The Moral Collapse of Western Feminism | Fatima Bhutto

 

In this powerful segment from The Tea with Myriam François, author and journalist Fatima Bhutto calls out the hypocrisy of Western feminism — a movement that once claimed moral authority, now silent as Palestinian women suffer. From the weaponisation of feminist discourse to the systematic erasure of Palestinian voices, Bhutto exposes how “girlboss” capitalism and selective outrage have hollowed out the feminist project.

A tale of divorce

 

I found this quite an eye opener:

How did we get here? I genuinely don't know whether or not to laugh or cry or fume with anger. This is another divorce case I am helping with right now. The wife came from abroad, lives in a tiny London flat, has no family here, struggles to speak English, completely financially dependent for the past 20 years and looks after their disabled (adult) child.

Man: We will divorce according to Islam. I will maintain her for the waiting period. That is all.
Sheikh: Where did you read this?
Man: There is a fatwa website online. Proper scholars. I only share the truth. This is the Shariah.
Sheikh: And what should she do after the three months?
Man: I don't know. Get benefits.
Sheikh: And your son? The extra care, hospital visits, appointments, you will not even leave her a car? London is an expensive city.
Man: I will pay for the boy. He gets benefits. I don't pay for her. This is the Shariah. I work hard.
Sheikh: And she doesn't work hard? You think, this is what Allah wants?
Man: I don't make the rules. Allah says:
وَعَسَىٰٓ أَن تَكْرَهُوا۟ شَيْـًۭٔا وَهُوَ خَيْرٌۭ لَّكُمْ ۖ وَعَسَىٰٓ أَن تُحِبُّوا۟ شَيْـًۭٔا وَهُوَ شَرٌّۭ لَّكُمْ
 "Maybe you hate a thing, but it is good for you and maybe you love a thing, but it is bad for you" (Qur'an 2:216)
Sheikh: This verse is about people who do not like to fight, when they must.
Man: Yes, marriage is jihad.
(It is explained to him that the majority of the "classical" rules of divorce and settlement were written in the context of Muslim majority communities, where women had support structures and family that could take care of them and furthermore, there would be Zakat readily available to support someone who could not earn. In the absence of these, he must continue to support her and/or give her a financial settlement. Cherry picking fatwa online is not Islam. He refuses. Sheikh now getting ruffled.)
Man: If she goes to the courts, it is haram. She is stealing from me. Anyways, I will fight her and it will cost so much, she will be left with very little. I don't believe in this modern Islam. The deen is the deen. This is the Shariah.

Sheikh: Okay. You want to follow only classical Islam? Khalas. Show me this website, let me see which Mufti.
*Man pulls out website, a very popular Q&A website, with British 'scholars' giving many of the answers, including this one.*
Sheikh: Okay, great. Let me search something - *Sheikh looks through the website* Okay, perfect. Here. What about this?
Man: *He reads* Ermm.. Errrr.
Sheikh: Just to confirm, you did admit to having multiple affairs during the marriage after your wife caught you?
Man: I repented from this.
Sheikh: Okay, but we are we only want to follow classical Islam, right? Right. So what is the "classical Islamic" way to deal with your infidelity according to these same scholars and the same website you showed me?
Man: You know this. It is not possible to do here.
Sheikh: Okay, but maybe you can go to another country and they can fulfil the Shariah? You are a man of truth, right? Tell me, how much of your wealth with your wife get in this case?
Man: I don't understand.
Sheikh: If we follow the Shariah, according to this website, your punishment for your actions is to be killed. So when you die, your wealth will be split between your wife and your children, right?
Man: Yes, but...
Sheikh: You don't have any parents alive or other wives or children?
Man: No, but...
Sheikh: This is the Shariah, right?
Man: We don't live in Darul Islam.
Sheikh: You are correct, we live in Darul England. So, please make your mind up on which system you want to follow.
*sigh*
I find it fascinating that the website in question, for the adultery question now has this big disclaimer at the top:
"An Important Clarification - In light of recent attempts by some to sensationalise my views by taking them out of their intended context, I would like to categorically express that the answer below does not, in any way, call for stoning or capital punishment in non-Islamic states... the implementation of the law on adultery and fornication is only applicable under an Islamic State, and as such, this is merely an academic and theoretical discussion, since Britain is not an Islamic state... I do not of course endorse the implementation of this law in places where people choose not to have it."
Very funny that this disclaimer is not found on the divorce questions. Why aren't they "academic and theoretical discussions" when they are literally citing fiqh rulings from about 800 years ago that are being used to literally make Muslim women homeless today.
Marriage is hard. Divorce is messy. Using or rather, "abusing" Islam to line your pocket while leaving a woman vulnerable, not least the mother of your disabled child, is one of the most despicable things you can do.

Alhumdolillah, over the past year, we've been able to help a number of women in this exact or similar situation with cash/Zakat. If you can help, little or large, please reach out. At the very least, please like, comment and share to raise awareness on this oppression in our midst.

Love Jihad in India’s Uttar Pradesh

The Light of Sincerity and the Fire of Hypocrisy | Qur'anic Parables Part 1

Surah Al-Hadid - the first and the largest of the Musabbihat

Al-Musabbihat (Arabic: الْمُسَبِّحَاتِ‎) are those surahs of the Quran that begin with Allah's glorification 'Subhana', 'Sabbaha', and 'Yusabbihu'. The Musabbihat are a series of Madani surahs, and were revealed at a time when Muslims were feeling weakness in faith as a result of a growth in the Muslim community, and some of the people who had just accepted Islam were not as mature in their faith as those that had migrated with the Prophet.

That’s not to say that everyone who came into Islam in Madinah is weak, but a good number of new Muslims had not truly understood the gravity and the seriousness of the matter.

So what Allah عزّ وجلّ does in these surahs is that He rejuvenates the faith of the Muslim community, and Surah Al-Hadid, the 57th Surah of the Qur’an, is the first and the largest of the “Musabbihat”. It is a very powerful surah, and a remarkable one.

This is actually after a long series of Makkan surahs in the Qur’an where it is situated, after Surah Al-Waqi’ah, and from here (surah 57) all the way to surah 66 they are Madani surahs.

So this is the last large group of Madani surahs in the entire Qur’an, and this is the first of them.

Today, when Muslims have a weak Iman and they need to renew their faith and connect to the Creator, Allah عزّ وجلّ, we should listen to them and understand them. Here is a video to the first of the Musabbihat, Surah Al-Hadid with tafseer from Ustadh Nouman Ali Khan.

The Playboy Sultan of Brunei

CHRISTCHURCH MEDIA - DOUBLE STANDARDS

Carer murdered by husband over her work with men

A disgraceful munafiq murderer who orphaned his own children!

A man who told his wife it was "not halal" for her to work with other men as a carer has been jailed for life after admitting her murder.

Manchester Crown Court heard Imran Khan, 38, stabbed Nasreen Khan, also 38, at their home in Cheadle Hulme, Stockport on 18 April while five children were in the house.

Khan was extremely controlling of his wife, the court heard.

He was sentenced to life in prison with a minimum of 20 years.

Khan had sent his wife angry text messages which said "leave the job" and "I don't give permission", the court heard.

The court was told the couple had a volatile relationship and frequently split up.

'Nothing to lose'

Khan complained they had no physical intimacy and did not like that her job as a care assistant because it involved one-to-one contact with other men, even though she was not bathing them, the court heard.

Judge Patrick Field said it was a "merciless attack" and described Khan as a "selfish and controlling man" who "did little to support" his wife and family.

He told Khan there was "an element of jealousy of your wife's independence of mind".

"She was a devoted mother. She worked hard to support her family and she was good at that job", he said.

"Unless anyone should think there was a cultural clash, let it be said the evidence shows your parents and sister were entirely supportive of Nasreen's choice."

Mrs Khan told a colleague she was going to confront him and stand up for herself, the court heard.

On the night of her death, the court heard the couple had been arguing at their home on Cheadle Road.

The court learned when Mrs Khan told her husband she wanted him to leave, he said: "I've got nothing to lose now have I?"

He then phoned his father and the court heard he told him "I've got no choice. I'm going to kill her and kill myself."

There were five children in the house who the court was told heard her screams as he repeatedly stabbed her in the kitchen. He then phoned his father again, saying "I did it" before hanging up.

He discarded the knife on the driveway of their house before driving off.

Mrs Khan died later in hospital.

The court heard he told police: "I always loved her. I never meant to do nothing."

His lawyer told the court Khan was "genuinely remorseful".

Source

The Story of Surah Al Munafiqoon - Nouman Ali Khan

Who Are The Rohingya Of Myanmar?

Please think...

The searing hypocrisy of the West

Since the teens went missing from Gush Etzion, a Jewish-only colony in the West Bank, Israel has besieged the 4 million Palestinians who already live under its thumb, storming through towns, ransacking homes and civil institutions, conducting night raids on families, stealing property, kidnapping, injuring, and killing.

Warplanes were dispatched to bomb Gaza, again and repeatedly, destroying more homes and institutions and carrying out extrajudicial executions.

Thus far, over 570 Palestinians have been kidnapped and imprisoned, most notably Samer Issawi, the Palestinian who went on a 266-day hunger strike in protest of a previous arbitrary detention.

At least 10 Palestinians have been killed, including at least three children, a pregnant woman, and a mentally ill man. Hundreds have been injured, thousands terrorized.

Universities and social welfare organizations were ransacked, shut down, their computers and equipment destroyed or stolen, and both private and public documents confiscated from civil institutions.

This wonton thuggery is official state policy conducted by its military and does not include the violence to persons and properties perpetuated by paramilitary Israeli settlers, whose persistent attacks against Palestinian civilians have also escalated in the past weeks.

And now that the settlers are confirmed dead, Israel has vowed to exact revenge. Naftali Bennet, Economy Minister said, "There is no mercy for the murderers of children. This is the time for action, not words."

Although no Palestinian faction has claimed responsibility for the abduction, and most, including Hamas, deny any involvement, Benjamin Netanyahu is adamant that Hamas is responsible. The United Nations requested that Israel provide evidence to support their contention, but no evidence has been forthcoming, casting doubt on Israel’s claims, particularly in light of its public ire over the recent unification of Palestinian factions and President Obama’s acceptance of the new Palestinian unity.

In the West, headlines over pictures of the three Israeli settler teens referred to Israel's reign of terror over Palestine as a "manhunt" and "military sweep." Portraits of innocent young Israeli lives emerged from news outlets and the voices of their parents are featured in the fullness of their anguish. The US, EU, UK, UN, Canada and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) condemned the kidnapping and called for their immediate and unconditional release. Upon discovery of the bodies, there has been an outpouring of condemnation and condolences.

President Obama said, "As a father, I cannot imagine the indescribable pain that the parents of these teenage boys are experiencing. The United States condemns in the strongest possible terms this senseless act of terror against innocent youth."

Although hundreds of Palestinian children are kidnapped, brutalized or killed by Israel, including several in the past two weeks, there is rarely, if ever, such a reaction from the world.

Just prior to the disappearance of the Israeli settler teens, the murder of two Palestinian teens was caught on a local surveillance camera. Ample evidence, including the recovered bullets and a CNN camera filming an Israeli sharpshooter pulling the trigger at the precise moment one of the boys was shot indicated that they were killed in cold blood by Israeli soldiers.

There were no condemnations or calls for justice for these teens by world leaders or international institutions, no solidarity with their grieving parents, nor mention of the more than 250 Palestinian children, kidnapped from their beds or on their way to school, who continue to languish in Israeli jails without charge or trial, physically and psychologically tortured.

This is to say nothing of the barbaric siege of Gaza, or the decades of ongoing theft, evictions, assaults on education, confiscation of land, demolition of homes, color coded permit system, arbitrary imprisonment, restriction of movement, checkpoints, extrajudicial executions, torture, and denials at every turn squeezing Palestinians into isolated ghettos.

None of that seemingly matters.

 Source

International media ignore Israel’s abduction of Palestinian teens

In the first ten days of June, seventeen teenage boys were abducted in the occupied West Bank. The youngest was thirteen, the oldest seventeen.

Some were dragged at gunpoint from their homes and family in the middle of the night; others were seized from the streets in broad daylight.

All of the abductions were documented by the Palestinian Monitoring Group. None were reported by the international media. No Western politicians called for the release of the boys.

On 12 June, three more teenage boys went missing in the West Bank. Their disappearance sparked worldwide media coverage, cries of terrorism and demands for their release by the US Secretary of State and the UK Foreign Secretary.

Those three are Israeli. The seventeen others are Palestinian.

And, if the case of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, taken by Palestinian forces in Gaza in 2006 and released in 2011, is any indication, Western interest in the case of these three Israelis will not wane until they are found.

Source

Whose Sharia Is It? by Kecia Ali

It has been a lousy month for Islamic law.

First, there was the kidnapping and threatened sale of Nigerian girls by Boko Haram, which claimed religious acceptability for their acts. As Muslim theologian Jerusha Lamptey opined, this is not my sharia.

Then, the Sultan of Brunei’s horrific new penal code came into effect. Unlike the Nigerian girls, where a social media campaign garnered White House attention, the Brunei law gained visibility because the Sultan–who is dictating law that his track record suggests he does not observe–indirectly owns the famous Beverly Hills Hotel. Hollywood figures have objected to the rules, due to come into effect next year, which would punish proven male-male anal sex with death. (As far as I know, the code does not prescribe any particular punishment for lesbian acts, though the rhetoric has become that the new law prescribes “stoning gays and lesbians.”)

Claims like that of the Sultan or Boko Haram that “Islam” demands implementation of “sharia” ignore the complex reality in which there is not now nor has there ever been a uniform set of identifiable rules that Muslim scholars have agreed on much less that governments in Muslim majority countries have implemented over the centuries. As I wrote elsewhere, so-called sharia laws on the books in Brunei, Nigeria, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Morocco are not directly revealed by God. They are human products with human histories negotiated in human contexts. The pretense that these laws are straightforward implementations of God’s will not only serves to justify these otherwise unjustifiable rules but also feeds the demonization and dehumanization of Muslims. Though happening on two continents and perpetrated by two quite distinct sorts of actors – a multibillionaire monarch enmeshed in global capitalism and a militant anti-Western, anti-government insurgency – the Nigerian kidnapping and the Brunei law became exhibits A and B for the vilification of sharia.

And then I heard an NPR story about Sudan’s intended flogging and execution of Meriam Ibrahim for apostasy and illicit sex. My first response, as someone who writes and teaches about Islamic law and is committed to understanding it in all its historical complexity: how barbaric.

That was followed by resignation. Why bother to advocate for more sophisticated understandings of Islamic law? What is the use in pointing out that the claims of timelessness authenticity are groundless? So what if these versions of Islamic law are selective, partial, implemented by dictators with populist pretensions and monarchs with captive constituencies? They still apply it. And yes, it’s true that Americans generally aren’t interested in threats to Muslim lives or well-being or African lives or well-being except when there is a sensational story to be made (drone attacks don’t cut it). Doesn’t matter; this is still happening, and it’s wrong.

My “what’s the use?” phase shifted into the simmering anger phase once I began to think about why exactly this version of Islamic law holds sway. It’s patriarchy straight down the line.

The charge of apostasy is based on the claim that Ibrahim was born Muslim: her religion follows that of her (Muslim) father, who left her (Christian) mother when Ibrahim was young. She was apparently raised Christian. Patriarchy allows interreligious marriage between a Muslim man and a Christian woman, but not the reverse, and supports the presumption that the child’s religion follows that of its father.

The charge of illicit sex for which Ibrahim has been sentenced to lashes results from the court deeming her marriage to a Christian man void. Since she is considered Muslim (because of her father’s religion), and since, unlike the situation in her parents’ marriage, marriage between a Muslim woman and a Christian man cannot be valid, the court determined that she had sex outside of marriage. Her toddler, and the child growing in her belly, prove her offense. Score another one for patriarchy.

According to reports, Ibrahim’s case was brought to the attention of the authorities by some relatives (presumably Muslim ones) who objected to her marriage to a Christian. As far as the charge of illicit sex goes, a premodern court would almost certainly have applied the doubt rule: essentially, if there are anygrounds for exoneration – such as the fact that the woman thought her marriage was valid – avert the punishment. Apostasy, too, seems to have been seldom punished in practice, however strongly the rule was upheld in theory. One can make a case that as with Brunei’s new penal code or the Boko Haram kidnapping, the Sudanese verdict represents a modern and profoundly problematic view of Islamic law.

At the moment, though, I am less interested in insisting on the nuance and variability of traditional Islamic law and more on critiquing its powerful patriarchal presuppositions. However tempered they were in past practice by judicial clemency, they lay the ground for the charges against Ibrahim. Of course we need to remember that context matters: we will not understand these developments in Nigeria or Brunei or the Sudan without reference to national and global politics, economics, and – in the last case – individual family dynamics; Islamic law is only part of the picture. And yet it is a key piece of the picture. Rethinking Islamic law without questioning its basic presumptions about male dominance will not take us nearly far enough.

Whose sharia is this? It is certainly not mine. I cannot believe that it is God’s.

Kecia Ali, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor of Religion at Boston University where she teaches a range of classes related to Islam. She writes on early Islamic law, women, ethics, and biography. Her books include Sexual Ethics and Islam: Feminist Reflections on Qur’an, Hadith, and Jurisprudence (2006), Marriage and Slavery in Early Islam (2010), Imam Shafi’i: Scholar and Saint (2011) and The Lives of Muhammad (due out this fall). She lives in the Boston area with her family.

 Source

Ayaan Hirsi Ali and the Double-Bind of Muslim Women’s Rights

 Great artice by Rochelle Terman.

To be clear: There are plenty of great reasons to reject Hirsi Ali for an honorary degree besides the fact that she represents one extreme of the double-bind. Contrary to the claims by right-wing pundits, Hirsi Ali was rejected for an honorary degree at Brandeis University because she espouses deplorable positions, not because she’s a “critic of Islam.” And we need not invalidate or belittle her personal experience with gender violence to find her political positions and actions deplorable.

Take, for instance, her bigotry (She calls Islam “a destructive, nihilistic cult of death” and called Islamophobia a “myth”); or her militarism (“we are at war with Islam” and must “crush” the enemy with force); of course, her paranoia and fear-mongering (“there is infiltration of Islam in the schools and universities of the West”) is also illustrate of her unworthiness.  There is also her hypocrisy (she’s a self-purported advocate for free speech but advocates the abolition of Muslim schools, saying “All Muslim schools. Close them down.”) And her apologetic stance towards right-wing terrorism, extremism, and fascism (she said Norwegian terrorist Anders Breivik’s views were “censored” and that  “he had no other choice but to use violence”) is yet another indicator of her views and politics.

These are the legitimate grounds upholding the reversal of Hirsi Ali’s honorary degree, not airing our dirty laundry. The real issue in the Brandeis debate is (or should be) her and not how people might interpret her.

Full article.

Nouman Ali Khan - Signs of a Hypocrite

Special Hijab tutorial: Hides everything! Most modest for brothers!

I am a man and I totally I agree with this. I have heard so many brothers moaning about the sisters hijab/lack of hijab/lax hijab etc they never moan about domestic violence, misogyny, oppression, sexual violence, harrassment or the blantant disregard for womens rights in their midst. These are the munafiqeen of today.