| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Dartmouth's unsinkable Harrison Sontag has kindly forwarded me a couple of fulminations about my Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week talk there a couple of weeks ago, and its aftermath.
1. In "Spencer takes the Qur’an out of context," Sara Ludin ‘08 does a bit of creative quotation-mangling to make it look as if I said in a letter to the editor that all Muslims approve of wife-beating:
In his letter to the editor, Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch, declared that “Muslim[s] approv[e] of wife-beating” (“Charge of hate speech is false,” Oct. 31).
In my letter did I actually say, flatly, that "Muslims approve of wife-beating," as if every one of them is wailing away on the missus (or missuses) without a hint of disapproval from any other Muslim? Of course not, and you might get a hint of Ludin's attempt at sleight of hand from all the brackets on the words within the quote. What I actually said was this: that almost all translations of Qur'an 4:34 render it as commanding the beating of a disobedient woman, a situation that "many Muslims today regard this verse with acute embarrassment." I was writing this because one of those embarrassed ones, a Muslim student named Chloe Mulderig, had said that my assertion that the Qur'an sanctions wife-beating was "incorrect and offensive." So the sentence Ludin misleadingly half-reproduces actually read this way: "But Mulderig would apparently prefer to pretend that I made this up rather than deal with Muslim approval of wife-beating."
So, apparently, would Sara Ludin. Does that sentence mean that I think every Muslim approves of wife-beating? Obviously not, since I had just noted that many Muslims are embarrassed by this. But those who are embarrassed will make no headway to stop this practice if they prefer instead to smear those who call attention to the problem, rather than addressing the problem themselves. And Ludin places herself squarely in that camp:
He draws out a single Qur’anic verse that has been the subject of Islamic jurisprudential debate for centuries, pretending to capture its breadth in a 500-word editorial. Moreover, Spencer chooses not to place this passage in the context of the thrust of the entire Qur’anic message, verses that talk about marital harmony and the prophetic example. This sort of anti-intellectualism undermines Spencer’s assertions.All Muslims believe that the Qur’an is the revealed word of God. By zeroing in on a Qur’anic verse, rather than the cruel actions or uniquely bigoted views of so-called “jihadists,” Spencer attacks all Muslims. Though he claims to differentiate between so-called “jihadists” and “peaceful Muslims,” he flagrantly and consistently conflates the two.
Ultimately his tactics otherize and demonize Muslims. Whatever his intentions, we as Muslim women resent that he depicts us as victims in order to bolster his cause.
Yeah, resent away. Meanwhile, the wife-beating continues, and what are you doing about it besides attacking me? For unfortunately for Muslim women like you, Ms. Ludin, I am by no means the only one who "chooses not to place this passage in the context of the thrust of the entire Qur’anic message, verses that talk about marital harmony and the prophetic example." Many Muslim men choose not to do that either, and in fact I'm not interpreting the Qur'an at all, but merely reporting on these facts. The Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences has determined that over ninety percent of Pakistani wives have been struck, beaten, or abused sexually — for offenses on the order of cooking an unsatisfactory meal. Others were punished for failing to give birth to a male child. Dominating their women by violence is a prerogative Muslim men cling to tenaciously. In Spring 2005, when the East African nation of Chad tried to institute a new family law that would outlaw wife beating, Muslim clerics led resistance to the measure as un-Islamic.
Why do things like this happen?
Because Islamic clerics worldwide have spoken approvingly of wife-beating.
In 2004, an imam in Spain, Mohammed Kamal Mustafa, was found guilty of “inciting violence on the basis of gender” for his book Women in Islam, which discussed the methods and limits of administering “physical punishment” of women.
Muslim men bring this religiously sanctioned violence with them when they immigrate to the West, even to the United States. The prominent American Muslim leader Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi, former president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), has said that “in some cases a husband may use some light disciplinary action in order to correct the moral infraction of his wife…The Koran is very clear on this issue.”
In 1984, Sheikh Yousef Qaradhawi, who is one of the most respected and influential Islamic clerics in the world, wrote: “If the husband senses that feelings of disobedience and rebelliousness are rising against him in his wife, he should try his best to rectify her attitude by kind words, gentle persuasion, and reasoning with her. If this is not helpful, he should sleep apart from her, trying to awaken her agreeable feminine nature so that serenity may be restored, and she may respond to him in a harmonious fashion. If this approach fails, it is permissible for him to beat her lightly with his hands, avoiding her face and other sensitive parts.”
I guess I told all of these men to say these things?
2. Meanwhile, in "‘Islamo-Fashion’ to promote Al-Nur" by Julie Kim, we learn about a counter to the wicked IFAW:
No need for the double-take: The posters read “Islamo-Fashion Awareness Week.” Al-Nur marked the beginning of its Islamo-Fashion Awareness Week with a movie on Monday. Events planned for the rest of the week include group discussions and a sundown prayer. The event takes place two weeks after the controversy surrounding headline speaker Robert Spencer, who concluded “Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week” on Monday, Oct. 29th.Ediz Tiyansan ‘09, student director for the Office of Religious and Spiritual Life at the Tucker Foundation and one of the organizers of the program, said that planning for an Islamic awareness campaign had been in the works before Islamo-Fascism week. The fallout from that week motivated the Multi-faith Council, which includes members from Al-Nur and the Office of Pluralism and Leadership, to organize a “peaceful interfaith dialogue,” which became Islamo-Fashion week.
“Not just Muslims, but people from a variety of backgrounds felt disturbed,” Tiyansan said. “There was a disappointment among students at the narrow-minded stereotyping.”
Adrian Wood-Smith ‘10, Pan-Asian Council representative for Al-Nur, maintained that he did not want the event to be seen as a response to Islamo-Fascism week.
“We respect Mr. Spencer’s right to free speech,” Wood-Smith said. “It seemed tragic he was emphasizing the link between Islam and violence, and we felt like if we would respond to that, it would look like we had something to prove.”
Yes, you wouldn't want to look as if you had something to prove, would you? Unfortunately for you, however, Mr. Wood-Smith, I am not responsible for "the link between Islam and violence." That link is emphasized by Muslims around the world every day. Do you really think ignoring it will make it go away? Do you really think vilifying those who call attention to the phenomenon will make it go away?
Unfortunately, I think you and your friends are in for a wake-up call.
Posted by Robert at November 10, 2007 2:02 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Sara Ludin may be able to fit into her next recess or Reading Period "Infidel" by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She may also want to visit the sites run by former Muslms, to see what they say about the treatment of women, and the textual authority for such treatment to be found in Qur'an and Hadith and the example of Muhammad, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil.
She might, for example, simply click on www.faithfreedom.org, then search for articles on the subject of women in Islam. Or she might go to www.answering-islam.org. Oh, there are all kinds of things she might do, and very easily, if she actually wanted to find out.
But I'd start with Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She's hard to ignore, and impossible to refute.
Posted by: Hugh![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at November 10, 2007 3:53 PM
He draws out a single Qur’anic verse that has been the subject of Islamic jurisprudential debate for centuries...
In this single line Ludin concedes what I understand to be Spencer's entire point: that some muslims approve of wife beating and regard it as mandated within Islamic law. By acknowledging that this has been the subject of jurisprudential debate for centuries, Ludin grants the point and goes even farther, implying:
(i) Those muslims who have held this position have been numerous;
(ii) they have been held in high enough esteem within the muslim world to have kept alive the debate on the issue, and to leave a permanent impression of their position in the history of jurisprudence;
(iii) this issue has never been finalized within the mainstream Islamic world, even after 1400 years of debate.
Spencer gives some lovely further examples from respectable contemporary Islamic voices, but he needn't have done so -- Ludin has graciously established his point for him!
Keep writing, Ludin ... it's about time that muslims openly acknowledged these things in the west. And maybe you should can the anti-Spencer rhetoric; it seems you agree with him anyway.
Posted by: Archimedes2 at November 10, 2007 4:09 PM
More evidence that Islam will never be reformed. The people who really need to understand all the problems, continue to deny that problems exist. To a true believer in Islam, there are no problems. Wife beating is justified, killing apostates is required, placing Christians and Jews in subservient status is required. Last and most important - lying about Islam is required.
