There's no job on earth nearly as important as raising your own children.

Trusting infants to strangers is lunacy. Anything happens to them, you'll never forgive yourself.

Once children get older, that's another matter. They enjoy playing with other children.

But prior to age 2? If you don't want to care for your own children, don't have them.

how many girls will be raped before this group is locked up. This isn't an Esther story and we've seen how these pervert groups work as they use the shield of God and the Bible to commit sin. With the help of perverts like Justice Scalia it's sad that it's making other men continue the evil acts.

They'd get along well with the Taliban, because they are no different.

Thank you for making the obvious comparison to radical Islam.

Let's see if we ever get honor killings. To be sure, they are in Deuteronomy

As PepperJade said: EWWWW. How would people react if a son did this for his mother? How desirable would he be as a future spouse or employee?

There comes a point when a young adult (in most Western societies, anyway) should leave his/her parents' home and learn to take care of him- or herself. It's a natural chapter in anyone's life. To tell your daughter that she can't/shouldn't take that step is to disable her and deny her of the opportunity--and responsibility--to grow up.

Might as well keep her in diapers.

SCHAFER-FAMILY, how is it that so many of the fundamentalist christians, the pat robertsons, the dominionists ... all of them claim that women are inferior to men, should be subservient to men, should completely suppress themselves in favor of men ... and then here you go saying it's not so.

Who are we to believe? It seems there are more of them than there are of you.

Why do you christians argue all the time over which part of your bible authorizes oppression, suppression, and repression of others, and which parts don't?

Do you kinda sorta get the point, SCHAFER-FAMILY? It's all crap.

The Bible does not say women are inferior to men.

Genesis 1:27 (New King James Version)

So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

I think American women do not understand how rare, privileged and fragile our freedoms in this country are. Even so, women still do not always earn equal pay for equal jobs, and are overlooked for management and administrative positions.

It is important to understand that religion has always and will always play a major role in casting women as subservient to the male in accordance wtih the patriarchal view of god. Sadly, many women who yearn for spiritual comfort and the security of conformity, continue to embrace such religions and work against their own liberation.

"Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean." (Leviticus 12:2)

"But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days." (Leviticus 12:5)

Genesis 1:27 (New King James Version)

So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

The Bible does not say women are inferior to men.

Genesis 1:27 (New King James Version)

So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Where in the Bible do you see that women are inferior?

How can anybody afford to stay home when most everybody is paid less and less, while banks take a larger portion of earnings in interest payments on everyday transactions than ever before in our history. (And usury is still unconstitutional, I don't recall anyone properly amending this prohibition.)

As for Marxism, being a religion...that statement just shows how little these two know about what they are writing about...or maybe they got too much opium of the masses to understand.

Women without education and workplace experience have no choices, because they cannot support themselves. That leaves them at the mercy of their husbands or fathers. They cannot leave unhealthy situations because they cannot afford to. Every woman (and man) should be able to be financially independent. Then they can live the lives they want -- including living in a very traditional household, if that is what they choose.

I doubt there really re very many many of these people, but you really have to be worried about the size of your male equipment to treat women this way, and I would be surprised if physical and sexual abuse isn't part of the program. As for the women, I think they need to remember that men die and desert their wives, and every woman needs to be prepared to earn a living. Indeed, some women never find husbands at all, or find husbands who lose their jobs and can't support a family. I as a taxpayer and working mother am certainly not at all interested in subsidizing these families when they get into trouble.

Ignorance is NEVER a good thing and no one should be actively dissuaded from pursuing an education. People can of course make their own choices and not everyone can or wants to go to college but a movement dedicated to discouraging it? It's just wrong.

This is probably irrelevant, but I can't resist...
A few years back I worked on a military base -- a somewhat (but not entirely) conservative environment. Traffic was heavy in the mornings, with quite a bit of jockeying. My best pal and I (minority liberals, both) used to quietly compare notes later in the day on traffic and bumper stickers (it was an election year).

