An "Islamic Incorrect" Conference

by Véronique Chemla

  

If there is a persistent myth about Muslim rule, it is the "golden age" myth of a "peaceful coexistence" between Jews, Christians and Muslims in Muslim-ruled "lands of Islam," in particular in "al-Andalus" (Medieval Muslim-rule Spain).

On March 27, 2009, in Paris, the Aladdin Project[1] launch conference unanimously celebrated that myth. The French Jewish Foundation for the Memory of the Holocaust (FMS) has initiated the Project both to fight against revisionism and Holocaust denial in the Muslim world as well as to foster improved Jewish-Muslim relations. The project includes in particular two web sites in five languages: Turkish, Persian, Arabic, English and French. Projetaladin.org provides "objective information on the history of the Holocaust, an introduction to Jewish culture, history and religion and the history of Muslims and Jews throughout the ages across the Middle East, North Africa and Medieval Spain". Aladdin Online Library "features pdf-formatted books on the Holocaust[2] — such as The Diary of Anne Frank and If This is a Man (Primo Levi) — that can be downloaded free of charge in Turkish, Persian and Arabic.

That myth is an essential part of "Islamically correct" discourses. It induces perverse effects that will be presented later on in this article.

The "Golden Age" Myth

Professor Bernard Lewis writes that the myth was forged by European pro-Islamic Jews:

"The golden age of equal rights [under Muslim rule] was a myth, and belief in it was a result, more than a cause, of Jewish sympathy for Islam. The myth was invented by Jews in nineteenth-century Europe as a reproach to Christians — and taken up by Muslims in our own time as a reproach to Jews"[3].

Historian Bat Ye'or explains that myth, "which endorses the Islamic version of history", by geopolitical factors[4], such as the XIXth century European "political equilibrium". The myth justified "the defence of the territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire", i.e. conquering peoples under its rule. In the Interwar years, the "Ottoman tolerance" myth changed into the "peaceful coexistence under the first caliphs" myth.

That myth is an anesthetizing narrative: it blurs the topics at stake in the jihad against the West or in Eurabia[5]. It both conceals a tragic threatening reality — jihad and its corollary institution dhimmitude which is the cruel inferior status of non-Muslim minorities under Islamic rule[6] — and "delinks Islam and Islamism"[7]. Instead, it imposes an "Islamically correct" vision of an idealized "peaceful" Islam[8] symbolized by brilliant al-Andalus civilization, an example of "peaceful coexistence between Judaism, Christianity and Islam" under Muslim rule. It also contains the Western "debt" myth to "Arabic/Islamic sciences". It thus downgrades the Christian civilization which put an end to that idealized era by defeating the Moors and retaking the Iberian Peninsula (Reconquista) as well as failed to create an al-Andalus' equivalent.

The myth thus induces a West's moral inferiority complex towards the Muslim-Arab world, meanwhile demonizing the West — "obscurantist" (Inquisition), "conqueror" (Crusades, empires), "racist" — victimizes Muslims and reinforces the vilification of Israel. That myth can only induce a West's guilty feeling, anti-Western and Israel-bashing discourses. The fact that Jews recreated the State of Israel contradicts the mythical "happy Jewish dhimmis". Lauding how the Muslims' behaviour towards non-Muslims was admirable and beyond reproach vilifies a contrario demonized Israel: the State of Israel's re-creation is suggested as having broken an era of idealized "peaceful coexistence between Jews and Muslims". The Israeli policy is distorted through a biased mythical prism: it is compared to a myth presented as an historical fact and Israel is required for a myth-compliant policy which de facto would restore the "good old days" of dhimmitude, and consequently the destruction of the Jewish state. That myth was also renewed in the idea of a "secular multicultural Palestine" replacing Israel.

Bat Ye'or underlines:

"That myth of peaceful coexistence strengthens Islamic doctrine. It confirms the perfection of the shari'a... The slightest criticism of the dhimmi status is rejected, as it undermines the doctrine of the perfection of Islamic law and government.... Consequently, the praise of the tolerance and justice of Islamic government, accompanied by gratitude, constituted an integral part of the obligations required of the dhimmi"[9].

Jewish and Christian dhimmitude networks have conveyed that perverse myth which aims at influencing public opinions and therefore government policies, especially in the Euro-Arab dialogue.

And some French textbooks still present that myth as an historical fact[10].

The Myth-Endorsed Aladdin Project Launch Conference

A recent example of the vitality of that myth was offered by the launch conference of the Aladdin Project at UNESCO (United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization) Headquarters on March 27, 2009[11].

About 800 diplomats, including Israeli ambassadors, ministers, presidents of Jewish associations, rabbis, bishop, imams, Media, especially from the Muslim world, and artists attended that prestigious conference.

In compliance with the myth, Jewish, Christian and Muslim orators concealed Islamic Anti-Semitism[12], dhimmitude and the Jewish "Forgotten Exodus"[13] from the Muslim world. They whitewashed the Islamic world from any participation in the Holocaust or any link with Nazis[14], and praised Muslim Righteous among the Nations as well as King Muhammed V of Morocco and the Bey of Tunisia who had protected "their" Jews. So, Muslims officials easily condemned Holocaust denial and expressed their sympathy for the Jewish victims.

Let's hear Abdoulaye Wade, President of the Republic of Senegal and current President of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), asserting the myth:

"There have never been historical contentions among Muslims and Jews. On the contrary, from the Charter of Medina in 622 to Arab-ruled medieval Spain and the Ottoman Empire, history teaches us that in different periods Jews and Muslims have been able to live together in peace and respect each other. Jews were often protected by Muslim monarchs".

It was quite bizarre to hear that ode before Muslim Judenrein countries' officials.

Orators committed shocking confusions, West-bashing and Israel-bashing stances, which are parts of the myth.

For instance, controversial and anti-Israeli Egyptian Minister of Culture Farouk Hosny[15] said on President Hosni Mubarak's behalf that the Holocaust was a "transgression against Islam and Muslims (...) because their Semitic brothers were killed in such a great number". By qualifying Jews and Muslims as "Semites", that speech denies both what "anti-Semitism" means — Jew-hating — and the existence of a Jewish people. In 2001, Farouk Hosni had invited convicted French Holocaust denier Roger Garaudy to speak in Cairo. On May 21, 2009, philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy, director Claude Lanzmann and Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Elie Wiesel expressed outrage at Hosny's candidacy for UNESCO Director General[16]. On September 9, 2009, Serge Klarsfeld, the famous Nazi hunter, backed Hosni "because of his public position on the Holocaust"[17]. He also said that Hosny had expressed repentance for his speech about burning Israeli books and that he took recent measures in favour of the Jewish culture in Egypt, such as restoring synagogues and communication of the Egyptian Jewish community's archives. Paris vaut bien une messe ("Paris is well worth a mass"), as King Henry IV is said to have declared...

Another example. Controversial Grand Mufti of Bosnia Mustafa Ceric reading a speech on behalf of the President of Bosnia, and André Azoulay[18], member of the Aladdin Project Experts Committee and advisor of the King of Morocco, exhorted to fight both anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. Islamophobia is a term used against the West in order to prevent any critical discussion of Islam[19].

The West was stigmatized too through slavery and imperialism. President Wade vilified [Transatlantic] "slavery which lasted for five centuries"; that historical period of time corresponds to the European trade slaveries and avoids evoking the lasting Transafrican and transoceanic trade slaveries led by Muslims. That discourse has victimized Africans in a claiming position demanding repentance towards Europe. Muslim orators denounced French or British empires, but presented the "Arab empire" as a quite natural fact. The reason is that the European empires were not led by Muslims and did not intend the expansion of Islam.

President Wade also advocated cultural relativism which actually seeks to destroy universal human rights considered as Western concepts:

"Beyond worldwide admitted norms, nothing is more relative than a value of culture and civilization. The truth of an era is not necessarily the one of another. What is the norm of a society may be a counter value in another one. The dialogue of cultures and civilizations can only blossom and prosper in the nuance and the relativism".

Concerning the Near-East, Mauritania's Former President Ely Ould Mohamed Vall evoked his "Palestinian brothers"' sufferings.

And, while ignoring the Palestinian Authority's revisionism[20] and President Mahmoud Abbas' Holocaust denial writings[21], Jacques Chirac, Former President of France, declared:

"I told the Israelis that settlement building was a mistake. You don't make peace with your neighbour by expropriating his land, uprooting his trees, and cordoning off his roads".

Jacques Chirac's reference to Israel revealed how the audience was divided: pro-Israeli stances were cheered by Jews, and Israel-bashing was applauded by Muslims.

A Myth-Endorsed "Call to Conscience"

A "Call to Conscience" to fight Holocaust denial was then signed by Jacques Chirac, Simone Veil, Honorary President of the FMS and former deportee, and President Wade. Hundreds of intellectuals signed it.

That "Call" endorses too that myth by alleging that "Muslims and Jews (...) for centuries — in Persia, throughout the Middle East, in North Africa and across the Ottoman Empire — (...) lived together often in harmony". So, the rule is "harmony".

That "Call" also refers to "values of justice and fraternity", and not to liberty and equality, because Muslims must not consider dhimmis as equals. It evokes "intolerance and racism", but not "anti-Semitism" or "anti-Judaism".

In accordance with the myth, it asserted that the authors of the Holocaust were "Nazi Germany and its European accomplices". It recalls "the actions of the Righteous in Europe and in the Arab and Muslim world[22]".

Moreover, it supports the "two-state solution" to the conflict between "Israelis and Palestinians", as if the Muslim world had accepted Israel's legitimacy as a Jewish state. Thus, that Call politicizes the Holocaust without reason, and ignores other solutions[23].

A Myth vs. History

Muslim orators opposed that myth to Jews for all the above reasons and in order to prevent any claim related to the Jewish Exodus.

Is that myth the basis for Islamic acceptance of fighting Holocaust denial? Will the Islamic world book fairs accept books dealing with taboo topics, such as the alliance of Nazis and Muslim leaders, the Muslim Bosnian SS division's participation in the Holocaust or Arab leaders' Nazi councillors[24]? Will the OIC condemn the pro-Nazi past of some of its Member States? Will it make act of repentance for Arafat's "hero"[25], Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin al-Husseini, striving to persuade the Nazis to kill Jews living in the Middle East? The Holocaust remains a sensitive topic, and some Muslim leaders, such as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, instrumentalize and trivialize it[26].

Why did Jews endorse that myth which denies their history — some Jewish leaders privately expressed critics about Farouk Hosni? Extreme politeness? For the sake of the "Muslim sensitiveness"? However, Jews are sensitive too...

That myth has also been endorsed by Public authorities for the sake of social peace or public order. If Jewish organizations contradict that myth, they may be blamed for a possible interreligious clash and its consequences in terms of anti-Semitic incidents.

The FMS did not challenge the myth because of its dynamic progressive strategy. It aims to fight against the Holocaust denial, which fuels anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, through gaining Muslim leaders' support in order to present its books in the Islamic world Book Fairs and to introduce history of the Holocaust in the Muslim world's school textbooks.

By ignoring the Sephardic history, the FMS fuelled a "concurrence des mémoires" (rivalry of memories) between Sephardim, a generic word used to refer to Jews from Spain, Portugal, North Africa and Middle East descent, and Ashkenazim, a generic term used to refer to Jews from Central and Eastern Europe descent[27]. It seems quite contradictory for Jewish organizations both to endorse that myth[28] and to advocate in favour of exiled Jews from Arab countries, Turkey and Iran, before Muslim leaders.

