Thanks for the article and publicity, Max. I would note that a plethora of student and community feminist organizations have stepped up to support Ms. Hirsi Ali’s lecture.

AND I would remind everyone that there are about 200 seats left for the lecture, and that you can pick yours up at the Memorial Union Box Office today between 11:30 and 5:30 pm. You don’t need a valid student ID anymore, since now they’re also available to the general public. And since the general public has been itching to get their hands on remaining seats ever since the tickets became available to students exclusively, get ‘em while they’re hot.

Eric

“Where would Western feminism be if no woman, or man for that matter, spoke up for women�s rights for fear of offending traditional Christian viewpoints?”

Well the Christians have gotten away from killing people who offend their beliefs, at least much more so than the Muslims. Look anywhere and you see people and institutions scared into silence by the treat of Muslin violence. How much rioting, burning and murder was there over some cartoons?

I’ll believe that the Muslims are civilized only when Serrano can do a “Piss Muhammad” to go along with his “Piss Christ” and not be worried that he’ll get murdered.

�Where would Western feminism be if no woman, or man for that matter, spoke up for women�s rights for fear of offending traditional Christian viewpoints?�

Historical revisionism (this entire article, in fact, is an exercise in smug but terrible history). Feminism is rooted in uniquely Christian conceptions of individual human dignity. Indeed, Christian societies, for centuries, have been lauded for the “progressive” manner in which they treat their women.

�Where would Western feminism be if no woman, or man for that matter, spoke up for women�s rights for fear of offending traditional Christian viewpoints?�

Historical revisionism (this entire article, in fact, is an exercise in smug but terrible history). Feminism is rooted in uniquely Christian conceptions of individual human dignity. Indeed, Christian societies, for centuries, have been lauded for the “progressive” manner in which they treat their women.

Ah, anonymous, your objection is so stereotypical and so misses the point! I obviously did not mean that as “possessive.” I meant that in the same way as this sentence: “Societies should be judged by how they treat their citizens.” Are you going to be all sensitive about that one too?

“So why is Hirsi Ali being maligned by the UW�s Women and Gender Studies Department? It is due to a perversion of multiculturalism.”

Not a perversion; this is the essence of multiculturalism.

Multiculturalism pervades our politics and foreign policy. It prevents America from naming the evil of many Middle Eastern cultures and their leaders. It causes our leaders to bow to these barbarians and invite them to the Whitehouse for tea.

The culture that Ali is criticizing, while particularly oppressive to women, is equally evil regarding its treatment of men.

I’m highly disappointed in Prof. Tripp, though—and I thank this article for pointing out a shameful inconsistency and bias in the Women’s Studies Department.

Could someone post the e-mail that was sent out by G&WS department?

There can be no truly frank and forthright discussion about domestic violence in Islamic societies without acknowledging the role of Qur’an 4:34:

"Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them."

However the apologists try to spin it, the bottom line is that Allah says you can hit your wife. And so often, Muslim men do just that.

But anybody complaining about that MUST be a bigot?

I am disappointed but not surprised by the Women Studies program’s refusal to endorse the guest speaker. Had the speaker been a woman from rural Utah mistreated by a Mormon sect you can be sure they would have welcomed her with open arms. Once again, the program’s position reveals an ideological double-standard bordering on utter hypocrisy. No amount of rationalization and obfuscation on their part can hide it.

Anonymous writes:

“as anyone considered that the G&WS Dept isn�t fully autonomous? Ie, that the department reports to higher-ups that may take issue with a UW stamp of approval on the visit of someone who compares Muslims to Nazis?”

I understand now. The “university” condones comparing Israel to Nazis, but it’s not OK to make the appropriate analogy comparing Islam to Nazism.

�Only in the Roman Empire and in Spain under Arab domination has culture been a potent factor. Under the Arab, the standard attained was wholly admirable; to [Islamic] Spain flocked the greatest scientists, thinkers, astronomers, and mathematicians of the world, and side by side there flourished a spirit of sweet human tolerance and a sense of purist chivalry. Then with the advent of Christianity, came the barbarians. Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers�already you see the world had already fallen into the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing Christianity!��Adolph Hitler (1889-1945) Leader of the left-wing National Socialist German Workers Party (NAZI)

The St. Petersburg Declaration April 5, 2007 http://www.centerforinquiry.net/isis

We are secular Muslims, and secular persons of Muslim societies. We are believers, doubters, and unbelievers, brought together by a great struggle, not between the West and Islam, but between the free and the unfree.

We affirm the inviolable freedom of the individual conscience. We believe in the equality of all human persons.

We insist upon the separation of religion from state and the observance of universal human rights.

We find traditions of liberty, rationality, and tolerance in the rich histories of pre-Islamic and Islamic societies. These values do not belong to the West or the East; they are the common moral heritage of humankind.

We see no colonialism, racism, or so-called “Islamaphobia” in submitting Islamic practices to criticism or condemnation when they violate human reason or rights.

We call on the governments of the world to

reject Sharia law, fatwa courts, clerical rule, and state-sanctioned religion in all their forms; oppose all penalties for blasphemy and apostasy, in accordance with Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights; eliminate practices, such as female circumcision, honor killing, forced veiling, and forced marriage, that further the oppression of women; protect sexual and gender minorities from persecution and violence; reform sectarian education that teaches intolerance and bigotry towards non-Muslims; and foster an open public sphere in which all matters may be discussed without coercion or intimidation. We demand the release of Islam from its captivity to the totalitarian ambitions of power-hungry men and the rigid strictures of orthodoxy.

We enjoin academics and thinkers everywhere to embark on a fearless examination of the origins and sources of Islam, and to promulgate the ideals of free scientific and spiritual inquiry through cross-cultural translation, publishing, and the mass media.

We say to Muslim believers: there is a noble future for Islam as a personal faith, not a political doctrine;

to Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Baha’is, and all members of non-Muslim faith communities: we stand with you as free and equal citizens;

and to nonbelievers: we defend your unqualified liberty to question and dissent.

Before any of us is a member of the Umma, the Body of Christ, or the Chosen People, we are all members of the community of conscience, the people who must choose for themselves.

Endorsed by:

Ayaan Hirsi Ali Magdi Allam Mithal Al-Alusi Shaker Al-Nabulsi Nonie Darwish Afshin Ellian Tawfik Hamid Shahriar Kabir Hasan Mahmud Wafa Sultan Amir Taheri Ibn Warraq Manda Zand Ervin Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi

Who and what is really behind the publication of this article?

UW’s Badger Herald on January 29,2010, on the editorial page has an article by a sophmore, Max Manasevit, which is very odd, and telling.

I disagree with him in the article’s main point, and in his style. The first line in his article is ridiculous. Manasevit’s first sentence is ridiculous, not because I think “Women should be cooking, making vavies and keeping silent” - but rather, - because of Manasevit’s simplistic, didactic - attempted flip tone.

The University’s distinguished lecture series’ invitee from Somalia/The Netherlands - around whom the article skirts, - is not: “being maligned by UW’s Women and Gender Studies Department.”

Nor are UW Women’s Studies Department employees “insane” or not ” lover(s) of freedom ” as the article implies.

I agree with the statement from Women’s Studies he quotes in an e-mail “It is not useful to make wholesale attacks on any religion.” - Not only is it not useful - it is conflict escalating - and fire are already brewing in Somalia and The Netherlands.

The number of times Mr. Manasevit uses the word “should,” in his article is almost comic.

Depicting representatives of the Women’s Studies Department as - “insane” for not supporting him in his opinion — is very odd.

In fact, it (and he) remind me of a title of one of Phylis Chesler’s books - Women and Madness.

Are we in an age when we have “sane,” and “insane” lovers of freedom as the author suggests? If so, another question arises: What is a sane lover of freedom, and what is an insane lover of freedom? - to used Manasevit’s own words and implications.

(Yes, using torture to ensure freedom is illegal, and immoral, not - insane. It is self-defeating to waterboard, or to send peace keeping troops who roast people on duty in Somalia (1990s error).

I cringe, when I read a young upstart - in a student newspaper, or even men in their 60’s or 70’s —telling women what women should do, and who women, or those who study women “should” support.

There is inaccurate information in his article as well.

It is unclear what he means by her “forced move to the West.” Does he mean she was forced to leave Somalia, or forced to leave The Netherlands for the U.S.?

It is my understanding she was not forced to leave the Netherlands. At first, her citizenship was called into question - because she had, - apparently - given the Dutch Immigration and Naturalization Services incomplete, or false information regarding her identity, - when she originally applied for Dutch citizenship.

Though she was questionned and reprimanded in The Netherlands for these frowned upon acts, of non-disclosure, which would under some statutes be fraud, - she, I believe, was allowed to retain her Dutch citizenship. I understand her choice to live in the U.S. is her own preference. The Dutch did not chase her out. Some wonder about her alliances in the U.S. with certain think tanks.

Finally, from which affliliation, if any, does Max Manasevit speak?, I understand in Mosaic-based monotheism - women in general were supposed to submit to their husbands, and kids were to be beaten. A lot of religious women struggle to change things within their churches, just as Women’s Studies Struggles for the rights of women in society.

Anti-feminist customs, were customs of the day. Apparently in the Torah, and in Judaism too.

There is nothing wrong with religious feminists. They exist. Some like the nun in the Catholic faith, here in Madison, had to stand firm in front of Bishop Morlino, when he insisted on closing the Catholic Poverty and Multicultural Center.

Others, in Saudi Arabia - one of the Kings’ sisters or daughters — gently and persistently stands firm - infront of the King urging the society to see the benefit of widening women’s role in political and academic Saudi Society.

Mrs. Fox, a Mormon, helped Mormon suffragettes in Utah.

Do I agree with all of them - in all matters? No.

Do I support the Freedom From Religion Foundation in some matters, yes. (Especially re exposure of abuse with religious cover, and in supporting a woman’s right to choose… safe, legal, and affordable.)

It is OK to itemize and stipulate in politics and beliefs instead of taking everything wholesale and in glob-mob form.

Mary Baker Eddy had to prove - (and she did successfully) to the Massachuetts Supreme Court that her Church Principles, were not symptons of anything related to insanity. She succeeded in court, and ended up founding a wonderful newspaper.

The head of the Islamic organization in North America is a woman who chooses to wear the scarf.

“Petrified of offending religion?” - This is what Manasevit inaccurately calls Women’s Studies.

I am hardly “petrified” of offending my representatives in the civil religions of so-called democracy, — as many women around the world are bombed and trampled upon in their homes - in the name of so-called sane freedom.

Many women in the U.S. live in squalid circumstances, and have been as wronged in any so-called justice system, as certain women in the Islamic societies Manasevits characterizesin “glob-whole.”

It is nice Mr. Manasevits writes, and participates in civic discussion and journalism.

Yes, in any religion there are faults, and there is much room for women’s voices and participation in theocratic-style governments, as well as in constitutional democracies and republics.

Remind Mr. Manasevits’ readers of something, some have called the deeply feminine concept behind Ramadan.

Some compare the night, and its openness in Ramadan to the feminine unconcious and to the eternal womb from which Gabriel came with the writings in the Koran.

There is the feminine Shekinah, in Judaism, which is to some represents a yet hidden, or exiled, feminine presence.

Mary Baker Eddy prayed the Our Father to a “Mother / Father God, Adorable One.”

Who and what is really the impetus behind Max Manasevit’s article?

Someone challenged Anonymous to illustrate an example of the university condoning comparisons of the modern Jewish state to Nazism.

At an uber-liberal university like UW Madison this couldn’t be easier to do. Here is just one obvious example:

http://frontpagemag.com/2010/02/01/collaborators-in-the-war-against-the-jews-jennifer-loewenstein/

As is usual, when faced with a true fight, liberals try appeasement first. If it were Christians advocating the death penalty for homosexuals, beating a disobedient wife, of engaging in honor killings, to name but a few of the offenses ISLAM perpetrates aginst basic human rights ever day, we’d never hear the end of it. Why does ISLAM get a pass? This clash of cultures won’t fade away just because you bury your head in the sand. We’ve fought too hard for the rights we have here in the West & we won’t let the silence of the PC left (or right) undermine them.

Amazing how leftist feminists come to Islam’s defense.

Question: Why are rape victims punished by Islamic courts as adulterers?

Summary Answer: Under Islamic law, rape can only be proven if the rapist confesses or if there are four male witnesses. Women who allege rape, without the benefit of the act having been witnessed by four men who subsequently develop a conscience, are actually confessing to having sex. If they or the accused happens to be married, then it is considered to be adultery.

The Qur’an: Qur’an (2:282) - Establishes that a woman’s testimony is worth only half that of a man’s in court (there is no “he said/she said” gridlock in Islam).

Qur’an (24:4) - “And those who accuse free women then do not bring four witnesses (to adultery), flog them…”

Qur’an (24:13) - “Why did they not bring four witnesses of it? But as they have not brought witnesses they are liars before Allah.”

From the Hadith:

Bukhari (5:59:462) - The background for the Qur’anic requirement of four witnesses to adultery. Muhammad’s favorite wife, Aisha, was accused of cheating [on her polygamous husband]. Three witnesses corroborated the event, but Muhammad did not want to believe it, and so established the arbitrary rule that four witnesses are required.

Additional Notes:

Rape is virtually impossible to prove under Islamic law (Sharia) and even in more moderate countries. If the man claims that the act was consensual sex, there is very little that the woman can do to refute this. Islam places the burden of avoiding sexual encounters of any sort on the woman.

It’s actually an interesting phenomenon how leftist feminists come to Islam’s defense. What does this say about their knee-jerk, poorly thought out opinions more generally? Code Pink anyone?

Question: Does Islam really allow a man to take up to four wives?

Summary Answer: Yes, a Muslim man can marry as man as four women, and have sexual relations with an unspecified number of slaves as well. Muhammad had eleven wives at one time.

The Qur’an: Qur’an (4:3) - “Marry of the women, who seem good to you, two or three or four; and if ye fear that ye cannot do justice (to so many) then one (only) or (the captives) that your right hands possess.”

Qur’an (4:129) - “Ye are never able to be fair and just as between women, even if it is your ardent desire” (but don’t let that stop you, husbands, because your needs come first anyway).

Qur’an (66:5) - “Maybe, his Lord, if he divorce you, will give him in your place wives better than you, submissive, faithful, obedient, penitent, adorers, fasters, widows and virgins” A disobedient wife can be replaced. A man can only have up to four wives, but he can rotate as many women as he pleases in and out of the lineup.

From the Hadith:

Bukhari (62:2) - Same as Qur’an (4:3).

Bukhari (5:268) - “The Prophet used to visit all his wives in a round, during the day and night and they were eleven in number.” I asked Anas, “Had the Prophet the strength for it?” Anas replied, “We used to say that the Prophet was given the strength of thirty men.” Muhammad had special rules that allowed him at least eleven wives. (His successors had more than four wives at a time as well.)

Bukhari (62:6) - “The Prophet used to go round (have sexual relations with) all his wives in one night, and he had nine wives.”

Bukhari (77:598) - “Allah’s Apostle said, “No woman should ask for the divorce of her sister (Muslim) so as to take her place, but she should marry the man (without compelling him to divorce his other wife)” Polygamy is firmly established in the Islamic tradition.

Additional Notes:

One of the worst arguments in defense of polygamy within Islam is that it reduces prostitution by satisfying a man’s sexual desire in a way that one woman cannot. That the same Qur’anic verse also gives a man license to capture women and use them as sex slaves is often overlooked by Islam’s apologists. Neither is there any reason given for why Allah would procreate women and men at an equal rate if marriages were meant to have ratios as high as 4:1.

Muhammad had many wives (nine of whom outlived him) and the jealousies and bickering in this unhappy arrangement are chronicled not only in the Hadith, but in the Qur’an as well. At one point his wives were so upset by Muhammad’s taking a slave girl to one of their own bedrooms that Allah had to step down and whisper part of Sura 33 in his ear, which includes a threat to divorce them all if they didn’t allow him complete sexual freedom.

There are worse things in the world than polygamy (which has been practiced by many cultures outside of Islam), but it is shocking to see a religion place such high value on a man’s base sexual desire that he is permitted to bring other women into the marriage bed just to satisfy his lust. At the very least, it seems to devalue a woman’s worth according to simple mathematics.

And (lest there be any doubt) women are not allowed the same freedom to seek sexual satisfaction from alternate sources should their husband lose interest or capacity.

In Islam, a woman’s worth is the sum of her sexual value to her husband.

Ahhh! It sounds like the life of Riley being a “liberated” Islamic woman. It’s little wonder leftist feminists are found here defending Islam’s rights over that of Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s well-founded (Ayaan had female genital mutilation forced upon her) opinions.

Question: Does Islam permit a man to hit his wife?

Summary Answer: Yes, but only if she doesn’t do as he asks. The beating must cease if the woman complies with her husband’s demands. Beating is also intended to be the last resort, behind verbal abuse and abandonment.

Muhammad, himself, is recorded as physically striking his favorite wife (from her own testimony). It is not known how he treated his less-favored wives.

The Qur’an: Qur’an (4:34) - “Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.”

From the Hadith:

Bukhari (72:715) - A woman came to Muhammad and begged her to stop her husband from beating her. Her skin was bruised so badly that she it is described as being “greener” than the green veil she was wearing. Muhammad did not admonish her husband, but instead ordered her to return to him and submit to his sexual desires.

Muslim (4:2127) - Muhammad struck his favorite wife, Aisha, in the chest one evening when she left the house without his permission. Aisha narrates, “He struck me on the chest which caused me pain.”

Abu Dawud (2141) - “Iyas bin �Abd Allah bin Abi Dhubab reported the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) as saying: Do not beat Allah�s handmaidens, but when �Umar came to the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) and said: Women have become emboldened towards their husbands, he (the Prophet) gave permission to beat them. Then many women came round the family of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) complaining against their husbands. So the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) said : Many women have gone round Muhammad�s family complaining against their husbands. They are not the best among you.” At first, Muhammad forbade men from beating their wives, but he rescinded this once it was reported that women were becoming emboldened toward their husbands. Beatings are sometimes necessary to keep women in their place.

Abu Dawud (2142) - “The Prophet (peacebeupon_him) said: A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife.”

Ishaq 969 - Commands that a married woman be “put in a separate room and beaten lightly” if she “act in a sexual manner toward others.” According to the Hadith, this can be for an offense as petty as merely being alone with a man to whom she is not related.

Additional Notes:

Muslim apologists often squirm over this relatively straightforward Qur’an verse (4:34). Their masterful aerobics of denial inspired us to write a separate article:

Wife Beating- Good Enough for Muhammad, Good Enough for You

Others are not nearly as squeamish. Sheikh Yousef al-Qaradhawi, one of the most respected Muslim clerics in the world, once made the famous (and somewhat ridiculous statement) that “It is forbidden to beat the woman, unless it is necessary.” He also went on to say that “one may beat only to safeguard Islamic behavior,” leaving no doubt that wife-beating is a matter of religious sanction. (source)

Dr. Muzammil Saddiqi, the former president of ISNA (the Islamic Society of North America), a mainstream Muslim organization, says that it is important that a wife “recognizes the authority of her husband in the house” and that he may use physical force if he is “sure it would improve the situation.” (source)

According to Islamic law, a husband may strike his wife for any one of the following four reasons:

• She does not attempt to make herself beautiful for him (ie. “let’s herself go”)

• She refuses to meet his sexual demands

• She leaves the house without his permission or for a “legitimate reason”

• She neglects her religious duties

Any of these are also sufficient grounds for divorce.

Muslim apologists sometimes say that Muhammad commanded that women not be harmed, but they are actually basing this on what he said before or during battle, such as in Bukhari (59:447), when Muhammad orders that all the men of Quraiza be killed and the women and children be taken as slaves. (Having your husband murdered and being forced into sexual slavery apparently doesn’t qualify as “harm” under the Islamic model).

But, in fact, there are a number of cases in which Muhammad did have women killed in the most brutal fashion. One was Asma bint Marwan, a mother or five, who wrote a poem criticizing the Medinans for accepting Muhammad after he had ordered the murder of an elderly man. In this case, the prophet’s assassins literally pulled a sleeping infant from her breast and stabbed her to death.

After taking Mecca in 630, Muhammad also ordered the murder of a slave girl who had merely made up songs mocking him. The Hadith are rife as well with accounts of women planted in the ground on Muhammad’s command and pelted to death with stones for sexual immorality - yet the prophet of Islam actually encouraged his own men to rape women captured in battle (Abu Dawood 2150) and did not punish them for killing non-Muslim women (as Khalid ibn Walid did on several occasions - see Ibn Ishaq 838 and 856).

In summary, according to both the Qur’an and Hadith, a woman may indeed have physical harm done to her if the circumstances warrant, with one such allowance being in the case of disobedience. This certainly does not mean that all Muslim men beat their wives, only that Islam allows them.