Author: Andrew G. Bostom
Publication: FrontPageMagazine.com
Date: August 10, 2004
URL: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=3D14578
Dr. Eric Ormsby, a Professor of
Islamic Studies at McGill University wrote a book review of Feisal
Abdul Rauf's "What's Right with Islam," which appeared in the Wall Street
Journal on Wednesday, August 4, 2004.
Ormsby's review displays the two
overlapping tiers of apologetics which pervade contemporary print media
presentations of Islam, distorting or fully concealing basic historical
realities. The treacly apologism of Feisal Abdul Rauf and his ilk persuades
only those who are devoid of any understanding of Islamic theology and
history; however, the faint-hearted "critique" of Abdul Rauf provided by
Professor Ormsby, is more damaging, because in the end, it serves only
to further obfuscate the truth. I will support this contention by elaborating
on four specific points Ormsby addresses in his review.
First, Professor Ormsby maintains,
in relation to suicide bombing:
Mr. Abdul Rauf notes, rightly, that
both suicide and the taking of innocent lives are expressly and unequivocally
forbidden in Islamic teaching.
This statement conflates and distorts
Islamic theology, and Muslim history, past and present. Professor Franz
Rosenthal, the great American scholar of Islam, who, 50 years ago, translated
Ibn Khaldoun's classic Introduction To History, also wrote a seminal essay
entitled "On Suicide in Islam" in1946, in which he observed:
While the Qur'anic attitude toward
suicide remains uncertain, the great authorities of the hadith leave no
doubt as to the official attitude of Islam. In their opinion suicide is
an unlawful act....On the other hand, death as the result of "suicidal"
missions and of the desire of martyrdom occurs not infrequently, since
death is considered highly commendable according to Muslim religious concepts.
However, such cases are no[t] suicides in the proper sense of the term.1
(Emphasis added.)
That is why even clerics such as
the popular Al-Jazeera personality Yusuf Al Qaradawi openly sanction murderous
Palestinian homicide bomber "martyrdom" operations against innocent Israeli
citizens (all of whom are considered "combatants" who obstruct the "call
to Islam") during fatwa councils convened in the heart of Europe.2 The
sad reality, which both Abdul Rauf and Professor Ormsby choose to deny
or ignore, is that such hideous pronouncements are in fact on firm theological
footing.
Second, in related statements regarding
Al-Ghazali (d. 1111), the famous theologian, philosopher, and paragon of
mystical Sufism, Ormsby states further:
In a sacred tradition recounted
by the medieval mystic and theologian al-Ghazali (to whom Mr. Abdul Rauf
devotes some admiring pages) we read that "if a man is murdered in the
East and in the West another man takes delight in the murder, both he and
the murderer are partners in the crime"' Mr. Abdul Rauf doesn't mention
this tradition, so dear to Sufis, but it would have strengthened his case.
It would have been helpful if Ormsby
had clarified whether or not, in fact, Al-Ghazali's noble sounding sentiments
applied to the murder of a non-Muslim by a Muslim. This is not a rhetorical
point. Shari'a law makes clear that a non-Muslim's life is of lesser value
than the life of a Muslim, both in terms of punishment for the crime of
murder, and compensation to the murder victims family. And the eminent
Islamic scholar W.M. Watt, who lavishes praise on Al-Ghazali, also stresses
Al-Ghazali's Muslim orthodoxy:
.acclaimed in both the East and
West as the greatest Muslim after Muhammad, and he is by no means unworthy
of that dignity.He brought orthodoxy and mysticism into closer contact.the
theologians became more ready to accept the mystics as respectable, while
the mystics were more careful to remain within the bounds of orthodoxy.3
Below is what Al-Ghazali actually
wrote about jihad war, and the treatment of the vanquished non-Muslim dhimmi
peoples (from the Wagjiz, written in 1101 A.D.):
.one must go on jihad (i.e., warlike
razzias or raids) at least once a year...one may use a catapult against
them [non-Muslims] when they are in a fortress, even if among them are
women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them...If a person
of the Ahl al-Kitab [People of The Book - Jews and Christians, typically]
is enslaved, his marriage is [automatically] revoked.One may cut down their
trees...One must destroy their useless books. Jihadists may take as booty
whatever they decide...they may steal as much food as they need...
