29 Jan 2009

The Joy Of Violent Muslim Sex

By Ben Pobjie
Ben Pobjie explains why there's actually a lot to be said for Samir Abu Hamza's assertive approach to dealing with reluctant wives
It is typical of the ungratefulness of the Australian character that after years of struggling and blundering our way through our lives without a clear and concise guide to the correct way in which to discipline uppity women, when somebody does finally provide one, we do nothing but complain.

I am speaking, of course, of Muslim cleric Samir Abu Hamza, a man who has been much maligned in the press in the past week for what some have termed "controversial" views on marital relations. While I cannot hope to replicate Hamza's full course of instruction here, let me begin to abridge it by saying that he has been recorded on video telling his followers that it is acceptable to beat your wife, and that wives must always submit to their husbands' sexual demands.

Now, it is true that this is not the modern way. These days we tend not to hit our women — we have more civilised ways of keeping them in line, disabling them with such things as stiletto heels and soap operas.

But there are many complex issues at play here. Firstly, no matter what you think of Hamza's views, we have to be honest: women are a problem. They always have been, going back to Biblical times, when Eve sold Adam an apple for 30 pieces of silver, which led to him being eaten by a dinosaur. Most of human history has been the story of figuring out just what to do about women. Who are they? What do they want? What are those noises they keep making?

We tend to pretend things are otherwise, but friends, we can speak freely here, as I'm pretty sure women don't have computers. Women are indeed a riddle, wrapped in a bra, and it is understandable that a student of human nature like Samir Abu Hamza should seek ways in which to make them a little less vexatious. However, it must be said that his method may not necessarily be the best way to go about it. For one thing, some women are large and muscular, and if you hit them, they'll hit back.

The other big issue is Islam. Now Islam is, of course, one of the world's great religions, and it's become something of a craze in Australia. Everywhere you go, young folk are talking about Islam, holding rowdy Koran parties, wearing "Muhammad is the Shiznit" t-shirts. And it's because of people like Hamza, who make Islam relevant to the youth. Young people today want direction. They want moral guidance. They want sexual repression and luxuriant beards. This is what Hamza, and other prominent young Muslims like Keysar Trad and Paula Abdul, provide.

And so let's look at his comments. Are they really so bad, or has the reaction just been another case of the hysteria so common in today's manufactured-outrage, jump-up-and-down, take-offence-at-the-slightest-mention-of-the-joys-of-marital-rape society?

First, let's clarify a misunderstanding. Hamza did not say it was "OK" to rape one's wife; he said it was impossible to rape one's wife. "How can a man rape his wife?" he asked in that jolly way of his, and it should be noted that he was not asking for instructions, but saying a woman is required, under Islam, to submit to her husband whenever he desires sex.

This is of course the ultimate male fantasy — a woman ready to engage in passionless, unwilling intercourse upon demand. It's no wonder that Islam is the fastest growing religion among young males with low standards. As Hamza says, if a Muslim wife is "preparing the bread on the stove" and her husband cries out for a bit of pants-time, she must leave the stove immediately, scurry to the bedroom, and hoist the hijab. She must then be forced to attend a cookery class to learn that in this country, we make bread in the oven.

It is true that the view that a woman needs to put out whenever she's told to may not exactly be "politically correct", or "feminist", or "conducive to a fulfilling relationship", but please remember, Hamza's lecture was titled "The Keys to a Successful Marriage". A successful marriage. Not a happy marriage, or a fair marriage — a successful marriage. And in marriage as in life, you need discipline, and rules, and a grim determination to lie back and take what you're given. Hamza understands this; he has an innate grasp of gender relations rarely seen in Western society in the post-war period.

Next, let's look at the "beating". What did Hamza actually say? He said that as a "last resort", if your wife absolutely refuses to obey, you should give her a few crisp whacks to put your point across. You must not make her bleed, he emphasises, or bruise her, and you can only hit her on the hand or leg, not the head.

Now, does that really sound so violent? Let me ask you this, ladies: would you rather have a husband who hits you with moderate force on your limbs when he's out of ideas, or a husband who beats you to a bloody pulp every time you over-pepper the omelettes? Oh sure, I can hear you say, I'd really rather a husband who doesn't hit me at all. Well, I'd really like a weekend on Stradbroke Island with Nicola Roxon and a box of horse tranquillisers, but we don't all get what we want, do we? This is real life here, girls — time to quit dreaming. Given that men are inherently violent and enjoy destroying beautiful things, eventually your husband will hit you. If you want to turn your back on Islam and get your teeth knocked out, your choice.

And isn't it better that when men hit women, they hit them with a certain amount of love and genuine piety, rather than in a vicious, irreligious way? Isn't denying men the opportunity to throw a few haymakers at the fairer sex exactly the kind of bigotry towards alternative lifestyles that we're trying to stamp out in modern Australia? It's like Hamza says, "the beating that Mohammed showed is like the toothbrush that you use to brush your teeth". And it's true; beating your wife does give you a whiter, brighter smile.

In any case, it has now emerged that Hamza was speaking metaphorically and was not speaking of a physical assault, but a "wake-up call". Who owes who an apology now, Mr Rudd?

So let's boil it down: yes, it seems abhorrent to condone domestic violence and forced sex. But we are speaking here of Allah — or at least of Hamza's version of Allah — and of the opportunity for an eternity in paradise, should we please Him. And consider this: if you thump the missus a few times, and don't take no for an answer when it comes to the bedroom, and it turns out there is no God — why, what have you lost? Nothing; in fact you've had a pretty fun time. But if you don't bring the little lady to heel, and it turns out that Allah was indeed watching, he is going to be mighty angry with you. And Allah is no gentle Buddha or lovey-dovey Jesus.

Remember also that if Hamza is right, every good Muslims gets 72 virgins at the end of it all. Although, knowing how reluctant virgins can be, we'll probably have to touch them up a bit before we get anywhere. Jesus, I feel positively converted.

Look, I have no idea whether Islam is the one true faith, or simply a global scam perpetrated by the kebab industry. But I know that religious intolerance has got to stop in this country. I'm sick and tired of people hating others just because they wear different clothes, or follow different dietary habits, or have different uses for a toothbrush.

Any questions?

Log in or register to post comments

Discuss this article

To control your subscriptions to discussions you participate in go to your Account Settings preferences and click the Subscriptions tab.

Enter your comments here

Simon_B
Posted Thursday, January 29, 2009 - 15:46

Couldn't you have added a cartoon to the article as well? Only a metaphorical depiction of course.

kevin47
Posted Thursday, January 29, 2009 - 16:06

Ben

You seem to come from the Alexander Downer " wives that batter" school of humour. Beware, he lost his gig as a satirist and the Opposition leadership.

Took a long time to make rape in marraige a crime in Australia. I believe South Australia was the first State to legislate in 1976. Seems only yesterday.

Kevin Rennie
http://laborview.blogspot.com/

Dr Dog
Posted Thursday, January 29, 2009 - 17:40

Hey mate, whats wrong with good old Aussie marital violence? I don't need some foreigner telling me how to sink some cans and go home to take the yap out of the missus.

Them arabs are lucky anyway, with that hajib and all. No-ones gunna see the bruises at Centrelink with that get up on, thats for sure.

That Kevin bloke is a bit of a killjoy. Downer never really got it - he sounds like a poofter anyway.

(The views expressed in this email are the work of Dr Dog's financial advisor and in no way reflect the views of Dr Dog or his medical practice.)

rosross
Posted Thursday, January 29, 2009 - 19:29

Very droll. One could argue that violence toward women, like paedophelia, is not a suitable subject for ridicule but then I believe in free speech and nothing is sacred.
All religions are a tad mysoginistic and all fundamentalist religions are very mysoginistic whether they be muslim, christian, jewish or hindu .... even orthodox buddhist teachings hold that a woman pollutes the presence of a priest.
By all means let's speak out against such female-hating views but let's also speak out against the female-hating views you still find in christianity, judaism, hinduism and buddhism. One rule for all I say.
There's nothing in Hamza's comments that you can't find in any of the other orthodox religions... they are all to be condemned. Fundamentalist christian women have to wear certain clothes and have to look up to their husbands as superior, ditto for orthodox Jews ... in one group women have to shave their heads and wear wigs; ditto for hindus where misogyny is entrenched in deadly form because the society is less developed.
What really needs to be banned is any religion which demands that its members, male or female dress in a certain way, act in a certain way and ones that demand their children attend religious schools as fundamental Christians, Jews and Muslims do.
Then again, ban all religion and we would be on our way to solving the problem once and for all.

Dr David Horton
Posted Thursday, January 29, 2009 - 21:33

Two kinds of people in the world, those who believe no subject is off limits to satire, and those who don't. This was something of a litmus test for me to finally decide which group I belonged in, and I think I'm firmly in the latter group now.

Clearly Mr Hamza should be the object of contempt, but ridicule is not going to reach him. And it is clearly not going to reach those yobs in his "class" who were expressing their approval and agreement with grunts and cheers. Laughter I think can't be a response to this stuff, it's too serious for that.

If anyone could have done this it would be you Ben. But you couldn't.

Back to Andrew Bolt, Australia Day, and God, and I'm with you all the way.

This user is a New Matilda supporter. Rockjaw
Posted Thursday, January 29, 2009 - 21:50

And to think it was the Muslims who taught the barbaric europeans to respect both genders a thousand years ago.

Let's all raise our glasses and drink "to Chivalry and Chauvinism".

rosross
Posted Thursday, January 29, 2009 - 22:06

Rockjaw,
not quite. Islam was always a patriarchal religion despite the fact that Mohammad had a relatively 'modern' relationship with his older and very capable wife. Much of what he wrote came from his role as tribal leader.
The world has been patriarchal for about 5,000 years and mysogninistic because of it. The ancient Goddess religion was the last time that there was some equality of the sexes. Islam is a young religion, only 600 or soyears so not surprising it is the most mysoginistic. Although, look at the fundamentalist jews, christians and hindus and you find the same rot.

Anonymous (not verified)
Posted Thursday, January 29, 2009 - 23:59

rosross

Only 600 or so years??

huhh?

That timeline of yours places a lot of your Islamic opinion (and there does seem rather quite a lot of it¿) in some context!

Mohammed CA 570 - 632 . Thats 1377 odd years since dear old Mohammed's demise.

---------------------------------------------------------

Note that the Egyptian Bishops of Alexandria under Athanasius could not buy into the concept of homoousis in CA 381 nor could they accede to or buy into the Trinitarian concept the one-god, yet begotten-son stroke spirit package deal concept at the second ecumenical council of Nicene. [The dogma council which formulated and unified(?) Christian thought i.t.o. the protocol = Nicene Creed]

Massively insulted that the centre of Christian learning - Alexandria - was so snubbed Athanasius left the council - snubbed.

Within two hundred years - Islam emerged - almost virtual intact, as a clone / spawn of the religion of academic Christendom under Athanasius - with Jesus' role much diminished ( a lesser prophet ) more in accord with what the earlier Christian and Gnostic though would have had!

dunno4sure¿

BPobjie
Posted Friday, January 30, 2009 - 00:10

Don't know if he reads newmatilda anyway, David.

But be fair; don't rule out this as a subject for satire just because I couldn't manage it.

Anonymous (not verified)
Posted Friday, January 30, 2009 - 00:30

Rosross

Thus codified Christendom predates Islam by a mere two hundred odd years...

(Thoughts and concept transform slowly in the hot desert Arabian sun ...but not by much.)

But Islam included distinct Brahmanist thought too, which predates by some millennia, whereas Christendom borrowed heavily on the Pharaohnic Isis concept, and strong elements of the good/evil nexus of Zoroastic thought too.

Zoroastrianism as ancient a religion, and in accord with the Mithras male emphasis which so paralleled the Roman military hierarchy and structure and the Roman legions broad confront, and acceptance, with the belief system while in the middle east.

A fecund bedrock to the early Roman Church and the nestling to modern Christendom.

A happy Christian adoption - the origin of today’s Santa Claus!

Whoopee...

------------------------------------------------------------------

But in so far as violent-Islamic-sex - we digress!

Anonymous (not verified)
Posted Friday, January 30, 2009 - 00:50

BPobjietjie

NO... you've managed the subject rather quite well. :o))

------------------------------------------------------------

Possibly the most glossed over, unrealized and unrecognized social phenomenon in the modern western world was the control by western woman of their own fertility...

No one analyzed its likely impact before the fact and certainly no-one talks or analyses its huge impact after the fact. A Pope or two made a few grumbles ... but none were taken too seriously.

Take it that the modern western man inadvertedly took to the idea, as he doubtless got laid a whole lot more...without having to resort to the recurrent tedious beating of the babes.

It arguably has changed Western views on just about everything, and it slowly, slowly is catching on with the ladies in the middle-east whether the mullahs (and pugilists) like it or not.

A bit more sex, will likely divert the boys moral compass in their daily squint and squat from Mecca to the mattress!

...and then we should (all) have some peace!

-------------------------------------------------------------------

The poor frustrated bastards...may our thoughts be with them!

:o)

dunno4sure¿

Jacqueline Reidpath
Posted Friday, January 30, 2009 - 07:16

Okay, Ben...here's the thing:

Hamza's rantings have no place over here. Islam is HIS religion and it's only appropriate place is within the Islamic society.

Since when do women need to be taken to heel because the male, by mere 'privilege' of his existence, says that's the way it is and should be? That may wash in his supremely arrogant, chauvinistic way of thinking but it will never wash with mine.

I think you stepped WAY OVER the line here when you put 'satire' and rape of women as justified by religion in the same breath. That is one of the most insulting gaffes I have heard since Hamza said it himself. It is people like him that have scumbags like those fetid Muslim articles who gang rape women and then brag about it because Islam syas it is okay to degrade women because they are 'men'.

I am as broadminded as most people here but trying to laugh off a serious crime such as rape and battery is absolutely disgusting and just brands you as a typical, blokey, Aussie male who thinks it's okay to laugh and joke about it because you've alnalysed it all in your own warped way and have gained fals security as a male for having done so.

Get with the programme, Ben, unfunny writer of less-than-pseudo-satire - the first half of your article was quite obviously aimed at the guys and that tells me whose side you are on. This is one you can probably have a good fat-chewing session over with your mates; over a few beers down at the local.

There is absolutely son excuse for denigrating women because of race or creed. And because a no-name, unimportant, insignificant excuse for a man says it's okay because Islam says that a woman's place is to serve her husband, that is, be a bed mate and brood mare for the rest of her life and forfeit all her rights as an individual and a woman because by default, Muslim men have the final say.

BULLSHIT. There is absolutely NO JUSTIFICATION for that archaeic and neanderthal behaviour. Women are not animals, they are not deaf/mutes, the great majority have considerably more grey matter than some males which is why no 'macho male' likes to acknowledge the emancipation of women. This is the 21st century or are you planning on justifying another'religion'?

O C K E R I S M...

The self-satisfaction of males who think this way live in their own limited myopic fantasy land if they think that this kind of teaching is okay because a pillar in the Muslim society said it is.

How you can even sit there and troll out this crap, justify it and expect others to, Ben, absolutely staggers me. Take your bloody neanderthal club and beat it somewhere else.

Especially when you look around you and realise what sort of company you are in here - INTELLIGENTSIA.

So don't insult mine with chauvinistic pseudo-humour like this, that went out with the Stone Age.

Take your bloody neanderthal club and go beat it somewhere else.

Dr Dog
Posted Friday, January 30, 2009 - 09:55

Here's the thing for me, and the reason I joined Ben on his awful rant. Satire often (very often in Mr Pobjie's case) relies on the exaggeration of traits, rhetoric or behaviour in order to highlight the absurdity, the sheer ridiculousness of the stance taken.

It may be a bit shocking. I was so shocked at my ability to channel ignorant Aussie mysogeny I wrote a disclaimer at the end of my post. At least Ben was more courageous than me.

All this aside I am reasonably sure that Ben's piece does nothing to promote sexual violence toward women. This is the point of the satire, surely, to say one thing with a massive wink at the audience, in order to state the opposite.

Can anyone really think that this piece of writing could or would be used to justify or encourage sexual violence? Some might say, including some of the elder statemen of satirical humour, that if it didn't make us uncomfortable it isn't satire.

If, as claimed by Jacqueline, this website is patronised largely by INTELLIGENCIA (a claim ripe for satire itself) surely they are able to read the word satire at the top of the page. It should then be a doddle to infer that Ben doesn't really mean all those nasty things he has written, and that he might himself be against sexual violence.

If it was all just Angrew Bolt, Australia Day and God then I would be writing in to say Ben is hoplessly soft and could I please have his job. Good on you Ben, go harder.

Anonymous (not verified)
Posted Friday, January 30, 2009 - 10:40

PBotjietjie

[ O.M.G. !]

[ A freshette / fleshette from the sorority has - despite you being pretty sure women don't have computers - transmogrified into the ether and - no pun intended - logged on!

Most girls just paddle around, but this one, swims like a man!

Tis not a pretty site / sight! ]

"Oh boy! Hell hath no fury, brother ..."

dunno4sure¿

kevin47
Posted Friday, January 30, 2009 - 11:08

I'm still in the "no subject is off limits to satire" camp. I'm not sure that irony (or sarcasm for that matter) without humour is real satire. It's a tough subject to hold up to ridicule. But keep trying.

