Women’s Rights

Women under Sharia Law: The Dilemma of "The Wife Beating Protocol"

Family Security Matters
By Al Fadi
July 13, 2011
The Quran is the source of all personal status laws in Islamic countries. Therefore, the rules of religious jurisprudence concerning the position and treatment of women are also based on the Quran. In order to fully understand the position of women in Islam, one must first examine the Quranic rules concerning them. Our dilemma in today’s article has to do with the Quranic command for husbands to beat their wives.
 
A. Man’s Supreme Authority
 
The Quran gives a man complete authority in marriage: “Men stand superior to women...” (Q 4.34). The Quran justifies giving this authority to the man for the following reasons:
 
First, preference is given to him by the nature of his physical ability: “God hath preferred some of them over others...” (Q 4.34).
 
Second, preference is given to him by reason of his financial ability: “and in that they expend of their wealth...” (Q 4.34).

Family Security Matters
By Al Fadi
July 13, 2011

The Quran is the source of all personal status laws in Islamic countries. Therefore, the rules of religious jurisprudence concerning the position and treatment of women are also based on the Quran. In order to fully understand the position of women in Islam, one must first examine the Quranic rules concerning them. Our dilemma in today’s article has to do with the Quranic command for husbands to beat their wives.

A. Man’s Supreme Authority

The Quran gives a man complete authority in marriage: “Men stand superior to women...” (Q 4.34). The Quran justifies giving this authority to the man for the following reasons:

First, preference is given to him by the nature of his physical ability: “God hath preferred some of them over others...” (Q 4.34).

Second, preference is given to him by reason of his financial ability: “and in that they expend of their wealth...” (Q 4.34).

Continue reading here. 

Gender Equality in Sharia Courts?

FrontPage Magazine
By Deborah Weiss
July 7, 2011

 

The treatment of women under Islamic Sharia law is inherently discriminatory against women.  Alarmed by the suffering of Muslim women at the hands of Sharia Courts in Britain, Baroness Cox recently introduced legislation into parliament which would ensure gender equality in Britain’s Sharia Courts.
Pursuant to the Arbitration Act of 1996, litigating parties are permitted to forgo the British court system and have their cases heard in an arbitral tribunal if both parties agree on the tribunal, are willing to relinquish their rights to a judge and jury, and voluntarily consent to the arbitration.  Sharia Courts have operated informally in Britain for quite some time.  However, in 2007 Sheik Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi discovered a clause in the Arbitration Act which rightly made him realize Sharia Courts could be classified as arbitration tribunals.  Subsequently, he began heading up the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal to oversee the Sharia Courts.  Once classified as arbitration tribunals, the British government began enforcing Sharia judgments with the full force of law.
According to a report by the Civitas think tank in England, as of two years ago there were approximately 85 Sharia Courts operating in Britain.  The Arbitration Act of 1996 permits tribunals to rule on financial and property issues.  However, the report asserted that many of the Sharia Courts exceeded permissible jurisdictional boundaries by advising on matters of marriage, divorce, child custody and domestic violence.  By law, family and criminal matters are not arbitrable. This illegal expansion of jurisdiction has been dubbed “jurisdiction creep.”
The arbitral rulings and advisory opinions issued by Sharia Courts mandate the disparate treatment of women. Under Sharia law, a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man’s, she is awarded half the inheritance of her male counterparts, custody laws grossly shortshrift women, and property laws provide unequal rights based on gender.

The treatment of women under Islamic Sharia law is inherently discriminatory against women.  Alarmed by the suffering of Muslim women at the hands of Sharia Courts in Britain, Baroness Cox recently introduced legislation into parliament which would ensure gender equality in Britain’s Sharia Courts.

Pursuant to the Arbitration Act of 1996, litigating parties are permitted to forgo the British court system and have their cases heard in an arbitral tribunal if both parties agree on the tribunal, are willing to relinquish their rights to a judge and jury, and voluntarily consent to the arbitration.  Sharia Courts have operated informally in Britain for quite some time.  However, in 2007 Sheik Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi discovered a clause in the Arbitration Act which rightly made him realize Sharia Courts could be classified as arbitration tribunals.  Subsequently, he began heading up the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal to oversee the Sharia Courts.  Once classified as arbitration tribunals, the British government began enforcing Sharia judgments with the full force of law.

According to a report by the Civitas think tank in England, as of two years ago there were approximately 85 Sharia Courts operating in Britain.  The Arbitration Act of 1996 permits tribunals to rule on financial and property issues.  However, the report asserted that many of the Sharia Courts exceeded permissible jurisdictional boundaries by advising on matters of marriage, divorce, child custody and domestic violence.  By law, family and criminal matters are not arbitrable. This illegal expansion of jurisdiction has been dubbed “jurisdiction creep.”

The arbitral rulings and advisory opinions issued by Sharia Courts mandate the disparate treatment of women. Under Sharia law, a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man’s, she is awarded half the inheritance of her male counterparts, custody laws grossly shortshrift women, and property laws provide unequal rights based on gender.

In terms of mediation efforts, Sharia Courts often merely hand the parties pre-determined outcomes that comport with the laws of Sharia and request both parties to sign consent forms.  Then, the forms are submitted to the Family Court on the false premise that the terms were truly negotiated by the parties involved.
To make matters worse, many Muslim marriages take place solely under religious ceremonies and are not registered with the state as required by the Marriage Act of 1949.  Thus, these “marriages” are not civilly recognized and the “wives” are not afforded any legal protections.  Interestingly, the problem of non-registration appears only in the Muslim community.  Jews and Christians always register their marriages civilly even when the wedding ceremony is religious in nature.
Unfortunately, there are Muslim women who fled their homelands to escape the oppression of Sharia law, only to find they are facing a similar situation in the UK.  Because many Muslim immigrants are illiterate, the women are unaware of their rights under British law.  It is legal to consent to arbitration if the acquiescence is voluntary.  However, often in Muslim communities women are threatened, intimidated or otherwise coerced into submitting to Sharia Courts. Thus, it is not truly voluntary.
Baroness Cox finds the injustice to Muslim women and the discriminatory judgments being handed down by Sharia Courts to be disconcerting.  In addition, many British judges have begun questioning whether Sharia rulings comply with the UK’s obligations to ensure gender equality under the Human Rights Act.
Accordingly, Baroness Cox’s bill, titled “The Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill,” if passed into law, makes it clear that sex discrimination laws apply to arbitration tribunals as well as civil courts.  It would prohibit unequal treatment of testimony, uneven-handedness of property, inheritance distribution, and financial rulings.  It would also make it a crime punishable by up to five years in jail to falsely assert jurisdiction over family and criminal matters.  Finally, the bill mandates that in unregistered marriages, public authorities must inform the parties that they are required to register their marriages in order to secure legal rights.
In other words, the bill requires Sharia Courts to acknowledge the priority of British law over Sharia law when the two conflict, and to preserve the British values of human rights and equality for women.
The bill does not mention Islam or Sharia by name.  However, both the Baroness’ comments, as well as the Explanatory Note attached to the bill, make it clear that the legislation was prompted by concerns of the inequality executed in Sharia Courts and the fact that Sharia Courts have regularly, gradually, and illegally expanded their jurisdiction.
Various secular, Christian and Iranian-Kurdish women’s rights groups support the Baroness’ bill.
It comes on the foot-heels of the Home Secretary’s admission that Britain’s anti-terrorism program failed to recognize the extent of radical Islamist ideology and its influence in Britain, and an acknowledgment of Britain’s continuing problems of lack of integration and assimilation by the Islamic community.  It is therefore no surprise that some Muslims are complaining about this legislation.
Turning a blind eye to the lack of consent, their ignorance of the law, the cries of suffering women, and the failure of Sharia Courts to inform Muslim women of their rights, Khurshid Drabu, constitutional adviser to the Muslim Council of Britain argued, “[B]ills of this kind don’t help anybody.”  He accused lawmakers of failing to understand the “freedom” that Britain ensures whereby Muslim women should be permitted to submit to Sharia rulings.
This article was originally published here. 

 

Muslim Woman Seeks to Revive Institution of Sex-Slavery

 

By Raymond Ibrahim
FrontPageMagazine.com
June 6, 2011
Last week witnessed popular Muslim preacher Abu Ishaq al-Huwaini boast about how Islam allows Muslims to buy and sell conquered infidel women, so that "When I want a sex-slave, I go to the market and pick whichever female I desire and buy her."
This week's depraved anachronism comes from a Muslim woman—Salwa al-Mutairi, a political activist and former parliamentary candidate for Kuwait's government, no less: She, too, seeks to "revive the institution of sex-slavery."
A brief English report appeared over the weekend in the Kuwait Times (nothing, of course, in the MSM):
Mutairi: "In the Chechnyan war, surely there are female Russian captives. So go and buy those and sell them here in Kuwait; better that than have our men engage in forbidden sexual relations."
Muslim men who fear being seduced or tempted into immoral behavior by the beauty of their female servants, or even of those servants "casting spells" on them, would be better to purchase women from an "enslaved maid" agency for sexual purposes. She [Mutairi] suggested that special offices could be set up to provide concubines in the same way as domestic staff recruitment agencies currently provide housemaids. "We want our youth to be protected from adultery," said al-Mutairi, suggesting that these maids could be brought as prisoners of war in war-stricken nations like Chechnya to be sold on later to devout merchants.

By Raymond Ibrahim
FrontPageMagazine.com
June 6, 2011

Last week witnessed popular Muslim preacher Abu Ishaq al-Huwaini boast about how Islam allows Muslims to buy and sell conquered infidel women, so that "When I want a sex-slave, I go to the market and pick whichever female I desire and buy her."

This week's depraved anachronism comes from a Muslim woman—Salwa al-Mutairi, a political activist and former parliamentary candidate for Kuwait's government, no less: She, too, seeks to "revive the institution of sex-slavery."

A brief English report appeared over the weekend in the Kuwait Times (nothing, of course, in the MSM):

Muslim men who fear being seduced or tempted into immoral behavior by the beauty of their female servants, or even of those servants "casting spells" on them, would be better to purchase women from an "enslaved maid" agency for sexual purposes. She [Mutairi] suggested that special offices could be set up to provide concubines in the same way as domestic staff recruitment agencies currently provide housemaids. "We want our youth to be protected from adultery," said al-Mutairi, suggesting that these maids could be brought as prisoners of war in war-stricken nations like Chechnya to be sold on later to devout merchants.

Continue reading here. 

 

Saudi Women in the Driver's Seat

Women2Drive

The group Women2Drive is encouraging Saudi women to get in the driver's seat

Islam's Apartheid

 

Family Security Matters
By Amil Imani
May 19, 2011
The dictionary defines apartheid as: An official policy of racial segregation promulgated in the Republic of South Africa with a view to promoting and maintaining white ascendancy.
In 1973, the General Assembly of the United Nations opened for signature and ratification the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (ICSPCA). It defined the crime of apartheid as:
 
"Inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial [religious] group of persons over any other racial [religious] group of persons and systematically oppressing them."[Italics are mine]
 
The declaration prohibits,
 
“Acts such as murder, infringement on freedom or dignity, arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, imposition of inhumane living conditions, forced labor, or enacting measures calculated to prevent a racial [religious] group from ‘participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country’ such as denying them ‘basic human rights and freedoms, including the right to work, the right to form recognized trade unions, the right to education, the right to leave and to return to their country, the right to a nationality, the right to freedom of movement and residence, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.’"
 
Islamic member countries of the time, such as Egypt, Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia are signatories to the above declaration condemning the barbaric practices of apartheid. Yet, these same countries, as well as other Islamic nations, are the most blatant violators of the declaration. 
It is the discriminatory Islamic teachings that condone and even promote wanton practices in violation of the United Nations declaration. Islam is a primitive barbaric ideology for the benefit of the male believer.
Islam, by fiat, discriminates against women. Qur’an 4:11
 
“Allah directs you in regard of your Children’s (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females…. These are settled portions ordained by Allah.”
 
There are many many more “directives” that for all intents and purposes make women chattel of men. Here are some of the shameful rules and practices of Islamic misogyny.
 
Tabari IX:113 “Allah permits you to shut them in separate rooms and to beat them, but not severely. If they abstain, they have the right to food and clothing. Treat women well for they are like domestic animals and they possess nothing themselves. Allah has made the enjoyment of their bodies lawful in his Qur’an.” 
Tabari I:280 “Allah said, ‘It is My obligation to make Eve bleed once every month as she made this tree bleed. I must also make Eve stupid, although I created her intelligent.’ Because Allah afflicted Eve, all of the women of this world menstruate and are stupid.”
 
