Dhimmitude in Europe advances apace. Hot on the heels of a Swiss court's reinstating Hani Ramadan to his teaching position despite his advocating stoning for adultery, a mosque in the Netherlands has come out with a pamphlet advocating female genital mutilation. From Expatica, with thanks to "Allah":
AMSTERDAM — For the first time in the Netherlands, a mosque has come out in support of female circumcision, according to a newspaper report Thursday.The highly controversial statement on circumcision comes from a pamphlet "Fatwas of Muslim Women" provided by the El Tawheed mosque in Amsterdam for its open day. A fatwa is an official statement or order from an Islamic religious leader.
The pamphlet says that women who lie deserve 100 blows and the husband's duty of care for his wife is negated if she refuses him sex or leaves the home without his permission, newspaper Trouw reported.
There have been many claims in the media in recent years about "imported brides" who are forced by their husbands to stay in the family home — unless accompanied outside by a male relative. Some of these women, it is claimed, live in total isolation from Dutch society.
The call for girls to be circumcised — removing part of the female genitalia — is likely to cause the biggest outcry so far. If done right, the mosque's pamphlet claims, circumcision is healthy for both boys and girls.
But unlike male circumcision — in which the mosque claims that for reasons of hygiene, the male's foreskin can be circumcised — there are absolutely no medical grounds for female circumcision.
Nevertheless, it urges that the foreskin of a girl's clitoris should be removed, but not the clitoris itself — as is often wrongly assumed to be the case. Removing the foreskin would help the woman keep her feelings of lust under control, the pamphlet says.
In recent weeks, politicians have called for the Dutch government to do more to stop the practice among immigrant communities. To date, the Health Ministry has ruled out compulsory checks on girls to make sure they have not been circumcised.The Pharos health centre for refugees said never before has a mosque in the Netherlands come out publicly in support of female circumcision.
Ironically, El Tawheed Mosque organised the open day to counteract negative publicity caused by previous controversial statements made by one of its imams which were condemned as fostering anti-western and anti-woman bias.
On one highly-publicised occasion, an imam referred to non-Muslims as "firewood for hell" and he forbade Islamic women to leave the family home without the permission of their husbands.
"Fatwas of Muslim Women" continues on this theme and states that science has proved men and women differ in "biological nature, physical capabilities and mental capacity". It says it is unjust to give women the same "responsibilities, rights and duties as men".
The pamphlet, written by a "prominent imam" and published in Egypt in 2000, was one of the many booklets available at the open day.
Trouw noted "Fatwas of Muslim Women" lacks any biographical information about the author, Mufti Ibn Taymyah (or Taymiyya).
He lived in the 14 century and has been described by Arabism scholar Hans Jansen as an "influential ideologue for militant Islamists". Jansen has drawn comparisons between Taymyah and Osama bin Laden.
Very Troubling. This is child abuse. Nevertheless, it does go on below the radar, even here. Not long ago Robert posted a story about a "modified" procedure that is done by a licensed physician in an Italian hospital. The community was outraged to hear about it, but the procedure was allowed because of "sensitivity to immigrant cultures."
Now Canadian Muslims have been given the right to enforced, but voluntary, Sharia law. (When does voluntary become required?) They have agitated for the establishment of the Caliphate.
Detroit Muslims believe that Sharia is appropriate for "Muslim lands." When will Detroit or Dearborn become "Muslim lands?" When will American Muslims demand the special privileges that they have successfully been able to negotiate through various means from other Western nations?
The day that Muslims, or any other group, are given such special privileges, such as and especially Sharia law, America will cease to exist and will become as was India and the Balkans, with confusing and conflicting laws applicable to particular ethnic, religious, or racial groups, negating our principle of equality under the law.
This barbaric practice is illegal in the UK. Parents who take their daughters abroad to have it done face up to 14 years imprisonment.
Multiculturalism is evil. All cultures are not equal - some are barbaric and savage and have no place in the West. It these animals want to keep up their primitive ways they can f****k off out of civilised countries.
Since Europe has forsaken its religious (Christian) faith, it has opened the door for 'moral relitivity' to come in. Anything goes.
Gotta go now. It's almost time for Shabbat. Shabbat Shalom from Eretz Yisrael!
Most of the issues you mention have been part of the Shari'ah since the beginning and have never been any secret. Ibn Taymiyya was a scholar with a large number of weak opinions which are rejected by the vast majority of Islamic scholars. I also have never heard of the "100 blows" thing. A man is allowed to hit his wife in certain circumstances but even the most serious crime to merit flogging - accusing someone of fornication or adultery without sufficient proof - only receives 80 lashes.
Female circumcision is illegal in most countries in Europe and it is not practised in most Muslim countries. In fact the Indian scholar Ahmad Rida Khan said that in places where people do not practise it, they should not start it as it would become a source of ridicule for Muslims. Female circumcision is an issue in east Africa because it is done to excess, and without sufficient attention to hygeine (and not all the people involved are Muslims). It's not a big issue in south-east Asia where it's also known to go on. I've spoken to women who've had it done and they say it's no big deal. Why are you so concerned about our women's genitals when you despise us all anyway?
My dear Yusuf Smith (Indigo Jo):
"I've spoken to women who've had it done and they say it's no big deal."
Numerous testimonies suggest otherwise.
"Why are you so concerned about our women's genitals when you despise us all anyway?"
I, for one, do not despise you. Quite the opposite. In fact, I would like nothing better than a flowering, a renaissance, in the Muslim world, including full equality of rights for women and non-Muslims in Islamic societies: freedom of conscience, equality in laws regarding legal testimony, equal employment opportunities, etc.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Yusuf Smith:
I do not despise muslims or islam. The behavior advocated by radical islamists is another matter.
As a muslim you share responsibility for the deeds committed in the name of your religion.
Let me ask you:
Do you believe that Shariah takes precedence over established laws and customs? Should the Constitution of the United States, or the tradition of Common Law in Great Britain be subservient to Shariah in the case of muslims living in there?
As a muslim what is your position on Shariah versus established laws in the West?
What is your position on the separation of Church and State?
What is your stand on mosques being filled by gun-toting men, with imans preaching for war, and these sacred spaces then used for actual combat against US soldiers, as happened in Fallujah?
How can people in the West trust muslim immigrants in the future?
Will you stand for an Islamic Reformation that takes Islam out of the hands of terrorist fascists and moves it into the 21st century?
Will you openly and unequivocally stand against islamic terrorism and renounce any and all suicide/homicide bombings, attacks against civilians, etc?
Where do you stand, Sir? Please state your position so that we may know you.
Respectfully,
Mike H
How can anybody with a logical mind call islam a religion . One can only judge a tree by the kind of fruit it produces , and the fruit produced by islam is a very poisoned fruit indeed. An evil plunderer of caravans ,a man who practiced rape , murder , genocide and fornication , to say nothing of paedophilia with a 9 year old child , a man who waged war upon followers of other religions , a man who advocated murder , a man who openly committed rape and adultery ,this is the kind of man who founded islam ; this is the self appointed " prophet , the messenger of allah" , and this is the founder of this "gentle"islamic religion .
Yusuf Smith - Michael Hartrich asks valid and important questions. I would have asked these questions had I posted first. If your answers could assuage our anxiety, you find a greater acceptance in Western society. However, as no answers are given and our anxiety rises, we have no choice but to believe that your intentions are not only have hostile intentions, and are an antithesis to our values and way of life.
From Robert Spencer:
> "I've spoken to women who've had it done and they say it's no big deal."
> Numerous testimonies suggest otherwise.
Numerous testimonies from women who've had their entire clitori (sp?) removed, along with their inner labia and had their outer labia sewn up. That is what we class as mutilation and it's on its way out in most countries where it's practised because people realise it's against Islam.
> I, for one, do not despise you. Quite the opposite. In fact, I would like nothing better than a flowering, a renaissance, in the Muslim world, including full equality of rights for women and non-Muslims in Islamic societies: freedom of conscience, equality in laws regarding legal testimony, equal employment opportunities, etc.
So, you would like to see us ditch much of our religion and, thereby, become non-Muslims.
