No Sharia law – Support Muslims fighting religious tyranny
This is a longer version of an article which appears today of Comment is Free
This Saturday’s London rally against Sharia law and all religious tyrannies should be huge.
Millions of people are suffering at the hands of clerical regimes, especially our Muslim brothers and sisters in countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Sadly, the turn out in Hyde Park will probably be quite small. This is odd. Most liberals and left-wingers would protest loud and strong if these persecutions were perpetrated by a western regime or by Christian fundamentalists. But they get squeamish when it comes to challenging human rights abuses done in the name of Islam. They fear being denounced as Islamophobic. They confuse protests against fundamentalist, political Islam, which seeks to establish a religious dictatorship, with an attack on Muslim people and the Muslim faith. These are two very different things. Saturday’s protest is in defence of Muslim people – and all people everywhere – who are victims of any form of religious tyranny.
Sharia law is, however, one of the most barbaric manifestations of fundamentalist religion, which is why we need to highlight it. While other faiths are also often oppressive, Sharia is especially oppressive. Its interpretations stipulate the execution of Muslims who commit adultery, renounce their faith (apostates) or have same-sex relationships. Sharia methods of execution, such as stoning, are particularly brutal and cruel.
The horrors of Sharia law, and the need to support Muslims who are resisting it, has been reinforced by the stoning to death this week in Somalia of a 20 year old woman divorcee who was accused of adultery. According to the BBC, the woman was buried up to her waist and then stoned to death in front of 200 people near the town of Wajid. Her male partner was given 100 lashes.
This is the fourth stoning of an adulterer in Somalia in the last year. Earlier this month, a man was stoned to death for adultery in the port town of Merka, south of Mogadishu. His girlfriend, currently pregnant, will be stoned to death after she gives birth. A 13 year old girl who had been raped was stoned to death for adultery in the southern Somali town of Kismayo last year.
Somalia is an extreme example of the Sharia oppression that exists in large parts of the Muslim world. As ever, Muslim women are often the main victims. Our rally is in support of Muslim women who are campaigning for equality. We cannot accept the way many Islamic states, including western allies like Saudi Arabia, restrict women’s freedom of movement, make women subject to the control of male guardians, deny women access to certain jobs and positions in government and enforce the compulsory veiling of women (the hijab, niqab, jilbab or burqa).
Saturday’s protest is organised by the One Law for All campaign, which was launched on 10 December 2008 – International Human Rights Day. It has since received the support of over 20,000 groups and individuals.
To answer questions about the campaign, it has set up a Q and A section on its website.
Speakers at Saturday’s rally include philosopher AC Grayling, columnist Johann Hari, Bangladeshi feminist writer Taslima Nasrin, Rahila Gupta of Women Against Fundamentalism, Pragna Patel from Southall Black Sisters, Houzan Mahmoud of the Organisation of Women’s Freedom in Iraq and Muslim refugees from Sharia law in Iran.
The organisers have made it clear that supporters of the English Defence League and the British National Party are not welcome. We are telling them: STAY AWAY. We reject their racist and anti-Muslim agenda.
“Saturday’s rally is in opposition to all religious laws in Britain and worldwide,” said One Law for All campaign spokesperson, Maryam Namazie.
“Our rally is being held to mark Universal Children’s Day and the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. Simultaneous acts of solidarity will take place in countries across the world, including Australia, Canada, Denmark , France , Germany , Nigeria , Serbia, Montenegro and Sweden.
“In particular, we are showing solidarity with people who are resisting Sharia law and defending universal human rights and secularism,” she said.
This the key point of the protest: to show support for the many courageous, inspiring Muslims who are campaigning against the inequalities and inhumanities of Sharia law, often at great risk to their liberty and life.
Contrary to the way our critics are trying to misrepresent our campaign, this is not an attack on Muslims or Islam. Nor are we uniquely condemning Sharia law. We reject all religious laws and courts, including those inspired by Judaist and Christian fundamentalism.
