 To Muslims, and even to some non-Muslim apologists, Islam is the only religion that has given women their due rights, equality and dignity. It can’t be otherwise: How can then Islam, as Muslims claim, be the perfect, the best and the final religion of God? And Muslim women got due equality and rights alongside men despite the fact that (a) Muslim women have no individuality and independence for themselves as Allah has placed them under the charge of men, who may beat them or deal with as the wish, not vice versa [Quran 4:34]; (b) women are worth only half the men [Quran 2:282]; (c) women can inherit only half that of men (i.e. brothers inherit double that of sisters) [Quran 4:11,4:176]; (d) women are same as slaves and camel, according to an authentic sacred tradition of the prophet [Dawud 11:2155]; and many other such gross discriminations and injustices. While these references from Islam’s sacred texts make it clear that Muslim women, far from being equal, are an inferior being to men, the grossest of indignity that Allah has reserved for them is His allowing Muslim men only to marry up to four women at a time [Quran 4:3, 70:29-33, 4:24], meaning that a woman is worth only one quarter that of a man. And that’s not enough, Allah the barbarian par excellence even allowed men, on top of taking four wives, to keep unlimited number of sex-slaves, who can be procured, according to Allah’s sanction [Quran 33:50], by attacking non-Muslim communities and wholesale enslavement of their women. Notably, Prophet Muhammad himself, when became powerful, had captured women of the tribes of Quraiza, Khaybar, Mustaliq and Hawazin etc. after attacking those communities and slaughtering their men. While it would sounding utterly idiotic to seek to find equality between men and women or high dignity to women sanctioned in Islam, it is easy to say that Allah, the man-god, the alter-ego of Muhammad, has rewarded Muslim men richly at the expense of women. For fourteen centuries, Muslim women have suffered under the degrading status and treatment at the hands of men as per sanctions of the Islamic God. But no unjust system, whether sanctioned by a purported God or dictatorial men, can last for ever; the oppressed and wider humanity will rise up and challenge it one day. Many religions have reformed their unjust institutions and doctrines to survive in the modern civilized world, while the tyranny of Hitler or Stalin has been put to rest. Although Allah’s injustice upon women has lasted fourteen centuries, the oppressed Muslim women have started challenging the unjust status quo of Islam. As of latest, a Saudi female journalist, Nadin al-Badir, has added voice to well-known courageous critics, namely Taslima Nasrin, Ayan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan and Nonie Darwish et al., against the injustices of Islam. And al-Badir’s challenge is quite unique, unheard of, coming from a Muslim woman: She has taken on the highly trumped-up Muslim claim, that only Islam gives due rights and equality to women, in an article, published in the Egyptian Al-Masri al-Yaum newspaper, by demanding that Muslim women, like men, be allowed to take multiple husbands. Well, indeed, that would reflect true equality between men and women in Islam. And why not! Muslims claim that polygamy is allowed to men only, because they only have the ability to support multiple partners financially. But today, many well-educated Muslim women are becoming confident and pursuing rewarding careers, thus, gaining ability to support multiple sex-partners through legitimate income, unlike Muhammad’s and his companion’s barbarous means of earning livelihood through decoity, raids and wars. I have been told by well-educated Muslims, to support polygamy in Islam, that only men can sexually satisfy multiple sex-partners, not women. While that’s true for certain men, it can well be true of certain women, too. There are prostitutes, predominantly women, all over the world satisfying multiple men on a daily basis.
We come across news of gang-rape all the time, more frequently in Islamic countries and communities, in which multiple men get sexual satisfaction from one single woman within a short time. We don’t here gang-rape of men by women; and one wonders how many men will be able to sustain such assaults by multiple women at a time. The said journalist, for sure, did not earnestly mean to have polyandry for Muslim women, alongside polygamy for Muslim men. Instead, it is obviously an effort to highlight the “unjustness” of Islamic institutions concerning women. What is stunning is the fact that this demand is coming from the pen of a Saudi woman, the community of Muslim women in the world, worst-affected by the cruel institutions of Islam in the most provocative manner. Seeking polyandry for women, not for men, is adultery in Islam, which is punished by stoning to death in Saudi Arabia. If she is living in Saudi Arabia, this column may well bring her death by stoning for questioning an unquestionable divine institution of Islam. This also proves that not all Muslim women, even from Saudi Arabia, are willing to suffer Islam’s gross violation of human rights and equality of women anymore lying low; they are ready, even, to embrace death in order to put an end to Islam’s lasting injustices. And, quite understandably, the article also elicited angry responses from Muslims, particularly clerics. One Egyptian Member of Parliament, according to BBC, has already filed a lawsuit against the newspaper for publishing the provocative article. Surprisingly, however, one cleric has also defended the article, saying that it aimed to highlight the sufferings of women under Islam, not than seeking to promote polyandry among them. Is window of change for Muslim women in the offing? Well it might if voices like al-Badir’s keep joining the growing club of courageous Muslim women, willing to challenge the status quo of Islam’s unjust institutions and doctrines concerning them, some even seeking to put an end to Islam, a scourge of humanity, altogether. Islam Watch 
 Le vote suisse met en lumière le débat sur l’islam en tant qu’ensemble d’idées politiques et collectivistes et non pas le rejet des musulmans.Washington - Le récent référendum suisse interdisant la construction de minarets a déclenché des controverses dans le monde entier. Il y a deux manières d’interpréter ce vote. D’abord, comme un rejet de l’islam politique et non comme un rejet des musulmans. En ce sens, c’était un vote pour la tolérance et l’intégration, dont l’islam ne veut pas. Ensuite, le vote a révélé le fossé qui sépare la manière dont le peuple suisse et son élite jugent l’islam politique. Dans la bataille des idées, les symboles sont importants.Que se passerait-il si on demandait aux Suisses d’interdire par référendum la construction d’une croix carrée avec branches pliées à angle droit, symbole de la croyance d’une petite minorité ? Ou bien, imaginons un référendum sur la construction de tours surmontées d’une faucille et d’un marteau, autre symbole cher au cœur d’une très petite minorité des Suisses. Lire la suite... Source: Christian Science Monitor (Traduction par Poste de veille)
 Not long ago Robert Spencer and another speaker were attempting to elucidate, for an audience in New York, the ideology of Islam, that ideology that explains, without much trouble, the behavior of many Muslims, and the real attitudes of many more. Someone in the audience caused a stir, and while the security guards ran to deal with it, from an unsecured side door out rushed two people bearing pies that they flung at Spencer (who successfully dodged the pie meant for him) and his associate, Mr. Elan Journo, who was not quite so quick, and was hit. These were pies, and pie-throwing may make us think of the late Soupy Sales, and campus shenanigans that are supposed to be hilarious but somehow never are. But in this case, the pie-throwing was no joke, because what the speakers were speaking about was Islam, and in many countries many death threats have been delivered, and some of those death threats acted upon, in many different places.
