought Violence is usually committed by the Female. (but not always.)

AJP: And what will common law, the police, and the judiciary do to prevent crime? Or learn how to best do that?

Nothing. It keep Lawyers in Clover.

Is Mise: Well, for starters, in boxing one is allowed to hit back, in fact, it's a requirement.

Good one son.

Hi Jayb, yes there is a reason it is dated the 13th and only arrived in your inbox on the 18th, and it's called the weekend. In fact, in this case it is called, the longest weekend. But you can check the forum, as others have obviously done.

And just as smacking within a family is acceptable, but assault isn't, when it comes to children, why should it be a priori wrong for a level of symbolic violence to occur between husband and wife in a religiously sanctioned way?

Not the way that I would behave, but between consenting adults I have trouble working out why it should somehow be actionable by society.

GY Weekend.

I notice that everyone else started posting on the 13th.

GY: a level of symbolic violence to occur between husband and wife in a religiously sanctioned way?

The utube video's & other reports tend to show that what really happens is a lot more than symbolic beating with a toothpick. I do tend to agree though that there are a lot of selective double standards in play here.

What's the difference?

Wife-beating and all other assaults are imposed on the victim without their consent and with no potential benefit to them.

Both boxers consent and may benefit (prize).
Both BDSM partners consent and may benefit (erotic satisfaction).

An assault victim does not consent and receives no benefit.

GrahamY:

"And just as smacking within a family is acceptable, but assault isn't, when it comes to children, why should it be a priori wrong for a level of symbolic violence to occur between husband and wife in a religiously sanctioned way?"

Smacking has a purpose which is to hurt the child in order to control the behaviour of the child. It can be argued that it is reasonable. Boxing also has a purpose which is to prove you are better at fighting than your opponent by hurting him more. These actions intend to hurt for a reason.

I don't think that there is any such thing as 'symbolic violence'. Either the violence intends to hurt or it does not. If it does not then it is not violence. For these Muslim women it may be some kind of ritual that symbolises the man's control over his wife but it is not violence.

These people should be free to practice their rituals but we should not indulge them by calling it violence. It just clouds the issue of real violence toward women and can trivialise that issue.

.

Dear Graham,

.

You wrote :

« If a woman wants to voluntarily submit to such a regime [Islam], for me, that is her problem. Just as many non-muslim couples voluntarily submit to violent practices within their own marriage »

You are quite right, Graham, in thinking that “intimate partner” violence is not a question of religion, Both the Bible and the Quran stipulate that the wife must obey her husband and both prescribe varying degrees of punishment culminating in death in certain circumstances.

However, qualifying the attitude of the victims of such violence as “voluntary” submission is an all too frequent interpretation for which there is no empirical evidence.

As the latest Australian Institute of Criminology report notes (page 40) :

« Physical and sexual violence between intimate partners is neither a new nor a rarely encountered phenomenon. Until relatively recently it was even permitted by law (see High Court case R v L (1991) 174 CLR 379). While the law no longer offers protection to men who beat their wives, there is evidence to suggest that it may still be socially sanctioned. For instance, a national survey in 1995 revealed that about one in five Australians thought that it was acceptable for a man to use physical force against his wife in some circumstances (OSW 1995: 33). Surveys undertaken in various countries indicate that 10–50 per cent of women reported being physically abused by a male partner (Heise et al. 1999). Research has found that violence against women is primarily partner violence rather than violence committed by a stranger »

Here is the report :

http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/rpp/56/rpp056.pdf

.

Hi there GRAHAM Y...A very interesting topic you've introduced here.

Personally I can't ever see a legitimate need for a husband 'ever' to strike his wife. Save perhaps in rare instances where the wife has evolved into a complete state of hysteria, and has commenced hyperventilating or similar? From memory with my St.John training:- Basic first aid for hysteria, is attempt to 'shock' or 'jolt' the patient out of it in some way? A sharp open handed slap I guess was the preferred method? I'm not entirely sure, so I'll stand to be corrected? In day's when I wore blue, I've had a few ladies and girls, as well as a couple of young males, develop symptoms of hysteria, generally though, they snap out of it, of their own volition?

In any other circumstance it's clearly an assault. In fact one never needs to physically strike someone, to prove an offence of common assault. The offender only needs to have an immediate 'presence' and an 'ability'; and for the intended victim to honestly believe, there and then, they're about to be assaulted. In essence, they are the criminal proofs for common assault.

O sung wu,

Careful with that 'hysteria' word, mate. You remember what happened to Steve Price when he uttered the word to a woman (Muslim, incidentally) on Channel 10? Poor old Steve was traumatised for week after the verbal hiding he copped.

Rates of dv are extremely high in 'gay' communities and Indigeneous communities. Pretty hard even for the Christophobes to deny this.

While I find a comparison between Islam and BDSM amusing, I believe that the video goes far beyond consensual interaction.

Firstly the video is about the actions that the husband can take to discipline a wife that disobeys him. What actions can she take to discipline him if he disobeys?

Secondly, the reaction for disobedience pretty much negates the consensual argument,

Finally, while the two women tried to indicate that beatings were restricted to toothpicks and scarfs, the reality is very different.

We need to remember that in many societies women have been treated
for practical and legal purposes as the property of their
husbands (or, if unmarried, of their fathers). As recently as the
late 1960s, many statutes made married women legally incompetent
to enter into contracts, rent cars, or get credit without their
husband's signature - in much the same way that minors cannot
exercise certain privileges without the approval of a parent or
guardian.

Even more strikingly, husbands had absolute sexual rights over their
spouses, and it is only in recent times that it has been made illegal
for a husband to rape his wife. Traces of the old traditions are
also to be found in our contemporary wedding ceremonies; in the
standard form of vows, some brides still solemnly promise to "obey"
the groom, and it is usually her father who still "gives her away"
to her new husband, as though some piece of property was being
transferred.

We can see the implications of this symbolic interaction more
clearly if we imagine its opposite - the mother of the groom
giving him away to the bride, and he then vowing to obey his
wife for the rest of his life.

Nonetheless, the fact that women have been subordinate in all
family systems in the past does not necessarily mean that there
is something inherently wrong with the whole idea of the family,
or marriage today in our society. It is entirely possible that
utterly different family and marriage forms might (and are)
emerging in the future. Particularly in our post-industrial
societies, where in fact there is a strong trend nowadays toward
equality between the spouses.

However, this is not always the case with some Islamic couples.
And the only thing that we can do - is to try to let people
know of their rights in this country and also what our laws are
concerning domestic violence. Getting the communities involved
would also help.

I cannot understand how one would get a woman to submit without causing pain if she was not consenting. To make her submit one would had had to bully her before using force. This places he in the position of being abused

Foxy:

You have already made that point about education. It is not ignorance that makes these women sucuumb to these acts of violence - it is fear.

It would be simple if all you had to do was give them a book of rules and laws governing violence in our society and that would make them safe. They live in fear, not of violence but of having no husband and no religion.

The emotional pressure to have a husband is even more compelling than it is in western societies and they will endure a great deal of punishment rather than deal with that pressure. In the same way their dependence on religious observance as a way of dealing with their emotions compounds their problem.

They deal with the fear of having no husband by resorting to religious behaviours and religious beliefs. These fears are powerful emotions and it is avoiding the issue to suggest that education can overcome them.

Foxy: her father who still "gives her away" to her new husband,

Well at least he gives her away. What the usual Bride Price. 20 Pigs, 40 Goats & a Camel? Dad's laughing all the way to the back paddock. ;-)

Dear phanto,

What do you then suggest? (if you don't think that education
of these women
concerning their rights and our laws is not a good idea)?

Foxy: (if you don't think that education of these women concerning their rights and our laws is not a good idea)?

I think phanto would agree that the education of these women in their Rights under Australian Law is a good thing. The problem is these women don't believe in Australian Laws. They believe that Shari'a Laws are much superior & therefore will bow towards them every time. If they don't, of course, then the husbands will beat them & not with a little stick.

I'm sure I saw those women wink at one another.

cont'd ...

Here is a link that I gave earlier. It deals with a
3 month program for Muslim women on family violence,
family law, the courts, dealing with police, by the
Women's Legal Service Victoria. It identifies legal
issues and accessing services for help.

I disagree with you that education cannot help with
fear. Ask any woman regarding child-birth. The more
you learn and know about the process involved the
less you fear it. Education does help in most cases
regarding many issues in our lives.

cont'd ...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-16/women-muslim-leaders-give-crash-course-in-legal-studies/8030398

Thank you TTBN...

I realized my unintentional foolishness soon after I pressed the submit button? Would it be too late for me to say 'upset' rather than hysterical? I acknowledge the political correct brigade wield enormous power and influence, so best I exercise caution hereinafter me thinks?

That said, I can hardly think why any man would need to strike a woman except in self-defence and on the rare occasion they might become 'upset'. Of course it's a two way street, no woman can lawfully strike a man for the same reasons.

Early one morning c.0445hrs we attended a job in one of Sydney's far western suburbs, on a rowdy domestic call. It appeared this Turkish fellow in company with his 'girlfriend' (also Turkish) gave his wife a decent hammering, in fact the matter turned into a AGBH ,and he and the girlfriend were both duly pinched. After he was processed, I asked why did he bother to hit his wife so hard, causing her significant facial abrasions? To which he replied quite casually, it's our duty to discipline our women in a kindly but an effective way, so they may remember where their duty lies in always obeying their husbands wishes?

There wasn't a shred of remorse in sending his wife to Penrith Hospital A & E. The wife declined to drag her husband's girlfriend into the legal melee in the Magistrate's Court, there we had to 'NETO' her, and she merely shuffled out of the Court head down, looking all forlorn and crestfallen? And boyfriend spent a leisurely 2 from a 6 months, as an honoured guest of the NSW Government, at the 5 star Parramatta Gaol. Go figure?

Foxy:

"What do you then suggest?"

I would suggest that they seek psychological help to deal with their dependence on religion. I would also suggest that women in western societies stop glamourising domestic relationships and present the reality of them so that Muslim women can see that they do not have to be involved in them.

Education does not solve all emotional problems. It won't solve these ones.

Dear phanto,

Education can certainly help, especially if women
are made aware of the legal issues involved, their
rights, and how to access services for help.

The sociological research over the past
two decades has revealed an astonishing amount of
family violence - between spouses, between parents and
offspring, and among the offspring themselves.

The police detest "disturbance calls" usually family
fights because of the vicious and dangerous nature of so
many of these conflicts. Surveys suggest that each year
many couples go through a violent episode in which one spouse
tries to cause the other serious pain or injury.

Be that as it may there are few of us who would deny that
domestic violence is a widespread and very serious
problem in this country. Each year, too, child abuse -
involving such acts as
burning children with cigarettes, locking them up in closets, tying
them up for hours or days, breaking their bones - is alarmingly
common, and probably causes many of the runaways that
happen each year.

And of course we also have the sexual abuse of children, now
recognised as a national epidemic.

Sources of this violence may lie in the dynamics of the family as
an intimate environment: close relationships are likely to
involve more conflict than less intimate ones, since there are
more occasions for tensions to arise and more likelihood
that deep emotions will be provoked. Another source may lie
outside the family, for violence is frequently a response to
frustration. If the person affected cannot strike back at the
source of the problem (an employer, or lack of a job) the
aggression may be readily redirected at family members.

In the case of religious traditional beliefs violence between
husband and wife takes place in a general social context that
has for some traditionally emphasized male dominance and female
subservience.

In any event, the extent of violence in any group whose
members are supposed to love and care for one another is not
easily explained and suggests the modern family may
sometimes be under greater pressure than it can easily bear.

Muslim women understand their rights very well, they are all laid out for them in the Koran.

When their husband lays them out they accept that he is only doing what the Koran tells him to do, and it's their fault anyhow.

.

Intimate partner violence is endemic in Australia, but we are not alone in that, and it has very little to do with religion.

As the report for which I posted the link in my previous post indicates, most intimate partner violence is not reported and goes unnoticed. Of that which is reported, it mainly occurs to women who have left (or, should I say “escaped from”) their partner.

The worst and most frequently reported violence has nothing to do with “couples voluntarily submitting themselves to violent practices within their own marriage” as Graham writes – quite the contrary. It occurs to women who no longer accept to be physically and psychologically abused by their partner and who fear for their safety and the safety of their children.

Women victims usually hesitate to report violence to avoid disruption of the family and all the drama and seemingly unsurmountable psychological and material difficulties that that entails. They fear the reprisals of their partner and, regrettably, their fears are all too often well-founded. The statistics are there to prove it.

I can only imagine that Graham ignores the reality of the problem when he writes :

« … I'm finding it hard to get caught up in the outrage … If a woman wants to voluntarily submit to such a regime, for me, that is her problem … What makes our sporting and sexual assaults acceptable is that the parties voluntarily submit to it … If Australians are really serious about this violence, then they need to persuade these women that they shouldn't submit »

I am both surprised and disappointed by these remarks. I sincerely hope that Graham will realise his error and revise his position. It is untenable for a person of his moral and political stature if he is correctly informed. I can only imagine that he is not.

Once again, I strongly recommend that anybody who is sincerely interested in this problem make the effort to get the facts right by consulting the latest Australian Institute of Criminology report on the question :

http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/rpp/56/rpp056.pdf

.

