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

In Part 1 of this article, we discussed Daniel Pipes’s claim that Jews don’t want to force their religious views on others, unlike Muslims who supposedly do.  In Part 2, we’ll question Daniel Pipes’ claim that Islam is inherently misogynistic.

David Green, a right-winger belonging to Civitas, declared on BBC Radio that Islamic law is totally unlike Jewish law in that it oppresses women.  Daniel Pipes uses similar reasoning, arguing that Sharia should be banned because it is–unlike Jewish Halakha–”inescapably misogynistic”:

…Ignorant, isolated [Muslim] females would submit to the inescapably misogynistic Sharia, a law code that [1] permits parents to marry off pre-pubescent girls, [2] men to marry multiple women, [3] husbands alone to divorce, [4] fathers automatically to win custody of children over certain ages, and [5] sons to inherit more than daughters.

Let’s take these one at a time, shall we?  We’ll play both defense and offense:

[1] Marriage of pre-pubescent girls

Defense:  Technically, the Sharia allows Muslim parents to draft a marriage contract on behalf of their pre-pubescent daughters, but the marriage remains suspended (mawquf) until the girl reaches maturity, whereupon she is given the right of khiyar al-bulugh, i.e. the right to annul the marriage. (For a detailed discussion of this topic, please read this here starting from page 68.)

Offense: Daniel Pipes has argued that Islamic law is unacceptable since it supposedly allows marriage of pre-pubescent girls, yet on the other hand he wholeheartedly thinks that Halakha should be allowed in the West.  Yet, Jewish law itself allows marriage of pre-pubertal girls!  According to Rabbi Naftali Silberberg of AskMoses.com, the Halakha allows Jewish girls to marry at the age of three:

What is the minimum age of marriage according to Jewish law?
by Rabbi Naftali Silberberg

…In ancient (and not so ancient) times however, marriage was often-times celebrated at a rather young age. Although we do not follow this dictum, technically speaking, a girl may be betrothed the moment she is born, and married at the age of three. [Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 37:1.]

The editor of the site clarifies: “There is the technical rule, and then there is the proper, practical, and wise thing to do. The Talmud, too, agrees that technically according to Torah law a girl can be married at a very young age, but the rabbis imposed a prohibition on such an unwise practice.”  In other words, the law itself allows it, but the rabbis generally discourage or even disallow it due to practical considerations.

Some more defense:  Just as rabbis have prohibited under-aged marriage even though technically the Halakha allows it, similarly many Muslim leaders have fought to raise the minimum age of marriage to eighteen years old, and they do not think this is a violation of Sharia to do so; rather, they argue that in this time and age it is in fact in accordance with the objectives (maqasid) of the Sharia to do so.  They also argue that conforming to international agreements is binding from a religious angle.

Red herring: Jewish law (Halakha) allows marriage of pre-pubertal girls, yet Daniel Pipes still supports allowing Halakha in the West.  Of course, the entire matter is a red herring, since the religious arbitration courts of Canada were only permitted to act within Canadian law.  This is a concept that many average readers did not quite grasp!  In other words, if the religious law clashed with Canadian law, then the Canadian law would rule supreme; marriage of under-aged girls would never be tolerated in Canada, Sharia courts or no Sharia courts! So it is odd that Daniel Pipes would even mention this, but I guess it is a similar tactic that neoconservatives rely on to fear monger, such as the imaginary “death panels” that Sarah Palin invented.

[2] Polygamy

Defense: Opinions towards polygamy differ widely amongst Muslims of various persuasions.  Reform-minded Muslims are inclined to consider polygamy as the exception, not the rule.  According to the Sharia, a woman can forbid the husband from marrying a second wife by making such a clause in the prenuptial agreement (nikah contract). In any case, Muslims do not believe it is permissible to break the law of the land in this matter.

Offense: I’ll let Rabbi Naftali Silberberg do the talking:

Does Jewish law forbid polygamy?
by: Rabbi Naftali Silberberg

The Torah does not forbid a man from having multiple wives. Abraham, Jacob, David and Solomon are notable examples of biblical figures who wedded more than one wife.

Approximately 1000 years ago, the noted German scholar, Rabbi Gershom “the Light of the Diaspora,” banned polygamy.  This ban was accepted as law by all Ashkenazi Jews but was not recognized by Sephardic and Yemenite communities.

Practically speaking, polygamy is almost non-existent today even amongst Sephardic Jews, due to the fact that the overwhelming majority of them live in societies where polygamy is not legally and/or socially acceptable…

So technically the Halakha does not forbid polygamy, and to this day Sephardic Jews hold it to be permissible.  And even the ban accepted by Ashkenazi Jews has a “loophole” in it, as Rabbi Silberberg adds in the footnote: “There is a loophole in this ban, allowing a man to marry a second wife under certain extenuating circumstances.”

Red herring: Once again, even if Sharia arbitration courts were allowed, polygamy would still be outlawed in Canada, so this is another red herring brought forth by Pipes.

[3] Husbands alone have the right to divorce

Defense: Islam allows khula (female initiated divorce).  If a Muslim wife does not like her husband–and thinks it unbearable to live with him–then she is granted a divorce, even against the husband’s wishes.  (For a detailed discussion, read this here, starting on page 69.)

Offense: Jewfaq.org says:

Under Jewish law, a man can divorce a woman for any reason or no reason. The Talmud specifically says that a man can divorce a woman because she spoiled his dinner or simply because he finds another woman more attractive, and the woman’s consent to the divorce is not required.

Inequality of the Sexes

The position of husband and wife with regard to divorce is not an equal one. According to the Talmud, only the husband can initiate a divorce, and the wife cannot prevent him from divorcing her. Later rabbinical authorities took steps to ease the harshness of these rules by…compel[ing] a husband to divorce his wife under certain circumstances: when he is physically repulsive because of some medical condition or other characteristic, when he violates or neglects his marital obligations (food, clothing and sexual intercourse), or, according to some views, when there is sexual incompatibility.

A peculiar problem arises, however, if a man disappears or deserts his wife or is presumed dead but there is insufficient proof of death. Under Jewish law, divorce can only be initiated by the man; thus, if the husband cannot be found, he cannot be compelled to divorce the wife and she cannot marry another man. A woman in this situation is referred to as agunah (literally, anchored).

In other words, in most situations, a Jewish woman–according to the Halakha–cannot obtain a divorce (get) from her husband unless he agrees to it, making it difficult to get out of emotionally abusive relationships.  As Susan Weiss, an Israeli defense lawyer, says: “Rabbinical courts almost never compel a husband to give a get [i.e. divorce].”

The Jewish Chronicle writes:

Under Jewish law, if a man refuses his wife a get, a religious bill of divorce, she is considered an agunah, a chained woman denied the right to remarriage.

Furthermore, husbands can extort their wives, only giving divorces for huge sums of money:

Most of the time, the cost of [a woman's] freedom is just money. Payment is usually in installments…The Israeli Supreme Court has sanctioned such waivers, viewing the get as an adequate quid pro quo.

[4] Fathers win custody over children

Defense:  In fact, the Sharia seems slanted towards mothers in this regard.  Generally speaking, the children are to be awarded to the parent who is fitter for parental duties.   If, however, both are equally fit, then the mother is favored over the father up until the age of about eight years of age.  Past the age of eight, the child has a right to choose which parent to live with. For a detailed discussion, please read this fatwa from an ultraconservative Islamic website, which states:

Women have more right to custody of children than men; in principle custody belongs to them, because they are more compassionate and more kind, and they know better how to raise small children, and they are more patient in dealing with the difficulties involved.

Offense:  In the Jewish Halakha, as enforced by Israel, the father can ensure that he gets sole custody of the children.  This article here–written by the Israeli defense lawyer I cited above–explains why.  As I discussed in the previous point, a Jewish woman can only get a divorce if her husband agrees to it; many husbands refuse to give a divorce unless she forfeits her right to custody, forcing her to choose between her freedom and her children.  Weiss laments:

How much is your freedom worth? Would you give up custody of your child to free yourself from an oppressive marriage?  …These problems torment my clients daily. I am a divorce lawyer in the State of Israel. I also happen to be an Orthodox Jew. Every time I represent someone petitioning for divorce, my client must inevitably pay for his or her freedom…A few of my clients have bought their freedom at the cost of their children. I once represented a woman whose husband refused to give her a get–a Jewish divorce–unless she gave up custody of her son. After two years of litigation, she relinquished custody in return for her get [divorce].

[5] Sons inherit more than daughters

Defense: According to Sharia, a son receives twice the inheritance of a daughter.  Muslim apologists point out a few things: First, it should be understood that prior to Islam, the pre-Islamic culture of the region dictated that women receive no inheritance whatsoever.  When the Islamic prophet Muhammad legislated that the daughters would from now on receive an inheritance–half though it may be–the “pagans” and converts to Islam decried this progressive law, arguing that women did not fight in battle and therefore should receive no inheritance.  (At that time, inheritance was linked to bravery on the battlefield.)  Muslim apologists argue that one must view the Sharia in the context that it was revealed in; it didn’t reduce female inheritance, but rather reduced male inheritance in order to give women a share.  For that particular time, the Sharia was considered progressive.

They also argue that a Muslim man has a much greater financial responsibility than the female.  A man must–according to the Sharia–financially support his wife, children, parents, and widowed sisters; meanwhile, there is no such obligation on a woman, who does not even have to provide for herself.   Furthermore, a man’s wealth is–again, according to the Sharia–shared by the wife, whereas a female’s wealth is all her own and the husband cannot touch it.

Offense: In any case, one might not be satisfied with the defense that Muslim apologists come up with, but it’s really besides the point, since Daniel Pipes was comparing Islamic Sharia to Jewish Halakha.  According to the Halakha, a daughter does not inherit at all; we read:

INHERITANCE

The Torah laws of succession state that when a man dies and leaves sons as well as daughters, the sons inherit his state, whereas the daughters receive nothing.

The Torah of course is a part of the Bible, and the above is referring to Numbers 27:1-11, in which God speaks to Moses and informs him that women will inherit only when a father leaves behind no sons.  This fact–that the Bible gives no inheritance to daughters if there are sons–is of course lost on the Islamophobes when they call the Quran “misogynistic” for giving only half the inheritance to daughters; and here, we are talking about those Islamophobes who have a deep respect and admiration for the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Daniel Pipes Brings Weak Sauce

Daniel Pipes brought up five points of criticism, yet each of these five points applies to the Halakha equally if not more so. How is it then that Pipes is so adamantly opposed to Sharia based on its supposedly “inescapably misogynistic” nature, but at the same time supports Halakhic courts?  This double-standard exposes his profound bias and bigotry.  It is this attitude–of selective “scholarship” and horrific double-standards–which actually typifies the approach of the Islamophobes in general, including Daniel Pipes, Robert Spencer, Pam Geller, Bat Ye’or, and the rest of the goof troop.  For example, in an interview with Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks, Pam Geller goes off on a tirade about how oppressive and warlike Muslims have been throughout history, yet when Cenk counters this by saying that Christian history has also been oppressive and warlike, Pam completely denies this fact.  It is this sort of selective analysis which buttresses the Islamophobic ideology.

Daniel Pipes argues that the Jewish courts should be allowed to operate because–according to him–the system worked, and so why are these Mooslims now messing things up?  Pipes wrote:

The system quietly worked. “If there have been any problems flowing from any rabbinical court decisions, I’m not aware of them.”

Yet, that’s not true at all; and again, it’s a case of selective analysis. A rabbinical court in London divorced a woman from her husband against her will on the grounds that she “dressed provocatively, worse than a common harlot.”  In another decision, a London-based rabbinical court banned a child from a school on the basis that he was a non-Jew, rejecting his conversion to Judaism as unauthentic. A third example is of a man named Nick Lowenstein who kept his wife “chained” (agunah) for over fifteen years, refusing to give her a divorce that she desperately desired; the London-based rabbinical court refused to force the husband to give a get (Jewish divorce).

UPDATE: A reader sent this tip to us: a New York Times article about how rabbinical courts in the United States have been denying justice to children who have been sexually molested; according to a strict interpretation of the Halakha, ultra-Orthodox rabbis forbid victims from going to secular authorities to report crimes of sexual molestation.  Meanwhile, the rabbinical courts seek to bury cases that involve Jewish men accused of sexually abusing children.  The New York Times reports:

For decades, prosecutors in Brooklyn routinely pursued child molesters from every major ethnic and religious segment of the borough’s diverse population. Except one…the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community…Some years, there were one or two arrests, or none.

But in the past year, there have been 26. District Attorney Charles J. Hynes has brought charges against a variety of men — yeshiva teachers, rabbis, camp counselors, merchants and relatives of children. Eight have been convicted; 18 await trial.

Now, a growing number of haredi Jews in Brooklyn say they do not think they can get justice from the rabbinical courts, which in several high-profile cases have exonerated people who were later criminally convicted of child abuse.

If the sudden spike in prosecutions is startling, even more surprising is the apparent reason: ultra-Orthodox Jews, long forbidden to inform on one another without permission from the rabbis who lead them, are going to the police and prosecutors on their own.

Members of this close-knit community, who refer to themselves as the “haredim,” meaning those who fear God, reject modern secular culture and keep strict control over what they consider internal affairs. For centuries, disputes involving children, marriage and business have been decided by rabbinical courts called beth dins, which do not report their findings to the secular authorities, even when they judge someone guilty. Taboos codified long ago during times of persecution discourage community members from informing on other Jews; violations can result in ostracism.

Now, a growing number of haredi Jews in Brooklyn say they do not think they can get justice from the rabbinical courts, which in several high-profile cases have exonerated people who were later criminally convicted of child abuse. And although some advocates for victims contend that the district attorney has been too accommodating of the rabbinical hierarchy — a charge that Mr. Hynes denies — more families are turning to his office for help…

Jews molested as children in communities nationwide, said the clandestine handling of molestation cases had kept leaders from dealing with the problem and made it easier for predators…

Advocates for victims say similar views have informed some of the Brooklyn rabbinical leadership’s worst judgments, allowing prominent rabbis who were repeatedly accused of abuse to keep their jobs and reputations.

In 2000, Rabbi Baruch Lanner, a charismatic youth leader and yeshiva principal who was the focus of students’ abuse claims for more than 20 years — and was exonerated by a beth din — became the subject of an exposé in The Jewish Week, which found more than 60 accusers. The article led to a criminal investigation and a seven-year prison term for Rabbi Lanner.

Another rabbi, Yehuda Kolko, a grade school teacher at a Flatbush yeshiva, was accused of sexually abusive behavior by parents and former students numerous times over 30 years. The complaints were dismissed by rabbinical authorities, however, until New York magazine wrote about them in 2006.

Nowhere am I arguing that Sharia courts would not have similar mishaps.  What I am questioning is Daniel Pipes’ claim–echoed by so many Islamophobes–that it is Sharia courts in specific that would be problematic, whereas Halakha courts–as he puts it–”quietly worked.”  (They definitely worked quietly, just not sure if they quietly worked.)

It is this selective analysis–in which missteps by the Muslim community are put under the microscope whereas those of other communities are ignored–that bothers me.  Can you imagine what great pandemonium would have ensued had such a child molestation scandal been going on within the Sharia court system?  The Islamophobes would have had a field day; we couldn’t get them to stop talking about it.  But suddenly they are as quiet as mice when it comes to these problems under the already existing Halakha court system.

Broader Conclusions

In the end, the anti-Sharia circus succeeded and the government of Ontario banned Sharia courts.  However, in order to be fair, the Ontario government banned all religious arbitration courts, including the Halakhic-based ones.  The government then announced that every citizen would follow the same law.

I have mixed feelings about the government’s decision.  My view is that either you allow religious courts for every faith, or you disallow it for all.  The government took the latter course, so what’s my problem?  Well, the problem for me is that the other religions operated their own courts for many long years, and nobody said anything.  It was only until some Muslims asked for the same privilege that suddenly the ban was put into effect.

Naturally, it seems that the ban was put into place due to the climate of Islamophobia.  It is similar to the ban on hijab in France, legislation which was passed specifically to target Muslims, but which was then applied to Jews and Christians to some extent in order to give the illusion of fair play.  Had religious courts been banned from the beginning, I would have had no problem.  But the fact is that they were only banned when some Muslims asked for the same rights as people of other faiths.

I myself have reservations about religious courts operating in the West, be they of any religion.  Having said that, I actually agree with Daniel Pipes when he says that the 1991 Arbitration Act (which allowed these religious courts) was “an enlightened, multicultural piece of legislation.”  My only issue is that it really depends on who is running these religious courts: is it reform-minded Jews and Muslims who want to update their religious laws to deal with the modern reality, or are they ultraconservative traditionalists who live frozen in the past?

But my real issue with this whole fiasco was not at all whether or not religious courts should be allowed or not.  I can see good arguments on both sides of this issue.  My real problem is with the rhetoric and discourse that abounded at the time, the level of unchecked Islamophobia.  There was a wholesale attack on Islam, singling it out as this heathen faith that must be fought tooth and nail.  The reality, however, is that Islam is just like any other religion when it comes to these matters.

Disclaimer

This article may have come across as harsh upon Jews, Judaism, and Halakha which of course was not my intention.  I almost regret Daniel Pipes choosing Jews and Halakha as a counter-example to Muslims, Islam, and Sharia.  I am not at all pitting Muslims against Jews.  I don’t view the world in that way.  I view the world as split between extremists and moderates.  I see the extremists of all the different religions (Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc.) as essentially being part of the same team, even though they hate each other.  They are part of the same team because they have the same myopic mentality and binary view of the world.

Meanwhile, there is the rest–the great majority–who are the moderates of all the various faiths (or no faith at all), who just want to live and let live.  Daniel Pipes created the comparison between Sharia and Halakha and I thought it necessary to shatter his argument that Muslims wish to enforce their views on others but not Jews.  The reality is that there are zealots and nutters in all religions.

There are clearly Jewish reformers, who are working to make Halakha compatible with the modern day reality.  Rabbis have come up with innovative ways of staying true to their religion but at the same time of removing injustice.  For example, moderate rabbis have argued that couples should sign prenuptial agreements that would make it difficult for a husband to retain his wife against her will.  In this article I only highlighted the problems that have arisen due to Halakha, but have not elaborated on the solutions that many practicing Jews have offered.  Therefore, please do not use my article as something to bash Jews, Judaism, or Halakha with.

My purpose here was simply to illustrate that the problems (which were red herrings in the first place) that people have with Islam can be found in other religions, such as Judaism.  Therefore, the singling out of Islam is uncalled for and inappropriate.  The climate of Islamophobia has created a huge double-standard, where Islam is called to task for what other religions are not.  More specifically, this article is directed to Daniel Pipes, exposing his hypocritical attitude: his worldview is not based on logic or facts, but a palpable hatred for Islam and Muslims which has blinded him.

Many of the critics of Sharia courts in the West are Islamophobes who expend 99% of their energy attacking Islam and Muslims, using “I also oppose other religions” only as a cheap disclaimer when questioned about their deep-seated hatred of Islam.  Where was all their outrage for the last fifteen years when Halakhic courts were operating in the West?  Were they questioning the right of Jews to live in Europe and North America as some are questioning the right of Muslims to live here?  Were these critics pontificating about the improbability or impossibility of Jews integrating into society? Truly, the new adage is: one standard for Muslims and another one for the rest of humanity.

In 2003, Islamophobes issued a code red, claiming that the Canadian government would soon “enforce Sharia” in Ontario.  Immediately, some people began assuming that somehow democratic law was about to be overthrown and a draconian Taliban-style corporal system enacted.  Islamophobes played up these fears, and applied pressure on the government of Ontario to outlaw Sharia.

The issue of course is that most people do not exactly understand what Sharia is, and conflate it with the term Hadud (Islamic corporal punishments).  What the Ontario government was planning on doing was to allow Muslim arbitration courts, which would have absolutely nothing to do with Hadud.  (For the record, moderate Muslims do not believe in the Taliban understanding of Hadud, contrary to what the Islamophobes insist.  They have their own moderate and reformist understanding of Hadud consistent with the contemporary age.  But, alas, this is not the topic of our discussion today, as Ontario never planned on enacting the Hadud anyways!)

Let us be clear then: Ontario was never going to allow any understanding of Hadud–”enlightened” or otherwise; rather, when people said that Sharia was going to be allowed in Ontario, the meaning of this was simply that Muslims could–if they so choose–settle their family, religious, and other civil disputes according to their religious beliefs.  (And this only if both parties agreed to do so!)  But the Islamophobes used the buzz word “Sharia”–which people mistakenly conflate with Hadud (a misconception popularized unfortunately by the Taliban)–to create controversy and fear.

For the record, we must make it clear that LoonWatch is not a religious site.  We’re a non-partisan group for and by people of all different faiths (or no faith at all); our shared goal is simply to combat hatred and bigotry and to remain consistent to humanity’s shared universal values.  So we are not going to concern ourselves with theological or religious debates as to which religious law is right and which is wrong, or even if religious courts should be allowed or not.

But we will concern ourselves with discrimination, which is exactly what went on here.  All religions should be treated equally in Canada; either all of them should be allowed to have their own arbitration courts or none of them. To allow some religious groups this privilege and deny it to others is inherently unfair and discriminatory.

You see, what most people overlooked was the fact that “for years, Jews, Catholics, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mennonites, and aboriginals, among others, made use of [their own] arbitration [courts] to settle family law questions without using Ontario’s court system.”

Like Muslims have Sharia (Islamic law), Jews have “Halakha” (Jewish law).  The two are amazingly similar, since after all, the Sharia is based in the Jewish law (as both are Abrahamic faiths that share a common origin).  Since the 1990’s, Jews have been allowed their own Halakhic courts, and nobody had any qualms over this.

Suddenly though, when Muslims sought to have their own Sharia arbitration courts, the Islamophobes cried foul.  So why the double standard?  Muslims–and other sensible people–asked the question: if Jews could have their own arbitration courts according to Halakha, then why not Muslims?  Why was Halakha considered Kosher and Sharia considered Haram?

Enter the Islamophobes

Daniel Pipes–a modern day McCarthyist–led the charge against Sharia courts. Let me clarify: I’m not responding to Daniel Pipes to defend the idea of Sharia courts.  As I explain at the end of Part 2 of this article, I have mixed feelings about religious courts in general.  My issue here is with the reasons Daniel Pipes gives as to why he is opposed to Sharia courts, and his double-standards and hypocrisy.

You see, Daniel Pipes is not opposed to religious courts; he’s only opposed to Islamic courts.  His article expresses dismay that Jewish Halakhic courts will no longer operate in the same capacity as they did before.  In other words, if it were up to him, he would allow Halakha in the West, but not Sharia.  Pipes wrote in an article entitled “Why Shariah Must Be Opposed”:

Those of us who argue against Shariah are sometimes asked why Islamic law poses a problem when modern Western societies long ago accommodated Halakha, or Jewish law. In fact, this was one of the main talking points of those who argued that Shariah should become an accepted part of dispute resolution in Ontario in 2005.

The answer is easy: a fundamental difference separates the two. Islam is a missionizing religion, Judaism is not. Islamists aspire to apply Islamic law to everyone, while observant Jews seek only to live by Jewish law themselves.

Two very recent examples from the United Kingdom demonstrate the innate imperialism of Islamic law.

Pipes then gives two examples of how Muslims seek to “impose Sharia” on others: (1) the first is of a man named Zulfikar Ali Khan who started serving Halal food to his Non-Muslim residents in an old age home; (2) the second example is of policewomen wearing headscarves to enter mosques, an initiative which two police forces in Southwest England have adopted.

Well, there you have it!  That is Daniel Pipes’ entire argument: two random examples which he thinks somehow proves that Muslims want to enforce their religious beliefs upon non-Muslims, whilst Jews want to simply apply their own laws to themselves.

Jewish Examples

The first example Pipes gives is of a man who served Halal only food in a building he owned.  What about the multiple Subway outlets across the country (located in such places as New York, Miami, and Indianapolis) which turned Kosher only?  Not only is the meat kosher, but the restaurants refuse to serve ham, bacon, cheese, and crab (all of which are forbidden according to Jewish law); additionally, the store remains closed on the Sabbath:

Ham and bacon were removed from the menu, the “cheese” is made of soy, and the Seafood Sensation sandwich is filled with imitation crab. Two microwaves and toaster ovens ensure that fish and meat are kept separate, a consideration for more observant Jews. There is a full-time mashgiach, or kosher supervisor, and the restaurant is closed on Shabbat.

Islamophobes might lose their minds if their local Subways started closing down on Fridays (the Islamic holy day).  It would be another sign of “creeping Sharia” and of “stealth Jihad,” or even of impending “dhimmitude.”

(The truth is that if you own a business, you can serve Halal, Kosher, or whatever you want.  If customers don’t want that, they stop coming and you run out of business.  Ahh, the beauties of capitalism.)

To give an even clearer example, we have the ultra-Orthodox Jews of Israel who force the majority secular population (along with non-Jews) to observe strict Kosher laws; we read:

Public transport comes to a halt on the Sabbath even though the majority of Israelis believe it should continue to operate. Shops are forced to close and all restaurants and stores are forced to keep kosher rules, with the sale of pork strictly forbidden.

So why on earth would Daniel Pipes focus on one single Muslim man who served Halal food, and ignore the fact that the ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel force the entire population (including non-Jews) to observe kosher rules (with the sale of pork strictly forbidden)?

In fact, Daniel Pipes had said in his article “Why Shariah Must Be Opposed:”

Returning to pork: both Islam and Judaism abominate the flesh of pigs, so this prohibition offers a direct and revealing comparison of the two religions. Simply put, Jews accept that non-Jews eat pork but Muslims take offense and try to impede pork consumption.

I’m afraid, Dr. Pipes, that your point was just shot to pieces.  The non-Jewish and secular residents of Israel would beg to differ!

The second example that Daniel Pipes gave–as to why Halakha but no Sharia–was of police officers wearing headscarves in mosques.  Yet, Jewfaq.org tells us that non-Jews are expected to wear skullcaps and head coverings when they enter synagogues:

Non-Jews Visiting a Synagogue

Non-Jews are always welcome to attend services in a synagogue, so long as they behave as proper guests. Proselytizing and “witnessing” to the congregation are not proper guest behavior…

A man should wear a yarmulke (skullcap) if Jewish men in the congregation do so; yarmulkes are available at the entrance for those who do not have one. In some synagogues, married women should also wear a head covering. A piece of lace sometimes called a “chapel hat” is generally provided for this purpose in synagogues where this is required.

Non-Jews should not, however, wear a tallit (prayer shawl) or tefillin, because these items are signs of our obligation to observe Jewish law.

If you are in an Orthodox synagogue, be careful to sit in the right section: men and women are seated separately in an Orthodox synagogue.

Just as the police officers were provided headscarves to wear when they enter mosques, Jews expect non-Jews to wear skullcaps and head coverings (chapel hats) when they enter, and extra skullcaps and head coverings are placed at the entrance for this purpose.  Oh, the horror!

Some More Examples

Just to go over the top, I’ll provide some more examples so that Daniel Pipes and company have no way out.  Where to begin?  OK, this story reported in the Washington Post seems a good place to start:

Hundreds of ultra-Orthodox Jews clashed with riot police in central Jerusalem on Saturday night in the latest protest against the city’s decision to open a municipal parking lot on the Jewish Sabbath.

Dressed in traditional cloaks and fur hats, demonstrators forced the closure of several major streets, and some hurled rocks at motorists along a Jerusalem highway…The decision to open the lot was seen as an official endorsement of driving on a day when Jewish law prohibits operating machinery, even pushing elevator buttons

This group of Jews wanted to prevent even non-Jews from driving:

[Jerusalem Mayor] Barkat changed the location of the open lot to one farther from an ultra-Orthodox neighborhood, promised it would be staffed by non-Jews and waived fees so money would not change hands, another Sabbath prohibition.

Still, the crowds have gathered. An estimated 30,000 people joined in a mass prayer one Friday night in June, and there are plans for a children’s protest this week.

“It’s as if they are calling upon the public to come and desecrate the Sabbath,” said Rabbi Yitzhak Goldknop, secretary of the Rabbinical Committee for the Sanctity of the Sabbath. “It hurts us and hurts our feelings and the feelings of any believing Jew.”

This is not an isolated event.  In fact, cars are routinely stoned in Israel if they move about on the Sabbath:

…One of these suburbs, Mea Shearim, is infamous for the stoning of moving cars on Shabat, the Jewish Sabbath.

How’s that for forcing your beliefs on others?

Such incidents have worried the non-Jewish and secular residents:

Secular residents, however, worry about intolerance and a loss of diversity, citing demands for gender-segregated buses, the recent jailing of a member of a “chastity squad” who assaulted a woman he thought was dressed immodestly…

This leads to our next example, which is of some Jews forcing companies to segregate their buses and make women sit at the back.  The Independent reports:

‘Sinful’ city buses stoned by ultra-Orthodox Jews

[An] Israeli bus…is pelted with stones that smash windows and startle passengers…The violence is part of an unholy war in which strident elements of the ultra-Orthodox community in Mea Shearim are trying to force Israel’s leading bus company – and, by extension, Israeli society– to defer to their strict religious teachings and sensibilities…

The latest battle is over demands that buses segregate men and women in accordance with strict Jewish law…In the view of some ultra-Orthodox Jews, segregated seating, with women entering separately through the rear door and sitting at the back, is vital to uphold their stringent traditions stipulating modesty and prohibiting physical contact with members of the opposite sex.

Secularists say the push for sanctity on the buses is part of a larger effort to transform Jerusalem into a kind of Tehran…

Menachem Kenig, head of a committee pressing for segregated buses, says Israel’s leading bus company, Egged, is in effect forcing religious people to sin. “The one place where men and women are forced to be together is on the bus,” he says. “People are crowded in, men and women push up against each other. There are sudden stops and sharp turns and men fall on the women. This really angers us, it is a violation of the concept of modesty that is at the basis of the ultra-orthodox community.”

But Laura Wharton, a secularist member of the Jerusalem city council, says the attempt to force a new segregated bus line is “outrageous and extremist”, adding: “It is humiliating to be sent to the back of the bus.”

Can you imagine if this had been Muslims who were pelting buses in order to force women to the back of the bus?   Daniel Pipes and company would be creating pandemonium!  But suddenly they are quiet as mice.

Immodestly dressed women are not allowed to board these Israeli buses, and are man-handled if they try to; the Guardian reports:

With the demographics skewed in [ultra-Orthodox] favour, government authorities are acquiescing to the growing demands of the ultra-orthodox. The transport ministry, which regulates and funds bus transport through private companies, has allowed operators to provide ‘kosher’ or ‘pure’ routes, where women are required to sit at the back and cannot board unless appropriately dressed.

More than a dozen women have filed complaints after being verbally or physically attacked on the buses. ‘Sometimes it’s an official group but often it’s one or two men who start to complain and the other men follow,’ said the Israel Religious Action Centre’s legal director, Einat Hurvitz. ‘The drivers allow them to intimidate the women.’ Haredi women also participated in the bullying.

‘I was wearing jeans and a long sleeved T-shirt and as I was getting on the bus someone told me I couldn’t get on the bus like that,’ said Iris Yoffe who was travelling from Jerusalem to her parents’ home in the northern city of Haifa. ‘I ignored him and paid the driver.’ But then, said Yoffe, two women blocked her way and told her to get off. ‘When I refused they started yelling at me.’

Moving on, we have the example of some Jews trying to close down shops that were selling mp4 players, which–according to them–is a violation of Halakha; Israel News (YNet) reports:

Battle against MP4 players

…The demonstrators directed their anger at a store on the Shabbat Square accused of selling “non-kosher” MP4 players.

On Wednesday evening, a group of yeshiva students demonstrated opposite another store in Meah Shearim, demanding that it stop selling “impure films.”

So Dr. Pipes, here we have an example of Jews trying to force others to adhere to their religious laws and there are more examples, such as ultra-Orthodox Jews throwing out children from schools if their families own computers, which they consider to be a violation of the Halakha.  The Guardian reports:

…Time is spent checking out reports of illicit use of new technologies by members of the [ultra-Orthodox Jewish] Haredi community. ‘If we discover someone has a computer at home we throw the children out of school,’ he said. Enforcing dictates on women’s behaviour is another vital part of his brief.

There is in fact an emergence of “chastity squads” in Israel, which go around beating up people for being irreligious, targeting women who dress provocatively (such as dressing in the color red); we read:

The “work” of the “chastity squads” has also included stoning women for wearing the “provocative” colour red and torching stores that sell MP4 players in the fear they will be used to air pornography.

Stores that sell clothes regarded as provocative have been vandalised with bleach thrown at merchandise, with suspicion all that’s needed to spark an attack. Girls have been expelled from school after being seen talking to boys, a punishment that ruins their marriage prospects.

In April, a group of ultra-Orthodox men caused a ruckus on a flight of El Al, Israel’s national airline, when they became abusive and rowdy after a film was shown which they considered immoral.

The squads have also made media headlines for enforcing the gender division on buses that service their neighbourhood, forcing women to sit in the back section, with those that refuse to do so being verbally abused and beaten.

An Orthodox Canadian tourist found this out the hard way. Miriam Shear says she was travelling to pray at the Western Wall in Jerusalem’s Old City last year when a group of ultra-Orthodox (haredi) men attacked her for refusing to move to the back of the bus.

In an interview following the incident, Shear says that she was slapped, kicked, punched and pushed by a group of men who demanded she sit in the back of the bus with the other women.

Jewish women who leave ultra-Orthodox lives to embrace a secular and “immodest lifestyle” are given “honor beatings” and threatened with death; the Guardian reports:

Four months ago in the middle of the night, six men dressed in wide-brimmed black hats, black coats, white shirts and black trousers burst into the Jerusalem apartment of a young Jewish woman and taught her a lesson.

Mikhail, who is reluctant to give her full name, had scandalised members of her ultra-orthodox Jewish community by leaving her husband and embracing a secular lifestyle. The men, all members of the theologically conservative Haredi branch of Judaism, tackled her to the ground, slammed her head against the floor and tied a rag around her mouth. One assailant sat on her head as the others kicked her while demanding to know the names of the men she was seeing.

They also threatened to kill her if she did not leave the neighbourhood, which contains many secular as well as religious residents. ‘A woman is only OK if she has a family, kids and a husband,’ said Mikhail with a sigh.

Welcome to the new, increasingly orthodox, Jerusalem. The attack on Mikhail, although exceptionally brutal, was only the latest in a string of assaults over the past two years against Jewish women accused of immoral behaviour in the city.

These “chastity squads” slash tires of female drivers who dress immodestly:

Signs warning women not to enter if they are wearing trousers, short sleeves or a skirt above the knees, hang in the neighbourhood. One is affixed outside Kreus’s two-room house where he lives with his wife and 11 children. ‘Every week there’s a complaint about the way women dress,’ said Kreus.

Extraordinarily, he admitted to slashing the tyres of women who have driven into the neighbourhood who, he said, were indecently dressed.

Riots erupted when some members of the chastity squads were arrested.  These “chastity squads” seem to have some level of community support, as Israel News (YNet) reports:

‘The chastity squad activists are doing what the police should be doing,’ senior community member says.

According to the Guardian article, “more than 30 per cent of [Jerusalem's]  Jewish residents are [ultra-Orthodox] Haredi.”  The ultra-Orthodox “Jewish Taliban” freely “roam Jerusalem’s ultra-religious neighbourhoods enforcing the voluminous and ever growing list of rabbinical laws such as the recent decree banning the sale of MP4 players.”

And we could go on and on with examples of Jews trying to force Halakha on others…

I’ll stop here, mostly due to already having committed overkill.

The Bottom Line

The argument brought forth by Daniel Pipes–that Halakha should be allowed since Jews don’t wish to force their laws on others, whereas Sharia should be disallowed since Muslims wish to force their laws on others–is categorically rejected.  The bottom line is that there are religious zealots of every religion that wish to force their beliefs upon others. Islam is no exception to this.

The vast majority of Muslims–like the vast majority of Jews–just want to be able to practice their own religion.  We don’t let the actions of a few overzealous Jews characterize all of Jewry and Judaism, so let’s not let a few overzealous Muslims characterize all of Muslims and Islam.

Principle of Noninterference in Sharia

Clearly the vast majority of Jews disagree with the Jewish zealots who force Halakha upon others.  I will not however speak on this topic and instead assume that the reader will take it for granted.  Since it is Muslims that are on trial nowadays, I will speak specifically about the Islamic belief,  but rest assured I am not in anyway implying that the majority of Jews wish to enforce their laws upon others.