That myth has been repeated for decades with no positive effect upon the situation of European Jews and Israelis. It has not allowed improving the Jewish-Muslim dialogue[29]. It marginalizes moderate Muslims, because it denies the need for a critical discussion or a reform of Islam. It has also failed in upgrading the relations between the Jewish state and the Muslim world.

The Aladdin Project may reinforce relations between Jews and Muslims, but on an artificial consensus and at the expense of the Bible-based links between Jews and Christians, because that myth bans the writing of history of dhimmis, including Eastern Christianity. Whereas some Christian Churches adhere to the anti-Zionist Palestinian Liberation Theology (PLT)[30].

The Aladdin Project is an opportunity to debunk the myth, to bring up taboo issues in the Muslim world in order to lead it to face a dark side of its past.

It hardly can avoid the necessary critical discussion of Islam in order to lead to a victorious fight against Holocaust denial in that world, sincere interfaith relations, the acceptance of the State of Israel by the Islamic world.

Otherwise, it will be a missed opportunity.
 

End Notes

[1] The FMS was created in 2000 with "money from the expropriated property of the Jews of France". It is presided by David de Rothschild and was then directed by Anne-Marie Revcolevschi. The FMS's Board members are major Jewish organizations' Presidents, high rank public officials and qualified VIP.
In 2008, it gave nearly 14 millions € (USD 20 millions), over its 21.5 million € annual budget, to fund 267 projects. The Aladdin — "Light of wisdom and knowledge" — Project "promotes also a sound and mutually respectful dialogue of cultures".
Yad Vashem, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHHM) and Holocaust Denial on Trial (HDOT) have already set up web sites on that theme and in those languages.

[2] Those books themselves, previously unavailable in the Muslim world's languages, have been published by the Editions du Manuscrit.

[3] Bernard Lewis, Islam in history, Ideas, People and Events in the Middle East. Open Court Publishing, 2001. 2nd edition revised. 487 pages. p. 148.

[4] Bat Ye'or, Face au danger intégriste, juifs et chrétiens sous l'islam. Ed. Berg International, 2005. 420 pages.

[5] Bat Ye'or, Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis. Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2005. 384 pages.

[6] Bat Ye'or: Dhimmis and dhimmitude

The dhimmi, Jews and Christians under Islam. Preface by Jacques Ellul. Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1985. 444 pages.

[7] Alexandre del Valle, Le totalitarisme islamiste à l'assaut des démocraties. Ed. des Syrtes, 2002. p.389. 463 pages.

[8] Pierre-André Taguieff, La nouvelle judéophobie. Fayard-Mille et une nuits, 2002. P.68. 240 pages.

[9] Bat Ye'or, Bat Ye'or, Islam and Dhimmitude: where civilizations collide. Trans. from French by Miriam Kochan and David Littman. Madison, New Jersey: Associated University Presses, 2001. 528 pp.

[10] Shmuel Trigano, L'Espagne des trois religions: les dégâts dans l'Éducation nationale, in Controverses, no9, November 2008
Robert Frank and Valéry Zanghellini (Under the direction of), Histoire 2e. Belin, 1996.

[11] Aladdin Project Launch Conference

[12] Raphael Israeli, Bostom's legacy, The Jerusalem Post, May. 15, 2008

[13] Shmuel Trigano, La fin du judaïsme en terre d'islam. Denoël, 2009
Michel Abitbol, Juifs et Arabes au XXe siècle. Perrin, Tempus, 2006
Pierre Rehov, The Silent Exodus (2004).

[14] Frédéric Gasquet, La lettre de mon père, Une famille de Tunis dans l'enfer nazi. Préface de Serge Klarsfeld. Editions du Félin, coll. Résistance, Liberté Mémoire, 2006. 176 pages.
Orators concealed for instance the fact that Muslim countries harboured Nazis after the Second World War.

[15] In 2008, Farouk Hosni said that he "would burn Israeli books himself if found in Egyptian libraries".
Itamar Eichner, Egyptian culture minister: I would burn Israeli books myself, Ynetnews, May 14 2008.
Wiesenthal Centre to UNESCO: "An aspirant book-burner cannot head the intellectual arm of the UN", May 26, 2008

[16] Bernard-Henri Lévy, Claude Lanzmann et Elie Wiesel, UNESCO:The Shame of a Disaster Foretold, The Huffington Post, May 21, 2009

[17] AFP, Jewish Nazi hunter backs Egyptian Faruq Hosni for UNESCO job, September 9, 2009.

[18] Mr Azoulay is also a member of the United Nations High Level Group for the Alliance of Civilizations and Chairman of the Euro-Mediterranean Anna Lindh Foundation for Dialogue between cultures.
Alliance des civilisations?, Controverses, no 9, novembre 2008.

[19] Véronique Chemla, Interview de Bat Ye'or sur Geert Wilders et l'OCI, February 18, 2009

[20] Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik, Both Hamas and Fatah refuse to teach Holocaust to Palestinian kids, Septembre 8, 2009
Ray Arsheld, UNESCO Headquarters hosted an anti-Israel United Nations International Conference on Palestine Refugees, June 16, 2008

[21] Tom Gross, Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) and the Holocaust, January 11, 2005
Two days after the launch conference, the Palestinian Authority dismantled a youth orchestra from a refugee camp who had played for Holocaust survivors in Israel. Khaled Abu Toameh and AP, "PA dismantles W. Bank youth orchestra", The Jerusalem Post, March 29, 2009

[22] Robert Satloff, Among the Righteous, Lost Stories from the Holocaust's Long Reach into Arab Land. Public Affairs, 2006. p. 164. 265 pages.

[23] Daniel Pipes, Solving the "Palestinian Problem", The Jerusalem Post, January 7, 2009

[24] Alexandre del Valle, Le totalitarisme islamiste à l'assaut des démocraties. Ed. des Syrtes, 2002. p.95. 463 pages.

[25]Nazi ally, Hajj Amin Al Husseini, is Arafat's "Hero", August 5, 2002

[26] Stéphanie Le Bars, A Cracovie, la question de la Shoah parasite le dialogue interreligieux porté par la communauté Sant'Egidio, Le Monde, Septembre 9, 2009

[27] French philosopher Shmuel Trigano analyzed part of the Project web site's content which sometimes contrasts the launch conference discourse. On April 23, the Algeria-born professor stigmatized "the FMS' moral and political faults". He condemned both the "partnership" with anti-Israeli OIC and a "politico-symbolic swop": the Muslim world allows the FMS to fight against the Holocaust denial inside its geographical area in exchange for the Jewish denial of the Sephardim's litigations against that world (dhimmitude, "Forgotten Exodus"). The confused FMS disclaimed any partnership with the OIC, declared that it never pretended "to tell history" and it denied any disdain towards Sephardim.

[28] JJAC (Justice for Jews from Arab Countries), JIMENA (Jews Indigenous to the Middle East and North Africa)
Ami Isseroff, Jewish Refugees of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
Ya'akov Meron, Why Jews Fled the Arab Countries, Middle East Quarterly, September 1995
Etgar Lefkovits, Expelled Jews hold deeds on Arab lands, November 16, 2007

[29] Shirli Sitbon, Unraveling Deceitful Judeo-Muslim Dialogue, The Jewish Journal, January 28, 2009. Nevertheless, French Jewish and Islamic organizations lead common actions.

[30] Bat Ye'or, Naissance d'une théologie chrétienne de la libération de la Palestine (p.14-p.18) and Les déchirures des chrétiens d'Orient (p.24-p.26), in L'Observatoire du monde juif, no 6/7, juin 2003
 

Véronique Chemla is a Paris-based investigative journalist. She holds the Diploma and a diploma (DEA) in 20th Century History of the Institute of Political Studies of Paris (Sciences Po). She writes articles for FrontPage Magazine, American Thinker, Guysen International News. and L'Arche. Email her at veroniquechemla@orange.fr.

This appeared September 18, 2009 in Front Page Magazine (FrontPageMagazine.com) and is archived at
http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=36335

Source: http://www.think-israel.org/chemla.islamcorrectconfab.html


IHS

Prominent Shi'ite Ayatollah Fadhlallah, Prominent Sunni Scholar 'Obikan: A Woman Has the Right to Hit Her Husband in Self-Defense

Following the execution, in late October 2008, of a Saudi convicted of the violent murder of his wife, Sunni sheikh 'Abd Al-Muhsin Al-'Obikan, an advisor at the Saudi Justice Ministry, issued a fatwa permitting a wife to use force against her husband in response to violence on his part. The fatwa stated that the wife may even kill her husband to prevent him from killing her. Explaining his fatwa at Islamonline.net, 'Obikan said: "A woman may respond to violence with violence, in self-defense: If [her husbands] hits her she may hit back, and if he tries to kill her, she may kill him... if this is the only way she can save her life." In addition, 'Obikan also permitted a woman to leave her husband's bed and to deny him sex if he is not fulfilling his matrimonial duties towards her. [1]

A similar fatwa was issued a year earlier by Lebanese Shi'ite scholar Ayatollah Muhammad Hussein Fadhlallah, to mark the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. He too ruled that a woman beaten by her husband is allowed to hit him back, and that a woman whose husband does not honor her rights, as stipulated in the marriage contract, such as the right to sustenance or marital relations, may withhold these rights from her husband as well. [2]

'Obikan's and Fadhlallah's fatwas evoked many responses among religious circles in the Arab world. Some supported the fatwas, citing the right to self-defense and the principle of gender equality. Others objected to them, claiming that the Koran permits only the husband to hit his wife and to withhold sexual relations from her, as a means of disciplining her, and that a fatwa permitting the wife to hit back would destroy families.

It should be noted that many Muslim religious scholars hold that it is permitted for a husband to beat his wife, though only as a last resort and under specific conditions. [3] This position was reiterated at a recent symposium of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, held April 26-30, 2009 in the UAE and attended by some 200 Muslim scholars from around the world. A decision issued at the symposium stated that a disobedient wife should be treated according to the guidelines of the Muslim Shari'a: the husband must first admonish her, then withdraw from her bed, and only then, if all else fails, administer a beating,. The decision stipulated that the beating must be light, must not be on the face or sensitive parts of the body, and must not be administered in anger or in revenge. [4]

Following are excerpts from Ayatollah Fadhlallah's fatwa, and from responses to his and Sheikh 'Obikan's fatwas.

Ayatollah Fadhlallah: A Married Woman is an Independent Legal Entity

Fadhlallah's fatwa stated: "Despite the progress in the humane treatment of the woman; despite the respect attained by the woman [today] as compared to her condition in the past in most Eastern and Western societies; despite the woman's advancement up the social and political ladder - so much so that nowadays women occupy the highest positions in government and other [domains]; despite the fact that women have joined and even surpassed men in resistance movements - [despite all this,] women are still subjected to violence of various forms, and this [phenomenon] is not confined to specific [social] circles. This is happening not only in the East, but is worldwide, even though the form and extent of violence may vary from place to place... The woman - be it as sister, daughter, or wife - is still subordinate to the man - be it her brother, her father, or her husband..."

In view of the above, Fadhlallah emphasized the following points: "Violence can be resorted to only in exceptional cases, as an educational tool or in response to aggression... This norm is valid in interpersonal relations in general, without distinction between man and woman, or between young and old...