In this case Allah is half right. Women do menstruate. But He is also wrong. Extensive studies by impartial psychologists provide unequivocal documentation of the fact that women are equal in intelligence to men.
But don’t contradict Allah and his beloved unerring mouthpiece, Muhammad. Sadly enough, even many Muslim women prefer to be treated like “domestic animals” who “possess nothing themselves,” and are “stupid.”
Thus, life goes on for the Muslim women with all the trappings of the Islamic misogyny. Here are some rules that keep women in their Muhammad-stipulated place.
 
·         If a Muslim woman is murdered, her beneficiary is entitled to one-half dyyeh—blood money, or compensation—as that of a murdered Muslim male.
 
·         A woman’s testimony in the court of law is worth one-half that of a man.
 
·         A woman must provide four witnesses to substantiate her claim of being raped.
 
·         A man can divorce his wife by simply saying to her, “I divorce you,” three times.
 
·         A divorced woman is entitled to a miserly compensation and automatically forfeits her rights to her children.
 
·         Women are barred from the lucrative and powerful cast of clergy.
 
·         Husbands are entitled to punish their wives corporally.
 
·         Men are allowed to have four wives at any one time and as many concubines as they desire and can afford.
 
·         Saudi Arabia, the custodian of “true Islam” imposes a raft of restrictions on women such as: women are not allowed to drive; they are not permitted to leave the country without accompaniment or explicit permission of their male kin; they are barred from most government jobs and much much more.
 
·         Among other Muslims, such as the Taliban and the Pashtune of Afghanistan-Pakistan region, women are barred from education and not even allowed to leave the house unless accompanied by a male kin.
 
·         Since education, particularly professional education, is often denied to women in many Islamic societies, there is scarcity of women physicians and male doctors are often forbidden to treat women patients.
 
Such is the plight of women under Islam. There is hardly the need to provide an exhaustive list of Islamic misogyny to qualify it as a shameful, discriminatory and oppressive religious apartheid. 
Will Muslim women ever break out of their bondage and claim their rightful place among emancipated non-Muslim women? It is the long sub-humanized Muslim women who must discard Islam and claim their equal human rights. Muslim men will resort to every means to maintain their privileged position and their cruel dominance over women, citing the Quran as justification. Any document that consigns one half of the human race to second class status is null and void.
Its constitutional sub-humanization of women aside, Islam has a raft of beliefs and practices that violate fundamental human rights of non-Muslims in general. A few cases should suffice to fully substantiate the contention that Islam is religious apartheid. And there is no need to draw cases from the repugnant “extremist” Islamic groups such as the Taliban to make the case. Even the most “mainstream” and “peaceful” Islam is guilty of systemic apartheid. Just a couple of examples should suffice for now.
 
·         On December 16, 2006, Egypt’s Highest Administrative Court decreed that in order to receive an Identity Card, only Islam, Judaism, or Christianity must be entered on the application. No one of any other religion or no religion at all is permitted to list his belief or even leave it blank. Without the identity card, just about all the rights of citizenship are denied to minorities such as Baha’is, Hindus, and Buddhists. People are forced to choose between falsely claiming an approved religion and depriving themselves of just about all rights of citizenship such as jobs, education and medical care.
 
·         In the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Islamic law denies dyyeh to any and all people who are not Muslims or members of the only other three recognized religions. Every one of the 500,000 members of the Baha’i Faith can be murdered without the family receiving justice or compensation. As a matter of fact, the Islamic government itself has executed Baha’is for the sole “crime” of being Baha’is and has demanded that the innocently murdered person’s family reimburse it for the bullets they used to execute him.
 
·         The Islamic Republic of Iran’s President’s repeated threat to wipe out Israel from the map is ignored by some as an empty rhetoric of an unhinged fanatic. Yet, Ahmadinejad’s threats are far from the baseless saber-rattling of a zealot. Ahamadinejad’s government has recently ordered the comprehensive gathering of data regarding the Baha’is and all their activities. This order is deeply troubling, since it is almost a replica of what another fascist, Hitler, did before launching the genocide of six million Jews and some four million other “undesirables”. Ahamadinejad is an Islamofascist whose aim is to have a practice run on the Iranian Baha’is before embarking on destroying the Jews and other “undesirables,” following in the footsteps of the German fuehrer.
 
Islamic societies shamelessly practice all the sanctioned injustices listed in the U.N. charter on apartheid (see paragraphs 2 and 3, above). Islam is religious apartheid. And apartheid, by universal agreement, is an inhumane, unjust and condemned practice. 
Islam cruelly practices its oppressive dogma on minorities in its lands; it is in clear violation of the provisions of Universal Human Rights. Ominously, Islam is encroaching in the traditionally non-Islamic parts of the world and doing all it can to impose its horrid doctrine on others. 
It is for this present and imminent danger that the free people of the world must rise and do all they can to preserve their birthright of liberty. Muslims in the non-Islamic lands may seem harmless, and many of them indeed are harmless. Yet, Islam compels its leaders to uphold and promote its tenets at any and all costs to anyone. It is for this reason that on the one hand the Islamic governments sign the U.N. Charter that condemns apartheid, and on the other hand, these governments violate every provision of it when they are in power.
Islamofascism, the enemy of liberty, is inside the gate. It is the duty of every free human to defend freedom by defeating the enemy.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Amil Imani is an Iranian-born American citizen and a pro-democracy activist residing in the United States of America. Imani is a columnist, literary translator, novelist and essayist who has been writing and speaking out for the struggling people of his native land, Iran. He maintains a website at www.amilimani.com. Amil Imani is the author of the smashing book Obama Meets Ahmadinejad.

Family Security Matters
By Amil Imani
May 19, 2011

The dictionary defines apartheid as: An official policy of racial segregation promulgated in the Republic of South Africa with a view to promoting and maintaining white ascendancy.

In 1973, the General Assembly of the United Nations opened for signature and ratification the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (ICSPCA). It defined the crime of apartheid as:

"Inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial [religious] group of persons over any other racial [religious] group of persons and systematically oppressing them."[Italics are mine]

The declaration prohibits,

“Acts such as murder, infringement on freedom or dignity, arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, imposition of inhumane living conditions, forced labor, or enacting measures calculated to prevent a racial [religious] group from ‘participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country’ such as denying them ‘basic human rights and freedoms, including the right to work, the right to form recognized trade unions, the right to education, the right to leave and to return to their country, the right to a nationality, the right to freedom of movement and residence, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.’"

Islamic member countries of the time, such as Egypt, Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia are signatories to the above declaration condemning the barbaric practices of apartheid. Yet, these same countries, as well as other Islamic nations, are the most blatant violators of the declaration. 

It is the discriminatory Islamic teachings that condone and even promote wanton practices in violation of the United Nations declaration. Islam is a primitive barbaric ideology for the benefit of the male believer.

Islam, by fiat, discriminates against women. Qur’an 4:11

“Allah directs you in regard of your Children’s (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females…. These are settled portions ordained by Allah.”

Continue reading here. 

 

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Amil Imani is an Iranian-born American citizen and a pro-democracy activist residing in the United States of America. Imani is a columnist, literary translator, novelist and essayist who has been writing and speaking out for the struggling people of his native land, Iran. He maintains a website at www.amilimani.com. Amil Imani is the author of the smashing book Obama Meets Ahmadinejad.

 

A Few Brave Women Dare Take Wheel in Defiance of Saudi Law Against Driving

 

Manal, a 32-year-old woman, is planning something she’s never done openly in her native Saudi Arabia: Get in her car and take to the streets, defying a ban on female drivers in the kingdom.
Manal and 10 other people are organizing a campaign on Facebook and Twitter urging Saudi women with international driver’s licenses to join them starting June 17, risking their jobs and their freedom. The coordinated plan isn’t a protest, she said.
“I’m doing it because I’m frustrated, angry and mad,” Manal, who asked to be identified only by her first name, said in an interview from the eastern city of Dhahran. “It’s 2011 and we’re still discussing this insignificant right for women.”

Bloomberg.com
By Donna Abu-Nasr
May 10, 2011

Manal, a 32-year-old woman, is planning something she’s never done openly in her native Saudi Arabia: Get in her car and take to the streets, defying a ban on female drivers in the kingdom.

Manal and 10 other people are organizing a campaign on Facebook and Twitter urging Saudi women with international driver’s licenses to join them starting June 17, risking their jobs and their freedom. The coordinated plan isn’t a protest, she said.

“I’m doing it because I’m frustrated, angry and mad,” Manal, who asked to be identified only by her first name, said in an interview from the eastern city of Dhahran. “It’s 2011 and we’re still discussing this insignificant right for women.”

Continue reading here. 