In a democracy, everyone should be subject to the same laws, with the same rights and responsibilties. Religious rulings should not influence the laws or courts in any way.
Britain cannot claim the moral high ground. We are not a secular democracy. The Church of England is the established church, the official state religion. Some of its bishops are granted automatic places in the House of Lords, by virtue of their religious office, and they are able to speak and vote on legislation. No other faith in Britain has such privileged law-making status and power.
When I speak at Saturday’s rally, I will defend Muslims and people of all faiths against hatred and discrimination. The victimisation of people because of their religious beliefs is just as wrong as victimising people because of their race, gender or sexuality.
However, it is important to acknowledge that the religious right, which exists in all faiths, is a serious threat to human freedom wherever it manifests itself, whether in the US, Iran, Russia, Italy, Uganda, Israel or the UK. We see the deadly consequences of faith-inspired fanaticism: the shooting dead of abortion doctors by Christian fundamentalists in the US and, on the West Bank, the illegal seizure of Palestinian land and homes by Judaist zealots.
This is why our protest supports secular democracy. Secularism is often confused with anti-clericalism. The two are not the same. Secularism is not against religion per se. It is against giving religion privileged status, rights and protections.
We believe there should be a separation of religion from the state. No faith should dominate any government and seek to impose its creed on the rest of society. When this happens, freedom of expression is diminished and minority faiths are victimised. We saw this happen when Protestantism became the state religion in England and Catholics suffered great persecution from the late 1500s. We also see it today in Iran where the Shia-dominated state persecutes the Sunni Muslim minority (especially the Arabs and Baluchs).
The reverse happens in Sunni ascendant Saudi Arabia, where Salafi and Wahhabi interpretations of Islam are enforced and Shia Muslims, and dissident Sunni Muslims, are the victims.
For these reasons, secularism is not only an important element of freedom of expression. It is also the best guarantee of religious freedom, as it prevents any one faith becoming politically dominant and abusing its powers to oppress people of other faiths.
The organisers of Saturday’s rally believe that Muslims and all peoples worldwide should have rights, freedoms and choices, in accordance with the principles of equality and non-discrimination that are enshrined in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These are not western values. They are international humanitarian values, agreed by the global consensus of the member states of the UN.
It is wrong to tolerate the denial of human rights to non-white Muslims in the Middle East, Africa and Asia, when most of us would never tolerate the denial of these rights to white (and non-white) people in Britain. There should be no double standards. No cultural and moral relativism.
Defend universal human rights.
One law for all.
Comments
| 20 November 2009, 3:17 pm |
Big demomstration aganst Shariah in countries that don’t have shariah. No demonstration against shariah in countries that have shariah. That should make for a quiet day fot everyone.
| 20 November 2009, 3:56 pm |
“We see the deadly consequences of faith-inspired fanaticism: the shooting dead of abortion doctors by Christian fundamentalists in the US and, on the West Bank, the illegal seizure of Palestinian land and homes by Judaist zealots.”
Yes, the handful of shootings by the Christian right and a political land dispute in the West Bank is entirely comparable to the imposition of obscence discriminatory laws against hundreds of millions of women and non-Muslims, gay people and indeed male nominal Muslims across dozens countries.
Even though what they say about sharia is true, the lame, ignorant moral equivalence that tries to paint the CofE and Judaism as on a par with sharia just makes me want to tell these people to go fuck themselves.
