Liberal Algerian-French Writer Mohamed Sifaoui: "The Veil... Is a Symbol of the Iranian Revolution and Its Crimes... of the Muslim Brotherhood Ideology... of Salafism and the Hostility It Promotes... of the Taliban and Its Barbarism... and [of] Bin Laden and His View of Women"

Mohamed Sifaoui, a Frenchman of Algerian origin, is a well-known liberal writer and journalist who has published numerous books and articles on Islamic fundamentalism and other subjects. Two recent posts on his blog, at www.mohamed-sifaoui.com, deal with the encroachment of Islamic fundamentalism on the democratic values of Western society.
In a satirical entry postedJuly 31, 2009, [1] he attacked the French government for being too diffident in promoting a law banning the burqa in France. He mocked the French Interior Ministry's estimate that only 367 women in the country wear the burqa, arguing that the issue is not how many women wear it but the infringement on France's democracy.
In an entry posted July 28, 2009, [2] he criticized Belgium for allowing Mahinur Özdemir, a veiled woman who was recently elected MP, to enter the very "sanctuary of democracy." He argued that her presence in parliament is an insult to all the women fighting for their freedom in Islamic countries, and called on the democratic states to defend their principles in the face of Islamic extremism - even if this means changing their laws.
On September 11, 2009, the book Ben Laden Dévoilé ("Bin Laden Unveiled"), by Sifaoui and renowned French cartoonist Philippe Bercovici, was released; it is about Osama bin Laden and the history of Islamic fundamentalism in graphic form.
The following are a few excerpts from the two blog entries:

"Let's Wait a Few [More] Years Until There Are 3,670 Burqa-Clad Women [in France] - Or 36,700, Or 367,000 - If Not 3,670,000"

In his July 31 blog entry, titled "Three Hundred and Sixty Seven - the New Erotic Number," Sifaoui wrote: "We can relax. According to the Ministry of the Interior, there are 367 women in France who do not wear the Islamic headscarf... They prefer the full-body veil - the niqab or the burqa...

"This was my first reaction when I read the Interior Ministry's publication providing 'statistics' on the number of women who wear the niqab in France... Three Hundred and Sixty Seven.

"How accurate! How did they manage to count them? Does French Intelligence have an undercover agent under each and every burqa? Did the police contact the National Federation of Females Wearing the Full-Body Veil? Or was it SOS Burqa [a pun on the name of the anti-racist French organization SOS Racisme] that released the information? Maybe it was the UOIF [Union of Islamic Organizations in France, an umbrella organization of Islamic groups]? Or maybe the figure can simply be found on niqab.com?

"[On second thought,] the information was most certainly obtained from the Niqab Manufacturers' Association. Because the ability to provide such an accurate number is rare, isn't it?

"Can we ascertain the exact number of people in France who wear a cross around their neck? Is there any way to estimate the number of Frenchmen who wear a yarmulke? Do we know how many Indian saris were sold last year? And how many women are hiding under a wig, or who dye their hair?...

"Still, let's be serious for a minute. What is the meaning of such statistics, which in fact show nothing at all? Supposedly, there are only 367 niqab-wearing women in France, [making it] a negligible phenomenon not [worthy] of debate... This figure might mean... that no law [banning the burqa is necessary.] So let's wait a few years, until there are 3,670 women wearing the burqa, or 36,700, or 367,000, or even 3,670,000… and [only] then become alarmed and ask our MPs to draft a law [against the burqa], after an investigative committee has been established…

"There are many more than 367 women in France who wear the niqab - and you know it!"

"No Self-Respecting Country Puts Its Values at the Mercy of Statistics - One Burqa [in France] is One Too Many"

"Go visit 'community shops' and you will see how quickly they sell niqabs... [In fact,] they are often sold out. I think that these merchants who sell halal clothing [i.e. clothing permitted by shari'a] sell 367 niqabs per month.

"After that, take a little tour in France, including the [immigrant] neighborhoods, and you will see that the phenomenon goes far beyond this ridiculous figure. And [if you attend] the next UOIF meeting, you will [surely] find an alarming number [of burqa-clad women there].

"In any case, no self-respecting country puts its values at the mercy of statistics. One burqa on our national territory is one too many. One veil in the civil service is one too many.

"Even if we assume that this figure is correct - which it is not - we had better take political action before the Interior Ministry statistics indicate that there are 300,000 women wearing the full-body veil. This means that a law should be discussed while [the burqa] is still a negligible phenomenon. We should not wait until it becomes a nationwide plague."

"The Niqab Is… the Worst Humiliation a Woman Can Inflict on Herself"

"But let's assume [for the sake of the argument] that what I am saying is ridiculous, and that the figure published by the Interior Ministry is perfectly accurate and based on a careful, thorough, and well-documented inquiry. Let's assume that [the phenomenon] is nothing serious.

"In this case, what does the figure 367 mean? [It means] that there are at least 367 men with firm Salafi convictions who are married to, or who are about to marry, these shadows, these females whom they have decided to conceal, or who have decided [of their own accord] to hide their faces from society - as if they were facing millions of sex maniacs ready to rape them right away, either over or under their burqas.

"Indeed, the niqab, or the veil, is the stupidest thing that a woman can accept. It is the worst humiliation she can inflict upon herself: [the humiliation of] depersonalization. [Once clad in a veil], she is no longer a woman but a statistic - one of [the 367]!

"So, returning to our count, this means that we have 367 potential couples who believe in the burqa culture - meaning 734 people who believe that a woman should become a number in order to please God. And then, unless these couples are all infertile - which we do not wish on them - they will have about three children each, if not more. In other words, in the years to come, these 'burqanized' couples will have 1101 children...

"Then the Interior Ministry will issue [another] statement - which will be validated by the UOIF and the International Federation of Salafis - that 'there are [now only] 367 women in France who do not wear the veil, the niqab, the burqa, the sitar, or the shower curtain…'"

"When [Democracy] Allows Islamist Ideology to Infiltrate Democratic Institutions, It Is Time to Reassess the Laws... [Because] Democracy Does Not Consist Only of Elections"

In his July 28, 2009 blog entry, titled "The Worm of Fundamentalism in the Fruit of Democracy," Sifaoui wrote: "Congratulations to Belgium for its election [of Mahinur Özdemir]! Congratulations to the land of tolerance and understanding for letting the symbol of [medieval] obscurantism and ignorance into the temple of enlightenment!

"Some will probably say, 'But she was democratically elected!' I am all too familiar with this response, to which I reply that when [democracy] allows a symbol of the Islamist ideology to infiltrate democratic institutions, it is time to reassess the laws.

"I will say it again and again: Democracy does not consist only of elections. Democracy is a political system that promotes [certain] values: human rights, gender equality, respect for [the other, despite] real or imagined differences, tolerance, generosity, and humanism...

"Therefore the veil, or Islamist headscarf, is a stain on the parliament. I am not talking about that piece of cloth that women - reduced to the status of mere females, due to a medieval interpretation of Islam - have decided to wear. I am talking of what [this piece of cloth] stands for."

"The Veil is the Banner of That Green Fascism That Has Killed Muslims and Has in Recent Years Been Striving to Slaughter Humanity"

"The veil is not an Islamic symbol of femininity or modesty, let alone a sign of spirituality. The veil - in its various forms, such as the burqa, niqab, sitar, etc... - is a symbol of the Iranian revolution and its crimes. It stands for the Muslim Brotherhood's ideology and obscurantism; for Salafism and the hostility it promotes; for the Taliban and its barbarism; for bin Laden and his view of women. It is the banner of that green fascism that has killed Muslims and has been striving to slaughter humanity in recent years. It is the flag of criminal organizations that prevent us from living in peace.

"The veil, I say, stands of the obscurantism of those who spit on enlightenment. It symbolizes the grave disease that is consuming Islam. It is the result of years of indoctrination and deception [by those who have] exploited [Islam] for ideological and political purposes. It is the outcome... of the subjugation of women by fundamentalist males suffering from severe mental illnesses.

"The veil, I say, is the final blow in the Islamist assault on Europe, its media, its civil society, and its institutions…"

The Custom of Wearing the Veil "Is Spreading Because Democratic Values Are In Decline"

"What some in the Brussels parliament have welcomed so happily [into this institution] is a symbol that continues to make Muslim women flee their native countries, or their [immigrant] neighborhoods in European [countries]. It is what the butchers in Algiers, Mogadishu, and Kabul want to impose on six-year-old girls. It is the uniform that Islamists want to impose [on women] in accordance with the will of men...

"The veil is spreading because democratic values are in decline. I wonder at old Europe that no longer knows how to defend the ideals for which its ancestors fought."

"What a Depressing Message We Are Sending to Women in Islamic Countries Who Are Fighting [For Their Right] to Live Without a Veil!"

"…I am shocked by the harassment [faced by] those who dare to criticize this harmful doctrine of Salafism or political Islam. The veil - it cannot be said too often - is nothing but an emblem of these backward ideologies that continue to tarnish Islam, making it look like a backward, misogynistic and obscurantist religion.

"I find it outrageous that a veiled woman has been allowed into the Brussels Parliament, [as if] this insult to democracy were a sign of progress. The capital of Europe should be ashamed that such a thing has happened. What a depressing message [we are sending]… to Muslim women in Islamic countries who are fighting [for their right] to live without a veil!

"Europe wants to solve its immigration problem, and it has surely found the way to do it. Soon progressive Muslims will no longer want to settle in Europe. On the other hand, veiled women and their bearded husbands will know that Europe is sure to welcome them warmly...

"Many progressive people of North African or Arab origin now realize that the Old World is implementing a new vision of society based on multi-culturalism and on compromise with political Islam...."

