Athena's Wisdom

The Trouble with Islam Today.

The Trouble with Islam Today: A Muslim's Call for Reform in Her Faith by Irshad Manji is the book I have been waiting for.  I just saw Manji's promotion of the book on C-Span and wow I was impressed.  What an amazing woman!  It's nice to see a Muslim women acknowledge that some Muslims are using Islam as a means to justify human rights abuses.  Ms. Manji has received several death threats for the bold ideas stated in her book.  Check out her captivating lecture on Real Player or Windows Media here.  Here's also the C-SPAN link. As we've outlined in this blog several times, Muslim clerics use Islam to justify domestic violence and in some cases, female genital mutilation.  While she addresses terrorism, Manji tackles this issue head on by distinguishing between moderate Muslims who remain silent on extremist interpretations of the Koran, and Muslim reformers who wish to debate these interpretations in her column in this week's NY Post:

While the vast majority of Muslims aren't extremists, a more important distinction must start being made - the distinction between moderate Muslims and reform-minded ones. Moderate Muslims denounce violence in the name of Islam - but deny that Islam has anything to do with it.

By their denial, moderates abandon the ground of theological interpretation to those with malignant intentions - effectively telling would-be terrorists that they can get away with abuses of power because mainstream Muslims won't challenge the fanatics with bold, competing interpretations.

To do so would be admit that religion is a factor. Moderate Muslims can't go there.

Reform-minded Muslims say it's time to admit that Islam's scripture and history are being exploited. They argue for re-interpretation precisely to put the would-be terrorists on notice that their monopoly is over. Re-interpreting doesn't mean re-writing. It means re-thinking words and practices that already exist - removing them from a seventh-century tribal time warp and introducing them to a twenty first-century pluralistic context.

We say it's high time for these interpretations to tackle how women are treated within society. 

The Case to Destroy America

We welcome Venus's first post on our blog.  This one focuses on the current immigration debate rather than our normal topics on women but it is extremely important nonetheless.

 

We know Dick Lamm as the former Governor of Colorado. In that context his thoughts are particularly poignant. Last week there was an immigration overpopulation conference in Washington , D.C., filled to capacity by many of America's finest minds and leaders. A brilliant college professor by the name of Victor Hansen Davis talked about his latest book, "Mexifornia," explaining how immigration - both legal and illegal was destroying the entire state of California . He said it would march across the country until it destroyed all vestiges of The American Dream.

Moments later, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm stood up and gave a stunning speech on how to destroy America . The audience sat spellbound as he described eight methods for the destruction of the United States . He said, "If you believe that America is too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let's destroy America . It is not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall and that 'An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.'"

"Here is how they do it," Lamm said: "First, to destroy America , turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country." History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. The historical scholar, Seymour Lipset, put it this way: "The histories of bilingual and bi-cultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy." Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, and Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons, and Corsicans. Spain has Basques".

Lamm went on: Second, to destroy America , "Invent 'multiculturalism' and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. Make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal. That there are no cultural differences. Make it an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due solely to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds".

Third, "We could make the United States a 'Hispanic Quebec ' without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: " The apparent success of our own multiethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentricity and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together." Lamm said, "I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural subgroups living in America enforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities."

"Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high school."

"My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of 'Victimology.' I would get all minorities to think that their lack of success was the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population."

"My sixth plan for America's downfall would include dual citizenship, and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other - that is, when they are not killing each other. A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common Language and literature; and they worshipped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic games. A common enemy, Persia, threatened their liberty. Yet all these bonds were not strong enough to overcome two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell. "E. Pluribus Unum" --From many, one. In that historical reality, if we put the emphasis on the 'pluribus' instead of the 'Unum,' we will balkanize America as surely as Yugoslavia ."

"Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits; make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of 'diversity.' I would find a word similar to 'heretic' of the 16th century - that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like 'racist' or 'xenophobe' halt discussion and debate. Having made America a bilingual/bicultural country, having established multi-culturism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of 'Victimology,' I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good. I would make every individual immigrant symmetric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them."

In the last minute of his speech, Governor Lamm wiped his brow. Profound silence followed. Finally he said,. "Lastly, I would censor Victor Hanson Davis's book "Mexifornia." His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan to destroy America . If you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don't read that book."