The issue of equal employment opportunities is something concerned with secular law. I've not heard of anything in the Shari'ah stating that a man should be hired for a given job (other than as a judge) rather than a woman. In fact, if a woman is manifestly more capable at the given job, and a man is hired by the personnel department rather than by the owner of the company, then the personnel people have betrayed their employers.
If you do not despise us, then why do you fly the flag of "Little Green Footballs" which is a notorious conveyor belt of anti-Islamic and anti-Arab hate propaganda? Did you really pay them money for a blog design which any serious first year college IT student could have done in his or her sleep?
My dear "Yusuf Smith (Indigo Jo)":
You answered my invoking of testimonies about the horrors of female circumcision by saying: "Numerous testimonies from women who've had their entire clitori (sp?) removed, along with their inner labia and had their outer labia sewn up. That is what we class as mutilation and it's on its way out in most countries where it's practised because people realise it's against Islam."
Sir, I find it rather surprising that you seem to know the Egyptian and other women who have spoken to me about this procedure. Are you having me followed?
Then you responded to my call for "a flowering, a renaissance, in the Muslim world, including full equality of rights for women and non-Muslims in Islamic societies: freedom of conscience, equality in laws regarding legal testimony, equal employment opportunities, etc." by saying "So, you would like to see us ditch much of our religion and, thereby, become non-Muslims."
So you're acknowledging, then, that your religion as it is presently understood by most of its practitioners denies "equality of rights for women and non-Muslims in Islamic societies: freedom of conscience, equality in laws regarding legal testimony, equal employment opportunities, etc."? Not a very stirring testimonial, eh wot?
Then you began to explain to me about equal employment opportunities for women under Sharia. Since Sharia stipulates that women can't even go out of the house without permission, I leave the fair-minded to judge their employment potential accordingly. But in any case when I referred to "equal employment opportunities" I was thinking not of women, but of non-Muslims. Since Sharia stipulates that non-Muslims cannot hold authority over Muslims, in many places non-Muslims can only get the most menial jobs. In Pakistan today a common disparaging word for Christians is "street-sweepers," because that is what so many of them are. Please explain to me how such discrimination accords with your vision of justice for all.
Finally, you asked me this: "If you do not despise us, then why do you fly the flag of 'Little Green Footballs' which is a notorious conveyor belt of anti-Islamic and anti-Arab hate propaganda?"
I reject this appellation for LGF. Charles puts up news stories, as do I. If Muslims stopped killing people in the name of Islam, you would see all the "hate" disappear from LGF.
But the larger point is that, aside from my rejection of your vilification of Charles, I refuse to be condemned on the basis of whose services I buy. If you're going to condemn me, do it on the basis of something I have actually said or written, not on the basis of your dislike for someone I bought something from. Do you support everything that has ever been done by everyone to whom you have ever given money for something?
"Did you really pay them money for a blog design which any serious first year college IT student could have done in his or her sleep?"
I'm quite happy with the design, thanks, and I was happy to pay for it. Of course, I don't know any sleeping first year IT students, but I suspect that if you approved of Charles' politics, you would like his web design a whole lot better.
From Robert Spencer:
> Sir, I find it rather surprising that you seem to know the Egyptian and other women who have spoken to me about this procedure. Are you having me followed?
No, I'm not. Why would a woman talk about her genitalia to a non-Muslim religious affairs professor? I have read books by women who have suffered this operation and the reference is to pharaonic circumcision which, by definition, predates Islam, and it's against Islam.
> So you're acknowledging, then, that your religion as it is presently understood by most of its practitioners denies "equality of rights for women and non-Muslims in Islamic societies: freedom of conscience, equality in laws regarding legal testimony, equal employment opportunities, etc."? Not a very stirring testimonial, eh wot?
So you're telling me we should abandon bits of our religion for your opinion? We followed our own laws for more then 1,300 years until Christians attacked our countries. They worked. Yours don't, which is why they are always changing. It took the UK until well into the 19th century to grant them rights over their own property, which Muslim women had had from the beginning.