Kevin Rennie
http://laborview.blogspot.com/

rosross
Posted Friday, January 30, 2009 - 11:25

denko,
sorry. I meant to say 600 years younger than christianity and judaism. mea culpa. I always have the 600 in my head but got the phraseology wrong.

rosross
Posted Friday, January 30, 2009 - 11:26

I am writing too fast. must go and do other things. 600 years younger than christianity and younger than judaism.

Anonymous (not verified)
Posted Friday, January 30, 2009 - 12:06

rosross

600 - the other way¿

Oh yeh?

No problem ...:o)

--------------------------------------------------

In that vein <strike> Athanasius </strike> for Arius ... *blush*

dunno4sure¿

GraemeF
Posted Friday, January 30, 2009 - 12:20

Kevin Rennie suggest 1976 and SA as the first place to ban rape in marraige which is definitly recently. As for 'uncovered meat' a search of rape cases in Australia will uncover many instances of defence and perpetrators trying to prove 'she asked for it' by dressing provocatively. It is so easy to find a similar mindset amongst non-muslims in contemporary times that I wonder at the reasoning for the Daily Terror dragging up an old story. Must have had a slot left for targeting minorites and a dearth of new material. Can you imagine them doing a story on the Exclusive Bretheren and their weird practices? It wouldn't go down as well with their chosen demographic and the Bretheren would take action against them where as the Islamic community has to take it on the chin or be seen to be 'other' than Australian.

As for it being a topic of satire, I prefer my satire to be amusing and this didn't tickle my sense of humour but it is still a valid topic.

Jacqueline Reidpath
Posted Friday, January 30, 2009 - 13:00

Actually I was wondering the same thing that you did, GraemeF:

Why drag this old subject up again, unless Ben here needed a quick filler through mental block or something.

My sense of humour is pretty broad but it doesn't extend to wisecracking about crimes against women. Likewise vice versa.

Gee, Denko...'freshette/fleshette'?...'transmogrified into the ether'?
...'this one swims like a man'? Give me a break. Now it's your turn at satire.

This is a subject I responded to when this story first came out so I remember the reactions then (adverse), so much so that ninemsn weren't taking any more comments. There more against than for which is why it ran into over 1100 responses.

It was not joked about then, tongue-in-cheek or otherwise and was in bad taste to try and satirise now.

I am all for satire and will give credit where credit is due but not in this instance.

Jacqueline Reidpath
Posted Friday, January 30, 2009 - 13:37

LiamJeremiah, this is indeed what I was referring to.

One good thing to emerge from Muslim women in Australia is that they have broken out of that mold and refuse to conform because they respect their individual rights.

And they didn't find it amusing either.

A poll shows that there are 86%(4904) against and 13%(770)for Hamza's rantings:

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/poll/display/1,22024,5037860-2862-0,00....

Just today there have been 7501 views of Hamza's video.

Evidently he is telling inquisitors who call him that he is not making any more comments about it.

I wonder why?

Anonymous (not verified)
Posted Friday, January 30, 2009 - 13:53

Okay Jacqueline

Here's a thing ... (While you freely feel indignant, and I share your sense of indignation too.)

Your quote "<strong>Hamza’s rankings have no place over here. Islam is HIS religion and it’s only appropriate place is within the Islamic society.</strong>"

Surely your sense of moral temporal space and place is questionable¿

Do you imply that mortal (wo)man will is not capable of choosing good or evil without divine aid.

So rape is okayed while under the pergola of Islam?

Or perhaps then under the shrine of Eve's original sin, within the synagogue of orthodox Leviticus, the pantheon of Persephone, the tabernacle of African Animism, or down the 365 temple steps of a Mayan pyramid, ought then logically follow and be summarily okayed too!

But just not --> here <-- upon the alter or place of your garden gnome that resides in the temporal space of your personal backyard?

But why then, pray not --> there <-- upon the hood or backseat of an Immaculate Camel¿

Surely ...

Och mon, that Pelagius wid only thee fare lassie redeem!

dunno4sure¿

scottmitchell
Posted Friday, January 30, 2009 - 15:05

"One good thing to emerge from Muslim women in Australia is that they have broken out of that mold and refuse to conform because they respect their individual rights."

Thank god this didn't happen in some little brown country like Lebannon in a city like Beirut, where women stay in doors and keep quiet.

Luckily it happened in a comsopolitan, civilised place where strong, professional women like Bec Hewitt are the norm.

Harry
Posted Friday, January 30, 2009 - 15:22

Harry Morton Ben puts tongue in cheek and some people object. Grow up. Others give excellent insights into religions. Ben should be very pleased with the whole result.

