Helsingin Sanomat Islamic misogyny Taqqiya

HS Journalist Annamari Sipilä Allows Taqiyya Spin Meister to Ply Her Trade…….

Azizah Y. al-Hibri was interviewed by HS journalist Annamari Sipilä in Brussels, in which the interview in today’s Helsingin Sanomat can be summed up as an exercise in the crafted art of Taqiyya, which is an act of hypocrisy that serves to conceal the truth.

The message being disseminated by al-Hibri is that Islam actually affords Muslim women with the same equal status of their male counterparts, but that the conservative Muslim religious leaders misuse the Qur’an to their own (male) advantage.

NOTE: This is the same woman who “maintainted at the U.N.’s “Islamophobia Day” that Islam was always “peaceful” and “unaggressive,” aside from the fact of conquest explaining the entire history of the spread of Islam.”

I admonish everyone reading this pick up a copy of Prof.efraim Karsh’s book, “Islamic Imperialism, A History and Dr.Andrew Bostom’s The Legacy of Jihad. These two books alone prove through solid scholarship that al-Hibri is speaking empty platitudes about Islam. She claims in the interview that:

“muslimien pyhä kirja on tasa-arvon kannalla. “Todellisuus on tietysti aivan toista”, hän myönsi. / the Muslim holy book is about equality. The reality is of course completely different, she admits”

But their is absolutely no truth to al-Hibri’s statement. As Robert Spencer just mentioned in an article in yesterday’s Front Page Mag:

Rather than regarding women as human beings equal to men, the Qur’an likens a woman to a field (tilth), to be used by a man as he wills: “Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will” (2:223).

The Qur’an also declares that a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man: “Get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her” (2:282).

It allows men to marry up to four wives, and have sex with slave girls also: “If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice”
(4:3).

It rules that a son’s inheritance should be twice the size of that of a daughter: “Allah (thus) directs you as regards your children’s (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females” (4:11).

Worst of all, the Qur’an tells husbands to beat their disobedient wives: “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” (4:34).

The interview continues in the same vein, with her assertion that it’s the Muslim male’s interpritation of the Qur’an that is the problem, not the Qur’an itself.

“Al-Hibrin mielestä Koraani antoi omaisuudenjakoon yksiselitteiset ohjeet. Kaksi muuta olivat hetken mietittyään samaa mieltä. Mutta kun tuli tuomion julistamisen aika, miestuomarit halusivat langettaa – ei Koraanin mukaisen – vaan aviomiehen edun mukaisen tuomion. “He tunsivat naisten oikeudet, mutta halusivat silti suosia miestä, jottei ongelmia syntyisi”, al-Hibri kertoi.

Translation: “In al-Hibri’s opinion, the Qur’an gives the division of property in unambiguous terms. Two others were of the same opinion. But when it came time to announce the judgement, the male judges delivered a verdict- not according to the Qur’an- but in favor of the husband. “They recognized women’s rights, but wanted to anyways favor the man, so that no problems would arise”, said al-Hibri.”

But the Qur’an states very clearly that: A woman is worth one-half a man. (2:282) or that “Males are to inherit twice that of females. (4:11)

If the judges were predisposed to render a verdict in favor of the man, it’s in part due to the fact that the Qur’an itself steers the thinking of the males to deliver a friendly verdict to the members of their own sex. Al-Hibri goes on further to add:

“Naisille on valehdeltu (islamista). Naisten ääni ei kuulu.” / Women have been lied to (in Islam). A women’s voice is not heard.”

Well it comes back to the issue of a highly misogynist Qur’an and Hadiths that are believed to have originated from on high, therefore cannot be changed and thusly predetermine most rulings against women. Al-Hibri is just refusing to accept that fact of reality. Here’s one last quote:

“Mutta omien aivojenkin käyttö on sallittua. On järjetöntä soveltaa Koraania kirjaimellisesti vuonna 2008, al-Hibri uskoo. “Jumala antoi meille kaikille aivot. Siksi islaminuskoiset eivät tarvitse paavia”, hän heitti.”

Translation: “the use of our own brains is permitted. It’s ridiculous to apply the Qur’an literally in 2008, al-Hibri believes. God gave us all brains. Therefore believers in Islam do not need a Pope”, she adds”.

This is one portion in which I am in agreement with her. The Qur’an shouldn’t be applied literally in the present age, but it is, and by the overwhelming majority of the Islamic world. Al-Hibri faces an upward struggle of momentous porportions to convince any of her co-religionists to believe anything otherwise. *L* KGS

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *