This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← The Violent Oppression of Women in Islam

The Violent Oppression of Women in Islam - Comments

Neodarwinian's Avatar Comment 1 by Neodarwinian

" The state has criminalized these basic Muslim behaviors. " No shit, Sherlock! Any state that would not criminalize such barbarity is a failed state.

Swept under the rug no longer, wackaloons. Perhaps shining enough light on this barbarity will effect some change in these people. I will not hold my breath though.

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:00:07 UTC | #914233

daneimp's Avatar Comment 2 by daneimp

One of the main stuggles on the planet right now is the struggle between the altruistic features of our genes and the ideology of Islam.

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:04:54 UTC | #914235

Ignorant Amos's Avatar Comment 3 by Ignorant Amos

Too harrowing for anything less than words that won't get past moderation at this time. A stiff drink, a hot bath and a calm down, is what I need after watching that.

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:11:10 UTC | #914237

drumdaddy's Avatar Comment 4 by drumdaddy

Save the women and children from this hell. Free them!

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:28:48 UTC | #914244

danconquer's Avatar Comment 5 by danconquer

I'm not going to watch this video as I know that I will find it too traumatic, so logically I must also forfeit the right to comment directly as to how good a job it really does of seriously addressing the chronic, widespread abuse of female (people generally but especially female) human rights in Islamic countries.

However, what I do know is this. To my mind, people who mutilate the genitals of little kids belong in prison. Those who actively advocate and campaign for such barbarism are very, very tarnished witnesses for the cause of universal human rights. Unfortunately David Horowitz is just such a person (notice how he claims such a ban is evidence of "leftist anti-semitism", even though the ban would apply equally to muslims) and for that reason I have to question his motivations in producing such videos as these.

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:29:17 UTC | #914245

SimonSays79's Avatar Comment 6 by SimonSays79

Yes, the same David Horowitz who calls himself the 'arch-Zionist' and who makes all sorts of claims about Palestinians (who according to him are worse than Nazis) but by his own admission has never even visited Israel

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:41:03 UTC | #914248

Functional Atheist's Avatar Comment 7 by Functional Atheist

This video is disturbing, but so is its producer, David Horowitz.

It is worth noting that Mr. Horowitz is a highly controversial individual who is associated with a number of far right wing causes. That is not to dispute the factual content of this video, which is indeed horrifying, but to inject a note of caution: Horowitz has made so many outrageous assertions that his credibility can legitimately be called into question.

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:57:25 UTC | #914251

Crimbly's Avatar Comment 8 by Crimbly

Having watched that, I now feel sick.

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 19:04:15 UTC | #914253

Sarge's Avatar Comment 9 by Sarge

Comment Removed by Author

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 19:17:38 UTC | #914256

yanquetino's Avatar Comment 10 by yanquetino

Why in Thor's name do we maintain diplomatic relations with Islamic countries that continue to adhere to such barbaric, Medieval practices? Ah, yes... for access to their oil. Greed for petroldollars and getting our daily "drug" fix is much more important than human rights. Disgusting.

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 19:18:05 UTC | #914257

danconquer's Avatar Comment 11 by danconquer

Love that caption at the bottom: "For Islamo-Facism Awareness Week"

Yes, because the other 51 weeks of the year David Horowitz and his Freedom Centre will otherwise be found publicising such fare as Feline Ringworm Awareness Week and Risotto Recipes Awareness Week.

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 19:25:53 UTC | #914260

''s Avatar Comment 12 by '

Harrowing, sickening, disturbing evil. I knew I would be upset, but I feel duty bound to watch footage like that, in order to remind myself that religion poisons everything.

Theism is palpable nonsense - what god would allow such atrocities in its name...

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 19:26:53 UTC | #914261

blitz442's Avatar Comment 13 by blitz442

This video is disturbing, but so is its producer, David Horowitz

Are we sure that we are placing our emphasis of concern in the right place? If I see a video showing clear, unadulterated violence against women and children in the name of Islam, I agree that it is sensible to at least think about the source and how this effects the veracity of what you are seeing. But even if the source is the most rabid anti-Islamic bigot around, and wishes us to agree with him that Islam is a truly awful religion, what could possibly detract from that conclusion based on the contents of this video?