.the dhimmi is obliged not to mention
Allah or His Apostle.Jews, Christians, and Majians must pay the jizya [poll
tax on non-Muslims].on offering up the jizya, the dhimmi must hang his
head while the official takes hold of his beard and hits [the dhimmi] on
the protruberant bone beneath his ear [i.e., the mandible]. They are not
permitted to ostentatiously display their wine or church bells.their houses
may not be higher than the Muslim's, no matter how low that is. The dhimmi
may not ride an elegant horse or mule; he may ride a donkey only if the
saddle[-work] is of wood. He may not walk on the good part of the road.
They [the dhimmis] have to wear [an identifying] patch [on their clothing],
even women, and even in the [public] baths.[dhimmis] must hold their tongue..
4 (Emphasis added.)
Moreover, Al Ghazali's views regarding
non-Muslim dhimmis - which were typical of the prevailing written opinions
of Muslim theologians and jurists during the Abbasid-Baghdadian Caliphate
- resulted in tangible acts of dhimmi persecution, as recorded, for example,
in this contemporary chronicle from Baghdad by Obadyah the Proselyte, in
1100 A.D.:
.the Caliph of Baghdad, al-Muqtadi
[1075-1094], had given power to his vizier, Abu Shuja. [who] imposed that
each male Jew should wear a yellow badge on his headgear. This was one
distinctive sign on the head and the other was on the neck- a piece of
lead of the weight of a silver dinar hanging round the neck of every Jew
and inscribed with the word dhimmi to signify that the Jew had to pay poll-tax.
Jews also had to wear girdles round their wastes. Abu Shuja further imposed
two signs on Jewish women. They had to wear a black and a red shoe, and
each woman had to have a small brass bell on her neck or shoe, which would
tinkle and thus announce the separation of Jewish from Gentile [Muslim]
women. He assigned cruel Muslim men to spy upon Jewish women, in order
to oppress them with all kinds of curses, humiliation, and spite. The Gentile
population used to mock all the Jews, and the mob and their children used
to beat up the Jews in all the streets of Baghdad.When a Jew died, who
had not paid up the poll-tax [jizya] to the full and was in debt for a
small or large amount, the Gentiles did not permit burial until the poll-tax
was paid. If the deceased left nothing of value, the Gentiles demanded
that other Jews should, with their own money, meet the debt owed by the
deceased in poll-tax; otherwise they [threatened] they would burn the body.5
Simply put, the views of the much
lionized Al-Ghazali are identical to those of countless classical and contemporary
Muslim theologians, including Qaradawi, who justify jihad terror, including
the "incidental" killing of non-combatants, and the sacralized inferiority
of non-Muslims. And second tier apologists such as Ormsby also choose to
not to discuss the theological realities which are at the root of the unique
Islamic institution of jihad itself, expressed eloquently by the contemporary
scholar Bassam Tibi:
At its core, Islam is a religious
mission to all humanity. Muslims are religiously obliged to disseminate
the Islamic faith throughout the world. "We have sent you forth to all
mankind" (Q. 34:28). If non-Muslims submit to conversion or subjugation,
this call (da'wa) can be pursued peacefully. If they do not, Muslims are
obliged to wage war against them. In Islam, peace requires that non-Muslims
submit to the call of Islam, either by converting or by accepting the status
of a religious minority (dhimmi) and paying the imposed poll tax, jizya.
World peace, the final stage of the da'wa, is reached only with the conversion
or submission of all mankind to Islam.Muslims believe that expansion through
war is not aggression but a fulfillment of the Qur'anic command to spread
Islam as a way to peace. The resort to force to disseminate Islam is not
war (harb), a word that is used only to describe the use of force by non-Muslims.
Islamic wars are not hurub (the plural of harb) but rather futuhat, acts
of "opening" the world to Islam and expressing Islamic jihad. Relations
between dar al-Islam, the home of peace, and dar al-harb, the world of
unbelievers, nevertheless take place in a state of war, according to the
Qur'an and to the authoritative commentaries of Islamic jurists. Unbelievers
who stand in the way, creating obstacles for the da'wa, are blamed for
this state of war, for the da'wa can be pursued peacefully if others submit
to it. In other words, those who resist Islam cause wars and are responsible
for them. Only when Muslim power is weak is "temporary truce" (hudna) allowed
(Islamic jurists differ on the definition of "temporary"). 6
Lastly, regarding this second point,
it is of interest to note another fact ignored by Ormsby: Al-Ghazali's
virulent misogyny. In two works, his The Revival Of The Religious Sciences
and the Book of the Counsel for Kings, Al-Ghazali defines the "role" of
women, warns of their guile, mischief, meanness, and immorality, and outlines
what women must endure because of Eve's actions in the Garden of Eden:
She should stay at home and get
on with her spinning, she should not go out often, she must not be well-informed,
nor must she be communicative with her neighbours and only visit them when
absolutely necessary; she should take care of her husband and respect him
in his presence and his absence and seek to satisfy him in everything;
she must not cheat on him nor extort money from him; she must not leave
her house without his permission and if given his permission she must leave
surreptitiously. She should put on old clothes and take deserted streets
and alleys, avoid markets, and make sure that a stranger does not hear
her voice or recognize her; she must not speak to a friend of her husband
even in need. ... Her sole worry should be her virtue, her home as well
as her prayers and her fast. If a friend of her husband calls when the
latter is absent she must not open the door nor reply to him in order to
safeguard her and her husband's honour. She should accept what her husband
gives her as sufficient sexual needs at any moment.... She should be clean
and ready to satisfy her husband's sexual needs at any moment.
As for the distinctive characteristics
with which God on high has punished women, (the matter as follows): "When
Eve ate fruit which He had forbidden to her from the tree in Paradise,
the Lord, be He praised, punished women with eighteen things: (1) menstruation;
(2) childbirth; (3) separation from mother and father and marriage to a
stranger; (4) pregnancy; (5) not having control over her own person; (6)
a lesser share in inheritance; (7) her liability to be divorced and inability
to divorce; (8) its being lawful for men to have four wives, but for a
woman to have only one husband; (9) the fact that she must stay secluded
in the house; (10) the fact that she must keep her head covered inside
the house; (11) the fact that two women's testimony has to be set against
the testimony of one man; (12) the fact that she must not go out of the
house unless accompanied by a near relative; (13) the fact that men take
part in Friday and feast prayers and funerals, while women do not; (14)
disqualification for rulership and judgeship; (15) the fact that merit
has one thousand components, only one which is attributable to women, while
999 are attributable to men.."7
Third, although Professor Ormsby
does offer some muted criticism of Abdul Rauf's hagiography of Muslim Spain,
once again, this critique grossly understates the historical reality and
the alarming depth of the distortion:
For example, he heads up a venture
called the Cordoba Initiative, inspired by a rose-colored view of medieval
Islamic Spain. Of Muslim Cordoba, a city of great and subtle culture but
one also riven by ethnic and tribal rivalries, he writes: "For many centuries,
Islam inspired a civilization that was particularly tolerant and pluralistic...Great
philosophers such as Maimonides were free to create their historic works
within the pluralistic culture of Islam." He sees this as a model for the
future but fails to note that Maimonides, the great Jewish philosopher
who wrote in Arabic, had to escape Cordoba with his family when a mere
teenager because of the intolerance of the Almohad Dynasty, moving first
to Fez and finally settling in Cairo.
From the two greatest modern historians
of Muslim Spain, Evariste Levi-Provencal8 and Charles Emmanuel Dufourcq,9
we learn the following, all of which occurred before (and thus in addition
to) the 12th century Almohad persecutions alluded to by Professor
Ormsby:
Iberia (Spain) was conquered in
710-716 AD by Arab tribes originating from northern, central and southern
Arabia. Massive Berber and Arab immigration, and the colonization of the
Iberian peninsula, followed the conquest. Most churches were converted
into mosques. Although the conquest had been planned and conducted jointly
with a faction of Iberian Christian dissidents, including a bishop, it
proceeded as a classical jihad with massive pillages, enslavements, deportations
and killings. Toledo, which had first submitted to the Arabs in 711
or 712, revolted in 713. The town was punished by pillage and all the notables
had their throats cut. In 730, the Cerdagne (in Septimania, near Barcelona)
was ravaged and a bishop burned alive. In the regions under stable Islamic
control, Jews and Christians were tolerated as dhimmis - like elsewhere
in other Islamic lands - and could not build new churches or synagogues
nor restore the old ones. Segregated in special quarters, they had to wear
discriminatory clothing. Subjected to heavy taxes, the Christian peasantry
formed a servile class attached to the Arab domains; many abandoned their
land and fled to the towns. Harsh reprisals with mutilations and
crucifixions would sanction the Mozarab (Christian dhimmis) calls for help
from the Christian kings. Moreover, if one dhimmi harmed a Muslim, the
whole community would lose its status of protection, leaving it open to
pillage, enslavement and arbitrary killing.
By the end of the eighth century,
the rulers of North Africa and of Andalusia had introduced rigorous Maliki
jurisprudence as the predominant school of Muslim law. Three quarters of
a century ago, at a time when political correctness was not dominating
historical publication and discourse, L=E9vi-Proven=E7al, wrote:
The Muslim Andalusian state thus
appears from its earliest origins as the defender and champion of a jealous
orthodoxy, more and more ossified in a blind respect for a rigid doctrine,
suspecting and condemning in advance the least effort of rational speculation.10
Al-Andalus represented the land
of jihad par excellence. Every year, sometimes twice a year, raiding expeditions
were sent to ravage the Christian Spanish kingdoms to the north, the Basque
regions, or France and the Rhone valley, bringing back booty and slaves.
Andalusian corsairs attacked and invaded along the Sicilian and Italian
coasts, even as far as the Aegean Islands, looting and burning as they
went. Many thousands of non-Muslim captives were deported to slavery in
Andalusia, where the caliph kept a militia of tens of thousand of Christian
slaves, brought from all parts of Christian Europe (the Saqaliba), and
a harem filled with captured Christian women. Society was sharply divided
along ethnic and religious lines, with the Arab tribes at the top of the
hierarchy, followed by the Berbers who were never recognized as equals,
despite their Islamization; lower in the scale came the mullawadun converts
and, at the very bottom, the dhimmi Christians and Jews.
The Andalusian Maliki jurist Ibn
Abdun (d. 1134) offered these telling legal opinions regarding Jews and
Christians in Seville around 1100 A.D.:
No.Jew or Christian may be allowed
to wear the dress of an aristocrat, nor of a jurist, nor of a wealthy individual;
on the contrary they must be detested and avoided. It is forbidden to [greet]
them with the [expression], "Peace be upon you'. In effect, 'Satan has
gained possession of them, and caused them to forget God's warning. They
are the confederates of Satan's party; Satan's confederates will surely
be the losers!" (Qur'an 58:19 [modern Dawood translation]). A distinctive
sign must be imposed upon them in order that they may be recognized and
this will be for them a form of disgrace.11
Ibn Abdun also forbade the selling
of scientific books to dhimmis under the pretext that they translated them
and attributed them to their co-religionists and bishops. In fact,
plagiarism is difficult to prove since whole Jewish and Christian libraries
were looted and destroyed. Another prominent Andalusian jurist, Ibn Hazm
of Cordoba (d. 1064), wrote that Allah has established the infidels' ownership
of their property merely to provide booty for Muslims.12
In Granada, the Jewish viziers Samuel
Ibn Naghrela, and his son Joseph, who protected the Jewish community, were
both assassinated between 1056 to 1066, followed by the annihilation of
the Jewish population by the local Muslims. It is estimated that up to
five thousand Jews perished in the pogrom by Muslims that accompanied the
1066 assassination. This figure equals or exceeds the number of Jews reportedly
killed by the Crusaders during their pillage of the Rhineland, some thirty
years later, at the outset of the First Crusade. The Granada pogrom was
likely to have been incited, in part, by the bitter anti-Jewish ode of
Abu Ishaq a well known Muslim jurist and poet of the times, who wrote:
Bring them down to their place and
Return them to the most abject station. They used to roam around us in
tatters Covered with contempt, humiliation, and scorn. They used to rummage
amongst the dungheaps for a bit of a filthy rag To serve as a shroud for
a man to be buried in...Do not consider that killing them is treachery.
Nay, it would be treachery to leave them scoffing." [The translator then
summarizes: 'The Jews have broken their covenant (i.e., overstepped their
station, with reference to the Covenant of Umar) and compunction would
be out of place.]13
Fourth, although he expresses some
concern about Abdul Rauf's opinions regarding the Shari'a, Ormsby's comments
devolve into muddle. Specifically, Professor Ormsby ignores the tragic
impact of the Shari'a, for over thirteen centuries, on all non-Muslims
and Muslim women.
Mr. Abdul Rauf's strangest and most
startling views are of America, which he sees as what he calls a "Sharia
compliant" nation -- that is, a nation whose underlying principles correspond
to Islamic law. He bases this claim on an eccentric reading of the history
of monotheism, allied with what he calls "the Abrahamic ethic." Monotheism,
he holds, implies social equality, so American "democratic capitalism"
is somehow inherently Islamic. I can think of no compelling logical connection
between monotheism and democracy; historically, indeed, the two have rarely
gone together. That America is based on the same Judeo-Christian foundations
as Islam would seem to me to account for the correspondences that Mr. Abdul
Rauf detects.
During ancient times, through the
present era, profound discrimination against non-Muslims in the legal,
sociopolitical, economic and religious domains, has persisted in Islamic
societies wherever the Shari'a has been implemented. Two salient examples,
one from Muslim Spain, apropos to Abdul Rauf's disingenuous "Cordoba Initiative,"
and the second from the modern Shari'a state of Iran, are provided below:
.by converting [to Islam], one would
no longer have to be confined to a given district, or be the victim of
discriminatory measures or suffer humiliations.Furthermore, the entire
Islamic law tended to favor conversions. When an "infidel" became a Moslem,
he immediately benefited from a complete amnesty for all of his earlier
crimes, even if he had been sentenced to the death penalty, even if it
was for having insulted the Prophet or blasphemed against the Word of God:
his conversion acquitted him of all his faults, of all his previous sins.
A legal opinion given by a mufti from al-Andalus in the ninth century is
very instructive: a Christian dhimmi kidnapped and violated a Moslem woman;
when he was arrested and condemned to death, he immediately converted to
Islam; he was automatically pardoned, while being constrained to marry
the woman and to provide for her a dowry in keeping with her status. The
mufti who was consulted about the affair, perhaps by a brother of the woman,
found that the court decision was perfectly legal, but specified that if
that convert did not become a Moslem in good faith and secretly remained
a Christian, he should be flogged, slaughtered and crucified..14
Sultanhussein Tabandeh, the leader
of a Shi'ite Sufi order, wrote an "Islamic perspective" on the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.15 According to Professor Eliz Sanasarian's
important analysis of religious minorities in the Islamic Republic, Tabandeh's
tract became ".the core ideological work upon which the Iranian government.based
its non-Muslim policy."16 It is critical to understand that Tabandeh's
key views on non-Muslims, summarized below, were implemented ".almost verbatim
in the Islamic Republic of Iran."17 In essence, Tabandeh simply reaffirms
the sacralized inequality of non-Muslims relative to Muslims, under the
Shari'a:
Thus if [a] Muslim commits adultery
his punishment is 100 lashes, the shaving of his head, and one year of
banishment. But if the man is not a Muslim and commits adultery with a
Muslim woman his penalty is execution.Similarly if a Muslim deliberately
murders another Muslim he falls under the law of retaliation and must by
law be put to death by the next of kin. But if a non-Muslim who dies at
the hand of a Muslim has by lifelong habit been a non-Muslim, the penalty
of death is not valid. Instead the Muslim murderer must pay a fine and
be punished with the lash.18
Since Islam regards non-Muslims
as on a lower level of belief and conviction, if a Muslim kills a non-Muslim.then
his punishment must not be the retaliatory death, since the faith and conviction
he possesses is loftier than that of the man slain.Again, the penalties
of a non-Muslim guilty of fornication with a Muslim woman are augmented
because, in addition to the crime against morality, social duty and religion,
he has committed sacrilege, in that he has disgraced a Muslim and thereby
cast scorn upon the Muslims in general, and so must be executed.19
Islam and its peoples must be above
the infidels, and never permit non-Muslims to acquire lordship over them.
Since the marriage of a Muslim woman to an infidel husband (in accordance
with the verse quoted: 'Men are guardians form women') means her subordination
to an infidel, that fact makes the marriage void, because it does not obey
the conditions laid down to make a contract valid. As the Sura ("The Woman
to be Examined," LX v. 10) says: 'Turn them not back to infidels: for they
are not lawful unto infidels nor are infidels lawful unto them (i.e., in
wedlock). 20
Finally, even the 1990 Cairo Declaration
of Human Rights in Islam included the triumphal announcement that the Shari'a
has primacy over the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and included
the specific proclamation that God has made the umma (Islamic community)
the best nation, whose role is to "guide" humanity.21 This statement captures
the indelible influence of the uniquely Islamic institutions of jihad and
dhimmitude on the Shari'a, rendering sacred and permanent the notion of
inequality between the community of Allah, and the infidels. Thus we can
see clearly the differences between the Cairo Declaration, which sanctions
the inequalities inherent in the Shari'a, and the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, which does not refer to any religion or to the superiority
of any group over another, while stressing the absolute equality of all
human beings.22
However, there are hopeful signs
of change, which academics like Professor Ormsby should acknowledge, and
champion. A handful of intrepid Muslim intellectuals have in fact begun
to break the taboos surrounding criticism of the Shari'a, and its obvious
incompatibility with modern human rights standards. For example, the Senegalese
jurist (and Muslim), Adama Dieng, then serving as secretary-general to
the UN Commission on Human Rights, declared courageously, in 1992, that
the Cairo Declaration introduced an intolerable discrimination against
non-Muslims and women.23 And, more recently, Professor Bassam Tibi stated
explicitly that a meaningfully reformed Islam must embrace the pluralistic
spirit of the Western Enlightenment, and reject the anachronistic Shari'a,
which is incompatible with modern human rights constructs:
...In the context of religious tolerance-and
I write this as a Muslim- there can be no place in Europe for Shari'a.Shari'a
is at odds with the secular identity of Europe and is diametrically opposed
to secular European constitutions formulated by the people. I hold out
for the superiority of common sense over religious faith (i.e., absolute
religious precepts); individual human rights (i.e., not collective human
rights); secular democracy based on the separation of religion from politics;
a universally accepted pluralism; and a mutually accepted secular tolerance.
The acceptance of these values is the foundation of a civil society..24
ENDNOTES:
1. Rosenthal, Franz. "On Suicide
in Islam." Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 66, pp. 243,
256.
2. "Al-Qaradhawi Speaks In Favor
of Suicide Operations at an Islamic Conference in Sweden," MEMRI, July
24, 2003.
3. Watt, W.M. [Translator]. The
Faith and Practice of Al-Ghazali, Oxford, England, 1953, p. 13.
4. Al-Ghazali (d. 1111). Kitab al-Wagiz
fi fiqh madhab al-imam al-Safi'i, Beirut, 1979, pp. 186, 190-91; 199-200;
202-203. [English translation by Dr. Michael Schub.]
5. Scheiber, A. "The Origins of
Obadyah, the Norman Proselyte" Journal of Jewish Studies (Oxford), Vol.
5, 1954, p. 37. Obadyah the Proselyte was born in Oppido (Lucano, southern
Italy). He became a priest, and later converted to Judaism around 1102
A.D., living in Constantinople, Baghdad, Aleppo, and Egypt.
6. Tibi, Bassam. "War and Peace
in Islam," in The Ethics of War and Peace: Religious and Secular Perspectives,
edited by Terry Nardin, 1996, Princeton, N.J., pp. 129-131.
7. Ibn Warraq, Why I Am Not a Muslim,
1995, Amherst, NY, p. 300.
8. Levi-Provencal, E. Histoire de
l'Espagne Musulmane, Paris, 1950, Vol. 1.
9. Dufourcq, A.D. La Vie Quotidienne
dans l'Europe Medievale sous Domination Arabe, Paris, 1978; see especially
chapter 1, "Les Jours de Razzia et d'Invasion."
10. Levi-Provencal, E. Histoire
de l'Espagne Musulmane, p. 150.
11. Vajda, G. "=C0 propos de la
situation des Juifs et des Chr=E9tiens =E0 S=E9ville au d=E9but du XIIe
si=E8cle", Revue desC9tudes Juives, 99 (1935), pp. 127-129.
12. Arnaldez, R. "La guerre sainte
selon Ibn Hazm de Courdoue," in. Etudes d'orientalism dediees a la memoire
de Levi-Provencal. Paris, Vol. 2, 1962, pp. 445-59.
13. Perlmann, M. "Eleventh Century
Andalusian Authors on the Jews of Granada," Proceedings of the American
Academy for Jewish Research, Vol. 18, 1948-49, Pp. 286-87.
14. Dufourcq, A.D. La Vie Quotidienne
dans l'Europe Medievale sous Domination Arabe, pp. 194,196.
15. Tabandeh, Sultanhussein. A Muslim
Commentary on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, English translation
by F. J. Goulding, London, 1970.
16. Sanasarian, Eliz. Religious
Minorities in Iran, Cambridge University Press, 2000, p. 173, footnote
92.
17. Sanasarian, Eliz. Religious
Minorities in Iran, p. 25.
18. Tabandeh, Sultanhussein. A Muslim
Commentary on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, p. 17.
19. Tabandeh, Sultanhussein. A Muslim
Commentary on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, pp. 18-19.
20. Tabandeh, Sultanhussein. A Muslim
Commentary on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, p. 37.
21. David Littman, "Universal Human
Rights and Human Rights in Islam", Midstream 1999; Vol. 45 (February-March):
Pp. 2-6.
22. A Compilation of International
Instruments. Volume I: Universal Instruments (Part 1 and Part 2), New York/Geneva:
UN (Centre for Human Rights), 1993-94, 5th rev. (ST/HR/I/Rev.5), pp. 418
and pp. 950.
23. Adama Dieng, Press Release (Geneva,
5 December 1991). E.CN.4/1992/SR.20, paragraphs. 17-20.
24. Bassam Tibi, "A Plea for a Reform
Islam," in The End of Tolerance?, London, 2002, pp. 243-44.