Ringo
Posted Friday, January 30, 2009 - 20:40

Well said Harry.

Jacqueline, I can't imagine a greater mis-reading of this. Seriously, repeat after me: tongue-in-cheek.

David Morton - what next? A list of acceptable satire subjects?

Dr David Horton
Posted Friday, January 30, 2009 - 22:00

No, not a list, but it's immediately obvious when something isn't suited to satirical treatment. And I don't think abuse of women is funny. Nor do I think it appropriate for men to be saying that there is something wrong with women if they can't see the humour. That is so often the scenario isn't it? Next thing you know some of these minority ethnics will be saying they can't see anything funny in racist jokes done satirically. What is the world coming to eh, don't these people know that WE will decide what is funny and what isn't?

BPobjie
Posted Saturday, January 31, 2009 - 00:10

I don't drink beer.

Muhammad forbids it.

BPobjie
Posted Saturday, January 31, 2009 - 00:11

I hope you'll still give me another chance, David and Graeme.

BPobjie
Posted Saturday, January 31, 2009 - 01:05

"Okay, Ben…here’s the thing:"

That was way more than one thing, Jacqueline. Try to be more accurate in future.

And thanks for reading!

benmcd
Posted Saturday, January 31, 2009 - 01:41

Dear Jacqueline,

Before criticizing the article, perhaps you should decide whether this is advocating violence and thus not satire or satirizing violence yet not being an appropriate topic for satire. Arguing both at the same time makes you look a bit less than literate.

Just trying to help,
Ben McD.

benmcd
Posted Saturday, January 31, 2009 - 01:49

P.S. There is a difference between "funny because it's so true" jokes (like observational humor) and "funny because it's so false" jokes (like satire). They are, in fact, opposites.

Dr David Horton
Posted Saturday, January 31, 2009 - 08:03

Just one more chance, and that's it, Ben, finished. Now, what were you saying about Piers Akerman?

Jacqueline Reidpath
Posted Saturday, January 31, 2009 - 12:02

benmcd, believe it or not, I do see the difference between satire and advocating violence. And I can assure you, the one thing I am not is illiterate. Don't use that excuse because you can't countenance my difference of opinion.

That I have a different view of what is acceptable or what should be off limits with satire is what I was trying to point out. I never said Ben was advocating violence towards women, just that he was advocating what Hamza said; there is a difference. Who was arguing both at the same time, get off the grass, I'm not going to get into the why's and wherefore's of what I said. It is there for everybody to read, read it and accept that vive la difference and that's it.

By the way, Ben Pobjie - my opening remark was a figure of speech, as a journalist I am amazed you had to call that into question but oh dear, I forgot...this is SATIRE.

David Horton actually got exactly what I was saying, there are some topics that shold be taboo and if they are only meant for blokey type humour, don't expect women to share your sense of humour. I will have my say and if you don't like it, then so be it, I won't lose any sleep over it.

denko, the theme of my comment was my disagreement with this topic being an object of satire. If you take my words out of context and start nit picking with me you are going to get nowhere.

And what on earth was that babble about Eve and Leviticus, ad nauseum (I don't want to know)...I will tell you what I told alphacrucis on another thread, I am not going to enter into a slanging match with you or anybody else on this board about my opinions.

The purpose of my comment was to air my grievances about what is funny to some is not funny to someone else.

Seems pretty straight forward to me.

jperkins
Posted Saturday, January 31, 2009 - 18:35

Satire is fine but lets look ar the basis of the Muslim conundrum. The Koran says at 4:34 (Dawood translation):

"Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them, forsake them in beds apart, and beat them."

Hamza is just diligently following his reigion, like billions of other believers. Rather than satirising individuals, it would be better to satirise the whole practice of blind faith, whatever the faith.

Reason and evidence provide the only path truth. Faith is a path to arbitrary delusion. If religions were true, they would not be religions.

Bob Karmin
Posted Saturday, January 31, 2009 - 18:59

I didn't think I could laugh about something like this but Mr Pobjie has proved me wrong. So thanks, Ben.

Pay no mind to the varied contortions of misplaced outrage expressed in the comments above. Explaining the punch-line (pardon the pun) kind of defeats the purpose. I think this is one for the pool room Ben.

BPobjie
Posted Saturday, January 31, 2009 - 21:12

So just so that I can be absolutely clear (being so blokey and beer-addled, I am a little slow on the uptake), this is what your complaints boil down to, Jacqueline:

The above article is bad because:

a) It is making fun of what Hamza said, which is inappropriate

AND

b) It is advocating what Hamza said.

