Married to Mohammed - Part II
Wednesday, September 05, 2012 | Elizabeth Blade
This is part two of a four-part series on Christian women marrying Muslim men. If you have not done so already, we recommend first reading Married to Mohammed - Part I
In 2011, WomanStats, a project that researches the status of women around the world, published a map that shows the comparative location of domestic violence against women. Except for Spain, Italy, France, Austria and Sweden, where women enjoy high levels of physical security, most of the world’s countries were ranked as having medium to low levels.
In 2012, TrustLaw, Thomson Reuters Foundation’s legal news service, conducted a survey among 370 professionals from 63 countries on five continents. The study revealed alarming statistics, naming such predominantly non-Muslim states as South Africa, Mexico and India as world’s worst countries for women (though Saudi Arabia and Indonesia also made the list).
Yet a year earlier, TrustLaw’s experts also concluded that the world’s most dangerous places for women were Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Somalia (all Muslim states), and India and Congo (two non-Muslim countries). They supported their conclusions by noting that in those countries women suffer from a high rate of health problems, trafficking, and sexual and non-sexual violence.
The situation is acute in other Muslim states as well. In 2010, research carried out by the United Nations Higher Commission on Refugees evaluated the status of women in Middle Eastern and North African countries. The study concluded that the region’s women lacked a basic feeling of security, autonomy and freedom. Tunisia and Morocco showed the best results on the five-point scale, with ratings of 3.4 and 3.2 respectively, followed by Algeria (3.0), Egypt (2.9), Jordan (2.7), Bahrain and Libya (2.6), Qatar and Palestine (2.4), Syria and the United Arab Emirates (2.3), Oman (2.1), Iraq and Yemen (1.9). Saudi Arabia was the last on the list with only 1.3 points.
Israel takes center stage in Obama-Romney election
Wednesday, September 05, 2012 | Ryan Jones
No foreign entity has played so large a role in American presidential elections as the tiny Jewish state, and that phenomenon has only grown as President Barack Obama and his challenger, Mitt Romney, head into the home stretch ahead of the November poll.
Republican critics sounded an alarm this week as the Democratic National Convention (the major party event preceding the election) got underway, noting that Obama’s party had removed from its official platform a number of pro- Israel provisions.
In his 2008 campaign for the presidency, Obama openly stated that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, that so-called “Palestinian refugees” cannot be settled in Israel proper, and that Hamas will not be accepted as a negotiating partner until it denounces its goal of destroying Israel.
None of those provisions were on the policy agenda as the Democrats gathered in Charlotte, North Carolina, and instead made do with a vague “unwavering commitment to Israel’s security.”
That bolstered assertions made last week by Romney at the Republican National Convention that Obama had “thrown Israel under the bus.”
But Jewish Democratic activists fired back, noting that no one who had actually sat in the Oval Office had been able to keep his promise to move the American Embassy to Jerusalem, including Republican presidents.
“President Bush signed waivers 16 times to avoid moving the US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem,” David Harris of the National Jewish Democratic Council told The Times of Israel, referencing a six-month national security loophole that every American president has abused since Congress decided in 1995 that the US Embassy be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
The Chutzpa!: A closer look at America’s Evangelical vote
Wednesday, September 05, 2012 | Tal Lecks
EDITOR’S NOTE: “The Chutzpa!” is a new satire column written by accomplished Israeli Messianic satirist Tal Lecks. Please note that the content of this article is fictional, and is meant as a light-hearted way of looking at the very real threats surrounding us.
While Both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are trying to win over the Evangelical vote - with Romney going out of his way to visit Israel, and Obama going out of his way to make believable excuses for not doing so - fresh thinking is arising among Evangelical voters.
Since Romney is a professing Mormon, and a common understanding among American Evangelicals is that Obama is a Muslim, a growing number of these voters are passionately convinced that the election is really about Muhammad Vs. Joseph Smith.
But that does not make the choice easier.
The founder of the Mormon religion, Joseph Smith, might have proven to be consistent in promoting core conservative family values, but his past contacts with a questionable character named “Angel Moroni” and his refusal to release information about his finances make many Evangelicals hesitant about him.
The Democratic candidate, Muhammad, makes certain people uncomfortable as well. Stephanie, 42, from Texas had this to say: “Both candidates have several wives, however, in Muhammad’s case, the women are also required to be involved in jihad, holy war against the infidel. I’m a stay-at-home mom with four children and I just don’t have time for holy wars in my weekly schedule.”
Jim, 52, from Michigan felt similarly: “I’m a strong supporter of Israel, and that’s why I’ll support Joseph Smith. Muhammad’s followers claim he ascended to heaven from Jerusalem. That causes tremendous difficulties for Israel. Joseph Smith, on the other hand, must have thought that Jerusalem was in Salt Lake City, Utah, so he’s fine by me!”
Other Evangelical voices expressed a deep discomfort with Muhammad’s policies on the Arab Spring issue and his inability to produce an acceptable birth certificate proving that he was born in the United States.