Dr. Tawfik Hamid- Speaker, Author & Muslim Reformer

Al Qaeda is threatening to retaliate in response to French President Nicholas Sarzozy’s declaration in June that the burqa is unwelcome in his country and against French values. According to CNN, the terrorist organization has listed threats on extremist Islamic websites. I have been asked to comment on this topic and will summarize my thoughts with the following points:

1. President Sarkozy’s comment that the burqa “is not a religious sign; it is a sign of subjugation, of the submission of women,” is absolutely correct when a Muslim woman wears it against her free will. Forcing women and girls to wear the Islamic dress is relatively common in many Muslim societies, which is clearly subjugation.

2. On the other hand, when Muslim women freely choose to wear the burqa, it could be a sign of religiousness and piousness free of subjugation.

3. According to mainstream Islamic teaching and interpretations, the burqa is a sign of superiority over others. It was meant to distinguish between ‘free’ and moral Muslim women, who were allowed to wear it, from ’slave’ women who were considered ‘cheap’ or less precious than the former, and therefore not allowed to wear it (see Tafseer Ibn Katheir for Quran 33:59).

4. Salafi Islamists believe that women who do not wear the Hijab (or “Mutagarijat”) will be in hell. This has facilitated in some Muslim societies a sense of hatred toward cultures that do not force women to cover themselves.. In the last few decades this phenomenon has also resulted in the Islamisation of many societies and exacerbated the problem of radical Islam in many parts of the world. For example, areas in Iraq where most Muslim women wear Islamic dress, such as Al-Anbar, have had individuals instigate much more violence in comparison to people from other areas where women are less covered, such as Kurdistan. Furthermore, statistically speaking incidents of Islamist-based terrorism in countries that prohibit Islamic dress, such as Tunisia, are much lower than in countries that allow or promote it (such as Algeria, Egypt, and Pakistan). This is probably because banning the Hijab slows the spread of Islamism in the society.

5. I support President Sarkozy’s proposal yet I would ban the burqa for security reasons rather than for religious ones. In fact, the ban could be on any face covering, as criminals can conceal their faces to avoid recognition while committing crimes. A security-based ban on face covering would be equally effective in preventing Burqa in the streets of France and less confrontational with radical Islamic groups.

6. Making concessions now to allow the burqa to be worn would not only be counterproductive, but also threaten the sovereignty and security of free nations. This is because radical Muslims will begin think that they can continue to use threatening means in order to influence other policies. Decreasing the prevalence of the burqa and hijab can greatly weaken the Islamism phenomenon in the long run.

However, it should be noted that laws banning such coverings are the least effective and the most confrontational approach. Supporting certain ideological and covert psychological approaches can be much more effective and ensure that countries trying to decrease the prevalence of the hijab and burqa face a minimal security risk. On this note, the hijab phenomenon could actually be used against the Islamists.

This article of clothing is a vital tool radicals have used to control women and Islamize societies. Sending a strong message to Al-Qaeda that France may respond to terrorism on its soil by banning the hijab in public places (not just in schools!) in addition to the ban on the burqa could deter many radicals from attacking France. This is because when these terrorists realize that their attacks can completely backfire and result in a complete ban on the hijab, thereby undermining their ultimate dream of Islamizing the country, they will think twice before launching an attack.

In my opinion, there are self-explanatory answers to all of the following questions:
 

Question #1: What would liberals say to women who are stoned to death for adultery, to gays facing capital punishment, and to Muslims beheaded for converting from Islam to another faith, all according to Islamic law? Will liberals say that they must show “tolerance” and accept this barbarism as a matter of respect for religious values or stand against inhumane laws?

Question #2: Where can we find sharia books that clearly stand against the above violence? Instead of trying to convince the world that sharia law is peaceful and that it is all a matter of different interpretations, it would be much better if the Liberals asked the leading Islamic scholars to unambiguously declare that stoning women, killing gays, and beheading apostates are unacceptable. 

Question #3: Why do the liberal thinkers try to find justifications for terrorism such as poverty, lack of education, and the historical “feeling of injustice” among Muslims at the hands of the West? The Jews were exposed to some of the worst forms of suffering and torture in human history at the hands of the Nazis yet they have not performed terrorist acts against German civilians. 

Question #4: Muslims in the West enjoy rights as equal citizens. However, Jews in the Muslim world are called pigs and monkeys by leading Islamic scholars, Christians are not allowed easy access to build churches, and the Baha’i community is discriminated against in many parts of the Muslim world. Who should really feel angry?  

Question #5: Why are socioeconomic conditions and political circumstances often used to justify acts of terrorism committed by Muslims? Christians, Buddhists, and Hindus live under the same circumstances and do not instigate such a level of violence. What is the reason for this selectivity?

Question #6: Why do liberals demonstrate against Israel for killing Palestinian civilians, which is unintentional and happens because Palestinian terrorists hide among the victims, yet do not use their passion to demonstrate against Hamas, who has intentionally killed ‘Palestinian’ civilians? Note: Hamas assassinated three children of their opponent Dahlan who was the head of Intelligence of the Palestinian authority. 

Question #7: The Arab-Israeli conflict is often viewed as a historical source of modern day terrorism, yet how could this possibly explain why Muslims have killed and mutilated the dead bodies of fellow Muslims in areas such as Iraq and Algeria?

Question #8: If non-Muslims were to begin promoting the idea that “Muslims are pigs and monkeys,” would the liberals stand against this or would they remain silent as they usually do when Muslims call Jews by these names? 

Question #9: If a Muslim decided to follow in the “footsteps” of the Prophet Muhammad by marrying and having sex with a 9 year-old girl, would liberal thinkers stand against this or allow it to happen out of respect for religious freedom? Note: This story is mentioned in Al-Buchary, the most authentic hadith book in the Sunni world, but it is not in the Quran and the age of marriage is different in Sheia books. 

Question #10: How would liberals respond if radical Muslims declared war on them and used the standard sharia rule to offer the three choices of conversion to Islam, paying a humiliating tax called the jizya, or be killed? Would liberals respect these religious values by accepting one of these options OR stand against such barbarism in order to protect human civilization?

The recent use of ‘twitter’ and the Internet by reformers in Iran to challenge the Mulla’s regimen have raised an important point which is — Can the internet play a major role in reforming Islam? For centenaries reformation within Islam has been impeded by several factors. This is clearly evident by the fact that many of the current leading Islamic scholars preach of today’s values such as stoning of adulteries, violent Jihad, slavery, beating women, anti-Semitism, and many other inhumane teachings. Deep analysis of the factors that impeded reformation within Islam illustrates that the Internet can play a major role in making it a reality.

President Obama’s 4 June 2009 speech from Cairo was historic; President Obama’s ability to turn a new page with the Islamic world is a great endeavor. It is important to take inventory of the points made that should be applauded. First, president Obama insisted that if the Muslim world expects respect from the US, that such respect must be reciprocated. Second, president Obama explained to the Muslim world that the negative image surrounding Islam was not conjured up by random individuals in the West but instead was caused by violent acts conducted by radical Muslims and as a result of human rights abuses in many parts of the Muslim world. president Obama maintained that the fact that relationship with Israel is unshakable, clarified to the Muslim world that he is a Christian motivated by Christian ideals and American principles, and sent an unambiguous message to Islamist groups that upholding human rights is not a political ploy to gain recognition, but rather that human rights are universal values that cross the boundaries of any ethnicity or religion. Indeed, president Obama did well in taking a firm stand and in communicating his administration’s policies and goals.  Hi speech also encouraged critical thinking among young Muslims.

• Is president Obama aware that institutionalizing zakat as a tax can plant the seed for a religious war inside the US?
• Is he willing to support a homegrown group of people such that they gain the financial solidarity to initiate an Islamic state within the United States?

An invitation to attend a lecture by Dr. Hamid: A Scientific Approach to Radical Islam

You are cordially invited to attend a lecture on “A Scientific Approach to Radical Islam”

By Tawfik Hamid

WHERE: Potomac Institute for Policy Studies, 2nd floor (main) conference room

WHO: Tawfik Hamid, M.D. Senior Fellow and Chair for the Study of Islamic Radicalism

WHEN: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 – (2 – 4 pm) NOTE: RSVP is required, acceptances only please. Please send name and affiliation. For further information and registration, please contact: rsvp@potomacinstitute.org or call 703-525-0770.