> Then you began to explain to me about equal employment opportunities for women under Sharia. Since Sharia stipulates that women can't even go out of the house without permission, I leave the fair-minded to judge their employment potential accordingly. But in any case when I referred to "equal employment opportunities" I was thinking not of women, but of non-Muslims. Since Sharia stipulates that non-Muslims cannot hold authority over Muslims, in many places non-Muslims can only get the most menial jobs. In Pakistan today a common disparaging word for Christians is "street-sweepers," because that is what so many of them are. Please explain to me how such discrimination accords with your vision of justice for all.
Pakistan is a caste-ridden society where the populace has a lot of cultural traits which are inherited from Hindu India. I don't know all the ins and outs of how Christians are treated there, I was aware that blasphemy laws are used to settle personal disputes. But people give jobs to those close to them, it's "jobs for the boys", not necessarily jobs for the brothers. In this country some Pakistanis would rather vote for a white non-Muslim candidate than for a Pakistani of a different caste. There is nothing in Islam saying we can't hire a Christian as a manager. I've never heard about it. Bring your proof if you are truthful. The rule has to do with state authority.
> I reject this appellation for LGF. Charles puts up news stories, as do I. If Muslims stopped killing people in the name of Islam, you would see all the "hate" disappear from LGF.
LGF puts up news stories about bad Muslims and bad Arabs. It is a typical tabloid media in that it reports the bad and ignores the good. It also eggs on people who attack Muslims through the law (such as demanding that women uncover their heads for driving licence photos in Alabama, ignoring the fact that no other state saw fit to do this). It uses expressions like "French Shari'ah" etc accusing them of caving in to Muslims when in fact they are attacking Muslim schoolgirls and sick women.
> If you're going to condemn me, do it on the basis of something I have actually said or written, not on the basis of your dislike for someone I bought something from. Do you support everything that has ever been done by everyone to whom you have ever given money for something?
> I'm quite happy with the design, thanks, and I was happy to pay for it. Of course, I don't know any sleeping first year IT students, but I suspect that if you approved of Charles' politics, you would like his web design a whole lot better.
I started off by criticising an article you posted and then criticised your reply to my reply, and then mentioned your hiring LGF to do a very basic blog design. There's nothing wrong with the design, it's just incredibly basic.
My dear YS(IJ):
"Why would a woman talk about her genitalia to a non-Muslim religious affairs professor?"
For the same reason a woman would talk about her rape to a policeman or judge, but in any case, they didn't talk about what had happened to them, but about what they had witnessed being done.
"I have read books by women who have suffered this operation and the reference is to pharaonic circumcision which, by definition, predates Islam, and it's against Islam."
Then why did Sheikh Tantawi of Al-Azhar say it was an "honor" for women? Why does this Dutch mosque endorse it on Islamic grounds? Why do so many Muslim jurists say it is required for women?
"So you're telling me we should abandon bits of our religion for your opinion?"
No, but I am saying that you should reform bits of your religion to bring it in line with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
"There is nothing in Islam saying we can't hire a Christian as a manager. I've never heard about it. Bring your proof if you are truthful. The rule has to do with state authority."
I caught the Qur'an quote (2:111), thanks. Here are you proofs, not from state authorities, but from Islamic ones. You will say, of course, that Islam is not a monolith, or that these are Wahhabis -- yes, yes, thank you. But the fact is that these opinions exist and are followed in many areas in the Islamic world. I know so many Syrian and Lebanese Christians who left those countries because they were tired of facing rampant job discrimination, and yes, they spoke with me about their unemployment.
Sheikh Manna Al-Qubtan, professor of Higher studies at the School of Islamic Law in Riyadh, stated in response to an inquiry: "Basically, the command of non-Muslims over Muslims in not admissible, because God Almighty said: 'Allah will not give access to the infidels (i.e. Christians) to have authority over believers (Muslims) {Qur'an 4:141}. For God - Glory be to Him - has elevated Muslims to the highest rank (over all men) and foreordained to them the might, by virtue of the Qurtanic text in which God the Almighty said: 'Might and strength be to Allah, the Prophet (Muhammad) and the believers (Muslims)' {Qur'an 63:8}. Thus, the authority of non-Muslim over a Muslim is incompatible with these two verses, since the Muslim has to submit to and obey whoever is in charge over him. The Muslim, therefore becomes inferior to him, and this should not be the case with the Muslim."