Foxy:

You have described what domestic violence is and some of the causes that might be considered but you have not addressed the specifics of the emotional pressures on Muslim women to remain Muslims. You say that traditionally Muslim men are encouraged by their religion to be violent but we already know this. You are just describing things which are obvious to anyone with a passing knowledge of Islam.

You also do not address why Muslim women remain Muslims. This is the crux of the domestic violence problem for them. They are not going to seek information or education which could lead them to have second thoughts about Islam. They do not want to face that fundamental issue. No one looks for answers when they do not want to find them. They do not want information about their rights and aids. They do not want to know about things which create for them an even bigger problem.

Whilst they are ignorant about help they can resort to religion to deal with their life of fear. They use religion to deal with all their fears. They cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater. When you present them with help and education about domestic violence you are actually creating a bigger stress for them. Whilst there may be help for domestic violence where is the help for all their other fears? If Islam is not the answer then what is? How are they meant to deal with fear if not by religious practices and beliefs?

It is far too simplistic to think that it is just a question of giving them the appropriate brochures. Domestic violence is for many of them the preferred option to dismantling the whole edifice of religion which underpins their complete emotional lives.

Banjo Paterson:

“Women victims usually hesitate to report violence to avoid disruption of the family and all the drama and seemingly unsurmountable psychological and material difficulties that that entails. They fear the reprisals of their partner and, regrettably, their fears are all too often well-founded.”

This is not the only reason. They also fear the criticisms and derision of their peers and family who pressure them into staying in dysfunctional relationships. I would say this is by far the reason why they do not report the violence and it’s often far too late when they do. We underestimate this pressure from outside and the inability of women to deal with it rationally. Their fear of what others will say dominates their own fear of being hurt or even worse, the care for their own children. Many domestic violence crusaders are women who are full of guilt for allowing these pressures to override the safety of their kids.

How many women who do not have kids, who are financially independent and who have other places to go also remain in very violent relationships? What is stopping them from leaving if not the emotional pressure of others? They have no excuses and yet they continue to allow themselves to be beaten up rather than ‘lose face’.

You have to look at the total picture and not just at the ones who decide to leave. There are many who decide to stay when it is totally unreasonable to do so.

G'evening to you FOXY...

You're pretty spot on when you say police detest 'disturbance calls' or a specific job in police parlance 'Domestics'. Another 'job' that runs a close second to Domestics is; 'youths' or 'aboriginals'! Provided of course, the job doesn't represent a threat to life, injury, or property, the cop's will occasionally employ a delightful little acronym 'F I D O' and leave it at that.

Thus a job comes over the radio to attend a 'Domestic' at a certain address, and there's no violence reported, then it could be a 'FIDO"

'F..K IT DRIVE ON'...- crude yes, morally and legally wrong, no doubt. But after awhile FOXY, you get to know your patrol district's idiosyncrasies very very well indeed! Today, they'd never get away with it, a clear case of dereliction of duty. Goodnight FOXY.

Dear O Sung Wu,

I understand very well the "FIDO" reaction of police officers.
I have a family member who was in the LAPD (Los Angeles
Police) and the stories he told us concerning domestic
violence were horrific.

Dear phanto,

You have raised some valid points. However,
we can only hope and trust that changes and reform within the
Muslim communities will come eventually - if not from the current
generations then certainly from the future ones who will
surely be influenced by their environment in this country.
Reform is inevitable and has to happen sooner or later
from within
especially for young people who are living currently in modern
societies where different lifestyles and ideas are freely
available to them. Also inter-marriage may also help towards
this end. Time is on our side. Many changes have occurred in
the various migrant communities that have settled in this
country, especially amongst the younger generations who have
been influenced through their lives here. I believe that the
same will happen with the Muslim communities as well.

cont'd ...

Domestic violence is a serious problem all around the
world. The following link is just an example of what's
happening in another country:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-decriminalise-domestic-violence-vladimir-putin-ultra-conservative-family-laws-a7541371.html

.

Dear Phanto,

.

You wrote :

« They [women victims] also fear the criticisms and derision of their peers and family who pressure them into staying in dysfunctional relationships »

I’m sure you’re right, Phanto. The Criminology report indicates the following “Reasons for not Reporting to Police” (page 105) :

« Almost half of the women who experienced violence from an intimate partner … indicated that they did not report the incident to police because they preferred to deal with it themselves, keep the matter private or out of shame and embarrassment … Other women did not report for fear of the offender and the consequences of reporting : “Couldn’t report because of survival/fear of not having anywhere to go to live” »

Religion is not mentioned as a possible explanation for violence. The strongest “risk factors” identified are male partners’ behaviour — his drinking habits, levels of aggression and lack of self-control (page 110).

I think some of Foxy’s observations also make a lot of sense, in particular :

« … violence is frequently a response to frustration … the modern family may sometimes be under greater pressure than it can easily bear »

.

I dislike the physical discipline of children but in some cases it may be the only option.

Children are basically apes until they are socialised.
They lack control of their impulses and instincts.
The same cannot be said for grown women.

The infliction of pain on a child has an immediacy that words, "time-outs", loss of pocket money or other passive punishments don't have.
This should only be used when absolutely necessary and as mildly as possible.
The child should be reassured that they are loved and wanted and it is only their *behaviour* that is the problem.

No adult woman (or man) would need such "immediacy" to control impulses or instincts.
She has already been socialised and has the mental capacity to comprehend behavioural consequences more deeply than a child.
Words should be sufficient.

OSW: You're pretty spot on when you say police detest 'disturbance calls' or a specific job in police parlance 'Domestics'.

Oh yes! How many times have you been called to a DV & the very person you have gone to save has attacked you

I remember one story where the Police were called, the woman was bleeding all over & when the husband was arrested she attacked them. They took him to the Watch House & she followed in her car (drunk) & proceeded to throw empty Beer Bottles at the Police Station. They took her in too, for her own safety & the Ambulance men cleaned her up & she spent the night in the Watch House. (they did that in those days.) The two spent the night screaming at each other. Others in the Bin joined in screaming at them to shut up or egging them on. Great entertainment for the Police.

Foxy: especially for young people who are living currently in modern
societies where different lifestyles and ideas are freely available to them.

You don't really understand, do you? These people reject our lifestyles & ideas. Some of these people have been here for millennia & still reject, & are even hardened against our lifestyle & ideas. You, are living in a fantasy world.

BJ: violence is frequently a response to frustration.

I can understand that. Especially if the wife has Mental Issues (Nut Case) & creates havoc around the family unit, drunk, unfaithful, a screamer, etc,. I've seen a myriad of examples of this, but, of course, you are not allowed to mention that, the feminists get upset & deny it ever happens. (PC

Dear Jayb,

Views are not set in concrete as you seem to be arguing.
People are capable of change (even you - given half a chance).
I am not living in a fantasy world. On the contrary. I am
speaking from my experiences. Of course I can see that they
obviously are very different to yours.

Foxy: Views are not set in concrete as you seem to be arguing. People are capable of change (even you - given half a chance).

I agree, yes, some are capable of changing. Unfortunately moslim women aren't, & can't. Their close friends are other moslim women who are also restricted as to where they go & who they speak to, or inter-react with. Change for them would mean a complete change to, for them, an extremely foreign lifestyle. Imagine if you were told that you "have" to go B.A.S.E. jumping every day for the rest of you life.

Foxy: I am not living in a fantasy world. On the contrary. I am speaking from my experiences. Of course I can see that they obviously are very different to yours.

Obviously, it is. You have lived in America. I wouldn't go there, I've been to a War Zone, didn't like it much. (well it was OK.) But, I believe, chances of my chances of survival were better in Vietnam than in Chicago. Most of my overseas travel was in SE Asia & associating with moderate moslims, & that scared me. I'm an avid associator, in fact my C.O. was always telling me that I was not to lower myself & associate with the Locals. Nah! I did anyway. (The Rebel in me.) I never wrapped myself in Cotton Wool. My life experiences have been many & varied sometimes a little to extreme & varied, but, looking back, worth it. Even a little, (What's his name that does all those survival videos,) ish, at times.

In the last week I have been contacted by some of my old associates from the 60's & 70's that I had shared many adventures with. (Courtesy of the DVA Magazine.) Lot's of reminiscing on Skype. (scary stuff) Apparently most of them are dying from some form of Cancer or other & are looking to catch up before the inevitable. We are all in our 70's now & some have died already. Some good laughs too. My God, were we ever that silly or stupid.

Jayb,

"My God, were we ever that silly or stupid"

Yes, we were!!

Is Mise: "My God, were we ever that silly or stupid"

Yes, we were!!

Hmmm... Great ay! Wouldn't change a thing fa quids.

G'day there JAYB & IS MISE...

'...My God were we ever that silly or stupid...'? Indeed we were. And I for one, wouldn't have it any other way! Today's generation has sadly missed out on all those adventures, escapades or experiences. All of which we managed to successfully involve ourselves, without the need to call upon the precepts of this damnable 'politically correctness' nonsense, and other strange belief regimens, that we're all arbitrarily subservient to?

And another contributor said herein,'...violence is frequently a response to frustration...'?

So very true. You go to a job, hearing the shouting, insults and swearing as you approach the front door, and see the perpetrator utterly off his head. With bulging eyes, spittle down his chin, reeking of booze. And the lady of the house, frequently cowing, but still delivering these 'well aimed vocal barbs', making the bloke even worse, to the point he can't even string two words together, he's so angry, as he tell us (police) to, &%#@*& off.

To defuse - you separate the two main adversaries, as far (physically) apart as humanly possible - preferable out of sight and earshot - then you can commence to untangle what's actually happened.

In my humble opinion, I've found in serious, non-violent domestic feuds, women are far better able to 'vocally tear down' a mans argument, than men are, able to respond in kind. Whereas the male will often lose his temper, out of sheer 'frustration', unable as he is, to effectively vocalise his side of the argument, as well as the woman can!

When all words fail, an enraged male (and for some women as well), will resort, to only what it is, that he knows. It's so very true; Frustration = Violence.

Many people have rightfully discussed the importance of free choice. However, as the saying goes, free choice is an illusion.
Few of us believe that some Muslim women freely enter abusive relationships. We have no trouble identifying the cultural pressures that strongly influence the decision to accept these marriages, because few posters are from the same cultural groups. We have more trouble identifying the pressures that lead people to box or participate in bdsm, because they are a part of our culture.

o sung wu,

As guests for a wedding and some other family functions, we stayed in quite a nice apartment block for a few nights at a time over several weeks. Unfortunately the midnight to 1.00am silence was rent a number of times by woman whose angry jealousy (possibly warranted, who knows or cares?) caused her to regularly accuse, berate and abuse her partner, usually for something suspected.

For example, he was not accountable for an hour while they were out somewhere. The wailing and angry accusations were sometimes accompanied by the sound of items hitting hard surfaces. He was locked out (second floor) on one occasion and may have climbed down to spend the night elsewhere.

I have the impression that some women and men are prone to find trouble and 'thrive' on it. The sorry SOBs seem to need the drama and the release they get from it. I don't know what the answers are, but accountability has to be placed on all parties and referral for treatment/counselling, while ensuring that any real violence (threats and actual harm) results in charges where warranted.

I am not convinced that some offenders will ever be deterred from causing violence to others. They are also likely to be indulging in other antisocial acts, such as theft, serious traffic infringements and so on. They are not victims of society and they did not always start out mad in the psychiatric sense. They are usually gutless. If it weren't for police they would be killing people in the street.

I cannot imagine why the self-styled 'bleeding hearts' have sympathy for them, but they do. How does anyone explain that? Or understand why women team up with known thugs and n'er do wells, even marrying murderers in gaol?

.

Graham wrote :

« If Australians are really serious about this violence, then they need to persuade these women that they shouldn't submit »

Unfortunately, it’s not quite that simple. The latest “Violence against women in Australia Report” explains why :

« Women leaving (or attempting to leave) violent relationships are vulnerable to increased violence. Some researchers argue that violent male intimate partners can perceive separation as loss of control and become more aggressive as a result (State of Victoria 2016). For women who have lived with male intimate partner violence, that violence can persist – and even escalate – beyond the final separation. For some women, the violence can end in murder (State of Victoria 2016).

According to current population estimates:

• 731,900 women in Australia have experienced violence by a male previous cohabiting partner

• for almost one-quarter (24%) of the women who experienced violence by a male cohabiting partner they are no longer in a relationship with, the violence increased after their final separation (Cox 2015)

• Violence against women costs Australia $21.7 billion a year (PwC et al. 2015).

• In Australia, male intimate partner violence contributes more to the disease burden for women aged 18 to 44 years than any other well-known risk factor like tobacco use, high cholesterol or use of illicit drugs (Webster 2016) »

The report may be downloaded on the following link :

http://www.vichealth.vic.gov.au/media-and-resources/publications/violence-against-women-in-australia-research-summary

.

Hi there LEOJ...

All valid reasons why police detest responding to 'Domestics'. There's no right nor wrong. Like chronic illicit drug use, you cannot 'arrest' the scourge of drugs out of society. Likewise Domestic Violence. When you turn up at a job, and see and hear that Mum's full of piss and bad manners, and Dads even worse, what in hells name are you to do? You can't very well reason with them. Nor does 'The Majesty' of your police uniform impress them very much? Police aren't referees, nor arbiters of right or wrong, neither are they Marriage Guidance Counsellors. None of these. Their sole function is to preserve the Queen's Peace, or if you like; keep the public peace, nothing more.

