Robert Spencer, the author of the Islamophobook The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)
This is a rebuttal of chapter five of Robert Spencer’s book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), which is entitled “Islam oppresses women.” On pp.74-76, Spencer claims that the Sharia rejects a rape victim’s testimony.
Robert Spencer’s Claims
Says Spencer in his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades):
Rape: Four witnesses needed
Most threatening of all to women may be the Muslim understanding of rape as it plays out in conjunction with Islamic restrictions on the validity of a woman’s testimony. In court, a woman’s testimony is worth half as much as that of a man. (Quran 2:282)
Islamic legal theorists have restricted the validity of a woman’s testimony even further by limiting it to, in the words of one Muslim legal manual, “cases involving property, or transactions dealing with property, such as sales.” Otherwise only men can testify. And in cases of sexual misbehavior, four male witnesses are required…
Consequently, it is almost impossible to prove rape in lands that follow the dictates of the Sharia. Men can commit rape with impunity: As long as they deny the charge and there are no witnesses, they will get off scot-free, because the victim’s testimony is inadmissible. Even worse, if a woman accuses a man of rape, she may end up incriminating herself. If the required male witnesses can’t be found, the victim’s charge of rape becomes an admission of adultery. [1]
Spencer also says the exact same thing on his website:
Consequently, it is even today virtually impossible to prove rape in lands that follow the dictates of the Sharia. Even worse, if a woman accuses a man of rape, she may end up incriminating herself. If the required male witnesses can’t be found, the victim’s charge of rape becomes an admission of adultery.
Let us analyze Spencer’s claims one point at a time:
Women as Witnesses under Sharia
Robert Spencer writes:
In court, a woman’s testimony is worth half as much as that of a man. (Quran 2:282)
Islamic legal theorists have restricted the validity of a woman’s testimony even further by limiting it to, in the words of one Muslim legal manual, “cases involving property, or transactions dealing with property, such as sales.” Otherwise only men can testify.
There are two claims made here: (1) a woman’s testimony is worth half of a man’s; (2) a woman’s testimony is accepted only in financial transactions (even then only by half), and rejected altogether in other cases, including rape.
Of course the reality is that Spencer has spoken a half-truth, which is what he normally does. Spencer’s modus operandi is simple: he presents the absolutely most conservative view as if it is not only the most authoritative one but also the only one. He then compares this ultraconservative Islamic opinion with the most liberal Judeo-Christian view, and then says aha!
The issue revolves around the following Quranic verse:
O you who believe! When you deal with each other in contracting a debt for a fixed time, then write it down; and let a scribe write it down between you with fairness…and call from among your men two witnesses; but if there are not two men, then one man and two women from among those whom you choose to be witnesses, so that if one of the two errs, the second of the two may remind the other. (Quran, 2:282)
Some Islamic jurists opined that the Quranic verse only permitted a woman’s testimony in cases related to financial transactions. Therefore, they reasoned, it ought to be excluded in all other cases. This opinion was prominent in the writings of medieval jurists, and is clung onto by some ultraconservative Muslims.
However, Spencer neglected to inform his readers of less stringent views that abound today. Contemporary Muslims argue that the Quranic verse 2:282 has nothing to do with the courts or legal system in general:
…There is no verse anywhere in the Qur’an, which directs a court of law to consider a woman’s witness to be half reliable as that of a man. As for the verse 282 of Al-Baqarah, which is presented to substantiate the viewpoint in question, it has quite a different meaning and implication than what is construed from it…
Actually this verse addresses the common man. It does not relate to the law and thus gives no directive regarding judicial matters. In other words, it does not call upon the state, the legislative council or the legal authorities. This verse just invokes the common man’s attention for taking precautionary measures in case of a particular situation of conflict…
The verse states that when two or more individuals enter into an agreement for a loan for a fixed period of time, they should write it down thereby avoiding any misunderstanding or dispute. As a further safeguard to avoid such misunderstanding, they should make two men witnesses to the agreement. In case they are not able to find two men, then they may take two women instead of a man…Obviously, if this were a directive pertaining to judicial matters, it would have addressed the state or legal authorities. [2]
In other words, these Muslims argue that the Quranic verse cannot be generalized to all court cases; instead, it simply pertains to financial matters, and contracts of debt in specific. It is argued that the women of pre-Islamic Arabia were generally unaware of the intricacies of the business world. Tahir Haddad, an Islamic thinker of the early twentieth century, writes:
The fact that woman lagged behind man in all aspects of life [in the pre-Islamic times] made her less proficient in intellectual and mathematical tasks, especially since at that time she did not get her share of education and culture to prepare her for that…[which was taken into] account when it was decided that a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man…[in] issue[s]…such as debts. [3]
The lack of business acumen that women of that particular time generally possessed was the reason that a woman’s singular testimony about a contract of debt might be rejected by the common man, resulting in conflicts. The intent of the Quranic verse was after all to prevent infighting between Muslims, as was often the case between creditors and debtors. Therefore, argue these contemporary Muslims, witnesses had to be produced who would be accepted by the common man as being authoritative.
Some contemporary Muslims even argue that such a restriction (i.e. the requirement of two women as witnesses instead of one) would not be applicable if the cause for the restriction (i.e. the lack of business acumen on the part of the woman) was not present. The Islamic cleric Muzammil Siddiqi [4] issued the following fatwa (religious edict):
Question:
Does Islam regard the testimony of women as half of a man’s just in cases of transactions or in every case? Who are the scholars that maintain the first view? What is the evidence of those scholars saying that her testimony is not accepted in cases of murder and adultery?
Answer:
The word shahadah [testimony] in its various forms has occurred in the Qur’an about 156 times. There is only one case (Al-Baqarah 2:282) where there is a reference to gender. Apart from this one reference, there is no other place where the issue of gender is brought in the context of testimony. According to the Qur’an, it does not make any difference whether the person testifying is a male or female; the only objective is to ascertain accuracy and to establish justice and fairness. In one place in the Qur’an, there is an explicit reference that equates the testimonies of the male and female (See Surat An-Nur 24:6-9).
Only in the context of business transactions and loan contracts, it is mentioned that if two men are not available for testimony, then one man and two women are to be provided for that particular purpose (See Surat Al-Baqarah 2:282). The reason is not because of gender; it is given in the Qur’anic verse: If one errs, the other may remind her. Some scholars have suggested that this was due to the fact that most women in the past and even now were not involved in the intricate business dealings. So the Qur’an accepted their testimony, but to insure justice indicated that there should be two.
It is also important to note that the Shari`ah emphasizes that we follow the law exactly in the matters of worship; in economic dealings, however, the issue of justice is the main factor. If a judge sees that there is a woman who is very qualified and has good understanding of business transactions, the judge may consider her testimony equal to the testimony of a man. This will not be against the teachings of the Qur’an. [5]
Jamal Badawi, [6] another Islamic cleric (who Spencer himself quotes as an authority from time to time), comments:
The context of this passage (verse, or ayah) [verse 2:282] relates to testimony on financial transactions, which are often complex and laden with business jargon. The passage does not make blanket generalization [against the testimony of women]…In numerous societies, past and present, women generally may not be heavily involved with and experienced in business transactions. As such, they may not be completely cognizant of what is involved…
It must be added that unlike pure acts of worship, which must be observed exactly as taught by the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, testimony is a means to an end, ascertaining justice as a major objective of Islamic law. Therefore, it is the duty of a fair judge to be guided by this objective when assessing the worth and credibility of a given testimony, regardless of the gender of the witness. A witness of a female graduate of a business school is certainly far more worthy than the witness of an illiterate person with no business education or experience. [7]
Robert Spencer claims that the Sharia itself excludes a woman’s testimony in cases of rape; yet, this is not the interpretation of Sharia that many Muslims follow:
The simple point is that this verse peculiarly relates to bearing witness on documentary evidence i.e. sale deeds, leasing agreements, loan agreements, guarantee cards and trust deeds etc. In the above related cases, one is free to choose the witnesses. But, in cases of accidents, theft, murder, robbery, rape, and hijacking etc the witnesses are not a matter of choice. Whosoever is present at the scene should and can be taken as a witness. Thus we cannot say that the witness of a woman in cases other than documentary evidence, as explained above, will be affected by this verse. [8]
Jalal Abualrub [9], a “Wahhabi” [10] cleric, writes:
The Quran states that we need two women [as] witnesses in cases of financial transactions in place of one man. There is no proof whatsoever that this is also the case in any other dispute, including criminal cases such as rape. In fact, a woman’s testimony is accepted in the most important aspect of Islam: the religion itself. Did anyone ask Aishah to bring another witness or a man to support her narrations of the Prophet’s practices and sayings? [11]
What Spencer will do is simple: he will cite various Islamic clerics, mostly classical medieval ones, as a proof that the Sharia itself says such-and-such. Yet, the reality is that even though most Muslims believe that the Sharia is divinely one, they also acknowledge that there are multiple interpretations of it. If some Islamic scholars argued that a woman’s testimony ought to be excluded, others argued that it should be considered equal to that of a man’s. Spencer attempts to portray the ultraconservative interpretation of the Sharia as the only one–and to him it is the only authoritative one, with all other understandings deemed as either “taqiyya based” or simply unorthodox and therefore unrepresentative (as if Spencer is the pope of Islam!).
Yet, contemporary Muslims point out that the opinions of Islamic jurists (including the classical ones) are just that: opinions. Unlike papal decrees in Catholicism, the rulings of Islamic clerics are neither infallible or binding. Imam Abu Hanifa, the eminent jurist who founded the Hanafi school of thought, decreed:
What comes from the Messenger of God, we accept with our mind and heart, by my father and mother, we cannot oppose it. What comes from the Companions, we choose from. As for what comes from other sources, well, they are human beings as we are. [12]
So while the Muslims find the Quran and authentic hadiths/sunna to be infallible and binding, they do not view the interpretations of them to be such. Along this line, Jalal Abualrub wrote:
We should avoid thinking of the opinions of the scholars as infallible. What is infallible is the Quran and Sunnah alone. Scholars of all schools have their own opinions and fatawa that may either be correct or wrong. For instance, a Maliki scholar can claim whatever opinion his madhhab says, but we are not bound by and certainly the religion is not bound by it.
So when Allah states in Surat al-Baqarah that in regards to financial transactions the testimony of two women can be used with the testimony of one man, no one has the right to make this specific ruling apply in other cases. Let me remind you again: the female Companions [of the Prophet] have narrated and testified on countless occasions about aspects of creed, fiqh and other Islamic topics. Have you heard any of the [male] Companions ever say that their testimony cannot be accepted unless they bring another woman and man to agree? I mentioned this because money issues and criminal issues are certainly far less important than religious issues that establish a ruling for all times.
It must be remembered that the scholars are not infallible, and their efforts are only explanatory–they are not the final authority. We respect the scholars, but we agree that they are human and make mistakes. [13]
Abualrub brings up the point that the testimony of women was accepted on aspects of religion and creed, which are more important than crime and punishment. This is one proof that contemporary Muslims use, namely that the female Companions bore witness to the actions of the Prophet Muhammad; there is no rule in Islam that the testimony of a woman in this regard be considered half of a man’s.
Another proof that contemporary Muslims use–to prove that a woman’s testimony is equal to that of a man’s–is the Quranic passage 24:6-9 (just two verses down from the verses that Spencer has quoted). In these verses, the husband may testify against the wife that she has committed adultery, but if the wife gives her own testimony declaring this to be a lie, then the wife’s testimony trumps that of her husband’s. Muzammil Siddiqi writes:
In one place in the Qur’an, there is an explicit reference that equates the testimonies of the male and female (See Surat An-Nur 24:6-9). [14]
Jamal Badawi comments:
Most Qur’anic references to testimony (witness) do not make any reference to gender. Some references fully equate the testimony of males and females…
[Verse 2:282] cannot be used as an argument that there is a general rule in the Qur’an that the worth of a female’s witness is only half the male’s. This presumed “rule” is voided by the above reference (24:6-9), which explicitly equates the testimony of both genders on the issue at hand. [15]
Contemporary Muslims point out that many classical scholars permitted female judges; how could it be then that a woman would be permitted to serve as a judge but not as a witness, the former of which is in charge of the latter? The judge uses his wisdom to give judgment, whereas a witness simply retells what he/she witnessed. Therefore, if a woman is allowed to be a judge, she ought to be permitted to be a witness as well. Tahir Haddad wryly comments:
The assertion [that women ought to be barred from serving as witnesses]…is even stranger in view of the fact that according to the jurisprudence of the four orthodox Islamic law schools a woman is allowed to act as a judge to rule on differences between people in a role similar to that of a man. Abu-Hanifa al-Nu’man [Imam Abu Hanifa] who was a contemporary of some of the Prophet’s Companions, confirmed that it is acceptable in Islam [for her to be a judge]…So, do we deduce from this that Islam…[bars her as] a witness…and at the same time elevates her by conferring her the responsibilities of a judge? [16]
Jalal Abualrub notes that the words of some of the fallible scholars contradicts the infallible authentic hadiths; Abualrub quotes the following narration in the Islamic texts:
When a woman went out in the time of the Prophet for prayer, a man attacked her and raped her. She shouted and he went off, and when a man came by, she said: “That man did such and such to me.” And when a company of the emigrants came by, she said: “That man did such and such to me.” They went and seized the man whom they thought had had intercourse with her and brought him to her.
She said: “Yes, this is he.” Then they brought him to the Apostle of God. When [the Prophet] was about to pass sentence, the man who had [actually] assaulted her stood up and said: “Apostle of God, I am the man who did it to her.”
[The Prophet] said to her: “Go away, for God has forgiven you.” But he told the [innocent] man some good words, and to the [guilty] man who had had raped her, he said: “Stone him to death.” (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38, #4366)
Abualrub points out that contrary to Robert Spencer’s claim that a woman’s testimony is not accepted in cases of rape, the Prophet Muhammad convicted a man based solely on one woman’s testimony. Abualrub comments:
As for the woman mentioned in the narration, it is clear that no one asked her for four witnesses nor did anyone suspect her character, and her testimony alone was used as proof, and the innocent man who was wrongly accused was set free, while she was not punished even though she identified the wrong man, so how can the critics of Islam today claim that the Shari’ah itself says a woman is to be lashed for failing to bring forth four witnesses, when this woman in the narration not only did not do that but also identified the wrong man!? [17]
Abualrub mentions a number of salient points here, which we shall discuss in greater detail in the next part of this article. But for now, the bolded part is most relevant to our discussion, as it shows that contemporary Muslims have a very strong proof that in their religion a woman’s testimony is to be accepted in cases of rape, contrary to what Robert Spencer–the self-proclaimed pope of Islam–insists.
Women as Witnesses under the Judeo-Christian Laws
What we have thus far concluded is that yes it is true that some Muslims (such as those living in the medieval times and some ultraconservatives today) believe that a woman’s testimony is rejected in most legal proceedings. On the other hand, many contemporary Muslims feel otherwise, a fact that Robert Spencer conveniently ignores.
But Spencer’s half-truth does not end there. He also purposefully neglects to mention that a woman’s testimony is rejected in traditional Halakha (Jewish law) and Biblical law (of the Christians). The Jewish Virtual Library declares that there has been a longstanding “rabbinic rule that a woman is ineligible to testify as a witness.” [18] Rabbi Aaron Mackler writes:
The vast majority of Orthodox rabbis, and some Conservative rabbis, do not accept the legitimacy of women serving as witnesses. [19]
The Talmud forbade Jewish courts from accepting women as witnesses:
The Talmudic interpretation of the law held that women or slaves were not admitted as witnesses; nor could one such testify on the basis of testimony heard form an eye-witness. [20]
It is for this reason that the testimony of a woman is not accepted in the Orthodox rabbinical courts up until this day. However, like the Muslims, there is a difference of opinion amongst Jewry; Reform Jews and some Conservative rabbis accept women as witnesses.
We see then that the situation of the Muslims and the Jews with regard to this issue is very similar if not identical; why is it then that Robert Spencer arrives at dramatically different conclusions about Islam/Muslims/Quran/Sharia than he does about Judaism/Jews/Talmud/Halakha? Why does Spencer entitle the chapter of his book as “Islam oppresses women,” but not say “Judaism oppresses women?” If one criticizes the Quran for one thing, should not such a person criticize the Talmud for the exact same thing? It seems there is one standard for Islam and another for Judaism and Christianity. This is indeed the modus operandi for the Islamophobic movement in general; I have already in a previous article detailed Daniel Pipes’ fantastic double standards towards Sharia and Halakha.
The traditional Biblical law also excluded women from serving as witnesses. The Bible says:
One witness is not enough to convict a man accused of any crime or offense he may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses…The two men involved in the dispute must stand in the presence of the LORD before the priests and the judges who are in office at the time. (Deuteronomy 19:15-17)
Notice that Robert Spencer argues that the four witnesses in the Quranic verse 24:4 ought to be males, since the word “witnesses” appears in the masculine. Yet, this was the exact same logic that Christian scholars used: the Bible uses the word “men” when it refers to witnesses. John Gill, a well-renowned Biblical scholar of the eighteenth century, commented on this verse that it
teaches that there is no witness by women; and so it is elsewhere said, an oath of witness is made by men, and not by women; on which it is observed that a woman is not fit to bear witness, as it is written “then both the men,” [meaning] men and not women. [21]
Medieval Islamic and Christian scholars opined that witnesses ought to be male, based on the fact that both holy books (the Quran and Bible respectively) used masculine words for “witnesses.” Yet, for some reason Robert Spencer argues that the Quran specifically requires male witnesses, whereas the Bible does not! Again, this exposes Spencer’s bias.
The Testimony of Women in Cases of Adultery
Robert Spencer, likes to contrast the Quran with the Bible; his book is full of such side-by-side comparisons. Let us play his game then. Both the Quran and the Bible deal with the case of a husband accusing his wife of adultery. The Quran declares that if a wife denies the charges, then she is exonerated by the law–her testimony is accepted over that of her husband’s, and any worldly punishment is waived. The Quran declares:
As for those who accuse their wives but have no witnesses except themselves: let the testimony of one of them be four testimonies, swearing by God that he is of those who speaks the truth; And the fifth oath should be invoking the curse of God on himself if he is of those who lie. But it shall avert the punishment from her if she bears witness/testifies before God four times that the thing he says is indeed false, and if she takes an oath a fifth time that the wrath of God be upon her if he speaks the truth. (Quran, 24:6-9)
This is the Islamic law of Al-Li’an. The Bible, on the other hand, has the Law of Jealousy: if a husband suspects his wife of adultery, then he is to bring her to the priest. The priest will then dump dust and ink into a container of water, and force her to drink the dirtied water. If she gets sick from it (or dies), it proves the allegation that she was adulterous; if she does not fall sick, then she is exonerated. Furthermore, the woman is to drink this water in a state of public humiliation: her head is to be uncovered (a sign of shame back then) and she is forced to stand at the east gate of the temple in sight of the people, so that she might serve as a reminder against lewdness. (All this even before she drinks the contaminated water.)
The Bible declares:
The Test for an Unfaithful Wife
Then the LORD said to Moses, “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him by sleeping with another man, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act, and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure–then he is to take his wife to the priest…
The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the LORD. Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water.…Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has slept with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have defiled yourself by sleeping with a man other than your husband”–here the priest is to put the woman under this curse of the oath–”may the LORD cause your people to curse and denounce you when he causes your thigh to waste away and your abdomen to swell. May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells and your thigh wastes away. ” Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”
The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. He shall have the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water will enter her and cause bitter suffering…He is to have the woman drink the water. If she has defiled herself and been unfaithful to her husband, then when she is made to drink the water that brings a curse, it will go into her and cause bitter suffering; her abdomen will swell and her thigh waste away, and she will become accursed among her people.
If, however, the woman has not defiled herself and is free from impurity, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children. This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and defiles herself while married to her husband, or when feelings of jealousy come over a man because he suspects his wife. The priest is to have her stand before the LORD and is to apply this entire law to her [i.e. death by stoning]. The husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing, but the woman will bear the consequences of her sin.’” (Numbers 5:11-31)
Matthew Henry, the eminent seventeenth and eighteenth century commentator on the Bible, explained these verses:
We have here the law concerning the solemn trial of a wife whose husband was jealous of her.
I. What was the case supposed:
1. That a man had some reason to suspect his wife to have committed adultery,
2. It is supposed to be a sin which great care is taken by the sinners to conceal, which there is no witness of…
3. The spirit of jealousy is supposed to come upon the husband…then he may compel her to drink the bitter water. But the law here does not tie him to that particular method of proving the just cause of his suspicion; it might be otherwise proved. In case it could be proved that she had committed adultery, she was to be put to death (Lev. 20:10); but, if it was uncertain, then this law took place. Hence, (1.) Let all wives be admonished not to give any the least occasion for the suspicion of their chastity; it is not enough that they abstain from the evil of uncleanness, but they must abstain from all appearance of it, from every thing that looks like it, or leads to it, or may give the least umbrage to jealousy; for how great a matter may a little fire kindle! (2.) Let all husbands be admonished not to entertain any causeless or unjust suspicions of their wives…
II. The process of the trial must be thus:
(1.) Her husband must bring her to the priest, with the witnesses that could prove the ground of his suspicion, and desire that she might be put upon her trial. The Jews say that the priest was first to endeavour to persuade her to confess the truth…If she confessed, saying, “I am defiled,” she was not put to death, but was divorced and lost her dowry; if she said, “I am pure,” then they proceeded.
…
(3.) The priest was to prepare the water of jealousy…it must be [in] an earthen vessel, because the coarser and plainer every thing was the more agreeable it was to the occasion. Dust must be put into the water, to signify the reproach she lay under, and the shame she ought to take to herself, putting her mouth in the dust; but dust from the floor of the tabernacle…
(4.) The woman was to be set before the Lord, at the east gate of the temple-court (say the Jews), and her head was to be uncovered, in token of her sorrowful condition; and there she stood for a spectacle to the world, that other women might learn not to do after her lewdness, Eze. 23:48…
(5.) The priest was to adjure her to tell the truth, and to denounce the curse of God against her if she were guilty, and to declare what would be the effect of her drinking the water of jealousy, v. 19-22. He must assure her that, if she were innocent, the water would do her no harm, v. 19. None need fear the curse of the law if they have not broken the commands of the law. But, if she were guilty, this water would be poison to her, it would make her belly to swell and her thigh to rot, and she should be a curse or abomination among her people, v. 21, 22…
(6.) The priest was to write this curse in a scrip or scroll of parchment, verbatim-word for word, as he had expressed it, and then to wipe or scrape out what he had written into the water (v. 23), to signify that it was that curse which impregnated the water, and gave it its strength to effect what was intended. It signified that, if she were innocent, the curse should be blotted out and never appear against her, as it is written, Isa. 43:25, I am he that blotteth out thy transgression, and Ps. 51:9, Blot out my iniquities; but that, if she were guilty, the curse, as it was written, being infused into the water, would enter into her bowels with the water, even like oil into her bones (Ps. 109:18)…
(7.) The woman must then drink the water (v. 24); it is called the bitter water…
…
(9.) …If the suspected woman was really guilty, the water she drank would be poison to her (v. 27), her belly would swell and her thigh rot by a vile disease for vile deserts, and she would mourn at the last when her flesh and body were consumed, Prov. 5:11. Bishop Patrick says, from some of the Jewish writers, that the effect of these waters appeared immediately, she grew pale, and her eyes ready to start out of her head… [22]
The husband could not only accuse the woman of adultery during the marriage, but of fornication before the wedding. His testimony was accepted without question unless her father could provide physical proof saying otherwise; the wife’s testimony on the other hand was not considered at all. The Bible says:
If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” then the girl’s father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate. The girl’s father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, and the elders shall take the man and punish him. They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the girl’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.
If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you. (Deuteronomy 22:13-21)
Imagine if this was in the Quran: Spencer would have a field day! He would wax and wane about how the only way the wife in this case could avert stoning to death would be by her parents somehow producing a blood stained cloth–blood from a broken hymen…evidence which seems mighty hard to come by. And even if she is found innocent by this physical evidence, in that case the husband pays the wife’s father, not her. Furthermore, the wife stays married to such a husband “as long as he lives.” But if no proof can be found, which seems the most probable outcome, then she was to be publicly stoned to death by the men of the town. Again: imagine Spencer’s rantings and ravings if this all were in the Quran!
To be clear: I am not trying here to demonize Christianity. Obviously the Christians of today do not enforce the Law of Jealousy or demand virgins to show proof of their virginity. Yet, what is apparent here is the double standard with which Spencer approaches the religious texts. Many Islamophobes pride themselves as being the protectors of the Judeo-Christian tradition, yet squirm when we apply the same standards to Judaism or Christianity.
Conclusion
Robert Spencer relies on half-truths: he only mentions the most conservative opinion amongst Muslims, as if it is somehow the only one. In reality, contemporary Muslims believe that women can testify in trials, including cases of rape. They interpret the Quranic verse 2:282 to be limited in scope.
Furthermore, Spencer conveniently neglects to mention that Orthodox rabbinical courts to this day refuse to accept women as witnesses, based on Talmudic teachings. (And such understandings abounded in Christianity as well.) Spencer ought to be as critical of the Halakha as the Sharia, but his double standard in this regard is reminiscent of Daniel Pipes’ double standards, as I documented in a previous article. This biased methodology underlies the Islamophobic mentality in general.
In part 2 of “Robert Spencer Rapes the Truth,” we’ll discuss the rest of Spencer’s spurious claims on the same topic, focusing specifically on his allegation that a rape victim is lashed if she fails to produce four witnesses.
Footnotes
refer back to article 1. Robert Spencer, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), 74-76. ISBN 0-89526-013-1
refer back to article 2. http://www.renaissance.com.pk/Julrefl12y4.html#1.
refer back to article 3. al-Tahir al-Haddad, Muslim Women in Law and Society: Annotated Translation of al-Tahir al-Haddad, 38. ISBN 0415418879, 9780415418874
refer back to article 4. Muzammil H. Siddiqi is the President of the Fiqh Council of North America
refer back to article 5. http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1203515453417&pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar%2FFatwaE%2FFatwaEAskTheScholar
refer back to article 6. Jamal Badawi is a member of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) Fiqh Council.
refer back to article 7. http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar%2FFatwaE%2FFatwaEAskTheScholar&cid=1119503544348
refer back to article 8. http://www.renaissance.com.pk/Julrefl12y4.html#1.
refer back to article 9. Jalal Abualrub is a prolific Islamic author and translator
refer back to article 10. The proper term is “Salafi”. “Wahhabi” is considered offensive; it has been used here only because readers may be unfamiliar with “Salafi”.
refer back to article 11. Jalal Abualrub, http://islamlife.com/religion2/
refer back to article 12. as quoted in Tariq Ramadan’s Radical Reform, 53.
refer back to article 13. Jalal Abualrub, http://islamlife.com/religion2/
refer back to article 14. http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1203515453417&pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar%2FFatwaE%2FFatwaEAskTheScholar
refer back to article 15. http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1119503544348&pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar%2FFatwaE%2FFatwaEAskTheScholar
refer back to article 16. al-Tahir al-Haddad, Muslim Women in Law and Society: Annotated Translation of al-Tahir al-Haddad, 38.
refer back to article 17. Jalal Abualrub, http://islamlife.com/religion2/
refer back to article 18. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/agunot1.html
refer back to article 19. http://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/teshuvot/docs/20052010/mackler_women_witnesses.pdf
refer back to article 20. Jacob Nuesner, Understanding Rabbinic Judaism, 67. ISBN 0870682385, 9780870682384
refer back to article 21. John Gill’s Exposition to the Bible, Commentary on Deuteronomy 19:17, http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/deuteronomy-19-17.html
refer back to article 22. Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary, http://biblebrowser.com/numbers/5-29.htm
December 19th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Thank you for setting him straight!!!
December 19th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
It is known that some virgin’s may not even have a hymen. Or, it can break by riding a bicycle, etc. Bleeding during sex does not prove virginity. I hate how no one knows that.
December 19th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
I’m grateful for this clear rebuttal to Robert Spencers claims about rape, and the punishment.
He often takes the tribal habits in countries like Arabia and Pakistan and pretend that they are Islamic. In tribal custom, they are often ignorant or don’t care about Islamic religious rulings, like in Pakistan there was a case about a woman called Mukhtar Mai and she was rapred according to tribal custom, and against the state law which is Islamic law, I remember the Islamophbobes blaming Islam for it.
Thank you for raping Robert Spencer’s lies.
December 19th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
i remember jalal. He took on craig winn and ripped him a new one on nationaly syndicated radio.
December 19th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Thank you for this! It gets so frustrating trying to convince people the ‘need 4 witnesses to prove rape’ is a load of crap!
Considering rape laws have such low conviction rates even in ‘the west’, it is a matter of patriarchy and not letting women have ownership of their own bodies, same for the emphasis on virginity…
this is something women have been combatting for years and that includes Muslim women…we are not perpetual victims, I am glad someone mentioned Muhktar Mai- it was tribal law that caused her horrendous condition and it was actually a largely conservative Muslim Pakistani population that were disgusted by what happened….same for the girls buried alive in the NWPF. The MP that stood up to defend that said they were their tribal customs and shouldn’t be questioned…Islam had nothing to do with it..
December 19th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Well I can’t read the whole thing right now but I read te first thing about testimony and it was good. I’m a Muslim freshman in high school so I’m more sensitive about islamophobia then I should be, and I’m writing essays fr my English teacher rebuttling this book. Honestly, I’m much more interested in wars in Islam and terrorism and violence and all that.
Also if you read carefully, you’ll notice how he barely cites anything in the modern world but rather “very respected” medieval scholars. I mean, doesn’t opinions and all that crap CHANGE in the few hundred years from then to the modern era? I also remember seeing him on YouTube showing how some “important” Muslim guy defined innocents as only Muslims but not non-Muslims; therefore, kill all the non believers. I looked up who the guy was and he actually turned out to be a terrorist who many scholars have condemned.
Lucky for me, the first rate anti hate logic you guys spit out help me see through all the BS.
December 19th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Thanks a lot everyone.
Are the links to the footnotes working properly for you guys?
Sincerely,
Danios.
December 19th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
I am not necessarily disagreeing with your argument, but I respectfully offer that your case would be more convincing if you would just take the time to type full footnotes with an author, title, source, date, and link if applicable.
December 19th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
Which footnotes in particular? The only ones I did not provide a link for were the quotes from Jalal Abualrub, with whom the exchange was through email inquiry. When some visitors here mentioned that Robert Spencer had chickened out in a debate with Mr. Abualrub–and then coincidentally my previous article was on Mr. Abualrub’s website–I decided to shoot him an email.
I believe Mr. Abualrub will be linking to my article soon, which should be verification enough of the authenticity of said quotes.
As for the rest of the quotes, I provided the relevant URLs to those.
Were there any other citations you think ought to be cited more properly? Thanks for your input.
Sincerely,
Danios.
December 19th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
This is probably the Islamaphobic tactic that upsets me the most -
Islam condones rape/encourages rape/ The Prophet (pbuh) raped/ Islam punishes rape victims.
All these Islamaphobes that would have no problem denying Muslim women the right to dress how they like, or insulting their intelligence and pitying them with suggestions of “Stockholm Syndrome”, or worse - depicting pregnant Muslim women as ticking demographic time-bombs - suddenly they’re all strident feminists who are happy to use malicious lies to “save” the Muslim women (from themselves more often than not).
They don’t care about the rape of women - as evidenced about their refusal to deal in facts - they care about having a big stick to whack Muslims over the head with.
December 19th, 2009 at 11:38 pm
Nat, you’re absolutely right. They don’t give two damns about the Muslim women. In fact, they *hate* them. Suddenly they care about them so much when it means using the issue as a big stick to whack the Muslims over the head with. It’s called ‘colonial feminism.’
Sincerely,
Danios.
December 19th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
Thank you so very very much for posting this.
Many years ago I ran into some of Robert Spencer’s supporters, and they piled on false misinformation like he tried to claim above. It was difficult for me to unravel, and you managed to teach me what even my own meager research couldn’t find. Jazakh Allah khair (May God reward you) for posting such a good rebuttal.
December 19th, 2009 at 11:42 pm
I take it from the somewhat subdued response to this article that you guys are more interested in the Jihad/”Dhimmitude” rebuttals? I guess I’ll make my next article the promised follow up to the “Dhimmitude” issue, i.e. dealing with the allegation that Muslims want to reimpose the dhimmitude whereas Christians don’t want to reimpose perpetual servitude.
Any other requests? What kind of articles do you guys want to see from me in the future?
Sincerely,
Danios.
December 19th, 2009 at 11:56 pm
Wow, trust this writer to take on any topic and knock it outta the park!! Amazing work Danios. Thank you for expressing so many people’s feelings in your words
December 20th, 2009 at 12:04 am
Thanks Sulayman and iSherif. I appreciate it.
I coined a new term in this article: “Islamophobook.” (I’ll be mighty upset if I find out it’s already been used before.)
Sincerely,
Danios.
December 20th, 2009 at 12:24 am
“I take it from the somewhat subdued response to this article that you guys are more interested in the Jihad/”Dhimmitude” rebuttals?”
Am not sure about the subdued response Dan. Perhaps folks haven’t yet read this piece? These articles are great and really very useful when defending doctrine. Thanks so much again for what you do. And the pic of Spencer above is priceless ah, smile and all…LOL!
December 20th, 2009 at 12:52 am
Nah this is GREAT! I’m just a lot more concerned with stealth jihad (even the term sounds extremly phobic), just warfare in Islam, that sorta thing. I REALLY hate it when people call my prophet Muhammad (pbuh) a pedophile. That’s when I get ticked off.
December 20th, 2009 at 2:04 am
I would also recommend looking at these two journal articles for those who have access to them, as they have some very interesting information relating to this topic.
Mohammad Fadel, “Two Women, One Man: Knowledge, Power, and Gender in Medieval Sunni Legal Thought”, International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 29, No. 2 (May, 1997): 185-204
Asifa Quraishi, “Her Honor: An Islamic Critique of the Rape Laws of Pakistan from a Woman-Sensitive Perspective” Michigan Journal of International Law, Vol. 18 (Winter 1997): 287-320
December 20th, 2009 at 3:10 am
Danios, excellent article about rape, …as usual, …and the links work fine. I think what the poster called “proper citation wanted” meant was that your footnotes would look better if they were like…well you know …like in Wikipedia. After an article a line of citations with links. I think that’s a good idea, for long term use of the site, I mean you could put the cited material in a kind of “encyclopedia” for reference.
I’d love to see Robert Spencer’s response to your showing his lies about rape (oh look the inferior status of women) for what they are. I am sure, that he knows what the truth but only deliberately tries to distort and lie, after all that is what David Horowitz of the Islamophobic rag, Front Page Mag, is paying him for.
I don’t want to bash other religons, but as you correctly noted, the status of women who are raped is worse in Judasim and Christiantiy, I think in Judaism a man is expected to marry his rape victim as a “punishment” or “atonement” or something. However if you bring this up in discussions with Islamophobes, they nearly always say “ Judaism and Christianity has reformed” but Islam has not. Spencer does the same with the pedophilia lie, when Cohens are permitted to marry and have sex with a girl from age 3 in Judaism. What they really want is for us to re-write our laws, which we will never do. That is a lie, because there hasn’t been a reform, they just don’t practice them. That is not to say, that some time in the future, that they may well do so..so that argument is a non starter.
It’s a stupid response, simply because Halacha isn’t the law, even in Israel, and Christianity dumped the Old Testament as they call it, so they make their laws as they go along they don’t follow what’s in the Torah, so they have no leg to stand on. What they SHOULD be saying is that “we dumped our religon for secularism, you should too”. Besides remember the recent furore in Israel even a Minister suggested having Torah law as the law of the land? There was an outcry and threats from the mainly secular Jews, saying they didn’t want stonings and beheadings introduced. Of course, if there really had been a reform they would accept it as the law of the land, but they don’t want it. Spencer didn’t cover any of this, but that proved one of his lies about “reform” having taken place in Judaism. Remember he is paid to lie by David Horowitz, (a neo con far right Jew) that’s why he ignores that.
“I coined a new term in this article: “Islamophobook.” (I’ll be mighty upset if I find out it’s already been used before.)”
Copyright it;) it’s an excellent new word, very apt and sooooooooo on the mark.
“I take it from the somewhat subdued response to this article that you guys are more interested in the Jihad/”Dhimmitude” rebuttals?”
Noooooooooooo, keep the gems coming, because ALL his lies need exposing, every one, not just the ones about Jihad.
You could add a poll on the homepage, for asking questions you know, like some web sites do, if you ever need readers feedback and want to go with what the majority want.
I would recommend that you write in a chronological order, go through the chapters in Spencer’s book and rebut his lies, chapter by chapter so that it will be in a ideal form for a print book…oops I mean Islamophobook:)
And Danios, thank you for all you do, you and Zingel, Emperor, Mooneye, and Garibaldi are just superbly efficient. I must say, you’re the favourite because of your devastating rebuttal of Spencer, but the other four are no less awesome in making this website what it is.
I think the term “The Fab Five” (move over The Beatles) is very appropriate for the Loon Watch team:)
December 20th, 2009 at 3:51 am
Spectacular.
Danios, more like this please.
December 20th, 2009 at 4:58 am
Loon Watch, this article shames the hypocrite Spencer, and his lying hordes of Islamophobes. Excellent work Danios.
In the old Testament Bible, a rapist’s punishment is that the victim marries him, never mind witnesses, However Spencer never writes about that,
Here is a Jewish religious website which says that if Jewish religious law is still binding (rape laws) Does this mean that Spencer regards this as binding? He will respond that Christians don’t believe in the old Testament laws as being binding on Christians, thus disproving the false claim he makes of Judeo Christianity. In Islam a man is punished for rape, sometimes with death unless the victim forgives, but in “judeo christianity” the victim has to marry him.
What does Spencer have to say about Jewish law punishing the rapist by giving him the raped woman to marry? This ruling on rape at Jewish Answers, which is a very respectable Jewish learning website run by Rabbis, (they also own torah.org and other Jewish religious websites) makes a mockery of Spencers claims of rape victims.
Very briefly, at Jewish Answers, in a Question and Answer discussion a Rabbi’ responds to somebody questioning the punishment for rape. The Rabbi’s respond that the Halachic punishment is for the victim to marry her rapist but that where Rabbinic councils have no power they are forced to abide by whatever laws are in place.
The Rabbi also says, the laws are timeless and THAT IN THE FUTURE the laws are binding. This means, that if they could they would implement Jewish laws, thus busting another myth that Spencer and Islamophboes propogate, ie. That of REFORM.
I wish Spencer would come here and comment on this, but he is a coward and will not. Here are some brief excertps:-
Jewish Answers
The Jewish Legal System
http://www.jewishanswers.org/ask-the-rabbi-category/the-jewish-legal-system/criminal-law/?p=1258
Criminal Law
Punishment for Rape
…Question- What does Torah say about rape, both for the victim and the ones around the victims? What judgements should you put against the rapist?
…Answer - This depends in what regard you are referring to rape.
Biblically the Torah states that it is a sin and forbidden to rape a woman. The biblical judgement is for the rapist to marry the victim! …
If you are referring to modern society the Jewish view is that it is reprehensible and should be prosecuted and turned over to the proper authorities in order to protect other women from the rapist. There is no rabbinical power to enforce laws in the US or Israel regarding violent crimes. So we are forced to let law enforcement deal with it as they deem fit, so long as it is a just government…
…Question - Hello Rabbi, Thanks for your reply.One thing I don’t get is whether this law will be applied in future or was it for that period and those circumstances of ancient times.
…Answer:- All the laws will apply in the future as well. There are many laws that are instituted for the protection of women’s rights.
December 20th, 2009 at 5:26 am
Woooooooo..hooooooo…Very happy to read this succintly written and researched essay on “witnesses to rape”. Loon Watch get’s better and better…Dear Danios, a million thanks, we all love you and Loon Watch
Spencer shame on you, you fat ugly liar, selling yourself to the Horovitz foundation, to propogate lies, you’re a cheap scumbag. Are you man enough to respond? nahhhhhh, thought not.
“Of course the reality is that Spencer has spoken a half-truth, which is what he normally does. Spencer’s modus operandi is simple: he presents the absolutely most conservative view as if it is not only the most authoritative one but also the only one. He then compares this ultraconservative Islamic opinion with the most liberal Judeo-Christian view, and then says aha!”
Yes true, but remember Danios, there is no Judeo Christian tradtion, just ask any Rabbi. Any Rabbi will tell you that Christianity and Judaism are two different religons. The Christian pastors, bishops, clerics will tell you that you need to recognise Jesus to be “saved”
The “Judeo Christian” myth is something the neo-cons created, when in reality it is not a religious bind, it’s a political lie. Maybe you or Loon Watch can devote a whole article to this myth of “judeo christian” and how the neo cons abuse the term to pretend a bond that doesn’t exist in religious terms.
In “The Myth of the Judeo-Christian Tradition” (Harper & Row, 1970), Jewish theologian-novelist Arthur A. Cohen questions the theological appropriateness of the term and suggests that it was essentially an invention of American politics.
Southern Baptists, Messianics and Christian zionists go along with the pretence because they want to Chrisitanize America and use their money to convert Jews to Jesus by pretending to be the same so as to blur the lines between the theology, and right wing Jews go along with the pretence because they need the Christian Right in America to continue the Israeli expansion of territories. Hence this term, which is actually imploding with the decline in influence of the Christian Right.
Spencer is an out and out liar, as none of the mainstream Christian churches in America recognise that term. Here is the Jewish perspective at INN, a conservative religious Jewish daily newspaper, popular with settlers
The Judeo-Christian Divide
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/7160
by Ellen W. Horowitz
December 20th, 2009 at 6:37 am
I found this website, and am very glad I did. I hate Robert Spencer’s lies. Unfortunately he has many helpers (more about that below) but first THANK YOU LOON WATCH EDITORS. There is nothing like a nice and honest clean counter argument about the witnesses required to secure punishment for rape in Islam, with the TRUTH to shame these Zionist propogators.
Robert Spencer has a number of Islamophobic bloggers who help him promote his work, some are well known like Sheik Yermami, Walid Shoebat, Joseph Farah of World Net Daily, and he also has anonymous bloggers who spend their time writing commentary at websites, sympathetic to the Kach, Kahane and Rapture right theology of Zionism.
Roberts Spencer’s poison has spread to canada too, embraced by Zionists. Rabid Canadian Palestinian and Moslem hater Brad Kostynuik is a drummer with the pop group “The Bownesians” and gives live performances in Calgary, he also teaches and gives seminars. His wife is Brandi Dickman the Jewish ex editor of Western Standard Canada and buddy of Irshad Manji. Brandi and her hubby Brad Kostynuik ( A Christian who calls himself Noahide) run Rock Paper Internet, a web design consultancy rockpaperinternet.com in Calgary, Canada. Brad Kostynuik writing under the name “Wharold” and “infidelKafir”
As Rehmat writes
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/06/21/selling-obama-as-an-honest-broker/
This Zionist virus is not limited to the US and Israel - but has spread to Canada and several EU nations where the mainstream media is controlled by the Zionist Jews or their partners in crime – the Zionist Christians. In Canada – one of the ‘Islamophobes’, who recently have begun his anti-Obama crusade – is Brad Kostynuik, known for his anti-Islam hysteria under pen-name Wharold on Doomsday Clock Radio blog. http://doosmdayclockradio.wordpress.com
And here,
http://palestinian.ning.com/forum/topics/how-zionist-propgandists-like
Brad Kostynuik is a prolific poster at Zionism on the Web, Jihad watch, Frontpage Magazine, and at Israel Insider the notorious weblog that had a campain against Obama being Muslim, for which it was hacked by Obama supporters after which it reopened on Ning.com
http://israelinsider.ning.com/profile/wharold
The underworld of Islamophobic bloggers like Brad Kostynuik is Robert Spencer’s main market who promote him and parrot his lies.
Name them and shame them,
December 20th, 2009 at 7:54 am
A pile of takiyya mumbo jumbo.
December 20th, 2009 at 8:38 am
Okay, I just came across your site, and I’ll be up front that I’m a regular Jihad Watch reader. I must admit to being a bit confused about the moral logic of this piece, and others here. I’m not clear as to why you’re always bringing up eggregious practices or rulings from Christianity or Judaism as a mitigating factor for similar practices in Islam. I’m not sure how that pertains on the question of whether or not Sharia is a threat to modern Western societies. Are you merely playing the game of “gotcha” with Christianity and Judaism? Even if traditional Christianity and Judaism were MUCH MORE oppressive than Islam, how does that show that Sharia isn’t a step backwards for modern Western societies? None of the legal systems of the West are religiously based. Or are you really postulating the moral and legal equivalency of Sharia and Western secular law, where you don’t really see much of a difference, and wouldn’t have much of a problem if Western countries move towards a(n Islamic) religious-based law?
It seems to me that what you’re largely doing on this site is stating that
A. Most Muslims don’t actively follow the most oppresive aspects of Islam—which I think is clearly true, and
B. There have been liberal interpretations of various texts by Islamic scholars throughout history—which is also clearly true.
But then you seem to make (or at least I infer) this leap of logic that “B” has been so influential that it’s resulted in “A” and that’s the true nature of the religion. I don’t think that’s accurate at all. I don’t see a lot of evidence that the liberal interpretations have “won the battle” within Islam. I think that it’s more a case that most Muslims don’t partake in the theological debates within Islam that seriously. I don’t want to speak for Spencer, but it seems to me what he’s saying is NOT that Islam is one thing or another, but rather that the “extremist” interpretations, even if they are not popularly embraced by a majority, are within the bounds of mainstream Islam, and are supported by texts and authoritative exegesis from historical Islam. And that’s the reason that they’re not going away, and it’s up to the Islamic community to do something about that, instead of denying that they exist.
And really, that’s what I also don’t understand about your site. If you truly desire to see liberal reform within Islam, is coming to the defense of its shortcomings really the way to promote that? As a Christian, I see that there were huge debates within Christianity in the West in the 18th and 19th centuries on the issue of slaver. Many Christians came down on the side of slavery, and others like Wilberforce were passionately against it, and strongly and publicly denounced fellow Christians who supported it. Were I alive at that time, I would hope that I would have joined Wilberforce, and wouldn’t have taken your apparent approach, which would have involved me saying “hey, don’t bring this debate to Christianity. Islam and Judaism have allowed slavery, and we already allow a diverse range of opinions on the issue—so don’t pick on us, you Christianophobes.” Also, look at the Catholic church pedophelia scandal. Which approach do you think is healthier: “All religions have problems, and I can point to abuses in other religions, so quit blaming the Catholic Church, you Catholicophobes!”, or “hey, let’s hold the Catholic Church accountable for these horrible crimes, and lets freely examine the actual practices and beliefs espoused by Catholicism so that we can prevent this from happening again”?
And on a final note here, here’s the problem I have with your site–I have trouble connecting the liberal, tolerant version of Islam that’s promulgated here with reality. With Spencer’s site, you can see the intolerant version of Islam he describes in many places—Saudi Arabia and Iran, Somalia, groups like Al Queda, Hamas, Hezbollah etc—-you just have to read the bylaws and legal documents and mission statements of these countries and groups. Where is the liberal Islam? You can certainly point out millions of liberal Muslims, but how about an official liberal interpretation of Islam? For example, the Catholic church, which speaks for over half the world’s Christians, has officially defined its faith as being opposed to the death penalty in ALL circumstances. They say this in speeches and writings. Many Protestant branches are more liberal. Can you point me to a similarly influential and sizeable branch of Islam that is opposed to the death penalty? Or can you point me to any really large Muslim organization that clearly spells out their beliefs on the death penalty, apostasy, gay rights, women’s rights? I do understand that you can come up with quotes of liberal Islamic scholars on these issues, but what I don’t seem to be able to find is any popular branch of Islam or organization that supports this view—one that might have the loyalty of say 30,40 or 50% of the Muslim world, even?
Also, are any of your efforts at debunking the “extremists” interpretations of Islam ever directed at any actual conservative Islamic groups that actively espouse them? Do you have any links of your arguments with them?
December 20th, 2009 at 8:48 am
I expect this site to be around (and be increasingly popular) for a long, long time to come, God willing. Go at your own pace and write about which ever topics you want - there are, after all, no shortage of Islamaphobic lies that need debunking.
While the Islamaphobic talking points are not in themselves hard to disprove, this is probably the most comprehensive, professional and dedicated site I have seen to take the task on. Mostly these type of issues are handled on the personal blogs of individual Muslims, so its great to have Loonwatch as this one stop resource that compiles all this information together, in a scholarly and polished way.
Whatever you write about, it’s always been a hit. Thanks guys.
December 20th, 2009 at 9:09 am
Sultana:
Please be aware that your posts may accidentally be going to the “Spam” folder. I have contacted the admin to rectify the problem, but if your comments disappear in the future, please contact us so we can fix the problem.
Everyone else:
Thank you for your feedback. I will reply shortly.
Sincerely,
Danios.
December 20th, 2009 at 10:18 am
And of course, Spencer and his cohorts will also deny that Muslim women have occupied positions of power and responsibility in both early and modern times. The wiki article points to the fact that, “a majority of all Muslims in the world live in countries that have, at some time, elected women as their leaders”. Note the word ‘elected’ here - as in ‘determined to be the best to govern in a democratic election by a majority of the Muslims’.
Kudos to Loonwatch for highlighting the hypocrisy of the Loons. On one hand they want to malign the 1.2 billion muslims based on archaic interpretations of Islamic law. On the other hand, they ignore similar or even worse interpretations of the Judeo-christian traditions.
What about the witch-hunting pastors in Africa, or the pedophiles in the clergy? Do these represent the ideals of the Judeo=christian tradition? The loons cannot hide behind the false assumption that the Christian world has evolved beyond these. Will the whole Judeo-christian world stand up and apologise to the victims of their barbarity?
As a Muslim, I understand that these aberrations are not representative of the ordinary followers of the Judeo-christian traditions. Nor am I asking them to apologise for anything. I am just making an extreme argument to point to the fallacy of the Loon’s basic premise.
How is a Loon who calls for the annihilation of the Muslims any different from the Mullahs who call for death to Israel and America? This a question that all need to ask when dealing with racist bigots (from all religions).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_political_leaders_in_Islam_and_in_Muslim-majority_countries
December 20th, 2009 at 11:02 am
Excellent job Danios.
Boston Patriot, Spencer is not merely stating what “mainstream Islam” says, in fact as has been shown countless times on this website he is slandering Islam and Muslims. A cursory glance at his work proves this, would a dispassionate scholar/critic of Islam name a book “Religion of Peace, why Christianity is and Islam isnt,” “The Truth about Muhammad,” etc? His work has also been thoroughly deconstructed and debunked, he has failed to take up the challenge that LoonWatch has thrown at his feet, he only replies with silence.
Spencer, is a Christian apologist who writes books to make Christians feel good, and at the same time passes himself off as a defender of Western civilization when in fact he is working to undermine it and make it a Christian club (even though he pretends to include Jews). He allies with neo-Fascists who want to take away religious freedom, a pillar of modern democracies everywhere. He has been on the record calling for the reconquest of Istanbul and the rape of Anatolia.
So sorry we don’t take the proven Islamophobe Robert Spencer seriously.
As far as the problems Muslims have to solve, then don’t worry we will take care of that.
December 20th, 2009 at 11:25 am
Boston Patriot:
Stop trying to change the topic. Either defend Robert Spencer’s claim in his book or admit he got it wrong.
Sincerely,
Danios.
December 20th, 2009 at 11:57 am
Fair enough, it’s your website. It’s your call as to what the focus will be.
I would just close with disputing one thing. You characterize Spencer’s writings thusly:
“Spencer’s modus operandi is simple: he presents the absolutely most conservative view as if it is not only the most authoritative one but also the only one.”
I can see why you’d want to phrase it like that, because it’s very easy to refute. I feel it’s disingenuous, however. I would argue that Spencer NEVER says that’s the ONLY view in Islam—what he is saying is that the “absolutely most conservative view” is held by a substantial percentage of Muslims, who are within the mainstream of the religion, and they support their views with examples from the holy texts and historically authoritative exegesis of those texts. I understand that this is much more difficult for you to refute, and that’s why you can’t characterize Spencer’s approach in that manner.
December 20th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Boston Patriot:
“I would argue that Spencer NEVER says that’s the ONLY view in Islam”
I have Robert Spencer’s book right next to me right now. I am looking at pages 74-76, on the topic of rape. Nowhere does he mention an alternative view about the issue of women as witnesses. Hence, it is a half-truth. So you might argue that he never explicitly says that there is only one view, but the fact that he purposefully omits it gives the reader the view that it is the only view, and hence it is what the Sharia is and must be.
Furthermore, and more importantly, his claim that according to the Sharia rape victims are lashed if they cannot produce four witnesses is 100% false, and is not even a valid view in the ultraconservative understandings of Islam. I will shed more light on this in part 2 of the article. So Spencer deals in half-truths and outright lies. In part 1, I dealt with the half-truth, and in part 2 I will deal with an outright lie.
As for your claim that the most conservative/intolerant view is (1) the most authentic one and (2) the mainstream one (3) accepted by the masses, this is incorrect on all three counts…and the only reason you think that is because you–by your own admission–immerse yourself in JihadWatch, so you have come to believe that. In reality, there is absolutely no reason to think that the ultraconservative interpretation of Islam is (1) the most authentic one, (2) the most mainstream one, or (3) accepted by the masses.
I will discuss your argument more thoroughly when I publish my article on Jihad.
Sincerely,
Danios.
December 20th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
This is cool, next time i get raped by a gang of sex-starved brothers because i wasn’t wearing a headscarf, i won’t bother going to the police (who never do anything anyway) but to the nearest shariah court!
What do you think my chances are?
December 20th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
PS I’m Jewish
December 20th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
You are so intellectual, Dolly.
December 20th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
“there is absolutely no reason to think that the ultraconservative interpretation of Islam is (1) the most authentic one, (2) the most mainstream one, or (3) accepted by the masses.”
As far as points 1 and 2, you’r doing to me the same thing you do to Spencer. I DID NOT say that the ultraconservative interpretation of Islam is the MOST authentic, or the MOST mainstream. And in fact, I don’t believe that they are.
As for point number 3, is the ultraconservative view accepted by the masses? Well certainly, the CONTINUED EXISTENCE of the ultraconservative view is accepted by the masses, which is why, in fact, it continues to grow and thrive. And I’m inferring from this site that YOU’VE accepted its existence since your efforts are directed 100% at combatting “Islamophobes” who point out the existence of ultraconservative Islam, and none of your efforts go to challenging these “ultraconservative” Muslims whose iterpretations you claim to reject.
December 20th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Boston Patriot.
” I must admit to being a bit confused about the moral logic of this piece, and others here. I’m not clear as to why you’re always bringing up eggregious practices or rulings from Christianity or Judaism as a mitigating factor for similar practices in Islam.”
You seem like a genuine concerned citizen so i’m prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt.
The mission statement of this website is to combat Islamophobia. Loon watch exposes the LIES used to smear Islam and Muslim.
We are not against criticism of Muslim extremists or how extremists misuse Islam or speaking out against crimes comitted in the name of Islam. Not at all.
We are not even against criticism of Islam itself as long as the criticism is of something that you don’t like about Islam, which is actually part of Islam.
For example, a non Muslim friend of mine said to me
“What I don’t like about Islam, is that you have to give 2andhalf % of your income to charity every year”
Now that is a legitimate criticism, because we do pay that much minimum to charity per year if we can afford it. Therefore if someone criticises that no Muslim will take offence because it is a ruling we DO have. Obvisouly a Muslim will disagree with the person above, because giving to the needy is a “hasanat” (Arabic for good deed),
Spencer isn’t defending the west or secularism. His lies include;_
1. Judeo Christian civilisation. See the posts above, some of the commentators have rebutted this lie that neo-cons use to con gullible Americans like yourself.
2. He cannot on the one hand claim to speak for a secular west, which is what the west is, the west today is not Christian, it’s secular. If it was Christian it wouldn’t tolerate the “judeo christian” myth he propogates, because Jews like Muslims are seen as rejecting their man god Jesus.
3. He is promoting extremist Chrisitnaity using neo con money Jewish (David Horowitz supports the Kach greater Israel moverment that extremist Jews believe in) to whip up support in America against Muslims to deglitimise Palestinians, and to whip up sympathy to continue and expand Israeli occupation. David Horowitz, does not have America’s best interests at heart. Horowtiz and his neo con Jews either use Christian Zionists as front groups or neo con christians like Robert Spencer to whip up Islamophobia.
Neo cons reject their own Jews (the mainstream left wing elite and majority of american Jews) as their enemies by calling them “kapo’s” and the mainstream Christian majority churches who oppose their agenda by labelling them “anti-semitic”, but embrace the Southern Baptists, Christian Zionist Armeggodites who support the greater Israel agenda.
Israel cannot expand her territories or continue the occupation without US support. Neo con’s know that they can use Armegeddonites for support in America, and pay others like Spencer to lie and pretend and Islamic threat. Thta’s how the Iraq war came about. Bush’s Evangelcials supported it because of the Armegedon, that the armeggoden didn’t come about and they lost the war, is perhaps one of the reaosns so many righ wing Evangelcials are dumping their faith.
4. These people are not interested in a moderate Islam, they pretend they do, they only use the Muslim extremists to crow
“see we told you so”.
” I’m not sure how that pertains on the question of whether or not Sharia is a threat to modern Western societies. Are you merely playing the game of “gotcha” with Christianity and Judaism?”
No, it’s because of the lies Spencer and his ilk propogate is that Judaism and Chrisitantiy have “reformed”. They havn’t reformed. Why is America fighting the Christian Right if Christianity has reformed? Why did Israeli’s reject their Ministers suggestion of Torah law being the law of Israel instead of secular law, if Judaism has “reformed?”
Spencers assertion that the west is under threat of Sharia is a straw man he uses to promote the “judea christian” agenda of a greater Isreal.
The West is under threat of Judeao Christian threat perhaps even more than it is of Sharia, because it was Judeo Christian agenda that is the war mongering one that led America to a 1 trillion war in Iraq for no reason than their theology.
Now they want the US to go in Iran, Iran is no threat to the USA, but a nuclear Iran will change Mid East, and make Israel unable to continue the occupation, as Israel will no longer be important to America.
That is the real reason they bash Islam.
Boston Patriot, continue reading this website and the comments, and you will see for yourself.
WE aim to help in educating people here. Spencer and co. have no interenst in the welfare of America. America was founded upon SECULAR principles not Judeo Christian ones. Read the many articles at Loon Watch that expose these liars, and read comments as they are very revealing and you will see for yourself.
December 20th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
The Awareness Center, Inc.
The Jewish Coalition Against Sexual Abuse/Assault
Clergy Abuse: Rabbis, Cantors & Other Trusted Officials
http://theawarenesscenter.org/clergyabuse.html
over 81 recorded cases on one page alone
And Other Trusted Officals (Parents, Teachers, Camp Counselors, etc.)
Case of Isa al-Natcha (Tel Aviv, Israel) (Convicted and sentence to 25 years for robbery, rape and false imprisonment, terrorized the women working at the brothels, raped them and stole money and possessions from them.)
Case of Yisrael Abadi - Teacher (Holon, Israel) (Convicted of sexually molesting three children, aged eight to 10, in the synagogue where he teaches)
Case of Faiz Suleiman Abukarinat - The Negev Pedophile (Israel) (Convicted of kidnapping and raping three girls from Beersheba and Ashdod)
Case of Eugene Abrams (AKA: Eugene George Harris) (Long Island, NY; Miami, FL) (Convicted on 77 counts of child of rape, incest, sodomy and obscenity involving five young girls, including his own daughter. He spent 10 years in Attica State Prison. He was also convicted of running a nationwide child pornography ring on Long Island, He relocated to Flordia and was charged and convicted ofsexually assaulting a 4 1/2-year-old girl).
Case of Joyce Abrams (North Bellmore, NY) (Convicted of running a nationwide pornography ring with her husband Eugene Abrams, out of their home. One of the victms was her own daughter).
Case of Faiz Suleiman Abukarinat - The Negev Pedophile (Israel) (convicted and sentenced to 30 years in prison for kidnapping and raping three girls from Beersheba and Ashdod)
Case of Errine Renata Acciaroli (AKA: Shlomit Acciaroli) - Special Education Teacher (Hamilton, Canada) (Found guilty of professional misconduct for kissing a 10th grade student after asking him to make love to her and showering him with gifts, e-mails, phone calls and visits to his home)
Case of Arie Adler and Marisa Rimland (New York, NY) (Arie Adler was accused of molesting his daughter. Marisa Rimland murdered her daughter, and then committed suicide).
Case of Gerald “Ajax” Ackerman - Former Mayor (Port Huron, MI) (Convicted and sentenced to up to 38 years in prison for having
December 20th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
I posted a link from the Awareness Centre above, a Jewish organisation that specialises in treating rape victims.
I note that one of the commentators above said something about Catholic clergy abusing children. I wanted to clarify that the Catholic clergy abusing children has received widespread publicity, but the problem isn’t just a Catholic one.
It is prevalent amongst Rabbi’s in the Jewish community too, and also amongst Muslim Imam’s and teachers who give religious schooling to children. The problem is widespread in Israel but like in the Muslim community they tend to cover it up, rather than bring perpetrators to justice. I don’t doubt that it’s rife in other relgious communities too, as the problem has to do with weakness of the flesh and not any religion in itself.
I think in this sense Catholicism should be lauded as it has made efforts to tackle this problem by first publicising it.
In Muslim countries it is a subject that is considered to be something that should not be aired, only a few brave journalists openly discuss it. Hopefully this will change in the future. Religious teachers should be above scrutiny.
December 20th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Danios, just ban dolly. At least Boston Patriot doesn’t seem like an idiot. She’s just a troll.
December 20th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Dolly, you’re Jewish!? I had no idea! /sarcasm
December 20th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Ah Dolly..sex starved? I thought they were all sex crazed polygamous child bride marrying, non-Muslim women seducers?
The obsession with Muslim sexuality by the Islamophobes just makes me laugh, it is the same old crap every bigoted racist prejudiced insecure group has every thrown out at ‘the other’.
Come up with something new please…!
December 20th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Dolly
“This is cool, next time i get raped by a gang of sex-starved brothers because i wasn’t wearing a headscarf, i won’t bother going to the police (who never do anything anyway) but to the nearest shariah court!
What do you think my chances are? PS I’m Jewish”
They guys who would do that would be comitting a crime and if you went to a Shariah court you would be given justice, and they would be punished, the fact that you’re not wearing a headscarf or are Jewish wouldn’t make the crime less worthy of punishment. Assuming it was a proper Shariah court of course. You are probably referring to some uneducated “scholars” who manifest their misogony and patriarcy by twisting the religous laws to fit into their vision of what women should be. They are wrong, and are not mainstream Islam.
Now since you say you are Jewish, tell me what would be your chances if you got raped in Israel, and Judge Judge Aharon Aminoff was presiding over your case (see Haaretz article 3rd one below) and judging from the first two it seems like a common problem in Israel. Judges giving rapists lenient sentences even if they are the father of the victim comitting incest ..Judge Aminoff even said the daughter must have enjoyed it.
I dare not even ask, if i went to Israel and got raped, what could I as a Muslim girl expect from a judge in a rape case in Israel if Jewish daughters are treated so shoddily in incest cases (perhaps the worst form of rape). Maybe you can enlighten me?
Partners in rape
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3264179,00.html
Child victims won’t forget the pathetic sentences meted out to family rapists
Roni Aloni-Sadovnik
One grandfather convicted of sexual charges against his five-year-old granddaughter couldn’t believe it: “What do you want from me, half the country’s doing it.” And the judges, for their part, failed to issue a restraining order, hoping that “the family would heal the wounds.” But who will heal the child’s wounds?
And several days earlier, the Haifa District Court heard a case of father accused of drunkenly entering his daughter’s room, undressing her, dragging her to the bathroom and sodomizing her, despite her screams. The girl managed to escape, but the father reportedly caught her easily and resumed his act.
The court convicted the man, but sentenced him to a measly 15 months in prison.
Partners in crime
Over the last 10 years there has been a 700 percent rise in the number of children sexually accosted by a family member. Over the years, the ages of the children as dropped, too: Today, we know of infants that have been sexually abused.
The judges who go easy on them, and the attorney general’s office that refuses to press for stiffer sentences, are indirect partners to this phenomenon of group rape. The absurd sentences they mete out prove that the courts have yet to internalize the gravity of sexual servitude of a child by the person they love more than anyone – a parent.
————–
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1162378501921&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Nov. 28, 2006 13:21 | Updated Nov. 28, 2006 14:26
Parents indicted for alleged rape
———-
Barak may dismiss judge in incest case
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=731183
Last update - 04:52 26/06/2006
By Yuval Yoaz
Supreme Court President Aharon Barak is considering dismissing Judge Aharon
Aminoff, vice president of the Nazareth District Court, following the
inclusion of a scandalous statement in the conviction of a father who had
raped his daughter for 12 years.
In the conviction, the panel of three judges, headed by Aminoff, included a
statement that the “plaintiff may have found pleasure in the acts of the
accused and may have wished them.”
December 20th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
I love how LW coined “beating Muslims over the head with a stick”. It’s a perfect way to described them. As if spinster and geller give two ***** about Muslims. Let alone any Muslim women. The hypocrisy is overwhelmingly becoming scary.
December 20th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Nabeela:
“You seem like a genuine concerned citizen so i’m prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt.”
You are far too generous to Boston Patriot.
Boston Patriot:
“As far as points 1 and 2, you’r doing to me the same thing you do to Spencer. I DID NOT say that the ultraconservative interpretation of Islam is the MOST authentic, or the MOST mainstream. And in fact, I don’t believe that they are.”
On the one hand, you say that you don’t believe in points 1 and 2, but then in the same breath you accuse me of “doing the same thing” to Spencer. You deny that Spencer believes in points 1 and 2? You’re so full of it. Spencer adamantly believes in points 1 and 2. Have you even read his book, yes or no? If Spencer did not believe in 1 and 2, then we wouldn’t have a problem with him.
Let me quote for you the National Review:
That’s where LW comes in: to produce convincing refutations of his arguments. For example:
I just posted a rebuttal of Robert Spencer’s claim that Jews were historically treated worse under Islamic rule than in Christendom. His claim is false. Now either defend his thesis or concede he was wrong. (Instead of lying about what Robert Spencer’s views are.)
Here is the rebuttal:
http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/11/the-churchs-doctrine-of-perpetual-servitude-was-worse-than-dhimmitude/
I await for your response, Boston Patriot. But ten bucks says you won’t be man enough to admit he was wrong. Instead, you will try changing the subject.
Can you defend Spencer’s claim that Jews were treated worse in the Islamic realm than in Christendom? Yes or no? The answer of course is no. Be a man and admit it.
Sincerely,
Danios.
December 20th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
Why does Spencer compare Islam to other faiths? That relies so much on cherry picking and he’s basically screwing himself even more
December 20th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
Hey Robert Sphincter what about Freedom of Speech in this Story?
(READ THIRD LAST PARAGRAPH)
Israel admits harvesting Palestinian organs
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/20/israel-admits-harvesting-palestinian-organs
December 21st, 2009 at 5:58 am
Danios
“You are far too generous to Boston Patriot.”
Perhap’s. But he may be genuinely ignorant as to Spencer’s motivations:)
Boston Patriot’s whining can be summed us as:-
“Why are you wasting time demolishing Robert Spencer and other Islamophobes when it would be better if you were dealing with the extremists in Islam”
Poor guy! He probably hasn’t read the mission statement of the website. He doesn’t realise that us dealing with extremists in our midst is a completely different cause to us revealing the self serving agenda of Islamophobes.
Maybe Boston Patriot doesn’t realise that those who are genuinely concerned about Islamic extremists, actually work with Muslims themselves, and very successfully i might add. The European countries dealt with the Islamic threat of terrorism far more effectively than did the America, because they worked with Muslims. Most of the M15 agents who combat Islamic terrorims are muslims themselves.
It’s a different game in America, where the Boston Patriots seem to think that it’s Islamophobes who will combat the threat,
My point is that Boston Patriot may be genuinely unaware of why Spencer (paid by neocons) and other Islamophobes do this. It’s a self serving agenda for them, for if they were genuinely concerned why do they pay Islamopobes to lie and distort when they should be working with Muslims if they were serious about combatting Islamic extremism?
December 21st, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Great piece Danios. Thorough as always.
This topic is one of the more infuriating aspects of Islamophobia. The idea that they care about Muslim women is a complete joke. It’s imperialistic feminism, a tool used to beef up public support for wars against the very Muslims they pretend they want to protect.
December 21st, 2009 at 9:55 pm
Let me be another reader to comment and say this was indeed an excellent article and well put together. In fact I have enjoyed reading all of the articles you post, even though I am a recent reader to this blog. I applaud your indefatigable spirit and hope you continue to write.
December 21st, 2009 at 10:49 pm
Miscellany, you have a good blog. Please feel free to republish our material, linking back to us. Islamophobes are good at getting their articles echoed on other blogs.
December 22nd, 2009 at 5:06 am
” Kafir Harby Says:
December 20th, 2009 at 7:54 am
A pile of takiyya mumbo jumbo.”
