Muslim woman refused French citizenship for her 'submissive' views

Why?!

She's not hurting anyone,depending on your view the only person she could be hurting is herself. And if she is hurting herself then why punish her?!

There are so many things that don't make sense!!!

"She lives in "total submission" to her husband and male relatives, according to reports by social services."

Any book which can in any way justify someone in their right mind to want to lower themselves to that level is not good news.

The ruling criticised her radical interpretation of Islam, but the problem is that if you're going to give people a legal right to 'religious freedom', then this comes under EXACTLY the same jurisdiction of someone going to church on sundays. Etther give everyone their right to believe whatever rubbish they want under the extremely broad, and untouchable brand of religion, or keep religion out of the legal system, and simply deny this woman entry because of the way she chooses to behave.

You are free to not be free if that is what you choose.

It is not France's obligation to let her in, it is their choice fair enough if they don't want her.

The French were right to reject her application for citizenship on the grounds of insufficient assimilation.

Extreme practices of culturally alien beliefs is like a cancer in the body politic. With citizenship comes the right to vote. With the vote comes political power. If sufficient people adopt this alien culture and decide to vote in accordance with these extreme views then the fundamental nature of our societies with their freedoms would be eroded and we could end up with Sharia law and all the attended horrors of a fundamental Muslim state. A stand needs to be made at some point. It is not as if she has been denied residency.

i think the french were wrong to deny it... but i think that she should wake up and challenge the fundamental "ideas" of her everyday life... total submission can lead to very bad doo-doo.... not that most people would be excited to participate unless they were brought up that way...

Good. Cultural cohesion is only as important as necessary to maintain exclusion of superstitious people. Now, if only France would eliminate citizenship on the same grounds to all Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and other believers of superstitious ideas....

People who agree with this decision on the "alien beliefs" basis. Think about this for a minute.

Democratic systems are based upon simple but necessary freedoms such as freedom of religion, press, speech etc. These rights function not only so that a population can be free, but to ensure that the marketplace of ideas remains an open and free flowing environment. The CORE idea behind democratic systems is the firm belief that people have the ability to rationally decide what they want to believe.

The idea behind democratic systems and the U.S. invented Democratic-Republic in particular, is that people can -choose- where they want their society to go, not have it dictated to them. Democratic systems encourage diversity of opinions, dissenting voices and even contradictory ideas to surface.

You guys are using language like "alien beliefs" and "insufficient assimilation," don't you realize that those are essentially values of totalitarian and authoritarian states? Non-democratic states use their authority to coerce or trick people into their mainstream memes and use their beliefs to control and manipulate the public for their own ends. Democratic systems do exactly the opposite.

Now France obviously doesn't fall under that category and you guys obviously don't believe in that, but you -are- arguing with the same line of logic.

The French have made a huge mistake here. By doing this to someone, they've violated the basic foundations of their constitution. Just because someone's beliefs are hostile to your own doesn't mean that you should manipulate your government to work against them. That is, in fact, totally contradictory to what democratic systems are all about.

The french have every right to deny her citizenship. They can reject anyone for anything they want. It's one of the many perks of being a free country.

Why not reject people for believing in superstitions? We reject people in the US for being HIV+. We reject people in the US for being from certain countries. We reject people who have histories of mental illness. Why not for being superstitious? Obviously, superstitious people -- like Christians or Muslims -- are incapable of rational decision-making, a bulwark of democracy.

HIV+= possibility of spreading the deadly Virus to americans. Im down with keep that shit as far from me as possible.

Wow cold. Damn. Anyway, that bit about democracy and all, that's nice, but its not working any better, as you can see. We have this republic and its still being controlled by elitists. They just find other ways to "coerce or trick people into their mainstream memes and use their beliefs to control and manipulate the public for their own ends" like TV and marketing.

On a fundamental level I want to agree with most of those ideas and say the lady deserves to be admitted no matter what, but I'm beginning to think it doesn't matter. Human cultures are very sensitive things, and they don't tend to mesh well in an overcrowded world with limited resources. People always find a way to hate the other.

Maybe having separate countries with separate rules and constitutions isn't a bad idea, and you can live there but you can't be a citizen and vote, maybe that's what people want, maybe good fences make good neighbors.

That's disappointing to say the least, but maybe that's just how it is.

The problem is if is her choice to live in those conditions or not.

Its a cultural problem, maybe she was raised in that way and think that is normal even when she dont feel happy.

Or because of her believes she decided to live in that way and is ok about it.

Or she just feel happy the way the things are, in which case the government should just respect her choice and grant the right she have to get the nationality.

I think there is something more, it might be a problem of racism and intolerance from the French government.

Its funny because the motto of the French Republic is "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity". Bullshit?

You have to think of it on a personal level.
If a community of people who treated women as subhuman moved into my neighborhood, I'd be pretty upset. I'd probably take political action to getting them kicked out of my neighborhood.

Sounds like France feels the same way.

if she chooses to wear it, so be it. far be it from others to dictated another's choice. isn't that something most people frown upon.

"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 and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Surely God is high, supreme." (Dawood's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)

This is repugnant and fascist. Women in Islam do not have equal rights. Anyone who believes in this hateful dogma does not belong in the free world.

radical islam uses peoples freedom against them to instate their ulta-radical laws

It has always been my understanding that a foreign woman who marries a French national obtains the French nationality quasi-automatically after a few years of marriage, especially if she has borne children to her husband. The same applies to the foreign spouses of British nationals.

Here are the 6 most recognised translations of this verse:

Six translations of Qur'an 4:34:

1. "Men are superior to women on account of the qualities with which God has gifted the one above the other, and on account of the outlay they make from their substance for them. Virtuous women are obedient, careful, during the husband's absence, because God has of them been careful. But chide those for whose refractoriness you have cause to fear; remove them into beds apart, and scourge them: but if they are obedient to you, then seek not occasion against them: verily, God is High, Great!" (Rodwell's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)
2. "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 and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Surely God is high, supreme." (Dawood's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)
3. "Men are in charge of women, because Allah has 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 has guarded. As for those from whom you 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." (Pickthall's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)
4. "Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that God has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for God's guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them. If they then obey you, look not for any way against them; God is All high, All great." (Arberry's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)
5. "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in their sleeping places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great. (Shakir's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)
6. "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whom part you fear disloyalty and ill conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance) for Allah is Most High, Great (above you all). (Ali's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)

There's no getting away from the fact that the Muslim Ummah accepts this verse as a mandate for the husband to beat his wife. Qaradawi from al-Azhar University, the foremost authority on Koranic interpretation, confirms this.

And here's a Bahraini cleric giving some really helpful tips on how to beat a wife correctly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaKFPFHiz68

kuffar:

Like i said above please visit sublimequran.org which translates the verse differently and in my opinion has given alot more weight to the fact why those translations have wrongly interpreted this verse and why i believe "to go away" (i.e. seperate) is the correct translation of the verse.



The Muslim Ummah does not "accept" this verse as a mandate to beat wives, yeah some unfortunatly in the Ummah might have but by no means does everyone "accept" this view or translation.

Qaradawi -who himself is a controversial figure- & other scholars may hold these views, but while i may respect his & others views but his views are by no means the absolute truth. I disagree with his opinion on this matter -if he does indeed hold on to the view of wife beating.

Asuk999:
Qaradawi does indeed...as do other Islamic scholars. I welcome your desire for a softer interpretation. Do you read Arabic? About 80% of Muslims don't. I will visit the site you recommend but how reliable and objective are these translations, given they are made by Muslims who wish to uphold the Koran as the morally acceptable immutable word of God and worthy of selling to the unbelievers.

Submissive? when was the last time the french won a war?

The French now realize that these "Burqa's" are the societal equivalent of the Urukai breeding pits seen in the Lord of the Rings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGDSN0nLqd0&feature=...