A Japanese translator of Salman Rushdie was stabbed to death; a Norwegian translator was attacked but survived. Political figures, such as Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands, have been killed.
Cultural gadflies, who dared to deal with Islam as they dealt with Christianity or Judaism or the monarchy or anything else, such as Theo van Gogh, were killed.
Wafa Sultan must live in hiding. Geert Wilders, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Magdi Allam, in Europe, must all travel with a constant escort of armed guards, and Wilders, at least, must frequently move from house to army base to house. Read more here,, With thanks to JihadWatch
- Reform Islam is still by far a minority reading of Islam. The majority of Muslims believe in an orthodox, literalist reading of Islam. - What is written in the Quran and Sunnah is not compatible with the modern values held in the secular states we live in today. - If we accept the idea that the Quran was written by human beings then we can easily change or abrogate parts of the Quran. - If you are a Muslim who believes the Quran can be changed you are under the threat of death. - The Ismailis, the Bahai, and the Ahmadis have taken some steps to change Islam, not necessarily to match modern values but in their own way. They are now considered Non-Muslims by other Muslims are not allowed to enter Mecca for Hajj. - There is some movement on more modern, dynamic readings of Islam in the Muslim community in places like Germany and Morocco (Germany has many Moroccan immigrants, Morocco is known for being somewhat liberal in their Islam). Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXR10XSFrVY Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsP5sm7-94c Thanks to Muslim Humanism
 by Leon de Winter I was involved with a similar fiasco with Ayaan Hirsi Ali in Holland. Why would Obama risk a constitutional crisis? Some years ago, when the legal position of Dutch MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali was a matter of national discussion in Holland (she had lied about her refugee status when she entered Holland fleeing an arranged marriage, a fact she had talked about many times in interviews), Minister of Immigration and Integration Rita Verdonk, herself a member of Ayaan’s political party, insisted on pushing this issue to the very edge. Vehemently, Ms. Verdonk stuck to the facts, and formally she was right. Yes, Ayaan had lied when she had fled to Holland, as many people knew inside and outside parliament, and formally Ms. Verdonk had the power to cancel Ayaan’s passport and declare her an illegal alien. The problem: What would this mean for the current session of parliament? Instead of 150 members, the Dutch parliament would have had only 149 members, a clear violation of the Dutch constitution. Together with my dear friend Afshin Ellian, a law professor at Leiden University, I wrote an op-ed piece for De Volkskrant, the Dutch New York Times (only better — Holland has a population of 16 million, and the paper has a daily print run of over 300,000 copies).
We wrote that Ms. Verdonk was right, but the consequences of her rightness could be devastating. It would mean a constitutional crisis unlike any we had ever seen in Holland.
Everything that was debated in parliament would need to be annulled and the laws canceled, since parliament had never formally started with full membership as the constitution dictates. And Ayaan would have to be arrested and sentenced, since she had been acting as an MP without being a Dutch citizen. Immediately, the presidium of parliament answered — the chairmen declared that Afshin and I overreacted. They stated it didn’t matter if Ayaan was Dutch or Somali, this was no problem for the functioning of parliament.
Of course, Afshin and I asked these politicians if parliament could also function with 148 members, or with 140, or 100 — where was the bottom line? The politicians tried to avoid this question, and after some weeks the status quo was protected.
In order to avoid constitutional chaos, regardless of the facts, Ayaan was declared a Dutch citizen and Rita Verdonk had to step down — although she had been right about Ayaan’s original legal status. I am not an expert in legal matters, but I have some questions about the criminal court case against the five terrorists who will be brought to New York City. There must be readers who have the expertise to help me, a simple Dutch expatriate in California observing the political and legal circus surrounding the present administration. Concerning the purity and transparency of the American justice system, I imagine it doesn’t make any difference if a suspect has killed one or two or a hundred people. The system has its own rules, equal to every suspect and blind to the identity of the suspect or his acts. The autonomy of the system is the essential difference between a legal system in a transparent democracy with separation of powers and the legal system in a tyranny. More at Pajamas Media
 They were just five words, but they swept through the Muslim world like a brush fire nearly four years ago, launching a scorching backlash that endures to this day. “Be quiet. It’s my turn,” the Syrian-born American, Wafa Sultan, said in February 2006 to a Muslim cleric she was debating on Al Jazeera. A woman interrupting a man? In public? In Islamic societies, particular in the Arab world, a Muslim woman could be killed for such behavior, for it challenges the very nature of relations between the sexes. Nor can such a woman, even a highly educated psychiatrist like Sultan, live in safety just by escaping the Middle East. Today, facing death threats, Sultan lives in hiding in the United States. The drive behind Sultan’s outburst, and the years-long anger that fueled it, is chronicled in her controversial new book, A God Who Hates.