 

Did a Polygamous Imam Lead Prayer in the Florida Legislature?

 

Two years ago today, Qasim Ahmed became "possibly the first" imam to open a session of the Florida House of Representatives with a prayer. Subsequent findings by Islamist Watch suggest that he made history in another sense — as the first polygamist to be so honored.
Critical information comes from the website of the Muslim Alliance in North America (MANA), an African-American Muslim organization whose Islamist-heavy leadership is topped by radical cleric Siraj Wahhaj. Ahmed is listed as a member of MANA's executive committee; his important role in the group lends credence to descriptions of him carried on its site.

Islamist Watch Blog
By David J. Rusin
April 27, 2011

Two years ago today, Qasim Ahmed became "possibly the first" imam to open a session of the Florida House of Representatives with a prayer. Subsequent findings by Islamist Watch suggest that he made history in another sense — as the first polygamist to be so honored.

Critical information comes from the website of the Muslim Alliance in North America (MANA), an African-American Muslim organization whose Islamist-heavy leadership is topped by radical cleric Siraj Wahhaj. Ahmed is listed as a member of MANA's executive committee; his important role in the group lends credence to descriptions of him carried on its site.

Continue reading here. 

 

Saudi Arabia: The Next Capital of Islamic Feminism?

 

Phyllis Chesler
February 28, 2011
In the midst of a Middle East meltdown, in the midst of the most dangerous mayhem and madness, can a feminist and human rights revolution really be brewing in…Saudi Arabia? We know that Saudi Arabia is exceptionally barbaric towards its women and to all progressive thought. Women are not allowed to drive, and they cannot travel, accept employment, or open a bank account without the approval of a male relative. In addition, Saudi women must be fully veiled from head to toe and from front to back, and they must submit to arranged child marriage and to polygamy.
Sharia law rules. Thus, adultery, choosing a husband of one’s own, or refusing to marry, might be privately punished by solitary confinement, beatings, or being honor murdered. Adultery or failure to veil might lead to execution by the religious police or by the state.
Given the extraordinary and fast-paced events taking place in the Middle East, the Saudi King just promised some concessions. They are only economic concessions: He has offered to share more of his bounty with his people in terms of pay raises, affordable family housing, and unemployment benefits. In short, he is offering his long-suffering people a 37 billion dollar bribe.
Why has he done so? What does King Abdullah fear? A number of things: First, a possible Shi’ite takeover of the region.
About 40 years after Mohammed’s death, a huge religious war, a violent split, took place between what are now the two main branches of Islam: Sunni and Shi’a.
The Islamic Republic of Iran, Azerbaijan, Iraq, and Bahrain are the only Muslim countries with a Shi’ite majority; the more than 50 other Muslim countries (except for Oman, which is Ibadi) have Sunni majorities.
Syria is ruled by a Shi’ite family but has a Sunni majority, and southern Lebanon and eastern Saudi Arabia have Shi’ite majorities.
The protestors in Bahrain are mostly members of its Shi’ite majority, who “demand more say in the Sunni-ruled island. Riyadh would be worried if unrest in Bahrain, where seven people were killed and hundreds wounded last week, spread to its own disgruntled Shi’ite minority in the oil-rich east.”
What else might King Abdullah fear?  His people chanting: “Down with the Dictator” and calling for his exile or his death.
But, believe it or not, King Abdullah might actually have an honest-to-goodness homegrown reformation-revolution on his hands, one that is not Islamist, and one that is not only seeking economic rights. Saudis have begun to demand political, human, and women’s rights as well.
Egyptian, Libyan, and Bahraini protestors have not been calling for the kinds of rights that the Facebook website Saudi Women Revolution (which I have previously written about here and here) are demanding. Apparently, another Saudi group which calls itself “Saudi Youth for Justice” is demanding additional legal and political rights. Two days ago, I received an email which reads:
“We (The youth of the Saudi Arabia) hope this letter finds its way to the public. We are going to protest and carry on demonstrations like our brothers in Egypt, Libya, Bahrain and Tunisia. We are demanding political and economical reform. Our first priority is to fight corruption and to transfer the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy and commonwealth realm. We have no intention of causing trouble in the region or any kind of economic damage to any nation or country. If the Saudi government tries to stop us by using force we might wind up in civil war which will lead to high gas prices. We don’t want this to happen. Please spread our letter to the world, and urge all the world’s governments and especially the Saudi government to let us protest and carry on political reform peacefully. We are responsible people.”
They are not asking for the King to abdicate. They are envisioning a constitutional monarchy which will provide some check on the King’s absolute power.
Since I first wrote about Facebook’s Saudi Women Revolution website, almost 600 “fans” have joined.  It is still only a virtual “revolution.” But they are now posting some fairly hilarious, fairly tragic, but rather powerful cartoons. Click here to view the cartoons.
This website (Saudi Women Revolution) and the Saudi Youth for Justice group are not the same people who, according to the Associated Press, have promised a “day of rage” in the Kingdom on March 11th. Days of Rage are also being planned in Iraq (February 25th) and Syria (March 15th).
Muammar al-Qaddafi has claimed that his people have been fed hallucinogenic drugs in their coffee by none other than Bin Laden. He is saying that after him—comes the Islamist, al-Qaeda-run deluge. The eminent Steven Emerson suggests that indeed an al-Qaeda ally lurks in the shadows, namely the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG). The apparently genuine (virtual) reformers in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere have another scenario, a more peaceful change, one that embraces an Islamic version of human and women’s rights.
President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton ought to take a stand on behalf of such potentially real reformers.
We have, so far, failed the brave reformers in Iran. Tomorrow, Iranians will conduct a panel and afterwards a rally outside the United Nations on behalf of Iranian women. It is not too late for America to signal its strong support for those Muslims and ex-Muslims who truly wish to enter the modern world, not in terms of bombs, cell phones, and other deadly weapons but in terms of universal, western, Enlightenment values and rights.