B
| 20 November 2009, 4:01 pm |
This – made it to “Comment is Free” – really? Did Georgina get up late this morning?
| 20 November 2009, 4:03 pm |
Greg
The phrase means ‘equal before the law’ a necessary precondition of democracy.
| 20 November 2009, 4:18 pm |
Greg was being droll.
| 20 November 2009, 4:27 pm |
“Judaist”, yet not “Christianist”? Perhaps there’s something to be learnt there about the organisers, their rejection of a “racist and anti-Muslim agenda” and their short-term political aims. Must look the word up in the dictionary before writing in praise of their declaration that secularism is the best guarantor of religious freedom and welcoming news of their next rally in Saudi Arabia, where parts of their message are expected to receive a warmer welcome than others. What is left that distinguishes Islam from other monotheistic faiths once the Shariah code is set aside other than lessons as to the conduct of treaties and the aftermath of battles?
| 20 November 2009, 4:27 pm |
This is stupidity.
Support Muslims fighting religious tyranny?
For more than ten years it has been non-Muslims who have been crying to be heard, who have been telling anyone who will listen that Islamic sharia law and Islamic jihad are dangerous and intolerant. And in return these brave individuals have been given absolutely NO support. In fact they have been incorrectly and illogically branded as racists, xenophobes, ‘islamophobes’, and many other things.
But now, now that a very very few Muslims who still support the Quran and the ideology espoused in the Quran, but are opposed to Islamic sharia law – it is now OK to support them?
Are they racists? Are they xenophobes? They certainly must be islamophobes. Maybe a new term is needed – shariaphobes? Actually there already is a term for these folks – it’s called apostates, and it’s defined in the Quran.
Maybe it is those who are calling for people to support the Muslims who oppose sharia are the real bigots. Even the very few Muslims who are opposed aren’t open-armed in their opposition, they are simply calling on Muslims to apostatize with them rather than joining with the broader world community. Until everyone joins together to defeat the ideology of Islamism we will all continue to suffer.
| 20 November 2009, 4:33 pm |
It is wrong to tolerate the denial of human rights to non-white Muslims in the Middle East, Africa and Asia, when most of us would never tolerate the denial of these rights to white (and non-white) people in Britain. There should be no double standards. No cultural and moral relativism.
Which Sharia/Arab country implements Jim Crow Laws?
| 20 November 2009, 5:46 pm |
Mary.
You are right.
Does ‘HP’ put the interests of Muslims first?
As a non-Muslim opponent of Sharia law and Islamic jihad among only some aspects of Islam, any similar-minded Muslims are welcome to join me.
I’m also opposed to Labour’s double-whammy of mass immigration, and its failure to understand and oppose key tenets of Islam, which has enabled the spread of Sharia law and Islamic jihad in Britain.
| 20 November 2009, 6:12 pm |
on the West Bank, the illegal seizure of Palestinian land and homes by Judaist zealots.
Well, it wouldn’t be the sickening CiF if it didn’t take every opportunity to show its antisemitic colours by drawing such entirely spurious analogies, would it now?
| 20 November 2009, 6:15 pm |
Eve America doesn’t have Jim Crow laws anymore. Find out about the real world, and not the imaginary world in your head. I know Muslims like to claim that every Muslim, whether they are negro, Indonesian, Turkish, Pakistani or Arab is equal, but from what I have read, this is not true. In the same way Christianity preaches that all men (and women) are equal, and yet we know the class system exists in Christian countries. Fine words butter no parsnips. I’d also like to point out the position of women in Islam, thy are not equal in the religion. If they enjoy any sort of equality in the legal code of the country in which they reside, they can thank colonialism for that.
| 20 November 2009, 6:28 pm |
Most liberals and left-wingers would protest loud and strong if these persecutions were perpetrated by a western regime or by Christian fundamentalists. But they get squeamish when it comes to challenging human rights abuses done in the name of Islam. They fear being denounced as Islamophobic.
Ergo, most liberals and left-wingers are dumb stooges.
Say NO to sharia law, and say NO to intolerance and fascism.
Live long and keep fighting for freedom.
| 20 November 2009, 6:29 pm |
well said Mary
and why in the world would I support anybody using the word ‘judaist’?
| 20 November 2009, 6:34 pm |
Jim Crow laws aren’t the only means of systemically persecuting religious and ethnic minorities, schmuck.