Dr. Salih Al-Sadlan, professor of sharia at the School of Islamic Law in Riyadh, says (citing the same passages of the Qur'an) that for a Christian to hold authority over a Muslim "entails the humiliaton of the Muslim and the exaltation of the infidel (Christian). This infidel may exploit his position to humiliate and insult the Muslims who work under his administration. It is advisable to the company owner to fear God Almighty and to authorize only a Muslim over the Muslims. Also, the injunctions issued by the ruler, provides that an infidel should not be in charge when there is a Muslim available to assume the command. Our advice to the company owner is to remove this infidel and to replace him with a Muslim."
And, of course, I continue to reject your characterizations of LGF, but that is something you should take up with Charles. And in any case you still have not brought forth anything I have said or written to support your assertion that I "despise" Muslims.
Cordially,
RS
> For the same reason a woman would talk about her rape to a policeman or judge, but in any case, they didn't talk about what had happened to them, but about what they had witnessed being done.
Fair enough, and in fact there was a programme on TV a few months back in which a camera crew watched a young girl being circumcised. A reviewer said he actually vomited. But in the countries where this goes on, it's not limited to Muslims (I'm talking about Kenya in particular) and in many places it's being stopped among Muslims.
The editor of one book which discusses the subject - "Aman: the Story of a Somali Girl" - suggests that intervention by western agencies may actually retard the demise of this practise.
> Then why did Sheikh Tantawi of Al-Azhar say it was an "honor" for women? Why does this Dutch mosque endorse it on Islamic grounds? Why do so many Muslim jurists say it is required for women?
The question of it being required is a difference between different schools of thought in Islam. Imam Shafi'i believed it to be compulsory, which may well be why you find the practice mostly in countries where his school is dominant, namely East Africa, parts of Yemen and the Arabian peninsula, and south-east Asia. Most Muslims don't do it. Shaikh Tantawi is talking about Sunnah circumcision which is an honour for women for the same reason as it is for men - because it's the Sunnah.
> No, but I am saying that you should reform bits of your religion to bring it in line with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Our religion was revealed 1,400+ years ago. the UDHR is mere opinion. "Let the Sunnah go forth and do not stop it with opinions." No other religion has been changed in order to fit in line with a document cooked up in the 20th century.
> I caught the Qur'an quote (2:111), thanks. Here are you proofs, not from state authorities, but from Islamic ones. You will say, of course, that Islam is not a monolith, or that these are Wahhabis -- yes, yes, thank you. But the fact is that these opinions exist and are followed in many areas in the Islamic world. I know so many Syrian and Lebanese Christians who left those countries because they were tired of facing rampant job discrimination, and yes, they spoke with me about their unemployment.
Well, Lebanese Christians are guaranteed political positions in Lebanon. They are the general population in large areas of that country. But Lebanon is a very divided country as I understand it, you would probably find similar discrimination between Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims for example.
As far as the scholars you quote, yes they are Wahhabis and I don't take fatwas from Wahhabi scholars. My understanding of the quotes you take from them is that they are talking about state authority.
> And, of course, I continue to reject your characterizations of LGF, but that is something you should take up with Charles. And in any case you still have not brought forth anything I have said or written to support your assertion that I "despise" Muslims.
The content of your site demonstrates that you believe that Muslims should abandon Muslim ways and adopt your ways. Your entire blog consists of articles about evil Muslims, and no Muslim is good according to you unless he or she renounces integral parts of their religion. "Never will they be satisfied with you until you follow their form of religion."
My dear YSIJ:
"But in the countries where this goes on, it's not limited to Muslims (I'm talking about Kenya in particular) and in many places it's being stopped among Muslims."
Fine. But Islamic justifications for it only perpetuate it, and should end.
"No other religion has been changed in order to fit in line with a document cooked up in the 20th century."
The elements of this document are considerably older. And in any case, since I do not choose to be a dhimmi and do not wish this fate for my children, I trust you will understand my continued resistance.
