In PJ Lifestyle, I explain some of the reasons why Valentine’s Day so upset some Muslim clerics last week:
As couples the world over celebrated Valentine’s Day last week, many no doubt recalled the great Muslim love stories: Romeo and Juliet and Fatima and Dalia and Naima; A Midsummer Night’s Stoning; the movies Veiled Woman and When Harry Beat Sally – so many.
Right-thinking people today would find such quips “Islamophobic” and distasteful; far more distasteful, however, is the grim reality they represent. When Valentine’s Day rolled around last week, Muslim leaders rose to oppose it with a fervor they have seldom mustered against the jihad terrorists who have supposedly twisted and hijacked their peaceful religion.
The Malaysian Islamic Development Department thundered that “social ceremonies such as this are a stepping-stone towards greater social ills such as fraud, mental disorder caused by alcohol, abortion and baby-dumping, and other negative ills that can invite disaster and moral decay among youths.” The Indonesian Ulema Council declared that “celebrating Valentine’s Day is against Islam.” Saudi Arabia’s feared Islamic religious police banned Valentine’s Day and hunted for people toting suspicious roses and candy boxes. A Saudi cleric who has said that “devotion to jihad for the sake of Allah, and the desire to shed blood, to smash skulls, and to sever limbs for the sake of Allah and in defense of His religion, is, undoubtedly, an honor for the believer” dubbed Valentine’s Day “immoral.”
In Uzbekistan, Muslim clerics preached against Valentine’s Day in their Friday sermons. In Kashmir, Mohammed Akram Wani, a student at Srinigar’s Institute of Arabic and Islamic studies, declared: “The event is anti-Islamic and Muslims are not allowed to celebrate the day because in Islam the day has no importance.” And at Pakistan’s Peshawar University, devout Muslim students decided to celebrate February 14 as Haya (Modesty) Day, which consisted of stoning students who were celebrating Valentine’s Day, firing on police who intervened, and setting several rooms of their hostel on fire.
This hostility to Valentine’s Day, some Muslims explain, is because celebrating it is bid’a – innovation, an unacceptable concept in a religion that Allah has “perfected” (cf. Qur’an 5:3), and because it has roots in Christianity and has become an excuse for drunkenness and promiscuity. But there is a deeper reason as well: Islam is hostile to romance. “Asking a Moslem about his women,” the heroic journalist Oriana Fallaci wrote back in 1964, “is like asking him about a secret vice.” The condition of those women, and the state of Islamic romance, has hardly improved since then.
A few of the principal ways in which Islam is a romance-killer:
1. Polygamy
Polygamy destroys romance. Is she the one, the only one, who has captured your heart, delighted your eyes, put a spring in your step and filled your heart with joy? No, she is just one in a series. The Qur’an tells Muslim men to “marry those that please you of women, two or three or four. But if you fear that you will not be just, then one…” (Qur’an 4:3). It seems fair: a man who cannot be just with multiple wives should restrict himself to just one, but in such matters, what constitutes just behavior is all too subjective and elusive. Islamic authorities have generally understood this to mean equal economic support and equal time in the beds of each.
Yet even if all this were scrupulously managed, an equal distribution of affection wouldn’t be possible. Even Muhammad favored his child bride Aisha over all of his other wives. A hadith has a Muslim making bold to ask him, “Who is the most beloved person to you?” Muhammad answered with one word: Aisha. (Bukhari 5.62.3662) What might his other wives have thought of this?
But the human heart longs to love and be loved uniquely, and this desire cannot be extinguished. In Constantinople: City of the World’s Desire, 1453–1924, Philip Mansel’s elegantly written history of Constantinople after the Muslim conquest, he offers a moving case in point involving the daughter of the sultan of the Ottoman Empire:
Yet even these most powerful and privileged of Ottoman might be tortured by jealousy. Adile Sultan, daughter of the great nineteenth-century reformer Mahmud II, married an army officer, Mehmed Ali Pasha. They were in love. One day at the fashionable meeting-place in the Golden Horn called the Sweet Waters of Europe, she attracted his attention. Since she was thickly veiled, he did not know who she was. He dropped a scented handkerchief at her feet. That night the Pasha found the handkerchief on the pillow beside his sleeping wife.
One day, according to Mansel, Adile Sultan traveled to a mosque far from her home. Taking advantage of the celebrated Oriental hospitality, she stopped for a rest at a mansion that was on the way. While enjoying coffee and sherbet set out by her hostess, she was astonished to find that her hostess, too, was the wife of Mehmed Ali Pasha!
She said nothing, however, and returned home — where, Mansel says, “thereafter she lived in seclusion, writing poems of increasing sadness. When she died in 1898, she was buried beside her husband. They never referred to his infidelity.” In Islamic terms, it wasn’t infidelity at all. But nonetheless, it gnawed at Adile Sultan’s heart.
It doesn’t take much knowledge of human nature to recognize that it’s a story that has been repeated and is still being repeated in polygamous households the world over.
2. Female genital mutilation
Muhammad is said to have justified the cutting of women’s genitals: “A woman used to perform circumcision in Medina. The Prophet said to her: Do not cut severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband.” (Sunan Abu Dawud 41.5251) The problem with this is that the distinction between cutting and cutting severely is subjective.
There is also justification for the practice in Islamic law: “Circumcision is obligatory (for every male and female) (by cutting off the piece of skin on the glans of the penis of the male, but circumcision of the female is by cutting out the bazr ‘clitoris’ [this is called khufaadh ‘female circumcision’]).” — ‘Umdat al-Salik e4.3, translated by Mark Durie, The Third Choice, p. 64
While female genital mutilation is by no means universally practiced in Muslim countries, it is not hard to find Islamic authorities around the world today justifying this barbarity on Islamic grounds. The idea behind it is that it reduces a woman’s sexual response, thus making her easier to control. The implications of this for romance are obvious. What should be a joyful celebration of mutual self-giving becomes the painful duty of a slave.
3. Sex on demand
“Slave” is indeed the apposite word. Islamic tradition has Muhammad saying: “If a husband calls his wife to his bed [i.e. to have sexual relation] and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning” (Bukhari 4.54.460) and “By him in Whose Hand lies my life, a woman can not carry out the right of her Lord, till she carries out the right of her husband. And if he asks her to surrender herself [to him for sexual intercourse] she should not refuse him even if she is on a camel’s saddle” (Ibn Majah 1854).
Clearly Islamic marriage is not a relationship of two human beings to each other, a community of love, but a relationship between a servant and her master. Servant/master romances may be the stuff of bodice-rippers and bad period weepers, but they can only work in real life if on some level the two parties are equals. In Islam, a husband and wife are never equals unless they ignore the various Islamic laws that ensure that they aren’t.
4. Wife-beating
This is the worst of all. The Qur’an says:
“Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that God has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for God’s guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them.” (4:34)
Islamic apologists routinely claim that the Qur’an’s command to beat disobedient women must be applied only with the most harmless of implements — i.e., a toothstick, as per a weak hadith. However, Muhammad’s example is normative for Muslims, since he is an “excellent example of conduct” (Qur’an 33:21) — and according to a canonical hadith, Muhammad’s favorite wife, his child bride Aisha, reports that Muhammad struck her. Once he went out at night after he thought she was asleep, and she followed him surreptitiously. Muhammad saw her, and, as Aisha recounts: “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?” (Muslim 2127) Aisha herself said it: “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women.” (Bukhari 7.72.715)
Domestic abuse is found everywhere, but only in Islam is it given divine sanction. And of course, it is inimical to romance. The woman who lives in fear of it cannot love. She cannot even relax. The threat of it places her relationship with her husband on the basis not of love, but of fear….
mortimer says
The Religion of Misogyny and Female Slavery ™
JamesonRocks says
Yes, if you give a woman a romantic card, flowers and candy, she may begin to feel that she is special and perhaps even loved. Once that happens, she may begin to feel she has some sort of human rights, value and dignity. She may even begin to develop the desire to read, form and express her own opinions. I can certainly see how this could be a real problem for Islam…
miriam rove says
this is a great article.m
Christian A. Beltram says
Any religion that would kill romance or love in any form is not a religion at in my book! If the world had more loving and caring people in it, humanity would be in much better shape than it is today.
Dan Chomistek says
I spent several years sailing in the Middle East part of the world, and returning home, trying to explain what I’d witnessed there, I was called narrow minded, racist, bigoted, and Islamophobic.
Several years ago, when Glenn Beck was still at CNN, on one of his programs he showed a number of Islamic propaganda films. One was of a Jewish father giving his son to a number of disgusting looking Rabbis, who took the boy into a cellar and slit his throat to drink the boy’s blood for Passover.
I SAW that very piece in a hotel in Cairo. The place was a bit of a dive, with only a dozen or so non-English channels on the tv, and surfing for something I thought I might might be able to make sense of, I came across this film.
I only saw a minute or so before switching the channel, and thought it just must be some really bad B-Grade Egyptian horror movie.
Shocked the H out of me when I saw it on Beck several years later, and got a translation along with it.
Adam Resla says
Spencer is idiotic in the extreme and terribly misinformed. He is the worst kind of fool in that he has only a cursory knowledge of Islam but has a clear agenda to demonize the entire faith without actually understanding any of it – he is an ignorant fool. The danger he poses is that he sort of seems like he knows what he’s talking about and the vast majority of ignorant people that listen to him are already on his side and believe what he says. First, the Qur’an translations he uses are not accurate. The Qur’an does not instruct a man to beat his wife, but as a last resort to “strike” her, and even this translation fails to convey the true teachings of Islam – which can only be learned in the context of the rest of the book.
By the way, check out Matthew 10:34 (KJV): “Think not that I [Jesus] am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” In fact in the KJV Bible, the word “sword” is used 384 times. However, the word “sword” appears nowhere in the Qur’an. So much for Christianity being a peaceful religion (plenty more verses I can quote, too)!
Spencer’s moronic expositions are amateurish, stupid, and really embarrassing from an academic point of view. He fools only other fools and not critical thinkers (a class among which he cannot count himself). It’s no wonder we go into wars in Muslim countries with fucked up strategies – Spencer and people like him are the ones advising USCENTCOM. That’s like asking Hitler to advise the U.N. on how to deal with the crisis in the Middle East – he has an agenda and it is biased and hate-filled.
I challenge you to look into Spencer’s claims for yourself. Get a reliable translation of the Qur’an (Ask Muslims you know or go to a Mosque and ask some people there.). Look at this stuff seriously and see if you are convinced of the hateful rhetoric you read on this site. It is not a one-day, one-hour reading that will lead you to proper interpretations. You have to read critically and ask questions. I’m not asking anyone to convert to Islam, but just be sure that you are not misled into believing Islam is something that it is not by a misinformed, hateful, dishonest demon like Robert Spencer. You have your own mind. Use it.
Salah says
You’re either an ignorant or a liar. I’ve been reading Spencer for years. His translations are accurate and his arguments irrefutable.
The Qur’an does not instruct a man to “strike” his wife, but to beat her:
وَاللاَّتِي تَخَافُونَ نُشُوزَهُنَّ فَعِظُوهُنَّ وَاهْجُرُوهُنَّ فِي الْمَضَاجِعِ وَاضْرِبُوهُنَّ
and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them;
http://www.thequran.com/Read/Verse/4/34/34/1,2,8
You should be ashamed of your Qur’an and of your “prophet”, the Perfect Man of Islam!!!
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2010/12/perfect-man-of-islam.html
Here’s a french version:
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2010/12/lhomme-parfait-de-lislam.html
And here’s an arabic one, in the language of your Allah.
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2010/12/perfect-man-arabic.html
Carmen Sporidis says
they really thing only they can read and write Arabic, the infidels are stuped. We are not stuped and we can read very well. Go alswhere and write your lies
CGW says
Hmmmm, another “drive-by” musloid troll.
You really have no idea where you are, do you, “Adam Resla” (aka Reza Aslan?). JW comments section and the majority of its readers are mostly comprised of a hard-core cadre of regulars who have studied islam in depth for years. Most of us have read islamic scriptures in depth, and have conducted our own independent research over an extended period of time. Among us are native Arabic speakers and ex-muslims, just for that added measure of authenticity. We are not a bunch of greenhorns who can be swayed by a laughably amateurish tu quoque argument, as if *any* negative implication of another religion, such as Christianity, could somehow excuse or lessen the evil of a perverted ideology like islam. You just outed yourself as a neophyte in the argumentation arena, ineptly making use of a logical fallacy. Logical fallacies are the de rigeur choice of most muslims because they lack the capacity for reasoned debate and critical thinking. So don’t feel bad, you’re just one of many.
Let me guess – you’ve read none of Spencer’s books and are really clueless with regard to his scholarship. It’s patently obvious from your comment, because even those who disagree with Spencer’s viewpoints cannot fault his meticulous research, analysis and documentation. An IMAM who lost pitifully to him in a debate about what islamic scriptures actually say whined and complained afterward that the debate wasn’t fair because Spencer was actually a SCHOLAR and an EXPERT on islam! Isn’t it interesting that all the jihadis agree with Spencer’s interpretaions of islamic doctrine?
Please point out just one, single, solitary “hateful” or “dishonest” quote from Robert Spencer. The only hateful words ever written or pronounced by him were direct quotes from the original islamic scriptures. To report on hate, to describe it, to illustrate its influence and effects brilliantly, is the furthest thing possible from “hateful” and is the epitome of honesty.
Most of us have given up responding to trolls like you because, after awhile, it became so much like “shooting fish in a barrel” that it became boring. For my fellow JW regulars, especially those like myself who have been here for THIRTEEN YEARS and have been studying islam for at least that long or longer, it does help to provide some comic relief in the face of the horrendous, despicable evil posed by islam.
So thanks for the laugh.
I’ll leave you to the others.
Jay Boo says
NOT PEACE BUT A SWORD
Matthew 10:34 (KJV):
A bit disingenuous to use that line out of context after criticizing Robert Spencer for the same.
A will admit that any criticism against Islam is inherently UNFAIR since Islam is INDEFENSIBLE.
BTW if Jesus had been talking about an actual sword he would have been referring to a believer attacking his own family not their ‘infidel’ oppressors.
The Adam Resla moniker sounds a lot like a backwards pseudonym for Reza Aslan
===========================
33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. 34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. 37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. 39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it. 40 He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me. 41 He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward. 42 And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.
RG says
To ‘Adam Resla’ – I never cease to be blown away by the first-class ignorance of you muslim converts. Your grasp of the English language tells me that you are very probably, not middle-eastern, nor islamic by birth. (But then again–who the hell cares where you were born–certainly not I.) Most likely you’re a hate-filled, know-it-all college punk! You’ve learned that being hateful is a virtue in islam, so now you’re ready to stand up on your soapbox and pronounce how incredibly righteous you have become since espousing the teachings of the “the Perfect man of Islam”.
You definitely seem to have that “hate” thingy all wrapped up in a plastic baggy! OMG, Just look how Jesus talked about “swords”! Ahemm–384 references to the word “sword”! So where’d you manage to scrounge that little tidbit??? Ahhh, I just wonder…could it be your “Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance” of the KJ Bible??? Yeah, you’re a muzzie convert alright! Probably have a Bible believing mother and/ or a grandmother who is praying for God to open your eyes before it’s too late!
BTW, Strong’s has 3 columns of 115 references each–that would be 345; then there’s the first and last columns with 14 and 49 references respectively. A total of 408 references to the word “sword”–which does not include the additional 24 entries which reference the word “swords”. Ahemm–seems like you’re using a flawed info source OR ELSE YOU’RE TOO DAMNED STUPID TO ADD CORRECTLY!!!! ‘Cause the only way you can come up with 384 is to add 345 + 49 WITHOUT CARRYING THE 1!!!!! Hey, know-it-all–WHAT ELSE YA GOT?????
P.S. Ain’t it funny how that ya never did hear of a Christian yelling “Praise Jesus” while he surreptiously and savagely sliced through his ‘disobedient’ wife’s jugular with a DULL KITCHEN KNIFE!!!!!
gravenimage says
Adam Resla wrote:
Spencer is idiotic in the extreme and terribly misinformed. He is the worst kind of fool in that he has only a cursory knowledge of Islam but has a clear agenda to demonize the entire faith without actually understanding any of it – he is an ignorant fool…
First, the Qur’an translations he uses are not accurate. The Qur’an does not instruct a man to beat his wife, but as a last resort to “strike” her, and even this translation fails to convey the true teachings of Islam – which can only be learned in the context of the rest of the book.
……………………………………..
Here are multiple translations of Qur’an 4:34:
Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Surely God is high, supreme. (Dawood)
Men are in charge of women, because Allah has made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah has guarded. As for those from whom you fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High Exalted, Great. (Pickthall)
Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that God has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for God’s guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them. If they then obey you, look not for any way against them; God is All high, All great. (Arberry)
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 their sleeping places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great. (Shakir)
Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband’s) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whom part you fear disloyalty and ill conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance) for Allah is Most High, Great (above you all). (Ali)
“Beat”, “scourge”, and “strike”—these are all of a piece, and sacralize wife beating. How can you claim that all of these translations “not accurate”, since most of them were done by pious Muslims? Moreover, they match *every* translation I have ever read.
The false claim that all translations of the Qur’an in English are incorrect—all, oddly, in just the same manner—or even the absurd claim that the Qur’an is untranslatable is just Taqiyya, hoping that Infidels will not see how horrific that contents of that book really are.
Clearly, Resla is fine with pious Muslim men striking their wives if they fear disobedience. How appalling. He claims that the “context” makes this barbarism palatable, then (no surprise) never actually mentions wnat this context might be.
And notice that he does not even address any of the other issues here—does he have any issues with polygamy, and FGM, and marital rape? I doubt it.
And is he fine with pedophilia, forced marriage, and “Honor Killings” as well? Probably so, if he condones striking one’s wife.
More:
By the way, check out Matthew 10:34 (KJV): “Think not that I [Jesus] am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” In fact in the KJV Bible, the word “sword” is used 384 times. However, the word “sword” appears nowhere in the Qur’an. So much for Christianity being a peaceful religion (plenty more verses I can quote, too)!
……………………………………..
What rot—jesus was not a murderous warlord like the “Prophet” Muhammed.
Sura 9.5 is known as the “Sura of the Sword”:
“When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them…”
And then we have this horrific Hadith, which sums up the creed of Islam: “Paradise is under the shade of swords”.
More than that, of course, we have the horrifying legacy of Islam—the waves of violence and genocide that are very much with us today. There have been over 22,000 Jihad terror attacks, many with multiple murders, just since 9/11.
David says
Another great and well researched article – hard to argue against this except by reverting to verbal abuse. The horrors of Islam being exposed – how I hope people take note.
gravenimage says
“The event is anti-Islamic and Muslims are not allowed to celebrate the day because in Islam the day has no importance.”
……………………………….
Of course, it’s *much more* than that—Valentine’s Day is, in fact, antithetical to so much of Islam.
More:
This hostility to Valentine’s Day, some Muslims explain, is because celebrating it is bid’a…
……………………………….
Islam *is* hostile to innovation—but pious Muslims certainly fail to show the same hostility to, say, the development of tractors or escalators that they do Valentine’s Day—and they enthusiastically embrace weaponry like the Kalashnikov and IED, so this is quite selective.
More:
But there is a deeper reason as well: Islam is hostile to romance.
……………………………….
*Very* important point.
Polygamy engenders either jealousy or resignation and indifference, which do not lend themselves to romantic love. Along with the “Triple Talaq”—summary divorce—it lets women know that they are virtually interchangeable.
And FGM doesn’t just lead to lack of sexual response in women with the removal of the clitoris—in the most extreme form, Type 3 or infibulation, the vagina is sewn shut. In order to have sex, the vagina *must be cut open*. This makes even the gentlest man an utter brute, and ensuing sex not just unpleasurable, but terrible painful.
And then there is marital rape, which speaks for itself. But why not? Sex slavery is also forced sex. And where there is the threat of forced sex, it casts a pall on every sexual encounter.
And of course, there are other forms of force in Islamic marriage—wife beating and the threat of “Honor Killing”.
And why not? So many marriages in Islam are based on force to begin with—on forced marriage, including child marriage.
More:
The veil…
Reality is more prosaic: the clear implication is that the female body is shameful, and to be hidden away. Even worse, the idea behind the veiling of women is that they enflame male lust by appearing uncovered, and therefore must cover themselves, because it is their responsibility, not men’s, to control that lust.
……………………………….
There is related aspect of the veil, as well—that any woman who is *not* veiled is fair game for rape.
More:
All this tends to make feminine beauty not an object of wonder and joy, but of fear and contempt. But fear and contempt are not what a man feels for his beloved – which is why it is so hard to call to mind any great and celebrated Muslim romances.
……………………………….
So true. Islam is a viciously loveless creed.
Wherever you find love in a Muslim marriage, it is *in spite* of Islam, not because of it.
No wonder pious Muslims are so rabid in their hatred of Valentine’s Day.
Champ says
Great list of “7”, Robert; and islam is evil to the core, so nothing good can ever come from evil.