WHAT: Since the 9/11 attacks on the U.S., there has been much discussion on the issues of Radical Islam. Some of these approaches were emotionally driven, others were religiously based. Because of the sensitivity of dealing with religious issues many experts adopted a “politically correct” approach to the problem. In many circumstances, theses approaches were criticized for being biased either toward or against Islam. In this lecture, Dr. Tawfik Hamid will discuss: The need for a scientific approach to understand and deal with Islamic Radicalism. How to apply basic scientific approaches, analogy, logic, and philosophy to Radical Islam. New ways for approaching and understanding Radical Islam in a non-emotional, honest, and scientific manner. Following the lecture, there will also be a Q&A session with Dr. Hamid to further discuss these topics.

ABOUT DR. HAMID: Dr. Hamid is an Islamic thinker and reformer, and one time Islamic extremist from Egypt. He was a member of a terrorist Islamic organization JI with Dr. Aiman Al-Zawaherri who became later on the second in command of Al-Queda. Some twenty-five years ago, he recognized the threat of Radical Islam and the need for a reformation based upon modern peaceful interpretations of classical Islamic core texts. Dr. Hamid provides a fresh and theologically valid interpretation for the Quran to counterbalance the radical teaching. Read his full bio here: http://www.potomacinstitute.org/aboutus/staff/hamid.html

www.TawfikHamid.com  

On Friday night June 26th, the E Street Cinema in Washington, DC hosted a packed showing of the film, “The Stoning of Soraya M.” The suffering of the woman portrayed in the movie is based on the story of an actual stoning that took place in Iran in 1986, as described in Freidoune Sahebjam’s book “The Stoning of Soraya M.”

This extraordinary movie must raise many questions in the collective conscience of mankind.

The first question is: Does the Muslim world expect that non-Muslims -after watching such punishment- believe that “Islam is the religion that gave women their rights?” [a sentiment shared by many Muslims]

The second question is: If Islam is truly against the stoning of adulteress, where are the approved Sharia (Islamic law) books that clearly and explicitly say that stoning is obsolete? Further, where are the voices within the Muslim world and Islamic organizations in the West that stand against such inhumane punishment?

To date, all main Islamic schools of jurisprudence -with no single exception -approve stoning for adultery. The difference in views within Islamic Sharia law about stoning is not about the punishment itself but rather over nuances which include the size of stones required for a proper stoning.

If modern Islamic theology continues its support of the stoning of women, Muslims must not expect anything but criticism of their religion. Historically, stoning is mentioned in the Bible; however, both Jewish and Christian scholars unambiguously agree that it cannot be applied anymore. Currently, the stoning of women for the crime of adultery is practiced almost exclusively in the Islamic world.

Instead of providing lectures about how Islam is “tolerant” and “peaceful,” Islamic scholars and organizations such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations [CAIR] and the Islamic Society of North America [ISNA] must be clear on their stance against such barbaric practices. If these organizations refuse to stand boldly against stoning, it will be difficult for them to speak against their critics and the “Islamophobic” community. In fact, developing a phobia of a system of law that promotes the stoning of human beings until death is the most normal reaction of any sane individual.

This movie –in my view- is the most powerful weapon in the war against Radical Islam. The reason is simple. Peaceful Muslims with a conscience only have three possible responses to the film.

First – to reject stoning; a fundamental concept in the Sunna of prophet Mohamed (his acts and deeds) and adopt only the Quran. Stoning as a punishment for adultery is only mentioned in the former. This response can shake the foundations of the entire religion of Islam as the Sunna plays an integral part. The main pillar of Islam (Emad Aldeen) or the five prayers has never been described in the Quran itself and is only mentioned in the Sunna. In fact, the Quran only calls for prayer three times a day [see Quran Sura 11 :verse 115]. Rejecting parts of the Sunna such as stoning to avoid the criticism of Islam will subsequently cast doubt on the only source for the main pillar of Islam, the five prayers.

Second – selective use of the Sunna; this will demonstrate to many Muslims that the Prophet Mohamed is not “the perfect role model” for mankind. This –by itself- can shake another major foundation of the religion which requires Muslims to follow the footsteps of the Prophet. This presents a Catch-22 for many Islamic scholars who are now faced with the reality of what they currently promote and teach in mainstream Islam.

Third – proving that stoning exists in the Quran; Islamic scholars may try to teach Muslims that stoning had been mentioned in as a verse in the Quran that was later abrogated -only from the writings of the Quran- but remained a valid law. This Islamic theological concept is established in “Al-Bukhari” and “Muslim”, the most authentic Hadith books in Islam. [See Minjaj Al-Muslim by Al-Jaza’iry, a lecturer in the Nobel Prophet Masjid; Vol (2) page 506] Such books do quote the verse that existed in the early Quran, but was not included in the final version. This too can raise doubts in the mind of many Muslims about the authenticity and accuracy of the available Quran.