Dear Kafir,
Takiyya means dissumulation, it doesn’t mean wholesale lying, go and check Daniel Pipes blog, even he, and Islamophobe rebuts that,..your whole claim to fight for western civilisation is based on a lie, when you have INN on your blog? The west doesn’t support the settler movement, so you’re a big liar, you don’t even know what Taqiya means.
December 22nd, 2009 at 6:23 am
Hey Kafir Harby,
I just looked at your weblog, but no name there. Mumbo Jumbo is coming from you.
You are Brad Kostynuik aren’t you? We met at a Sabeel conference where you were and a bunch of goons had the temerity to show up.
Kafir Harby your new moniker eh?
January 15th, 2010 at 9:53 am
Danios,
It appears that you are doing something that you always accuse the Islamophobes of doing; changing the subject.
Boston Patriot made an excellent point (I think):
“As for point number 3, is the ultraconservative view accepted by the masses? Well certainly, the CONTINUED EXISTENCE of the ultraconservative view is accepted by the masses, which is why, in fact, it continues to grow and thrive. And I’m inferring from this site that YOU’VE accepted its existence since your efforts are directed 100% at combatting ‘Islamophobes’ who point out the existence of ultraconservative Islam, and none of your efforts go to challenging these ‘ultraconservative’ Muslims whose iterpretations [sic] you claim to reject.”
In your last reply you bring up your article on perpetual servitude, when that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
It seems that while Spencer ignores other less restrictive interpretations, the ultraconservative interpretations do exist, and indeed, continue to be believed by many (not by “the masses”, but many).
Also, your article does nothing to address this point by Spencer:
“Consequently, it is even today virtually impossible to prove rape in lands that follow the dictates of the Sharia. Even worse, if a woman accuses a man of rape, she may end up incriminating herself. If the required male witnesses can’t be found, the victim’s charge of rape becomes an admission of adultery.”
Is this what happens in “lands that follow the dictates of the Sharia”? Can you show that he is factually wrong here? And if he isn’t, wouldn’t this be evidence that the ultraconservative view is still active and accepted?
I have evidence that he is right, at least in Pakistan and Bangladesh:
-http://news.lawreader.com/?p=457
-http://www.aina.org/news/20081117111817.htm
There are many other examples.
And here’s a scholarly paper “Rape Law in Islamic Societies”: http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/study_res/islam/gender/norman_rape.pdf
Also, is “Renaissance Monthly” a journal that “many Muslims follow”? You’ve quoted it twice in your article, and it comes from Pakistan, a country I just quoted as having the 4 witnesses for rape idea.
Finally, your link #7 doesn’t work.
January 15th, 2010 at 9:36 pm
Proud Loon:
The ultraconservative view of Islam does NOT require a woman to bring forth four witnesses to prove the crime of rape. This is factually incorrect, and I shall rebut this point thoroughly in part two of the article.
Because you do not possess any real knowledge of Islam, you are easily confused. The ultraconservative Islamic view is, like the Orthodox Jewish view up until this day, that a woman’s testimony is normally not accepted in various situations. But NO interpretation of Islam says that a woman has to provide four witnesses and if she doesn’t then she is to be lashed or punished.
There are two issues here: (1) women as witnesses, and (2) four witnesses to prove rape, otherwise lashing or admission of guilt for zinnah. I have dealt with the first one in part 1, and the second issue will be dealt with in part 2.
So unfortunately it is you who is bumbling.
“Also, your article does nothing to address this point by Spencer:
: ‘Consequently, it is even today virtually impossible to prove rape in lands that follow the dictates of the Sharia. Even worse, if a woman accuses a man of rape, she may end up incriminating herself. If the required male witnesses can’t be found, the victim’s charge of rape becomes an admission of adultery.’”
You really have no reading comprehension skills. If you did, you would have known that I said I will address that point thoroughly in part 2 of my article. In part 1, it was only Spencer’s claim that women cannot serve as witnesses that I dealt with. I strongly suggest you do some reading comprehension drills to sharpen your ability to understand simple text.
I have fixed the link to footnote #7. Should work now.
Sincerely,
Danios.
January 17th, 2010 at 2:22 pm
Danios,
You’re right; I am easily get confused, because I see you say one thing, and then I see something completely different in actuality.
For example, the Hudood Ordinance in Pakistan has been the law of the land since 1979, and it does, indeed require a woman to provide 4 witnesses to prove her allegation. So, despite your declarations, it does occur in “lands under Sharia”.
The actual texts of the laws (from the second site I mentioned in my first comment):
—————————
(A) “Proof of Zina (adultery) or Zina Bil-Jabr (rape) liable to Hadd shall be one of the following:
(a) The accused makes confession or
(b) There are at least four Muslim adult male witnesses”[10]
(B) “Proof of adultery or rape liable to Hadd shall be one of the following:
(a) The accused makes confession, or
(b) There are at least four Muslim adult male witnesses.”[11]
(C) “Punishment will take place when Zina or rape have been proved by witness.”[12]
(D) Sharia Law rejects the witness of women in Hudood cases.[13]
(E) “The evidence of women is originally inadmissible on account of their weakness of understanding, want of memory and incapacity of governing.”[14]
The sources:
[10] Pakistan Hudood Ordinance VII of 1979 amended by Ordinance XX of 1980
[11] Codified Islami Law Volume 1 Law#133
[12] Ibid Law #135
[13] Hanafi Law-Page 176, 353, Shafi’i Law- page 638 Law#o.24.9, Criminal Law in Islam and the Muslim World -page 251, The Penal Law of Islam - Kazi Publications Lahore- page 44, 45, Tafsir of Translation of the Qura’an by Muhiuddin Khan pages 239 and 928
[14] The Penal Law of Islam - Kazi Publications Lahore- page 44 - 45
—————————
The Hudood Ordinance was revised only in 2006. And even that revision was criticized by Islamist groups as being un-Islamic.
How did all these legal manuals and Islamists get such very wrong ideas about Sharia?
January 25th, 2010 at 5:52 pm
What’s the matter, Danios? Did my citing of texts mess up your theory? It sure seems that these laws do call for 4 male Muslim witnesses. Is this why my comment can’t seem to get out of “moderation”?
January 25th, 2010 at 10:51 pm
Proud Loon:
You think too highly of yourself. It was left in moderation simply because I did not see it. I approved it now.
The text you copied/pasted is not from the Hadood Ordinance. It is from an article written by FrontPageMagazine. Here is where you copied/pasted it from:
http://www.mail-archive.com/osint@yahoogroups.com/msg57701.html
As I said, I will deal with this in part 2 of the article. I have an entire section dedicated to the Hadood Ordinance of Pakistan. Just wait a little while more, my Islamophobic friend. I am only one person, and it takes me time to write such articles.
Sincerely,
Danios.
January 26th, 2010 at 9:39 pm
Now I think it is you who needs to work on your reading comprehension, because the FrontPage article I quoted (and I said where I got the quotes) gave the sources; sources like:
-Pakistan Hudood Ordinance VII of 1979 amended by Ordinance XX of 1980
-Codified Islami Law Volume 1 Law#133
-Hanafi Law-Page 176, 353,
-Shafi’i Law- page 638 Law#o.24.9, C
-Criminal Law in Islam and the Muslim World -page 251,
-The Penal Law of Islam - Kazi Publications Lahore- page 44, 45,
And
-Tafsir of Translation of the Qura’an by Muhiuddin Khan pages 239 and 928
Did you not read the fact that these are the original sources; not the FrontPage article?
It still seems to me that these are the laws written in books, despite your assurances.
January 27th, 2010 at 9:55 am
Proud Loon:
You’re a joker. Your source is FrontPageMagazine, unless you yourself went to those references and checked them out. As for the sources cited, I looked at them and they are laughable.
As I keep saying to you (but it does not penetrate your thick skull), I will be dealing with this argument in my follow up article. As you can see from my previous articles, I deal with topics comprehensively. You will have to wait till then to see my rebuttal of your dribble.
Sincerely,
Danios.
January 27th, 2010 at 10:49 am
Danios,
For the last time, I told you I was quoting an article from FrontPage magazine. That article quoted these Islamic laws.
I know, you told me to wait until your follow-up article, but I’m still going to ask, why are these sources “laughable”? Do they not say what FrontPage asserts they do? Did FrontPage simply make up these laws? Or are they really there?
And, if they do say these things, doesn’t that mean there are Islamic laws that call for 4 male Muslim witnesses, when you said there is no interpretation that does?
“You will have to wait till then to see my rebuttal of your dribble.”
I think you meant “drivel”.
January 27th, 2010 at 11:54 am
Proud Loon:
“For the last time, I told you I was quoting an article from FrontPage magazine.”
Exactly.
“Do they not say what FrontPage asserts they do? Did FrontPage simply make up these laws? Or are they really there?”
More than half of those sources are spurious and/or not properly cited. For example, what the #@$@ is “Codified Islami Law” or “Hanafi Law” or “Shafi’i Law”?
This is purposeful. Instead of providing exact quotes, properly cited, he just lists some vague titles. It was purposefully written in such a way that it is impossible to trace these.
Anyways, the issue is that you do not properly understand the matter yet. Like I said, I will educate you in my follow up article.
Sincerely,
Danios.
March 6th, 2010 at 5:16 pm
Don’t worry your “liberal” Muslims friends will still take off your head when they take over. You are what Lenin refered to as a “useful idiot”.
March 6th, 2010 at 5:19 pm
In Israel a womans testimony is given the same weight as a mans. In Saudi Arabia it is not as it is not in most Muslim countries.
March 6th, 2010 at 6:54 pm
Isa: At least I’m useful. You’re just an idiot.
Amer: Please learn to read. In Israel, a woman’s testimony is rejected in halakhic courts.
Sincerely,
Danios.
March 6th, 2010 at 8:59 pm
Isa is probably a bigoted fan of FaithFreedom.
The guys at this particular site love to call anyone who disagrees with them a “useful idiot” and cite Lenin in the process.
Isa, your intelligence does not match Danios’ one iota…so let me prescribe you two things my friend, strong medication and a good education.