The biggest cause for jubilation was for
each time we cut off one particular car on the way into our compound. It displayed not only a conservative political bumper sticker, but a bumper sticker reading:
"Patriarchy Builds Strong Families".

Yeah, I know we shouldn't have -- but it was sweet...

"We are also told of Aisha, Muhammad's wife after Khadijah's death, who led troops in battle and who is revered as a highly authoritative Islamic scholar."

Puhleese! Aisha was given to Mohammed as a child bride when she was only five years old. The daughter of Abu Bakr, she was given to Mohammed to seal the family ties, and to insure that the control of the religion would be given to Abu Bakr, instead of to Mohammed's son-in-law, Ali. This is the break between Sunni and Shi'ite Moslems to this day.

Mohammed, then over 50 years old, reportedly had sex with Aisha when she was nine or ten years old. This example is why child brides in Yemen, such as Nojoud Mohammed Ali, and in many other Moslem countries continue to be placed in the homes of older men. If child brides were OK with Mohammed, then it is OK for other old men.

Later, Aisha was accused of adultery.

That Aisha led troops into battle was after the death of Mohammed, and during the battle of Bassorah, when Moslems fought Moslems for the first time. Some say 10,000 Moslems died in the campaign.

In short, she became the type of woman that Mohammed warned against- a child sex gift, seductive, willful, and good at causing conflict among Moslems.

What "movement?" The only evidence of a "movement" I find is one author's book and reaction to it.

The difference between this and The Taliban, btw, unless I've missed something else, is that neither these girls nor anyone else are killing their neighbors or burning them out of their homes for failing to comply with their vision.

Ugh. Children should not be treated as possessions. Women are not objects. Everyone in this country has rights. Maybe the fathers and mothers of these girls should think about why they came to this country and the advantages that are here for their children. In other words, don't think about what is good for you, but rather what is good for your children.
"Taking care of" a father, who is not ill", is NOT what's best for the child; it's what's best for the parents.
Selfish parents.

EEWWWW

How quaint: 'Keep 'em ignorant, barefoot and pregnant' is coming back. How unAmerican to deprive anyone of the right and ability to be independent members of our society. What's next: Stepford wives? Or maybe The Handmaid's Tale?
Frankly, any group or movement that imposes inferiority and deprivation of rights should be against the law. That applies to all adults of any sex or physical ability or inclination. Honestly, these people must be stopped.
Where's the ACLU when we actually need it?

If this movement is tolerated in the U.S. as being an expression of individual freedom of choice, why are we criticizing the Afghans for their patriarchal, male dominated society? While perhaps using a velvet glove, we are coercing that nation to adopt the Western value of gender equality. If we can’t or won’t put pressure on the Christian patriarchy Movement to observe the West’s value regarding the status of women, why do we have the audacity to preach to the Afghans? Is it because we feel as conquerors we have a free hand to socially engineer a conquered country? As with bringing the troops home to protect our own border, why don’t we launch a campaign to disband our home grown Taliban? At the very least its members should be on the no-fly list. We need to extend our profiling to White Anglo Saxon Protestants, many of whom are as fanatical as any jihadi, and, by the way, are waiting and praying for the final jihad, i.e., Armageddon. As fanatical believers in the end of days and subjugation of women, they present a clear and present danger.

There does not appear to be much difference between this form of so-called "Christianity" and the Taliban. The education of girls and women promotes an active and stable economic system, which is sorely needed in the world.

I feel very sorry for these young girls. I do wish my own late mother had had the opportunity (as she really wanted) to work outside the home and had been compensated for the mighty work she did inside the home.

And as for the poster above who decried feminism as the worst of all evils, and responsible for all evils in the world on a macro scale and all evils to the "family" on a micro scale -- that post reveals one mighty insecurity. I am a very proud and active feminist (female) with tons of very fine and feminist men (straight and gay, btw) in my life, whom I love with all my heart (and which is returned) -- worldwide, I might add). Feminism saved my life, indeed.

I'm sorry, what? This really isn't true, is it?

How will they find husbands if they never leave their fathers's house?

Women in Saudi Arabia are not allowed to step outside the house without being accompanied by a close male relative.

(bangs head on computer monitor) There's no way in the name of all that's good and decent that the policy can be justified. That's almost worthy of an Underground Railroad to enable the nation's females to escape that tyranny.

The authors would probably stone them if they didnt

Sure. Why set women back to the '50's when you can set them back to the 1890's? Hopefully this is extremely isolated (as in isolated to the Westboro Baptist Church). I can't imagine anyone else letting *any* doctrine tell them to stop educating their girl or allowing her out in the world. Not to mention how it downplays the mother's influence and responsibility in parenting.

"...is a dangerous excuse for intellectual laziness"

Religion IS a dangerous excuse for intellectual laziness. Sorry to break this news to you but your Muhammad (greatest historical con artist, GHCA) will not guarantee your rights.

The religious have no chance to ensuring women's rights. Only us, the secular society, can possibly guarantee those rights. Something that people like Muhammad (GHCA) and any of the imams never did and never will.

If some women want to define themselves as being inferior to every man in the world, that is their right, I suppose. People exercise the right to make harmful decisions about their own lives all the time, and a lot of these decisions seem to involve religions.

Personally, I think their parents are victimizing these kids, but at least they'll have the time to reconsider later.

Sorry, but I disagree with the comment using the word "parasite". These women are following their religious beliefs. That said, I disagree with the edict completely and totally. The edict assumed that when the parents die, the woman will have sufficient means to survive or that other male relatives will step in and support her. If this is not the case, she is left stranded in a society she does not understand and has no means of self-support. That is not being a 'parasite" or "lazy". That is allowing a religious edict to place her survival in jeopardy.

Posted by: n01cat1

Of course the people following the dogma and the dogma itself are deserving of derision and negative judgment. This is the really the stupidest thing about religion. It demands undeserved respect from everyone. When such respect is not given, then accused of bigotry. The followers of religion feel they are absolved of any responsibility because they are following some stupid, even perhaps bigoted dogma and they should not be judged. It is in that context that I characterized them as parasites, which they will turnout to be, more than likely.

RELIGIOUS DOGMA ARE NOT ANY DIFFERENT THAN ANY POLITICAL OR PHILOSOPHICAL DOGMAS. JUST THE OTHER DOGMAS ARE JUDGED, SO WILL THE RELIGIOUS DOGMAS BE JUDGED. IT IS SHEER STUPIDITY TO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS SOME SKY-DADDY OR SKY-MOMMY THAT HAD PASSED THE DOGMA. GET OVER IT.

I hope the believers in this movement agree to refuse services or goods from any women who do not believe in their system. So, the next time you visit an emergency room, Starbucks, or choose to take a flight or simply go to Walmart, I hope you refuse to be waited on or helped, or administered to by women. After all, they're not following your doctrine. That means you can't visit your creationist museums either.

Sorry, but I disagree with the comment using the word "parasite". These women are following their religious beliefs. That said, I disagree with the edict completely and totally. The edict assumed that when the parents die, the woman will have sufficient means to survive or that other male relatives will step in and support her. If this is not the case, she is left stranded in a society she does not understand and has no means of self-support. That is not being a 'parasite" or "lazy". That is allowing a religious edict to place her survival in jeopardy.

A excellent write up by a Pakistani ex-Muslim on Islam and the Women:

http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/Younus_Sheikh/IslamWoman.htm

Younus spent three years on death row in Pakistan because of a charge of blasphemy. It took a lot of international pressure to get him out alive.

And then from the ahadeeth itself:
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/043.sbt.html#003.043.648

This hadith is when Muhammad's wives Hafsa (Umar's daughter) and the child bride Aiesha were admonished by Allah himself to not make trouble for Mo for sneaking around to see the slave Mariah. In it, Umar says:
I said: "Have you divorced your wives?' He raised his eyes to me and replied in the negative. And then while still standing, I said chatting: "Will you heed what I say, 'O Allah's Apostle! We, the people of Quraish used to have the upper hand over our women (wives), and when we came to the people whose women had the upper hand over them..."

Now in Arabia, in Yathrib or Medina, there were people whose women had the upper hand over them!! Pagan women were not oppressed or treated like little children as the present day Muslim women.

Then there is the famous hadith where Muhammad emphatically states that that any society which has its leadership under a woman will never progress. That and few others are used by Imams to prevent women from even leading the prayers in Islam.

There are Pagan women leaders mentioned in early Muslim History. One was Asma bint Marwan and as Ibn Ishaq reports she had the audacity of angering Muhammad and she said "do you expect good from (Muhammad) after the killing of your chiefs" and asked: "Is there no man of pride who would attack him by surprise/ And cut off the hopes of those who expect aught from him?"[1]

When this poem reached Muhammad's ears he called for her death in turn, saying "Who will rid me of Marwan's daughter?" Umayr bin Adiy al-Khatmi, a blind disciple of Muhammad's and a fellow member of the Banu Khatma tribe of Marwan's husband responded that he would. He crept into her room in the dark of night where she was sleeping with her five children, her infant child close to her bosom. Umayr removed the child from Asma's breast and murdered her, according to some stories from that time. Muhammad did not think her blood was worth anything and hence the killers did not even have to worry about blood money of the time.

Anyway, the status of Women in pre-Islamic Arabia was far far better than what is painted by Muslims (take a look at Chronology of women's history by Kirstin Olsen). Arab women had freedom and could be leaders of their tribes. This all disappeared after the advent of Islam, and today the woman's status is confined to the body shroud called burkha or niqab.

Believe 'IT' or not;

WE[i] Always Love Ye/Yo's [onfaith] BLOGGER-FREUNDS (By Any Monikers). Soo,

Huggs-n-a-kiss's to ALL YE/YO Brothers & da Sisters. AND
.
..
...
╔╗─╔╗
║║─║║
║╚═╝╠══╦══╦══╦╗─╔╗
║╔═╗║╔╗║╔╗║╔╗║║─║║
║║─║║╔╗║╚╝║╚╝║╚═╝║
╚╝─╚╩╝╚╣╔═╣╔═╩═╗╔╝ EVERY-DAY
───────║║─║║─╔═╝║
───────╚╝─╚╝─╚══╝ LiKE A
╔══╗───╔╗╔╗───╔╗──────╔╗
║╔╗║──╔╝╚╣║───║║──────║║
║╚╝╚╦╦╩╗╔╣╚═╦═╝╠══╦╗─╔╣║
║╔═╗╠╣╔╣║║╔╗║╔╗║╔╗║║─║╠╝
║╚═╝║║║║╚╣║║║╚╝║╔╗║╚═╝╠╗
╚═══╩╩╝╚═╩╝╚╩══╩╝╚╩═╗╔╩╝
──────────────────╔═╝║
──────────────────╚══╝
...
..
.
Credits "JJ" http://onwapo.wordpress.com/

That's not to say that women don't have rights. Islam was the first religion to recognize the right of women to own their own property, unlike Christianity, Hinduism and other previous religions which regarded women themselves AS property to be owned.

This is utter nonsense. In pre-islamic Arabia women were already property owners. Perhaps the islamic tradition is mere continuation of the same. The fact that Khadija was the employer of thta illiterate bedouin is proof enough of it. The exegesis about Islam is not whether it predates other religions in recognizing the women's right to property. It is the fact that it has stayed static since then thanks to the rigidity of Islamic scripture. It has not kept with the progress of human spirit. It cannot be helped that history is fraught with iniquities. But it is wicked to freeze the iniquities in the name of religion and scripture is the bane of Islam. The selective culling of female babies in India is one of the banes of that society. Will have severe sociological implication there, within a generation, when there will be far fewer females to go around. Hopefully that society will learn the repercussions sooner than later. But this is not buttressed by any scriptural admonishments. There are superstitions and many wicked things in Hindu scripture that I can recount. But the culling is not anywhere sanctioned in their scripture. So Islamists you only betray your bigotry when you cite that as some kind of buttressal to the despicable islamic practices.