"As far as the scholars you quote, yes they are Wahhabis and I don't take fatwas from Wahhabi scholars. My understanding of the quotes you take from them is that they are talking about state authority."
There are many such quotes from non-Wahhabis. And unfortunately, many do listen to the Wahhabis. How do you refute them?
"The content of your site demonstrates that you believe that Muslims should abandon Muslim ways and adopt your ways. Your entire blog consists of articles about evil Muslims, and no Muslim is good according to you unless he or she renounces integral parts of their religion. 'Never will they be satisfied with you until you follow their form of religion.'"
Again: I am fighting for full equality of rights for women and non-Muslims in Islamic societies: freedom of conscience, equality in laws regarding legal testimony, equal employment opportunities, etc. You can call that whatever you want, or quote any Qur'anic passage you think is applicable, but I am not going to give up.
Cordially
RS
> The elements of this document are considerably older. And in any case, since I do not choose to be a dhimmi and do not wish this fate for my children, I trust you will understand my continued resistance.
You say this now, but many Christians in the past have chosen to become dhimmis rather than flee to the nearest Christian country. We do not need to rule our countries according to documents drawn up by outsiders to solve problems in their countries.
> There are many such quotes from non-Wahhabis. And unfortunately, many do listen to the Wahhabis. How do you refute them?
I've never seen any such quotes from non-Wahhabis. Bring them. As for refuting people who listen to Wahhabis, the refutation is on numerous levels. You can read a lot of it at:
http://www.masud.co.uk/
Nonetheless, some people don't "get it". I got it (alhamdu lillah) before I embraced Islam. I knew Wahhabism was not the right Islam because of the damage it did to Muslims in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. But if you can't persuade them of the wrongfulness of Wahhabism, you can't dissuade them from listening to Wahhabi scholars.
> Again: I am fighting for full equality of rights for women and non-Muslims in Islamic societies: freedom of conscience, equality in laws regarding legal testimony, equal employment opportunities, etc. You can call that whatever you want, or quote any Qur'anic passage you think is applicable, but I am not going to give up.
You can fight all you will. Try persuading people in Baghdad or Damascus of what you fight for. You will be preaching to the choir assuming they even let you in the country - you will not convince anyone who is not already convinced, that is to say, anyone who is ignorant of their religion, or anyone from a Muslim background who is contemptuous of aspects of the religion, or local Jews and Christians.
My dear YSIJ:
"You say this now, but many Christians in the past have chosen to become dhimmis rather than flee to the nearest Christian country."
Ridiculous. Bring your proofs, if you be truthful.
"We do not need to rule our countries according to documents drawn up by outsiders to solve problems in their countries."
Fair enough. I don't particularly care how you run "your" countries except insofar as it has impact on non-Muslims, and insofar as Muslims continue to bring the notions that underlie that oppression Westward.
"I've never seen any such quotes from non-Wahhabis. Bring them."
This is a long-standing principle. In "tolerant" al-Andalus, for example, on December 30, 1066, hundreds of Jews in Granada were murdered by rioting Muslim mobs. The riot was caused by the political power of the Jewish vizier Samuel ibn Naghrila and his son Joseph, which was resented by Muslims as a breach of Sharia. The angry mob was incited to kill the Jews by a poem composed by the Muslim jurist Abu Ishaq: "I myself arrived in Granada and saw that these Jews were meddling in its affairs. . . . So hasten to slaughter them as a good work whereby you will earn God’s favour, and offer them up in sacrifice, a well-fattened ram."
None of these people were Wahhabis. Wahhabism would not appear for another 700 years.
"As for refuting people who listen to Wahhabis, the refutation is on numerous levels. You can read a lot of it at:
http://www.masud.co.uk/"
I find it interesting that Sheikh Nuh Ha Mim Keller is highlighted at this site. I don't find his translation of the Shafi'i manual 'Umdat as-Salik any whit more "tolerant" or "peaceful" than Wahhabism. After all, it contains the injunction that Muslims must wage war against Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians until they either become Muslim or pay the jizya. (See section o.9(8).
"You can fight all you will. Try persuading people in Baghdad or Damascus of what you fight for."
See my comments above.
Cordially
RS
But those feelings of lust need to be controlled!