So your main problem is with my simultaneous mockery of and agreement with Hamza in the above article, is that it?

"why’s and wherefore’s"

Apostrophes to denote plurals? Not very literate, Jacqueline. Try to be more literate in future.

"By the way, Ben Pobjie - my opening remark was a figure of speech, as a journalist I am amazed you had to call that into question"

Ah, I think I just located the problem.

scottmitchell
Posted Saturday, January 31, 2009 - 23:23

Jperkins,

Islam is the only monotheistic religion not to blame 'original sin' in the garden of Eden on women.

"Satan enticed both of them" [2:36]

And the first to instate the right of women to work and keep all that they earn themselves.

"Men have been blessed with certain qualities which women lack and women are endowed with certain abilities which men do not have. Both men and women can earn and own. Men shall have what they earn and women shall have whatever they earn" [4:32]

It gave women the ability to negotiate contracts, receive inheritance and said that men and women, being equal, can both be enlightened.

All vital moral movements in the middle ages. Especially compared with the treatment of women in the other Abrahamic religions at the time.

I will not contest your quotation (no matter how much context has been removed, it does essentially speak to physical restraint or admonishment). But if you take that to speak to modern Islam then why not take the even more immoral, reprehensible and sexist quotations in the bible and the torah to speak to the beleifs of modern Christians and Jews.

Dr David Horton
Posted Saturday, January 31, 2009 - 23:32

Excellent satire from scottmitchell - see Ben, it is possible.

benmcd
Posted Sunday, February 1, 2009 - 02:40

Jacqueline,

I apologize for assuming that you didn't want to look stupid by making no sense. Carry on.

Ben McD.

Anonymous (not verified)
Posted Sunday, February 1, 2009 - 11:53

Err

Dear Jacqueline, Huh?

You say your opening remark <em>Hamza’s rantings have no place over here. Islam is HIS religion and it’s only appropriate place is within the Islamic society. </em> was err ... --> only <-- a figure of speech.

Well then my dear - if only we had realised!

You are righteously --> absolved <-- [Passes a W.I.S.E. approved and sterilized quantum of euphemistic absolution through the ether to the un-misogynist who transmogrified to our left...][Makes fisted upper-cut feminist sign!]

"There, there ... relax!"

"Its no worse than a mild UTI ..."

"But it will attenuate ... after awhile! Just please! - Don't scratch..."

----------------------------------------------------------------

What figure of speech is your opening remark, then ? Err ... exactly?

Doubtless not some devious antithesisical scheme nor fiendish anti-allegoric trope?

Thankfully Hamza too are --> only <-- <a "href=http://www.thefreedictionary.com/metaphor"> metaphorical...</a> we are told.

So too exonerated by figure of speech!

Hamza = Jacqueline = ad idem = metaphorically speaking...(and well literally, too)

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/wife-beating-metaphor/2009/01/22/123...

Thank YWH!

---------------------------------------------------------------

b.t.w. if SATIRE --> is not <-- a figure of speech, it certainly is persuasive appeal that fits the ambit of <a href="http://rhetoric.byu.edu/Figures/D/diasyrmus.htm">diasyrmus </a> and a valid tool too, whether it pisses off your odd sense of decorum.

... or not!

----------------------------------------------------------------

post b.t.w What makes Jacqueline the special arbiter to valid objects of satire und das Vays & Meanz auf der Fuerher of Geisteswissenschaften and well, the HER of hermeneutics…

Oh boy!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
[Remember - don't scratch!]

rowena
Posted Sunday, February 1, 2009 - 11:57

I think your piece is wicked, Ben - a clever spoof with some inspired touches, swiping so many sexist, bigoted and ignorant targets all in one go.

But judging by a lot of comments here, it is way too subtle for some who have trouble even spelling the main theme as I see it: misogyny and its ubiquity. A bit too close to the bone?

The ghost of Sir Les Patterson still haunts his more genteel descendants, but they don’t recognise him sober. In vino veritas?

alliewonder
Posted Sunday, February 1, 2009 - 12:20

I cannot BELIEVE that people are still reading Ben's articles and taking them seriously! They think gypsy blood keeps away Jews too, don't they?
How on earth is he advocating Hamza's words?! Can't you read and understand that Ben is ridiculing - as rowena says - the sexist, bigoted and ignorant people who follow/believe what Hamza has said?
Spot on, Ben. Made me laugh and realise what losers Hamza and his followers really are. And as a woman I'm not at all offended by what is obviously in support of women, and against domestic violence and misogyny.