In it, she tells her life story of professional success but personal humiliation in an Islamic society, and she describes Islam as an inherently destructive ideology, that keeps its adherents in backwardness and its women and children in slave-like conditions. Her book is not only riveting but important, for it forces attention on an issue of great debate – what is the essential nature of Islam, and how should the West respond to terrorism and the ideologies that drive it? On one side are those who believe that Islam is a moderate, mainstream religion, little different from Judaism and Christianity, one that can live in peace with, and thrive within, modern Western society. Key adherents of this view include Irshad Manji, who lives as an openly gay and feminist Muslim in Canada, lectures and writes widely, runs the Moral Courage Project at New York University and is author of the provocative book, What’s Wrong with Islam Today; M. Zuhdi Jasser, a physician who earned his medical degree on a Navy scholarship and is founder and president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy; and Zainab Al-Suwaij, a women’s rights advocate who is co-founder and executive director of the American Islamic Congress. On the other side are those who believe that Islam is inherently aggressive and anti-Western, that it demands anti-Jewish and anti-Christian violence and that it’s not really a religion at all but a political ideology. Along with Sultan, leading subscribers to this view include Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali native who fled to the West, served in the Dutch Parliament, now serves as a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, requires round-the-clock protection, and is the author of two heartrending books about her life, The Caged Virgin and Infidel; and Brigitte Gabriel, the Lebanese-American journalist, founder and president of the American Congress for Truth and author of two books that urge the West to confront Islam, Why They Hate and They Must be Stopped. This unresolved debate over Islam shapes the disjointed response of Western governments to attacks on their people and property that seem motivated by religion. Some officials blame Islam, some blame a radical perversion of an otherwise peaceful religion and some studiously avoid any notion that Islam has connections to violence, pointing instead to social pathologies or the personal demons of the perpetrators. It’s a debate that has played out this year over, for instance, the Fort Hood massacre, allegedly perpetrated by a Muslim Army psychiatrist who praised suicide bombings and ranted about the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; the ongoing saga of Rifqa Bary, the 17-year-old Ohio daughter of Muslim immigrants who converted to Christianity and fled her family out of fear that they would have her killed for abandoning Islam; and the recent beheading in Buffalo of a Muslim woman allegedly by her husband, a prominent local Muslim leader from whom she had filed for divorce. This debate over Islam is tough and explosive, and I admit to uncertainty about which way to lean. The Koranic verses, the “hadiths” (sayings) of the Prophet Mohammad, and the “fatwas” (opinions) of Islamic scholars that Sultan and others cite in tying Islam to violence are compelling. So, too, are the Islam-based justifications for death and destruction by terrorists around the world. But, equally compelling are the examples that Manji, Jasser and Al-Suwaij have set in reconciling Islam with modernity, peace and human rights and in confronting the perpetrators of violence in the name of Islam. It is a debate in which the West must engage more openly, however uncomfortable that might be. To put it bluntly, only if we know what we’re facing will we be able to confront it effectively. North Star National
 New York, 6 novembre 2009 : Au cours d’une cérémonie qui s’est tenue le 4 novembre au Metropolitan Museum of Art, le secteur hollandais des bulbes floraux a baptisé une tulipe Ayaan en hommage à Ayaan Hirsi Ali pour sa défense de la liberté et des droits humains des femmes musulmanes.Madame Hirsi Ali, féministe, écrivain, activiste et ancien membre du parlement hollandais a conclu la traditionnelle cérémonie de baptême en éclaboussant du champagne sur les bulbes et en proclamant « De ce jour, cette tulipe sera appelée Ayaan ». M. Thijs Leenders, président de l’association nord-américaine des grossistes en bulbes floraux représentait à cette occasion le secteur hollandais des bulbes floraux. Était également présent M. Wim Pijbes, directeur du Rijksmuseum d’Amsterdam. Ayaan Hirsi Ali est née à Mogadiscio, en Somalie. Elle a immigré aux Pays-Bas en 1992, bénéficiant de l’asile politique. Elle a étudié les sciences politiques à l’université de Leiden et obtenu une maîtrise. En 2003, elle a été élue au parlement hollandais, où elle a siégé jusqu’en 2006. Pendant son mandat législatif, elle s’est beaucoup impliquée dans les questions d’assimilation des immigrés non occidentaux au sein de la société néerlandaise et à travers le monde. En 2004, elle s’est associée au réalisateur hollandais Theo van Gogh pour créer le film Submission, un documentaire sur le traitement des femmes par l’islam conservateur. Le caractère polémique du film a suscité beaucoup de colère dans la communauté musulmane des Pays-Bas. En 2004, Theo van Gogh a été assassiné dans une rue d’Amsterdam par un extrémiste islamique déclaré. Mme Hirsi Ali réside actuellement aux États-Unis où elle collabore à l’American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, un think tank conservateur de Washington. Lire le reste...Source: Flora Culture via Islam in Europe (Traduction par Poste de veille) H/T: S.P.
 In a ceremony on November 4 at the Metropolitan Museum of Art the Dutch flower bulb sector named a tulip after Ayaan Hirsi Ali ‘Ayaan’ in recognition of Ms. Hirsi Ali’s defense of freedom and human rights for Muslim women.
Ms. Hirsi Ali, a feminist, author, activist and former member of the Dutch parliament completed the traditional naming ceremony by drizzling champagne over the bulbs and declaring, “From now on this Tulip has the name ‘Ayaan’.”
Mr. Thijs Leenders, president of the North American Flower Bulb Wholesalers Association represented the Dutch bulb sector in the event. Also in attendance was Mr. Wim Pijbes, director of Amsterdam’s Rijksmuseum.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a native of Mogadishu, Somalia. She immigrated to the Netherlands in 1992 receiving political asylum.
She studied political science at the University of Leiden, earning a Master of Arts degree. In 2003 she was elected a member of the Dutch parliament where she served until 2006. During her legislative tenure, she was very involved in the issues of assimilating non-Western immigrants into Dutch society.
She has long been a vocal defender of the rights of Muslim women in Dutch society and around the world. In 2004, she teamed with Dutch film director Theo van Gogh to create the film Submission, a documentary on the treatment of women by conservative Islam.
The film’s controversial nature angered many in Holland’s Islamic community. In 2004, Mr. van Gogh was murdered on an Amsterdam street by an avowed Islamic extremist. Ms. Hirsi Ali currently resides in the U.S. where she is a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C.
Tulipa ‘Ayaan’ is a dark maroon/brown/purple Triumph tulip hybridized by Ms. Lydia Boots, of Lybo Hybridizing, Hem, NL. Ms Boots is one of few women working in the male dominated world of tulip hybridizing. The hybrid is a crossing of Tulipa ‘Gavota’ x a sport of Tulipa ‘Gander’s Rhapsody’.
The new deep purple tulip joins a group of tulips known in Holland as “black” tulips. The legendary quest of Dutch hybridizers to create a truly black tulip goes back centuries. Many experts consider Tulipa ‘Ayaan’ one of the finest and most successful results of this quest. The selection of the flower to be named in her honor was made by Ms. Hirsi Ali herself.
Upon receipt of the signed christening certificate, the tulip will be entered into the Classified List and International Register of Tulip Names, maintained by the Royal Dutch Bulb Growers Association (KAVB) in Hillegom, the Netherlands.
Supplies of the Ayaan tulip will be limited for several years, as it takes many seasons to build up stocks of new tulips. It is estimated that only 500 bulbs will be available for sale and planting in the fall of 2010. Visitors to Amsterdam in spring of 2010 will be able to view and enjoy the new tulip in the park adjacent to the Rijksmuseum, where 100 bulbs were planted in October in celebration of the upcoming tulip naming.
