Mazen al-Sarsawi: "[B]eat her on the spot with the rod . . ."

Mazen al-Sarsawi

(Image from Memri)

Newsweek's Rana Foroohar tells us in "Hear Them Roar" that "Female dissidents are rewriting the rules in countries where they can't even show their faces" (April 9, 2010), and that includes Egypt:

Women in the developing world are far more prepared to take up the struggle than previous generations did. In many developing economies, there are now as many girls as boys in primary and secondary school, with particular gains in countries such as Iran, India, Egypt, and China.

If so, these girls have their work cut out for them in the land of the pyramids, for Memri brings us the antediluvian views of the Egyptian cleric Mazen al-Sarsawi, who praises 'real' men like the seventh-century contemporary of the Caliph Abu Bakr, a man named Zubeir (or Zubayr). The man's complete name is Zubeir bin 'Awam and I assume that he is the same al-Zubeir Ibn al-Awam who assisted in the construction of the A'mr Mosque in Fustat, Egypt. At any rate, al-Sarsawi tells us approvingly about this Zubeir's manner of dealing with women:

He had two wives, and whenever he would get mad at them, he would tie them together by the hair and would give them a harsh beating, in order to straighten them out. The wife who shared Zubeir with Asmaa [the daughter of the Caliph Abu Bakr] was savvy, and during the beating, she would move right and left, so all the blows would rain down on Asmaa.

Asmaa would turn to her father, all upset. Abu Bakr would say to her: "Go back to your husband." She would say: "But he beat me black and blue, even though I didn't do a thing. He had no reason, I didn't say a word. It was the other wife. You know me -- I didn't do a thing, but I was the one who got all the beatings." But Abu Bakr would say to her: "Go back to Zubeir. He is a good man, and he may become your husband in Paradise."

Great husband, this Zubeir, who might generously provide an eternity of beatings in Paradise. Wonderful father, too -- it seems -- this early Caliph, Abu Bakr. And, of course, Mazen al-Sarsawi is a fine example of a sensitive, understanding man, citing such traditions. Not that he is against love:

True, there are homes where there is love, and Islam decrees this . . . .

That will solve everything, of course. Just decree the necessity of love . . . very tough love. If that doesn't work, according to al-Sarsawi, who claims to be citing early Muslim traditions:

[U]se the rod on her. If she doesn't behave beat her on the spot . . . restrain her . . . . If she bothers you -- if something annoys you, or if you suspect anything -- beat her on the spot with the rod. Break her head.

Obvious to any fair-minded observer is the fact that al-Sarsawi hates women and cites as justification early Muslim traditions of other men who hated women.

Ms. Foroohar may be right about the liberatory role of women "in countries where they can't even show their faces," but I'd suggest that those women still have a long way to go if the likes of Mazen al-Sarsawi can teach on such television stations as Al-Nas TV (January 7, 2010). Many Islamist clerics attempt to soften Sura 4:34 of the Qur'an, arguing that its advocacy of wife-beating means little more than a light tap with the finger or with a twig no bigger than a toothbrush, but with al-Sarsawi, the 'nice' mask slips entirely off.

I admit that my sarcasm about al-Sarsawi is rather heavy, unlike the light irony that I generally prefer, but the man is a cruel misogynist who not merely defends but actively advocates -- and even urges -- brutality against women.

I wonder how he'd like being tied by his beard to another Islamist and beaten black and blue by the likes of Zubeir.

Why Islamists Will Lose

Abu Yahya al-Liby

"the entire world must be ruled by Islam"

(Image from MEMRI)

I've previously mentioned the Islamist Abu Yahya al-Liby in this blog, for he's the one who seems to have approved of human sacrifice in Islam. Here's what I wrote based on a statement from al-Liby translated by Memri:

In perusing words from the transcript of a statement by Al-Qaeda Member Al-Liby, I've come across another one of those jihadist remarks that seem to cast suicide jihadism in terms of human sacrifice, as indicated by this money quote:

"this form of worship [i.e. jihad] can only exist through the blood of those who sacrifice their souls for [Islam]..."

In effect, Al-Liby seems to be saying that the external, military jihad is a type of worship that takes the form of blood sacrifice through its martyrs.

Now, thanks again to Memri, I've come upon another remarkably blunt statement by Al-Liby about jihad, a statement that he made in August 2007 in which he states rather too forthrightly for his own interests the real aim of Al-Qaeda:

We are not like those people who draw a distinction between types of jihad -- permitting and supporting it against the Jews in Palestine, and forbidding and preventing it in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Algeria, and elsewhere. Jihad, which is the highest form of dissociation from non-Muslims, should be waged against the Jews, like it should be waged against the Christians, the Zoroastrians, the Hindus, and the apostates.

[...]

We fight all the polytheists, just like they fight us all. We do not limit ourselves in this. We do not restrict ourselves to one type [of infidels] or to one region. This [jihad] will continue until they all submit to the religion of Allah, yield to its laws, and surrender to its rule.

In short, Al-Qaeda is after everybody who's either not Muslim or not Muslim enough. I guess that the attack on the World Trade Center wasn't specifically because of US foreign policy after all, for Al-Qaeda's jihad extends everywhere throughout the world.

Al-Liby is even thoughtful enough to explain the method:

Yes, we believe that the entire world must be ruled by Islam, and no grain of soil should be made an exception, because the Prophet Muhammad was sent to all people without exception. This does not mean, however, that we must fight all peoples of the world at once, in order to subject them to Islamic law. Islam did not command us to do so. Islam commanded us to fight the closest and then the next, from among the people who refuse to submit to the rule of Islam. We should move from the closest to the next, and widen the circle, until all people submit to the rule of Allah. We are now at the beginning of the road, when we try to regain the lands taken over by the infidels, from among the Jews, the Christians, their apostate supporters, and treacherous rulers.

For al-Liby -- and I presume that he's speaking here for Al-Qaeda -- the jihad is religiously motivated, even religiously mandated, so any attack upon infidels follows primarily from the belief that infidels must submit to Islam.

Obviously, infidels aren't going to look very kindly upon Al-Qaeda after hearing statements of this sort. And since most Muslims aren't strict enough for Al-Qaeda's salafi brand of Islam, they'll probably react much as the Anbar tribes did in deciding to expell Al-Qaeda in Iraq from their midst. In Baghdad, too, some Muslims are strongly critical of what Al-Qaeda and other Islamist groups have been doing. According to an article in the New York Times, Muhammad Wehiab, a 30-year-old Shiite imam residing in the the Baghdad neighborhood of Bab al-Sheik, has expressed some radical views:

One of them is that Muslims have behaved terribly toward one another in the war here and have given Islam a bad name in using it to gain power. "I don't blame those guys who drew the cartoons," Wehiab said, referring to the Danish caricatures of the prophet Muhammad that provoked riots and protests across the Islamic world last year.

"Muslims are the ones to be blamed," he said, sitting in an armchair in his quiet living room. "They have given them this picture...."

Wehiab's friend, a Sunni cleric, holds a similar view. "The greatest jihad is the jihad of yourself." (Sabrina Tavernise and Karim Hilmi, "An oasis from politics amid the turmoil in Baghdad," The New York Times, November 13, 2007)

In other words, the greatest jihad should be a struggle against one's own evil impulses. I don't assume that these two clerics reject the so-called 'lesser' jihad of military force, but give them credit for refusing to exculpate Muslims for the negative image of Islam that is currently developing in the world.

This negative image is widespread and will spread even more widely as people learn such statements as those by al-Liby about a religiously motivated jihad aimed at subjecting the entire world to salafi Islam.

Saudi Cleric Salman Al-Odeh Slams Osama bin Laden

Salman al-Odeh

Ex-friend of Bin Laden?

(Image from Islam Online)

I've been sitting on this old news because I didn't know enough about Salman al-Odeh (aka Salman al-Oadah aka Salman al-Ouda aka Salman al-Awdah).

I first read of al-Odeh's condemnation of Osama bin Laden's terrorism in an article at MEMRI:

"I say to my brother Osama [bin Laden]: How much blood has been shed, and how many innocent people, children, elderly, and women have been killed, displaced, or banished in the name of Al-Qaeda? Would you be pleased to meet Allah while you bear responsibility for hundreds or even millions of people?" ("Saudi Cleric Salman Al-Odeh Slams 'Brother' Osama bin Laden," MEMRI, Special Dispatch Series, September 20, 2007, No. 1717)

According to Fawaz A. Gerges, writing for Yale Global:, this is a first for al-Odeh:

"Although al-Oadah and other senior Muslim scholars condemned the 9/11 attacks, they had refrained from direct criticism of bin Laden. With al-Oadah's new frontal assault on the elusive Al Qaeda leader, any ambiguity vanished. He holds bin Laden personally accountable for the occupation of Muslim lands in Afghanistan and Iraq, displacement of millions of Iraqis, killings of thousands of Afghans, internment and torture of promising and deluded young Muslims, and a tarnished image of Islam all over the world." (Fawaz A. Gerges, "Disowned by Mentor, Bin Laden Seeks New Pastures," Yale Global, 19 September 2007)

Gerges says that al-Odeh had previously "condemned the 9/11 attacks," but I haven't yet seen that condemnation, so I cannot comment upon it. Al-Odeh's current criticism seems clear enough:

"My brother Osama, what happened on 9/11 was the killing of several thousands, maybe less than 3,000, who died aboard the planes and in those towers, whereas there are unknown preachers, through whom Allah has guided hundreds of thousands of people, who have been enlightened by the light of Islam, and whose hearts have been filled with the love of Allah. Is the difference not clear between one who kills and one who gives life?" (MEMRI)

Al-Odeh may be concerned for his own soul, for he writes further, asking Bin Laden:

"Are [you] determined to come to power, even if it is over the bodies of thousands and hundreds of thousands of policemen, soldiers, ordinary Muslims, or innocent people who are sometimes killed -- and then you say that they will be resurrected according to their intentions. Indeed they will, but the question is how we shall be resurrected, and how we shall appear when we meet our God, when so much blood has been shed under our patronage, whether we like it or not." (MEMRI)

Gerges quotes al-Odeh as pleading to Allah:

"O Allah! I plead my innocence to You from what Osama is doing, and from those who affiliate themselves to his name or work under his banner." (Gerges, "Disowned by Mentor")

One wonders what has taken al-Odeh so long to condemn Bin Laden, especially since he seems so concerned here about the blood "shed under our patronage." Perhaps he only gradually came to his conclusions, for he was one of the 26 Saudi scholars signing a fatwa in November 2004 that endorsed resistance in Iraq:

Without a doubt, fighting the occupiers is a duty of [all] who [are] able. It is a "defense jihad," and it comes under the law of rebutting the aggressor. It does not require a jihad of initiative or demand. It [defense jihad] does not require leadership but is employed as much as possible, as God said: "Be as pious as much as you can." (cf. the ninth signatory Salman Ben Fahd Al Awda to "Open Sermon to the Militant Iraqi People," Frontline (Third Summary Point))

Even earlier, prior to the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, al-Odeh is said to have been aligned with Bin Laden:

The clerics, Safar Hawali and Salman Ouda, were identified in the first World Trade Center bombing trial as spiritual advisers to bin Laden. (Susan Schmidt, "Spreading Saudi Fundamentalism in U.S.," Washington Post, October 2, 2003, Page A01)

Moreover, a report by Dan Darling in The Weekly Standard suggests rather close relations:

While al-Ouda has long been characterized as a "friend" of Osama bin Laden, federal investigators told the Seattle Post-Intelligencer in March 2003 that he and al-Hawali "have direct contact" with Osama bin Laden. In a number of al Qaeda propaganda videos, bin Laden has praised al-Ouda for "enlightening" the Muslim youth as well as for his support of jihadi causes. (Dan Darling, "Jihad TV," The Weekly Standard, March 24, 2006)

Darling also notes:

There is evidence connecting al-Ouda to one of the suspected masterminds of the 2004 Madrid train bombings. In September 2004, El Mundo and Corriere della Sera reported that Rabei Osman Ahmed, a former Egyptian army explosives expert and one of the purported masterminds of the bombings, was quoted in conversations wiretapped by Italian authorities as saying that al-Ouda was "Everything, everything" to him and that "I worked for him [al-Ouda] in Spain. I did really well in that period, in which I earned 2,000 euros ($2,400) a month. There were days I earned 1,000 euros ($1,200)." (Darling, "Jihad TV")

I suppose that all of this is hearsay, rumor, circumstantial evidence, and lack of proof, but it doesn't seem to leave clear distance between al-Odeh and Bin Laden. Sheikh al-Odeh, therefore, may be concerned about more than his soul in his recent attempt at a clean break from Bin Laden.

I wonder, as well, if the Anbar Awakening phenomenon has influenced al-Odeh. Al-Qaeda tortured and killed so many Sunni Muslims in the western, Anbar region of Iraq that the former insurgents there have turned against Al-Qaeda and aligned themselves with the Americans for the purpose of eliminating Al-Qaeda from Anbar. Sheikh al-Odeh cannot expect much influence among Iraqi Sunnis so long as his name is tainted by an association with Bin Laden and his organization. Moreover, al-Odeh may now be deeply concerned about a potential loss of Sunni power to the Shi'ites in Iraq and the entire Gulf region unless the Sunnis concentrate less upon ideological purity and more upon Realpolitik.

Meaning: explicitly ditch Bin Laden, implicitly support the Sunnis, and discreetly quieten down about the Americans ... for a while.