In conclusion, this movie will produce nothing short of an earthquake in current Islamic theology. On one hand, accepting the act of stoning will make many Muslims unable to defend Islam as a religion of peace or one that gave women their rights. On the other hand, rejecting this barbaric punishment can raise doubts about following the Prophet as the “perfect role model” and will create distrust in the authenticity of the Sunna and/or the Quran. In both situations, Islamic theology will be shaken.

Some apologists might say that the stoning depicted in this movie did not conform with Sharia Law as there were only two witnesses who testified while Sharia Law requires four. This should not in any way discredit the reality that Islamic Sharia still promotes the stoning of women to death if they commit adultery. Rather, the question that must be asked is: Does having four witnesses make the stoning in any way a humane form of punishment?

Today, many women living in countries controlled by Sharia Law such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Somalia, as well as regions under the Taliban have been murdered by stoning. Such terrorism against women must end. I urge you to encourage others to see this film, which is currently playing in select theatres across the United States.

To find out more about the film online, visit their website at: http://www.thestoning.com

www.TawfikHamid.com

After the president of the United States gave his speech to the Muslim world, it is important to evaluate how the Muslim world and its leaders will respond. Their response must be in actions and not just in words.

President Obama insisted on “mutual respect” in the relationship between the United States and the Muslim world. In any mutual relationship, both sides have to contribute.

Let us examine some questions related to the concept of “mutual respect:”

Question #1: President Obama bowed to king Abdulla of Saudi Arabia as a sign of respect. Is the Saudi king ready to do the same to the President of the United States in order to show “mutual respect?”

Question #2: President Obama gave the king of Saudi Arabia a gift on which a Quranic verse is written. Will the Saudi king reciprocate the gesture by giving the President a gift on which a verse from the Bible is written?

(In my opinion, President Obama should have given the king a gift from the United States. An icon of the Statue of Liberty would have been ideal. The symbolism of the American monument would have sent a necessary message to the king and the people of Saudi Arabia.)

 Question #3: In the same way the United States respects the rights of Non-Muslims who convert to Islam; will the Muslim world respect the rights of Muslims who convert to other faiths?

Question #4: Will the Muslim world defend the rights of women who do not wear the hijab just as the United States defended the rights of Muslim women who do wear the hijab in the United States?

Question #5: Is the Muslim world ready to fight negative stereotyping of Non-Muslims (particularly the Jews) to reciprocate President Obama’s offer to fight stereotyping of Muslims in the United States? 

A “mutual” relationship between the United States and the Muslim world can only be accomplished if the Muslim world answers the above questions in a positive manner.

www.TawfikHamid.com  

For decades the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliated Islamic groups such as Hamas used the expression “Islam is the solution” as their slogan. They used it in a way to convince Muslims that Islam will bring solutions to all their problems. Many young Muslims became attracted to Islamism because they believed that using Islam in politics and implementing Sharia would bring a solution to the problems they face in their societies. The economic success of Saudi Arabia, which implements Sharia Law, and the success of early Muslims in building a huge powerful Islamic empire, were two powerful examples that attracted many of our young Muslims, myself included, to this “Islamic Solution”. Failure of many Islamic societies to succeed in several fields, including economic state, has fueled the feeling that adopting the Islamic solution is the only answer for our problems.

The Iranian Revolution was seen by many Muslims as a proof that Islam is the solution. On the contrary, the failure of the Iranian regime in bringing prosperity to its people can debunk this concept. The recent demonstrations against the Iranian regime are clear evidence that Islam is NOT the solution, as the government has not brought success and true justice to its people. not having brought success and true justice to its people.

The Muslim world also needs to look to other failures of the Islamic systems and regimes. Sharia laws have been implemented in Sudan, parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan, parts of Nigeria, and in Somalia. This has not brought wealth and prosperity to people as many Muslims expected. On the contrary it has brought poverty and misery to their populations. The best evidence for this is that we see tens of thousands of young Muslims applying to immigrate the West but we do not see many of them trying to immigrate to Somalia or Taliban-controlled areas!

The Muslim world must face the reality that Islamic and Sharia-based solutions for countries have failed to bring prosperity to people in most parts where they have been implemented. The media has a role to play in showing the failure of many Islamic systems in several parts of the world. The Muslim world must wake up from its dream that applying Sharia will solve all their problems and recognize the reality that “Islam is NOT the Solution”.