FrontPageMag
Phyllis Chesler
February 28, 2011

In the midst of a Middle East meltdown, in the midst of the most dangerous mayhem and madness, can a feminist and human rights revolution really be brewing in…Saudi Arabia? We know that Saudi Arabia is exceptionally barbaric towards its women and to all progressive thought. Women are not allowed to drive, and they cannot travel, accept employment, or open a bank account without the approval of a male relative. In addition, Saudi women must be fully veiled from head to toe and from front to back, and they must submit to arranged child marriage and to polygamy.

Sharia law rules. Thus, adultery, choosing a husband of one’s own, or refusing to marry, might be privately punished by solitary confinement, beatings, or being honor murdered. Adultery or failure to veil might lead to execution by the religious police or by the state.

Given the extraordinary and fast-paced events taking place in the Middle East, the Saudi King just promised some concessions. They are only economic concessions: He has offered to share more of his bounty with his people in terms of pay raises, affordable family housing, and unemployment benefits. In short, he is offering his long-suffering people a 37 billion dollar bribe.

Why has he done so? What does King Abdullah fear? A number of things: First, a possible Shi’ite takeover of the region.

About 40 years after Mohammed’s death, a huge religious war, a violent split, took place between what are now the two main branches of Islam: Sunni and Shi’a.

The Islamic Republic of Iran, Azerbaijan, Iraq, and Bahrain are the only Muslim countries with a Shi’ite majority; the more than 50 other Muslim countries (except for Oman, which is Ibadi) have Sunni majorities.

Syria is ruled by a Shi’ite family but has a Sunni majority, and southern Lebanon and eastern Saudi Arabia have Shi’ite majorities.

The protestors in Bahrain are mostly members of its Shi’ite majority, who “demand more say in the Sunni-ruled island. Riyadh would be worried if unrest in Bahrain, where seven people were killed and hundreds wounded last week, spread to its own disgruntled Shi’ite minority in the oil-rich east.”

What else might King Abdullah fear?  His people chanting: “Down with the Dictator” and calling for his exile or his death.

But, believe it or not, King Abdullah might actually have an honest-to-goodness homegrown reformation-revolution on his hands, one that is not Islamist, and one that is not only seeking economic rights. Saudis have begun to demand political, human, and women’s rights as well.

Egyptian, Libyan, and Bahraini protestors have not been calling for the kinds of rights that the Facebook website Saudi Women Revolution (which I have previously written about here and here) are demanding. Apparently, another Saudi group which calls itself “Saudi Youth for Justice” is demanding additional legal and political rights. Two days ago, I received an email which reads:

“We (The youth of the Saudi Arabia) hope this letter finds its way to the public. We are going to protest and carry on demonstrations like our brothers in Egypt, Libya, Bahrain and Tunisia. We are demanding political and economical reform. Our first priority is to fight corruption and to transfer the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy and commonwealth realm. We have no intention of causing trouble in the region or any kind of economic damage to any nation or country. If the Saudi government tries to stop us by using force we might wind up in civil war which will lead to high gas prices. We don’t want this to happen. Please spread our letter to the world, and urge all the world’s governments and especially the Saudi government to let us protest and carry on political reform peacefully. We are responsible people.”