"The man's guardianship over the woman does not entail control; rather, it means that the responsibility for the family is on his shoulders. [This responsibility] does not rest exclusively with the man, and he must share with the woman all [the responsibilities] that they have in common as a couple...

"The woman's willingness to engage in household chores and domestic duties [must stem] from [natural] human [feelings], love, and willingness to sacrifice - since Islam does not impose on the woman anything of the sort, even in connection to raising [children]. Islam respects [the woman's] work, and [even specifies that] she must be given material reimbursement for it. The man must appreciate the sacrifice the woman makes by taking care of him and the family, and he must not treat her arbitrarily or violently...

"According to Islam, within marriage the woman is an entity legally independent of the man with regard to material possessions. The man is forbidden to seize the woman's personal belongings, or to interfere with her commercial [dealings] or interests - if these have no bearing on him as her spouse, or on the family for whose [wellbeing] he is responsible...

"Islam does not permit the man to use any form of violence against the woman - either in respect of her Shari'a rights, which he must honor on the strength of the marriage contract, or in respect of her [right] to go out of the house.

"Furthermore, Islam prohibits cursing her or using abusive language to hurt [her]. All these are sins for which Allah will call [the man] to account, and which are punishable by the Islamic law..."

A Woman May Treat Her Husband Just As He Treats Her

"If a man has used physical violence against a woman, and if she cannot defend herself other than by resorting to similar violence against him, then she is permitted to do so by way of self-defense. Moreover, if a man has acted violently with respect to the woman's rights - i.e. by depriving her of some of the rights to which she is entitled by marriage, including sustenance and sexual relations - she is likewise allowed to deny him the rights she is required to grant him according to the [marriage] contract...

"Islam emphasizes that no one is in control of a woman who is of age, behaves properly, and conducts her affairs independently. No one is allowed to force her to [marry a man] she does not want. A marriage contract drawn without the woman's consent is invalid...

"In order to protect the family, laws regulating women's employment must strive to balance the woman's work - if she chooses to work - with her responsibilities to her family. Any imbalance in this area may lead to the destruction of the family..." [5]

In an interview with Alarabiya.net, Fadhlallah explained that the fatwa was "based on the general Shari'a principle applicable to all Muslims, male and female alike, whereby a person who is attacked has the right to act in self-defense..." He further stated: "There is no [evidence] in the Koran that the relationship between a man and a woman is like one between master and slave - rather, it is [a relationship based on] responsibility."

Fadhlallah went on to clarify the fatwa with regard to sexual relations between a man and a woman: "The sexual aspect is one of the basic aspects of marital relationship; accordingly, a woman is not permitted to deny her husband sexual relations, other than for health, emotional, or social reasons... Our understanding of the religious law is that sexual relations are the right of the woman as much as of the man. Just as the woman cannot deprive her husband of his sexual rights, if he wishes [to exercise them], so is the man is forbidden to withhold from his wife her sexual rights, if she [wishes to exercise them]..." [6]

Al-Azhar Sheikhs: A Woman May Hit Her Husband in Self-Defense

Al-Azhar Fatwa Committee head Sheikh 'Abd Al-Hamid Al-Atrash endorsed 'Obikan's fatwa, saying that under Islamic law, a wife is indeed allowed to hit her husband in self-defense. He stressed that all individuals have a right to self-defense, regardless of gender - because all human beings are equal in the eyes of Allah, and no one who is subjected to violence must let it pass without response.

Dr. Ahmad Al-Sayih, lecturer at the Al-Azhar Faculty of the Fundamentals of Religion, likewise supported 'Obikan's position, saying that, according to Shari'a and the law, a woman has the right to hit her husband in self-defense, because men and women are equal both in their rights and in their duties. [7]

Criticism of the Fatwa

Only the Husband Has the Right to Hit

Fadhlallah's fatwa generated extensive criticism in religious circles throughout the Arab world. Dr. Jawdat 'Abd Al-Ghani Basyouni, head of the comparative Islamic law department in the Shari'a faculty at Al-Azhar University in Cairo, said: "The Islamic Shari'a clearly objects to a husband severely beating his wife, since the Prophet meant that the beating should be done (with a toothpick), only in order to direct her..." He added: "If it happens that a man has transgressed the Shari'a by beating his wife severely, such a man has passed from Shari'a to the law of the jungle. However, even in such a case, the woman is forbidden to hit him back, since this kind of behavior is likewise forbidden by the Shari'a..." [8]

Saudi Islamic Academy member Sheikh Dr. Muhammad Al-Nujaimi likewise objected to Fadhlallah's fatwa. In an interview with Alarabiya.net, he said: "A woman has the right to defend herself if a man has hit her in order to slay her - which is forbidden by the Koran. However, she has no such right [if he has hit her] in order to teach her [a lesson] according to the Shari'a and the Koran. A woman does not have the same right to hit a man as is given to the man [in respect of the woman] by the Koran. In other words, she is not allowed to teach him by beating, as he is allowed to do [to her].

Al-Nujaimi further explained: "Corporal punishment according to the Shari'a...is the privilege of a man [alone] - not of the woman..."

Al-Nujaimi agreed with Fadhlallah that a woman is entitled to withhold from a man the rights that he denies her - albeit only in particular cases: "If [the man] does not provide for her, [the woman] has the right to withhold herself from him [sexually] and to demand the dissolution of the marriage contract; if [the man] has resorted to violence during sexual intercourse with her, she has the right to withhold herself from him and to sue him, since he is forbidden to act in this way. However, the claim that she can withhold herself [sexually] from her husband in other cases as well is unfounded." [9]

Dr. Sa'd Al-'Anzi, imam at the Kuwaiti Ministry of Religious Endowments and member of the Kuwaiti Journalists Association, said that Fadhlallah's fatwa, which permits a woman to hit her husband, is "an extraordinary statement and an unprecedented claim that contradicts common sense and natural order." Al-'Anzi added, "Fadhlallah's view stands in contrast to [the principle of] warm marital relations, since hitting [by the wife] is a behavior that brings about neither stability nor steadiness in marriage, but rather [precipitates] conflict, quarrel, and the termination of the relationship."