There was no applause. A chilling fear quietly rose like an ominous cloud above every attendee at the conference. Every American in that room knew that everything Lamm enumerated was proceeding methodically, quietly, darkly, yet pervasively across the United States today. Discussion is being suppressed. Over 100 languages are ripping the foundation of our educational system and national cohesiveness. Even barbaric cultures that practice female genital mutilation are growing as we celebrate 'diversity.' American jobs are vanishing into the Third World as corporations create a Third World in America - take note of California and other states - to date, ten million illegal aliens and growing fast. It is reminiscent of George Orwell's book "1984." In that story, three slogans are engraved in the Ministry of Truth building: "War is peace," "Freedom is slavery," and "Ignorance is strength."

Governor Lamm walked back to his seat. It dawned on everyone at the conference that our nation and the future of this great democracy is deeply in trouble and worsening fast. If we don't get this immigration monster stopped within three years, it will rage like a California wildfire and destroy everything in its path especially The American Dream.

Thank You Dad

The results from science are in—involved, loving fathers do matter.  I’m puzzled by feminists that remain embittered with men and claim fathers aren’t a necessity.  Reveling in victim status and discounting the importance of the other half of population isn’t being pro-woman at all.  The saner of us can recognize that single moms are heroic, and still understand the impact of fathers in our lives.  Fatherhood is one of the best gifts to both our sons and daughters alike. So we picked out portions from our favorite columns that reflect on Father’s Day. Browse through them and think about how fatherhood brings out the best in all of us.

Psychology Today points out the importance of dad during adolescence:

Dads become especially critical during adolescence. Generally, says Flanery, "fathers are better at setting limits with teenage boys. I've seen it in my practice. Teenage boys, who are on the brink of losing control, calm down quite a bit by having their dads show up. It can keep things from escalating further."

Important as fathers are to sons, they may be even more important to the development and behavior of teenage daughters. Girls are twice as likely as boys to become depressed after puberty.

Flanery contends that the mood changes are often linked to estrangement from Dad. Girls are "looking to Dad to give them a clue about guys. But they miss out if Dad isn't there."

In addition, the quality of the relationship between a teenage daughter and her father is predictive of the quality of a committed relationship she will have in her young adult years.

From the Toledo Blade:

Kyle Pruett, noted child psychiatrist, says that kids with engaged fathers demonstrate a greater ability to take initiative and evidence self-control. When these boys grow up, they are more likely to be good dads themselves.

There is conclusive evidence that high levels of attention and interaction with fathers produce children who are more confident and less anxious when placed in unfamiliar settings, better able to deal with frustration, better able to cope with changing circumstances and breaks from their routine, and better able to gain a sense of independence and an identity outside the mother-child relationship.

And the Chicago Sun-Times:

[…] if you turn on your television today, fathers on recent sitcoms like "Everybody Loves Raymond," "Still Standing" and "According to Jim" portray men as the lowest form of family member. They are childish, needy, whiny and altogether hopeless. Laughs are generally at their expense, and sitcom wives must stoically indulge their husbands' stupidity. Whether you are a fan of these shows or not, you have to wonder: Are fathers really so useless to the modern nuclear family?

Definitely not. As much as we love to laugh at the hijinks of these dim-witted sitcom daddies, the importance of fathers in the lives of their children is no laughing matter. Studies have shown that children who have actively involved fathers do much better academically. Children with actively involved fathers are also much less likely to abuse drugs or alcohol, live in poverty or develop psychological issues. These studies prove that having a good father is not a luxury -- it is a necessity.

Finally, from the Yakima-Herald:

One of the best things any father can do for his children is to have a stable and loving marriage relationship. By nurturing his marriage, he models the skills his children will need for a successful marriage in the future. One way a dad can show love to his wife is by helping with child care. Carla Cantor, a freelance writer who specializes in health and family matters writes, "Dad's engagement makes both parents feel more fulfilled and enhances their marriage. And that's important: Studies show that a stable, harmonious marital relationship is one of the greatest gifts parents can bestow on their kids."

When the marital relationship is full of devotion, love will spill over into the home. The old saying still holds true: "The greatest thing a man can do for his children is to love their mother!"

To say the impact of my father on my own life is profound is an understatement.  The belief I could succeed at anything, and the importance of hard work, perseverance, loyalty, and integrity—our vulnerability to frailty and the importance of forgiveness—all this, I learned from my father.

Happy Father’s Day, Dad.

What's the Value of 60 Million Girls?

Foxnews summarized a recent UN Population Fund report that elaborated on serious demographic problems in Asia, where men greatly outnumber women.  Abortion, female infanticide, and trafficking are responsible for the missing girls:

Mosher, the first American social scientist allowed into China, puts much of the blame on Beijing's one-child policy, which took effect in 1979.

The policy encourages late marrying and late childbearing, and it limits the majority of urban couples to having one child and most of those living in rural areas to two. Female infanticide was the result, he said.

"Historically infanticide was something that was practiced in poor places in China," Mosher said. "But when the one-child policy came into effect we began to see in the wealthy areas of China, what had never been done before in history — the killing of little girls."

In recent years, female infanticide has taken a back seat to sex-selective abortion or female feticide, due to the advent of amniocentesis and ultrasound technology as well as other prenatal sex selection techniques, many of which are now readily available in clinics and doctors’ offices.

The article reports normally the sex ratio is 103–105 males per 100 females in any given society.  In China, the gender ratio is 118 boys for every 100 girls with numbers reaching as high as 130 boys for every 100 girls in some regions.  In India, where large dowries are still paid for marrying off girls, some provinces reported fewer than 900 girls per 1000 boys:

Abortion is legal in India under certain conditions, but sex-selective abortions or female feticide is a crime.

In 1994, the government enacted the Preconception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques Act (PC & PNDT), which prohibited those conducting such tests from telling or otherwise communicating to the woman or her family the sex of the fetus. The law was amended in 2003 to prohibit sex selection before or after conception.

"In recent years, prenatal sex selection and female feticide in India has increased," Singh said. "Though it is against the law for ultrasound technologies to be used to detect the sex of the child, it is still done illegally."

In 2006 a doctor and his assistant in the northern state of Haryana were sentenced to two years in jail and fined for revealing the sex of a female fetus and agreeing to abort it. It was the first time medical professionals were sentenced to jail time under the (PC & PNDT) Act. Three years earlier, a doctor in Punjab received a fine. Singh estimates that hundreds more cases are being investigated across the country and taken to court.

Unfortunately, there are disturbing signs that the practice of female infanticide and sex-selective abortion is not just limited to countries like Asia and China:

As China and India work toward solving their problems, Eberstadt points out that three large European countries are also showing disturbing signs.

"Greece, Macedonia and Yugoslavia betray some hints of prejudicial death rates for little girls in the post-war period," he said. While the numbers are very small, he notes they are "nonetheless curious and unusual.

"In the western hemisphere, Venezuela and El Salvador both have unnatural death rates for little girls and now also display unnatural sex ratios at birth," he continued.

Published reports point to problems among some immigrant groups in Canada as well. And even in the United States, Eberstadt said, some Asian-American populations have begun to "exhibit sex ratios at birth that could be considered biologically impossible."

As feminists, how do we balance the tension between advocating for reproductive rights that give women control over their lives when we know in many cultures, female infants still have such low value? Should abortion really have no restrictions whatsoever, as in places such as Canada?  When combined with the ideology of multiculturalism, which does not judge other cultures’ values, it seems anti-feminist to allow the practice of abortion in cases of sex selection.  It seems easy to rationalize a women’s right to choose in the earlier stages of pregnancy such as the first trimester, when the fetus does not look like a human being.  It may represent human life, but it is debatable whether it is the same as a living, breathing human being, and thus negates the free will of another human being.  But as pregnancy progresses and we clearly see it starting to resemble more and more of a human being, there’s something unsettling about unrestricted abortion.  Both the pro-life and pro-choice movement have their extremes. The former tends to ignore the health and well-being of the mother, reducing her to functionality as a vehicle for delivering a baby.  The latter tends to ignore the human fraility in how we exercise our freedoms, and its consequences within society.  This will be an issue that remains with us for the foreseeable future, and will only intensify as technology paves the way for gender selection at conception.

The Penalty for Dishonoring Your Family: Death

CNN reported on Jun 11th that a Kurdish man living in Great Britain was convicted of killing his daughter in an “honor killing” after she left her husband and fell in love with another man:

Her family decided to kill her because they believed the relationship had brought dishonor on the family as Suleimani was an Iranian Kurd and not a strict Muslim.

Banaz's body was found in April 2006, months after she was killed. 

Honor killings were almost unheard of in Britain until a few years ago but police and prosecutors now estimate there are about a dozen such murders a year. 

Campaigners say that the issue was misunderstood and that the authorities had been unwilling to get involved for fear of upsetting cultural sensitivities in minority communities. 

Banaz had contacted police a number of times before her death, saying her life was at risk, but no action was taken.

An inquiry is under way into the police handling of the case.

  Banaz Mahmoud, the victim

Mahmoud Mahmoud, the father

Youtube has the broadcast:                                     .

Moreover, BBC is reporting these “honor killings” are on the rise in the UK, although no statistics are offered:

Human rights barrister Usha Sood said so-called "honour" crimes were becoming more common and were "being perpetrated in the hundreds every year."

[. . . ]

Ms Sood, who specialises in Asian family cases, told BBC Radio Five Live "honour crimes of some sort" whether or not they resulted in death, were becoming more common in the UK.

"But certainly honour crimes are being perpetrated in the hundreds every year," she said.

In September of 2006 in a poll with 500 Sikhs, Hindus, Christians, & Muslims, the BBC reported 1 in 10 British Asians believed honor killings could be justified.

Does Islam Sanction Domestic Violence Against Women?

Our readers will notice our blog includes many posts on violence against women in Islamic countries. Some of our readers have asked if this type of behavior is widely sanctioned or is it just a fringe of society that gets media attention. Currently, there’s a fierce debate over the role of women in Islam undergoing the Middle East, a topic that the American media refuses to investigate and clarify for its audience. With a larger proportion of Muslims in Britain, the BBC at least runs occasional stories on violence against women within their Muslim communities.  It seems our own media is reluctant to tackle this issue due to political correctness concerns.

By even addressing this issue, some critics are quick to point out this is an anti-Muslim view and that western societies also have problems with violence against women.  And they use reliable statistics to beat western observers over the head on this. Others point out Jewish and Christian religious texts also reflected patriarchical mores and have problematic translations, such as the Old Testament which sanctions stoning for adultery (Deut. 22:22).  In response to the first point, we’re not attempting to paint a picture of all Muslims as wife beaters. A look at the number of NGOs that addresses this specific issue as well as the existence of a debate being shown within Middle Eastern networks clearly illustrates there are Muslims who do not believe this is authentic Islam.  However, it is a fact both the domestic and political power structure within Middle Eastern societies belong nearly exclusively to males, and it’s hard to ignore the elites in society to include imams which use the Koran to justify this type of violence.  One would be hard pressed to find religious or political elites in western society advocating any form of violence against women today. Additionally, western societies have taken steps to protect women through legislation, and have instituted prosecution against those who commit such acts within the legal system.  Religion cannot be used as a pretext since western societies have separation between church and state.

To put this violence against women in the Middle East in context, a March 2007 UN newsletter from the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia, Centre for Women reported the following statistics:

There have been several high profile cases of domestic violence in recent years in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. A few countries in the region have taken measures to collect data and made statistics on domestic violence available. These figures show the alarming proportion of women who experience violence in the home. 22% of women in the Syrian Arab Republic have experienced some form of violence within the family6. 35% of married women in Egypt and 32% of Palestinian women report physical abuse by their partners.7

Moreover, some of these attitudes are ingrained within the culture.  A 2004 study from professor Lisa Hajjar, who teaches Law & Society at the University of California-Santa Barbara illustrates this:

The Egyptian Demographic and Health Survey, conducted by the National Population Council in 1995, studied a representative sample of Egypt's population to assess attitudes toward and practices of domestic violence. In terms of attitudes, according to this study, most women who were ever married agree that husbands are justified in beating their wives at least sometimes. "Women are most likely to agree that men are justified in beating their wives if the wife refuses him sex or if the wife answers him back" (El-Zanaty et al. 1996, 206). This finding indicates a high degree of tolerance for domestic violence in Egypt, even among women. However, factors such as being older, married longer, married to a relative, having consented to the marriage, living in urban areas, higher levels of education, and wage employment all reduce the probability that a woman would agree that a husband has the right to beat his wife under any circumstance. Among those factors, higher education and employment are the most statistically significant. Nevertheless, even among the most educated women, around 65% agree that a husband is justified in beating his wife at least sometimes. Similarly, around 69% of women who bring income to their families justify wife beating at least sometimes (El-Zanaty et al. 1996, 2067).

She concludes that selective translations of the Koran is used to justify some forms of domestic violence, even though it clearly stipulates marital relations should be harmonious:  

 Dominant interpretations of shari'a accord men the status as heads of their families with guardianship over and responsibility for women.¹¹ The complement to this is the expectation that women have a duty to obey their guardians. This hierarchical and highly patriarchal relationship is based on the Qur'anic principles of qawwama (authority, guardianship) and ta'a (obedience), from which gender-differentiated rights and duties are derived (see Al-Hibri 1997: 1821; Sonbol 1998). The primary source of the Qur'anic principles of qawwama and ta'a is Sura 4, Verse 34. This same verse contains the most commonly cited reference used to assert men's right or option to beat disobedient women. Although this verse is translated and interpreted in a variety of ways (see An-Na'im 1996, 97; Engineer 1992, 46; Hassan 1987, 98105; Stowasser 1998), a standard English translation, which captures dominant understandings about authority, (dis)obedience, and punishment, states:

Men have authority [qawwama] over women because Allah has made the one superior to the other, and because they [men] spend their wealth to maintain them [women]. Good women are obedient [ta'a]. They guard their unseen parts because Allah has guarded them. As for those [women] from whom you fear disobedience [nushaz], admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Allah is high, supreme. (Dawood 1974, 370)

Engineer (1992, 47) reports the historical origin of this verse as the case of a man (S'ad bin Rabi') who slapped his wife (Habiba bint Zaid) because she had disobeyed him. She complained to her father, who complained to the Prophet Muhammad. Sympathizing with the woman, the Prophet told her that she was allowed the right to qisas (a form of legal retribution). Men in the community protested that this would give women advantages over them. Fearing unrest, the Prophet sought and received a revelation from God (4:34) that effectively reversed his earlier ruling giving women the legal right to retaliate.

In drawing interpretative meaning from this verse, several factors are at issue. First, because the Qur'an is revered by Muslims as a revelation, the verse lends itself to interpretation that God sanctions beating disobedient wives as a last option (after admonishing them and abandoning their beds). But because beating women was quite common in that place and time, it also lends itself to the interpretation that God intended to restrict the practice. Moreover, to the extent that shari'a functions as "living law" adaptable to changing circumstances (e.g., through ijtihad), even the explicit sanctioning of beating can be construed not as an ageless and divine right but as a circumscribed means to express anger and frustration, and one that gradually should be abolished. Al-Hibri (2001, 7581) argues that the Qur'an imposed limits on the common practice of beating and transformed it into a symbolic act: Hitting was not to be a normative standard of spousal relations but used minimally if it could not be avoided entirely. She supports this reading by pointing to the Prophet's declaration to men: "The best among you are those who are best toward their wives" (see also Badawi 1995, 53).

Other Qur'anic verses and hadith condemn violence between spouses. For example, Sura 30, Verse 21, describes marital relations as tranquil, merciful, and affectionate, and the relationship itself as based on companionship, not service or tyranny. In this vein, Riffat Hassan writes, "God, who speaks through the Qur'an, is characterized by justice, and... can never be guilty of `zulm' (unfairness, tyranny, oppression or wrongdoing). Hence, the Qur'an, as God's word, cannot be made the source of human injustice" (1995, 12).

The notion that beating constitutes a right available to men certainly contradicts the Qur'anic ideal of marital relations as companionable and mutually supportive. It also runs contrary to the Qur'anic right of both men and women to dissolve a failed marriage, which would seemingly override the notion that women have a duty or obligation to submit to violence. Yet because there is a mention of beating in the Qur'an,¹² Islamic jurists and scholars have grappled with the question of whether hitting constitutes a de jure right under shari'a or a de facto option (see Eissa 1999). For example, some jurists have proposed that men should be prohibited from hitting women in the face or hard enough to cause pain (see Badawi 1995). 

Marital rape is another form of domestic violence for which justification on the basis of shari'a can be found. Although rape is a punishable crime in every Muslim society, nowhere is the criminal sanction extended to rape within marriage, because sexual access is deemed elemental to the marriage contract. Under shari'a, there is no harmand thus no crimein acts of sex between people who are married. Thus, marital rape is literally "uncriminalizable" under dominant interpretations of shari'a. For example, Sura 2, Verse 223, provides a Qur'anic basis for men's unabridged sexual access to their wives. This verse stipulates that "your wives are ploughing fields for you; go to your field when and as you like." Although other Qur'anic verses and hadith instruct men not to force themselves sexually upon their wives, this tends to be undermined by the principle of female obedience (see El Alami 1992; El Alami and Hinchcliffe 1996). Indeed, a wife's refusal to have sex with her husband can be construed as "disobedience," thereby triggering legalistic justification for beating. 

Forced marriage is a form of psychological and emotional violence. Although the Qur'an does not expressly sanction this practice, the principles of male authority and female obedience create conditions that enable men to impose their will on matters of marriage. While the Qur'an recognizes "mature" (postpubescent) women's right to enter freely into marriage, their status as legal minors often undermines their ability to assert this right in the face of male opposition.

The Muslim Women’s League, whose members seeks to elevate Muslim women within their societies by reforming Islam within, makes similiar points on the more popular translation of the Koran verse that allows wife beating.  However, they stress Islam itself was supposed to elevate the status of women in society, and there are many passages within it that support this. According to them, this view did not materialize because:

Islam was introduced to Arabian society more than 1,425 years ago. That society, like the rest of the world at that time - and much of today's world - was dominated by a patriarchal elite power structure. That power structure did not take kindly to the advent of Islam, in particular the Islamic teachings of equality among all people, including women and slaves.

The teachings of Islam posed a threat to the Arabian power structure, which had not encountered a similar threat to its very existence. Aside from persecuting the early followers of Islam, the power elite needed to dilute the teachings of Islam.

Unfortunately for women, much of the corrosion in Islam's message pertained to issues related to women. Why? Historically women have been easy targets; it was an easy way for the powerful to ensure they maintained control over at least one segment of society.

The subjugation of women is important on a number of societal levels for the power elite.

Once women are excluded from the potential power base on a societal level, the next logical step is to exclude them from decision making or power at the domestic level.
 
As women are oppressed in the microcosm of the home, the battles needed to overcome that tyranny overshadow the battle for equality in the macrocosm of society, and women are thus relegated to a status of second-class citizen or worse amongst less-informed Muslims who live in a tribal-like environment.

To those of us who know Islam and the Quran, violence against women is so antithetical to the teachings of Islam that we look at those who use our religion against us as misguided, misinformed or malevolent.

Our readers can judge the issue for themselves.

How to Give Your Rebellious Wife a Beating

LGF has posted a video of how to beat your wife in Egypt.  As reported by MEMRI, President of Al-Azhar University and Former Mufti of Egypt Ahmad Al-Tayyeb explain that it’s perfectly permissible to beat a rebellious wife.  There’s also a posted transcript:

Ahmad Al-Tayyeb: With regard to wife beating... In a nutshell, it appeared as part of a program to reform the wife. [According to the Koran], first "admonish them," [then] "sleep in separate beds, and beat them."

Interviewer: I think we must stress that this pertains to a rebellious woman...

Ahmad Al-Tayyeb: Of course. It's not that anybody can start beating as he sees fit. [Westerners] who claim this talk about an Islam which is a figment of their imagination. They are villains because they know there's no such thing in Islam, and they want to pin this interpretation on it. Why? Because Islamic culture is the only culture that is spreading, and is viewed with fear by people of other cultures. In any case... This method appeared as part of the treatment of a rebellious wife. I am faced with two options - either the family will be destroyed by divorce, or I can use means that may bring my wife, the mother of my children, back to her senses. The first means is admonishment.

The second means of treatment is "sleeping in separate beds." Why? Because this targets the honor... A lot could be said about this. The strength of a woman lies in her ability to seduce the man. The man is strong and can do whatever he wants, but the woman has a weapon of her own. This weapon can be targeted. Many women will come back to their senses, when they realize that this is what's involved.

By Allah, even if only one woman out of a million can be reformed by light beatings... It's not really beating, it's more like punching... It's like shoving or poking her. That's what it is.

We’re on a roll here.  Not only did that video air in Egypt this month, another Iman in Bahrain also explains in a recent video how to discipline the wife with—you guessed it—light beatings. The transcript explains it:

Sheik Jum'a Tawfiz Jum'a: With regard to [wife] beating... The husband is not in a karate club or in a boxing club with his wife. In addition, the beatings must not cause broken bones, bleeding, or cuts, and must not leave marks. It is light beating, which makes the wife feel the extent of the anger or sorrow in this man's heart. Some people say that this beating is uncivilized. I say to them that since it appears in the Koran – beware of defying what appears in the Koran. Beatings are indispensable. Beatings are not restricted to wives. The Prophet Muhammad told us that a son... He said: "Teach your sons how to pray until the age of seven, and beat them until the age of ten, if they don't [pray]." What is the purpose of the beatings here? If it had no benefit, the Prophet Muhammad would not have mentioned it, because he speaks not of his own mind, and everything he says is a revelation. This appears in a hadith, which some might claim is unreliable and so on – although it is authentic – but what can be said when [it appears] in the Koran itself? The Koran is the book sent down by Allah, and falsehood does not come anywhere near it. In this book, Allah explained the guidelines of life to us all, and in it, he said: "and beat them."

I love these videos because they clearly show how a culture can rationalize this type of behavior.  In the Egyptian one, one phrase that catches the eye is “bringing the wife back to her senses.”  It’s that condescending assumption ingrained deep within Islamic culture that men are superior to women and marital problems are clearly the fault of the wife because men can do no wrong.  The other part that is interesting is the female weapon they refer to—a woman’s ability to seduce a man.  It’s clear these men fear female sexuality.  She will seduce me with her evil feminine wiles.  We go on to assuaging male guilt—you’re not a bad guy for doing it because the wife is rebellious, and it’s not like we’re going to break her bones.  And finally, the ultimate rationalization—it’s in the Koran and Allah wants me to do it.  What a great way to infantilize grown men and convince women they deserve to be beaten.  Remember folks, Bahrain and Egypt are some of the most modern countries in the Middle East.  I’m sure that’s a great comfort to the women they’re beating.

Why Do You Need the Right to Drive When You Have a Husband?

MEMRI has posted a transcript of a TV debate in Saudi Arabia on whether women should be allowed to drive in the Kingdom.  Dr. Sleiman Al-'Eid, head of the Islamic Culture department at King Saud University, articulates the reasons why women shouldn’t drive:

"Another consequence of this will be the diminishing of men's guardianship over women. If a women drives, she will have a certain degree of independence, and she will come and go, travel, and so on. This will also lead to an increase in suspicions. When she has her own car, she will go out and return late."

PBS: Saudi Women Driving during the Gulf War

The good doctor reveals the real motivations behind the restriction:  women aren’t allowed to drive due to the fear that Saudi men will have difficulty controlling their women.  This is how deep this pathology is embedded in the Saudi culture psyche—a simple request for a women to drive threatens the very manhood of the Saudi male.

For a psychological explanation, we turn to a dated post by Dr. Sanity that clearly explains this mind set in Shame, The Arab Psyche, and Islam.  She explains the difference between  guilt and shame, and its impact upon an entire culture. She uses a column from David Guttman to illustrate her points about Arab culture regarding their women:

The Arab nations have for the most part lost their slaves and dhimmis, the subject peoples onto whose persons the stigmata of shame could be downloaded. But anyone who has spent time among them knows that Arab males have not lost their psychological need for social and sexual inferiors. In the absence of slaves and captive peoples, Arab women are elected for the special role of the inferior who, by definition, lacks honor. Arab men eradicate shame and bolster their shaky self-esteem by imposing the shameful qualities of the dhimmi, submission and passivity, upon women. Trailing a humbled woman behind them, Arab men can walk the walk of the true macho man.

Read her entire piece.  These explanations are made all the more convincing by Dr. Sleiman Al-‘Eid’s rationale.

An American Women in the Kingdom

Captain’s Quarters has a great post on an LA Times editorial from a female journalist who spent nearly four years reporting from Saudi Arabia. Be sure to check out “The Kingdom Made Her Slouch.”  Rebellion and sadness pour out of Megan Stack’s column as she writes how she felt being treated as an inferior being, and frustrated that even her western male western counterparts just don’t seem to “get it.” Read her whole column here.   

"Islamaphobia" Label Shuts Down Muslim Reformers

Tawik Hamid’s editorial appeared in the WSJ and is also available at Women Living Under Muslim Laws, an organization devoted to promoting women’s equality under informal and formal Muslim influence, and discouraging Islamic fundamentalism. In her editorial, How to End Islamophobia, Hamid shows how organizations like CAIR uses demagoguery by labeling those who disagree with their agenda Islamaphobic. Her editorial is an illuminating narrative on how the infection of political correctness is used to silence Muslim reformers.  While her piece covers a wide range of Islamic issues from suicide bombing to Muslim support to Al-Qaeda, she notes several times how this impacts women’s equality under Islam:

To bring an end to Islamophobia, we must employ a holistic approach that treats the core of the disease. It will not suffice to merely suppress the symptoms. It is imperative to adopt new Islamic teachings that do not allow killing apostates (Redda Law). Islamic authorities must provide mainstream Islamic books that forbid polygamy and beating women. Accepted Islamic doctrine should take a strong stand against slavery and the raping of female war prisoners, as happens in Darfur under the explicit canons of Shariah ("Ma Malakat Aimanikum"). Muslims should teach, everywhere and universally, that a woman's testimony in court counts as much as a man's, that women should not be punished if they marry whom they please or dress as they wish.

Her piece leads us to the scourge of political correctness, and how it can threaten women’s rights everywhere.  This political correctness stems in part from multiculturalists that preach all cultures are equal. This philosophy itself is destroyed when it tolerates intolerance.  It provides a deterministic context to society based on a person’s ethnic or racial origins, or sex, inflaming identity politics and differentiation. This moral relativism flies in the face of reason and modern science.  With everything modern science has to offer, how can some feminists argue for reproductive rights but ignore the contradictions of multiculturalism that passes no judgment on the practice of female genital mutilation in some cultures?  A consequence of this thinking is shown in places like rural China and India, where male infants are preferred over female infants.  While it’s illegal for women to abort based on the fetus’s sex, their access to abortion still leads this to be widely practiced, leading to serious demographic problems where males outnumber females.  This ends up hurting women, by making them targets for rapes and male violence.

This argument against multiculturalism has been made by liberal feminists such as Susan Okin. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is another prominent critic of multiculturalism, so much in fact that a Dutch court shamefully ruled she could be evicted from her home, due to complaints from her neighbors that they feared for their safety, all because of her criticism of Islam’s treatment of women. 

A rejection of multiculturalism is not a rejection of political and cultural pluralism, as articulated by James Madison and Isaiah Berlin , which recognizes diversity of interests and cultures as reality. Differences can be negotiated and compromised on for the greater good, provided groups share common underlying values.  Embracing pluralism recognizes that contributions of different cultures can enrich society and serve as a barrier to racism and xenophobia.  However, in democratic theory, the underlying shared value is man’s free will. This gives society freedom of speech and expression so individuals and groups can debate the balance between minority rights and majority rule, and the amount of cultural integration that is appropriate in a given society.  These underlying individual freedoms allow men and women to chose their own cultural context.  Replacing this core natural right with multiculturalism, animated by political correctness, can destroy them both.