They are not asking for the King to abdicate. They are envisioning a constitutional monarchy which will provide some check on the King’s absolute power.

Since I first wrote about Facebook’s Saudi Women Revolution website, almost 600 “fans” have joined.  It is still only a virtual “revolution.” But they are now posting some fairly hilarious, fairly tragic, but rather powerful cartoons. Click here to view the cartoons.

This website (Saudi Women Revolution) and the Saudi Youth for Justice group are not the same people who, according to the Associated Press, have promised a “day of rage” in the Kingdom on March 11th. Days of Rage are also being planned in Iraq (February 25th) and Syria (March 15th).

Muammar al-Qaddafi has claimed that his people have been fed hallucinogenic drugs in their coffee by none other than Bin Laden. He is saying that after him—comes the Islamist, al-Qaeda-run deluge. The eminent Steven Emerson suggests that indeed an al-Qaeda ally lurks in the shadows, namely the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG). The apparently genuine (virtual) reformers in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere have another scenario, a more peaceful change, one that embraces an Islamic version of human and women’s rights.

President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton ought to take a stand on behalf of such potentially real reformers.

We have, so far, failed the brave reformers in Iran. Tomorrow, Iranians will conduct a panel and afterwards a rally outside the United Nations on behalf of Iranian women. It is not too late for America to signal its strong support for those Muslims and ex-Muslims who truly wish to enter the modern world, not in terms of bombs, cell phones, and other deadly weapons but in terms of universal, western, Enlightenment values and rights.

This article was originally published here. 

 

Putting Women's Rights Back on the Mideast Media Agenda

Put Women's Rights on the Agenda

March 8 is International Women's Day. We must remember the many obstacles that women face in the Middle East, and put women's rights back on the media agenda.

Who Attacked Lara Logan, and Why?

National Review Online
Andrew C. McCarthy
FEBRUARY 22, 2011

 

For the world’s billion-plus Sunni Muslims, al-Azhar University in Cairo is the center of the theological universe, its faculty and scholars the most authoritative voice on the meaning of Islam. It is not very far from Tahrir Square, ground zero of Egypt’s revolution. 
It was in Tahrir Square last Friday that the Muslim Brotherhood began shunting aside other opposition leaders, including Google executive Wael Ghonim. The million Muslims jamming the square hadn’t turned out to hear a good corporate citizen of the Left. In this nation, where a strong majority of the population desires the implementation of sharia, Islam’s legal and political system, the throng turned out to hear and hail Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, the Brotherhood’s top adviser — who, with his al-Azhar doctorate in Islamic jurisprudence, is sharia personified.

For the world’s billion-plus Sunni Muslims, al-Azhar University in Cairo is the center of the theological universe, its faculty and scholars the most authoritative voice on the meaning of Islam. It is not very far from Tahrir Square, ground zero of Egypt’s revolution. 

It was in Tahrir Square last Friday that the Muslim Brotherhood began shunting aside other opposition leaders, including Google executive Wael Ghonim. The million Muslims jamming the square hadn’t turned out to hear a good corporate citizen of the Left. In this nation, where a strong majority of the population desires the implementation of sharia, Islam’s legal and political system, the throng turned out to hear and hail Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, the Brotherhood’s top adviser — who, with his al-Azhar doctorate in Islamic jurisprudence, is sharia personified.

Tahrir Square is also the place where, in the frenzy after Hosni Mubarak’s fall, CBS news correspondent Lara Logan was seized and subjected to a savage sexual assault by an Egyptian gang. Coverage of the attack has been muted. There have been testimonials to Ms. Logan’s courage, and one anti-American leftist lost his comfortable fellowship at NYU Law School for failing to conceal his glee over the atrocity. We have heard much about the attack, but have heard next to nothing about the attackers. You are just supposed to assume it was a “mob” — the sort of thing that could have happened in any setting where raw emotion erupts, say, Wisconsin’s capitol.

Continue reading here.