Al-'Anzi further claimed: "As concerns the attitude of the Islamic Shari'a to [granting the woman permission] to hit [the man], the divine precept is addressed to the man rather than to the woman... 'To beat' means to hit lightly... as a corrective measure." [10]

'Obikan's, Fadhlallah's Fatwas Destroy the Family And Are a Symptom of Capitulation to Western Pressure

Dr. Mustafa Al-Shak'a, member of the Al-Azhar Academy of Islamic Research, said of 'Obikan's fatwa that it "destroys the Islamic family unit, and replaces the Islamic warmth and compassion with violence and beatings." He added: "The Shari'a does not allow the husband to beat his wife, except in the case of a 'morally [justifiable]' beating, for the purpose of education. Other [types of violence] constitute aggression, which is forbidden in Islam." [11]

Dr. Bassam Al-Shatti, columnist and professor at the Kuwait University's Faculty of Shari'a and Islamic Studies, also claimed that a woman was prohibited from hitting her husband. He explained: "The Prophet said: 'Had I commanded someone to worship someone [else], [it would have been] the woman to worship her husband.' Given this, how [could a woman be allowed] to raise her hand against [her husband]?"

Al-Shatti added: "If a woman should raise her hand against her husband, this would preclude reconciliation, since the husband would not find it in himself to accept the woman who had hit him... A woman's basic [traits] are softness, compassion, refinement, and grace. Should she raise her hand against her husband, she would precipitate a dangerous stage in the family life." In conclusion, Al-Shatti said: "This fatwa destroys homes; and does not promote peace between the husband and wife."

Kuwaiti Shari'a Foundation for Human Rights director Dr. 'Adel Al-Damkhi criticized Fadhlallah's ruling that a woman is not subject to any guardianship, saying: "Fadhlallah's fatwa clearly contradicts [the prerogative] of guardianship over the woman that Allah granted the man." Al-Damkhi further explained that the man's guardianship over the woman is in line with "the Shari'a stipulation that [it is the man] who must support her, who makes decisions [in all matters related to] the household, and who is responsible for correcting the woman's misconduct." Al-Damkhi added: "This fatwa will turn the home into a battlefield... It is a sign of the Islamic countries' capitulation to the Western ways and Western pressure regarding women's issues." [12]

Fatwas Are Not the Answer - "There is a Need for New Jurisprudence Regarding Women and the Family"

Al-Sayyid Walad Abah, columnist for the London daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, wrote in response to 'Obikan's fatwa: "The solution to the problem of violence between husband and wife is not to exacerbate [this violence] by granting the woman the right to retaliate - for this turns the home into a battlefield and an arena of confrontation. [The solution] is to abolish the principle of punishment according to the Shari'a and of [following] the rulings of ancient scholars, who interpreted the Koranic verse [4:34] to mean that it is permissible [for a husband to beat his wife]...
"[What I say] applies not only to this narrow issue. There is a need for new jurisprudence regarding women and the family [in general], which will reexamine many [traditional] laws and rulings that stemmed from [specific] social circumstances that were at odds with the principles of [Islam] - [new laws] that will respect women and [treat them] as equal to men." [13] 
[1] www.islamionline.net, October 22, 2008. 
[2] Al-Diyar (Lebanon), November 28, 2007. 
[3] This opinion is based on the Koranic verse: "As for those [women] from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them [Koran 4:34]." 
[4] http://www.islamonline.net/arabic/news/2009-05/01/images/01.doc . 
[5] Al-Diyar (Lebanon), November 28, 2007. 
[6] www.alarbiya.net, November 28, 2007. 
[7] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), October 29, 2008. 
[8] Al-Masri Al-Yawm (Egypt), December 6, 2007. 
[9] www.alarabiya.net, November 28, 2007. 
[10] www.alarabiya.net, November 28, 2007. 
[11] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), October 29, 2009. 
[12] Al-Rai (Kuwait), November 30, 2007. 
[13] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), October 31, 2008. 


Source: http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD254209

IHS

Miss Hira Saeed: Stand Up and be a Man – I

Posted by admin on 9/16/09 • Categorized as Letters

The following is a sequence of email exchanges with Miss Hira Saeed. So far, Miss Saeed has not answered any of the challenging points we offered her in our emails. She keeps jumping from one issue to another. However, we hope, that in due time, we can narrow things down better with her, and that she will be willing to discuss psecifics. Our emails with her are still ongoing. 

 
Miss Hira Saeed

You seriously need to learn to respect other peoples religions. You may have converted to another religion but that does not give you the right to disrespect Islam. By saying what you said about Islam, I personally do not think that you will have made anyone agree with you. Everyone who read that will be thinking that you are a disrespectful pathetic monster.

I am proud to be a muslim. You will regret saying all those things when it is The Day Of Judgement and Allah will punish you and everyone else who have said anything like what you have said.

All I hope is that you see sense soon and take back everything you have said and post this if you have anyhumanity.

Stand up and be a man.
If you are a man.

Editor

Dear Miss Hira Saeed
Thank you for your email and the kind words about us. Please note that our site FaithFreedom.org is a large movement comprised mostly of Ex-Muslims. No Muslim, I daresay, visits our site and life stays the same for him/her. Why? because we try to be honest and tell the truth about Muhammad and Islam. We have no ill-intentions against Muslims, not at all. Most of us were raised as Muslims, or have family memebrs and friends who are Muslims. Our goal is to research Islam and tell the truth about it using very reliable Islamic resources. Our pundits and researchers use mainly the Koran, the Ahadith, and the Sirat. All such references are used on everyday basis by Islamic scholars everywhere.
You have requested that we post your email to us. We will honor your request. I would like first to ask you to read the following about Muhammad. He was a mass murderer if you don’t know it yet. Please read it and tell me if Mr. Ali Sina, may Allah bless his soul for establishing this great site of ours, is wrong in his analysis (please note that all of Sina’s analysis is supported by references that a True Muslim cannot reject):

From Ali Sina’s Challenge

Muhammad: A Mass Murderer
There were three Jewish tribes living in and around Yathrib, the Banu Qainuqa’, the Ban Nadir and the Banu Quraiza.  Once Muhammad realized that they are not going to accept him as their new prophet, he turned against them. He banished the first two, after confiscating their properties and wealth and massacred the last one.  

Genocide of  Banu Quraiza:  (From Understanding Muhammad)
The last Jewish tribe of Yathrib to fall victim to Muhammad’s vindictiveness was the Banu Quraiza.  Soon after the Battle of the Trench (Khandaq) was over, the Meccans, fed up with Muhammad’s constant raids on their caravans, came to the gates of Medina to punish him.  Advised by a Persian believer, they dug trenches around the city making it difficult for Muhammad’s enemies (The Confederates) to enter, causing their retreat. Muhammad set his eyes on the Banu Quraiza.  He claimed that the Archangel Gabriel had visited him “asking that he should unsheathe his sword and head for the habitation of the seditious Banu Quraiza and fight them.  Gabriel noted that he with a procession of angels would go ahead to shake their forts and cast fear in their hearts,”[1] writes Al-Mubarakpouri. Al-Mubarakpouri continues: “the Messenger of Allâh immediately summoned the prayer caller and ordered him to announce fresh hostilities against Banu Quraiza,”[2]

It is important, in studying Islam, to note that the call to prayer was also the call to war. Muslim’s riots and hooliganism always initiate from the mosques after they offer their prayers.  They are most vicious during the holy month of Ramadan and on Fridays.  In a sermon commemorating the Birthday of Muhammad, in 1981, the Ayatollah Khomeini said:  

Mehrab (Mosque) means the place of war, the place of fighting.  Out of the mehrabs, wars should proceed.  Just as all the wars of Islam proceeded out of the mehrabs.  The prophet had sword to kill people.  Our Holy Imams were quite militants.  All of them were warriors.  They used to wield swords.  They used to kill people.  We need a Caliph who would chop hands, cut throats, stone people.  In the same way that the messenger of Allâh used to chop hands, cut throats, and stone people.[3]

 Muhammad headed an army of three thousand infantry men and thirty horsemen of Ansar (Helpers) andMuhajireen (Emigrants).  The Banu Quraiza was accused of conspiring against the Muslims with the Quraish.  In reality, these Muslim historians deny this charge and say the Meccans withdrew without fighting because they did not receive support from the Banu Quraiza.

When Muhammad made his intentions known, Ali, his cousin and staunch supporter, swore he would not stop until he either stormed their garrisons or was killed.  This siege lasted 25 days.  Finally the Banu Quraiza surrendered unconditionally.  Muhammad ordered the men to be handcuffed, while the women and children were confined in isolation. Thereupon the Aws tribe, who were allies of the Banu Quraiza, interceded, begging Muhammad to be lenient towards them.  Muhammad suggested that Sa‘d bin Mu‘adh, a ruffian among them who had been fatally wounded by an arrow, give a verdict on the Jews.  Sa’d was a former ally of the Banu Quraiza, but since his conversion to Islam he had a change of heart against them.  He also blamed them for the fatal wound he received when a Meccan threw an arrow during the Battle of Trench.  Muhammad knew how Sa’d felt about the Banu Quraiza. He was, after all, his bodyguard and slept in the mosque.

Sa’d’s verdict was that “all the able-bodied male persons belonging to the tribe should be killed, women and children taken prisoners and their wealth divided among the Muslim fighters.” 

Muhammad became pleased with this cruel verdict and said that “Sa‘d (had) adjudged by the Command of Allâh.”[4]  He often credited Allâh for his own decisions.  This time he chose Sa’d to verbalize his whims.

Al-Mubarakpouri adds that “In fact, the Jews deserved that severe punitive action for the ugly treachery they had harbored against Islam, and the large arsenal they had amassed, which consisted of one thousand and five hundred swords, two thousand spears, three hundred armors and five hundred shields, all of which went into the hands of the Muslims.”

What Al-Mubarakpouri forgets to mention is that the Banu-Quraiza had loaned their weapons as well as their shovels and picks to Muslims so they could dig the trench and defend themselves.  Muslims will never be grateful to those who help them.  They will take your help and will stab you in the back the moment they no longer need you.  We shall see in the next chapter the psychology of this pathology. 

Muslim historians have been quick to accuse the Banu Quraiza of the usual baseless charges to justify their massacre.  They accused them of being mischievous, causing sedition, being treacherous and plotting against Islam.  However no specifics exist as to the nature of those sins to warrant such a severe punishment and their total genocide.   Trenches were dug in the bazaar of Medina and between 600 to 900 men were beheaded and their bodies dumped in them.  

Huyai Ibn Akhtab, the chief of the Banu Nadir whose married daughter, Safiya, Muhammad took as his share of the booty when he invaded Khaibar, was among the captives.  He was brought to the victor with his hands tied from behind.  In an audacious defiance he rejected Muhammad and preferred death to submission to this brute man.  He was ordered to kneel and was beheaded on the spot.

