The anti-Islamic polemic SHELLEY WALIA The study of the Muslim world by the West has never been neutral or scholarly. IT was late in the evening and I was with a few friends, educated and conscious of the political crisis of our times. The discussion this evening veered from Uncle Sam’s agenda to the rise of violence in the world. My friends and I disagreed on almost everything. They were in favour of sanctions on Iran, I was for patience and dialogue. Iran being a Muslim country, I was shocked to hear their views on Islamic cosmography and the place of the Koran in the present volatile situation. They were clearly supporting Huntington’s thesis of the “clash of civilizations” as we moved to the subject of violence and terrorism. The dichotomy crystallised in their views that the West and the non-Islamic are socially stable whereas the Muslim world was deeply promiscuous, given to pleasure and unrestricted by social dictates. The only thing I felt that was lacking were khaki shorts and saffron flags; the neo-Nazi-like stance was disquieting, for it threw light on the future of Indian and world politics. Knowledgeable ignorance Indeed it was a case of knowledgeable ignorance so central to the complex relationship of the West and the East. Edward Said puts it rather succinctly when he blames this ignorance and misrepresentation on Orientalism, his well-recognised body of study and expertise, which has “cowed far too many of us into believing that Arabs really are an underdeveloped, incompetent and doomed people, and that with all the failures in democracy and development, Arabs are alone in this world for being retarded, behind the times, unmodernised and deeply reactionary. Here is where dignity and critical historical thinking must be mobilised to see what is what and to disentangle truth from propaganda.” The argument revolved around the promise of sexual bliss held out in the Book of Traditions called Hadith that the defenders of Islam shall be blessed in heaven by a gift of 72 virgins and that their religion allows massacre of non-believers. I referred my friends to an interesting research done recently by Christopher Luxenberg, a German scholar, in his book Die Syro-Aramaische Lesart des Koran, available only in German, which has had a rousing welcome by those scholars with a knowledge of several Semitic languages at Princeton, Yale, Berlin, and the Oriental Institute in Beirut. Cause of misinterpretations The thesis of the book makes it clear that most of the obscurities and misinterpretations exist because of people’s ignorance of Syro-Aramaic language in which the Koran was initially written. His interesting analysis, based on the Hymns of Ephrem the Syrian, argues that in reality the reference is to “white raisins” of “crystal clarity” rather than doe-eyed, and ever willing virgins. Luxenberg claims that the context makes it clear that it is food and drink that is being offered, and not unblemished maidens. In Syriac, the word hur is a feminine plural adjective meaning white, with the word “raisin” understood implicitly. Similarly, “the immortal, pearl-like ephebes or youths of suras such as LXXVI.19 are really a misreading of a Syriac expression meaning chilled raisins (or drinks) that the just will have the pleasure of tasting in contrast to the boiling drinks promised the unfaithful and damned.” Anyone who wants to make a thorough study of the Koran must therefore have a background in the Syro-Aramaic grammar and literature for deriving “the semantic interpretation that can be established definitively only by retranslating into Syro-Aramaic”. I quoted the Koran where it is clearly stated that “There shall be no compulsion in religion”, (Q2:263) and that all Muslims are advised: “Fight for the sake of God those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. God does not love the aggressors” (Q 2:190-3). My friends, however, refused to believe that there could be any truth in what I was arguing. In the chapter on the position of women, I informed them that it is clearly stated: “And if you fear that you cannot act equitably towards orphans, then marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice (between them), then (marry) only one or what your right hands possess; this is more proper, that you may not deviate from the right course” (4.3). But they were adamant in emphasising the lascivious sensuality and the inherent violence of each and every living Muslim. Simplistic oppositions I couldn’t be more amused and at the same time a little perturbed. It was clear that the study of the Muslim world by the West as well as by right-wing Asian scholars has never been neutral or scholarly. The colonialist worldview that based the rationality of imperialism on the stereotypes of Islamic savagery and militancy had left its mark on even the educated class. A less demeaning and unjust world is possible only if people around the world begin to shed the disastrous pontification and half-baked knowledge of Islam. Intellectuals and religious leaders have to disapprove the Western discourse of regarding Islam as a incensed cauldron of bigotry and a dumping ground for censure.Courtesy: Hindu.com————————–Islam Muslim Islamic banking finance insurance marriage clothing fashion software qurban Makkah & Madinah.

How I Came to Love the VeilBy Yvonne RidleySunday, October 22, 2006; Page B01LONDONI used to look at veiled women as quiet, oppressed creatures — until I was captured by the Taliban.In September 2001, just 15 days after the terrorist attacks on the United States, I snuck into Afghanistan, clad in a head-to-toe blue burqa, intending to write a newspaper account of life under the repressive regime. Instead, I was discovered, arrested and detained for 10 days. I spat and swore at my captors; they called me a “bad” woman but let me go after I promised to read the Koran and study Islam. (Frankly, I’m not sure who was happier when I was freed — they or I.) Back home in London, I kept my word about studying Islam — and was amazed by what I discovered. I’d been expecting Koran chapters on how to beat your wife and oppress your daughters; instead, I found passages promoting the liberation of women. Two-and-a-half years after my capture, I converted to Islam, provoking a mixture of astonishment, disappointment and encouragement among friends and relatives.Now, it is with disgust and dismay that I watch here in Britain as former foreign secretary Jack Straw describes the Muslim nikab — a face veil that reveals only the eyes — as an unwelcome barrier to integration, with Prime Minister Tony Blair, writer Salman Rushdie and even Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi leaping to his defense.Having been on both sides of the veil, I can tell you that most Western male politicians and journalists who lament the oppression of women in the Islamic world have no idea what they are talking about. They go on about veils, child brides, female circumcision, honor killings and forced marriages, and they wrongly blame Islam for all this — their arrogance surpassed only by their ignorance.These cultural issues and customs have nothing to do with Islam. A careful reading of the Koran shows that just about everything that Western feminists fought for in the 1970s was available to Muslim women 1,400 years ago. Women in Islam are considered equal to men in spirituality, education and worth, and a woman’s gift for childbirth and child-rearing is regarded as a positive attribute.When Islam offers women so much, why are Western men so obsessed with Muslim women’s attire? Even British government ministers Gordon Brown and John Reid have made disparaging remarks about the nikab — and they hail from across the Scottish border, where men wear skirts.When I converted to Islam and began wearing a headscarf, the repercussions were enormous. All I did was cover my head and hair — but I instantly became a second-class citizen. I knew I’d hear from the odd Islamophobe, but I didn’t expect so much open hostility from strangers. Cabs passed me by at night, their “for hire” lights glowing. One cabbie, after dropping off a white passenger right in front of me, glared at me when I rapped on his window, then drove off. Another said, “Don’t leave a bomb in the back seat” and asked, “Where’s bin Laden hiding?”Yes, it is a religious obligation for Muslim women to dress modestly, but the majority of Muslim women I know like wearing the hijab, which leaves the face uncovered, though a few prefer the nikab. It is a personal statement: My dress tells you that I am a Muslim and that I expect to be treated respectfully, much as a Wall Street banker would say that a business suit defines him as an executive to be taken seriously. And, especially among converts to the faith like me, the attention of men who confront women with inappropriate, leering behavior is not tolerable.I was a Western feminist for many years, but I’ve discovered that Muslim feminists are more radical than their secular counterparts. We hate those ghastly beauty pageants, and tried to stop laughing in 2003 when judges of the Miss Earth competition hailed the emergence of a bikini-clad Miss Afghanistan, Vida Samadzai, as a giant leap for women’s liberation. They even gave Samadzai a special award for “representing the victory of women’s rights.”Some young Muslim feminists consider the hijab and the nikab political symbols, too, a way of rejecting Western excesses such as binge drinking, casual sex and drug use. What is more liberating: being judged on the length of your skirt and the size of your surgically enhanced breasts, or being judged on your character and intelligence? In Islam, superiority is achieved through piety — not beauty, wealth, power, position or sex. didn’t know whether to scream or laugh when Italy’s Prodi joined the debate last week by declaring that it is “common sense” not to wear the nikab because it makes social relations “more difficult.” Nonsense. If this is the case, then why are cellphones, landlines, e-mail, text messaging and fax machines in daily use? And no one switches off the radio because they can’t see the presenter’s face.Under Islam, I am respected. It tells me that I have a right to an education and that it is my duty to seek out knowledge, regardless of whether I am single or married. Nowhere in the framework of Islam are we told that women must wash, clean or cook for men. As for how Muslim men are allowed to beat their wives — it’s simply not true. Critics of Islam will quote random Koranic verses or hadith, but usually out of context. If a man does raise a finger against his wife, he is not allowed to leave a mark on her body, which is the Koran’s way of saying, “Don’t beat your wife, stupid.”It is not just Muslim men who must reevaluate the place and treatment of women. According to a recent National Domestic Violence Hotline survey, 4 million American women experience a serious assault by a partner during an average 12-month period. More than three women are killed by their husbands and boyfriends every day — that is nearly 5,500 since 9/11.Violent men don’t come from any particular religious or cultural category; one in three women around the world has been beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused in her lifetime, according to the hotline survey. This is a global problem that transcends religion, wealth, class, race and culture.But it is also true that in the West, men still believe that they are superior to women, despite protests to the contrary. They still receive better pay for equal work — whether in the mailroom or the boardroom — and women are still treated as sexualized commodities whose power and influence flow directly from their appearance.And for those who are still trying to claim that Islam oppresses women, recall this 1992 statement from the Rev. Pat Robertson, offering his views on empowered women: Feminism is a “socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.”Now you tell me who is civilized and who is not.hermosh@aol.comYvonne Ridley is political editor of Islam Channel TV in London and coauthorof “In the Hands of the Taliban: Her Extraordinary Story” (Robson Books).Source washington post————————–Islam Muslim Islamic banking finance insurance marriage clothing fashion software qurban Makkah & Madinah.

Rank
Name
Citizenship
Age
Net Worth ($bil)
Residence

1
William Gates III
United States
50
50.0
United States

2
Warren Buffett
United States
75
42.0
United States

3
Carlos Slim Helu
Mexico
66
30.0
Mexico

4
Ingvar Kamprad
Sweden
79
28.0
Switzerland

5
Lakshmi Mittal
India
55
23.5
United Kingdom

6
Paul Allen
United States
53
22.0
United States

7
Bernard Arnault
France
57
21.5
France

8
Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Alsaud
Saudi Arabia
49
20.0
Saudi Arabia

9
Kenneth Thomson & family
Canada
82
19.6
Canada

10
Li Ka-shing
Hong Kong
77
18.8
Hong Kong

11
Roman Abramovich
Russia
39
18.2
United Kingdom

12
Michael Dell
United States
41
17.1
United States

13
Karl Albrecht
Germany
86
17.0
Germany

14
Sheldon Adelson
United States
72
16.1
United States

15
Liliane Bettencourt
France
83
16.0
France

15
Lawrence Ellison
United States
61
16.0
United States

17
Christy Walton
United States
51
15.9
United States

17
Jim Walton
United States
58
15.9
United States

19
S Robson Walton
United States
62
15.8
United States

20
Alice Walton
United States
56
15.7
United States

21
Helen Walton
United States
86
15.6
United States

22
Theo Albrecht
Germany
83
15.2
Germany

23
Amancio Ortega
Spain
70
14.8
Spain

24
Steven Ballmer
United States
50
13.6
United States

25
Azim Premji
India
60
13.3
India

26
Sergey Brin
United States
32
12.9
United States

27
Larry Page
United States
33
12.8
United States

28
Abigail Johnson
United States
44
12.5
United States

29
Nasser Al-Kharafi & family
Kuwait
62
12.4
Kuwait

29
Barbara Cox Anthony
United States
82
12.4
United States

29
Anne Cox Chambers
United States
86
12.4
United States

32
Stefan Persson
Sweden
58
12.3
Sweden

33
Charles Koch
United States
70
12.0
United States

33
David Koch
United States
65
12.0
United States

35
Raymond, Thomas & Walter Kwok
Hong Kong
NA
11.6
Hong Kong

36
Adolf Merckle
Germany
71
11.5
Germany

37
Sulaiman Bin Abdul Al Rajhi
Saudi Arabia
86
11.0
Saudi Arabia

37
Vagit Alekperov
Russia
55
11.0
Russia

37
Silvio Berlusconi
Italy
69
11.0
Italy

37
Lee Shau Kee
Hong Kong
78
11.0
Hong Kong

41
Vladimir Lisin
Russia
49
10.7
Russia

42
Michael Otto & family
Germany
62
10.4
Germany

43
Pierre Omidyar
United States
38
10.1
United States

44
Leonardo Del Vecchio
Italy
70
10.0
Italy

44
Michele Ferrero & family
Italy
79
10.0
Monaco

44
Forrest Mars Jr
United States
74
10.0
United States

44
Jacqueline Mars
United States
66
10.0
United States

44
John Mars
United States
69
10.0
United States

44
Viktor Vekselberg
Russia
48
10.0
Russia

50
Mikhail Fridman
Russia
41
9.7
Russia

51
Spiro Latsis & family
Greece
59
9.1
Switzerland

52
John Kluge
United States
91
9.0
United States

53
Carl Icahn
United States
70
8.7
United States

53
Kirk Kerkorian
United States
88
8.7
United States

55
Birgit Rausing & family
Sweden
82
8.6
Switzerland

56
Mukesh Ambani
India
48
8.5
India

56
Serge Dassault & family
France
80
8.5
France

56
Hans Rausing
Sweden
80
8.5
United Kingdom

59
Galen Weston & family
Canada
65
8.4
Canada

60
Susanne Klatten
Germany
43
8.1
Germany

61
Rudolf August Oetker & family
Germany
89
8.0
Germany

62
Oleg Deripaska
Russia
37
7.8
Russia

63
Sumner Redstone
United States
82
7.7
United States

64
Alexei Mordashov
Russia
40
7.6
Russia

65
Donald Newhouse
United States
76
7.5
United States

65
Samuel Newhouse Jr
United States
78
7.5
United States

65
Alain & Gerard Wertheimer
France
NA
7.5
France

65
Reinhold Würth
Germany
70
7.5
Germany

69
Joseph & Moise Safra
Brazil
NA
7.4
Brazil

70
Philip Knight
United States
68
7.3
United States

71
George Soros
United States
75
7.2
United States

72
Ernesto Bertarelli
Switzerland
40
7.1
Switzerland

72
Suleiman Kerimov
Russia
40
7.1
Russia

74
Philip & Cristina Green
United Kingdom
NA
7.0
Monaco

74
Francois Pinault
France
69
7.0
France

74
 August von Finck
Germany
76
7.0
Switzerland

77
Mohammed Al Amoudi
Saudi Arabia
60
6.9
Saudi Arabia

77
Abdul Aziz Al Ghurair & family
United Arab Emirates
52
6.9
United Arab Emirates

79
Maria-Elisabeth & Georg Schaeffler
Germany
NA
6.8
Germany

80
Charles Ergen
United States
53
6.7
United States

80
Edward Johnson III
United States
75
6.7
United States

82
Kun-Hee Lee & family
South Korea
64
6.6
South Korea

82
Stefan Quandt 
Germany
40
6.6
Germany

84
Saleh Bin Abdul Aziz Al Rajhi
Saudi Arabia
94
6.5
Saudi Arabia

84
Rafael del Pino & family
Spain
85
6.5
Spain

84
Stanley Ho
Hong Kong
84
6.5
Hong Kong

84
Maersk Mc-Kinney Moller
Denmark
92
6.5
Denmark

84
Keith Murdoch
United States
75
6.5
United States

89
Philip Anschutz
United States
66
6.4
United States

89
Hasso Plattner
Germany
62
6.4
Germany

89
Vladimir Potanin
Russia
45
6.4
Russia

89
Mikhail Prokhorov
Russia
40
6.4
Russia

93
Vladimir Yevtushenkov
Russia
57
6.3
Russia

94
Micky Arison
United States
56
6.1
United States

94
Curt Engelhorn
Germany
79
6.1
Switzerland

94
Friedrich Flick Jr
Germany
79
6.1
Austria

94
German Khan
Russia
44
6.1
Russia

94
Ronald Perelman
United States
63
6.1
United States

94
Johanna Quandt
Germany
78
6.1
Germany

100
Dan Duncan
United States
73
6.0
United States

List of world billionaires 2006