Anonymous (not verified)
Posted Sunday, February 1, 2009 - 12:36

<strike>Hamza too are </stike> = Hamza too <strong>is</strong>

Isn't is'nt 'isnt 'insnt' it¿ [Furtively glances about for (the) grammar police...]

What¿ They've ellipsed again...

<sup>dunno4sure¿</sup>

rowena
Posted Sunday, February 1, 2009 - 16:37

As I see it Ben's satire is directed at misogyny and its denial in mainstream Australia generally, not just in one religion. Denial being a key issue here.

I agree with those who have said misogyny is akin to racism, and should be treated with equal care, which it typically is not.

Misogyny is so far below the radar in Australia that attempts to bring it out can get swept away in a sea of red herrings.

BPobjie
Posted Sunday, February 1, 2009 - 23:22

David, I am suitably chastened. Honest.

thehays
Posted Monday, February 2, 2009 - 07:14

Good stuff Ben.

To the Naysaysers who just want more Piers/Bolt/GWB bashing, while it would be fun to ridicule Piers Akerman, Andrew Bolt and George W. Bush from now until the end of time, where is the challenge?

Jacqueline Reidpath
Posted Monday, February 2, 2009 - 07:24

denko, get a life.

I told you you will get nowhere insulting me but you had better be careful not to go too far. A UTI? Don't scratch? That's disgusting and offensive. Get used to the fact that not everybody is going to agree with you, dunno4sure[with that upside down question mark]. My OPENING REMARK was: "Okay, Ben...here's the thing". Sounds like an opening remark to me so get your facts straight.

And I would look to your style of writing (mostly doesn't make sense in the normal literary fashion) - dunno4sure, yes, you got that right (dunno4sure). You and alphacrucis should start up your own orchestra and you two could be the entire trumpet section [too late]!

Ben, Ben, Ben...methinks thou art a little vexed with my remarks.
Oh, in that case I'd better correct my grammar...'whys and wherefores'...There you go, dear. If you write something I can laugh at next time, I'll let you know.

The purpose of my comment was to air my grievances about what is funny to some is not funny to someone else.

Vive la difference.

Anonymous (not verified)
Posted Monday, February 2, 2009 - 13:12

Jacqueline

Okay your quote "Okay, Ben…here’s the thing:"... [and err, the thing is --> drum-roll <-- ]

<em>Hamza’s rantings have no place over here. Islam is HIS religion and it’s only appropriate place is within the Islamic society.</em> <-- (Followed by a bunch of other 'things', twixt diverse raving and rantings of your own.)

Huh¿

That is (sp¿) the thing.

That's(sp¿) all your why's and wherefore's of your thing !

The thing is, your thing is deeply insulting, not only, as is most likely, to all who would subscribe to Islam, but to those other’s (sp¿) who believe human values and ethics can, and ought be derived and forged outside the paddock of divine providence.

That's / thats (sp¿) the sense of it ...

You geddit¿

…Yet?
-----------------------------------------------------------

So you would define BOTH the 'valid objects of satire' AND 'normal literary fashion', as well¿

Gee - you do take on a significant load and rather do seem to accumulate such a lot of water! Absolution will be painful‼

--------------------------------------------------------------

Alphacrucis and I to fill the orchestral trumpet sector? Oh yeah?

You do seem to have the exclusive cadence, tempo and quality to conduct all things righteous‼

We need a big / bigot conductor - d'you (sp¿) care to join¿

--------------------------------------------------------------

Finally. Please, if you would - what figure of speech, exactly¿

===============================================================

Okay here's my thing, I consider being purposefully insulting = wrong?

[Note The adoption of algebraic symbol = 'departure from conventional literary fashion'...(oops, and so like, once again!)]

Yet as you insult, aggrieve and inflame that easily you are a pushover object to toy, tool and twaddle. I could not, God help me, but wrangle and wrought with your angstrom thin sense of self-righteous grievance.

I have no right to do so ... it is inappropriate to twaddle, toy and tool anyone's (sp) object.

So, sorry! [ Adopts a Ruddian pose of solemn sincerety ... ]

So, sincerely very, very sorry ...

There - its all better now! Lets move on.

dunno4sure¿

Jacqueline Reidpath
Posted Monday, February 2, 2009 - 14:07

denko, accept that my opinion is different from yours and that's the end of it. Don't waste your time nit picking with me any more.

Agree to disgree that you find this article funny and I don't.

Geddit??