Japan Today
world

Al-Qaida's stance on women sparks extremist debate

54 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2008/9 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

54 Comments
Login to comment

Interesting, as the Holy Qu'ran has at least 30 verses in it about gender equality: http://www.qantara.de/webcom/show_article.php/_c-307/_nr-19/i.html But, notably, both men and women are obliged to strive for a virtuous life and to prevent sins and evildoings ("amar ma'ruf nahi munkar"). Last I looked, killing innocents was not prescribed. I think they should ask Osama, http://whatreallyhappened.com/osama_dead.html the dead guy, what HE thinks, if, of course, the organization http://whatreallyhappened.com/fakealqaeda.html exists at all!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A woman kills herself, a man kills himself, as far as I'm concerned when it comes to the fact that we are all meat it's pretty equal. Now, if AQ wants to debate the issue in terms of LIVING I would be far more impressed. This is true not only of AQ militants, but world wide -- women are equal to, if not better than, men. It's reality... deal with it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Only thing new about these extremists women is that now they have access to internet, rest everything is same and unlikely to change i.e. most of the men and women will side with Al-Zawahiri.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is hilarious. These muslim extremist women apparently never got around to read the Koran, which clearly designates women as inferior. Well, they will be quickly put in their place.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So now I can hate them for being not only terrorists but sexists as well.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

OssanULTRA

" So now I can hate them for being not only terrorists but sexists as well. "

I don`t know what that is supposed to mean. The inferior status of women and of non-muslims is part of the basic islamic doctrine. That is what political islam is incompatible with modernity (which believes in equal rights and equal laws for all).

There really is nothing new here. The amazing thing is that these women are so ignorant about their own religion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"His remarks have since prompted an outcry from fundamentalist women, who are fighting or pleading for the right to be terrorists. The statements have also created some confusion, because in fact suicide bombings by women seem to be on the rise, at least within the Iraq branch of al-Qaida."

The Left was probably undecided on this one, or perhaps disingenuously neutral would be more accurate, until learning that suicide bombings by women are apparently on the rise.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Women are property of men in islam; so they don´t really have any choice if they are ordered on a suicide mission. But since the islamic paradise (with 72 virgins for the martyrs) and all that is basically a gigantic frat party addressing the needs of hormon-laden young males, one can really not expect women to volunteer for this.

Again, the ladies who now line up for the right to blow themselves up in the cause of jihad apparently did not read their Koran very carefully.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

These men are just simply cowards by the way they subjugate their women, its a dam same!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"learning that suicide bombings by women are apparently on the rise."

So are global terrorist attacks. You're not finally opening your eyes to the failure of Bush's so-called war on terror, are you?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Super: "The Left was probably undecided on this one, or perhaps disingenuously neutral would be more accurate, until learning that suicide bombings by women are apparently on the rise."

Boy, you opened yourself up on this one, eh mate. Glad you finally admit the 'war on terror' has failed and only created more terrorists.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"His remarks have since prompted an outcry from fundamentalist women, who are fighting or pleading for the right to be terrorists"

LOL, I can't stand it...

"the war on terror has failed and only created more terrorists"

LOL, smithinjapan, you say that because the terrorists, though basically getting their butts kicked, still manage to stage some successful attacks ( usually losing some of their own in the process ) and, as evidenced by the above quote, are still successfully brainwashing some people.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well smith and adverts do have a point. Terrorism is on the rise and now it includes women, so we can see that GWB's plan for terrorism has completely failed.

On the other hand, Europe especially has been very effective in preventing terrorism with zero planned terrorists attacks and no deaths from terrorism at all since 9/11. Meanwhile, since the GWOT started, the US has had a couple of high profile incidents such as explosions on commuter trains, subways, and buses. And they've also found plans to blow up the CN Tower in Detroit and other American landmarks.

When they tell us that America is responsible for the use of women in new terrorist attacks, I think we should listen to them. Until we have a situation where no attacks happen in America and all of the attacks happen in Europe I think Americans have a lot to learn.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"fatalities from terrorist attacks around the world have, in fact, decreased by 40% since 2001"

But that doesn't jive with what Madverts said! He said global terrorist attacks are on the rise! So does this mean the number of attacks are increasing, but each attack is less successful than in the past?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

OK, sarcasm off....

