This was passed on to me by my mother for some fact checking. We wondered, how much is true? how much is current practice? how much is “on the books” but not applicable to modern Islamic life? how reflective is this of reality?
Most of these are, in fact, “on the books.” However, few, if any, are widely practiced. Here’s the eMail, with my notations in bold. I should note ahead of time that I am a Pentecostal Protestant (and, no, I don’t let snakes bite me) and entered this with a severe dislike of Islam. After spending far too much some time reading religious tenets, I’m changing my view. I severely dislike the people currently in charge. The religious itself, aside from some distasteful elements of executing people for apostasy, doesn’t seem all that bad.
Subject: Wake up America!!
“Joys of Muslim Women”, a book by Nonie Darwish
This was sent to me by a friend.
Please read it all (the next to the last paragraph will scare you to death) and then pass it on………………..
Joys of Muslim Women
by Nonie Darwish
In the Muslim faith a Muslim man can marry a child as young as 1 year old and have sexual intimacy with this child.
True. The practice of “thighing” (mufa’khathat) is widely circulated around the intrawebz as a “common” Islamic practice. It involves a man sexually gratifying himself “between the thighs” of a young girl, even an infant. There is only one Muslim leader-Ayatollah Khomeini-who has gone on record in support of the practice. The information can also be found in this book, The Truth About Islam, which uses the quote from Ayatollah Khomeini as the basis. If it were such a “common” practice, as some would suggest, it would probably be more widely attributable. In short, it exists, and is probably allowed, but doesn’t seem to be a commonplace, accepted event.
Consummating the marriage by 9.
True. In fact, in recent history, a girl successfully sued for a divorce at the age of 10. However, the marriage age is not directly set by Sharia, only implied by The Prophet’s marriage to a 9 year old girl. Each country sets its own marriage age, with most ranging between 15 and 21. In most countries, children younger than this can get married with parental consent. This portion, though, shouldn’t be considered an anomaly. Children can get married before the age of 18 in most U.S. states, as long as one or all parents involved agree. What is odd is that in some countries, the age with parental consent still hovers around 9.
The dowry is given to the family in exchange for the woman (who becomes his slave) and for the purchase of the private parts of the woman, to use her as a toy.
True…if you consider “toy” to be a fair word. As in Judeo-Christian traditions, one spouse is not supposed to deprive the other, unilaterally, of sex. Although I have not found much in the way of considerations for the woman’s desire for sex (admittedly, I didn’t look for it) there is much ado about one spouse satisfying the other.
In regards to the dowry: This is an archaic, almost barbaric, concept to Westerners. We abandoned the dowry ages ago in favor of a more modern, “feminist” ideal. However, the dowry does serve a valid purpose in many cultures, and, in Sharia law, is the exact opposite of what we consider a dowry. The dowry is a way the husband can “prove” he is financially ready to care for the wife. In a way, it simply proves that the potential husband really wants to marry the woman. As a father, you wouldn’t want to send your daughter off to marry a lazy, broke slacker who just took a passing fancy to her. Under Sharia, the dowry is supposed to be a gift to the woman for marrying the man. It’s a way of saying “thank you,” and she is to use the money however she sees fit. Consider it a sign-on bonus. The man must offer a dowry, however, the woman may willingly refuse all or part of it.
What we, as Westerners, consider a dowry is quite different. European dowries involved monies given from the bride’s father to the husband. Theoretically, this money was intended for the use by the newlyweds to provide proper food, shelter and clothing, for themselves and their soon appearing children. It was a rainy day fund that sweetened the deal for the man to marry the woman. Women that came with high dowries were more attractive to prospective husbands, leading to better, upwardly mobile marriages.
Even though a woman is abused she cannot obtain a divorce.
True, under Sharia. However, there are some ways around it. The concept of Talaq, by which the husband can divorce his wife by verbal repudiation, can be included in the initial marriage contract as a reserved right of the wife. Under this circumstance, the woman can actually divorce her husband. By default, the husband has the ability to do this over a period of weeks or months. Unfortunately, without a good reason, the woman has to stay in the home (and can even be forcibly kept) until the divorce is final.
