Dr. Hayat Sindi is a Saudi Arabian medical scientist and a woman who has earned respect for extraordinary accomplishments in a country that denies women basic liberties. She is not only an award-winning scientist but one of the first female members of the Consultative Assembly of Saudi Arabia. Ranked by Arabian Business as the 19th most influential Arab in the world and the ninth most influential Arab woman, it is not surprising that Harvard University has brought her to the country as a visiting scholar. However, a nasty lawsuit in King County has raised deeply disturbing allegations about Sindi’s efforts against women who she accuses of hacking her emails. According to counsel for one of those women, Sindi worked to have another woman flogged for writing on Facebook that she had had an affair with her husband. On the other side is Samia El-Moslimany, a women’s activist and photographer who lives in the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, who is fighting to keep Sindi from forcing the disclosure of the women, who would face medieval Sharia justice in Saudi Arabia.
All of this began when El-Moslimany posted statements on social media in 2012 alleging that Sindi had had an affair with her husband. Sindi responded with a Saudi defamation case and, according to an affidavit submitted by El-Moslimany’s lawyer, she wanted El-Moslimany flogged. The effort backfired. A Saudi judge decided last year that El-Moslimany should spend four days in jail for the public defamation while Sindi should spend two months in jail for forming an illicit relationship with El-Moslimany’s husband. Neither has served their sentences.
Sindi however has continued to try to force disclosure of the names of the women commenting on the Internet under the claim that she was hacked. A King County Superior Court judge decided Friday not to sentence a Burien woman to jail or to levy a $500 fine for each day of withholding the names in light of the danger to these women.
Judge Mariane Spearman denied Sindi’s request to hold El-Moslimany in contempt of court because Sindi’s new lawyer could not specify which Facebook comments might be a basis for investigating any of the women.
The idea of a Harvard academic fighting to have women flogged for alleged defamation is deeply troubling. The fact that Saudi Sharia law allows for medieval justice does not excuse a demand for such justice over the exercise of free speech. Even if such speech was defamatory, it should not be a criminal matter subject to flogging. Whatever the truth of the adultery, it should not be relevant to Harvard or anyone else other than those involved in these families. However, flogging for posting matters on the Internet raises significant issues of due process and free speech.
Should Harvard be involved in such dispute when one of its faculty seeks to have women flogged under Sharia law or this is simply a private matter under the laws of another country?
booger says:
Po
The inconsistencies appear, at least to me, to be the following:
The Saudi court found the professor guilty of engaging in an illicit relationship with a married man. Does that mean adultery?If so, what is the penalty? The basis for the ruling is unknown
Yes, if by illicit they mean intercourse. if not intercourse, then it is not as clear of a case. Some courts might consider adultery the mere being in the sexual company of a person not one’s spouse. Some courts require the actual contact of the sexual organs. Some require actual penetration.
If that finding is supported by the required Islamic evidence, and let’s just assume for a moment that it was, then the accuser should not be subject to any sort of penalty by the Saudi court. Her accusations were validated.
Yes, agree! But according to the post, the accuser did not present a formal case with witnesses and evidence, rather, she made online posts accusing the professor of the deed, again, without proof. In Islam, to accuse one without proof is to be guilty of libel and slander, which, in Islam, is a grave sin. That law came in the Quran to specially protect women from the accusation of promiscuity, traditionally from men. The fact that in this case the accuser is a woman doesn’t change the law.
It seems to me that the judge believes the accusation but also knows the accusation does not satisfy the rules of evidence, so rather than dismissing the case, which he is supposed to do, he still decides to punish each party for their “sin”.
Doesn’t the professor violate Islamic law when she calls for the harm of another innocent Muslim, namely, the accuser? What penalty accompanies that?
If she is not guilty of adultery, then she is right in demanding the accuser be punished for she has been libeled and slandered.
If she is guilty of illicit relationship but not intercourse, she is is playing with words and intent, passing on the illicit but stressing upon the intercourse that did not happen. In that case, she is being deceptive in the spirit of the law, but in the letter, she is right. She has been accused of something she did not do, been libeled and slandered, which calls for punishment for the accuser.
If however, she has done the deed, intercourse, adultery, she has indeed done a grave deed by denying it, and by calling for the punishment of the accuser. If it was her own husband (if she is married) who accused her of adultery, he would have to swear she is guilty and she would have to swear she isn’t and asking for God’s wrath on him/herself is he/she is guilty.
In this case however, the accuser has no such right upon the accused, and unless she can provide the witnesses or valid evidence, she has no case and she is therefore guilty of libel, slander. It is akin to the judge ordering the losing party in our courts to pay the court costs of the winning party.
Why is the husband of the accuser not mentioned in this drama? Did the professor engage in an inappropriate relationship by herself? No punishment mentioned.
Good question! If she is guilty, he too is, and whatever punishment befalls her should too befall him.
Inga,
Happypappies noted that you found that nice story about the human shield around the synagogue. I missed your post about that! Thanks for sharing.
Po
The inconsistencies appear, at least to me, to be the following:
The Saudi court found the professor guilty of engaging in an illicit relationship with a married man. Does that mean adultery? If so, what is the penalty? The basis for the ruling is unknown. If that finding is supported by the required Islamic evidence, and let’s just assume for a moment that it was, then the accuser should not be subject to any sort of penalty by the Saudi court. Her accusations were validated.
Doesn’t the professor violate Islamic law when she calls for the harm of another innocent Muslim, namely, the accuser? What penalty accompanies that?
Why is the husband of the accuser not mentioned in this drama? Did the professor engage in an inappropriate relationship by herself? No punishment mentioned.
Booger
You are right, historically. The baby was not cut in half, and Solomon showed great wisdom and sense of justice in his process. I realize I did not make that clear.
What I did was borrow the common parlance that uses the idea of solomonic justice as splitting the difference between both parties, half each in reward, and half each in punishment.
In this case, the idea, as borrowed from the common parlance, does fit. Although, i must repeat, there is no equivalency between solomonic justice and this case.
Under general shariah law, as applied in Saudi Arabia, the burden of proof is on the accuser, and she should have irrefutable proof (some courts may say that perhaps a video or audio evidence may satisfy the requirement of 4 trusty witnesses.)
So under that system, since the wife has no proof to support her accusation, she should receive 80 lashes. In that light, the professor is within her right, under Saudi system, to demand the wife be flogged.
That is why, not only is the prison sentence for the wife strange (in lieu of the flogging), but the prison sentence for the professor even weirder (in lieu of flogging.)
Po
With all due respect, Solomon’s verdict did not RESULT IN the baby being split in half, and therein lies the rub. A Solomon_like verdict was the LAST thing achieved by the Saudi court. The ruse used by Solomon, pretending that he would split the baby, was just that. A ruse to ferret out the truth and bring justice to the parties, not to give each a share of the penalty at the end.
The end result of the Solomon story was the achievement of true justice. The meaning of the Solomon decision exemplifies one using wisdom to decipher the truth. The Saudi ruling penalizes both the victim and the guilty party. There is no relationship to the final outcome in the Solomon tale. The splitting the baby tactic was used to entrap the lying individual, not a method for dispensing justice, like it was in the Saudi court. Big difference.
Given that, I have no idea as to whether the accuser, under Saudi law, did defame the professor. I’m sure that the US rules are quite different from those found in Saudi Arabia, so it may be unfair to state that she did no wrongdoing under its system.
booger – truth is the defense to libel and slander. If the professor actually had an affair and she reported it, the other woman cannot defame the professor under American law.
Paul
Absolutely. I am well aware that truth is a defense; however, this drama is being played out in a Saudi court, so our rules of jurisprudence do not apply there. Having said that, I am still puzzled as to how the accuser could be punished for defamation when her accusations were found to be credible under Islamic law; the professor was found culpable. As Po has explained, being convicted of adultery is no easy matter. I assume that she was found guilty based on the necessary evidence. Fascinating that the Saudi court would seek to punish both women involved, yet never mention the fate of the husband of the accuser. He is an integral part of this situation. I am also still confused by the attempts on the part of the professor, using American courts, to gain access to the names of others who commiserated with the accuser online. She wants Saudi justice, in the form of punishment, for them as well. My question is still how that could be possible under Islamic law, now that the accusations against her have been proven.
booger – I agree with every thing you say. I am as confused as you are. Did the professor have an affair with another Muslim? If so, then he needs to be given at least 1 month for an “illicit” whatever. However, if he is not Muslim then he should be outside the scope of the court’s jurisdiction.
Booger
I have no issue with your view of it. it is not meant to denigrate the legacy of Prophet Solomon, far from it, it is using the general usage of a Solomon-like verdict, splitting the baby in half.
In this case, the judge split the punishment in half and gave each party a share of it. Hence my reference.
Po
I would not insult King Solomon by declaring this decision to be one which was Solomon _ like in nature. Solomon was known for rendering WISE decisions, not decisions inconsistent with truth, fairness, justice or the rule of law. If you recall, when two women both claimed to be the mother of a baby, King Solomon, it is told, came up with an idea to test the women to determine which was, in fact, the baby’s actual mother. He declared that he would split the child in half, giving half to each party. One woman was supposed to have agreed with that, while the other begged him to leave the child in one piece, relinquishing her claim to the baby so that the child could live, even with the other woman. It was a trick, by Solomon, to determine the identity of the true mother, and, according to the story, it worked. The true mother, who would rather keep her child alive, was awarded the child at the end.
Having BOTH women here penalized is the antithesis of a Solomon_like decision. Solomon was seeking the truth, not wanting to punish both women to even the score. That is the true meaning of a Solomon_like decision.
And finally, Paul, Nick, this makes the case for ISIS, irrefutably http://www.lettertobaghdadi.com/
po – thank you for linking the letter. It was very informative. If I were a moderate Muslim, I would be scared to death of ISIS and this fear is showing up in the reactions of some of the Arab states who would be included in the caliphate. It will be interesting to see who signs the letter.
Booger
I am as perplexed as you are about this matter. The judge rendered a Solomon -like verdict , which is actually unislamic.
Only one person may be punished in this case, not both. This verdict speaks less about shariah law and more about the saudi system, where one judge may render a verdict that contradicts exactly what he claims to be the divinely ordained system he is charged to represent.
Also, it is quite charming that the Saudis found the professor to be guilty of engaging in an inappropriate relationship, but they fall way short of finding her guilty of engaging in and committing adultery. Let’s see, folks. A married woman has sex with another man, not her husband. I’d say that she committed adultery. I thought that the punishment for adultery in Saudi Arabia was the death penalty, not a few months in jail. Seems like somebody’s got some pretty good connections to weasel out of that one. The accuser, who was obviously vindicated by the finding that the professor had, indeed, committed adultery, is also sentenced to jail time for exposing the truth. Sharia law, folks. You just gotta love it.
Free NYC pics
It’s the woman pictured, the Saudi professor at Harvard, hereinafter referred to as the professor, who committed the crime of adultery, not her accuser, hereinafter referred to as accuser. The professor, by all accounts, was married at the time that she canoodled with the husband of the accuser. The professor openly refers to the husband of accuser as her fiance, despite the fact that she is still currently married to another man, herein referred to as poor guy. It’s the professor who wants her accuser, the victim of the professor’s bad behavior, to be flogged for bringing this whole situation to light. The truth and freedom of speech may not be defenses in the Islamic world, but in our judicial system, they usually are. The same millions poured into Harvard by the Saudi government, which allowed this individual to even be hired, will also serve to protect her and her position at the school. Anyone criticizing her will be deemed to be Islamophobic and not culturally sensitive enough to understand her call for flogging the victim. Note, she never claims to be innocent; she only wants the accuser flogged. How nice, professor.
And smite my children of their mother? The circumstances dictate the action of course. Bottom line though is that this article seems perplexed that this woman would be seeking revenge solely because that revenge would be the result of Islamic jurisprudence which she should otherwise be predisposed to oppose. Mate guarding is actually VERY consistent with the laws of nature. Here we have one woman calling out another on social media for an affair. Is that surprising? That’s the wife calling the mistress a slut. Now the mistress files a defamation suit. You expect the wife to sit tight and not counterclaim? No, she counterclaimed and asked for the max (in this case a flogging).
Free NYC pics
I understand your hypothetical anger at another hypothetical man, found in your hypothetical example.
. . .do that with respect to my wife and I might kill you. . .
While I don’t condone violence in settling marital problems, it is certainly quite interesting that you would choose to vent your rage, with regard to this hypothetical indiscretion on the part of your hypothetical wife, on the interloper male involved with your spouse. Remember, it’s your wife who took vows in a marriage ceremony with you, not the outsider. It takes two to tangle, but where is the rage at the hypothetical spouse who cheated on you? The interloper male has no duty to you, no marriage contract in which he declared his undying love and devotion to you. Fascinating that he would be the recipient of that anger and not the cheating spouse.
Free NYC pics
I understand your hypothetical anger at another hypothetical man, found in your hypothetical example.
. . .do that with respect to my wife and I might kill you. . .
While I don’t condone violence in settling marital problems, it is certainly quite interesting that you would choose to vent your rage, with regard to this hypothetical indiscretion on the part of your hypothetical wife, on the interloper male involved with your spouse. Remember, it’s your wife who took vows in a marriage ceremony with you, not the outsider. It takes two to tangle, but where is the rage at the hypothetical spouse who cheated on you? The interloper male has no duty to you, no marriage contract in which he declared his undying love and de otion to you
I personally don’t find this shocking or frankly even disturbing. At its core you have a love triangle where one party is seeking revenge against the other. That’s by way of explanation rather than justification, but she was getting revenge against a woman bragging about having an affair with her husband. To be honest, do that with respect to my wife and I might kill you….
PR
I did not think I did your great questions much service in my replies. Been a little drained jousting and it was late.
Obviously I could never answer such complicated topics in such a short session but your asking about (and Darren too) did get me thinking more about those aspects of it.
Ultimately, every question about Islam has been answered, as islamic scholars and theologians have dedicated the last 1400 to every bit of the religion, and some of our most learned scholars rounded out their quranic learning with necessary “islamic sciences” such as linguistic, etymology, poetry, grammar and history, jurisprudence obviously, and even calligraphy.
These scholars have been, forever, the cornerstone of the religion, and have been able to, intellectually, define an islam that is worldly, learned, patient and peaceful, an Islam that has cohabited with other faiths effectively, as evidenced even in Iraq before the invasion, where sunni and shia was never an issue, and intermarriage between the two groups was common and a well established practice. Nowadays however, the knowledge is leaving and people with little knowledge and training are speaking for the faith, their voices amplified by Youtube and Kalashnikovs.
But my quote about shariah law above means that whenever a Christian (Jew or Mormon…) person seeks out his/her pastor for advice and solution in a marital dispute, that is shariah law. (If you were to do a search on Christian based mediation, you’d see hundred of websites and services offering just that.)
The excerpt below does a better job of explaining what I was referring to:
———————————————-
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/08/applying-gods-law-religious-courts-and-mediation-in-the-us/
Applying God’s Law: Religious Courts and Mediation in the U.S.
Across the United States, religious courts operate on a routine, everyday basis. The Roman Catholic Church alone has nearly 200 diocesan tribunals that handle a variety of cases, including an estimated 15,000 to 20,000 marriage annulments each year.1 In addition, many Orthodox Jews use rabbinical courts to obtain religious divorces, resolve business conflicts and settle other disputes with fellow Jews. Similarly, many Muslims appeal to Islamic clerics to resolve marital disputes and other disagreements with fellow Muslims.
For the most part, religious courts and tribunals operate without much public notice or controversy. Occasionally, however, issues involving religious law or religious courts garner media attention. The handling of clergy sexual abuse cases under Catholic canon law, for example, has come under scrutiny.2 Internal church proceedings aimed at disciplining Protestant clergy have generated news coverage because they have highlighted debates over same-sex marriage and openly gay ministers.3 There also have been public protests against Orthodox Jewish men who refused to grant their wives a religious divorce.4 Meanwhile, bills aimed at banning the use of Islamic (sharia) law – or at restricting the application of religious or foreign law in general – have been introduced in more than 30 state legislatures. (For more details on those legislative initiatives, see the map graphic “State Legislation Restricting Use of Foreign or Religious Law.”)