You also stated inter alia '...if it weren't for police they'd be killing people in the street...'? Also happens, some Domestic Violence occurs 'on the move' as it were. A couple having a violent altercation, while returning home or going to some destination, and a good Samaritan intercedes on behalf of the female victim. He himself receives a pretty decent kicking, occasionally to the point of fatality, because the offender should mind his own business, it's between the two spouses, in the mind of the offender.

FOI LEOJ, that's why police generally recommend you do NOT involve yourself in such situations, but immediately seek help? Believe it or not, it's been my experience in similar circumstances, I've found an adult female is 'usually' better 'received' (by the offender) at defusing such situations? Don't quote me, otherwise I'll need to resort to my 'Sergeant SCHULTZ' persona? Thank you for a realistic appraisal of one of society's most difficult crimes.

o sung wu,

Not detracting from their training and courage, but It helps that the woman in blue has a service pistol and a partner.

I have heard reports of the threatening behaviour, taunts and attempted jostling and corralling (leading to more intimidating behaviour and actual harm if not stopped immediately) used by the thugs, male and female, in the houses&'burbs that require regular police attendances.

I imagine that their authority has some shock, 'pull your head in' value, but only with the non-seasoned criminal, youthful or adult and not with the drug or alcohol affected either. Police women are very useful where women offenders and victims are concerned, where they can be practical and are not emotional, easily led or jump to conclusions (most unlike their representation in TV police series and films!).

Sometimes, perhaps more often than not, categorising offending behaviour as 'domestic violence' (or road rage or etc) just masks a pattern of behaviours. -That really should be studied and dealt with simply as violence and antisocial behaviour - leave the gender politics out of it.

G'day there BANJO PATERSON...

Some interesting figures you've supplied us all with? Unfortunately, though a credible measure of the problem, what should we all do about it? A DPP bloke I know says he's now within sight of the Magistracy, which will up his pay, and hopefully lead him to higher positions on the duplicitous judicial pole.

He claimed he'd willing accept any appointment, in any jurisdiction, in either the city or the bush, but NEVER EVER family law. We've already had two murders of Family Law Justices, Justice OPAS and his wife and another who's name escapes me. My point being, Family Law is the most personally traumatic, poignant, and harrowing of all disciplines of legal practice, leaving in it's wake, a litany of broken men, women, children, and families. The like of which no other crime(s) can possibly compare.

What society badly needs are Solutions, to some of these intractable problems, many of which are undoubtedly the real catalysts for most Domestic Violence events. Figures that provide us with an accurate data of the size of the problem, is of course most useful, but it's solutions that are badly needed. Not just bigger and uglier coppers knocking on a front door, while Mum and Dad go at each other, with hammer and tongs, with the kids siting nearby, urging one of their parents to win the encounter!

For domestic violence to stop, two things have to happen.

1 Men need to know that DV is criminal and that society does not accept it.

2 Women need to know that they have the right to report DV to the police, and that not only will it be acted on, but that their community will support them and not the perpetrator.

The video that the two idiotic islamic women produced essentially showed men that it was OK to beat their wives, and women that the beatings were their fault, that they should accept this, and that the community would not support their complaints.

"Views are not set in concrete".

But they're very difficult to change when everyone you (are allowed to) know agrees with them, and outsiders are classified as "Satanic".

Who wants to even consider a viewpoint that's "Satanic"!

I grew up a Jehovah's Witness.
You could *not* think for yourself as they already had all the answers.

You were discouraged from even being friends with non-members, let alone discuss their (Satanic) views on life, the universe and everything.

It sounds like Islam (especially in expatriate minorities) has the same insular cult-like hold on people.

Dear Shocker,

I know of what you speak. I was raised as a Catholic.
And unless you answered the questions exactly as written
in the Cathecism - exactly, you got beaten with a cane
by Sister. Also friendships with non-Catholics were discouraged.
I remember the old joke of a nun going around the class and
asking the girls "What do you want to be when you grow up?"
Everyone answered politely except for Mary who replied,
"A prostitute." Sister was shocked. "What did you say?" She
asked Mary carefully.
"A prostitute," Mary replied.
"Oh, Thank God, " laughed Sister. I thought you said,
"A Protestant."

Mr Thwackum, a character in Henry Fielding's novel, "Tom Jones,"
declares, "When I mention religion, I mean the Christian religion;
and not only the Christian religion, but the Protestant religion,
and not only the Protestant religion, but the Church of England."

Most people are like Mr Thwackum; when they mention religion, they
have their own in mind.

yeah meanwhile today in France and yesterday in USA ... Oh that's right we are to busy bashing the Catholics and Protestants (mostly for stuff supposedly done decades or centuries ago). Oh well it must be their fault that coppers and white people are being killed in Western countries almost daily by Islamist. Certainly makes the godless secularist feel smug.

Dear runner,

Perhaps you need to do a bit more research on Christians
who murder. Genocides are not confined to just one
religious group.

Hi (again) LEOJ...

When I referred to an individual who seemed a little more successful in quietening down some 'ranting' male as he beats the 'bejesus'out of his Missus in a public street or place, I meant an adult (read marginally older) female, who may be nothing more than a regular bystander.

Not your regular, uniformed female copper resplendent with her trusty S&W mod.19/3,.357magnum handgun. It would appear prima facie, the quieter, more reasoned language a woman may employ, seems to get through to some of these aggressive bozo's, more so than that of a authoritarian style, usually adopted by the average man? Sorry, I should've been a little clearer.

'Perhaps you need to do a bit more research on Christians
who murder'

Foxy perhaps you need to do a little research as to what Christ taught. Or are you deliberatley ignorant so that you can continue to misrepresent in order to maintain your very flawed narrative and ideology.

runner,

Well, I guess by your own definition, you’re not a Christian either. In fact, not many of us, if anyone at all, would be.

There’s plenty of Jesus’ teachings that you don’t follow. How about we start with Luke 6:37? Or what about Luke 10:27? Or how about everyone’s favourite: Matthew 7:12? (Which isn’t even that good. It actually would have been better to say, “Do unto others as they would have you do unto them”, and even that has its problems.)

Sure, not everyone is going to live up to the teachings of Jesus (the good ones, at least), but you don’t even try. You just call yourself a Christian and then do whatever you want.

Kind of like the people Foxy was talking about.

well AJ I trust that your judgement is just as atrocious towards me than it is on other matters. To have your vote of confidence would have me extremely worried. Strange how now you judge by the standard of the One you deny.

Oh, it’s not just my judgement, runner.

<<well AJ I trust that your judgement is just as atrocious towards me than it is on other matters.>>

Your obnoxious behaviour, which is on display for us all to see on a daily basis, is in complete contradiction with the verses I cited.

<<Strange how now you judge by the standard of the One you deny.>>

“Now”? No, my standard of judgment has remained the same, and evidently superior to that of your Lord and Saviour, given that he left us with an inferior version of the Golden Rule.

Nor do I “deny” anyone either, by the way. You lot are yet to fulfil your burden of proof there.

.

Dear o sung wu,

.

You ask :

« … what should we all do about it [domestic violence] ? »

I’m afraid I’m not qualified to answer that question, o sung wu. As I understand that you are an ex-police officer, you probably know more about it than I do. Perhaps, I should return the question to you.

I have no personal experience of domestic violence and have never witnessed any either. The best I can do is to refer you to a document entitled “Change the Story - A shared framework for the primary prevention of violence against women and their children in Australia”, and two organizations that specialize in the prevention of domestic violence.

I find the first one, “Our Watch”, particularly interesting as it indicates, in simple terms, what each of us can do in our various walks of life, to prevent domestic violence:

• What teens can do
• What parents can do
• What men can do
• What women can do
• What we all can do in our professional activities
• How to get involved

Here is the link :

http://www.ourwatch.org.au/Preventing-Violence

Here is the link to the document “Change the Story” I mentioned earlier :

http://www.ourwatch.org.au/getmedia/1462998c-c32b-4772-ad02-cbf359e0d8e6/Change-the-story-framework-prevent-violence-women-children.pdf.aspx

Here is the link to the second prevention organization (a bit namby-pamby, I’m afraid) :

http://www.whiteribbon.org.au/

That's my contribution,o sung wu. What do you think we should do about it ?

.

Foxy, "I was raised as a Catholic. And unless you answered the questions exactly as written in the Cathecism - exactly, you got beaten with a cane by Sister."

That wretched experience (you volunteered a fragment, which for many takes some courage) is not something that can be resolved through the mental processes of thinking, analysis and by emotion, weeping (although that must happen). I believe that the painful experience - particularly cruel for young people who are 'captives' of adults, carers, teachers, clergy and so on, and do not yet have the means to make choices for themselves - is deeply planted/rooted in the body and can evidence through medical conditions.

Have you ever come across 'focussing', Eugene Gendlin PhD?

.
 
Dear Runner,
 
.
 
You wrote :

« yeah meanwhile today in France and yesterday in USA ... Oh well it must be their fault that coppers and white people are being killed in Western countries almost daily by Islamist … »
.

The perpetrators of so-called terrorist attacks in France are usually second generation French nationals whose parents migrated here from North African Maghreb countries that were previously French colonies. They come from poor families who live in the poor suburbs of the major French cities. They are poorly educated and usually have no fixed profession. Though they come from Muslim families, many of them have never set foot in a Mosque and have never read the Quran.

Some were indoctrinated by Islamists in prison but others were previously unknown to the police. Close acquaintances describe some as “psychologically fragile” while they describe others as extremely violent. That was the case of the latest so-called terrorist who shot and killed a policeman on the Champs-Elysées in Paris last night. He was known to be extremely violent and had a criminal record for having previously attacked the police back in 2001.

It has been suggested that some simply do not know what to do with themselves, feel victimized, enraged, and want to take revenge on whatever they see as their oppressor.

France has a long history of terrorist attacks by various groups ranging from anarchists, the extreme right, extreme left, extreme Basque, Breton and Corsican nationalists, Algerian insurgent groups as well as so-called (pretended or proclaimed) Islamists.

The number of terrorist attacks in France are estimated as follows :

19th century : 7 attacks 55 dead 200 injured
20th century : 49 attacks 148 dead 1,374 injured
21st century : 27 attacks 250 dead 890 injured
 
.
 

Dear runner,

I practice what Christ taught but sadly it's something you
don't seem to be capable of doing.

leoj,

My experience at the Catholic school was short-lived.
My father had the wisedom to remove me from from it
so my education and my religious beliefs did not suffer.
I was raised a Catholic and still am. But, Thank You
for your concern.

//There’s plenty of Jesus’ teachings that you don’t follow. How about we start with Luke 6:37? Or what about Luke 10:27? Or how about everyone’s favourite: Matthew 7:12?//

You forgot John 8:10-11. I bet runner's got those two verses censored out of his bible so he doesn't have to read them. Condemning people is what runner's all about.

'Dear runner,

I practice what Christ taught but sadly it's something you
don't seem to be capable of doing.'

Oh congratulations Foxy. I'll leave it to God Himself to decide my fate.

Oh now we have the trinity AJ, Foxy and Toni all quoting scripture.

btw Foxy you recently posted that you have never read the bible. Just wondereing how you know what Christ taught?

also Toni just wondering who is it that I have condemned. You mean because I point out that abortion is murder and homosexuality is a perversion? Read the Scriptures and you will find it not me that has decided what is abhorent and what is not. I just happen to believe that the Creator knows far better than His creation. thankfully the woman caught in adultery received forgiveness not what she deserved. Jesus did tell her to go away and sin no more. Or did you miss thay part.

Dear runner,

From my recollection, I said that I did not read the
Koran.

As for my knowledge about the teachings of Christ?
Lets start with Catholic School,
Church, Sunday School, and family
upbringing. Most importantly - family upbringing.

My father was raised by Jesuits. He initially studied
for the priesthood, was fluent in latin, and explained
the teachings of Christ to me very well.
Also our parish priest was a close family friend and
Sunday lunches were regular visits where religious
discussions were a treat.

As for you? You are badly in need of counselling.
Seriously.

runner: never read the bible. Just wondering how you know what Christ taught?

The Bible is a Jewish Book written down around 300 BC after the Greeks made the Israelite's Literate from stories passed down by word of mouth. Most of it mis-remembered. E.G; Songs of Solomon is a copy of the Egyptian Book of the Dead. No Camels in Abrahams time.

I take it what you are talking about is the New Testament whish was first written down into one book about 400 AD from incomplete scraps of parchment gathered from hither & thither. These scraps of Parchments were copies of copies of material that was written by people that did not know Joshua(Jesus)personally. Remember any & all the Gospels written by the Disciples were rejected because Paul was rejected by the Disciples & thrown out of Jerusalem. Some parchments were included & some rejected. It depended on the prevailing Pauline thinking at that time.

//the woman caught in adultery received forgiveness not what she deserved//

A stoning? Jesus, runner...

//Read the Scriptures//

I have. They say that Christians are supposed to be forgiving.

G'day there BANJO PATERSON...

Thank you for your most comprehensive links you kindly furnished us all with. I read through much of the material, though certainly useful nothing new emerged from their suggestions.

I note one of your Links 'Our Watch' 'What can men do' Recommended in part; That female victims of sexual assault should NOT be blamed for their attire, or degree of sobriety etc. No they shouldn't be blamed, but?