To determine who should be killed, the youngsters were examined. Those who had grown pubic hair were bundled with the men and beheaded. Atiyyah al-Quriaz, a Jew who had survived this massacre later recounted: “I was among the captives of Banu Quraiza. They (the Muslims) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.”[5]

Muhammad killed and banished several Jewish tribes, among them are B. Qainuqa’, B. Nadir, B. Quraiza, B. Mustaliq, B. Jaun and the Jews of Khaibar.  On his deathbed, he instructed his followers to cleanse the Arabian Peninsula of all non-believers,[6] an order that Omar, the second Caliph carried out later.  He exterminated the Jews, the Christians and the pagans, forcing them to convert, leave or put them to death.

Now, enriched with the loot, Muhammad could be even generous to those who believed in him.  Anas narrated: “People used to give some of their date palms to the Prophet (as a gift), till he conquered Banu Quraiza and Banu An-Nadir, whereupon he started returning their favors.”[7] 

There is a verse in the Qur’an that speaks about the massacre of the Banu Quraiza approving Muhammad’s butcheries of their men and taking women and children as prisoners.  

He caused those of the People of the Book who helped them (i.e. the Quraish) to come out of their forts.  Some you killed, some you took prisoner. (Q. 33: 26)

[1] AR-Raheeq Al-Makhtum by Saifur Rahman al-Mubarakpuri http://islamweb.islam.gov.qa/english/sira/raheek/PAGE-26.HTM
[2] Ibid.
[3]  Ayatollah Khomeini: A speech delivered on the commemoration of the Birth of Muhammad, in 1981.
[4] Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 280:
[5] Sunan Abu-Dawud Book 38, Number 4390.  Sunan Abu-Dawud is another collection of hadith regarded to be sahih.
[6] Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 288
[7] Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 176

Now that you have read the above Miss Hira, can you please tell me if Muhammad was indeed a mass murderer or not.
I promise you once our email exchange is about over, we’ll post you emails and our editor’s response to them.
I can promise you one thing miss Hira. Our site tries to always publish the most honest research about Islam. We love Muslims. They are our families, friends, and co-workers. We cannot extend the same embrace to Islam per se. It is an evil ideology. If you stick around long enough to research the truth about Islam, I believe you will join our holy cause.

Thank you for contacting FFI

Regards

 Miss Hira Saeed

This information you have wrote is LIES. I have read and the Qu’ran many times with translation and there is more to the Qu’ran than words written across a page. The words in the Qu’ran have a deeper meaning than what a lot of non believers see. I beg you to read the Qu’ran and the translation and see deeper than you have already. I do not believe for one second that the information you have told me is the truth. If you do only one thing today read the Qu’ran and then you may fully understand the truth. I also owe you an apology for calling you a disrespectful pathetic monster because I understand that you may be too narrow minded to understand and Allah may forgive you for that if you turn a new leaf. Please listen to me and look at the other point of view. The Muslim point of view. You will see a newer, brighter future before and after death. May Allah forgive you for your misinterpretations and see how you will change once you accept and understand the full truth.
And trust me I will NEVER change my religion no matter what you say or do.

Editor

Dear Miss Hira, thank you for your email

Please note that our site was established by Ali Sina. He was a Muslim until he read the Qur’an and Hadith. That is when he discovered what Islam is all about, and was a Muslim no more.
You are asking me to read the Qur’an. That is fine. let me narrow things down, and let us discuss a couple of verses from the Qur’an. Here is what Quran 4:34 says:

 “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 the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great. ”

Please note that some translators use different words or add to beat women (lightly). The actual verse in Arabic says “Beat them”, no if or buts about it. Please watch this video:

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

Now, do you think the creator of the universe would want women to be beaten? what kind of a sick deity is He? A realistic answer would be to say that the above verse came from Muhammad, and not from God.

Let’s look at another verse in the Qur’an (2:217):

“They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: “Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members.” Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can. And if any of you Turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein.”

Do you know how this verse “came down” to Muhammad? You see, Arabs before Muhammad had some sacred months where they never fought each other, until muhammad and his pirates showed up. They attacked a commercial caravan at a place called Nakhla, killed one person, imprisoned two, and took a lot of booty. All of that was done during the sacred months. Muhammad came down with the above verse to justify what the Muslims did during a time sacred to all Arabs. Here is a link to an article on the subject of the Nakhla raid if you desire more information on this story:

http://www.faithfreedom.org/2009/07/16/on-good-and-evil-muslim-umma-lessons-from-the-nakhla-raid/

Miss Hira, don’t fool yourself. People leave Islam once they know what the Qur’an is all about. They also leave Islam once they know how Muhammad lived. He was no more than mad pedophile thief who established a cult that has gone crazy. Learn the facts miss Hira, instead of staunchly defending an evil dogma.

Regards

Miss Hira Saeed

Up to this point I have been very polite and forgiving. However as you have verbally abused Islam and the propet Mohammed (PBUH) I may not be so forgiving. You have mistranslated this verse. if you would like full details about the Qu’ran I advise you to visit this website:

http://www.harunyahya.com/en.m_book_index.php

There is still time and you can still save yourself. I am sure that if you visit this website you will see what you have looked past already. I as a woman understand where a woman stand in society and where women stood back when the Qu’ran was wrote. The Qu’ran is not the prophet Mohammed’s words. They are the words of Allah. You should trust Allah. You are disabled in the fact that you can’t accept Islam. I am sure that when you read the contents of this website you will see that what you have been claiming is not true.
I hope you will open your eyes soon.

Editor
Miss Hira
I went to this site. I could not find an answer to explain the verses I told you about.
For your information also, Harun Yahya (not his real name) is not a genuine scientist. He is no more than a liar. Please watch this video about him by one of the most distinguished scientists of our time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPxGDXSJZfc&feature=related
Have a good day

To be continued…..

Source: http://www.faithfreedom.org/2009/09/16/miss-hira-saeed-stand-up-and-be-a-man-i/

IHS