In the West Bank and Gaza, Hamas is imposing Sharia-based dress codes and grooming on men and women, whether they are Muslim or not. The Christian population has absolutely plunged in Gaza over the last few years.
In Saudi Arabia, there are severe constraints on persons who wish to congregate and observe faiths other than the dominant Sunni Islam, highways upon which no non-believer may travel to destinations where no non-believer may set foot and legal sanctions on the importation of religious materials for faiths other than the officially sanctioned.
In Egypt, up until recently (due to certain ambitions relating to UN appointments) the Copts have been prevented from performing repairs to existing churches or building new ones.
Jews who were compelled to flee Iraq couldn’t return to visit the country in which their families had dwelt for a couple of milenia, and likewise Egypt. The Jewish community in Yemen, also a couple of milenia old, has shrunk to next to nothing over the last 50+ years.
| 20 November 2009, 7:42 pm |
I don’t know why Peter was surprised few will attend this demo.
Most Muslims support Sharia and in the UK, my gut tells me those are in a majority. In fact a large section of them want Sharia in the UK.
Still kudos to Peter Tatchell.
Gays, like Jews, are the canaries in the mine and the UK is already a few sections under.
| 20 November 2009, 8:23 pm |
Does ‘HP’ put the interests of Muslims first?
A question to be treasured.
| 20 November 2009, 8:34 pm |
There are some really Islamophobes among the commenters – not among the moderators. Noithing the Muslims do can be right. This is absoultely as fanatical as antisemitism. These peopel in past threads have calimed that there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim. FOR GOD’S SAKE TAKE OFF YOUR BLINKERS AND SUPPOERT THESE PROTESTORS. They are not only fighting for themselves but for all of us, like the thousand in Iran – they are fighting for the future of our world. If you don’t support the wit all your hearts and minds you deserve the Fundamentalism that you only pretend to oppose.
Greg – the normally rational Greg – slips into a cunning short cut checkmate statement:
“One law for all.
That doesn’t sound very democratic.”
One of the basic requirements of reading any language is to be able to read between the lines, to see phrases in their context. One law for all obviously means one truth for all, being that of a free society. Here it is a plea for freedom for all, obviously within certain civilised bounds, which these protesters obviously support.
The ideologised Islamophobes claim there is no such thinga as moderate Muslims exist, and then when they do appear, the immediate impulse is to make mince meat of them. I have been following HP for some time, and everytime a really friendly Muslim
is proffered it is immediately chopped off. There is no doubt whatever that there is a segment of commenters that are Islamophobic bigots – a position not shared at all by the moderators.
While I consider myself a non-Jewish Zionist, there ar e Zionist elements that are brain-washed. let JYese appear with a different religion and his head is cut off. His head survives the disgracefull mobbing, not by everone, certainly, but by Jewish orthodox fundamentalists.
Jewish fundamentalism can be as bad as any other.
| 20 November 2009, 8:36 pm |
I second Barad.
I know that prancing around in Hyde Park or wherever makes people feel very good about themselves, but beyond the temporary fix of self-righteousness, what exactly is this supposed to acheive?
| 20 November 2009, 9:18 pm |
Felix: with all due respect, secular tyranny can be just as bad as religious tyranny- see the communist example.
Whilst Sharia law is in many instances truly barbaric and shocking, the solution is not to denounce all religions in the hope of being seen as an ‘equal opportunities’ anti-religionist. Neither is it logical or justifiable to equate Judaism or Christianity with the more barbaric aspects of Sharia.
If Peter Tachell and others wish to protest against women being stoned to death for so-called adultery under Sharia law, they have my backing, but a demonstration thousands of miles from where this is happening will acheive absolutely nothing. I hardly think that the Somali Sharia courts will be quaking in their boots tomorrow.
The elimination of such medieval practices can only come through a broader, more nuanced view of world politics. It is vital that democracies are supported worldwide and that nations such as the US and the UK publicly declare their support for those brave souls in Iran, for example, who are trying to overcome religious tyranny at great personal cost. So far, that support has not been adequately demonstrated.
It is not, however, either helpful or right to equate what goes on in Iran or Somalia with the position of British bishops in the House of Lords or the ongoing conflict in Israel, the latter having nothing whatsoever to do with religious tyranny.
I personally object very much to being used as a fig leaf by Mr. Tatchell et al in order to appeal to a wider audience than they may otherwise attract.
| 20 November 2009, 9:36 pm |
I agree with Felix.
Also, people need to understand that it’s one thing for outsiders to criticize a faith or aspects of it and another for people within the faith to argue for reform.
Surely one can understand the difference?
Mary, et.al., I’m sorry but coming from outside any kind of attack on another group, even if it’s well meaning, can sound like or be interpreted as racism or religious/ethnographic bigotry. It’s just a fact of life – regard the knee-jerk defense of Jewish bigots/zealots!
Why is anyone of conscience defending them? Do they truly represent Jewish ideals or the majority of Jewish people? They don’t but they’re ours so our tribal reflexes kick in – you see the problem! No doubt Muslims and other groups feel the same!
With regard to “judaists” there really are some nuts and extremists in Israel and within the Jewish community as a whole.
For example according to Ha’aretz a woman was recently arrested by the Israeli police, who are not supposed to be religious police, for praying from Torah in a prayer shawl at the Western Wall.
Hello???? Apparently this garment on a WOMAN offends some of the ultra-Orthodox.
Others are offended by “feminists” and apparently women in general for attempting to be equal even though we have been Jews for almost 6000 years now and theoretically have learned a few things already.
Plus, Israel isn’t a theocracy, right?
The whole incident is bizarre considering she wasn’t running around nude singing “I don’t get no satisfaction” at the Western Wall! so claiming some literal intepretration of Torah law when even experts on Torah disagree is absurd.
Having her arrested by civil police is not absurd – it’s menacing. It threatens the nature of a democratic state.
What’s encouraging about this incident is the fact that vast numbers of Jews in and outside of Israel are outraged about it and aren’t afraid to speak out.
If we weren’t, the line between Israel and Iran would be thin to non-existent.
And note – this isn’t meant to offend the Orthodox it’s merely to assert a) human rights b) the fact that Jewishness is a multiplicity of peoples and opinions and c) Israel is a democratic state not a theocracy.
Similarly, the only way Islam will be reformed is by Muslims, not by people who aren’t Muslims criticizing Islam and often sounding like bigots in the process.
| 20 November 2009, 9:37 pm |
My only question to Communist rally leader Maryam Namazie is when will she also be speaking on the abuses of children and women by Communists? It is a reasonable question for someone seeking to “defend universal human rights.” http://bit.ly/8U3Ssy
| 20 November 2009, 10:04 pm |
In reply to Barad who wrote:
“Even though what they say about sharia is true, the lame, ignorant moral equivalence that tries to paint the CofE and Judaism as on a par with sharia just makes me want to tell these people to go fuck themselves.”
I was not saying there is a moral equivalence or that they are on a par. I was merely pointing out that western nations also sometimes fall short in the separation of religion from the state and on the observance of human rights.
| 20 November 2009, 10:06 pm |
There are some really Islamophobes among the commenters
Yikes, that lazy nonsense yet again about “Islamophobes”.
One of the basic requirements of reading any language is not be seduced by lazy slogans, e.g. “Islamophobes”. This term is meaningless. It was invented as part of the propaganda to make Muslims the “new Jews”, and then transfer to Muslims by sleight of hand all the real suffering that Jews have experienced over millenia.
Jewish fundamentalism can be as bad as any other
Really? Jewish fundamentalists are seeking world domination and the brutal crushing by physical force of all other systems, expunging freedom and equality across the globe as was the ambition of the Nazis and is currently the ambition of those seeking a global caliphate under Sharia?
Felix, you really are a wizard with lazy slogans, but that’s all they are: lazy slogans.
| 20 November 2009, 10:11 pm |
Yes, Peter and Sophia, the Western world is not perfect – but that’s irrelevant. Those who oppose the global caliphate are not ‘attacking from outside’; on the contrary, they are reacting to an attack from outside on their own free way of life. To pretend otherwise, to buy the accusation that those people are ‘racists’ or ‘bigots’ because they are aware of the threat to their way of life from real racists and bigots, is to blame the victim. Something the far left is always an expert on.
| 20 November 2009, 10:16 pm |
Mr. Tatchell – a more effective way of combatting the brutality of Sharia law would be first and foremost to campaign for the removal of the theocratic tyrannies from the UN Human Rights Council.
| 20 November 2009, 10:41 pm |
Thatchell has been under fire recently being dubbed Islamophobe in literary land, so his unremitting posturing about Palestine could be a shield. He commendably once did turn up at a PSC/ Hamas rally in Trafalgar Sq protesting for gay rights much to chagrin of the peasants. But I agree his juxtaposition of, for instance, Christian influence in the British system with Sharia is a chalk and cheese comparison. Not being able to buy a bottle of scotch on a Sunday night is nothing compared to stoning so called adulterers. Similarly that a few bishops sit in the House of Lords is nothing compared to the offence to democracy that actually is the House of Lords.
The utility of tomorrow’s 1law4all rally in London is the usual consciousness raising, solidarity and media stunt. All worthwhile in the case of this particular campaign and I will be there. Who knows it might give sufficient heart to raise from their cowering silence and indifference, the vast majority of Muslims in Britain who love living here and do not seek the establishment of a global caliphate.
| 21 November 2009, 4:18 am |
Peter
On Cif it seems they re deleting most posts critical of Sharia.
Perhaps your article will be next !!
| 21 November 2009, 4:43 am |
so, in short, going by some of the comments on this thread, British Muslims are damned if they do and damned if they don’t support this march.
How does that work?
| 21 November 2009, 6:00 am |
There is a non-Moslem country whose Moslem minority has always been subject to Sharia law in matters pertaining to marriage and divorce. The religious officials administering these courts have acted with moderation and in the spirit of justice, and have not caused women’s status to be diminished, rather, the independence and individual rights of Moslem women have increased considerably and are advancing constantly.
Certainly there are no amputations, stonings and public lashings in that country.
If Israel can survive Sharia law for its Moslems, so can Britain.
| 21 November 2009, 9:23 am |
Gordon Bennet
Maybe I should have said anti-Muslim instead of Islamophobe. There is plenty of evidence for this, but I’m too lazy to go through all the archives to show it. If you’ve been reading HP for any length of time, it should be all too obvious – I repeat, only among some correspondents, never in the moderators. If it is a question of Islamic fundamentalism, then I am an Islamophobe myself.
| 21 November 2009, 9:56 am |
Isrealinurse
“Felix: with all due respect, secular tyranny can be just as bad as religious tyranny- see the communist example.”
There is nothing in my mail that suggests secular tyranny isn’t as bad. I agree with a lot of what you say, but not with your opinion that prancing about in Hyde Park is useless and only done to make people feel good.
People on HP, including yourself, have been complaining for ages that anti-fundamentalist Muslims are not showing their faces and being active. When they do so, it is useless. From this point of view I think the rally is of vital importance. The Muslims who attend it are giving the fundamentalists a slap in the face and showing that they exist. – People said the Quilliam Foundation had no support among Muslims and was not active enough – something which has proved to be entirely untrue. I have read more than once that there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim. – This is what I mean about a strain of anti-Muslim bigotry running through the HP posts.