"Islam sees itself as a continuation of Christianity. The Qur'an tells us that as women, we have God-given rights over men and they have rights over us. Islam is said to have emancipated women from the cultural patriarchy that existed when society drifted from God's word by re-establishing fundamental women's rights."

That is False. Islam does not see itself as a continuation of Christianity or even Judaism. If that was the case, Muslims would not claim that either Adam or Moses were muslims. Islam sees itself as the only true word of God, and the rejection of the scriptures of the jews and the christians by God as having been corrupted. Islam is not a "continuation" according to Muslims, but a reversion to the true and uncorrupted message. Only Islam is true and every other message is false. God only creates Muslims, and it is the corrupted parents who change the belief of the newly born "muslim" child. That is why there are no "converts" to Islam but only "reverts" according to Muslims. And notice even these two Muslim women cannot help follow that when they claim "when society drifted from God's word". The concept is not of the society evolving or improving over time but being brought back to the perfect message of Islam. This notion in Islam leads to the multifaceted problems that muslims face with no hope of reform. Any reform is a "drifting away from Allah's word"!!

Khadija was a pagan woman, and as a pagan she enjoyed more rights and more freedom than any Muslim woman ever has. That is something that Muslims can never properly explain to themselves or to others. From the freedom and power of that Pagan woman 1440 years ago, the status of woman in Islam in the same land Khadija roamed has been reduced to that a woman is not even allowed to walk out of her house without permission from her "guardian" who can be her underage son if that is the only male available.

As far as equality in Islam goes the perfect word of Allah clearly states:
PICKTHAL: Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

Equality just so far. If ye FEAR rebellion go ahead beat the sheet out of them. Ye don't have to even prove rebellion. Which leads to Imams telling how to beat the sheet out of nice muslimahs that express the least independence:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO0UaBG1Bsg

or

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp3Eam5FX58

Take your pick. You tube carries a lot more from many different places in the muslim world, including good ole USA.

I can't imagine telling my daughter that she was under her father's control until he transferred that authority to a husband. My mom stayed at home until my sister and I started school. It was what she wanted to do, and my dad worked two jobs to make it possible. Once we started school, my dad quit one of his jobs, and my mom got a job. We were always taught that we should do what WE felt was best for us. If we wanted a career, then that's what we should pursue. If we wanted to marry, fine. If we wanted to remain single, fine. We were also told that even if we wanted to be stay-at-home moms, we should still get a degree before having children, because divorce or death of a spouse are always possibilities, and our parents wanted us to have marketable skills should we have need for them.

Bloggersville says:
” Fathers and husbands are established in this world as the protectors and maintainers of women for a reason.”

Dr. Wafa Sultan relays that she was a practicing physician and could not leave her father’s house in Damascus without taking permission from her high school dropout much younger brother. Women in Saudi Arabia are not allowed to step outside the house without being accompanied by a close male relative. About traveling abroad? Forget it! Yet some accompany their husbands to Beirut and London and stay cloistered in their hotel rooms while their male consorts cruise the towns’ night clubs.

Hameesha says:
“These girls clearly grew up in the United States, why should they have to address people on the other side of the world?”

Maybe they live in the USA but they subscribe to an ideology that does not recognize any loyalty except to the Ummah: the Muslim Nation. They may live in Russia, Britain or America but they are never Russians, British or Americans but first and foremost Muslims. The common denominator among the many societies aeound the world that dehumanize women is Islam.

The radical Susan Brownmiller is no more a "standard-bearer" for feminism than Pat Robertson is a standard-bearer for Christianity.

Feminism, like nazism or any of the other "-isms", has no place in rational thought or in society.

We've all seen the horrific results of feminism - the abortions, the broken families, the social collapses, the adultery. But perhaps the greatest crime of feminism is its pseudo-intellectual pretense.

We simply need to recall the great enthusiasm with which feminist standard-bearer Susan Brownmiller's infamous claim in her book "Against Our Will" was greeted by feminists:

"All men rape all women".

No man or woman worthy of the name can ever regard "feminism" as worthy of serious intellectual consideration.

That's not to say that women don't have rights. Islam was the first religion to recognize the right of women to own their own property, unlike Christianity, Hinduism and other previous religions which regarded women themselves AS property to be owned. It wasn't until the US adopted the Maried Women's Property Act in the 1860s that the Christian world tried to catch up with what Islam had promulgated more than 1200 years earlier.

Islam also put a stop to the pagan practice of burying baby girls alive. Pagans such as Hindus continue to kill their newborn girls although the preferred method today is to choke them to death by feeding them uncooked rice. This is why India has such an imbalance of baby boys.

Yet Nadia S. Mohammad and Anisah Hashmi promote libertinism as their way to freedom. As they wrote,

"Promoting virginity to be a pledge given to fathers and taken by husbands turns women's bodies and sexuality into the property of men."

Oh, please. That feminist baloney went out with the 70s. Give it up. If Nadia and Anisah want to justify it in some way, then they should relate it to the intellectual dynamism of the Cosby show that they say they admire so much. Leave the Holy Qur'an out of it. Zina is prohibited.

The religious patriarchy that Nadia S. Mohammad and Anisah Hashmi condemn is what protects women. Fathers and husbands are established in this world as the protectors and maintainers of women for a reason.

Their article shows why.

The authors are using a miniscule group as a straw man to project the teachings of Islam sbout women onto Christianity. This sermon should be directed at those who treat women as possessions and lend the authority of the Creator and their prophet to institutionalize the inhuman practices towards them in their failed societies.

^ This guy is quite the Orientalist. So somehow all Muslim women (regardless of their origin) are supposed to account for the backwards practices in countries that have nothing to do with them? And they have to speak to people who have been distorting religion in order to promote a particular political agenda in all of these countries? Way to lump people into categories. These girls clearly grew up in the United States, why should they have to address people on the other side of the world?
Also, this wasn't a sermon, the reason why they were talking about Islam at all is because the article was first published on a website for Muslims in America. Also they were addressing the problem of lumping Marxism, Feminism, and Islam all into one category. Maybe you should reread the article instead of jumping to conclusions.

The authors are using a miniscule group as a straw man to project the teachings of Islam sbout women onto Christianity. This sermon should be directed at those who treat women as possessions and lend the authority of the Creator and their prophet to institutionalize the inhuman practices towards them in their failed societies.

I still remember the horror and anger I felt when I read the passage in James Dobson's Love for a Lifetime when he claimed that the Christian god deliberately designed women to be inferior and subservient to men. Anger at Dobson for promoting sexism and misogyny. And this was before I became the father of daughters.

The issue with the roles of wife and mother has never been about their merits or faults, but about the hateful idea those should be the only acceptable ones for women. It's wrong for societies and ideologies (both religious and secular) to hold a double standard for roles for the sexes, particularly when these define the roles for one as subservient to the other.

There's nothing wrong with a woman wanting to be a wife or mother, but the operative word is "want." I frequently hear women express support for feminism's core principle of equal rights and opportunities for women while denying being feminists. Asked about the dichotomy, they usually turn out to be harboring straw-woman images of feminists as mannish male-hating harridans. Often they buy into the sexist idea that assertiveness in women is unfeminine.

This whole thing smacks of complete and total lack of civic duty and irresponsibility. These woman are not only lazy but will be parasites on the society. What will happen when they are without any skills to meet the demands of modern world. What happens when they get widowed or the husband turns out to be a scad and dumps her. What will she do then, along with her children. Then these women will do what they can, without marketable skills, they will become wards of the state. These people had been brainwashed by their scripture, which are full of contradictions, and do not really provide any guidance whatsoever in the modern world.

I suspect this is one of those issues that has an intelligent middle ground that ideological thinking will never get us to.

A recent survey found that 60% of mothers would prefer to work part-time, but only 24% do:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/11/AR2007071102345.html

It seems entirely plausible that the average American family needs 1.5 incomes and 0.5 homemakers. But we won't get there as long as the tone of the discussion is about patriarchy, church traditions and liberation.