Sarge, you have to see things from their point of view. They've had their people killed by terrorism since the start of the Global War on Terror. Canada has had a number of terrorist attacks thwarted, obviously with the help of the US. From their point of view terrorists are running amok in their countries and increasing daily, now including women. You and I are using a point of view where we've had no terrorist attacks in our country.

So, in our eyes it's a success. In their eyes it's a failure. Bush comes into play because they don't hold their government accountable like we do. If a bomb were to go off in the US we'd hold our government responsible for not preventing it. We can't say that a terrorist attack in Miami is the result of poor counterterrorism in France, but they can say that a terrorist attack in Madrid is a result of the Bush's failures. In order to have their point of view we'd have to pretend that our own government counterrorism safeguards simply doesn't exist, but we aren't really as good at pretending our government doesn't exist as they are.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"fatalities from terrorist attacks around the world have, in fact, decreased by 40% since 2001"

Can I see a source on this? I'm also wondering about how much media exposure to terrorism has increased since 2001.

<strong>Moderator: Stay on topic please. The subject is women in al-Qaida.</strong>

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sorry, didn't see Super Delegate had posted that information while I was typing my previous response. :)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

CAIRO — "Muslim extremist women are challenging al-Qaida’s refusal to include — or at least acknowledge — women in its ranks, in an emotional debate that gives rare insight into the gender conflicts lurking beneath one of the strictest strains of Islam."

Clear cut case of oppression!

Do Lefty males identify and support those who are doing the 'challenging' because they are women or because they are frustrated terrorists?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"women in al-Qaida"

What a miserable lot they are.

"How many times have I wished I were a man" - woman in al-Qaida.

Gosh, couldn't she just get an addictomy?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Actually Osama only has himself to blame for the backlash. He gave the women access to the internet and freedom that comes with it because he needed some quick and easy cash not to mention quite a few replacements to fill in the ranks of late.

http://stuffucanuse.com/shockwave/taliban_singles.htm

0 ( +0 / -0 )

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/26/AR2005042601623.html

Terrorism is on the up, according to the US state department.

The so-called war on terror has increased terrorist attacks, depsite the the US hasn't had another one, yet.

Superlib, your sarcasm isn't particularly amusing - if I were to jest about 9-11 you wouldn't have found it particularly compemling. And lest's face it, you supported the Iraq fiasco which has had more than likely more terror attacks in a month that every other country combined for several years.

And now, if we are to give a shred of creibility to this article, even the women are getting stuck in?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

OK, I apologize for the tone.

But at some point there needs to be a distinction made. You can't just look at all terrorism worldwide and judge one President because of that just as you can't blame him for more women becoming terrorists. The GWOT is just that....Global. It involves many nations. And I'm betting the GWOT isn't designed to stop terrorism in Iraq, which is probably the source for the increase in terrorist attacks. Surely Belgium isn't working on that issue. Neither is Mexico. If terrorism increased tenfold in Chechnya does that mean Bush is losing "his" Global War on Terror?

If women are being used more or children or IEDs (whatever is being increased) or if terrorist attacks are happening more you have to look at each situation/area. If it's happening in Iraq then it's the US's problem to handle. If it's happening in Europe then it involves the GWOT. If it's in Palestine it's a completely different area of terrorism. Same with Thailand, or the Philippines, or Turkey, Egypt, home grown terrorism in Spain, etc. You're taking all terrorism worldwide and lumping it under the GWOT umbrella and blaming any losses on Bush.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Mate,

The centre-piece of the so-called war on terror was the invasion of Iraq. Here's an article written before the bloody summer of 2006:

The numbers (of suicide bombings) in Iraq alone are breathtaking: About 400 suicide bombings have shaken Iraq since the U.S. invasion in 2003, and suicide now plays a role in two out of every three insurgent bombings. In May, an estimated 90 suicide bombings were carried out in the war-torn country -- nearly as many as the Israeli government has documented in the conflict with Palestinians since 1993.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/16/AR2005071601363_pf.html

I'm sorry, but I charge the Bush Administration's so-called war on terror has done the exact opposite.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib: "GWOT" is a stupid term. Terror is a tactic, not an identity. The problem the world is facing is specificall islamic terrorism, and the Al-Quaida women are upset because they can´t join the menfolk in martyring themselves by blowing up infidels and going to muslim heaving.

Again, tough luck to them -- this asinine statement from the women wannabe terrorist only shows that they have received only second rate islamic education. There is no place in the Koran or the haddith that describes paradise for women. The whole thing is purely designed for men, and women are nothing but property of muslim males, either in the form of wives, daughters, or slave-girls.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hmmmm....

Al-Quaeda says that there are no women in their ranks.

Women carry bombs and do it in the name of and supplied by Al-Quaeda.

Damn two faced religion.

But, hell that's no different than an other group of people or religion.

There are major disagreements within every group. Major differences and ideologies and even unspoken truths.

But I'm not Islamic. I'm not living in the middleeast. So I'll read it with interest, but it has no bearing on my life. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The centre-piece of the so-called war on terror was the invasion of Iraq. Here's an article written before the bloody summer of 2006:

Have you ever heard me say that Iraq and Al Queda are linked? You're using Bush's BS selling point for the war in Iraq to define the War on Terror. You're talking to the wrong guy about that...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Superlib,

When you say:

"You can't just look at all terrorism worldwide and judge one President because of that just as you can't blame him for more women becoming terrorists"

I differ, and say that due to the catastrophe in Iraq that saw in 2005 (two years) 4 times more suicide bombings than the Israeli's have received since 1993, that it's fair game to lay the responsibilty of the global rise of terror on the man who claims to be leading the fight against it.

If "al-Qaida" really have a stance against women bombers then who is orchestrating the many female "suiciders" we've seen in Iraq since the invasion?

Are they just different fundies that accept females in the fold?

Could it be as I've been saying all along that al Qaida a described by Bush Co and American "intelligence" does not actually exist in the form it is presented, being uniquely a simple umbrella under which to label a lot of nasty people with different goals simply using the same gureilla strategy?

If that's truly is the case, Iraq is in deeper trouble than it would first seem....

....when Binny allegedly got the hump with the US, it took them a long time to plan and orchestrate revenge attacks.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sorry adverts I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Daydream:

" Al-Quaeda says that there are no women in their ranks. Women carry bombs and do it in the name of and supplied by Al-Quaeda. Damn two faced religion. But, hell that's no different than an other group of people or religion. "

This is very consistent internally. You should acquaint yourself with islamic ideology. And yes, this is very different from any other "group of people or religion". As far as I know, there is not other religion out there that makes physical conquest of the world the centerpiece of its teaching. By definition, other religions are concerned about spiritual things. Islam has an absolutely political goal. Al-Quaida wants to establish a world-wide Caliphate. Not in a metaphorical sense, but literally.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Other religions have already been through it.

Remember the Crusades?

I don't want to become acquainted with much more of the Islamic religion than I know right now. I try to stay away from all religions, except for what I believe for myself. I've seen too much ridicule, hatred, bigotry and real crimes committed right there in church. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This terrible sexism should be brought up for discussion at the G8 talks. Surely we can get Al Quaida to see that progress must be made in allowing women to murder in the name of Allah as men do. In other news, does anyone think it odd that these people hate Americans so much...they blow up their own people, their own children? Genius, that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh, and Zaphod, careful how much of that "world-wide Caliphate" stuff you swallow. A lot of it is the wishes of a tiny fringe (along the lines of people who wish to turn the U.S. into a Christian version of Iran, e.g. quite small) being used by the U.S. government to scare you / the voters into keeping them in power. The same way they made us think that the USSR was on par with the US economically back during the Cold War when in reality we were always capable of beating them in terms of money, economy, modern weapons and so on. Recognize and reject propaganda, man.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Remember the Crusades?"

DO you even know when they took place, and why?

"I try to stay away from all religions, except for what I believe for myself."

Remember your own words next time you think you understand what is going on.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wow. Talk about backing the wrong horse...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Superlib: "If a bomb were to go off in the US we'd hold our government responsible for not preventing it.," like you held Clinton responsible for 9/11, right?

