The Double Standard When It Comes To Women
How A Bank In The Netherlands Terminated A Feminist Group's Account But Supports Islam
On September 9th, 2020 the website Henry Jackson Society issued the following statement after they were successfully sued by Huda TV for libel.
In the Report published by the Henry Jackson Society titled ‘Extremism on the Airwaves’, authored by Emma Webb and published on 21 November 2018, and in an accompanying news release and a summary on our website, we identified Huda Television Limited as one of the channels that we stated “have faced an ‘insufficient’ and ‘concerning’ lack of regulatory scrutiny” in the UK. In particular we stated that a number of articles appearing on the website www.huda.tv were published by Huda Television Limited and that its channel regularly publishes content containing Islamist extremist subject matter. This was incorrect. The articles were in fact published by a separate Egyptian based entity called Huda TV, which operates the website www.huda.tv. No such content appears on Huda Television Limited’s website (www.hudatv.co.uk).
Further, we stated in the Report that nine identified extremist speakers, whose profiles were listed on the website www.huda.tv, had appeared on Huda Television Limited’s channel. This was incorrect in relation to the majority of the speakers identified. We also accept that it was wrong to suggest that Huda Television Limited almost ubiquitously hosts well-known extremist speakers.
We apologise to Huda Television Limited for all the incorrect statements made, and in light of this, we have agreed to pay Huda Televison Limited damages and legal costs. We also accept that these matters were not a basis for stating that Huda Television Limited should have faced greater regulatory scrutiny.
Now lest I be sued for libel I am not going to accuse Huda TV, it’s board or any of its presenters of extremism, specifically Islamic terrorism. As far as I am concerned they are just as free to present whatever they want no matter how controversial the subject matter is. In fact, I welcome the views they present as such content makes for a healthy and robust societal discussion.
Nor am I going to suggest that Huda TV should face greater regulatory scrutiny, any more than say a BBC or Thames TV solely on the basis that they be subject to extra scrutiny because they are Muslim - this is Islamophobia and it’s wrong to single out any one religion because you think they might be up to no good.
Nobody should ever be subject to any more (or any less) regulatory or legal scrutiny as we should all be seen and treated equally under the law.
I’m also going to go the record to tell you all what I like about Huda TV after having watched hours of it: I especially find the Arabic language lessons to be excellent, the calligraphy lessons in particular so I find it to be highly educational.
And the cooking shows are pretty good.
Now having said all that I am going to take this opportunity to voice my criticism about Islam, specifically how it is repressive to women and that I bring up Huda TV is not central to this story but is an example in a broader sense of how Islam treats women.
To be clear: in every major religion there are elements that can be considered extreme from Christianity, Hindus, Jews and even Buddhists but the world’s attention is mostly fixated on Islam as Islam seems to have grabbed the lion’s share of the headlines.
The rigid laws of Islam have deprived half of the population of their basic human rights. The male is in charge of the female: Koran 4:34, and the subjugated half is led to believe, through Islamic teachings, that the supremacy of the man is the will of Allah, and it has been predestined for women to live as submissive, obedient wives.
Family law in these countries generally follows the prescriptions of Koran. Veiling (hijab), divorce laws, a very young legal age of marriage, custody of children, polygamy, women’s rightlessness in matters of employment, travelling, choosing the place of residence, honor killing are all aspects of Islamic Shari’a based on the Koran and Islam’s doctrine. Together with these, in countries under the Islamic states, women are stoned to death for engaging in voluntary sexual relations and are stripped of their basic human rights.
Whereas under Western laws women and men are equal, under Shari’a women are not equal to men, but are considered inferior. Women are the object of many disparaging remarks in the earliest Islamic source texts, which form the basis for Sharia.
Under Shari’a:
Wives can be beaten.
Females enjoy fewer rights than males.
Marriage and intercourse with pre-pubescent girls is permitted.
Wives do not share the same divorce rights as husbands.
Females in positions of rule and authority are frowned upon.
Wives must be subservient to their husbands.
Women are deemed lacking in intelligence.
Raping female captives is permitted.
Consider divorce. According to the Koran and Islamic law, a man has the right to terminate his marriage whenever and wherever he pleases. It is the absolute power of a Muslim male to repudiate his wife unilaterally at his discretion. He needs no reason for a divorce; a family quarrel or bad temper is sufficient. Divorce does not require any court, judge, lawyer, or counselor. One phrase from a husband is enough to break the marriage bond: “you are divorced.”
The Koran states:
“If ye wish to exchange one wife for another¦.”
(4:20), giving the absolute power to the man to repudiate his wife and marry another without any formalities. In fact more than two dozens verses in Allah’s scripture explain the modes of divorce (Koran 2: 226, 227, 228, 230 -37, 241, 242; 4: 19-21, 130; 33: 49; 58: 3, 4; 63: 1-7; 4: 35).
According to Islamic law, when a man wishes to divorce his wife, all he has to do is to say: “you are divorced,” or “you are dismissed.” In the second half of the 20th century, based on some legal changes in some of the Middle Eastern countries, men are required to be present in family courts and repudiated their wives before a judge. A man may divorce a wife and call her back up to three times. After the third repudiation, he cannot take her back again unless she marries and is separated from someone else first.
Fear of poverty keeps many women locked in bad marriages, as does the prospect of losing their children. Typically, fathers win custody of boys over the age of six and girls after the onset of puberty.
A woman can sue for divorce in the Islamic court on the specific grounds, such as the impotency of her husband, non-payment of maintenance, or his insanity. Cruelty is not sufficient grounds for divorce because wife beating is enjoined in the Koran. When a woman applies to the court for an injunction of divorce, and the husband is not willing to repudiate her, the procedure can be very lengthy and in most cases is futile.
The offering of financial consideration of some sort is commonly the repayment of the bride- price. When the marriage is contracted, a sum of money is stipulated to be paid by the husband to the wife or her male kinsmen before or after the wedding. This is called mahr (bride price), which means marriage settlement or dowry.
A man who divorces his wife must pay the full amount of the bride- price. When the wife agrees to buy her freedom, it is called khula in Arabic, which means something belonging to the wife is taken away from her. “There is no sin for either of them if the woman ransom herself.” (Koran 2:229) The text of the scripture makes clear that the wife is actually paying money to her husband to get her freedom.
This is ransom money, reminiscent of the ancient Arabian nomad’s rite, which allowed the release of the booty or captive of the raids after receiving a ransom or head price. Thus, in Islam a man actually buys his wife when he bargains over the mahr and sells his wife’s freedom back to her when a financial settlement is paid for by her for a divorce.
As for marriage and intercourse with pre-pubescent girls, at the age of 9, based on lunar year (when a girl is actually 8 years and 8 months) she is considered an adult and has to pray, fast and cover herself by hijab and eligible to be married. Mohammad’s favorite wife, Aisha; according to evidence, was 6 when Mohammad met her, and nine when the marriage consummated.
Women are not given custody of their own children under Shari’a even if their father dies. In the case of divorce or death, she surrenders her children to their father and /or his family.
The worst codification of Shari’a is, without a doubt, the practice known as honor killings.
Every once in awhile the media erupts in outrage over the honor killing of a girl or woman - usually in the Middle East and South Asia. These stories, intermittently covered by international media outlets, are actually part of larger, global issue: honor based violence.
However, these acts of violence that we have come to call honor violence and honor killings, have no honor in them. There simply is no honorable basis for violence of any kind, but in particular, there is no basis for the kind of systemic violence against women that occurs in the name of honor.
Honor-based violence is violence, plain and simple, and it is primarily violence directed at women.
But it is violence perpetrated with the goal of restoring or protecting the honor of oneself, family, or community. Due to social norms that devalue women as individuals and human beings, honor violence is mostly committed against women and girls. It is committed as a punishment and redemption for the perceived shame or disgrace a woman has brought upon her family and/or community.
The victim’s family members, who believe they have been disgraced, are generally the perpetrators of honor violence, so it is sometimes compared to domestic violence. However, acts of domestic violence do not typically have the same shame or honor motivation and are usually committed by an individual. Honor violence, on the other hand, may be committed by several people or result from a collective effort, and aims to secure familial control over a girl or woman’s behavior.
Acts of honor-based violence include female genital mutilation, acid attacks, forced marriage, as well as many other forms of physical, sexual, and psychological abuse.
But the most extreme form of honor violence is honor killing - the murder of girls and women by their own mothers, fathers, and brothers. Both immediate and extended family members, seeking to reclaim their honor, are frequently involved in the killings. Honor killings may also be ordered by community leaders or tribal councils, a pressing problem in places like Pakistan.
And what could be so shameful as to warrant a death sentence? Nothing. There is nothing a woman can do that justifies honor violence. Yet girls and women are branded a disgrace and subsequently punished for so many reasons.
To wit:
A young Pakistani woman refused to marry the man her family chose for her, a man who was also her cousin. Instead, she eloped with a man she chose for herself. She was three months pregnant when a group of 20 people beat her to death with bricks - the mob included her father, brothers, and the cousin she jilted.
An Iraqi immigrant held a knife to his daughter’s throat while her mother and sister tied her down and beat her - because she spoke to a man. This was their way of preserving her virginity for her arranged marriage.
A father in Arizona ran his own daughter over with a Jeep for being “too Westernized” because “she liked make up ... hoped to be able to support herself” and rejected an arranged marriage to a man in need of a green card.
A tribal council ordered the murder of a Pakistani 15 year-old-girl because she helped her neighbor elope - she was drugged, strangled, and then burned to death.
Another 15-year-old girl died from severe burns on her face and chest after her own parents attacked her with acid. She had engaged in “illicit relations” with a boy and “wasn't coming to her senses so [her] parents threw acid on her to save their honor,” CNN was told.
These are only a handful of examples of murder and violence for so-called honor. Deviating from cultural or traditional norms and expectations - including choice of clothing, education, and employment - can incite honor-based violence. Expressing sexuality, having contact or engaging in sexual activity with the opposite sex (including rape), choosing one’s own spouse, rejecting an arranged marriage, fleeing a forced marriage, wanting to leave a marriage - all allegedly bring shame and dishonor to one’s family.
Bunq is being disingenuous when it says “We are strong advocates of human rights and are committed to equal treatment, equal opportunities and equal rights for all people. We believe in the power of diversity and do not tolerate any discrimination” because they obviously don’t hold women in any high regard and when they make statements like this I don’t believe them.
And neither should you.