Hirsi Ali and her errors

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2015/04/12/hirsi-ali-and-her-errors.html

Harun Yahya, Istanbul, Turkey

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, whose book, "Heretic : Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now?", was recently published, rose to fame through her undiluted opposition to Islam. 

Born in Somalia, Hirsi lived a difficult childhood that included her being subjected to female circumcision and a forced marriage. 

Later, she filed for asylum with the Netherlands and was accepted in a record two weeks due to her difficult situation. 

It was then that her metamorphosis started. 

With her introduction to Western society, she changed her name, her appearance, her faith, and became a staunch anti-Islamic figure. She was a welcome addition to anti-Islamic circles that were using every opportunity to incite tensions against Muslims. 

So much so that she entered the Dutch parliament with an anti-immigration party, secured book deals, appeared on CNN, wrote for Time magazine and was named one of the top 100 influential people in 2005 by Time. 

She was following a known route sometimes seen among members from the less-privileged parts of the world. These people tend to blame their former lives, faith, and culture in a desperate attempt to fit into their new environment. 

They start emulating everything Western — good or bad — and denounce everything from their past. Most of the time, this behavior makes them famous, and incidentally makes them rich too; either in the form of book deals or a political career.

Ali met the expectations of the Islamophobic circles and hastily began telling horror stories about Islam. She blamed Islam for every fault she could find in today’s world including traditions and superstitions. 

She liked the attention too much to give thought to such things like fairness or justice.  

Her dislike of Islam was so strong, even though she was once a refugee in need, she didn’t hesitate to defend anti-immigration policies to restrict the entry of less-privileged and vulnerable people to Europe.  

Since she enjoys lots of coverage in the mainstream media, her errors and deceptions about Islam need to be clarified:

She claims that women are oppressed in Islam. It is true that in many Muslim countries women face lots of difficulties. 

However, the problem in the Muslim world stems from false hadiths and superstitions that emerged over centuries after the revelation of the Koran. 

Islam offers true respect and value to women. For instance, in the event of a divorce, God ensures that they are always taken care of and never left in a needy position. 

Or, in case of conflicting statements with the husband, the wife’s word supersedes the husband’s. 

In the Koran, Mary, mother of Jesus, is shown as a role model not just for women, but for all of humanity.   

The Prophet Muhammad’s wife, Khadija, was a woman of a strong character, running her own business and dealing with society at large. 

God gives equal responsibilities to men and women and promises the same reward to both of them.

Hırsi claims that violence is a part of Islam. Yet this problem stems from the superstitions that emerged after the revelation of the Koran. 

The false manufactured hadiths led to emergence of justifications for violence. In truth, God orders absolute peace and love for the entire humanity and strictly forbids violence and hostility. 

There is no room for violence in Islam and the actions of Islamic radicals do not change this fact.  

In a cliché approach, she uses the word “jihad” in an attempt to vilify Islam. Contrary to popular belief, the word jihad means “making an effort”. 

The physical fight is described by the word qital, and according to the Koran, is permissible only as a defensive move and as a last resort. 

The fact that radicals misuse the word neither makes it right nor does it make it a part of Islam. 

Islam champions true democracy, freedom of thought and secularism. Muslims are ordered to invite people to the right path in the kindest manner, but leave the choice to them.  

While the mainstream Western media hails her as a hero, Hirsi doesn’t hesitate to go against everything that the Western world claims to stand for, like freedom of faith, freedom of thought, the right to human dignity, respect and protection.  

She says the Western world needs to be in a military war with Islam. 

Furthermore, she claims to oppose violence allegedly resulting from Islam, but expresses sympathy with Anders Behring Breivik, the mass-murdering terrorist who killed 77 people in Norway in 2011: “That one man, who killed 77 people in Norway because he fears Europe will be overrun by Islam, may have cited the work of those who speak and write against political Islam in Europe and in America.” 

He says very clearly that it was the advocates of silence. Because all outlets to express his views were censored, he says, he had no other choice but to use violence. 

She even says that there should be such a thing as the “right to offend”, and encourages offending Muslims in every way possible. She is clearly the outcome of radicalism. 

But Muslims must not repeat her mistake and blame her while ignoring the real problem. We need to understand our duty and come together to put an intellectual end to this wrong perception of Islam in the Western world. 

It is crucial that Muslims abide by the Koran completely to show how Islam values women, art, democracy and freedom. 

We need to show to the whole world that the real Islam in the Koran is the epitome of love and beauty. 

__________________

There is no room for violence in Islam and the actions of Islamic radicals do not change this fact.  

____________________

The writer has authored books on politics, religion and science.

Islamic peace force can stop Syria killings

Islamic peace force can stop Syria killings

BLOODLESS OPTION: Troops from Islamic countries, including Malaysia, will establish order in the country

THE world has been discussing for days whether Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad used chemical weapons. It is becoming increasingly clear that he did. More important, however, is the absolute destruction that has gone on for the last three years and, even more surprisingly, that much of the world has remained silent in the face of it.

This silent element is apparently not troubled by people being killed and is unconcerned by which weapons they are killed with. These are people who never turn to look at Syria even once, as almost nothing is left standing in the country, as millions of people are living as refugees in neighbouring countries, as murder and torture become an every day part of life and as, according to United Nations reports, more than 100,000 people have died.

We must not forget that a military intervention, especially a narrow and limited action, will not solve anything in Syria. What needs to be performed first is a rescue operation, and for the funds set aside for war to be directed to supporting the refugees.

Millions of dollars spent on ships, missiles, jets and bombs could be spent on rescuing the Syrian people and settling them in neighbouring countries. That rescue is essential to stop even one person from being harmed.

On the other hand, an American military intervention would probably cause even more pain. We need to see that the regime in Syria slaughters its own people without compunction, and that this regime has been bombing its own territory on an almost daily basis for the last three years. Now the United States coming in and raining bombs down on Syria will change nothing. The main aim in Syria, where hundreds of people are dying by the day, must be to stop the killing, not to punish Assad.

If the price of punishment is to be the deaths of civilians yet again, then nobody of good conscience and common sense can back it. Therefore, the wickedness in Syria must be stopped in such a way that not another single person is additionally harmed. There are two basic issues in Syria: the first is stopping the killings by the Ba'ath regime.

The second is the building of a Syria that supports peace and tranquillity in the wake of that evil. Both can only be realised through intervention by Islamic countries.

Although the US emphasises that it has no such intention, it will be perceived as an invading power by many groups in the region and will encounter some reaction. Moreover, the limited intervention it would make will not be enough to weaken Assad.

Scores of groups are active in Syria, with new ones springing up regularly, and it does not seem possible for the US to reconcile these and establish order.

However, if Islamic countries act together, this can all easily be established. A battalion of troops can be taken from a large numbers of countries -- such as Turkey, Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Qatar and Saudi Arabia and, most essentially from Iran -- and a kind of Islamic peace force can be set up very quickly.

It will be easy to put an end to the killing by entering Syria from 70 points. This force, supported by the US, the European Union and particularly Russia, can quickly ensure pacification in Syria.

This union made up of troops from Islamic countries will act as a peace force and enter Syria to protect the civilian population, not to wage war. The tanks will roll forward to establish peace, not to fire shells.

The Muslim population will feel secure since the advancing troops are themselves Muslims and will welcome those Muslim troops with joy. Since Iran will be part of this union, sectarian clashes can easily be prevented, and since Russia also supports it, the regime's forces will quickly surrender.

The order to be established once the bloodshed has been stopped must be a system equally represented by people of all sects, all faiths and all ideas.

All groups must abide by God's command in the Quran that "it is better for you to forgive" and contribute to the establishment of a democratic Syria.

No matter how accurate the bombs and missiles may be, it is inevitable that there will be civilian casualties. What is the logic behind preferring such a bloody solution when we have a decent, kind, and bloodless one available that is compatible with the Quran?

Adnan Oktar's article published on New Straits Time on September 12th, 2013: 

http://www.nst.com.my/opinion/columnist/islamic-peace-force-can-stop-syria-killings-1.354102#ixzz2qgTNIwDX

2014-01-17 13:04:41 

Dialogue is the only way forward

Dialogue is the only way forward

Following ratification of the ruling by the Malaysian Court of Appeals  that the name “Allah” can only be used by Muslims, Prime Minister Najib Razak once again defended the decision. What first needs to be said is that in the same way that this ruling is incompatible with the friendship of Christians and Muslims - who have lived together in Malaysia for many years -  it also conflicts with understanding of Islam itself.

Non-Muslims constitute some 40% of the population of Malaysia. The fact that copies of the Bible published in the Malay language 400 years ago used the term ‘Allah’ gives us a better idea of the problem to which this ban will lead. Alongside the question of social peace and understanding, there is no logic in religious terms in telling someone who uses the name ‘Allah’ that he must not do so. There is nothing troubling about a non-Muslim using the name Allah in prayer and worship; on the contrary, it is a cause for rejoicing for a Muslim. 

While this is going on in Malaysia, more interesting things are happening in Iran. No matter how much I say that there can be no solution until the deep state in Iran and Shiite extremism are eliminated, I still support all the initiatives, since the election of President Ruhani in Iran indicates a positive step forward for the region that will lead the way to peace and brotherhood. 

Following the election of Ruhani, major steps have been taken toward the dream of a freer Iran. Language denying the  Holocaust  is being abandoned, moderate messages from President Ruhani via Twitter on the occasion of  his U.S. visit, the telephone conversation between President Obama and President Ruhani, and President Ruhani ending his address to the U.N. by emphasizing the common values found in the Torah, the Gospels and the Qur’an are some of these strides forward. Another instance was added to these just the other day.

President Ruhani hosted Archbishop Leo Boccardi in his office. The message, accompanied by a photograph, that was published on Twitter following that meeting was exceedingly important. President Ruhani said:

“Today we have common objectives and enemies. Extremism and terrorism are our common enemies and, based on the divine teachings, human interactions and cooperation for the elimination of poverty and injustice are common objectives,” We need to have a deeper knowledge of each other’s beliefs and cultures, because nowadays, most of the gaps and enmities are rooted in unfamiliarity and lack of knowledge about each other’s cultures.”

President Ruhani’s words are actually a reflection of the moral values recommended by Islam. According to Islam, Christians and Jews are the People of the Book, and Muslims’ relations with the People of the Book are based on love and understanding. The faithfulness to the Prophet Jesus or the Prophet Moses of the People of the Book, and their loyalty to the Torah or the Gospels, are delightful things for Muslims.

Another important matter shaping Muslims’ relations with the People of the Book is that it is lawful in Islam for Muslims to eat food prepared by them, and Muslim men are allowed to marry women from the People of the Book. The fact that Allah encourages Muslims to engage in such social relations is clear proof that He wishes us to establish warm and high-level human relations with the People of the Book. Sitting down at the same table and raising children together by marrying and spending a lifetime together is a fine and appropriate response from Islam to those who strive to create division and sow disagreement between the two communities.

There may have been various conflicts and disagreements between members of the three divine faiths in the past. However, these did not originate from the essence of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, but from mistaken ideas and opinions on the part of nations, communities and individuals, and from expectations of political or economic gain. Otherwise, one of the common aims of the three divine faiths is for all people to live in peace, tranquility and security, and all opinions that reject that aim and encourage conflict are mistaken in the eyes of all three faiths.

The responsibility of sincere and sensible Christians, Jews and Muslims of good conscience is to assist one another against wickedness and wicked people, and to work together in union and togetherness. That union must be built on the basis of the principles of love, respect, affection, compassion, understanding, harmony and cooperation.

So let us be united and work together to eliminate all the causes that might lead to conflict and fighting. Let us strive together against the bigotry that hinders such an alliance. Let us love and watch over one another. Let us not make differences of belief into pretexts for conflict. Let us build upon our common beliefs for unity and togetherness.

Adnan Oktar's article in Malaysia Today

http://www.malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/guest-columnists/60350-dialogue-is-the-only-way-forward

The headscarf is not the issue, freedom is

The headscarf is not the issue, freedom is

The headscarf is not the issue, freedom is

Recently women’s rights as to wear a hijab or burqa in public spaces have become a matter of discussion in many countries of the world: Turkey is one of them.

In the last weeks, for the first time in the history of the 90 year old Turkish Republic, three female MPs entered the parliament wearing headscarves, and they did not face any reaction from the opposition parties. In this way, a very deep-seated problem was solved through political consensus.

However, a member of parliament who  made a similar attempt in 1999 was confronted  with strong reaction from the opposition, expelled from the parliament hall and this episode caused great tension nationwide.

However, a lot has changed in Turkey  and now women are granted their freedom to wear hijab both in public spaces and at universities. Nowadays there is a similar discussion underway in Singapore.

Meetings have taken  place between government officials and Islamic groups who demand the right to wear the hijab  for Muslim women who work in professions in the public sector that require a uniform like policing, nursing and the security services.

There are those who think that such a practice would injure  feelings of equality and justice as well as those who say that this must be allowed in the context of freedom of faith.

I have no doubt that Singapore, which harbours several religious groups and ethnic communities, will overcome this problem easily because the Muslim minority, which is 15% of the total population, has lived freely in the country for decades without facing any pressure or oppression.

However, this problem is not limited to Turkey and Singapore. Whether in Islamic or Western countries, hijab and burqa are still an  important matter of discussion.

For example, it is mandatory to wear hijab in Iran and in most of the Arab-owned airlines, hostesses have to wear a headscarf whether they are atheists or from another faith.

In Saudi Arabia, women are prohibited to drive. In Europe, there are often heated  discussions on this subject.

In countries like France, Belgium, Italy and Germany, there are limitations on wearing either the hijab or burqa in workplaces that belong to the public sector and even in open public spaces. Especially France, which has a Muslim population of five million, has very strict and serious limitations on this. Therefore, a majority of covered women has cut themselves off completely from social life.

Actually, limiting these discussions to wearing of the headscarf is one of the primary causes of the tension. When we see this as a matter of freedom, no doubt, a solution will be much  easier. Had the people who defended the rights of women wearing hijab defended the rights of women wearing low-cut dresses as much as they do regarding the headscarf issue, or vice versa, these problems would be solved in no time.

We should be troubled about women wearing low-cut dresses being treated as second class citizens and being indicted as “dirty and sinful” by bigots as much as we are about women wearing hijab being deprived of their rights to education and not being able to work in the jobs they want. We must consider the rights of all women within the context of religious freedom; the rights of Muslims, non-Muslims, atheists and Buddhists.

The way to prevent the matter of wearing of the hijab from becoming an artificial source of tension is not to open up discussions, marginalize those who don't wear hijab or establish an environment of  spiritual pressure  but rather to support freedom as much as possible.

It is important not to forget that the hijab is not the sole problem of women throughout the world.

For instance, one in every three women is exposed to violence at some time  in her life throughout the world; one woman is raped every 90 seconds and there are millions of women who are killed by their husbands; one in every two women is illiterate in the Arab world; women are not entitled to the right to divorce in countries like Iran; 80% of immigrants throughout the world are  women;1 and there are hundreds of problems like these that women face. When we look at Muslim countries we see that these problems are much more deeply-rooted.

What needs to be done is to abandon the mistaken point of view that women’s sole problem is wearing a headscarf and to strive for a change of mentality that will give women the value they deserve; especially in the Muslim world, when women are considered as second-class citizens and even as of equivalent value to animals, it is shutting one’s eyes to reality that Muslims are focused on a debate regarding the hijab.

Let’s first teach the entirety of  humanity “respect, love and compassion for women”, and talk about  “the importance of treating women like a flower” as it is revealed in the Quran.

Together, let’s eradicate the mentality that humiliates women by showing the superstitions in Islamic sources as evidence.

Let us show the whole world that women and men are equal in every way in the Quran. If we change this crooked mentality that has turned into a system of oppression against women through cooperation and with the spirit of Islam, no doubt debates such as the issue of the headscarf will disappear of their own accord.

Mr. Adnan Oktar's article on The Malaysian Insider

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/sideviews/article/the-headscarf-is-not-the-issue-freedom-is-harun-yahya