Under Khula divorce, the husband and wife mutually agree to a divorce.
Under Tafriq divorce, either party may petition the court for a divorce. The allowable reasons vary by the courts, with some only allowing the wife to petition if her husband is unable to impregnate her, while others allow it in the case of physical abuse or abandonment.
To prove rape, the woman must have (4) male witnesses.
True. In some courts, a woman who cannot produce four male witnesses to her rape-or a rapist who has a change of heart and admits guilt-is considered guilty of illegal sex. However, as the article notes, this is more of a problem with the men interpreting the laws than with the laws themselves.
This article details the punishments for rape. There are two available punishments, if the woman produces four male witnesses or if the man confesses. Married men are put to death by stoning. Unmarried men are lashed and exiled for one year. Where the interpretation becomes blurred is when she can prove she was raped, but not with a confession or four witnesses. In this case, the rapist’s punishment is at the judge’s discretion.
Furthermore, if the rape was carried out by threats with a weapon, the judge is given the option of four punishments: execution, crucifixion, removal of opposite hand/foot or complete exile.
It is a gross disservice to Sharia law to state that a woman must have four male witnesses. Although some less-than-ethical judges may interpret the law this way, the intention of the law itself is to determine absolute guilt, provide the maximum allowable punishment and prevent spurious claims of rape.
Often after a woman has been raped, she is returned to her family and the family must return the dowry. The family has the right to execute her (an honor killing) to restore the honor of the family.
True. Most countries forbid this, but the practice is still in effect.
Husbands can beat their wives ‘at will’ and he does not have to say why he has beaten her.
Half-true. This practice is not supported by most Muslim religious leaders. By strict Islamic teachings, beating should be the final step in “correcting” a disobedient wife. A husband is not, under Sharia, allowed to beat his wife for no reason.
The husband is permitted to have (4 wives)
True. Sharia allows a man to have up to four wives, assuming he deals justly with all of them. If a man cannot deal justly with four, he may only marry three. It is later noted that it is very difficult to be just and fair between women.
and a temporary wife for an hour (prostitute) at his discretion.
True. Personally, I got a big kick out of reading the Wikipedia article on this practice (nikah mut’ah). A nikah is a permanent marriage, while a nikah mut’ah is a time-bound marriage, that can, at a later date, be extended or converted to a nikah.
The most obvious reason is, of course, temporary sex. These temporary marriages can be as short as the two parties wish and can last up to a year. After they expire, they can be renewed. Only the man may cancel the temporary marriage early. If he does, and they’ve had sex, he must pay the woman a dowry. If they haven’t had sex, he has to pay her half a dowry. Presumably, this amount was agreed upon before they entered into the contract.
Another interesting possibility, that Wikipedia lists, is a kind of ritualistic avoidance of customs. For example, if a man is cohabitating with another family with daughters, the “modest-dress” rules would apply. As a formality, the man and the mother could issue a “two-minute marriage,” making the mother’s family members “unmarriable.” Once everyone is unmarriable, the modest-dress rules no longer apply.
People who share a living space, although they have no interest in each other, can issue a temporary marriage for the above mentioned reason that stipulates no physical contact is allowed.
Couples who are committed, but currently unable or unwilling to permanently marry, can engage in short-term marriages to avoid adultery laws. At any point, the temporary marriage can be converted to a permanent marriage.
These temporary marriages also have benefits for the woman. She isn’t subject to the stringent obedience laws that permanently married women are. However, the husband isn’t required to pay for her expenses (although he can if he wants). No divorce is necessary. If the woman is displeased in the relationship, she simply does not renew the contract. Any children resulting from the relationship become the sole responsibility of the husband.
Of course, this is how it should work, by the books. I’m sure there are instances of it not working that way due to misinterpretations of the law. By the books, though, it seems like a fairly interesting system that the rest of the world should consider. It may even encourage men to be a bit more involved in birth control.
The Shariah Muslim law controls the private as well as the public life of the woman.
This is a fairly meaningless statement. All religious and public codes of conduct control the private as well as the public life of adherents/citizens.
In the West World (America) Muslim men are starting to demand Shariah Law so the wife cannot obtain a divorce and he can have full and complete control of her. It is amazing and alarming how many of our sisters and daughters attending American Universities are now marrying Muslim men and submitting themselves and their children unsuspectingly to the Shariah law.
Discussing, of course, cases such as the Canadian baby-stabber who refused to give his wife a divorce. This man wasn’t advocating Sharia law, which, I’m guessing, would have landed him a harsh punishment for trying to kill his wife and child. He was picking and choosing which portions of it he would follow.
This is actually a very silly statement, if you consider it in comparison to other religions which require sanctioned divorces. Obtaining a legal divorce is quite different in Catholicism than obtaining a religiously sanctioned divorce. Even assuming the wife obtains a legal divorce, if she is still living under Sharia law, by choice in the U.S. one would assume, her divorce is not final. The fact that a secular U.S. or Canadian court allows a divorce is irrelevant to the religious status of the marriage.
Furthermore, is there really a problem with allowing family courts to consider the religious views of those involved? At present, Catholics first obtain a legal divorce then wait years-or decades, in the case of one of my old teachers-for a Church sanctioned annulment. Why not just roll the whole thing into one and let the religious group sort out the marital issues? Maybe this is over-simplistic thinking, but since marriage is quite often inextricably linked to religion, it may solve some problems in some cases.
Are [some of] our “sisters and daughters” being tricked into living under Sharia law in oppressive countries? Absolutely. The page I linked to is about as ridiculous as suggesting this is some wide-spread, insidious plot to take down Western Civilization. It’s actually just about as ridiculous as suggesting Facebook relationship-status induced murders are the resurgence of patriarchy or that World of Warcraft is a suicide inducing addiction.
Some men are just controlling monsters who will find any reason to force their obsessive “love” on a woman, to the point of kidnapping, hostage-taking, abuse and murder. Some use religion, some use Facebook and others use duct tape.
By passing this on, enlightened American women may avoid becoming a slave under Shariah Law.
All Muslim women should be insulted by this statement. Sharia law is, more often than not, highly oppressive to women. It’s been implemented in many countries as a method of subjugation and abuse, and those nations should be publicly censured and economically punished by right-thinking nations. Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism…nearly any religion has, at one time or another, been misused to abuse women. The implication that women living, sometimes willingly, under Sharia law are unenlightened is ridiculous.
Cruel and Usual Punishment is her latest book just released in most bookstores.
Ripping the West in Two.
Author and lecturer Nonie Darwish says the goal of radical Islamists is to impose Shariah law on the world, ripping Western law and liberty in two.
She recently authored the book, Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law.
Darwish was born in Cairo and spent her childhood in Egypt and Gaza before immigrating to America in 1978, when she was eight years old, her father died while leading covert attacks on Israel. He was a high-ranking Egyptian military officer stationed with his family in Gaza.
When he died, he was considered a “shahid,” a martyr for jihad. His posthumous status earned Nonie and her family an elevated position in Muslim society.
But Darwish developed a skeptical eye at an early age. She questioned her own Muslim culture and upbringing. She converted to Christianity after hearing a Christian preacher on television.
I suppose it depends on how you define an “early age.” Her father died when she was 7 [according to Wikipedia and her statements, 8, but that's does math] and by her own words admits she blamed Israel for his death. As the daughter of a high-powered military officer, she quite literally saw and heard things children should not see and hear. So, to pick apart her story is not to diminish what she experienced, but to point out she may be picking and choosing how to portray the side she has chosen.
According to this article, Mrs. Darwish leaves out some important facts on the initial raid of her home.
“My father was not at home that night, and the Israelis found only women and children — my mother, two maids, and five small children. The commandos left us unharmed. I personally did not even wake up or know of the incident until later in life, when I read a book written about my father. After I read it, I called my mother immediately, and she confirmed the story. The Israelis chose not [to] kill us even though the Egyptian-organized fedayeen did kill Israeli civilians, women and children.”
The article author has a different take on the happenings, though.
Young Nonie must have been a very sound sleeper, since one squad blew the gate off her house, injuring several civilians, and, by one account, proceeded to demolish the house.
Considering this, I’m taking just about everything she states with a grain of salt. She has, for one reason or another, developed a deep vendetta against Islam and an unconditional love for all things Israel. To suggest that the Israelis did/do not kill women and children is beyond a gross misrepresentation of facts.
In her latest book, Darwish warns about creeping sharia law – what it is, what it means, and how it is manifested in Islamic countries.
For the West, she says radical Islamists are working to impose sharia on the world. If that happens, Western civilization will be destroyed.
Westerners generally assume all religions encourage a respect for the dignity of each individual, Islamic law (Sharia) teaches that non-Muslims should be subjugated or killed in this world. Peace and prosperity for one’s children is not as important as assuring that Islamic law rules everywhere in the Middle East and eventually in the world.
The primary human motivation for all acts, whether noble or detestable, is to improve the world for the next generation. It’s xenophobic and isolationist to suggest that Muslims are somehow exempt from the most basic of human instincts and disregard the well-being, safety and security of their children in exchange for a power grab. Perhaps Mrs. Darwish simply does not understand this basic trait, and refuses to look beyond what she [rightly] sees as negative behavior for [what they see as] the greater cause.
More likely, these atrocities wrought by radial Muslims are a result of a desire to see the world be a better place for their children. They obviously believe Sharia law is the best possible system. It stands to reason that they follow the logic to the conclusion that the world, as a whole, would be improved for their children if Sharia law were enacted.
While Westerners tend to think that all religions encourage some form of the golden rule, Sharia teaches two systems of ethics – one for Muslims and another for non-Muslims. Building on tribal practices of the seventh century, Sharia encourages the side of humanity that wants to take from and subjugate others.
So do some brands of Judaism. And it’s bad in both cases. However, it’s a bit suspect for Mrs. Darwish to excoriate the Muslims for a practice that sects of the Jews she supports also espouse.
While Westerners tend to think in terms of religious people developing a personal understanding of and relationship with God, Sharia advocates executing people who ask difficult questions that could be interpreted as criticism. It’s hard to imagine, that in this day and age, Islamic scholars agree that those who criticize Islam or choose to stop being Muslim should be executed. Sadly, while talk of an Islamic reformation is common and even assumed by many in the West, such murmurings in the Middle East are silenced through intimidation.
Is this good? No. Is this strictly a teaching of Islam? I’m not sure. All references denote apostasy, or, the purposeful rejection of Islam after conversion. This does not translate to the questioning of teachings or asking of “difficult questions.” It isn’t my purpose to defend the practice of executing apostates. I’m not fully convinced, after reading the evidence, that “difficult questions” are routinely equated to apostasy.
While Westerners are accustomed to an increase in religious tolerance over time, Darwish explains how petrodollars are being used to grow an extremely intolerant form of political Islam in her native Egypt and elsewhere.
This is a meaningless statement. First, as evidenced by the fact that I’ve now spent the better part of two hours discovering I actually don’t hate Islam as much as I thought I did researching her wild claims, the West is incredibly intolerant when it comes to Islam and any other religion that does not fit our prescribed brand of social norms. It’s apparently OK for an expatriate to launch an all-out political attack on her former religion. That’s not intolerant. She’s simply spreading truth. It would be short-sighted to not consider, even for a moment, that Muslims are doing the exact same thing in regards to Christianity.
Second, Mrs. Darwish has summed up the whole of the religion in a small region of the world. Considering Islam is the second largest religion in the world,using data just from the “oil baron” countries is misleading.
In twenty years there will be enough Muslim voters in the U.S. to elect the President by themselves! I think everyone in the U.S. should be required to read this, but with the ACLU, there is no way this will be widely publicized, unless each of us sends it on!
Again, she shows the religious intolerance that she credits to Muslims. This statement is also funny, considering there has only been one Catholic president and he was assassinated. Religious control of the POTUS seat is OK as long as my religion is in control of it.
This is your chance to make a difference…!
Thanks!