Disputes over the laws of various religious traditions have occasionally made their way into U.S. civil courts, but the Supreme Court consistently has ruled that judges and other government officials may not interpret religious doctrine or rule on theological matters.5 In such cases, civil courts must either defer to the decisions of religious bodies or adjudicate religious disputes based on neutral principles in secular law. For example, in recent years the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia has battled in state court with several congregations over control of buildings, property and funds after the congregations voted to join more theologically conservative branches of the worldwide Anglican Communion. So far, the cases have been decided in favor of the diocese using contract and real estate law rather than church law.6
Role of Mediation in Religious Legal Disputes
Grievances within a faith tradition often are settled amicably or adjudicated by the religious community itself without involvement from religious or secular courts. Indeed, many religious groups encourage members who are accused of (non-criminal) moral wrongdoing or who are involved in a financial dispute with another member of the religious group to engage in mediation in an effort to come to a voluntary agreement. In many cases, more formal tribunals and the like are employed only after such efforts at mediation fail.
For many Christians, mediation is more than just a cost-efficient way to resolve disputes. Some cite biblical passages, such as St. Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians, which urge believers to bring their grievances to fellow believers rather than to outside authorities. In addition, some Christians believe that mediation helps to promote reconciliation and forgiveness for everyone involved. “God has called us to something that’s more glorifying than proving what’s right or even just,” according to Annette Friesen, who works as a conciliation and training consultant at Peacemaker Ministries’ Institute for Christian Conciliation in Billings, Mont.
Mediation also has a place in other faith traditions. For instance, a saying (or hadith) of the Prophet Muhammad speaks of the risks judges take when they make wrong or unjust decisions.7 As a result, mediation is often viewed as a better course of action than settling the dispute in court, according to Imam Moujahed Bakhach, who directs the Mediation Institute of North Texas in Fort Worth.8 “Many Muslims like mediation for resolving problems because it allows them to work things out without necessarily disclosing private matters in a public place,” Bakhach says.
Jews – particularly the Orthodox, who often view Jewish law (halakhah) as governing nearly every aspect of daily life – also frequently turn to religious mediators to resolve disputes with fellow Jews. “Mediation is strongly favored in Jewish law, and rabbinic literature contains high praise for parties who are able to settle their disputes rather than engage in litigation,” according to Rabbi Shlomo Weissmann, director of Beth Din of America, a rabbinical court in New York City. “While there is no specific process for mediation that all or most rabbis follow, rabbis encourage settlement and will attempt to mediate disputes whenever that is possible.”
When mediation is not possible, either because the parties are unable to come to a settlement or because the case involves accusations of a particularly serious nature, churches and other religious groups may turn to religious courts or tribunals.
What a nice article, happypappies! Thank you for sharing. 🙂
Prairie Rose
Inga found it – Remember the Human Shield for the Coptic Christians by the Muslims during the Muslim Brotherhood Riots of 2011. I never forget these things and I save them.
You are welcome
I might not be razor sharp in some of the areas these men are but I don’t forget things. And I never patronize people or slap me if I start. lol 😉
Po,
Thank you for the thoughtful reply.
I do not understand this: “I can choose to apply shariah law to some aspects of my life here, as do Christians”. I am Christian, a Methodist. There is no law that would be comparable to shariah, at least as I understand it. What are you thinking of?
There are the teachings of Jesus, and the letters of Paul, and the guidance of ideas in the Old Testament (Torah) like the Ten Commandments that Christians follow. But it is a following of one’s conscience and one’s statement of belief when you join a church that is the focus. There are no “laws”.
One group of Muslims in Norway plans to form a “ring of peace” around a synagogue in Oslo on Saturday. On a Facebook page promoting the event, the group explained its motivations. Here’s a translated version of the invite:
Islam is about protecting our brothers and sisters, regardless of which religion they belong to. Islam is about rising above hate and never sinking to the same level as the haters. Islam is about defending each other. Muslims want to show that we deeply deplore all types of hatred of Jews, and that we are there to support them. We will therefore create a human ring around the synagogue on Saturday 21 February. Encourage everyone to come!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/02/18/norwegian-muslims-will-form-a-human-shield-around-an-oslo-synagogue/?tid=hpModule_04941f10-8a79-11e2-98d9-3012c1cd8d1e&hpid=z10
Islamophobic messages directed toward the Quba Islamic Institute in Houston tarnished the overwhelming support and solidarity the mosque received following an arson attack on Feb. 12.
But instead of shying away from the social media comments, or responding with more hate, Ahsan Zahid, the assistant imam of Quba, decided to “turn around something negative into a positive.”