Just go back and read this article to understand what will happen to a Muslim who tries to bring a new message:
A Hard Time for Prophets - http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/018739.php#comments
at November 10, 2007 4:50 PM
"All Muslims believe that the Qur’an is the revealed word of God."
So how does a devout Muslim, moderate or otherwise, refute the verse referring to wife-beating? Wouldn't they be saying that Allah made a mistake? How do they reconcile these stances?
"[Pakistani wives] were punished for failing to give birth to a male child."
In this case those Pakistani husbands needed to beat themselves. THEY determined their child's sex. They never learned biology, huh?
Posted by: PMK at November 10, 2007 5:32 PM
“We respect Mr. Spencer’s right to free speech,” Wood-Smith said. “It seemed tragic he was emphasizing the link between Islam and violence, and we felt like if we would respond to that, it would look like we had something to prove.”
Rather than "emphasizing" the link between Islam and violence, Spencer should be de-emphasizing it? Notice that she doesn't say that there is no such link, only that it's "tragic" (!!!) to point it out?
at November 10, 2007 5:43 PM
Sara Ludin has a bright future in creative movie review assembly, where you can take:
"This movie stinks to high heaven! Do not see it!"
And end up with:
"This movie ...[is] heaven... see it!"
Truth hurts?
Then whip out those brackets and make a new "truth".
"Chop off their heads!" can become:
"Chop...the... ads."
Proving that Mohammad invented newspaper revenue copyediting.
at November 10, 2007 5:48 PM
As IFAW has demonstrated, it will not be easy to crack the PC stranglehold on our universities. All men are created equal, all religions are not. This sort of judgment is not even allowed to be considered by many of the (il)liberal college students. The greatest sin in our PC society.
Reading the Quran though, it is obviously a misogynistic document. I don't envy these Muslim women's position, trying to explain away the divinely-sanctioned ill-treatment of women in the Quran. I would very much like to hear their explanation for the 72 female houris that MEN are supposed to have in Allah's carnal heaven. What kind of spiritual realm is this? And, are these Muslim women also expecting 72 men in heaven to serve them as their sex slaves for all eternity? Or, are they just as satisfied that the Quran offers no mention of women in paradise? (well, other than Muhammad saying most people in hell are women!)
Posted by: Peaceful_Muslims? at November 10, 2007 5:52 PM
"Others were punished for failing to give birth to a male child."
Hello - the male biology determines the sex of a child. The female has nothing to do with it.
Don't you male Muslims know that? Just how behind in science are you? 1,400 years? Right. I thought so. That's why there's about 2 male Muslims who have won Nobel prizes in Science.
I so pity the Muslimas who stick up for Islam, like Sara Ludin. So deluded, so pathetic.
Posted by: darcy at November 10, 2007 6:45 PM
Sara Ludin said
Spencer chooses not to place this passage in the context of the thrust of the entire Qur’anic message, verses that talk about marital harmony and the prophetic example.
The prophetic example? Let's go to the hadiths on this one:
Sahih Muslim 2127: He [Mohammad] said: Was it the darkness (of your shadow) that I saw in front of me? I [Aisha] said: Yes. He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you?
Remember, Aisha was a nine year old girl and Mohammad was a fifty-year old man. Leave aside that a fifty year old man is having sex with a 9 year old girl, he's also beating her. He's managed to combine wife-beating and child-beating in one sacred act. Yes, there's a prophetic example for the ages.
Bukhari volume 8, #828 Narrated Aisha: Abu Bakr came to towards me and struck me violently with his fist and said, "You have detained the people because of your necklace." But I remained motionless as if I was dead lest I should awake Allah's Apostle although that hit was very painful.
Mohammad was quite the example even for his contemporaries. Aisha's got everybody beating her. And her concern? That she not wake the Prophet with her cries of pain.
Marital harmony:
Bukhari volume 7, #132 Narrated Zam'a, "The prophet said, "None of you should flog his wife as he flogs a slave and then have sexual intercourse with her in the last part of the day."
Ibn Ishaq's quotation of Mohammad's farewell address You have rights over your wives, and they have rights over you. You have the right that they should not defile your bed and that they should not behave with open unseemliness. If they do, God allows you to put them in separate rooms and to beat them, but not with severity. If they refrain from these things and obey you, they have right to their food and clothing with kindness. Lay injunctions on women kindly, for they are your prisoners having no control of their persons
Muslim scholars agree that the husband is not to break bones while beating his wife. I think Sara Ludin's definition of "marital harmony" may be different than mine.
Posted by: special_guest at November 10, 2007 6:48 PM
Lots of info on Wife Beating in Islam with sources here:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/wife-beating.htm#_Toc160373825
The stated conclusion is:
It’s been established that the Islamic source materials command the beating of disobedient wives. Wife beating occurred in early Islam with Muhammad’s approval and it is part of Islam’s theology for family management. This beating is meant to inflict pain in order to bring the wife into submission to her husband. The beating cannot break bones, disfigure, or injure the wife, but can cause pain and bruise her.
Islam states that the man is superior to the woman and positions the wife subordinate to her husband. As her superior he is given authority over her. If she persists in disobedience to him the Quran commands him to beat her. Muhammad institutionalized wife beating and his edict is accepted and supported by the majority of Muslims worldwide.
at November 10, 2007 7:10 PM
From the article:
The fallout from that week motivated the Multi-faith Council ... to organize a “peaceful interfaith dialogue,” which became Islamo-Fashion week.
Islamo-Fashion week? Let me guess: a bunch of women clad in head-to-toe black burqas walking the catwalk, and men on both sides armed with sticks, beating any woman who lets an ankle or wrist come uncovered, or for having a sharp tongue.
at November 10, 2007 7:23 PM
Hugh said
But I'd start with Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She's hard to ignore, and impossible to refute.
Impossible? Not if Ms. Ludin follows the sage advice of Mr. Wood-Smith and simply does not respond, in order to avoid the appearance of having to refute Ms. Hirsi Ali.
Ah, the leaders of tomorrow, sure of the veracity of their beliefs, sitting silently, to avoid looking like they needed to prove the veracity of their beliefs.
Pure genius.
Posted by: special_guest at November 10, 2007 7:37 PM
And didn't Aisha say about a woman that her skin was as green as her clothes and Mo did nothing to stop it? And that none suffer as much as the believing woman suffer. Prophetic example.
Posted by: Borg at November 10, 2007 10:42 PM
Once again, Robert speaks truthfully about Islam, based on the words and actions of the Islamists and supported by their religious texts, and he is the problem.
*Yawn*.
Posted by: awake at November 11, 2007 1:33 AM
What does, 'beat her lightly with the hands' mean?
Define a light beating. Would a light beating from Hulk Hogan be the same as a lite beating from
Pee Wee Herman? Breaking bones is is too heavy, to light, and the beating is not taken seriously. It must be hard to get the severity of the beating just right, not to little, not to much...probably takes a lot of practice at lite wife beating to get it right. Some muslims probably never do get it right, but if they continue practicing, some day they will stop breaking bones. I know I got better at it with practice. I too started out breaking bones, but with continued practice was able to stop breaking bones, and only cause bruises, and contusions. Oh what a happy day that was, especially for my wife. Beating her lightly has caused a dramatic change in our relationship. She can throw away the casts and crutches, she can walk normally, and has regained use of her left arm. In this case I think Allah is right, a lightly beaten wife is worth two with broken bones. She cooks and cleans better with two hands.
Allah is so wise....
at November 11, 2007 2:09 AM
"Bukhari volume 8, #828 Narrated Aisha: Abu Bakr came to towards me and struck me violently with his fist and said, "You have detained the people because of your necklace."
This is interesting. Here we have a subordinate of Mohammed, beating and berating Big Cheese's wife.
I guess that's why men in Afghanistan get away with beating women whom they don't even know, for laughing in the marketplace (and for other major infractions of their perverted laws.) It's sunna.
Posted by: Abscedere at November 11, 2007 1:28 PM
I thought Abu Bakr, Mohammed's friend and successor, was Aisha's father. Please confirm or correct this, or direct me to the answer.
Posted by: John C at November 11, 2007 9:34 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)