By Tawfik Hamid- www.Tawfikhamid.com 

President Obama’s speech to the Muslim world on June 4th was by all means a historical one. The tension between Islam and the West has become more prominent after 9/11, after too many violent acts have been conducted by people who belong to the Muslim faith. The atmosphere surrounding the speech was nerve racking.  On one hand, some in the Western world were afraid that the speech would be too apologetic, as this attitude may actually increase Islamism rather than decrease it. On the other hand, some in the Muslim world were waiting to hear an explicit apology from the President about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Others in Muslim communities dreamed that President Obama, who has a Muslim middle name, Hussein, would end U.S. support for Israel as an attempt to have a fresh start with the Islamic world. The Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt and organizations like Hamas were also waiting to hear unconditional support for democratically elected governments so that they would receive U.S. recognition irrespective of what they will do after being in power.

In short, the expectations from the speech were numerous and reflected the desire of these various groups, but it was relatively hard to be too confrontational while addressing over one and a half billion people in the context of a very tense atmosphere at this particular time in history. However, the President did a good job in many parts of his speech.

On the positive side, it was excellent that the President not only insisted on “mutual respect” but also made it clear to the Muslim world that if they expected the U.S. to respect them they must also respect the U.S. in return. He also conveyed a very powerful message that the actions of some Muslims, including terrorism and the abuse of human rights in many parts of the Muslim world, are the main causes of distorting the image of Muslims in the West. The message was clear that it is not America’s fault that Islam has a bad image as many Muslims believe and promote (these acts of violence). President Obama did a fine job of forcing the Muslim world to face reality by clearly stating that the U.S. relationship with Israel is unshakable, that Holocaust denial is wrong, and that Jerusalem is not only for Muslims. It was also important that the President set a new rule that democracy of the ballot without being associated with human rights and without a mechanism that ensures that it will persist after the election is simply meaningless. This was a strong message to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood who want to use democracy only to get to power without consideration for human rights or for the persistence of the democratic process itself.

It was also great that the president emphasized the rights of minorities who live in Muslim majority countries such as Coptic Christians in Egypt and Maronites in Lebanon.  It is important that the Muslim world realize that, as they expect the U.S. to respect its Muslim minority and their religious rights, they too should know that the U.S. is also expecting the same kind of respect for non-Muslim minorities.

On the other side of the coin there were also some negative aspects of the speech. Firstly, the speech was perceived by many in a way that made Israel look as if it is responsible for all the Palestinian suffering. The reality is that most suffering of the Palestinians is caused by their own leadership that refused to: accept unconditionally the existence of the state of Israel, denounce the promotion of the annihilation of all Jews, and accept that they have created a generation of young Palestinian Muslims who believe that the Jews are sub-human and must be killed on religious basis. This destructive Palestinian attitude – rather than building settlements by Israel – is what causes the Palestinian suffering. As President Obama put it in clear perspective, his responsibility as a president is primarily to protect the American people; hence people must also realize that the Israeli leadership has a primary responsibility to protect its own people. Had the Hamas organization accepted the state of Israel, vouched to stop terrorism and respect the previous international agreements, many – if not most – of the current frictions between both sides would not have existed. Israel proved to the whole world that it is a country that truly wants peace. This happened when Israel returned back all of Sinai to Egypt and got nothing but a peace agreement. It is unfair to put Israel that uses the Arabic language on its street signs to help its Arab minority and make their life more comfortable in the same basket with the Palestinian leaders that burn synagogues and promote the killing of all Jews.

Secondly, the President was ambiguous about how he would work with American Muslims to help them fulfill “Zakat”.  The obligation of “paying” the Zakat (or charitable donation of 2.5 percent) to the needy is one of the five pillars of Islam.  On the other hand, “collecting” it by an organized group is not one of those pillars. It is important to recall that the organized collection of the Zakat was the main power behind the establishment of the Islamic Caliphate that gave the early Muslims the ability to declare wars on others and to dominate many regions of the world at some stage of history.  It is not wise to allow this to happen again and supporting Zakat “collection” through organized channels overseas must be carefully calculated to avoid the misuse of these funds for terrorism or even fueling a broader global religious war.  And ultimately, it is important for the President to stress where he will draw the line for religious freedom. Is he going to allow Muslims to stone adulteries women to death? Kill homosexuals, and allow marriage of young girls to respect their ‘religious rights’? The president should have made it clear that he will support the right of Muslims to practice Islam but he must have added unambiguously that this has to be within the borders of U.S. Law and that it must not be in any way a threat to the national security of his nation. 

A third negative element of the speech was the use of the story of Isra to show Muslims that Muslims, Christians, and Jews lived in harmony in Jerusalem. This particular story is actually used by many Muslims and Islamic scholars to claim superiority of Muslims and Islam over all other nations and religions since the Prophet Mohamed according to the Hadith (sayings of the Prophet) was the leader or the “Imam” of all prophets at the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem. The president should have used an example other than Isra to make his point. 

(Note: The Al-Aqsa Mosque was traditionally understood as the King Solomon Temple as Islam had not reached this area before Mohamed was there – so how was there a mosque? In fact the Quran did not use the word “Jamaa” or Mosque in this story but instead it used the expression “Masjid” (Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa) which means any worship place – not necessarily Islamic – where people of faith prostrate to God).

A fourth negative element in the speech was choosing the example of ‘colonialism’ while addressing the Muslim world.  This example was perceived by many as a form of justification for Islamic extremism and terrorism.  The choice of using colonialism as an example was also incorrect for the following reasons. First, colonialism of most Muslim countries ended more than 40 years ago. It is extremely illogical to explain the current phenomenon of Islamic extremism as a reaction to something that has not existed for more than 40 years. The question that many would also ask is:  If colonialism was the main cause of Islamic extremism, why didn‘t it happen during the period of colonization itself? And what made Muslims react in this way only after decades after colonialism’s end?  The bitterness of some Coptic Christians due to the Muslim invasion of their land and the pain that most Jews were and are still having because of the Holocaust was far more than the suffering of Muslims under any foreign occupation yet the former didn’t use terrorism or the killing innocent people as their path. Second, the theory of colonialism as the cause of terrorism collapses and shatters when it faces the wall of the reality that Muslims kill one another in an extremely barbaric manner as seen in Algeria, Iraq, and Pakistan.  Muslims killing one another can’t be explained by ‘colonialism’. It would have been much better if the President did not mention this controversial topic of ‘colonialism’. (Be consistent w/ quotations around the word colonialism.”)

The speech would have also been much better if the President had coupled his promise of preventing negative stereotyping of Muslims in the US by a clear statement that the US also expects that the Muslim world reciprocate and fight negative stereotyping of Jews, Christians, or people of any other faith (such as the Bahia) inside the Muslim world. Preventing negative stereotyping of Islam (not Muslims) can ONLY succeed when Islamic scholars take a clear stand against the violent teaching in the mainstream Islamic books. Attempts to change the ‘image’ of Islam without changing the ‘reality’ of some inhumane elements of Sharia teaching, will simply fail.

Lastly, the president should have realized that defending the Hijab (Islamic head Scarf for women) was probably not very wise in this speech as the Hijab, according the Sharia and the traditional Tafseer (Interpretation) of the Quran, is a discriminatory dress that has to be worn by “free” women to distinguish them from  the slaves as the former are “more precious” than the latter. This totally contradicts the president’s view that “any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail”. It was good just to mention that the U.S. defended the right of Muslim women to wear the Hijab without overstating the issue of female Muslims’ dress code. Many Muslim women do not wear the Hijab as it is simply not one of the five pillars of Islam. It would have been much better if the president had said ‘as the U.S. defended the rights of Muslim women to wear the Hijab, he also expects the Muslim world to defend the rights of Muslim women not to wear it’.

In conclusion, President Obama managed to eloquently convey a powerful message that the Muslim world needed to hear. It made the Muslim world feel that they should share responsibility in the relationship and insisted on “mutual” respect from both sides and not only from non-Muslims toward Muslims. He established the importance of human rights above democracy and upheld the unshakable relationship between U.S. and Israel. Furthermore, he acknowledged the rights of religious minorities in the Muslim word and gave evidence to prove that the U.S. is not against Muslims. However, the speech put the blame of the Palestinian suffering equally on both Israelis and Palestinian leadership without making it clear that the suffering of the Palestinians is predominantly caused by the unwise decisions of the Palestinian leaders and the rhetoric of hatred and violence promoted by their religious scholars. The President could have also been better advised about certain Islamic theological issues such as Zakat, the Hijab and the story of Isra.