Zahid told Al Jazeera that before the arson at the two-year old mosque, Quba had received only one hateful comment, which came recently as anti-Muslim sentiments across the U.S. have been rising.
A study published last week by Lifeway Research found that only 43 percent of Americans believe Islam can create a peaceful society.
Fears in the Muslim community became a horrifying reality on Feb. 10 when three students — Deah Barakat, his wife Yusor Abu-Salha and his sister Razan Abu-Salha— were shot dead in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Since that shooting, numerous Islamophobic acts have been reported throughout the country, and many count the Quba fire among them.
But Darryl Ferguson, the homeless man who was charged on Feb. 16 for setting the mosque ablaze, said “it was an accident.”
In a video post published on Wednesday, Zahid said Quba accepts Ferguson’s statement and had “hoped from the beginning that it was not a hate crime.”
“We feel that this world has enough hate, and we have to have love and harmony and solidarity,” Zahid said.
And with that attitude, he responded to Islamophobia on social media.
After the Houston fire, Joshua Gray, a truck driver from Catersville, Georgia, took to Facebook and accused Muslims in the United States of not taking a stand against Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).
He called Muslims “scum,” in one comment, and in another post he wrote that he hoped a mosque “burns for every American killed by these terrorists.”
Zahid responded to Gray by inviting him to Quba. Gray, already driving through Houston area, accepted. Then he spent five hours at the mosque speaking with its members and seeing them in prayer.
“It just changed my opinion on a lot of the things I’ve seen and heard by just going in and actually talking to him face to face,” Gray, who said he never met Muslims prior to visiting Quba, told Al Jazeera.
He added that Zahid and other members of the mosque treated him with “friendliness” and were “welcoming” and “well mannered.”
“Everything that a lot of us are told as Christians, they do as far as treating everybody the same. Even after my comments that I made, they still treated me good,” Gray said. “It’s just not what I was expecting.”
Gray later issued a public apology on Quba’s Facebook page, and added: “Anger gets the better of us sometimes by things happening around the world, and in our own country, so we tend to lash out the only way we are able, which are the ones like you, who dont like it anymore than we do. Thanks for inviting me.”
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/2/20/houston-mosque-set-ablaze-responds-to-hate-with-love.html#
Thanks for the link, Inga.
Unfortunately, people see only what they want to see. Muslims have protected Jews since the beginning of times, as exemplified most recently by the muslim clerk as the jewish store in Paris.
From wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_rescue_efforts_during_the_Holocaust
Arab rescue efforts during the Holocaust
A number of Arabs participated in efforts to help save Jewish residents of Arab lands from the Holocaust while fascist regimes controlled the territory. From June 1940 through May 1943, Axis powers, namely Germany and Italy, controlled large portions of North Africa. Approximately 1 percent of the Jewish residents, about 4,000 to 5,000 Jews, of that territory were murdered by these regimes during this period. The relatively small percentage of Jewish casualties, as compared to the 50 percent of European Jews who were murdered during the Holocaust, is largely due to the successful Allied North African Campaign and the repelling of the Axis powers from North Africa.[1] No occupied country, in Africa or Europe, was free of collaboration with the genocide campaign against the Jews, but this was more common in European countries than Arab ones. The offer made to Algerians by colonial French officials to take over confiscated Jewish property found many French settlers ready to profit from the scheme, but no Arab participated and, in the capital, Algiers itself, Muslim clerics openly declared their opposition to the idea.[2] While some Arabs collaborated with the Axis powers by working as guards in labor camps[citation needed], others risked their own lives to attempt to save Jews from persecution and genocide.
Arab rescue efforts were not limited to the Middle East – Si Kaddour Benghabrit, the rector of the Great Mosque of Paris, helped 100 Jews disguise themselves as Muslims.[1][3] There are examples of non-Arab Muslim populations assisting Jews to escape from the Holocaust in Europe, in Albania for example. In September 2013, Yad Vashem declared an Egyptian doctor, Mohammed Helmy, one of the Righteous Among the Nations for saving the life of Anna Gutman (née Boros), putting himself at personal risk for three years, and for helping her mother Julie, her gradmother Cecilie Rudnik, and her stepfather Georg Wehr, to survive the holocaust. Helmy is the first Arab to have been so honoured.[4]