That said, and as Michael Scheuer says, US administrations since 1973 bear responsibility for the current quagmire of Iraq/Muslim fundamentalism (just as they do for Christian fundamentalism). It's gonna get very ugly. http://www.amazon.com/Marching-Toward-Hell-America-Islam/dp/0743299698

A regenerated al-Qaeda will remain the leading terrorism threat, Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence Donald M. Kerr said. Pakistan's "inward" political focus and failure to control the tribal territories where al-Qaeda maintains a haven, he said, is "the number one thing we worry about." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/30/AR2008053002858.html?hpid=topnews

People shouldn't joke about the oppression of women (Would that all ideologies of oppression were gone, this moment). Bombing and oppressing only strengthens radical ideologies, and there are a billion Muslims around the world. PNAC (Cheney, Rummy, et al) should have thought harder about this...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Bombing and oppressing only strengthens radical ideologies, and there are a billion Muslims around the world. PNAC (Cheney, Rummy, et al) should have thought harder about this..."

I find your stereotypes revolting. Like most Lefties you exonerate militant Mohammedans because you don't truly consider them fully human enough to take responsibility for their own thoughts and deeds;they are to you little more than automatons who can only react to and selectively remember what "US administrations since 1973" have supposedly done to them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Daydream:

" Other religions have already been through it. Remember the Crusades? "

Yes, I remember the Crusades. Do you? The Crusades were a defensive action to push back the islamic jihad, which by then had reached central Europe and Southern France. The Crusades did not happen without context. Without the Crusades, Europe would already be a muslim continent. The Crusades have long stopped, and the Jihad goes on today. Remember that the next time you shoot of an ill-informed soundbyte.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wow, feel the love.

With love like this, the Islamic faith might be refreshing.

I'll have to become more fluent or a follower of the faith of Islam, like some above posters. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Super D, what are you talking about? I sure don't exonerate militant Muslims.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Look at things in context: http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/05/01/int05001.html Michael Scheuer: ...the most basic thing for Americans to realize is that this war has nothing to do with who we are or what we believe, and everything to do with what we do in the Islamic world. Mr. Bush, Mr. Clinton, Mr. Bush before Mr. Clinton--they all identified Islamic militancy as being based on the hatred of Western democracy and freedom, and that’s clearly not the case. They surely don’t like our way of life, but very few people are willing to die to keep us from having primary elections or because we have freedom of the press.

Universally in the Muslim world, at least according to the most recent polling data, American foreign policy in several specific areas is hated by Muslims. Majorities of 85-90 percent are registered as hating or resenting American policies, towards our support for Israel, our ability to keep oil prices low, or low enough to satisfy Western consumers, our support for Arab tyrannies from Morocco to the Indian Ocean, our support for Putin in Chechnya.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"I sure don't exonerate militant Muslims."

The Blame America first crowd charges that every every US administration from '73 on is to blame for fundamentalism. But this fundamentalism you speak of is found throughout the Mohammedan world, so you implicitly agree that there is a transnational nature to the threat.

It therefore follows that their supposed anger and resentment about things like "Palestine" (which I assume is what your reference to '73 means) is more of a convenient cover for the organized and relentless violence that their religion's founder called for. Not all Mohammedans heed the call, but it is clear that the numbers have grown. It has less to do with US policy (OBL issued his fatwa against America after Oslo and before GWB came to power) and more to do with Islam's war against modernity.

Michael Scheuer, eh? Isn't he the guy who wants our borders manned by Army soldiers in uniform?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes, Scheuer wants the army on the borders and the ports secured, because they are, seven years after 9/11, very porous, making importation of a nuke much more likely.

In fact, Scheuer advocates drastic action in enough areas that few people would agree 100%, and condemns Bushes and Clintons for their failures to take out OBL, but especially condemns W for blundering into Iraq.