Here are a few possibilities:

1) The video is not authentic. It may be taken from a movie, a dramatization, or completely made up with actors hired by Horowitz.

2) The violence is taken out of context and therefore not as bad as it looks.

3) The violence is real and so is the suffering of these women and kids. But incidents like these are extremely rare in Muslim societies. Horowitz is tarring Islam with a broad brush based on incidents that almost never happen.

4) This kind of violence is not at all uncommon in the Muslim world, but Horowitz is misusing evidence of this reality for his own nefarious means. Moderate, kind muslims who would never do this kind of stuff will suffer the backlash from Horowitz's racist rabble-rousing.

Unfortunately, despite the fact that Horowitz is not a nice liberal, I have little reason to suspect #1. For #2, I have no idea what a context in which this is not loathsome behavior could possibly be.

On to #3. Maybe Horowitz is overstating the violence, or maybe he should include examples of good Muslim behavior everytime he presents this stuff. But would we be so quick to make these arguments if it were someone whose politics we agree with made the video?

4 - I suspect that this argument will be eventually rolled out, but the usage of the information is completely separate from the reality of actual Muslim violence that this video accurately depicts. Just because facts might be misused or we don't like the source does not mean that we get to ignore facts.

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 19:34:02 UTC | #914263

Tyler Durden's Avatar Comment 14 by Tyler Durden

Comment 10 by yanquetino :

Why in Thor's name do we maintain diplomatic relations with Islamic countries that continue to adhere to such barbaric, Medieval practices? Ah, yes... for access to their oil. Greed for petroldollars and getting our daily "drug" fix is much more important than human rights. Disgusting.

There is a light at the end of the tunnel - such a resource is finite.

The very first time I watched the movie Syriana, this scene with Matt Damon admonishing the Saudi prince always stood out for me:

Bryan Woodman: But what do you need a financial advisor for? Twenty years ago you had the highest Gross National Product in the world, now you're tied with Albania. Your second largest export is secondhand goods, closely followed by dates which you're losing five cents a pound on... You know what the business community thinks of you? They think that a hundred years ago you were living in tents out here in the desert chopping each other's heads off* and that's where you'll be in another hundred years, so, yes, on behalf of my firm I accept your money.

*Oppressing women, killing daughters, infidels, declaring jihad on dogs etc.

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 19:42:16 UTC | #914269

Carl Sai Baba's Avatar Comment 15 by Carl Sai Baba

I don't trust Horowitz either, but we don't need some religious crackpot like him to tell us that negotiating with the Taliban for a 50% reduction in acid attacks on school girls is not a good exit strategy.

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 19:47:15 UTC | #914271

stuhillman's Avatar Comment 16 by stuhillman

Comment 2 by daneimp One of the main stuggles on the planet right now is the struggle between the altruistic features of our genes and the ideology of Islam.

Oooooh. You need to read "The Selfish Gene" before posting on this site.

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 19:56:46 UTC | #914276

Schrodinger's Cat's Avatar Comment 17 by Schrodinger's Cat

I don't think anything is seriously likely to be done about such disgusting practices all the time that there are those more eager to shoot the messenger than pay heed to the message.

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 20:52:46 UTC | #914289

Carlinlives's Avatar Comment 18 by Carlinlives

Comment 15 by Carl Sai Baba :

I don't trust Horowitz either, but we don't need some religious crackpot like him to tell us that negotiating with the Taliban for a 50% reduction in acid attacks on school girls is not a good exit strategy.

Pretty hard to come up with a good exit strategy when there was no entrance strategy whatsoever.

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 21:02:46 UTC | #914291

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 19 by Steve Zara

There are terrible problems with oppression of women in Islam, but why can't we discuss articles about facts, about statistics, about history and politics from unbiased sources?. Why do we have to discuss a video from someone who is a rightist nutter? Are there no criteria of reason and sanity for the selection of such material for this site, or does all that matter is the subject, and we aren't supposed to care who gets free promotion by RD.net?

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 21:06:29 UTC | #914292

blitz442's Avatar Comment 20 by blitz442

Comment 19 by Steve Zara

Are there no criteria of reason and sanity for the selection of such material for this site, or does all that matter is the subject, and we aren't supposed to care who gets free promotion by RD.net?

Since Islam steps on so many toes, there's always going to be an intersection where accurate material on Islam sometimes comes from people whose politics you don't like.

I refuse to shut my eyes to accurate information simply because it wasn't prepared Kosher. And I don't see how banning accurate info from this site furthers its goals.

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 21:15:48 UTC | #914293

''s Avatar Comment 21 by '

Comment 19 by Steve Zara :

Are there no criteria of reason and sanity for the selection of such material for this site, or does all that matter is the subject, and we aren't supposed to care who gets free promotion by RD.net?

I agree - if more reputable sources were selected there would be fewer distractions from the main issues.

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 21:16:19 UTC | #914294

debonnesnouvelles's Avatar Comment 22 by debonnesnouvelles

I have just watched the video. I do not recommend people to watch it. Not because it has shocking footage in it. But it seems to me not to be a good film on the subject that it claims to portray.

Sorry!

I would like to know:

Who is in charge of what goes up on this website these days??? Who from RD thinks that we should watch this?

Only yesterday there was a post which then was closed for comment...

Just a question from one of your many, numerous fans from all over world. This is such a great site, I just cannot imagine the high standard not being kept up in the future...

Kind regards, natalie from berlin

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 21:19:48 UTC | #914295

danconquer's Avatar Comment 23 by danconquer

Comment 17 by Schrodinger's Cat :

I don't think anything is seriously likely to be done about such disgusting practices all the time that there are those more eager to shoot the messenger than pay heed to the message.

There are other groups - serious, hardworking, influential, prominent groups - who consistently work to raise awareness on this issue, and lobby tirelessly the relevant individuals and governments. Amnesty International runs high profile campaigns against Sharia punishments, while Human Rights Watch have published an ongoing welter of material to raise awareness of stonings, amputations and other gross violations. Unlike the divisive, hypocritical, child-mutilating David Horowitz, HRW are able to amass widespread and credible publicity.

When Amnesty International or HRW are campaigning against such abuses, and when their publicity is repeated here on RDF, there is none of the kind of ridicule or "shooting the messenger" that we see here against Horowitz. Thus your claim is without merit, because if it was true that people simply had an eagerness to "shoot the messenger" in some kind of apology-for-Islam manner, then that would be what we always find, whoever the messenger was. But it is demonstrably not so and thus your theory is probably false.

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 21:19:54 UTC | #914296

blitz442's Avatar Comment 24 by blitz442

I agree - if more reputable sources were selected there would be fewer distractions from the main issues.

I wonder what it would be like to be on a jury with some of you. A crime is committed - a man shoots and robs a sales clerk in a gas station. Video evidence is presented that conclusively proves that. But wait! The owner of the gas station who provided the evidence turns out to be a racist. Even worse, the company who made the video equipment is a poltical contributer to the Republican party!

So apparently I would have to listen to grumbling about why we can't get evidence from some proper people instead of discussing the evidence and the crime.

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 21:25:36 UTC | #914297

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 25 by Steve Zara

Comment 20 by blitz442

I refuse to shut my eyes to accurate information simply because it wasn't prepared Kosher. And I don't see how banning accurate info from this site furthers its goals.

It's not about banning. It's a case of sourcing from reliable and neutral sources, just as one would for scientific material.

There are without doubt horrors committed in the name of Islam. But the case is more convincingly put if the information comes from neutral sources, as in that situation we are dealing as much as possible with the facts not tainted by political agendas.

Look at things this way: A story about child abuse in a church would have less impact here if it had been sourced from a fundamentalist Islamist site - the source would tarnish the message.

However, it seems that there is no worry here about sourcing material from radical right-wing sites.

Support of science and reason surely requires the seeking out of sources without bias.

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 21:27:35 UTC | #914298

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 26 by Steve Zara

comment 23 by danconquer

When Amnesty International or HRW are campaigning against such abuses, and when their publicity is repeated here on RDF, there is none of the kind of ridicule or "shooting the messenger" that we see here against Horowitz. Thus your claim is without merit, because if it was true that people simply had an eagerness to "shoot the messenger" in some kind of apology-for-Islam manner, then that would be what we always find, whoever the messenger was. But it is demonstrably not so and thus your theory is probably false.

Quite how concerns about the source of material can be considered 'apologising for Islam' is beyond me.

Personally, I'm complaining not because I want to be soft on Islam, but because I want a more effective way to come down even harder.

Using material from someone like Horowitz makes the material less effective because it gives the appearance of allying with his repulsive views. On the other hand, presenting reports from a group like Amnesty is FAR more effective, and helps to keep the reputation of sites like this for impartiality.

Comment 24 by blitz442

I wonder what it would be like to be on a jury with some of you. A crime is committed - a man shoots and robs a sales clerk in a gas station. Video evidence is presented that conclusively proves that. But wait! The owner of the gas station who provided the evidence turns out to be a racist.

You aren't getting the point. I'm convinced about the horrors of Islam. What the concern here is that others might be less willing to accept the evidence because of the source, and the reputation of a site for impartiality may be harmed.

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 21:33:03 UTC | #914300

ANTIcarrot's Avatar Comment 27 by ANTIcarrot

I'm a tad confused by the extended section on Amadinijad. Are we supposed to believe he's lying, or being sarcastic, or hipocrital, or ignorant, or ineffectual? Iran did support the Northern Alliance (for their own reasons) and was one of the reasons why the Taliban only ran most of Afghanistan. They also assisted with toppling the Taliban.

And I also remember the point Mr Dawkins made about using religion as an excuse to do what you want anyway. Islam as a whole doesn't speak out against these practices. Often quite theoposite in fact. But there are many evil things done though all of human history that many groups (including athiests) never spoke out on. Islam is not uniquely evil in failing to speak out on an issue while being popular in the affect areas.

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 21:33:33 UTC | #914301

blitz442's Avatar Comment 28 by blitz442

Comment 23 by danconquer

There are other groups - serious, hardworking, influential, prominent groups - who consistently work to raise awareness on this issue, and lobby tirelessly the relevant individuals and governments. Amnesty International runs high profile campaigns against Sharia punishments, while Human Rights Watch have published an ongoing welter of material to raise awareness of stonings, amputations and other gross violations. Unlike the divisive, hypocritical, child-mutilating David Horowitz, HRW are able to amass widespread and credible publicity.

I give up.

Fine - the content is less important than the politics of who is producing the content. As bad as Islamic violence is, we must not even give the perception of supporting the real evil - right wing politics.

Please send an approved list of sources of evidence of Islamic violence for this website to the moderators.

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 21:35:17 UTC | #914302

''s Avatar Comment 29 by '

Comment 24 by blitz442 :

So apparently I would have to listen to grumbling about why we can't get evidence from some proper people instead of discussing the crime.

The thing is blitz, there are a millions of propagandists out there in internet-land who want to promote thousands of competing agendas and world views. If we cannot critically test the reliability and veracity of sources, how can we hope to maintain a rational, evidence based stance? (Why not just accept the putative authority of the koran or the bible and accept their contents at face value?)

What I'm suggesting is that the selection of material is more circumspect so that we don't have to discuss the veracity and intention of the source, and we can concentrate on discussing the subject.

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 21:36:32 UTC | #914303

blitz442's Avatar Comment 30 by blitz442

Comment 25 by Steve Zara

It's a case of sourcing from reliable and neutral sources, just as one would for scientific material.

Can you explain what is inaccurate about this video? Does it misrepresent Islam?

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 21:36:34 UTC | #914304