Destroying the face of Womanhood. :( (disturbing imagery warning)

[Badran]

forgive us for coming to the conclusion that it is something to do with Islam. My conclusion is that if Muslims made more of an effort to actually understand Islam and proliferate that understanding then none of us would be under any missunderstang now would we. You see, if we are misinformed than what are the Taliban? After hundreds of years of Islam being in Afghanistan they dont Actually know what Islam is ,so how are we supposed to know.


A collection of Taliban “night letters” to Afghan women *|*Let Us Build Pakistan

This further proves my point Kai. They are threatening in the most childish and disgusting way. They are threatening people not to do something that is a requirement in Islam. If one learns about Islam it would be easy to see that these people do not represent the teachings of Islam at all. If we take each extremist's statement or action as a representative of his religion, group or whatever we'd be left with nothing to be spared. Any kind of group would be considered bad.

The Taliban have no problem of information, its not about that at all. There are many reasons why people would intentionally twist a religion to fit their ideas and aspirations.

 

[waitasec]

Is every thing we say is being ignored?

Where does the quran tell people to cut off women's noses?

please explain where these extremists are getting these ideas from

 

[kai]

Actually Kai, this further proves my point. They are threatening in the most childish and disgusting way. They are threatening people not to do something that is a requirement in Islam. If one learns about Islam it would be easy to see that these people do not represent the teachings of Islam at all.

The Taliban have no problem of information, its not about that at all. There are many reasons why people would intentionally twist a religion to fit their ideas and aspirations.

sure! i know that they twist every thing to enforce their own will on the people , the fact that they are using Islam to aid them should be of grave concern to Muslims, because it portrays Islam in a certain light to those that dont know any different, and unfortunately a lot of those people that dont know any different are Muslims

 

[Badran]

and yet to consider them Muslims inextricably links them to you whether you like it or not. yes they are criminals ,but criminals with a political goal and Muslim criminals with a political goal ---see what i mean?

Yes but merely being a muslim or ascribing to any group, doesn't make you a representative of its goals and codes.

 

[Badran]

please explain where these extremists are getting these ideas from

How would i know? What i do know, is that its not from Islam, because its not there. They are making it up.

 

[kai]

Yes but merely being a muslim or ascribing to any group, doesn't make you a representative of its goals and codes.

arent all Muslims ambassadors or representatives of their faith? after all a Taliban once said of President Clinton calling thier treatment of women a terrible perversion of Islam.

"Any criticism regarding Afghanistan's Muslims and women's rights should come from a Muslim. This Clinton is not a Muslim and does not know anything about Islam and Muslims."

 

[kai]

In this regard, it is necessary first to appreciate the imagined Islam of the Taliban as an act of construction rather than reversion. Doing away with hundreds of years of jurisprudence of Classical Islamic law, of administrative procedures and methods of reasoning, of sources of law and juristic analysis, the Taliban has redefined Sharia as a performative tableau rather than a jurisprudential exercise. An entire judicial system thus is reduced to the application of hadd punishments, floggings, beatings and amputations. Thus the Qazi, arguably the most integral of those involved in justice provision, is nearly always invisible, while the crowd, the victim and those meting out a punishment play a central role. Justice is redefined as a means to subjugate and punish, with the entire collective crowd partaking in its pornographic enactment. There is no mention of the basis of the Islamic law applied, the deliberations which led to the application of the punishment, or any form of legitimacy that would associate the punishment with being Islamic. It is instead the anti-modernity of the whole spectacle, the absence of institutional safeguards, that makes the scene Islamic. The calculation is simple and persuasive: the more visibly different from the epithets of modernity that the Taliban can be, the more automatically Islamic it becomes.

Taliban: A Response To Modernity

 

[Aquitaine]

A cheap shot? how so?

Our story and the haunting cover image by the distinguished South African photographer Jodi Bieber are meant to contribute to that debate. We do not run this story or show this image either in support of the U.S. war effort or in opposition to it. We do it to illuminate what is actually happening on the ground.

from the article:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2007269,00.html#ixzz0vouc6ity

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2007269,00.html#ixzz0vzpZGb00


No one is fighting a war to reduce the suffering of women, its a by-product of that war that a misogynistic bunch of thugs are prevented from jackbooting the whole country. and do you have any sources for this kind of thing happening in the UK?

Regardless of what they have stated, the eye-catching headline (which most people who don't even read the article will see) says: "What happens if we leave Afghanistan". Most people who will see that magazine cover on the shelf will read that headline and thus conclude that it is a justification for our continued prescence in the region, and if we leave, this will happen.

It is thus a rather cheap propaganda shot like how Lava mentioned. Doesn't mean I'm condoning this type of behavour or anything, but they're hijacking tragedy and using it as a cover for war support - regardless of what they say.

As for this type of stuff happening in the UK:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1221077/Katie-Piper-Acid-attack-victim-bravely-shows-face-disfigured-boyfriend-Daniel-Lynch.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1201625/Cheating-wife-face-honour-killing-acid-poured-lovers-throat.html

Rape, Murder, Mysogyny, acid-throwing and general Crime also exists in the UK y' know.

 

[Badran]

sure! i know that they twist every thing to enforce their own will on the people , the fact that they are using Islam to aid them should be of grave concern to Muslims, because it portrays Islam in a certain light to those that dont know any different, and unfortunately a lot of those people that dont know any different are Muslims

I understand. And you have no idea how a grave concern it is to me that these horrible things happen, and also that it happens under the name of my religion.

arent all Muslims ambassadors or representatives of their faith? after all a Taliban once said of President Clinton calling thier treatment of women a terrible perversion of Islam.

"Any criticism regarding Afghanistan's Muslims and women's rights should come from a Muslim. This Clinton is not a Muslim and does not know anything about Islam and Muslims."

Yes but when it is showed that those possible muslims are not following the teachings of the religion, they cease to be representatives of it. At least on those actions that are contradicting with the teachings. But like i said, i understand what you mean that according to someone who doesn't know much, they are just as muslims as anybody else. I'm mainly talking about people who know better, and after they are presented with the counter arguments against Taliban and the like.

For the quote, i would guess that merely being a non-muslim according to Taliban would discredit anything you say.

However, yes it is our responsibility to denounce what they do, and clarify that they are criminals, and that they do not follow the teachings. And i think at least some muslims are doing just that.

 

[neves]

(article below)

Why? HOW does a religion get twisted
so brutally against women?
What possible justification can there POSSIBLY BE
for such unspeakable cruelty?
I realize of course that any'thing,
any religion or ideal or philosophy
can become twisted and warped
in the minds of the twisted and warped,
but I do not see this kind of warped coming from anywhere else.
Christianity does not seem to produce this kind of horror
in psycologically ill/mentally warped Christians for example.
So WHY Islam?
Why do your men have so many issues with the face of womanhood?
Why do your issues with the face of womanhood,
literally DESTROY the face of womanhood,
in the hands of your fudamentalist psychos?
Are these Taliban really Islamic?...
the men in these countries so brutal to/controling of women?
WHY do they HATE women so much?
WHY do they THINK they OWN them? "their" women.
What leads them to even THINK such a thing?
To do whatever horrible things their pathetic minds concieve
to "keep them in line". To keep what they "own".
To keep what they seem to feel belongs to them.

What ARE the proported justifications for such a horror?
Does their religion somehow teach and justify such brutality?
Or are these butchers simply "donning" the name of a religion,
because they need something to justify the unjustifiable.

Can anyone explain this to me?
It is incomprehensable to me.

Such vitriolic violence against the innocent.

Brutality defiles the Beautiful.

Our cover image this week is powerful, shocking and disturbing. It is a portrait of Aisha, a shy 18-year-old Afghan woman who was sentenced by a Taliban commander to have her nose and ears cut off for fleeing her abusive in-laws. Aisha posed for the picture and says she wants the world to see the effect a Taliban resurgence would have on the women of Afghanistan, many of whom have flourished in the past few years. Her picture is accompanied by a powerful story by our own Aryn Baker on how Afghan women have embraced the freedoms that have come from the defeat of the Taliban — and how they fear a Taliban revival. (See pictures of Afghan women and the return of the Taliban.)

Read more: TIME Cover Depicts the Disturbing Plight of Afghan Women - TIME

"but I do not see this kind of warped coming from anywhere else."

we choose to see what we want to see...

Mutilated Christian girl, 10, forgives attackers

A Woman's Breasts Mutilated and Infected from Severe Electric Shock Torture by Masanjia Forced Labor Camp Guards (Caution: Graphic Photos) - Falun Dafa (Falun Gong) Clearwisdom.Net

McCain Volunteer Attacked And Mutilated In Pittsburgh News:Ashley Todd

Eradication Of Facial Mutilation In Moro LGA,Kwara - GlobalGiving

 

[waitasec]

a couple of things i found for you to explain...

#1
The Quran commands crucifixion and mutilation

The Quran in Sura 5:33 says:

5:33 Those who wage war against God and His Messenger and strive to spread corruption in the land should be punished by death, crucifixion, the amputation of an alternate hand and foot or banishment from the land: a disgrace for them in this world, and then a terrible punishment in the Hereafter . . . . (MAS Abdel Haleem, The Qur’an, Oxford UP, 2004)

It is important to realize that this verse comes in a legal context; Muhammad is laying down the law. The verse is not a parable or an illustration. It is intended to be carried out in real life, and it was then and it is today, as this article demonstrates.

In this verse, Allah says that the criminal who strives to spread corruption in the land can be (1) executed, (2) crucified, (3) mutilated, or (4) expelled. The problems lie in the second and third punishments. In crucifixion a criminal dies a needlessly painful death, and in mutilation (cutting off an alternate hand and foot), the criminal has no chance to redeem himself for the vague crime of corruption. It is one thing to execute a first-degree murderer, for example, but to torture him by crucifixion is unacceptable.

At first glance, the clause "those who wage war" denotes an offense much larger than a crime like murder. However, as we shall see, the historical context of this verse comes nowhere near a war, so the clause is overblown.

The key word, then, is "corruption." How should it be defined?

the corruption is being a christian "...a disgrace for them in this world, and then a terrible punishment in the Hereafter"

#2
Just as problematic for me was the patriarchalism of these verses. Menstruation is regarded as unclean and dirty. Wives are likened to fields and men are encouraged "to go into your fields whichever way you like." Fields are inert, passive - they lie there waiting for men's activity. And women are being compared with fields as possessions - "your" fields.

The sexism continues with husbands being explicitly given a "degree (of right) over" their wives but wives do not have a comparable right over their husbands.

is this where the extremists get their crazy ideas....

 

[kai]

Regardless of what they have stated, the eye-catching headline (which most people who don't even read the article will see) says: "What happens if we leave Afghanistan". Most people who will see that magazine cover on the shelf will read that headline and thus conclude that it is a justification for our continued prescence in the region, and if we leave, this will happen.

It is thus a rather cheap propaganda shot like how Lava mentioned. Doesn't mean I'm condoning this type of behavour or anything, but they're hijacking tragedy and using it as a cover for war support - regardless of what they say.

well would you rather it wasnt reportd at all? some people are happy to show ISAF civillian deaths as outragious and Taliban attrocities as western propaganda both are just as terrible and both should be reported.

As for this type of stuff happening in the UK:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1221077/Katie-Piper-Acid-attack-victim-bravely-shows-face-disfigured-boyfriend-Daniel-Lynch.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1201625/Cheating-wife-face-honour-killing-acid-poured-lovers-throat.html

Rape, Murder, Mysogyny, acid-throwing and general Crime also exists in the UK y' know.

Yeah i know, but not by any Political organisation with it in their manifesto for ruling the country is it Paul. Thats the difference

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The caption to the TIME magazine image reads: "WHAT HAPPENS IF WE LEAVE AFGHANISTAN." This implies that brutalization of women will not happen if NATO forces stay in Afghanistan. But the photo clearly demonstrates that brutalization of women occurs anyway, even with NATO forces present.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Yeah i know, but not by any Political organisation with it in their manifesto for ruling the country is it Paul. Thats the difference

I thought the woman pictured was butchered by her own relatives, not a political organization?

 

[kai]

The caption to the TIME magazine image reads: "WHAT HAPPENS IF WE LEAVE AFGHANISTAN." This implies that brutalization of women will not happen if NATO forces stay in Afghanistan. But the photo clearly demonstrates that brutalization of women occurs anyway, even with NATO forces present.

anyone who knows anything about the Taliban will know that this is exactly what will happen if we leave Afghanistan and it happens now because there are areas that the Taliban still operate in.


The debate was fueled in part by the language that Time chose to accompany the photograph: “What Happens if We Leave Afghanistan,” pointedly without a question mark.
“That is exactly what will happen,” said Manizha Naderi, referring to Aisha and cases like hers. An Afghan-American whose group, Women for Afghan Women, runs the shelter where Aisha stayed, Ms. Naderi said, “People need to see this and know what the cost will be to abandon this country.”

The New York Times > Log In


Women For Afghan Women

 

[kai]

I thought the woman pictured was butchered by her own relatives, not a political organization?

Our cover image this week is powerful, shocking and disturbing. It is a portrait of Aisha, a shy 18-year-old Afghan woman who was sentenced by a Taliban commander to have her nose and ears cut off for fleeing her abusive in-laws.

Read more: TIME Cover Depicts the Disturbing Plight of Afghan Women - TIME
​

 

[Badran]

a couple of things i found for you to explain...

#1
The Quran commands crucifixion and mutilation

The Quran in Sura 5:33 says:

5:33 Those who wage war against God and His Messenger and strive to spread corruption in the land should be punished by death, crucifixion, the amputation of an alternate hand and foot or banishment from the land: a disgrace for them in this world, and then a terrible punishment in the Hereafter . . . . (MAS Abdel Haleem, The Qur’an, Oxford UP, 2004)

It is important to realize that this verse comes in a legal context; Muhammad is laying down the law. The verse is not a parable or an illustration. It is intended to be carried out in real life, and it was then and it is today, as this article demonstrates.

In this verse, Allah says that the criminal who strives to spread corruption in the land can be (1) executed, (2) crucified, (3) mutilated, or (4) expelled. The problems lie in the second and third punishments. In crucifixion a criminal dies a needlessly painful death, and in mutilation (cutting off an alternate hand and foot), the criminal has no chance to redeem himself for the vague crime of corruption. It is one thing to execute a first-degree murderer, for example, but to torture him by crucifixion is unacceptable.

At first glance, the clause "those who wage war" denotes an offense much larger than a crime like murder. However, as we shall see, the historical context of this verse comes nowhere near a war, so the clause is overblown.

The key word, then, is "corruption." How should it be defined?

the corruption is being a christian "...a disgrace for them in this world, and then a terrible punishment in the Hereafter"

Well, while this part is actually unrelated to what i was saying, however since it bothers you i will explain it. The explanation provided here takes the verse out of context, and the conclusion is also not the case. You must put in mind what its talking about, which is clarified in the verse before it, and given in the verse after it a condition if met, the punishment is not to be done. Here are the three verses together:

32. On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.

33. The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;

34. Except for those who repent before they fall into your power: in that case, know that Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

#2
Just as problematic for me was the patriarchalism of these verses. Menstruation is regarded as unclean and dirty. Wives are likened to fields and men are encouraged "to go into your fields whichever way you like." Fields are inert, passive - they lie there waiting for men's activity. And women are being compared with fields as possessions - "your" fields.

The sexism continues with husbands being explicitly given a "degree (of right) over" their wives but wives do not have a comparable right over their husbands.

There is a thread just recently where those verses you're referring to where posted. Here is the post that answers them: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2108192-post83.html

is this where the extremists get their crazy ideas....

No, simply since non of this has anything to do with what they did in the subject of this thread. Not to mention that the like of what they did here is condemned by the majority of muslims, who also believes in the Quran, yet they don't get these crazy ideas.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Our cover image this week is powerful, shocking and disturbing. It is a portrait of Aisha, a shy 18-year-old Afghan woman who was sentenced by a Taliban commander to have her nose and ears cut off for fleeing her abusive in-laws.

Read more: TIME Cover Depicts the Disturbing Plight of Afghan Women - TIME
​

The actual act was carried out by her relatives:

The 18-year-old was reportedly given away by her family in childhood as a "blood debt" and was subsequently married to a Taliban fighter. His family abused her and she ran away but was recaptured and mutilated by her husband.
​

BBC News - Mutilated Afghan girl Aisha in US for new nose

It's not clear to me who "sentenced" her, some reports are saying her husband WAS a Taliban commander, other reports say he was a Taliban fighter.

She told the magazine that she was given away as a child to settle a so-called "blood debt" – her uncle killed one of her husband's relatives – and subsequently married to a Taliban commander. She fled following years of abuse but was captured and hauled before a Taliban commander who ordered the punishment. "Aisha's brother-in-law held her down while her husband pulled out a knife," the article said. "First he sliced off her ears. Then he started on her nose."
​

War in Afghanistan: Warning or blackmail? - World Politics, World - The Independent

Whoever "sentenced" her it seems pretty clear to me that no political organization had to be involved. Just tribal warfare and a family with a radical Islamic ideology.

 

[TashaN]

The actual act was carried out by her relatives:

The 18-year-old was reportedly given away by her family in childhood as a "blood debt" and was subsequently married to a Taliban fighter. His family abused her and she ran away but was recaptured and mutilated by her husband.
​

BBC News - Mutilated Afghan girl Aisha in US for new nose

It's not clear to me who "sentenced" her, some reports are saying her husband WAS a Taliban commander, other reports say he was a Taliban fighter.

She told the magazine that she was given away as a child to settle a so-called "blood debt" – her uncle killed one of her husband's relatives – and subsequently married to a Taliban commander. She fled following years of abuse but was captured and hauled before a Taliban commander who ordered the punishment. "Aisha's brother-in-law held her down while her husband pulled out a knife," the article said. "First he sliced off her ears. Then he started on her nose."
​

War in Afghanistan: Warning or blackmail? - World Politics, World - The Independent

Whoever "sentenced" her it seems pretty clear to me that no political organization had to be involved. Just tribal warfare and a family with a radical Islamic ideology.

Then aside from this horribe incident, can we safely say this poor woman tragedy was used as a pro-war propaganda?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Then aside from this horribe incident, can we safely say this poor woman tragedy was used as a pro-war propaganda?

I'm not sure. Yes and no. I don't agree with the caption that went with the photo. But the story itself is important for raising awareness about women's issues. And TIME magazine has traditionally been anti-war, they were against the Iraq war from the start, as I recall.