With regard to Islam, moderate Muslims remind their overzealous Taliban-like coreligionists that there is a principle in Sharia of noninterference towards people of other faiths.  In other words, the Sharia is applicable to Muslims, not non-Muslims.  For example, the Sharia stipulates that alcohol is forbidden, and the Hadud (Islamic penal code) dictates that corporal punishment be meted out to the one found guilty of alcohol consumption.  However, Sharia also recognizes that non-Muslims drink alcohol, and therefore dictates that Muslims should not prevent non-Muslims from that.  In other words, in an ideal Muslim state, non-Muslims can drink alcohol, eat pork, etc.

Historically, Muslims would even allow non-Muslims in Islamic lands to have their own courts, their own judges, and their own laws.  The non-Muslims were free to rule themselves according to their own religious laws.  Muslims went to Islamic courts, Jews went to Jewish courts, Christians to Christian courts, etc.  Muslim judges were forbidden to issue rulings upon non-Muslims, unless the non-Muslims themselves opted to go to an Islamic court as opposed to their own court.

Professor Mark R. Cohen of Princeton University, who according to his wiki page is “considered to be one of the leading scholars of the history of Jews in the Middle Ages under Islam,” wrote:

Islamic judges remained faithful to the principle of noninterference in the adjudication of intra-Jewish issues unless brought before them voluntarily by the parties.  Even when this occurred, as it did quite frequently, qadis [Islamic judges] especially observed the rule of nonintervention when the matter related to personal status, as evidenced, for example, in the phrase la nata’arrad fi dhalika (or: lahum) li makan ‘aqd al-dhimma, “we do not interfere in this matter (or: with them) on account of the dhimma [protection] pact.”

(Mark R. Cohen, Under Crescent and Cross, p.74)

Muslims allowed non-Muslims (such as Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, etc.) to have their own religious courts to settle matters of arbitration, including and especially family and personal law, something which I found interesting in relation to the modern day issue of Sharia courts in Canada.

Imam al-Shafi’i, founder of one of the four schools of Islamic jurisprudence, wrote about non-Muslims:

If one of you or any other non-believer comes to us for judgment, we shall adjudicate according to the law of Islam. But if he does not come to us, we shall not intervene among you (lam nu’rid lakum fima baynakum wa baynahu).

(Imam al-Shafi’i, Kitab al-Umm, 4:118)

Not only did Muslims historically allow non-Muslims to drink alcohol, consume pork, and the like, but they also tolerated matters which the Islamic religion considered repugnant.  To illustrate just one such example: a certain Zoroastrian sect engaged in a practice known as self-marriage; a man would marry his own mother or sister.  Such marriages were explicitly forbidden in the Quran and considered repugnant to the Muslims; classical scholars opined that such a thing was more offensive to Islam than “even homosexual relationships.”

The question arose, however, as to whether or not Zoroastrian citizens of the Islamic state should be allowed to engage in self-marriage based on their own religious rules, or should the Islamic state forbid such a thing based on Sharia?  The Islamic prophet Muhammad allowed the Zoroastrians to engage in self-marriage, and this ruling was affirmed by the founders of three out of the four schools of Islamic jurisprudence  (Ibn Hanbal, Malik, and Shafi’i).

Professor Sherman Jackson of the University of Michigan writes:

[Freedom of religion] did not preclude the countenance of non-Muslim beliefs and behaviors that violated Islam.  This applied not only to “soft disagreements,” for example, pork consumption, but to practices deemed by Muslims to be downright morally repugnant.

One example in this regard will have to serve…This was the institution of “self-marriage” practiced by Zoroastrians (al-Majus)., who were protected minorities under the Muslim state.  Such marriages being repugnant under the law of Islam, the question arose as to whether they should be recognized or not…

Such practices [ruled Islamic jurists]…are to be recognized under two conditions: (1) That the religious minorities who engage in them not present their case to a Muslim court [but to their own courts]; and (2) that these religious minorities believe the practice in question to be permissible according to their religion.  If a religious minority either seeks the judgment of the Muslims or does not accept the marriage in question in its own religion, the Muslim authorities are not to recognize them…

Despite [their] own moral indignation…Muslim authorities were to recognize such incestuous marriages…[Muslim authorities] did not consider granting Zoroastrians (and other religious minorties) the right to maintain marriages that were condemned by Islam to be a violation of an optimally functioning “Islamic State.”

Similarly, Islamic jurisprudence allowed Jews to marry their nieces, even though this was forbidden according to Sharia. Reform-minded Muslims use such classical rulings as a proof that Muslims can respect the right of non-Muslims to engage in homosexual marriages, even if the Muslims themselves do not approve of homosexuality based on religious grounds.

This principle of Sharia–noninterference in the affairs of other religious groups–finds support in the Quran, which declares: “Unto you your religion and unto me my religion,” (109:6) as well as “Let there be no compulsion in religion,” (2:256) amongst others.

Naturally, Muslim fundamentalists and puritans ignore this principle of Sharia, but certainly moderate Muslims hold onto it.  The point is: it was inappropriate of Daniel Pipes to summarily claim that “Muslims want to enforce their religious views upon others,” or that Sharia itself dictates that.

To be continued…