[1] http://www.mohamed-sifaoui.com/article-34417631.html

[2] http://www.mohamed-sifaoui.com/article-34322113.html

Source: http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD254409 

IHS

Criticism of Rape Victims' Treatment by the 'Ulama

On May 20, 2009, on the liberal website Middleeasttransparent, Lebanese columnist Ayman Nassar [1] criticized an article published by the London daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat regarding a fatwa sanctioning abortions for rape victims under certain conditions. Nassar rejected these conditions, and demanded that the clerics either stop ruling on matters in which they lack scientific and professional expertise, or take into account the opinions of the relevant expert community.
Following are excerpts from the article:

"The Article... Miraculously Transform[s the Problem] Into a Simple Matter... Like Buying a Kilo of Apples"
"It is with great concern that I read the article published May 12, 2009 in Al-Sharq Al-Awsat titled "Debate over the Fatwa Sanctioning Abortion for Rape Victims" [2] … I cannot understand the point [in publishing] such articles, since they are not relevant to our society, nor do they belong in the column [dealing with] Islamic [issues].
"Why do we hasten to ask 'knowledgeable parties' [i.e. clerics] their opinion on everything that happens to us and has not yet been addressed by a fatwa? I have heard of almost no scientific or social phenomenon regarding which no fatwa has been issued…
"Who are they, these [clerics] whom we consult regarding Koranic verses? Are they [really] sheikhs? Are they [really] muftis? Have they knowledge of tradition and of the Koran?...
"The [Al-Sharq Al-Awsat] article discussed different opinions regarding [the permissibility of] abortion for rape victims… but neglected to mention the views of psychologists and sociologists - those who usually deal with these matters. Nor does the article reflect the point of view of the women who are the victims, who have been raped. The article also fails to take into account the sociological, psychological, and family implications of this problem - thereby miraculously transforming it into a simple matter with no ramifications, like buying a kilo of apples, as if it did not involve a living being who has been hurt, and as if the point of view were all that mattered…"
Al-Azhar Sheikh is Confusing Rape with Prostitution
"…Let us take a close look at the article. In it, Al-Azhar Sheikh [Dr. Muhammad Sayyed Tantawi] is asked to state his opinion regarding [the permissibility of] abortion for a rape victim. He replies: Such a woman is permitted to have an abortion, but only if she is pure, her reputation is unblemished, and she resisted the rape.
"Thus, by sleight of hand, 'His Highness' rules who may have an abortion and who may not. [Dr. Tantawi,] the highest-ranking cleric in the Muslim world, singled out [a group of women] as an exception. The conditions he stipulates - which he phrases as a statement, rather than a suggestion - mean that [a woman] who is not Muslim, who does not wear the hijab, and who is not devout… brings the disaster upon herself, and may not abort her fetus.
"[Tantawi] further posits that [a woman may abort only if] she resisted the rape. Has any of the readers heard of rape by agreement?! A rape on which [the man and the woman] agree is [not rape but] prostitution - which is very different from rape. Is there any logic in [Tantawi's] statements, or are they nothing but senseless gibberish, like many sheikhs utter before coming up with an answer?!
"Next, [the article] presents the view of Al-Azhar Research Center member, Dr. Mustafa Al-Shak'a, who concurs with Tantawi's view but restricts the time frame when abortion is allowed to 120 days following conception… since, [he says,] after 120 days, a fetus is perceived as [an entity with] a soul and its murder is forbidden. Al-Shak'a's opinion is shared by Sheikh Mahmoud 'Ashur, [former deputy of Al-Azhar Sheikh and currently a member of the Al-Azhar Research Center].
"According to an opposing view presented in the article, abortion is forbidden on the grounds that life begins when the sperm enters the ovum; thus, abortion is tantamount to murder at any time. This view's proponents base their arguments on [several] hadiths and on the precedent of the woman from the Ghamidiyya [tribe]. [3] According to the article, this was the ruling of Dr. 'Abd Al-Fattah Idris [the head of the Comparative Islamic Law department at Al-Azhar's Shari'a faculty], who contended that [the Prophet Muhammad] ordered Al-Ghamidiyya to give birth [before having her stoned]… Thus, Sheikh [Idris] extrapolates from something that happened long ago to modern times - and equates harlotry with rape, as if they were one and the same."
The 'Ulama Disregard the Suffering of Rape Victims
"It is with deep anguish that I ask again: Who taught these people to issue fatwas on matters they don't understand? Who gave them the idea that their opinions are correct just because they back it up with a [Koranic] verse or a hadith? Why doesn't even one of them suggest consulting experts who treat rape victims? Why doesn't a single one ask the rape victim, so as to understand her hurt, pain, suffering, and humiliation? Why don't they ask rape victims how they are treated by society, expelled from the family, divorced by their husbands, and repulsed by their fathers?
"Why can't they see [the implications of] their statements? Why don't they take into account statistical data collected by organizations that deal with these issues, and [rape's] destructive consequences for the individual and the family, [including] repeated suicide attempts?...
"Has any of [these clerics] asked these women whether they are emotionally fit to raise a child [born from rape]? Do they really believe that we live in a pure world that accepts, pities, and protects such children?"

[1] www.middleeasttransparent.com, May 20, 2009.
[2] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), May 12, 2009.
[3] The wife of one of Prophet Muhammad's companions, who conceived as a result of adultery and asked the Prophet to purify her of her sin. After she gave birth and weaned the baby, Muhammad ordered that she be stoned, and that her soul be prayed for since she had repented. 

Source: http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD254309 

IHS

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