I realise I'm provoking the ire of feminists and the like herein. But I've some experience in this specific area:- It's simply referred to as 'Risk Management' and we speak of 'Contributory Negligence'-

All adults are entitled to wear clothing of their choice, within the bounds of decency. Moreover adults may legally consume alcohol, within the law and provided that don't drive etc. Furthermore they may walk in a public street or place anytime, day or night. But as responsible adults, they 'SHOULD' be aware of; of what police call the 'Foresight of their Consequences'.

If they wish to engage in risky behaviour or conduct, that's also their right. But, the big 'But' there's always a chance due to that risky behaviour they may well fall foul to a serious sexual attack.

By employing an attitude of 'Personal Risk Management', it can mitigate significantly the chance of serious injury or death.

Reminds me of the motor cyclists - critically injured in the ICU ward in Hospital. Saying, '...I was in the right of way, the car had no right cutting me off the way he did...'? Sure he was in the right of way, but by pushing 'HIS' right, he still lost out? We can all undertake risky behaviour - as long as we're prepared for the consequences of that behaviour. We all need to adopt 'Foresight of our Consequence.

.

Dear o sung wu,

.

You wrote :

... in commenting on the domestic violence prevention measures I found on the web sites I posted : « … nothing new emerged from their suggestions »
.

Yes, I agree. It all sounded a bit like weak tea to me too but, as I am a perfect neophyte in such matters, I was not sure of the validity of my judgment.

I recognize, however, that it’s not simple. I often wonder what I did, or didn’t do, to my two daughters for them to marry the jerks they did. My elder daughter married a Mister Hulk who turned out to be a con-man who took her for a ride and I spent the best part of twelve years helping her through endless court battles over a mountain of debt, divorce procedures and the custody of the children. My younger daughter married a brilliant intellectual with a backbone of jelly and no guts. He is afraid of his own shadow, psychologically handicapped, unable to carry anything heavier than a pen and a pencil or a knife and fork, and is a perfect Scrooge to boot: as mean and as egoist as they come.

Consequently, given my own lamentable track record, I’m afraid I’m hardly qualified to give advice to anyone on anything to do with marriage. It would be dishonest for me to even try.

The positive side of the story is that, despite my highly regrettable personal shortcomings, my own marriage somehow managed to survive all the rugged treatment I put it through over the years and nobody, neither my wife nor the girls, ever got beaten up.

My mother always told me as a kid that I could box anybody I liked above my category but never anybody below my category.

I’ve still got a few cuts and bruises to show for it.

.

.

(Continued ...)

.

In response to your comment regarding “contributory negligence” on the part of the victim in relation to certain criminal acts, I agree that this could, indeed, occur in certain cases.

But, for any accusation of any sort to be proven, either the accused must be “caught red-handed” (e.g., by the police), or there must be irrefutable material evidence, or there must be at least one credible eye-witness, to the satisfaction of the court. This applies to both husband and wife, each in his or her role as accused or accuser.

The problem, of course, is that it almost inevitably boils down to a case of “my word against yours” – particularly in the case of man and wife in the intimacy of their own private bedroom behind closed doors.

This is frequently the case of rape and other forms of sexual assault between non-married couples and even between casual acquaintances and total strangers – which is why 97% of rapists never spend a single day in jail in the United States. Indications are that the situation is no better in Australia or anywhere else in the world, despite the lack of reliable statistics.

“Innocent until proven guilty” is the very noble principle that underpins the concept of justice in all modern democracies. It constitutes an invincible barrier of legal protection for the innocent but, also, alas, for the guilty.
.

I agree with you completely on your example of the attitude of motor cyclists. In fact, it is just as true for motorists, cyclists, pedestrians, and even water-born vessels and aircraft.

My wife occasionally scolds me for my “sports-like” driving style (which I usually adopt when we’re running late for an appointment). On such occasions she never fails to remind me of the words of wisdom of the father of one of her boyfriends when she was a teenager : “ Road Rules are rules of politeness”.

"To avoid accidents, always be polite".

.

Banjo Paterson,

As the 'perfect neophyte', although from your posts I am sure you are being humble, it is worth reviewing the comments of RObert and ors on the very broad definition of violence used in the Victorian Government publication you linked to earlier. Also, it would be useful to critically examine the research from which the numbers are quoted.

While it might suit some advocates and a victim industry to have all men and boys in the frame as active and potential abusers of women, what it does is kowtow to the prevailing political correctness and hide from sight the real priorities for action, for example indigenous violence, and suck energy and resources away from coordinated efforts to research and address social problems that lead to violence.

Any violence is horrendous. It is not as simple as swearing all men not to hurt women,
http://www.thecitizen.org.au/features/what-about-men-lies-statistics-and-peddling-myths-about-violence-against-women

What I would personally like to see if violence is always to be categorised and addressed on the basis of the location of violence (eg in the 'home', in traffic 'road rage' etc), or by gender, (all unsatisfactory), is at least a move away from homogenising all 'DV' offenders (as men and prone to violence because of 'patriarchy'), when plainly there is heterogeneity among offenders. Some are serious assaulters and repeat, incorrigible offenders - who from other research that is being disregarded, are also implicated in other serious anti-social behaviour.

I will probably leave it at that. Posters like RObert are more knowledgeable and have a good understanding of the research and the limitations and as said earlier have posted often on the subject.

Banjo Paterson

"20th century : 49 attacks 148 dead 1,374 injured
21st century : 27 attacks 250 dead 890 injured"

So more dead in 16.33 years than an entire century!
Extrapolate that to the full 21st century and you get an estimated 1530 dead, 5450 injured.
Ten times the deaths of the 20th century, six times the injured.
Clearly the problem is getting worse.

So they're poor.
France has plenty of poor people who don't drive trucks into crowds.

The failure of "homegrown" minorities just emphasises why the utopian dream cannot work.

Has it occurred to you that their social failure is mostly the consequence of their own perspective?
How can they truly belong in an environment they view as "Satanic"?
Exclusion and failure are inevitable.

Dear Shocker,

Do they view their environment as Satanic?
Really? Where is your evidence for this. From what
I gather from Banjo Paterson's posts (he lives in
Paris) the problems there run deeper than religious
issues and are quite complex.

Foxy: Do they view their environment as Satanic? Really?

moslims in the EU expound that the West is Satanic every Day. Do you really live under a rock. Is it that you really don't want to see it? What do they say? "What the eye doesn't see the heart doesn't grieve over." So you if you don't see it never happened. Like seeing the really, really bad stuff for us Infidels in the koran.

Dear Jayb,

Not at all. I feel it is important before making
judgements to look critically at motivation,
circumstances, context, or any other considerations.
Of course some people are more interested in
condemnation and punishment than in explanation.
Explanations seem tantamount to sympathizing and
excusing. People tend to think in terms of general
categories, if only to enable them to make sense of the
world by simplifying its complexity.

I love reading the posts of Banjo Paterson. He presents
such well reasoned points in his discussions - and his
living in Paris adds to his experience and knowledge
on what's happening in Europe.

Hi there BANJO PATERSON...

You claim inter alia '...despite my highly regrettable personal shortcomings, my own marriage managed to survive...'? I think that statement is essentially inaccurate B.J.? Furthermore I suggest you're selling yourself rather short. Remember it takes two hands to clap. All unions need to be worked, by both partners, otherwise they invariable fail and fail irretrievably.

I recall this bloke I'd locked-up once, asked me very sarcastically '...what would you do you 'fu...'in' smart arse...'? What I'd do if my Missus was giving me verbal hell and assaulting me? Walk away. That's all a bloke can do. If the female spouse has utterly 'lost it', all the reasoning, all the 'wrist holding' to prevent her from hitting you in the world, doesn't work! Next best thing is to absent yourself from the situation and allow her to at least cool down. There's no other option, none whatsoever.

And never argue with your wife with a 'belly full of piss', that's the most likely time a bloke will end up 'losing it' and assaulting his spouse.

The very moment you hit your spouse, however moderately - you've now crossed that very crucial, but vitally important line. You've lost the respect she had for you, lost control, and commenced that irreversible slippery slope to marital perdition.

I don't care how coarse or how forbearing, or elegantly dignified a woman may be. By physically assaulting her, despite what it is they may say, in terms of forgiveness. Believe me, emotionally deep down, she'll not forgive you and never will. That's regardless whether or not they're prepared to stay with you, married or otherwise.

.

Dear leoj, Shockadelic and o sung wu,

.

I read your posts with interest and thank you for expressing your reactions, opinions and sentiments which I perceive as different from mine on a number of points, not just in form but also in content.

I have been a close observer of the numerous terrorist attacks that have been perpetrated in France over the past few years, and my impression is that the motivation of the perpetrators has little or nothing to do with what you or I would normally consider to be religious faith.

Also, as I indicated in my previous posts, I have no personal experience of domestic violence and rely on what I understand to be reputable sources for information. Again, I am grateful to you for sharing your knowledge and perceptions with me.

As for the personal shortcomings I mentioned in my own marriage, I’m afraid they were very real. I have not always been the most faithful of husbands but that belongs to the distant past. It’s all behind me now, and has been for many years.

My wife and I are two complementary halves. We have long united in a fusional relationship and become one and the same person.

.

Banjo Paterson,

What you are saying is that you don't have to respond to any opposing evidence or facts and in fact none are relevant, because it is your personal opinions?

My assessment is informed by such incontrovertible facts as the video reports of the 'no-go' Islamic zones in France and elsewhere in Europe and the assessments in the media and not usually by the media, but by authorities the media are prepared to back as experts, or as elected representatives.

To sum up, there is for the greatest majority, almost all?, Muslims an unbridgeable chasm between the political-religious Islam, notably Sharia law, and SECULAR France (or secular Britain, or secular Sweden and so on). No-one can sugar-coat the reality of the social problems in France and the rest of Europe as a result of the toxic political system, fundamentalist Islam (again is it all of the Islam that must have Sharia law, which would include so-called moderates as well?) and obnoxious traditions and cultural values of those thousands of Muslim men who have invaded Europe to take advantage of greener fields and social welfare? They trash what they sought.

Next, I would say with a far greater confidence based on the source, namely Ms Ayaan Hirsi Ali - compared with your good self and the ABC's experts such as activist Yassmin Abdel-Magied (as in, Islam is feminist!) - that Islam is in urgent need of reformation and the Muslims who are trying to do that should be supported not undermined by apologists for Islam.

Next, I will leave to one side your unquestioning support of the highly contestable sloppy 'research' behind those numbers used to belt all men over the head with claimed women hate and control of women through 'patriarchy' - that are the shaky basis for the generalised DV program in Australia that relay should be targeting known problem areas. However, where you put up links and opinion it is usually expected that you might be prepared to examine them, rather than fall back on the 'my opinion' default.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

Thank You for comments and for sharing personal aspects
of your life. I wish you, your wife, and your family
every possible happiness.

While searching the web for the connection between religion
and violence I came across the following:

http://www.nieuwwiji.nl/english/karen-armstrong-nothing-islam-violent-christianity/

I thought it may be of interest.

I looked up the book, "Fields of Blood: Religion and the history
of violence," by Karen Armstrong in our library's catalogue
and found that we have several copies of it. They're all
currently out on loan. I've reserved a copy and will let you
know what I think of it later. It does sound interesting.

The summary given in the libray's catalogue states -

"It is the most persistent myth of our time: religion is the
cause of all violence. But history suggests otherwise.
Karen Armstrong, one of the foremost scholars of religion, speaks
out to disprove the link between religion and bloodshed..."

Sounds intriguing.

cont'd ...

Dear Banjo Paterson,

My apologies for the typo. Here's the link again:

http://www.nieuwwij.nl/english/karen-armstrong-nothing-islam-violent-christianity/

"Karen Armstrong in our library's catalogue"

But not Aayaan Hirsi Ali?

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446863/ayaan-hirsi-ali-islam-treatment-women-predicting-evolution

What makes Karen Armstrong a preferable source to Aayaan Hirsi Ali?

"Karen Armstrong, long famous for her description of Muhammad as the consummate “peacemaker” who “brought together the warring tribes of Arabia,” has assumed the mantle, yet again, not of the Prophet, but of the Prophet’s defender. In an article in The Guardian she retells in her inimitable fashion the story of European Christendom’s relations with Islam and with Muslims. In her retelling, the Muslims are innocent victims, and more than innocent victims, likened again and again to the Jews. They are also the only people who provided, in that bright shining moment of European history known as Islamic Spain, the only real tolerance and humanity to be found anywhere in Europe before the modern era. It is a tough job, but Karen Armstrong proves equal to the task. And her real theme is not history, but that Europeans should feel ashamed themselves for showing any signs of wariness or suspicion about the millions of Muslims who now live in Europe, having come among the indigenous Infidels to settle, but not to settle down.
....
..Karen Armstrong is not innocent, and manages to do a great deal of harm, careless or premeditated harm, to history. Too many people read that she has written a few books, and assume, on the basis of nothing, that “she must know what she is talking about” – and some of the nonsense sticks. And perhaps an enraged professor or two bothers to dismiss her, but mostly – this is how the vast public, in debased democracies, learns its history today."

http://www.newenglishreview.org/Hugh_Fitzgerald/Karen_Armstrong:_The_Coherence_of_Her_Incoherence/

leoj,

You asked about Aayaan Hirsi Ali's books in our library
catalogue?

We have all of them.

You asked what makes Karen Armstrong a preferable source
to Aayaan Hirsi Ali?

Why does one have to be preferable over the other?
I haven't read anything of Karen Armstrong yet.
But I am interested to read what she has to say on the
topic of religion and the history of violence.

I did read the following review:

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/sep/29/fields-of-blood-review-absorbing-study-religion-violence-karen-armstrong

To what extent exactly religion plays in violence and terrorism is extremely complex and will vary greatly from person to person.

When it comes to terrorism, many on the Right tend to blame Islam exclusively for the problem, while many on the Left don’t blame it at all.

Both extremes are wrong.

Of course religion plays a role in Islamic terrorism, even if it’s just the excuse. It’s also a bit much to claim that these people would simply find another justification for their violent behaviour in the absence of religion. Our environment always plays a role in how we behave; we don’t get to pick and choose then that applies.

There is a lot of research (http://goo.gl/ut1CME) demonstrating that religion, in many instances, plays only a minor role in radicalisation in the West. A lot of the time, these people become disaffected and then find purpose and meaning in Islam. There is one such example where copies of Islam for Dummies and The Koran for Dummies were found in the unit of a couple of guys who left to fight for ISIS. That’s how little they knew about Islam before they took off.

However, there are examples of where religion seemingly played the only role in an individual’s radicalisation: educated people with good careers and families. One example is the Australian doctor who left to help ISIS (http://goo.gl/9MFZTh). The most infamous example (although not a Western-born example) would be the 9/11 hijackers, who came from wealthy families and were well-educated.

There are attempts by many on the Left to disassociate Jihadists from Islam by, say, pointing to the fact that they may have drunk alcohol before. There have been many attempts to disassociate the 9/11 hijackers from Islam by pointing to the fact that they went to a strip club the night before the attack, however, as Maajid Nawaz (a practicing Muslim and founder of Quilliam) pointed out in his dialogue with Sam Harris (pp. 28-29), there’s enough in the Qur’an to justify their night out.

These men could only be described as men of the most perfect faith.

Dear AJ,

It is interesting isn't it.

I want to read more on the subject though. What piqued my
interest was the summary that I read on the library
catalogue about Karen Armstrong's book which stated:

"... Religion is as old as humanity. The book "Fields of
Blood" goes back to the stone age hunters-gatherers and
traces religion through the centuries from medieval
crusaders to modern-day jihadists. The West today has a
warped concept of religion: we regard faith as a personal
and private matter, but for most of history faith has
informed people's entire outlook on life, and often been
inseparable from politics. Humans undoubtedly have a
natural propensity for aggression... with our growing greed
for money and wealth came collective violence and warfare.
With the arrival of the modern all-powerful, secular state
humanity's destructive potential has begun to spiral out of
control. Is humanity on the brink of destroying itself?
"Fields of Blood" is a celebration of the ancient ideas and
movements that have promoted peace and reconciliation across
millennia of civilisation..."

Now I don't know much about the author. And,
Not having read the book I am unable to judge exactly what
the author's message is (and whether I agree with it.)
However I am looking forward to finding out as the subject
does interest me. Can we really fully blame religion for
humanity's actions? It's a question that I'd like to see debated.

I believe in this specific instance A.J.PHILIPS is quite right. Some of these knuckleheads are not particularly clever, and if you were to sit 'em down in front of some charismatic speaker they'll listen to what he'll say, especially if they think their otherwise dull lifestyles may be dramatically improved, by a subtle injection of purpose. Individually, if you were to quiz them on their knowledge of Islam, you'd more than likely find them 'wanting'.

There are others, who have been devoted to Islam, all their lives, many of them are well educated. Some of them perhaps with a seemingly interminable history of psychopathy? An illogical belief of consummate idealism, together with this conviction of an idealistic Utopian afterlife. I believe A.J.P drew a comparison with those who were responsible for the Twin Towers horror.

Evil buggers for sure; but the immense planning, overall logistics, strategic and tactical preparation for seizing their desired aircraft: 3 x Boeing 737's (sic); None of it, was the mark of some querulous and very impatient young men. Men dedicated to refining their strategies precisely, and timed perfectly.

We've been having dreadful mass murders, similar to these terrorists events for years, without having a shred of influence from the practitioners of Islam or Christianity, or anyone else for that matter. I have no precise knowledge of Islam or Christianity. But awful crimes the like of Port Arthur, or Hoddle Street, down in Melbourne, were not the product of any religion, Islam or otherwise. Just the work of a couple of crazed murderers, is all.

Dear Foxy,

Like you, I’m reluctant to comment on such a small snippet. But going by what you’ve quoted, it sounds like Karen Armstrong takes a very pessimistic view of humanity with her talk of our propensity for violence, destruction, and greed.

In criminology, there are two competing theories of deterrence: Social control theory and Social bonds theory. Social control theory starts with the assumption that we are all potential criminals, and that it is only because of the controls in place that we don’t offend. Social bonds theory starts with the assumption that we are all essentially good people, and only deviate from socially acceptable behaviour when our attachment to society is weakened (e.g. from things like loss of job and loss of marriage to marginalisation, discrimination, and crime victimisation).

Anyway, it sounds like Karen Armstrong would favour the former. I tend to favour the latter.

But whether Karen Armstrong is right, or to what extent, will forever be debated. I think both sides of the debate are right to varying degrees in varying situations, and each criminological perspective is useful to varying degrees depending on what needs to be done.

The other part I would take issue with is her claim that our destructive potential has begun to spiral out of control, and that secularism is propelling this spiral. Depending on what exactly she means by “destructive potential”, that could be highly debate to just flat-out wrong.

http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.pdf (Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies)

<<Can we really fully blame religion for humanity's actions?>>

Certainly not fully. Clearly there are many things people do, both good and bad, that has nothing to do with religion. So I think it’s a bit of a stretch for Karen Armstrong to claim that religion has informed our “entire” outlook on life. It would be interesting to see how she justifies that.

But, yeah, there’s not enough there to bother going too far into detail.

It is interesting that the discussion is continually being railed towards terrorism. Must be familiar ground to some and suits their purposes.

However the thread is about 'beating your Islamic wife' and it follows, the treatment of women generally by Islam.

Womens rights campaigner Ayaan Hirsi Ali has said many times that the reformation of Islam is not solely concerned with terrorism but mainly the treatment of women.

On an earlier Q&A that all here would surely know about, Ayaan Hirsi Ali said she had Muslim friends who had been subjected to forced marriages and female genital mutilation, and who had been forced to wear a veil. Ali herself was subjected to female genital mutilation as a child. She urged people not to be “squeamish” about criticising those practices.

“This is what is happening to Muslim women,” she said. “If you have young girls who are subjected to forced marriage, it is not a marriage, it’s an arranged rape. It is a forced rape and I wish we were not squeamish about it. We were not squeamish about slavery, we were not squeamish about eradicating apartheid, and I wish that is one thing we would not be squeamish about.”

and,

"It is becoming increasingly difficult to criticise Islam and Muslims in western countries such as Australia, the Somali-born author and human rights campaigner Ayaan Hirsi Ali has said, because “we only see them [Muslims] through this prism of victims and victimisation”.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/17/ayaan-hirsi-ali-qanda-west-muslims-only-as-victims

Dear AJ,

Thanks for your comments.

You've given me something more to think about.

I've read a little bit more about Karen Armstrong -
and I'm beginning to get the impression that she
may be blind-sided by religious influences (I don't
know if that's the correct way of putting it, but I
hope that you know what I'm trying to say). Anyway,
I guess I'll have to wait and read the book.

.

Dear leoj,

.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity of clarifying a number of popular misconceptions about the sociological and cultural landscape in France. I limit my comments to France as I live here and it is the only European country of which I have an intimate knowledge.

But first, a brief reply to your initial statement : « What you are saying is that you don't have to respond to any opposing evidence or facts and in fact none are relevant, because it is your personal opinions? » :

Not so. I consider that all facts are relevant, particularly those indicated on this forum by posters to illustrate their particular points of view, and that all facts need to be considered in the contextual environment in which they apply. Facts are facts and I do not practise cherry-picking. But, by the same token, in my experience, not all facts have exactly the same impact and influence on whatever event or phenomena is under scrutiny.

I have no god, no religion, no political allegiance and no axe to grind on any subject whatsoever.

If I make no further comment on something, it’s either because I have nothing further to add, or because I see no point in contradicting somebody who’s point of view is not based on reason but on some immutable conviction or other - religious faith, for example - or who is obviously psycho-rigid (blocked) in his or her mode of reasoning and/or expression.

As for my personal opinions, I try to keep an open mind on everything. I do my best to keep my beliefs to a strict minimum as they tend to cloud my vision. I consider that they are not eternal and that there is no absolute truth.
.

On the subject of the French home-grown terrorists, as I indicated in a previous post, most of them come from Muslim families but, unlike the rest of the family, have usually never set foot in a mosque, never read the Quran and do not practise religion.

.

(Continued ...)

.

.

(Continued ...)

.

It follows that their motivation is not to be found in religious beliefs – because they have none – but, more likely, in sociological, psychological and cultural factors associated with their incapacity to deal with their lives in ghettos.

The public-school education system is a saving grace for those who have the natural attributes that allow them to take advantage of it. Unfortunately, that is not the case of everyone caught up in the ghettos.

Making an oath of allegiance to terrorist organisations such as ISIS is seen as a heroic act of revolt against the oppression of society. By committing an act of terrorism, they are elevated to the rank of Islamist and celebrated by religious fanatics as martyrs.

It’s a bit simplistic to put the blame on Islam. The root cause is to be found in a cocktail of sociological, psychological and cultural factors for which religious fanaticism is a convenient outlet.

.

Great analysis, Banjo!

.

Dear Foxy,

.

Thank you for your link to the article on Karen Armstrong’s book. I read it as well as your ensuing discussion with leoj, AJ Philips and o sung wu – all very enlightening.

All I can add at this point is that it’s not over yet. I’m afraid there’s more to come.

There’s an army of disenfranchised, second class citizens out there that nobody cares about. We’ll be hearing from them soon.

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

Thank You so much for your analysis of the situation
in France. We are so fortunate to have you sharing
your knowledge and personal experiences with us on this
forum. You are able to present us with a picture that is
less distorted. And that is important in trying to
understand any issue. If we only rely on information that
comes from what we see on TV, what we hear in the news or
read in the papers. If our main source of information about
Islam or Islamic practices is from limited sources then of
course we're not going to know how it really operates and
why.

What you write about the ghettos in France is frightening.
Sociologists have observed that fundamentalist revivals,
in whatever religion, take place in times when social
changes have led to turmoil, uncertainty, and the erosion of
familiar values. When people find themselves confused,
threatened, or even appalled at changing conditions, they
look for solutions elsewhere.

Foxy, "When people find themselves confused, threatened, or even appalled at changing conditions, they look for solutions elsewhere"

Leftist wrong and crooked thinking, that 'the end justifies the means'.

Or as some selfish, egocentric and damned misled union heavy recently asserted in Australia, that where she didn't like laws she could and would break them.

Banjo Paterson,

That was a lot of personal marketing, but the fact remains that you made no attempt whatsoever to address the issues I raised that were pertinent to the thread topic. You were also most willing to further the hijack of the thread onto some author that another poster has found but hasn't even bothered to read before extolling her virtues. I posted a review of that, which has of course been ignored, although the factual inconsistencies picked up in that review should be easily checked by any who are at all interested.

Here again is my post, Monday, 24 April 2017 7:04:02 PM,
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7733&page=21

tbc..

contd..
So what about leaving the over-done and largely irrelevant (to this thread) terrorism for another thread that you and ors can contribute to and address the issues raised by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. For instance,

Womens rights campaigner Ayaan Hirsi Ali has said many times that the reformation of Islam is not solely concerned with terrorism but mainly the treatment of women.

On an earlier Q&A that all here would surely know about, Ayaan Hirsi Ali said she had Muslim friends who had been subjected to forced marriages and female genital mutilation, and who had been forced to wear a veil. Ali herself was subjected to female genital mutilation as a child. She urged people not to be “squeamish” about criticising those practices.

“This is what is happening to Muslim women,” she said. “If you have young girls who are subjected to forced marriage, it is not a marriage, it’s an arranged rape. It is a forced rape and I wish we were not squeamish about it. We were not squeamish about slavery, we were not squeamish about eradicating apartheid, and I wish that is one thing we would not be squeamish about.”

leoj,

Yous reaction to my post -

"Leftist wrong and crooked thinking - the end justifies
the means?"

Where on earth did you come up with that one from.
Seriously? And to what are you refering exactly?

My post was directed to Banjo Paterson's experiences in
France and what was happening there. My comments were
taken from the observations made by sociologists
concerning some of the reasons for
fundamentalist revivals. I was not promoting this sort of
behaviour of condoning it in any way. I even stated that
the situation in France was frightening. Which I am
sure you will agree with.

Nobody is stopping you from discussing whatever you wish
regarding any of the issues concerning Islam. There are so
many aspects that need to be debated, and
that is precisely what some of us trying to do here.

Foxy wrote: “I was not promoting this sort of behaviour of condoning it in any way.”

And even if you were, ‘the ends justify the means’ would still be the wrong adage.

Maybe if it were flipped around to read ‘the means justifies the ends’, but even then, there was no discernible condoning of the behaviour.

Criminologists get this a lot. Conservative folk don’t seem to understand the difference between an explanation and a justification. To them, the two are the same. Then they get all fired up over nothing because they think offenders are being excused at the expense of their victims.

Speaking of ends justifying means, though, the Left aren’t the only ones to adopt this mentality. The Right do it, too, with their Devil-take-the-hindmost approach to economics. Especially Libertarians.

Dear AJ,

It is annoying when people are more interested in
condemnation than in explanation. I've said this
previously that to them explanations seem tantamount
to sympathizing and excusing. This of course all too
easily leads onto the questionable practice of
stereotyping which can encourage "counter-stereotyping,"
and the result is usually a complete breakdown in
communication.

.

Dear Leoj,

.

You wrote :

« That was a lot of personal marketing … »

It was intended as an explanation as to why I had not replied in greater detail to your previous post, Leoj, but, in view of your insistence …

Please be assured that I have read all the articles for which links have been provided on this thread, including those that you provided, Leoj.

In particular, I read the extensive critical review of Karen Armstrong’s article entitled “Root out this sinister cultural flaw” in The Guardian of April 2005 that Hugh Fitzgerald published in the New English Review originally in April 2005 and republished in May 2007, as well as Melissa Davey’s article on Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s participation on the ABC’s Q&A program in May 2016.

I’m afraid I am at a loss to judge the pertinence or otherwise of Hugh Fitzgerald’s critical review. I tried to find out who Hugh Fitzgerald is, but to no avail. I see that he has written extensively for a blog called “Jihad Watch” which has been accused of promoting an Islamophobic worldview and conspiracy theories. It is funded by a conservative organisation, “The David Horowitz Freedom Center”, a foundation founded in 1988 by political activist David Horowitz and by various donors supporting the Israeli right :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad_Watch

Hugh Fitzgerald is Jihad Watch’s mystery man, no one knows who he is, his Wiki page is one sentence long. Alongside Robert Spencer, Fitzgerald is a co-administrator and contributor to Jihad Watch.

Here is a link to the mystery surrounding Hugh Fitzgerald, the author of the critical review of Karen Armstrong’s article :

http://spencerwatch.com/who-is-hugh-fitzgerald/

To sum up: Armstrong’s article and Fitzgerald’s critique of it were written twelve years ago. They are of historical interest but may not necessarily represent those authors’ current opinions. Also, we know who Karen Armstrong is but we ignore who is hiding behind the signature of Hugh Fitzgerald – apparently, somebody suspected of promoting an Islamophobic worldview and conspiracy theories supported by the Israeli right.

Not all that palatable, I’m afraid.
.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

I first heard of Ayaan Hirsi Ali when the Dutch film director, Theo van Gogh, was viciously assassinated by an Islamist in Amsterdam in 2004. Ms Hirsi Ali had written the script for van Gogh’s film, “Submission”. Since the assassination, she has lived under constant threat of Islamist reprisal herself.

A former devout Muslim, she is now an active critic of Islamic doctrine and practice. I admire her courage and tenacity. She has undertaken an extremely dangerous and particularly rude task in attempting to reform such a highly-decentralised organisation as Islam. I wish her well in her efforts.

The reformation of Christianity in the 16th century was a particularly bloody affaire. It is difficult to imagine that the reformation of Islam would be any different, cf. the video produced by the Encyclopædia Britannica which you will find here :

http://global.britannica.com/event/Reformation

Another video worth viewing is the debate between Ms Hirsi Ali and Tariq Ramadan, the grandson of Sheikh Hassan al-Banna who founded the famous - some might say “the notorious” - Sunni Islamist organization, Society of the Muslim Brothers, better known as the “Muslim Brotherhood”, in Egypt in 1928 :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJQ7tEoDhao

If you don’t mind, I think I’ll leave it at that.

I hope this allays your concerns and reassures you of my interest in your posts.

.

Banjo Paterson,

Referring to this review,

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/sep/29/fields-of-blood-review-absorbing-study-religion-violence-karen-armstrong

You appear to attack the personality of the reviewer but you are careful not to challenge his claimed facts. However, in your many OLO posts on religion you undertake very detailed and precise exposes of Christianity, relying always on the less savoury aspects of its history from centuries past. On the other hand you are more than willing, enthusiastic, to accept and applaud an author, Karen Armstrong, whose only claim seems to be that she is an ex-Catholic nun, who according to the reviewer makes very simple and obvious errors of history and other facts. Factual errors that should leap out at you with your interest and zest for religious history.

Can you see that it is rather remarkable that you are very quick to enter into long and detailed exposes of the wrongs and excesses of Christianity, but you shy away from even a cursory examination of a review criticising the alleged Muslim sympathiser and apologist, Karen Armstrong?

It is as though you seek to bury one side, Christianity in its historical wrongs, while pulling a tarpaulin over the present shabby medievalism, aimed strongly against women, of Islam.

I do not promote either religion, but at the same time it would be less than honest not to criticise Islam for using the West's tolerance of religion, which is founded on religions accepting the secular State. And secondly, that even the so-called 'moderate' Muslims do not accord women and girls equal treatment with boys and men in the same western democracies where they have chosen to live and have been accepted as citizens - with responsibilities.

Here, for some balance,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CGFMwtJTyE

Again, womens rights campaigner Ayaan Hirsi Ali has said many times that the reformation of Islam is not solely concerned with terrorism but mainly the treatment of women. That is the subject of the thread, the treatment of women by Islam.

The great problem with Christianity is that its followers have often strayed far from the teachings of Christ, it is arguable that those who have been most infamous for their actions were not really Christians, however the same cannot be said for the followers of Muhammad.

.

Dear Leoj,

.

You wrote :

« You appear to attack the personality of the reviewer but you are careful not to challenge his claimed facts »

As I already pointed out, Leoj, the “reviewer” who is hiding behind the signature “Hugh Fitzgerald” is reported to be a co-administrator of and an extensive contributor to a blog called Jihad Watch which, to cite Wikipedia : “has been repeatedly criticised by numerous academics who believe that it promotes an Islamophobic worldview and conspiracy theories”.

Jihad Watch is reportedly funded by a conservative organisation, “The David Horowitz Freedom Center”, a foundation created in 1988 by political activist David Horowitz and by various donors supporting the Israeli right :

It is run by blogger, Robert Spencer, who has been described by some civil rights organizations including the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Jewish Anti-Defamation League in the United States as a “Muslim basher” and a “hate group leader.”

As you may have noted in the Wikipedia article for which I posted the link, Benazir Bhutto, the late Pakistani Prime Minister, in her book “Reconciliation: Islam, Democracy, and the West”, wrote that “Spencer uses Jihad Watch to spread misinformation and hatred of Islam”. She added that “he presents a skewed, one-sided, and inflammatory story that only helps to sow the seed of civilizational conflict”.

I am not attacking or defending anybody, Leoj. I couldn’t care less who the mysterious “reviewer” is. All I am saying is that I do not consider him to be a reliable source of information.

I do not place my confidence in charlatans or propagandists, whether they be political, religious or otherwise.

I am not a specialist on the subject in hand and am not prepared to devote the time and energy that would be necessary for me to verify the writings of somebody who presents such a dubious profile as the mysterious “reviewer” whom you obviously hold in such high esteem.

I find your attitude in this regard very instructive and shall keep it in mind in any future dealings we may have together.

.

Banjo: has been repeatedly criticised by numerous academics who believe that it promotes an Islamophobic worldview and conspiracy theories”.

Do you believe Numerous Academics who Promote a Politically Correct, Socialist & Liberalist Pro-Islamic worldview? Going on the behaviour I have observed in Australia, The US, The EU by the Liberalists I wouldn't take any notice of anything they had to say. Goats led to slaughter.

Is Mise: it is arguable that those who have been most infamous for their actions were not really Christians,

Oh I love this. Have you ever noticed that when one of the "Famous Flock" gets caught with his pants down with a young Girl or Boy in the room he suddenly becomes. "They were never really was a Christian" & are suddenly disowned. TV Evangelists by the dozen.

Banjo Paterson,

All of that but instead you could have used the post to demolish any flaws you might find in the man's review. Why?

I will disregard any inferences of your last paragraph. This is a discussion site.

What I have been saying to you is plain enough, that the reviewer's comments should stand or fall on proof, just as the ex-nun's claims should be. Now he has made certain claims that if correct, or even in major part correct, would overturn the ex-nun's arguments.

With respect, your thinking is dualistic, which is par for the course for religions: black and white, sources are good or bad, etc. The former are to be discounted in their entirety and the latter accepted without question, and given broad allowance where there are 'wobbly' factoids and the 'Post Truth' that is increasingly common.

While I don't lend support to either the ex.nun author or her reviewer, I am prepared as always to look first at the evidence and then make a judgement. Whereas your approach would always ensure that any evidence that might challenge your thinking, values and world view, are ignored, censored.

What is also apparent is your continued refusal to address the forum topic and arguments directed at it. In my previous posts for example there was the repeated reminder that, "womens rights campaigner Ayaan Hirsi Ali has said many times that the reformation of Islam is not solely concerned with terrorism but mainly the treatment of women. That is the subject of the thread, the treatment of women by Islam".

.

I thought I should share this one with you, Joel (Oops ... Loej) :

http://www.uua.org/ga/past/2011/ware-armstrong

.

Banjo Paterson,

Now you must play games with my log-on name, wildly imagining that because I ask for evidence and balance, and a return to the thread subject from the obvious hijacking with that book, then I must have Jewish origins. I don't but it shouldn't matter, although it would cause you angst apparently.

That could suggest a skew in your own world view and perhaps explains why you prefer ad hominem to examining arguments. No sense(sic) in allowing any contrary evidence to disturb your wrong and crooked dualist thinking. So much for your credibility and that feigned politeness.

I have quite reasonably requested that you examine the facts put forward by a reviewer of an author whose only claim to expertise seems to be that she is an ex-nun. Both should stand by and be measured against their claims, nothing more and nothing less.

The truth will out eventually, which is one of the strong reasons for freedom of speech. And avoiding the censorship that the Sixties generation fought so hard for along with the real LEFT - who demanded freedom of speech for everyone and not just themselves.

Another reminder since you are so determined to duck,
"What is also apparent is your continued refusal to address the forum topic and arguments directed at it. In my previous posts for example there was the repeated reminder that, "womens rights campaigner Ayaan Hirsi Ali has said many times that the reformation of Islam is not solely concerned with terrorism but mainly the treatment of women. That is the subject of the thread, the treatment of women by Islam"

Dear Banjo Paterson,

Thank You for the link and information regarding Karen
Armstrong. It helps to know the background of an
author. Hers is quite impressive.

Regarding religion, violence, and Islam? Much has been
written on the topic and it's part of the ongoing
debate regarding the reformation of Islam. One cannot
simply discuss one aspect of this religion, when there are
so many issues at play. In her latest book, "Heretic:
Why Islam needs a Reformation now," Ayaan Hirsi Ali
writes that, "... without fundamental alterations to some
of Islam's core concepts we shall not solve the burning
and increasingly global problem of political violence
carried out in the name of religion."

She argues that Islamic violence is rooted not in social,
economic, or political conditions, or even in theological
but rather in the foundational texts of Islam itself.
That in order for Islam to reform certain parts need to be
changed or rejected.
This makes sense including issues dealing with
things like the inequality of women, FGM, and so on.
Hirsi Ali seems to feel that Muslims are ready for change
and reform and that inevitably any reform must come from
within as the following link confirms:

http://spectator.com.au/2017/04/reforming-islam/

Foxy: Hirsi Ali seems to feel that Muslims are ready for change and reform and that inevitably any reform must come from within as the following link confirms:

And just how far do you reckon she'll get debating with the eminent Saudi Scholars? It's all well & good for her to claim that but very few are interested in reform. In fact it's all headed the other way because they think they are taking over Europe. They are all excited about achieving a long awaited victory in Europe & the way the EU is Governed they look like actually doing it. Unless, that is, the likes of Trump, Le Pen & Wilders can put a stop to it.

Dear Jayb.,

I've stated previously that I don't claim to be an
expert on Islam and I certainly don't know the most
effective way for all the complex issues regarding
this religion to be addressed. Therefore I try to
read as much as I can on the subject and glean as
much as I can from people who are experts in this
field. I've come across the following link which
I found helpful. Perhaps you will as well:

http://www.economist.com/blog/erasmus/2015/01/reforming-islam

cont'd ...

My apologies for the typo in the link.

I'll try again:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/erasmus/2015/01/reforming-islam

Foxy: From the article: <the Protestant Reformation tamed the Vatican in the 16th century.” You don't have to be a Protestant to argue for this sort of view; you could say, as many do, that the Reformation's real merit was that it reduced the importance of religion in general,>

It may have tamed the Vatican but it took 200 years to do it. In the meantime there was 200 years of vicious, bloody, Warfare.

Starting with Lutheranism, Unitarianism, Socinianism, Monetarism, ultramontanism, Gallicanism, Concilliarism, Baptists, Anabaptists, Waldensians, Hussite's, Lollards, Huguenot's, Wycliffe's, Calvinism, Mennonites, Amish, Episcopalians, Armenianism, Presbyterianism, Wesleyans, Millerism, Quakers, Shakers & many more, up to the 18th Century.

These Protestant Sects fought with one another as well as the Vatican for 200 years on top of the normal wars that were wages seeking Territory.

The main reason for the number of Sects was money. The Kings & Princes of the lands were living in poverty along with their Citizenry. They thought that breaking away from the Vatican would be a good way of stopping the Wealth of their lands flowing to Rome. Hence the breakup of Europe into Principalities.

I can't find my Book "The Reformation" this is from snippets I have collected over the years.

Anyway I thought we were discussing "How to beat your wife & get away with it by claiming it BDSM." ;-)

Dear Jayb.,

We're talking about whether the followers of Islam
can be persuaded to renounce wife beatings,
terrorism, and so on - in other words whether Islam
can be reformed. Arguments against all these things
are being heard around the world.

You can't just discuss Islamic wife beating on its own
without discussing the bigger picture. As Ayaan Hirsi
Ali wrote, " Islamic violence is rooted not in social,
economic, or political conditions, or even in
theological error - but rather in the foundational
texts of Islam itself. Without fundamental alterations
to some of Islam's core concepts we shall not solve the
increasingly global problems... carried out in the name
of religion."

Foxy: Without fundamental alterations to some of Islam's core concepts we shall not solve the increasingly global problems... carried out in the name of religion."

Sorry, but they just won't do it. The Controlling Imams won't allow it, backed up by the Fundamentalists. Moderate moslims are to afraid to act on their own. Any Imam attempting to modify the koran would have a Fatwah issued against him & killed of so quickly you wouldn't have time to blink.

The West didn't really change it's attitude to women until the 80's & is still going through the process & is mostly waiting for our generation to die off.

Protestants should go down on their knees and thank God for the existence of Catholics and the Papacy.

.

Dear Leoj,

.

You wrote :

« … then I must have Jewish origins. I don't … »

That’s OK, Leoj. Nobody’s perfect. And, anyway, I know how difficult it is to explain things sometimes.

It reminds me of the first time I flew into Abidjan in the Ivory Coast many years ago. I was marched back to the plane by two armed policemen because I didn’t have a visa. I didn’t know I needed one. I flew all the way back to Paris then back to Abidjan again, managing to get only about three hours sleep in three nights. A few weeks later, I flew into New York and the police officer asked me if I had a police record. Again, I replied I didn’t know I needed one. He just stared at me and waved me through. I guess he'd already heard that one before.

I flew to Luxembourg on another trip with a client. As I walked up to the police desk I realized I had forgotten my passport. When I apologised to the police officer he suddenly turned his head. I apologised again and he turned his head again. I apologised a third time and once again he turned his head. I finally understood and walked on through. But my wife had to come and rescue me from the airport police in Paris when I returned late that night. They couldn’t believe that I had made the return trip to Luxembourg without a passport and wouldn’t let me back in. Once, when I flew into Tokyo, the police took me into custody and withheld my passport. When they finally released me, they explained that the Japanese consulate in Paris had mistakenly stamped my passport with a visa for an Austrian citizen instead of an Australian citizen. I didn’t know because I couldn’t read Japanese.

You also wrote :

« I have quite reasonably requested that you examine the facts put forward by a reviewer of an author whose only claim to expertise seems to be that she is an ex-nun »

.

(Continued …)

.

Banjo Paterson, "That’s OK, Leoj. Nobody’s perfect. And, anyway, I know how difficult it is to explain things sometimes"

That and all of the rambling text to follow.

You could have simply apologised for twisting my log-in name with malice aforethought.

Fact is, you 'outed' yourself as prejudiced against Jews, while trying to poison the waters against me through ad hominem. Not a good look at all and what for? All to divert criticism away from criticism of that 'most feminist of religions'(sic), Islam?

.

(Continued …)

.

And I have just as reasonably explained, Leoj, that, having read the mysterious reviewer’s critical review of Karen Armstrong’s article, I discovered that he is reported to be a co-administrator of and an extensive contributor to a blog called Jihad Watch which, to cite Wikipedia : “has been repeatedly criticised by numerous academics who believe that it promotes an Islamophobic worldview and conspiracy theories”.

I repeat that I place absolutely no confidence in charlatans or propagandists, whether they be political, religious or otherwise.

I do not accord any value whatsoever to anything the mysterious reviewer, “Hugh Fitzgerald”, has to say or write.

As for your statement that Karen Armstrong’s “only claim to expertise seems to be that she is an ex-nun”, I refer you to her brief biography in Wikipedia :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Armstrong

You add :

« … according to the reviewer, [Karen Armstrong] makes very simple and obvious errors of history and other facts. Factual errors that should leap out at you … »

Do they “leap out at you”, Leoj ? Do you consider that you are competent in such matters ?

If so, why bother posting such an obviously biased and partisan review ? Why did you not, and even now, why do you not post your own thoughts on Karen Armstrong’s article ?

If, however, you prefer to have recourse to a reputable, independent, religious historian, I shall be more than willing to consider his or her comments and opinion on the article.

In response to your remark concerning my “apparent continued refusal to address the forum topic: the treatment of women by Islam”, allow me to suggest that you read my previous posts on this thread. I think I have amply treated this subject in the terms that Graham expressed it.

I also stated clearly what I thought of the courage of Ayaan Hirsi Ali and the rude task she has undertaken in attempting to reform such a highly-decentralised organisation as Islam.

.

.

Dear Foxy,

.

I’m sorry not to have replied earlier to your last post “regarding religion, violence, and Islam” and to have shamelessly abandoned you.

I have been fairly busy of late and, in addition, as you may have noticed, I devoted what little time I had available to Leoj whose needs appeared to be causing some concern and required immediate attention.

I read Tanveer Ahmed’s excellent article entitled “Reforming Islam” in “The Spectator” with pleasure. Thank you very much indeed for the link. It is undoubtedly the most articulate and perspicacious analysis I have read on the subject to date.

But while I find Tanveer Ahmed’s analysis absolutely impeccable, I am not sure I agree with Ayaan Hirsi Ali when she writes in her book, "Heretic: Why Islam needs a Reformation now", as you indicate :

« Islamic violence is rooted … in the foundational texts of Islam itself. That in order for Islam to reform certain parts need to be changed or rejected »

My personal opinion is that I do not think it is necessary “to change or reject” any of the so-called “sacred texts” such as the Hebrew Bible, the Christian Bible or the Quran and Sunnah of Islam. I think it is quite unrealistic to expect, not only the fundamentalists and extremists, but also the orthodox and the conservatives, as well as many of the more moderate devotees, to accept such radical measures.

I feel that a softer and more gentle approach might have more chance of succeeding. It seems to me that it is the mentalities of the devotees which have to evolve, not the texts. I think the texts should be preserved in their integrality. They have inestimable value not just to the devotees as sacred documents, but also to the whole of humanity as historical documents.

In my view, it is the way we read the texts that must change, not the way the authors wrote them. It is the way we understand their message that must change.

We must make a historic decision with a historical perspective.

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

Thank You for replying to my earlier post and I am
pleased that you found the link useful. I appreciate
and respect your opinion. A gentler approach of course
would probably be a better tactic in trying to reform
any problem. Although from my understanding what
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is suggesting is not that all of the
foundational texts be reformed, only some of Islam's
core concepts. She feels that unless this is done we
shall not solve the burning and increasingly global
problem that currently exists and is carried out in the
name of religion.

And therein lies the problem. How do we get those with
the most influence - the scholars,
theologians, on board? A gentler approach is probably the
way. Being abrasive will only alienate people - as we can
see from what's happening today in Europe and elsewhere.

Foxy: How do we get those with the most influence - the scholars,

You won't. There is too much hatred between the Sunni & the Shia to let this happen, let alone the multitude of other Islamic Sects. There is no central authority controlling Islamic Dogma. You cannot change 3 thousand years of Middle Eastern thinking & culture over night. Any Change would take another thousand years.

Banjo Paterson,

Facts remain facts regardless of the uses or abuses to which they may be put. There is no throwing it back onto me, you are the one who is putting your impression of the person first and exclusively before any examination of his claims. That is you and allow your world view and values, your prejudice, to rule. That is 'splitting'.

In your response to Foxy you make some explanation of your bias: a softly, softly towards Islam and to other orthodoxy too one might assume - lest the proponents be upset?

Whereas I make no allowances where laws are being broken or there is conspiracy to do so. I would have the full force of the law applied, religion or not.

Regarding your ridiculous assertion/insinuation that the reformers like Ayaan Hirsi Ali want to tear up or physically modify and amend the 'sacred' texts you style yourself as protecting (as a White Knight), that is complete nonsense as you would certainly be aware.

Of course the reformers are aiming at the meaning taken, permitted and excused - the whole bundle of disgusting, obnoxious, Middle Ages culture, traditions and political system and behaviours that are being introduced to host countries.

But you are laboring to somehow make the obvious violence and the dreadful attitudes to and treatment of women, the fault of the usually tolerant (but not to that!) and welcoming French and populations of the other target countries for economic migration.

That IS where you are getting to eventually ins't it? -That the fault for the rapes, assaults, killings , refusal to assimilate and obey the law and so on is actually down to everyone else but the offenders themselves, who choose to break the law and want to introduce their own political corruption and Sharia law instead.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

Here is another link that I found of interest on this
complex subject:

http://www.quora.com/How-can-Islam-be-reformed-1

Mike Muluk tells us that -

"The problem of reforming Islam is that almost all Muslims
will agree that the Qur-an is the revealed word of God...
A book of law".

He goes on to argue that "Every reform can only take place
when you know that there's a problem. To this day I've never
heard a single Muslim that I know admitting that the problem
of the whole Islamic world are the Islamic laws themselves.
Most Muslims I know don't/can't admit it, but only stop
following their religious rules. And that person would be,
what in the West is called a "moderate" Muslim."

He goes on to say that - "I hope though, that once Muslims
start seeing the problem and admitting that they need to get rid
of/reform (at least) the part of Islamic law that controls their
earthly lives and interactions with others, then they can
start setting their sights on finding solutions on how to reform
the interpretations of the Qur'an."

Dear Jayb.,

You may well be right - it can take a long time
for any reformation to occur, especiaally a
religious one. In this case, hopefully
it won't take one thousand years.

The "revealed word" of God would be a better way of putting it for Christianity. In Islam, the text in the Qur'an is considered to be the actual speech of God. This is an additional hurdle for Islam.

It is for this reason that Maajid Nawaz says, in his dialogue with Sam Harris (http://www.amazon.com/Islam-Future-Tolerance-Sam-Harris/dp/0674088700), that he doesn't believe that altering Islamic scripture is an option. What he advocates for, instead, is to show that there are many ways to interpreting the Qur'an, and to explain why a literal interpretation is too simplistic and naive.

Harris immediately quizzes Nawaz on this point by raising the fact that what he is essentially saying is that there is no discernible correct way to interpret the Qur’an. Nawaz responds by agreeing with Harris, and follows up by pointing out that, when there is no discernible correct way to interpret Scripture, the only way forward is pluralism.

In the follow-up conversation which Harris and Nawaz have (responding to questions from readers) in the audio book, Nawaz (a former Islamist himself) mentions that highlighting pluralism as the only way forward, for the above-mentioned reason, is one of the many ways in which the organisation which he founded (Quilliam) goes about de-radicalisting Islamists and Jihadists.

It suits the bearded ones to have the discourse on the 'intellectual' level - how to walk very carefully around words so they maintain their power over people and especially over women.

I recommend the simple, EFFECTIVE, practical and time-honoured, incrementalist way of individuals doing different. Stuff the turgid, manipulative delaying tactics of men (and some women too!) who have a vested interest in the status quo.

In Australia, UK, France, wherever, it is up to Muslim women to do different, if not for themselves (although they should be modelling better) then for their girls.

If, Quran 4:11 says that two women inherit the same as one male heir, so what, that is YOUR choice and Australian law supports you. Why sign up to Sharia? Don't contemplate a relationship with any smuck who believes that stuff. It is your life (in the West) so live it. Or are Muslim women afraid of freedom? Because so many people are.

Can't believe that feminists support this motor-mouth, or that feminists allow the ABC get away with nominating her as one of its celebrity WOMEN Muslim presenter and even after ANZAC Day, is vowing to continue to give her a podium and oxygen,
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/feminist-activist-yassmin-abdelmagied-sought-advice-from-hizb-uttahrir/news-story/8fb7d208cfac65646173cc3a4180c1a2

For goodness sakes, if forty years ago a couple of UofQ academics could grandstand in a public bar in Brisbane for the right to stand on beer-sodden tiles and get their pots for 1c cheaper, the modern, superbly-entitled Emilys-Lister Sisterhood might rise to the occasion to pull Yassmin and 'Her ABC' into line, "What are you thinking of, Islam is the most feminist religion?".

Dear AJ,

Thank You for the link and the information concerning
the book by Sam Harris and Maajid Nawaz.

I've checked and it turns out that our library does have
a copy, which I have now reserved. According to the summary
in our library catalogue we're told that this book has been
published with the explicit goal of inspiring a wider public
discussion by way of example in a world driven by
misunderstanding and violence. The book demonstrates how two
people with very different views can find common ground.

That should give us all some hope.

Foxy: I've checked and it turns out that our library does have
a copy, which I have now reserved.

How come you can read all these books on the Subject of Islam yet you won't read the actual koran or the hadiths? They are not all that big really. I would have thought this would have been prior study before you read the others. Strange that.

No stranger than the faux left(ists) being quite incapable of comprehending what the real Left stood for,

http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/maajid-nawaz/maajid-the-left-is-no-longer-liberal/

Dear Foxy,

I think you’ll really enjoy the book. It was massively eye-opening for me.

The discussion about Islam has been polarised and dominated by people who, on the one side, are only interested in demonisation; and those on the other side, who are all too quick to shout down any attempt to discuss the issues productively, no matter how sincere.

What the dialogue between Harris and Nawaz attempts to do is take back the discussion and set a course for the centre to start tackling the issues, or at least get a dialogue started that isn’t dominated, or stigmatised, by those on the extreme ends of the political spectrum.

Harris and Nawaz appeared on Lateline together shortly after the book’s release:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7u_n5MpuNg

--

leoj,

It’s interesting that you say “stood for”, as if it were past tense. Both Harris and Nawaz still consider themselves to be Lefties (as does Dawkins, for that matter). They simply attack the more extreme elements of it, partly because they care about Left-Liberal values. The far-Right are just as bad in their own ways (probably worse, actually), and still receive plenty of criticism from the likes of Harris, et al.

Dear Jayb,

Actually, it's not strange at all. I leave the
readings of the holy books to the scholars
and theologians. They are the ones more qualified
I feel, to understand their topics better than I
ever could. I feel that they are the experts who
can present things in their historical context
(amidst the social, political and religious
agitations of the time). They are capable of removing
elements of mythology and provide us with a more
accurate interpretation. Which I do end up reading.
You may find that as strange.
For me that's normal. I am still on my own road to
discovery. Which I hope will continue for many years
to come.

Dear AJ,

I'm sure that I'll enjoy the book.

Humans are the most extraordinary creatures, and a
big part of me still wants to reach an even greater
understanding about who we are.

.

Dear Foxy,

.

Thanks for the link to the “Best Answer” to the question “How can Islam be reformed?” on the Quora web site, by Mike Muluk, ex-Muslim, now Christian.

I liken his conclusion “… once they have the courage to strip-off Islam from all its worldliness, and view the religion as a tool to know God and not as a law to govern their interactions with others …” to:

“Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's” (Matthew 22:21).

From what I can gather, Islamic reform began to take shape in the late 19th century with the birth of the Islamic Modernism movement founded by Al-Afghani with one of his students Mohammed Abduh and an associate, Rashid Rida.

Rida was a highly controversial figure, advocating the free interpretation of scripture by all Muslims themselves while, at the same time, advocating the creation of an Islamic State practicing Sharia law continually reassessed according to changing conditions of different generations and societies.

He popularized the term “Salafi” to describe this form of Islamic Modernism, but the term was later hi-jacked by al-Albani to describe the exact opposite: a rigid form of Islamic fundamentalism.

Al-Afghani and his student, Mohammed Abduh, began publishing an Arabic newspaper in Paris entitled "The Indissoluble Link" (sometimes translated as "The Strongest Bond") in 1884.

Muhammad Abduh argued that Muslims could not simply rely on the interpretations of texts provided by medieval clerics, they needed to use reason to keep up with changing times. He said that in Islam man was not created to be led by a bridle, man was given intelligence so that he could be guided by knowledge. According to Abduh, a teacher’s role was to direct men towards study. He believed that Islam encouraged men to detach from the world of their ancestors and that Islam reproved the slavish imitation of tradition. He said that the two greatest possessions relating to religion that man was graced with were independence of will and independence of thought and opinion …

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

It was with the help of these tools that he could attain happiness. He believed that the growth of western civilization in Europe was based on these two principles. He thought that Europeans were roused to act after a large number of them were able to exercise their choice and to seek out facts with their minds. His Muslim opponents refer to him as an infidel; however, his followers called him a sage, a reviver of religion and a reforming leader. Abduh did not advocate returning to the early stages of Islam. He was against polygamy and thought that it was an archaic custom. He believed in a form of Islam that would liberate men from enslavement, provide equal rights for all human beings, abolish the religious scholar’s monopoly on exegesis and abolish racial discrimination and religious compulsion.

He made great efforts to preach harmony between Sunnis and Shias and encouraged unity with all religious traditions. He declared:

« I hope to see the two great religions, Islam and Christianity hand-in-hand, embracing each other. Then the Torah and the Bible and the Qur'an will become books supporting one another being read everywhere, and respected by every nation »

He added that he was :

« looking forward to seeing Muslims read the Torah and the Bible »

The Modernists wanted to reconcile Islamic traditions with the rapid pace of the modernizing world. Al-Afghani proposed a new form of ijtihad (effort of interpretation that Muslim jurists undertake to interpret the founding texts of Islam) . He believed that the concept of ijtihad could be transformed and extended to enable all Muslims (not just the jurists) to think critically and apply their own individual interpretations of the innovations of modernity in the context of Islam. This new form of ijtihad would allow Muslims to combine their religious perspectives with that of their academic or scientific thoughts.

Contemporary Salafis (the usurpers of Al-Afghani’s term) are, of course, major proponents of all forms of ijtihad.

More recently, the Muslim Reform Movement was created. Here is their proclamation :

http://muslimreformmovement.org/MRMDeclaration.pdf

.

.

Oops ! I meant to write :

Contemporary Salafis (the usurpers of Al-Afghani’s term) are, of course, major proponents of the old form of ijtihad.

Sorry about that.

.

Foxy: Actually, it's not strange at all. I leave the readings of the holy books to the scholars and theologians.

I'm sorry Foxy, but that's a cop out. What the eye doesn't see the heart doesn't grieve over.

There are a lot of us on here that have read the koran & Hadiths & have taken their interpretations directly from the teachings of the many learned Scholars & Theologians. These Imams have posted their interpretations online for the followers of Islam to read & act upon, They have explained in perfect detail exactly what is required by all moslim. We have shown you these interpretations many times. Yet you choose not to see them because you may have to change your thinking & you are afraid to do that.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

Thank You for adding more to my ongoing learning
process. I look forward to the future with
optimism.

Dear Jayb,

I shall repeat what I've said previously:

My concern is that mainstream Australian culture can
sometimes impose labels on certain communities.
This can encourage people into identifying themselves
other than Australian and take on past ethnic conflicts.
What we want is the creation of an Australia that's
inclusive enough so that people do not feel they have
to hold on to those enmities from the past, because they feel
there is a different way here. The more we tag people to
being specific to an ethnic group, the more we force them
almost to galvanise that as an ethnicity.

See you on another discussion.

Foxy: The more we tag people to being specific to an ethnic group, the more we force them almost to galvanise that as an ethnicity.

You are wrong again. These people would be accepted if they didn't want to force Australians to change their ethnicity. Which they do, & voice that opinion increasingly more & more forcefully. We have not reached the same state as the UK & Europe is in, yet, but it's coming closer every day. You claim that, "They are just like us."

These people are the ones who are rejecting Australian values & culture as being Haram. They want to turn Australia into the same horror state as they supposedly fled. Do you want Australia to end up the same as the Middle East? It appears so. Their aim is to Convert the entire World to Islam, covertly at first, then by the Sword.

Something tells me that this is all contrived naivety.

Dear Jayb,

I find the key feature of your arguments to be
rooted in generalisations. You ignore the
differences among individuals. Your belief that
all Muslims share the same supposed traits is
flawed. I get the impression that you are not
really concerned about genuine group characteristics.
you will simply accept any negative statement that
feeds your existing hostility. I am not interested
in providing you with that sort of a platform.
I'm sure that you will find others on this forum
who are. I shall leave it there.

Cheers.

Foxy: You ignore the differences among individuals.

All individuals can or may be nice.

Foxy: I get the impression that you are not really concerned about genuine group characteristics.

It is this very "genuine group characteristics" that does concerns me. Their group characteristic says that it's, for us, Islam or death. You are ignoring that in favour of the "nice individual." Even the Lone Wolves are "nice individuals." Just take the latest one in Britain. Several of his friends have said that he was a "nice individual."

Foxy,

"Your belief that all Muslims share the same supposed traits is
flawed."

All Muslims share at least one trait, they believe in the Koran.

That is the problem.

.

Dear Foxy,

.

The Christian Reformation took about 150 years to complete. Though most historians date its beginning from 1517, the year Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses on the door of the All Saints' Catholic Church in Wittenberg (the castle church, not the town church), it actually began about 25 years earlier when loyal adherents of the traditional faith were working to reform the Church from within.

It ended with the signing of the Peace Treaties of Westphalia in 1648 that ended the thirty years war in the Holy Roman Empire, one of the longest and most destructive conflicts in European history, as well as the deadliest European religious war, resulting in eight million casualties.

Mankind has a long history of religious conflict, especially among the monotheists who, theoretically, all believe in the same God. The lifetime of their mythical patriarch, Abraham, has proven impossible to date historically, but supposedly occurred several thousand years ago. Religious conflict has practically never ceased ever since.

The modern jihadist movement emerged in the late 1970s, when several groups began campaigns to overthrow the Arab World's regimes and establish Islamic states.

A booklet entitled Al-Farida Al-Ghaiba (The Neglected Duty) served as an important guide for them. The Egyptian author, Mohammed Abdul Salam Faraj, argued that Muslims had neglected jihad in the sense of violent struggle, focusing instead on the inner struggle against their baser instincts.

Faraj also argued that the fight against the "near enemy" - local, Muslim regimes - was more important than the fight against the "far enemy" - external, non-Muslim threats.

His group, al-Jihad, assassinated Egypt's President Anwar Sadat in 1981.

Since then, we have witnessed an escalation of horror perpetrated by al-Qaeda, ISIS and various other groups of so-called Jihadists claiming to act in the name of Allah as revealed by Mohammad, the prophet of Islam.

These fanatics have plunged humanity into global warfare at home and abroad by indoctrinating our children with their deviant religious dogma and turning them against us.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

We have no alternative but to take up arms against them. We must stop them from colonising the minds of our children and using them as human bombs and weapons of destruction.

We must also do everything in our power to encourage, promote and facilitate the peaceful reformation of Islam as a religion of tolerance and compassion, respectful of Human Rights, rejecting Jihad and all forms of violence and injustice, and abstaining from political activity and influence in the governance of society at all levels.

But in so doing, we must learn from history or we are doomed to repeat it. Whatever we do we must avoid, at all costs, triggering a terrible human tragedy like the one that accompanied the Reformation of Christianity in the 16th and 17th centuries.

Prudence commands that we adopt a professional, diplomatic approach to this highly sensitive, but key aspect of the problem.

If it takes the same time – or even longer - to achieve as the Christian Reformation, which took 150 years to achieve, then so be it.

.

So it is all softly, softly, don't upset them and any fault for bad behaviour is down to the welcoming, freedom-loving French, or Brits or Swedes or..etc.

As well, make absolutely sure you ignore any comparisons and criticisms of the imported toxic socio-political system and obnoxious cultural traditions that come as an inseparable package with so many of those young men who left their own women and families to struggle back home and are molesting European women instead.

Divert every discussion onto Christianity, that is the tactic.

'Whatever you do, don't mention that treatment of women and Sharia law'. -With sad acknowledgement to Dads Army, a product of the democratic traditions and inheritances that the Islamists find so 'dismaying'. Got to ask why you and another here are so dismissive as to continually refuse to even mention any priority for equality between men and women and promote the separation of religion from politics. The fundamentalism of Islam is also modelled and taught in the home and by such nasty practices as telling girls they must cover themselves up lest they 'inflame' men.

Got to give that 'most feminist religion' a chance to become established, huh? The attention-seeking 'Progressive' feminists can play dress up and lets pretend.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-12075931

The virtue-signalling leftists, the self-styled 'do gooders' are in fact doing fundamentalist Islamists' work for them by advocating silence, turning a blind eye and by turning the blame on host countries such as Australia, the UK.

Of course the 'virtuous do-gooders' are actively removing the sand from under the feet of womens rights campaigners like Aayaan Hirsi Ali. Hirsi Ali is making pleas for support for any “modifying Muslims” (Muslim reformers), who generally favour equality between men and women and promote the separation of religion from politics.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446863/ayaan-hirsi-ali-islam-treatment-women-predicting-evolution

Dear Banjo Paterson,

Thank You for your analysis.

It is spot on.

If you wish to pursue the matter in a concise (absolutely
brilliant) book there is Sam Harris' (2006) "Letter to a
Christian Nation" a letter to believers in the US. It's
worth a read.

For me this discussion has now run it's course.
I look forward to seeing you on another discussion.
Take care.

Banjo: The Christian Reformation took about 150 years to complete.

I did this some time ago. Let's see;

It may have tamed the Vatican but it took 200 years to do it. In the meantime there was 200 years of vicious, bloody, Warfare.

Starting with Lutheranism, Unitarianism, Socinianism, Monetarism, ultramontanism, Gallicanism, Concilliarism, Baptists, Anabaptists, Waldensians, Hussite's, Lollards, Huguenot's, Wycliffe's, Calvinism, Mennonites, Amish, Episcopalians, Armenianism, Presbyterianism, Wesleyans, Millerism, Quakers, Shakers & many more, up to the 18th Century.

These Protestant Sects fought with one another as well as the Vatican for 200 years on top of the normal wars that were wages seeking Territory.

The main reason for the number of Sects was money. The Kings & Princes of the lands were living in poverty along with their Citizenry. They thought that breaking away from the Vatican would be a good way of stopping the Wealth of their lands flowing to Rome. Hence the breakup of Europe into Principalities.

To which Foxy quickly changed the subject.

leoJ: Of course the 'virtuous do-gooders' are actively removing the sand from under the feet of womens rights campaigners.

Yes, I just don't understand that aspect of the Do-Gooders. They are extremely quick to condemn any Anglo Saxon white Male yet they support that very thing by moslims. Go figure, I can't. Ay Foxy?

Dear Jayb.,

And a big hug to you too.