February 2001: Al-Qaeda Is Expecting US to Invade Afghanistan, Wants War in Iraq and Somalia as Well Ahmed Zaidan, a journalist for Al Jazeera, is invited to a wedding also attended by al-Qaeda leaders Osama bin Laden and Mohammed Atef in Afghanistan, and while there he talks to Atef about al-Qaeda’s military strategy. He will later recall that Atef told him, “He was explaining to me what’s going to happen in the coming five years.… There are two or three places in the world which [are] the most suitable places to fight Americans: Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia. We are expecting the United States to invade Afghanistan. And we are preparing for that. We want them to come to Afghanistan.” Michael Scheuer, head of the CIA’s bin Laden unit, will later comment, “Did they want us involved in the war on the ground in Islamic countries? Absolutely. Part of the goal was to make sure that Muslims perceived America as the infidel invader of Muslim lands.” http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=michael_scheuer

"Terrorism should be seen as a strategic reaction to American power, an idea associated with Johnson's (2000) 'blowback' thesis...the powerful global position of the United States, particularly in its role of propping up repressive undemocratic regimes... [creates an environment conducive to] Arab-Islamic terrorism as a result. The causal mechanism here is that the projection of military power plants seeds of later terrorist reactions, as 'retaliation for previous American imperial actions'." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism#Motivation.2C_ideology_and_theology

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Jahdog:

" ...they all identified Islamic militancy as being based on the hatred of Western democracy and freedom, and that’s clearly not the case. They surely don’t like our way of life, but very few people are willing to die to keep us from having primary elections or because we have freedom of the press. "

More ignorance about islamic doctrine. Of course nobody wants to die because of somebody else`s primary elections of freedom of the press. Jihadist martyrs die because that is the garanteed way to paradise, and remember islamic paradise is very graphic indeed.

Also, this has nothing to do with "the West". Muslim jihadists are active in Nigeria, Thailand, China, the Philippines, India, and countless other places that have nothing to do with any "primaries" or "freedom of the press". Remember that Christians and Jews are actually the priviliged type of kuffars. Buddhists and Hindus are considered polytheists, ranking even lower.

Like Al-Quaidas womenfolks, some commentators here would do well to take a basic course in islamic teaching.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I can not even believe there is even a discussion about this. What did these women expect? That OBL was going to change Islamic doctrines? This is a guy who feels the world would be better off going back in time, not going forward. Change is not welcomed. Un-changing is.

"Remember that Christians and Jews are actually the priviliged type of kuffars. Buddhists and Hindus are considered polytheists, ranking even lower." I never heard that. Are you sure that is true? I better tell my Sokka Gakai friends that there is no point in me going to meetings any longer - it ain't gonna help.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"I can not even believe there is even a discussion about this"

Neither can I. Extremists don't discuss things. It's my way or the highway.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Skipthesong:

" "Remember that Christians and Jews are actually the priviliged type of kuffars. Buddhists and Hindus are considered polytheists, ranking even lower." I never heard that. Are you sure that is true? "

Yes, I am sure. And if you have never heard that, it is time to start reading the Koran and the Haddith to get some information. (Same advice as to those Al-Quaida chicks.)

Christians and Jews are "people of the book" and are thus allowed to live in an islamic Caliphate as long as they pay the head tax (jihza). Polytheists and atheists don´t have that option. Basic islamic doctrine, nothing new here.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I like to think of myself as a liberal, but not to the extent that I'm oblivious to the facts. And the facts are that sections of the Koran, and the Sharia law that it's based on, do amount to the oppression of women. And in countries where Sharia law is supreme, the penalty for adultery or homosexuality is often death. It seems that liberals who fail to address these realities care more about their own PC credentials than the suffering of those who are oppressed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Farmboy:

" Now we just have to wait until they all realize that blowing yourself and other folks up isn't the only religious activity available. "

Why should they? For you, it is not a religious activitiy, for them it is. Don´t be so arrogant to project your religious ideas at them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Farmboy:

" That it's okay for suicide bombers to kill people because it's a kind of religious expression, "

It is from the islamic point of view. Dying as a "martyr" in the battle against infidels is the ultimate religious act.

" and that I shouldn't criticize it because it would be "arrogant"? "

You can criticize it. What is arrogant is judging islam according to the religious view of your religion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm all for setting up suicide bomber training camps for these women ... with live fire practice sessions!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How is blowing up a bus full of civillians the same as off'ing INFIDELS??? The leaders of the terrorist groups are such high and mighty hypocrits. They say that their family dies because of US bombing and the US actions, but as long as they need to, they have a bus bombing whenever they want to.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Zanza123:

" How is blowing up a bus full of civillians the same as off'ing INFIDELS??? "

If the bus carries infidels (i.e. us), of course. And for Sunni and Shia fundamentalists, the members of the respective other sects are heretics, which amounts to the same.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites