Abu Hatem أبو حاتم

Pro-Israel Palin?

abuhatem — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 21:21:32 +0000

An email from Kalim Kassam of the Canadian antiwar conservative publication The Western Standard. Thanks for the alert. I am also having more and more suspicions of Palin, although I think generally speaking - from what I have seen - it appears that she leans on the traditional conservative and libertarian sides, but she has very few on record statements on foreign policy. She may have been against American support of the Israeli occupation in the past, but there is no real record on this, and even if she was/is she will be changed into a neoconservative for this campaign by McCain. His advisers have already said to the Washington Post that we shouldn’t worry about Palin, because when she is veep she will “learn at the hand of the master.” Yes, the master warmonger, who didn’t even know what the difference was between Sunni and Shiite…

Kassam’s email attached:

Abu Hatem,

It’s not just the libertarian and paleo blogosphere that’s trying to suss out exactly where Palin stands on foreign policy issues. As you know, the neoconservatives and Israel-firsters have concerns too. Of course it’s unlikely that even this former Buchananite has (or at least will express) any anti-interventionist positions given her denial of supporting PJB (despite what Pat said on MSNBC), her vetting by Bill Kristol, and of course her acceptance of a VP slot under John ‘invade the world’ McCain, but her popularity within the “pro-Israel” community in Alaska is another indicator that she will prove to be no Ron Paul Republican. Boker Tov Israel links to this Jerusalem Post article from Saturday and concludes that she is at least as pro-Israel as PM Olmert. Some choice quotations:

“Sarah’s absolutely pro-Israel,” [Alaskan Republican Jewish Coalition member Terry Gorlick] said, referring to conversations with her and comments she’s made about Israel’s security and its importance to the United States. He noted that as governor she signed a resolution honoring Israel for its 60th birthday.”

“She has ties and interests in the Holy Land,” said [Alaska AIPAC chairman, David] Gottstein, and also described her as someone who could be effective across party lines, noting that he worked well with her despite [his] being a Democrat.”

I really do like Sarah Palin, and I fear I may be going too soft on McCain as a result - but I’m not expecting anything other than standard establishment internationalism from her anytime soon. I’ll be watching her convention speech carefully to see if she shows any signs of independence from McCain, but that just doesn’t seem likely at all.

In peace and liberty,

Kalim Kassam

General Manager
www.WesternStandard.ca

Share This

Peter Hitchens on Irresponsible Statesmenship

abuhatem — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 14:22:34 +0000

Peter Hitchens’ weekly column in today’s Daily Mail has a very good point on the so-called “new cold war” which deserves to be heeded:

And still they try to foment a new Cold War, though there’s no reason on earth for it. This is not just clueless, but actively dangerous. What would we do if we actually got one? Why, we’d lose it.

Yet baby politicians try to fuel careers by pretending, rather squeakily, to be Winston Churchill. First we have the teenage Tory leader fighting on the beaches in Georgia. Then we have the pubescent Foreign Secretary David Miliband rumbling empty threats in Ukraine.

Once we had people in politics who’d heard a bullet fly and seen what happens when that bullet strikes a human body. Now we have former TV PR men and propeller-headed policy wonks, who probably haven’t even been paintballing, playing at warmongering in a shaky world.

Share This

Scrapping interdependence for power politics

abuhatem — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 10:44:06 +0000

Gordon Brown is an idiot for calling for anti-market and anti-trade solutions of becoming “independent” of Russia:

Gordon Brown warns today that the West will not be held to ransom by Russia, threatening a ‘root and branch’ review of relations with the Kremlin and urgently moving to stop Britain’s reliance on Russian oil and gas.

So is Nickolas Sarkozy, and George W. Bush and all of these world leaders in this new post-Cold War generation, that are in a short month destroying all of the post-Cold War successes for a return to realist power politics.

Brown advocates “energy independence” from Russian oil which supplies all of Europe. One of the major arguments of both the 19th century classical liberal economists, and liberal internationalists have been that free trade will cause interdependence among nations which will make it harder for political conflict and pacify the international system. Realists have been countering since the end of the Cold War that a 19th century “balance-of-power” system of alliances and power politics was bound to return eventually, and that markets did not pacify the international system.

Yet realists have fallen into a lot of trouble over the past few years. From 1991, until now 2008, it just seemed completely out of the question for there to be any kind of conflict among the great powers. Now, with the West snubbing Russia - again - over this Georgia mess, and thinking it will get away with it, the interdependent international order which began in 1991 is in great danger.

Post-1991 the ratio of exports to the GDP of the major powers - the United States, Germany, Japan, France, the U.K., Russia - has increased tremendously. Without economic self-sufficency it has been extremely improbable that any state would want conflict with another state due to its economic self-interest. This pacifying affect is now disappearing with the U.K. attempting to get off Russian oil, and the E.U. and U.S. snubbing Russia with the missile defense sheild. Russia has no choice but to snub back.

The current order is crumbling, the international system is further changing. Turkey is now torn between both Russia and the U.S. as both are major trading and diplomatic partners to Turkey. The U.S. has forced Russia to open up the strait to the black sea or risk worsening relations, while Russia has threatened to cancel certain trade deals with Turkey if it does not reject the U.S.’s offer. Talk about a rock and a hard place. The international system should not be like this.

Brown’s idiocy on Russia not holding us ransom is crazy talk. Russia wants nothing from the E.U. Firstly, the Russians are extremely weak and there is no chance Russia is going to be invading Europe, especially NATO countries, anytime soon which would be sucide. The E.U. should quit dictating to Russia what to do. This is an internal matter between Georgia and Russia. Talk about the benefits of non-interventionism.

Share This

Palin-Buchanan connection unclear

abuhatem — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 10:28:57 +0000

From the neoconservative nutjobs at the Weekly Standard:

In a new post, Smith reports that, according to Buchanan’s sister, Palin’s only contact with Buchanan was at a fundraiser for an Alaskan politician–not for Buchanan:

I also spoke to Bay Buchanan, Pat’s sister, this morning. She also said her only knowledge of Palin’s contact with Buchanan was at the event in the ’90s, which she described as a fundraiser for Alaska Republican Jerry Ward. Ward couldn’t immediately be reached.

Hmm… we’ll see what Pat says today on MSNBC.

Share This

The Israel Lobby on Palin/Buchanan

abuhatem — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 11:44:45 +0000

And so the lynching begins:

Share This

Congressman Robert Wexler: Palin supports Buchanan a “Nazi sympathizer”

abuhatem — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 11:25:10 +0000

Robert Wexler, smearmongering McCarthyist:

Here’s Rep. Robert Wexler of Florida:

John McCain’s decision to select a vice presidential running mate that endorsed Pat Buchanan for president in 2000 is a direct affront to all Jewish Americans. Pat Buchanan is a Nazi sympathizer with a uniquely atrocious record on Israel, even going as far as to denounce bringing former Nazi soldiers to justice and praising Adolf Hitler for his “great courage.”At a time when standing up for Israel’s right to self-defense has never been more critical, John McCain has failed his first test of leadership and judgment by selecting a running mate who has aligned herself with a leading anti-Israel voice in American politics. It is frightening that John McCain would select someone one heartbeat away from the presidency who supported a man who embodies vitriolic anti-Israel sentiments.

Share This

Neocon David Frum also hates Palin

abuhatem — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 11:18:11 +0000

David Frum, a Canadian American and former Bush speechwriter most popular for the coining of this short phrase, “We cannot wait until the smoking gun comes in the form of a mushroom cloud,” and calling Iraq, Syria, Iran, and Libya the “axis of evil,” does not like the Palin pick. At his National Review blog he says “The longer I think about it, the less well this selection sits with me.” And in a column at the Canadian National Post Frum goes all out against Palin saying that the GOP will now concentrate more on abortion than on foreign policy (more proof the current GOP doesn’t care about pro-life issues?):

She has zero foreign policy experience, and no record on national security issues…

Should John McCain lose in November, Sarah Palin has just pole-vaulted into front-runner status for 2012. Should Mr. McCain win, her grip on the next Republican nomination will become a lock.

So this is the future of the Republican party you are looking at: a future in which national security has bumped down the list of priorities behind abortion politics, gender politics, and energy politics. Ms. Palin is a bold pick, and probably a shrewd one. It’s not nearly so clear that she is a responsible pick, or a wise one.

Share This

The tale of a Turkish soap opera

abuhatem — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 10:27:32 +0000

In my trip to the Arab world this summer, I fell in love with a strange show - a Turkish soap opera dubbed into Syrian colloquial Arabic, which was being watched by over 80% of the population of my small town. A 150-episode drama, which airs for one hour nightly, I decided to give it a shot and in a few days I was hooked.However, the show has created a huge ruckus from a few conservatives in the Arab world, and the Western media has treated the show as some sort of engine to liberalized oppressed Arab women who long for romance.There have been a lot of stories on Noor in the English press. Case-in-point: Canada’s Globe and Mail, The U.K.’s Financial Times, Turkey’s Hurriyet, the newswire AFP, France 24, MSNBC, and Lebanon’s Menasat.The Western media’s reports all have one thing in common: Noor is popular because of the oppression of Arab men:

Financial Times: ”What’s scary is that people have confused fiction with reality - if so much noise is created because a man treats a woman well, what does that say about our society?” says one television executive. According to a report on the MBC website, a man recently left his wife after she said she had contacted the lead actor of Noor and was planning to meet him. Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, is apparently threatening fines for cars with pictures of Muhanad on their windows.

The Globe and Mail:That may be because Muhannad is an almost impossible character to live up to, said the mother of the Al-Qadi family on the fourth floor. “Our society does not allow men to be romantic like Muhannad,” said Um Sanad. ”In our environment, with all the stress, it is very difficult to be romantic.”At the same time, her tall, dark-haired 16-year-old son, Sanad, sees the handsome Turkish actor as a role model.”I want to be romantic like him,” said the dark-haired Sanad, smiling softly.

AFP:”Such series reflect how the lives of Arab people are torn between modern life and their traditions,” said Lebanese sociologist Melhem Shaul, who specialises in the media.”Somehow these shows help ease the anguish that grips us,” Shaul added.

This is all excessive exaggeration and media commentary. However, these newspapers do report that Noor had higher ratings than the Beijing Olympics in the Arab world and millions of Arabs watch daily. This I can attest to being true, I believe this is the most popular show in the history of Arab television.There was even a fatwa by the Mufti of Saudi Arabia condemning the program. Saudi Arabia is known to support a very fundamentalist (and arguably, to more orthodox Sunni Musims, heretical) sect of Islam called Wahhabism. Now I will not argue behind the Mufti’s motives or fatwa. This is a blog on politics, and I am no religious authority. But all of these “anti-Noor” groups, as the AFP calls them, how many have actually sat down and seen an entire two episdoes - or even one - of the series? Before anything is condemned people should know what they are condemning, this is a principle self-evident to the logical mind.

Noor is your typical soap opera. Yet, the reason it is popular in the Arabic world is not only because girls have crushes on its main character, romantic Muhanad, or because they are oppressed by their husbands. Of all of the female relatives I know in Syria, and they are many, all of them love their husbands, and none claim to be oppressed by their husbands, yet they all watch Noor. When I asked one woman - who wanted to remain anonymous - what she thought of allegations that this soap opera was only popular because of a feeling of oppression amongst Arab women she replied (bear in mind she is a Syrian and not a Saudi, where oppression against women does indeed exist) (translation mine):

“That is ridiculous, and a lie. In fact, I would say no other woman is cared for more than the Arab woman. Our husbands may not show their romance publicly, but they care for us. They spoil us. They always elevate us through their respect for women. They also buy us flowers, they also buy us jewelry, and they also respect us. Unlike American men, they don’t divorce us in extremely high rates, they don’t beat us like the American movies on TV, and they don’t see only our beauty in us. It is true that we Arab women care for our houses, that even if we work we find it our duty and role to do housework, cook, and family work but these traditional gender roles do not mean we require liberation - no no, I would much rather be an Arab woman than an American woman and these newspapers saying this is why people watch Noor are being stupid.”

The main objection with Noor by “conservatives” in the Arab world are that it contains elements of Westernized culture. Yet, Arabs see such elements in their everyday lives; moreover American movies have been popular in the Arab world since the late 1960s - and in fact the vast majority of Arabs have seen many American movies. People object to Noor because the Muslims in the show sin - there is an abortion in the series, there is occasional drinking, and there is extra-marital sex. As a religious Muslim, and political conservative, I oppose all of these things myself. However people see them in their everyday lives, and what’s more sins such as jealousy, idolatry, hatred of other human beings, or starting fighting amongst people are very horrid vices in Islam yet if such things were to be banned in movies or literature there would be no movies or literature. Much of the criticism leveled against Noor is in fact unfounded. Much of the show has very conservative and pro-family themes, much more than any American soap opera ever would. A few examples:

Noor, the main character of the show, is the poor cousin of the rich aristocratic main character of the story Muhanad. When Muhanad begins to fall into the vices of youth - gambling, drinking, and women - his grandfather Fikri decides to calm him down and structure his life, seeing in him potential. Thus Fikri arranges a marriage between Noor and Muhanad and they marry immediately (a very non-western concept!). Muhanad at first absolutely abhors Noor due to his attachment at a previous girlfriend, but in time falls deeply in love with her and then becomes what the newspaper articles describe as so loving and attached and romantic. This is a traditionalist theme - that arranged marriages give more happiness than girlfriends, and that love can be learned.
The grandfather in the show, Fikri, is extremely virtuous. He only cares for his family and keeping his family together. He gives generously, and cares not for money. Whenever people in his family get in fights he attempts to solve them immediately. He tells his family members “know the real meaning of brotherhood, brotherhood means that you always protect each other and that you never hurt each other.” When Noor and Muhanad get in a fight and wish to divorce, Fikri attempts to pacify both and stop them from fighting each other. He is such a good person that he is naive about other people and thus gullible, many see kindness as a way to use him.
The mother of the show, Sherefe, is extremely controlling and overpowering. She expects respect from her children - she asks her children and relatives to only call to her with respectful titles such as the Arab world khanom meaning madam, and she expects a kiss on the hand upon greeting. Yet, with all of her controlling and all of her perceived “meanness” she has an extremely big heart and truly loves her children and only wants the best for them. She is always looking after her married son Muhanad, and is extremely overprotective with him, but although she may annoy she teaches that respect, civilness, and obedience to parents is not a relic of the past but something loving and important to family and society.
Muhanad’s wife Noor, the main character, is extremely forgiving. She forgives Muhanad for cheating on her, albeit after a very long time. She does not judge and always sees into people’s hearts attempting to help people fighting get along and be friendly again. She is extremely sympathetic and forgiving. These are Islamic values at their apex. When she finds out that a family member attempted to kill her husband and in fact destroyed his kidney, she asks her husband to forgive him and tries to keep the family together. When she finds out that someone attempted to steal millions of dollars in her name, she forgives that person at well. She is always understanding and forgiving, and for this people love her. She is an obedient wife, and for all of those who say this show opposes traditional gender roles, it does not do so in a American or European sense - it does so in a Turkish sense. Although Noor works full time (something completely normal in the Arab world by the way), she obeys everything her husband tells her and even asks his permission for simple things such as taking a class or leaving the house.
The show’s dialogues have many traditionalist, and/or Islamic themes. For instance, the show portrays the many good parts of life - romance, marriage, enjoying one’s time with family, enjoying one’s work, having the blessings of food, clothes, and wealth - but also shows the many bad parts of life - death, divorce, illness, betrayal, and sneakiness. Muhanad and Noor’s marriage is not hunky dory, they fight a lot like every wife and husband, almost every episode.
A main theme of the show is that many hard things happen in life but one should not give up hope, that one should do good to others and forgive (like Noor, Muhanad, Fikri, and the other characters), instead of fight and keeping hard feelings. ”People are nothing without their family” Noor says in numerous episodes. The family sticks together - through thick and thin - and helps each other out in hard times. Even when things get rough, they always have hope. They realize the major calamities that come down are tests from God. ”This world is nothing but good and bad surprises right after each other,” says one of the main characters. This is a very traditionalist anti-utopian theme, for both secular traditionalists and religious ones.
The show also teaches women not to be slaves. Noor is not afraid to tell her husband that he is wrong on things, although she respects his decision if he won’t listen. She isn’t afraid to reason with him if it will help him. I support traditional gender roles, but slavery isn’t a traditional gender role! The show teaches women that they can be smart, they can be strong, and they can disagree with their husbands and have personalities without being slave drones or their opposite - rebels without a cause.
Abortion is bad. One character gets an abortion, without notifying her husband, and is not allowed because it is late-term. She then gets a back alley abortion. For the next 20 episodes the girl goes insane, must check-in to a mental hospital, and becomes horrendously sick and regretful of her move. Yet her family cares for her through the process, and her husband forgives her and moves on.

Yes, some have become Noor-obsessed. There are reports of divorce cases because of the “dreamy” main character Muhanad. Some also left their jobs to concentrate on the soap opera. Others have done other oddball things. Yet, there are people obsessed with many things. Surely, we can ignore this ridiculous minority and concentrate on the vast majority of viewers. I do give these newspapers some credit however for highlighting some positive aspects of the show as well:

MSNBC: Bakiza, the matriarch of a large household in Jerusalem’s Old City, surrounds herself every night with her children, grandchildren, nieces, and nephews. They each take something different from the show. “I admire the story of Mohannad and Noor because of what it shows about how a family should be,” said Bakiza. “The grandfather, Fikhry, is the one who takes care of the whole family, decides everything, and solves all the problems. Everyone respects him.”

To some young women, the aspiring fashion designer Noor, provides a positive female role model and encourages them to raise the bar not only on future spouses but on themselves.

AFP: ”They are a bit like us,” said Lebanese Christian housewife Ibtissam Issa. “I really like their belief in tradition and their loyalty to the family.”

The main theme of this show is the importance of family. Romance and love are only one component of this show, and they aren’t a bad component either. While tales of Arab oppression of women are exaggerated, it is true that many in the Arab world do treat their wives as slaves or chattel. This is not because they are “spiritual” in any way - indeed, many don’t pray or fast or do things of a religious nature - but simply because of the backwards societies of the Middle East. Romance and love of one’s wife is a good thing, caring for one’s family and forgiving and forgetting is a good thing, respect for the elderly and obedience of them is a good thing. And in this soap opera, every single member of the family except one lives in the exact same mansion and thus the family is strongly connected.

The soap opera has also done something phenomenal. It has united the Arab world behind Turkey. This is no exaggeration. The Associated Press reports that Saudi visits to Turkey are up 300%. The Turkish ambassador to Saudi Arabia said this was because of Turkish soap operas in the Arab world. In Syria, the connection has been even more present. Turkey and Syria are historical neighbors. To highlight this, I went to the Turkish-Syrian border this summer, and we saw an ancient Armenian Christian town (Kessab), with a large portion of the population which speaks Turkish. Turkish-Syrian relations are stronger than ever now. Historical similarities between Syria and Turkey are becoming rediscovered and are rekindling a love for Turkey, a fellow Muslim country, in the Syrian Arab ethos. Noor character Ayca Varlier described this as “incredible” and hailed the beginning of a new cultural connection. To illustrate why this is so - let me just inform some of you as to what Turkey and Syria have in common. Historically, Ottoman Turkish, a language no longer spoken (thrown out in the 1930s by revolutionary Kemal Attaturk) shared many words with Syrian colloquial Arabic. Turkish cuisine has always been extremely close to Syrian cuisine, with the same types of foods. Even Turkish music with its extensive use of maqam is extremely similar to music in northern Syria. Turkish Islam regards Sufi movements with high regard, and so does Syrian Islam. This new cultural attachment to Turkey (illustrated in the number of trips to Turkey made by Arabs, as well as the number of Turkish television series planned for Arab television - MBC, the channel airing Noor has purchased twelve more of them) is an extremely positive development for an Arab world that has been scarred by its extreme nationalism in the 1960s, and its current apathy for the greater Muslim populace.

People should watch things before they criticize them. Arabs were wasting their time with much worse soap operas than Noor for many, many years. In societies were unemployment is high, and with lots of free time, television series will be popular. It is inevitable. I am personally a newsjunkie myself and don’t watch much television series at all - I couldn’t name many other Arab television series, nor could I name any of the major television sitcoms on the major U.S. networks - but this soap opera really wasn’t that bad and there is much good coming out of it. I think if I, as conservative as I am and as traditionalist as I am, can find much praise for this soap opera, then that is saying a whole lot.

Share This

Joe Biden hates Natural Law

abuhatem — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 06:51:28 +0000

Biden, Obama’s current VP candidate - and remarkably, a Catholic Christian - repeatedly asked Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on the question of natural law during his confirmation hearings with the Senate in 1992. Biden was offended that Thomas believed in natural law, which led him to believe that Thomas supported property rights and absolute morality.

In response, Thomas told Biden that if you don’t believe in natural law then what do you believe? Man made law? Thomas said that those who reject a Divine Law - or a Natural Law - essentially reject morality.

I cannot stand Clarence Thomas (he has admitted once and again that he has been inspired by both Straussian and Randian political theory, both extremes are disgusting branches of the Right and conservatism - Leo Strauss was an Atheist Jew who advocated “noble lies” to the public to establish order and make them obey and was inspired by Abraham Lincoln’s curbing of civil liberties while Ayn Rand was an Atheist Libertarian who hated selflessness and stated selfishness was a virtue) but that was a beautiful response.

Share This

Pro-Lifers…

abuhatem — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 06:13:03 +0000

Being that I attended Catholic school for over a decade, and that I am a believing Muslim, and that I am a conservative, of course I am pro-life.

Many, from the conservative and Catholic communities where I have many friends, and yes to a lesser extent even amongst the Muslim community, have advocated a vote for John McCain saying that he is “pro-life.”

Not so fast.

McCain voted for both justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer, the most liberal justices on the entire Supreme Court, during the 1990s. He criticized the pro-life stance of president Bush during the 2000 republican primaries. He has also supported an unjust war in Iraq which has killed thousands, and as his religion of Christianity (and Islam) teaches, being pro-life does not just mean being anti-abortion.

The Republican party also does not truly care about the abortion issue. Case-in-point, the We the People Act which Congressman Ron Paul has introduced into the House for the past four or five years does what is called jurisdictional stripping which removes Supreme Court (and all federal courts) jurisdiction from the abortion issue. This is completely constitutional, it is written plainly in the constitution itself (Article III Section II). In fact, the last time this was done was 1996 with the Antiterrorism Act, not too ago, and every time jurisdictional stripping has been taken to the Supreme Court it has been upheld.

The Republican party held Congress and the Presidency from 2001-2006 (with the exceptions of six months of 2001 when the Senate became democrat by 1 vote). The President’s approval ratings after 9/11 were extremely high. If the Republicans truly had a pro-life agenda they would have passed an act of jurisdictional stripping (which Pat Buchanan had advised they do) somewhere in those 5 years. But they didn’t.

On Supreme Court Justices, the dream the Republicans are actually pro-life is pure fantasy. Justices Kennedy and O’Conner were nominated by Ronald Reagan himself, and justice Souter by George H.W. Bush. They were 3 of the 5 justices that upheld the Roe v. Wade decision in the landmark 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Think about that. 60% of the justices re-affirming Roe were Republican nominated.

Moreover, George W. Bush hasn’t been any better. Yes, Alito and Robert are solidly constitutionalists, but remember that the first Justice that Bush wanted to nominate was none other than Harriet Miers. Soon enough the Republican Senate leadership had stopped him, but he wanted her nonetheless.

There is just no point for pro-lifers to waste their time with the Republican party.

Now some have asked me what is the Muslim position on abortion. So on an semi-related note, let me just say that the Qur’an says “Kill not your children for fear of want; it is I who provide sustenance for them as well as for you; for verily killing them is a great sin.
(17:31)”. It also affirms a scene from the Day of Judgment “When the female (infant), buried alive, is questioned - for what crime she was killed (81:8-9).

Muslim jurisprudence reminds me a whole lot of Catholic Nancy Pelosi’s attempted misuse of St. Augustine discussing the fetus to defend herself on abortion, according to the AP:

Brendan Daly, a spokesman for Pelosi, said in a statement defending her remarks that she “fully appreciates the sanctity of family” and based her views on conception on the “views of Saint Augustine, who said, ‘The law does not provide that the act (abortion) pertains to homicide, for there cannot yet be said to be a live soul in a body that lacks sensation.’”

But whether or not parishioners choose to accept it, the theology on the procedure is clear. From its earliest days, Christianity has considered abortion evil.

Islamic law also considers abortion to be evil, from its earliest days. Yet, under Islamic law, the soul does not enter into the body of the baby until the end of the first trimester - specifically after 120 days because of Islamic scripture on this regard. Thus, the schools of Islamic law agree that early abortion is a sin, yet late abortion is a crime.

Al-Ghazali, the great Muslim theologian, like Augustine, establishes that the embryo at conception - literally when male sperm enters into the egg - is life and existence. Yet the embryo at this stage is considered to be without a soul. Thus abortion at this stage is considered to be a disgusting sin but not a crime. After the first trimester the baby is considered to be with a soul and thus killing the fetus is considered to be a crime and a greater sin than early abortion. After the baby is actually born, killing it is considered to be infanticide and a greater crime and greater sin. The four schools of Sunni Islamic law only grant one exception to allowing abortion - that is when the life of the mother is in danger, this is according to the Muslim legal concept of the lesser of two evils yet even there some legal schools found that if the life of the mother was in danger during the second or third trimester and there was a probability the baby would be born healthy then abortion would be prohibited.

Ibn Juzayy al-Kalbi, a medieval Moor Muslim student of Averroes and an Islamic legal scholar who studied all four schools of orthodox Sunni Islamic law and compiled his magnum opus al-Qawanin al-Fiqhiyah or the Laws of Islamic Jurisprudence - a comparison of all schools of Sunni Islamic law, wrote the Muslim opinion succinctly:

When the womb retains the semen, it becomes impermissible to meddle with it. The sin will become more severe when the organs of the body are formed, and even more when the soul is actually blown into the fetus [consequent to the first trimester], for that is considered murder by consensus.

A good primer on this for those of you who are interested and have emailed is Birth Control and Abortion in Islam where the above quote is tatken, by the esteemed Islamic legal scholar Muhammad al-Kawthari (who I do not always concur with), with an excerpt here.

Share This