The screenplay Submission, written by Ayaan Hirsi Ali and produced by Theo van Gogh, includes quotes from the Quran written in Arabic on a womans body. For his part in Submission, van Gogh was slaughtered by a Muslim in broad daylight on an Amsterdam street, his throat slit with a butchers knife, and a five-page letter stabbed to his chest with another knife. He was also shot. The letter warned Ali that she would be next. More here. With thanks to Creeping Sharia
By Gramfan According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary Feminism is defined thus: Date: 1895 1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests Who can ever forget the iconic cover of "The Female Eunuch", by Germaine Greer? It was everywhere when it was first published in 1970. It was virtually the next best thing that had happened to women since Emmeline Pankhurst and her Suffragettes worked to get women the vote. So we were told. And certainly you cannot deny the benefits and progress that have come from these two women, and the many others who have taken over the baton and changed the lives of millions. Many of today's other famous feminists are living very comfortably on self-earned wealth: fine with me, it's well-deserved. They have turned their politics and activism into income sources by working in journalism and other media. People listen to them. They have power, enormous power. Camille Paglia is but one of many whose opinions are highly respected, and it is easy to see why. Germaine Greer is still going on strongly about all kinds of issues. Gloria Steinem is another member of this esteemed crowd and there are also very many not-so-famous feminists. These feminists are in almost all professions from politics to pianists, parents and yes, prostitutes - the oldest "profession" of them all! Then of course there are the other women in the world who don't occupy this rarified space but who have decided, and yes, it is a decison now, to become home-makers and mothers. Some of them decide to resume successful careers and some chose not to. But I wonder if we all really received so many benefits from all these feminists? Some of us didn't. With all that is good and liberating in human progress there are often side effects and "unintended consequences". Sadly there are goals that have not, and will not be achieved. Certainly many of us get equal work for equal pay nowadays but not all of us. Then there are those who chose to be wives and mothers, who are often scorned, or looked down upon, for their choices. They had jobs, but feminists weren't satisfied; every other woman had to get one too. So they opened fire on homemakers with a savagery that still echoes throughout our culture. A housewife is a "parasite," [Betty] Frieden writes; such women are "less than fully human" insofar as they "have never known a commitment to an idea." And.... Housewives, not men, were the prey in feminism's sights when Kate Millett decreed in 1969 that the family must go. Feminists do not speak for traditional women. Men cannot know this, however, unless we tell them how we feel about them, our children, and our role in the home. Men must understand that our feelings towards them and our children are derided by feminists and have earned us their enmity. Whether or not this understanding garners men's support, traditional women must defend ourselves because the feminist offensive is, most essentially, a breach of solidarity with us, a disavowel of the obligation to honor the Women's Pact [that religious celibates, professional women, and homemakers respect each other] that women in the movement owed to us (Source). Oh yes, this site has more. Feminism today goes on and on, intellectualising and re-defining feminism to the extent where it is almost too difficult to follow, let alone comprehend. Quite frankly I am more interested in the practical day-to-day realities. I take the two definitions at face value and I note it doesn't specify any nationality,political allegiance or religion. 1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests It is true a lot of this has happened in the West but rather than have Greer et al espouse "intellectual yada yada" I would rather see these women get militant again and do something to help their long-suffering sisters who live in Islamic countries, and who can but only dream of the lifestyle many of their famous feminist sisters enjoy. All too often I see stories of honour killings, rape, female genital mutilation, subservience, domestic (and other) violence, forced marriage and utter discrimination perpetrated against women in Muslim countries and now also in the West. Some women are getting hymenoplasties and buying repair kits before they marry. Some are being recruited as homicide bombers. One is punished for drinking beer, others face lashings or stonings. An Australian Islamist tries to justify polygamy for everyone. There are women who suffer terribly from acid attacks quite frequently. Women in Gaza are not allowed to ride motorcycles, and Somali women are being scrutinised when wearing a bra! Where's Germaine when you need her, or would this make her happy I wonder? And recently we have the on-going case of Rifka Bary who, as a minor, cannot chose her religion, and could become a victim of honorcide for apostasy. If she is sent back to her parents her fate is unknown. If she is allowed to remain alive the Islamists can deny honorcide even exists. This is happening in the USA now. Yet in spite of these incidents feminists like Naomi Wolfe manage to defend discrimination towards women in Islam and it then takes a compassionate feminist, Phyllis Chesler, who has actually lived in a Muslim country, to sort it out for her! I know many feminists, and women in general, can be fearless fighters. Code Pink, for example, have gone to Iraq and Afghanistan. True, they are an anti-war movement, but perhaps, just perhaps, they could have drawn some attention to the women who live and suffer in the war zones they are so adamantly against. They could have easily added one more mission statement to what is on their website which mentions "social justice". Indeed, any other anti-war group could easily have done the same. I know they do not define themselves as feminists per se, but why not do more? Could they not have met with Malalai Joya and offered some help? Indeed, could not some of our famous feminists, female politicians and celebrities who spend so much time choking on their own venom over Sarah Palin have done the same? Are they afraid? Or are they simply not interested in the women's issues of today because they think it is another culture and therefore they shouldn't interfere. They know it isn't right but they can turn a blind eye to it, even as it happens under their noses, in their own countries. It's a cop-out. The improvement of the condition of women in Islam is, to me, a far loftier goal than getting to wear trousers, getting equal pay, getting an abortion on demand, and having a man treat a woman more like a man! This was definitely an "unintended consequence" for me: trivial as it may seem. I am much heartened by the fact that progress is being made, albeit in small steps. Kuwati women in parliament refuse to wear the veil. An Egyptian Cleric wants to ban burquas and other facial coverings. Honor killing or Honorcide is getting more attention. Lubna Hussein got a lot of media attention over her sentence for wearing trousers. Najwa Bin Laden and her son, Omar, wrote a book about their husband and father, Osama, and seem to be fearless about it. They have provided a fascinating insight into this man. I think the real "feminist"heroines now are the ones who have literally put their lives on the line, not only for women in Islam but for the world in general. Their goals and committment are what is truly deserving of our respect and support. I am referring to women like Dr Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Nonie Darwish, Supna Zaidi, Irshad Manji and women like them. There is another one who would have possibly made it to this list: Neda Soltan. Tragically she cannot, but in spirit she can inspire so much. I feel she deserves a mention among these brave, dedicated and fascinating women. This is my challenge to todays feminists. Use your power again. I am "just a Mom". I do not have your platform and power. This is indeed a most worthy cause to support and fight for. ("Gramfan" has been 'blogging since 2002. She is "just a Mom" of two grown-up sons, and helps her husband of 38 years. She has occasionally written pieces for other 'blogs, and posts comments. She now writes exclusively for Muslims Against Sharia).
 Ayaan Hirsi Ali has put her life on the line to defend women against radical Islam.
For five years she's lived under the threat of death from Islamic radicals, and in those five years, she has become an acclaimed and provocative author on matters about Islam and the West.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali was born into a Somali Muslim family and eventually made her way to the Netherlands as a refugee.
There she wrote a screenplay for a short film about women's treatment under Islam.
Just over two months after it aired, the filmmaker Theo van Gogh was assassinated. A letter threatening Ali's life has meant she has lived under guard ever since -- most recently thanks to a fund set up by private donors.
Controversy follows her: In 2006, she resigned from the Netherlands parliament under fire for lying on her asylum papers; the complex charges and countercharges precipitated a Dutch political upheaval.
She now works for the conservative American Enterprise Institute, which is headquartered in Washington. She established her AHA foundation to defend the rights of women in the West against militant Islam.
Her autobiography, "Infidel: My Life," which detailed her own genital mutilation in Somalia, was a bestseller, and her next book, "Nomad," is to be published in February. H/T: David F.
 Ayaan Hirsi Ali, ancien membre du parlement néerlandais, vit aujourd’hui à Washington, où elle est « fellow » de l’American Enterprise Institute. Elle travaille à une suite du premier volume de ses mémoires, le best-seller « Ma vie rebelle ».
par Jean Westmoore Dans ses mémoires de 2007, Ayaan Hirsi Ali raconte l’incroyable odyssée géographique qui l’a portée de sa Somalie natale à l’Arabie saoudite, à l’Éthiopie, au Kenya et finalement à un siège au parlement néerlandais, et le voyage spirituel parallèle qui l’a conduite de l’islam à l’athéisme.
Il y a des choses choquantes dans « Ma vie rebelle ». En entrant crûment dans le détail, elle décrit le jour, quand elle avait 5 ans, où sa grand-mère a fait appel à un homme pour l’exciser, elle et sa sœur de 4 ans, et pour circoncire son frère de 6 ans, avec une paire de ciseaux, pendant que ses parents étaient sortis.
Il y a aussi le professeur de Coran de Nairobi qui l’avait frappée tellement fort qu’elle en avait eu une fracture du crâne ; son voyage toute seule vers les Pays-Bas pour échapper à un mariage forcé ; le meurtre brutal, dans une rue d’Amsterdam, de son ami le cinéaste Theo Van Gogh, par un islamiste radical rendu enragé par le film « Submission » qu’ils avaient réalisé ensemble.
Mais « Ma vie rebelle » est surtout intéressant parce qu’il raconte un passage à la maturité, une vie transformée par la lecture et le contact avec les idées occidentales. « Ma vie rebelle » est le livre d’octobre du Buffalo News Book Club. Dans une interview téléphonique depuis Washington, où elle est membre d’un organisme conservateur, l’American Enterprise Institute, et vit sous protection permanente, Hirsi Ali s’est rappelé en riant le premier livre qu’elle avait lu en anglais au Kenya.
Lire la suite...Source: Buffalo News (Traduction par Poste de veille)
 Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former member of the Dutch parliament, now lives in Washington, D.C., where she is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. She is working on a follow-up to best-selling memoir, “Infidel.”
by Jean Westmoore
In her 2007 memoir, Ayaan Hirsi Ali tells the amazing story of a geographic odyssey that took her from her native Somalia to Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia, Kenya and finally to a seat in the Dutchparliament— and of her parallel spiritual journey from Muslim to atheist. Some of “Infidel” is shocking. With harrowing matter-of-fact-ness, she describes the day when she was 5 years old and her grandmother hired a man to circumcise her, her 4-year-old sister and 6-year-old brother with a pair of scissors while their parents were away from home. There also was the Quran teacher in Nairobi who hit her so hard he fractured her skull; her journey alone to The Netherlands to escape a forced marriage; the brutal murder on a street in Amsterdam of her friend, filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, by a radical Islamist enraged by the “Submission” movie they had made together. But “Infidel” is most interesting as a coming-of-age tale, of a life transformed by reading and exposure to Western ideas. “Infidel” is the October book for The Buffalo News Book Club. In a telephone interview from Washington, D. C., where she is a fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute and lives with round-the-clock security, Hirsi Ali laughed as she recalled the first book she read in English at school in Kenya. Read more... Source: Buffalo News
 By Cinnamon Stillwell It was often said after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, that everything had changed. And for a few years afterwards, indeed it had. After decades of denial, America and its allies went on the offensive against Islamic terrorism, both militarily and morally. Most importantly, there was no hesitancy to name the enemy or to condemn his inhumanity. ... There are those trying to call attention to the threat of radical Islam, but increasingly they are voices in the wilderness. Either that or they persecuted under the aegis of "Islamophobia." Defying this characterization, Muslim and Arab reformers are forthright about the conflict raging within Islam and the religious nature of the ideology fueling the jihadists. An inspiring show of opposition came from Mumbai's Muslims, who refused to bury the dead terrorists and who marched against their hate and violence. While such demonstrations are few and far between in the Muslim world, they should be broadly recognized and supported when they do occur. Similarly, reformers in the West such as M. Zuhdi Jasser, founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, Ali Alyami, executive director of the Center for Democracy & Human Rights in Saudi Arabia, and former Dutch parliamentarian and women's rights advocate Ayaan Hirsi Ali, should be supported as modern-day dissidents. But instead, they are hardly household names and in some cases face castigation, even as they risk their lives to tell the truth. Perhaps the problem is the world is not ready to hear the truth. Read more ...Source: SF GateH/T: Gramfan
 To commemorate the anniversary of Sept. 11, 2001, the producers of the stunning new video documentary "The Third Jihad" are making the 72-minute-long exposé on radical Islam's infiltration and subversion of America viewable online, in its entirety, for free. For one week only, from Sept. 9 through Sept. 15, the feature-length video will be streaming on the website, TheThirdJihad.com. "It is important to remember the motivations behind the worst attacks on American soil since the Civil War," says Raphael Shore, the film's executive producer, "and to recognize that these same motivations remain eight years later.""The Third Jihad" is the sequel to the sensational and influential DVD documentary "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West." "The Third Jihad," narrated by Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, a devout Muslim American physician who has cared for U.S. Congressmen and Supreme Court justices, opens with the following statement: "This is not a film about Islam. It is about the threat of radical Islam. Only a small percentage of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims are radical. This film is about them." "The Third Jihad" documents the ongoing, multifaceted efforts of radical Islamists, driven by a religiously motivated rejection of Western values, cultures and religion, to subvert and ultimately take over the Western world. In contrast to the use of "violent jihad" and terror to instill fear in non-believers, "The Third Jihad" introduces the concept of "cultural jihad" as a powerful means to infiltrate and undermine American society from within. "Almost a decade after the 9/11 attacks, radicals continue their fight with persistent attacks on our freedoms and democracy," says Shore. "These attacks take place daily in our courtrooms, our press, our banks, our prisons and even in our children's schools. "Tens of thousands of concerned citizens have already seen this important film," he adds. "Together we need to educate thousands more if we are to stand up and mobilize against the threat of radical Islam in the U.S." The producers are also advertising that the free streaming video can be embedded onto websites, blogs, Facebook and other social media platforms. Furthermore, special screening kits are available at TheThirdJihad.com for those who wish to screen the film to family, friends and communities. "The Third Jihad" includes interviews with New York City's mayor at the time of the 9/11 attacks, Rudy Giuliani, Imam Abdul Alim Musa, the first U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, and several others, including Ayaan Hirsi Ali, author of "Infidel" and named by Time magazine in 2005 as one of the 100 most influential people in the world. It also features an interview with Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, who serves as the current chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. "It is definitely here," Lieberman says in the film, referring to a cultural jihad by Islamic radicals in the U.S. "I don't want to overstate the problem, but there is a danger of understating the problem of homegrown Islamist terrorism." "We all know about terrorism," the film's trailer states. "This is the war you don't know about." Source: WND
 By Clive James September 2009 In February 2005 the Australian journalist Pamela Bone, already close to her death from cancer, published an article in the Melbourne Age entitled "Where are the Western Feminists?" Some of us would still like to know. The immediate spur to Pamela Bone's article had been the piercing silence from Western feminists on the subject of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's condemnation of how women were being treated in Islamic culture. In asking her question, Pamela Bone already knew why the Western feminists were saying so little. They were saying little not just about Islam, but about Hinduism or any other culture which, when the behaviour of its more extreme groups towards women attracts criticism, bridles as if it is being attacked as a whole. Of all the liberal democracies, Australia is the one where the idea is most firmly entrenched among the local intelligentsia that the culture of the West is the only criminal, all other cultures being victims no matter what atrocities they might condone even within their own families. Perhaps the most successful example of how a Western liberal democracy can absorb migrant diasporas into its social texture, Australia would have reason to vaunt itself as a multicultural society if the supposedly universal unhappiness of the Aboriginals did not, in the eyes of its guilty intelligentsia, make the claim seem empty. But in Australia multiculturalism is not only a social aim, largely attained, it is also an ideology, in which form, to borrow Pascal Bruckner's useful phrase, it becomes the racism of the anti-racists. Australian multiculturalist ideologues will call anyone a racist who dares to suggest that another culture than the one in which they flourish might have aspects more repellent than their own. And it was just such accusations that Pamela Bone heard ringing in her ears when she made her exit. The essay you are reading now has its own history, which will probably be part of its subject, because I have nothing original to say on the matter. Indeed, that was why I could never seem to get the thing written. That there were countries in the world where the culture visited hellish violence on women even when their governments professed a measure of equality, and that these governments were unlikely to temper the psychopathic inclinations of the culture unless there was a measure of democracy sufficient to separate the state from theocratic pressure: these conclusions seemed obvious. The only mystery was why so few female intellectuals seemed willing to reach them. Read more here ... Source: Standpoint Magazine
H/T: DF
 Obama should speak truth to Islam because others can't, par Ayaan Hirsi Ali, The Australian, 15 juin 2009. Adaptation française par Poste de veille. Non, ce n’était pas un poisson d'avril. Quand le président Barack Obama a rencontré la Reine du Commonwealth au Palais de Buckingham, c’est bien un iPod qu’il lui a offert. La semaine dernière, je m’attendais presque à voir le président débarquer au Moyen-Orient avec une cargaison de Kindles. Il aurait pu débuter sa visite avec une sélection de lectures spéciales pour le Roi Abdallah d’Arabie Saoudite. Pour le lendemain, lorsqu’il s’est adressé au monde musulman à l'Université al-Azhar, je me l’imaginais bien remettre un autre Kindle à Sayeed Mohamed Tantaoui, le grand cheikh de ce haut lieu de savoir. Obama aurait même pu offrir un troisième Kindle à l'ambassadeur d'Iran en Égypte, qui a assisté à l’adresse présidentielle (cet homme, en effet, représente l’ayatollah, la plus haute autorité religieuse des musulmans chiites). À la différence du Commonwealth, la oumma, c’est-à-dire la communauté des musulmans, n'a pas de leader symbolique, et encore moins de leader officiel. Le roi d'Arabie Saoudite, le grand cheikh de l’Université al-Azhar (la plus grande et, selon de nombreux musulmans, la plus prestigieuse institution d’enseignement islamique) de même que les dirigeants de la République islamique d'Iran prétendent tous incarner le cœur et l’âme de la oumma. Ils ont par contre leurs différences. Le Roi est gardien des lieux saints de l’islam et chef politique. Le grand cheikh, de son côté, n'a aucun pouvoir politique, mais il n'est pas exagéré de dire que son institution est l'une des plus influentes dans le monde musulman. Et l’Iran, quant à elle, se réclame d’un pouvoir spirituel tout en aspirant à une prédominance politique et militaire. La question de savoir qui parle au nom de l'islam est peut-être le pire des cauchemars pour les États-Unis, un phénomène que les artisans de la politique étrangère américaine ne mesurent pas pleinement. Cette situation rend la relation entre l'islam et l'Occident beaucoup plus problématique que ne le réalisent ceux qui écrivent les discours du président. Comme l’ont fait ses prédécesseurs, Obama a dénoncé l'extrémisme islamique sans ne jamais associer l'islam à l'extrémisme. Il a fermement déclaré que l'Amérique n'est pas, et ne sera jamais, en guerre contre l’islam, le tout en invitant le monde musulman à s’allier aux États-Unis pour lutter bec et ongles contre l'extrémisme. Cependant, l’extrémisme islamique peut être abordé de deux manières distinctes. La première concerne ses implications pour la politique étrangère des États-Unis, soit ses aspects expansionnistes ou djihadistes. Le président a promis de répondre par la force à toute attaque de type al-Qaïda sur le sol américain ou contre les intérêts américains. C'est une position facile à prendre parce que, pour les États-Unis, il s’agit tout simplement de légitime défense. Ce n'est pas l'Amérique qui est en guerre contre l'islam, c’est l’islam qui est en guerre contre l'Amérique. Le deuxième sens du mot « extrémisme », utilisé à maintes reprises par le président, est celui, euphémiste, définissant l'application de la loi islamique, soit la charia, dans les pays musulmans. De toute évidence, le président semble espérer contrer ce phénomène en courtisant la rue musulmane. Séducteur, le discours du président était ponctué de fausses louanges (« ... c’est l’innovation au sein des communautés musulmanes qui a permis le développement... de notre maîtrise de l’écriture et de l’imprimerie. ») et de simulacres de principes communs. Obama a même pris l’engagement – ridicule – de combattre, où qu’ils se manifestent, les stéréotypes négatifs à propos de l’islam. Il s’agit ici de rhétorique politique, ce qui ne suscitera pas, au final, de changements concrets. C’est, à mon avis, une mauvaise stratégie. Au lieu de prétendre que les musulmans ont inventé l'imprimerie, le président devrait les confronter aux grands idéaux qu’a imprimés l’Occident. C'est ici que les Kindles pourraient s’avérer bien utiles. Je l’ai imaginé offrant au roi, au cheik et à l'ayatollah des Kindles équipés du discours anti-esclavagiste et pro-égalité d’Abraham Lincoln. Obama a bien rappelé au monde musulman que « les Noirs, en Amérique, ont subi le fouet quand ils étaient esclaves et l’humiliation durant la ségrégation. Mais ce ne fut pas la violence qui leur a permis de conquérir la plénitude de l’égalité des droits. Ce fut plutôt leur persévérance dans la réaffirmation, pacifique et déterminée, des idéaux qui sont au cœur même de la fondation de l’Amérique.» Dans aucun endroit du monde le sectarisme n’est aussi répandu que dans les pays musulmans. La grande différence entre les principes américains et islamiques réside dans leurs idéaux fondateurs respectifs. C'est sur la base des idéaux fondateurs de l'islam qu’al-Qaïda et d'autres musulmans puritains réclament l'application de la charia, le djihad et la sujétion perpétuelle des femmes. C'est sur la base des idéaux fondateurs de l'Amérique que les Noirs et les femmes ont lutté pour l'égalité des droits et l’ont obtenue. Les gays et les nouveaux immigrants continuent d’ailleurs à le faire aujourd’hui. J’inclurais aussi, Kindle oblige, les améliorations apportées au Nouveau Testament par Thomas Jefferson. Le roi, le cheik et l'ayatollah ont en effet le pouvoir de décider quelles parties du Coran ne sont plus applicables dans le monde moderne. Par exemple, les décrets de la charia qui rejettent la science et ordonnent à tous les musulmans de répandre l'islam. Et bien évidemment, aucun choix de lectures ne serait complet sans un exemplaire de la Constitution des États-Unis, en soulignant (vous pouvez le faire avec un Kindle) le huitième amendement qui interdit les traitements cruels et inusités. Pour compléter le tout, j’ajouterais également le discours inaugural de John F. Kennedy : « Que chaque nation qui nous veut du bien ou qui nous veut du mal sache bien que nous paierons n’importe quel prix, que nous supporterons n’importe quel fardeau, que nous affronterons n’importe quelle épreuve, que nous soutiendrons n’importe quel ami et combattrons n’importe quel ennemi pour assurer la survie et le succès de la liberté. … Aux hommes qui habitent les cabanes et les villages de la moitié du globe, qui luttent pour briser les liens de la misère, nous promettons que nous ferons tous nos efforts pour les aider à s'aider eux-mêmes… Aux nations qui voudraient se muer en adversaires… nous ne les tenterons pas par notre faiblesse. Ce n'est que lorsque nos armes seront indubitablement suffisantes que nous serons indubitablement certains qu'on ne les emploiera pas. … Ne demandez pas ce que l’Amérique peut faire pour vous, mais ce qu’ensemble nous pouvons faire pour la liberté des hommes. » Sans oublier les femmes. Obama a promis de lancer un fonds pour appuyer le développement technologique dans les pays à majorité musulmane, et ce, afin que les idées nouvelles puissent se concrétiser sur le marché et ainsi créer des emplois. Est-ce qu’il réalise bien que ces idées donneraient l'opportunité à la Commission saoudienne pour la promotion de la vertu et la prévention du vice de réprimer la pratique d’idées antiislamiques? Cette pauvre fille de Qatif en Arabie saoudite qui, après avoir été violée par sept hommes, a été condamnée à la flagellation, avait succombé à l'idée de flirter par téléphone mobile. En Arabie saoudite, tous les vendredis, des châtiments cruels et inusités sont infligés, bien pires que tout ce que John Adams a pu voir en son temps. Les mains de ceux qui sont soupçonnés d'avoir volé – surtout des pauvres et des travailleurs migrants – sont amputées. Plus un homme, en Arabie saoudite, a la peau foncée, plus son sort est sinistre, sans parler de celui des femmes. Parce qu’en Arabie saoudite, un Noir est encore considéré comme inférieur. Les hommes et les femmes reconnus coupables d'adultère, d'apostasie, de trahison et autres « délits » sont décapités. Des milliers de femmes pourrissent dans les prisons saoudiennes en attente d'être fouettées ou sont fouettées chaque jour pour des actes tels que s’être mêlée à des hommes, une mauvaise tenue, la fornication ou des fréquentations virtuelles par l’intermédiaire d’internet ou de téléphones mobiles. La promotion de l'alphabétisation des filles, que le président veut soutenir, est une noble cause. Mais à moins que les lois de la charia ne soient abrogées, plus de jeunes filles se retrouveront dans des enclos à flagellation plutôt que de progresser dans une carrière. Obama a promis d'être l'hôte d'un sommet sur l’entreprenariat dans les pays à majorité musulmane « pour identifier les moyens d’approfondir les liens entre les leaders du monde des affaires, les fondations et les entrepreneurs sociaux aux États-Unis et dans les pays musulmans à travers le monde. » J'aurais souhaité qu’il tienne plutôt un sommet sur la lecture où nous nous serions réellement « dit ouvertement entre nous ce que nous recelons dans notre cœur et que trop souvent nous n’exprimons qu’à huis clos. » Pour un trop grand nombre d'entre nous nés dans l'islam, dire ouvertement de telles choses peut nous mener à la prison ou au cimetière. Ayaan Hirsi Ali est une ancienne députée néerlandaise originaire de Somalie et l’auteure de Ma vie rebelle, son autobiographie.
Source: Poste de veille (version originale anglaise: The Australian)
 He could have started with a special reading selection when he met Saudi King Abdullah. The day after, when the President spoke to the Muslim world at Al-Azhar University, I pictured him handing out another Kindle to Muhammed Sayyid Tantawy, the university's grand sheik. Obama might have had a third Kindle for the ambassador of Iran to Egypt (for this man represents the ayatollah, who is the highest authority for Shia Muslims), who attended the presidential address. Unlike the Commonwealth, the umma, or Muslim community, has no symbolic leader, let alone a formal one. The king of Saudi Arabia; the grand sheik of Al-Azhar University (the largest, and in the eyes of many Muslim scholars, most prestigious Islamic centre of learning); and the leadership of the Islamic Republic of Iran all make equal claims to represent the heart and soul of the umma. They have their differences. The king is the protector of the holy shrine of Islam and a political leader. The grand sheik has no formal political power, but it is not an exaggeration to say his institution is one of the most influential in the Muslim world. And Iran not only claims spiritual power but pursues political and military dominance. The issue of who speaks for Islam is perhaps the worst nightmare for the US; this is not fully appreciated by the crafters of American foreign policy. This makes a discussion of the relationship between Islam and the West much more problematic than the president's speechwriters realise. Like former US presidents, Obama denounced Islamic extremism without once associating Islam with extremism. He firmly stated that America is not at war with Islam and will never be; and he invited the Muslim world to join hands with the US to fight extremism tooth and nail. However, Islamic extremism can be read in two ways. The first is in its foreign policy implications for the US: that is, in its expansionist or jihadi meaning. Al-Qa'ida-like attacks on American soil against Americans or American interests will be met with force, the President promised. That's an easy position to take because for the US it's a position of self-defence. It is not America that is at war with Islam. It is Islam that is at war with America. The second sense of the word "extremism," used many times by the President, is as a euphemism for the application of Islamic law, or sharia, in Muslim countries. This the President evidently hopes to counter by wooing the Muslim street. The courtship articulated in his speech was peppered with false praise ("... it was innovation in Muslim communities that developed ... our mastery of pens and printing."), feigned common principles and made ridiculous promises to fight negative stereotyping of Islam wherever he encounters it. This is all part of political rhetoric, but it really doesn't lead to concrete change. This, in my view, is the wrong strategy. Instead of pretending that Muslims invented printing, the President should be confronting them with the key products of the Western printing press. And it's here that Kindles could be of use. I imagined him offering the king, the sheik and the ayatollah each a Kindle with Abraham Lincoln's case against slavery and for equality. Obama reminded the Muslim world that "black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the centre of America's founding." Nowhere in the world is bigotry so rampant as in Muslim countries. No difference is greater between American and Islamic principles than the founding ideals of both. It is on the basis of the founding ideals of Islam that al-Qa'ida and other Muslim puritans insist on the implementation of sharia law, jihad and the eternal subjection of women. It is on the basis of the founding ideals of America that blacks and women fought for -- and gained -- equal rights and gays and new immigrants continue to do so. I would include Thomas Jefferson's improvements on the New Testament. The king, the sheik and the ayatollah have the authority to rule that parts of the Koran no longer apply in the modern world. For instance, the edicts of sharia law that reject scientific inquiry and order all Muslims to spread Islam. And of course, no reading selection would be complete without a copy of the US Constitution, highlighting (because you can do that in a Kindle) the Eighth Amendment banning cruel and unusual punishment. And for good measure, I would also add John F.Kennedy's inaugural address: "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. ... To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required. ... To those nations who would make themselves our adversary ... we dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed. ... Ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man." Not to mention woman. Obama promised to launch a fund to support technological development in Muslim majority countries to transfer ideas to the marketplace and create jobs. Does he realise the transfer of ideas creates opportunities for the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice in Saudi Arabia to punish the practice of un-Islamic ideas? That poor girl in Qatif, Saudi Arabia, who, after seven men raped her, was sentenced to flogging, had succumbed to the novel idea of flirting by mobile phone. In Saudi Arabia, every Friday, cruel and unusual punishment is perpetrated, far worse than anything John Adams saw in his time. The hands of those suspected of stealing -- mostly poor, immigrant workers -- are amputated. The more one is dark-skinned in Saudi Arabia, the bleaker his circumstances, not to mention hers. For in Saudi Arabia, black is still considered to be inferior. Men and women convicted of adultery, apostasy, treason and other "offences" are beheaded. Thousands of women are rotting in Saudi jails, waiting to be flogged, or are flogged daily for acts such as mingling with men, improper attire, fornication and virtual relationships on the internet and mobile phones. Promotion of literacy for girls, which the President wants to help pursue, is a noble cause. But, unless sharia laws are repealed, more girls will find themselves in flogging pens rather than rising up the career ladder. Obama promised to host a summit of entrepreneurship in Muslim majority countries "to identify how we can deepen ties between business leaders, foundations and social entrepreneurs in the US and Muslim countries around the world." I wish he would host a reading summit where we truly "say openly to each other the things we hold in our hearts that too often are said only behind closed doors". For too many of us born into Islam, saying those things openly can land us in jail or in the graveyard. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a former Dutch parliamentarian and author of the memoir "Infidel". Source: The Australian
 |
|
|
Copyright Muslims Against Sharia 2008. All rights reserved.
E-mail: info AT ReformIslam.org
|
|
|
To Muslims, and even to some non-Muslim apologists, Islam is the only religion that has given women their due rights, equality and dignity. It can’t be otherwise: How can then Islam, as Muslims claim, be the perfect, the best and the final religion of God?
Posts