I could hardly believe my eyes when I saw the sentence in my post above saying Jewish fundamentalism could be as bad as any. Apologies! It can be unpleasant, but there is no comparison with others. One Jewish fundamentalist has left HP for good, after seeing Yeze’s thrid posting.
I have seen the understandable complaints about some communist woman being involved in the rally. I think the protest should be supported by everyone, no matter where they come from. Until now the communists have avoided any criticism of the Islamist regimes’ brutality, so, at least, that woman is taking a small step in the right direction.
| 21 November 2009, 1:17 pm |
Felix: to describe Fabian as a fundamentalist is a gross distortion of the meaning of that term. His objection to the repeated and intensive barrage of pro-messianic threads on this site was echoed by numerous other people too, myself included, who found them incongruous, tedious and lacking in sensitivity towards a particular section of commentators. I have my own theories regarding the appearance of those threads here, but this is not the time to elaborate upon them.
Regarding moderate Muslims, as far as I’m concerned the true test of that is their attitude towards Israel and I’m very dissapointed to have to say that many appear to fall short on that front. Ed Hussain’s article of last December regarding operation Cast Lead indicated to me that whilst he may well have denounced Islamism, he has not, as I suspected when reading his book, gone the much needed extra mile. His recent spat with Melanie Phillips serves to confirm that view.
The same goes for the Spitoon, about which I must say I was initially very enthusiastic. I thought that this would be an excellent opportunity to engage with moderate Muslims, but during my visits there realised at some point that ‘moderate’ apparantly has its limits when the subject of Israel arises.
I do not, of course, expect moderate Muslims to suddenly start donating to the JNF, but it would be both refreshing and potentially productive if, in their fight against Muslim extremism, they did not employ Israel bashing as a tool with which to recruit support.
A moderate Muslim is, in my view, one who recognises the right of Jews to self-determination in their own country. Fortunately, I personally know quite a few who think that way…but they all happen to live in Israel and are amongst the most vocal opponents to truly fundamentalist regimes such as Hamas and Hizbollah that one is ever likely to come across.
When I start to see British Muslims denouncing Hamas’ treatment of their fellow co-religionists (without the usual ‘but Israel..’ caveats) I will know that there really does exist a moderate Muslim movement here.
| 21 November 2009, 3:05 pm |
Israelinurse
The Quiliam Foundation does in fact favour the existence of Israel. I disagree with Quiliam about the defensive attack on Gaza. I have often asked people who objected to the Israeli attack, what alternative Israel had, and none of them were able to answer me. I then got e-mails tabooing the subject and saying both sides were as bad as each other, but they didn’t like war. Basically they are people who simply don’t like war and killing and they don’t want think of the context in which it happened. And if they ban the subject, there is nothing I can do about it.
The guys at Quilliam must have had their own reasons for opposing that attack, which, as I said, I disagree with. But, while they support the State of Israel and are the enemies of Fundamentalism, they can’t be expected not to express their views on any subject. As Ed Husain rightly says, they can’t be expected to pass the Israel test everytime they open their mouths; they should also be allowed a critical view. As much as I would like it to be, Israel is not beyond critcism. And I know Israelis are lively debaters on all subjects.
In Italy moderate Muslims protested together with Jews (against Hamas) during the Gaza war, but when I mentioned it on HP this fact was immediately pooh-poohed. As usual.
You say you want to see moderate Muslims actually protesting against Fundamentalism. Well, I thought that was what they Muslims who organised this rally were doing!? Their protest automatically includes Hamas.
The rally should be taking place today. Let’s wait and see if they come out with anti-Israel fanaticism (I’m thinking of the communist woman).
I remember Fabian very well and I could hardly distort him as he distorts himself. Yeze should be as free as anyone in this world about his views and the religion to which he adheres. Fabian, rather than disagreeing, was condemning him to outer darkness and deciding peremptorily that he was no longer a Jew, when in fact he is one. Imagine a Lutheran German telling Catholics in their country they were no longer German.
I think we are being too prescriptive about what moderate Muslims should or shouldn’t be doing. I know quite a few like my barber, Karim, who don’t care one way or another about Israel and Gaza, hate the fundamentalism, but just want to get on with their secular lives, their work and raising their families. I can’t put a gun to my friends’ heads and tell them they have to get involved in politics, that if they don’t get seriously involved in the arts, they are damaging themselves and their civilisation.
Nevertheless, I find it a relief that there are Muslims who are prepared to stick out their necks against Sharia.
| 21 November 2009, 4:57 pm |
This Saturday’s London rally against Sharia law and all religious tyrannies should be huge
I guess not..
Seems to be a total news blackout or no one has turned up..
Ha, ha, ha,…
| 21 November 2009, 5:37 pm |
Ha, ha, ha – so you would be pleased if the rally was a flop. Unless I have misunderstood, this would be a perfect illustartion of the undercurrent of anti-Muslimism on HP.
| 21 November 2009, 6:06 pm |
Not many moderate muslims could make it. Did not think many would show up.
Quite scary about that total lack of news items. Zero, zilch, nowt..
Not even an item to say its off.
Free press just rolled over.
anti-muslimism, nope.. I’m pro freedom..
I guess your one of these facists.
| 21 November 2009, 7:13 pm |
As Ed Husain rightly says, they can’t be expected to pass the Israel test everytime they open their mouths; they should also be allowed a critical view. As much as I would like it to be, Israel is not beyond critcism.
This is about as confused as it gets. The Israel test has nothing whatsoever to do with never criticising Israel: it’s about not demonising it, not criticising it out of all proportion to similar criticism of other countries in equivalent situations, and specifically not disallowing the right of the Jews to have a national homeland while allowing it to other nations.
| 21 November 2009, 9:28 pm |
How about including among your lists Palestinian right wingers who call Gilo a settlement, preparatory to a landgrab, though it has a huge majority of Jewish residents, and is clearly within Israel according even to the Geneva agreement
| 21 November 2009, 10:00 pm |
Why Human Rights Responsibility, Not Communism, is the Answer to Islamic Supremacism
http://www.realcourage.org/2009/11/the-needs-of-the-one/
| 21 November 2009, 10:42 pm |
‘Report of One Law For All Rally Speakers’ Corner London 21st November 2009
From the modest public address set-up not much more than the couple of hundred who attended was expected. Interesting ambient electro music from Resonance FM artists welcomed one. That it continued while event MC, Iranian Secular Society’s Fariborz Pooya began talking was quickly ironed out and both his enthusiasm and message – religious laws basically inhumane – came across loud and clear.
First speaker was Iranian Workers Communist Maryam Namazie. She has a credible and impassioned presence and her current soundbite acceptably is ‘there is nothing sacred except human beings’. She positioned Sharia law as an extension of the political Islamic movement. Like many other rally speakers Namazie fingered extant Sharia courts in Britain as problematical and ‘they must go just as they and their Jewish analogue have been abolished in Canada’.
While comrade Maryam held out the hope that the current political upheaval in Iran signaled the beginning of the end of political Islam, her replacement at the microphone lawyer and Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain’s Asad Abbas pointed to Saudi Arabia as the major proponent and funders of the international extension of Sharia.
Next up was the first of three or four young female poets collectively the Anti Injustice Movement, whose more personal observations, rather than political, were indeed moving.
National Secular Society’s Keith Porteous Wood then set out what we can do now – write to local newspapers make one’s views known to local MP. He encouragingly listed his recent activities which included getting acknowledgement that ‘Sharia is a problem’ from European Commission President Barossa.
It was when Southall Black Sister Rahila Gupta spoke that the heckling began. When she said faith schools is a form of neo-colonialism which leads to increased segregation, a formally dressed man heckled “where’s the evidence”. The uniquely facially haired embellished man ostentatiously attached to a singular valise, eloquently stood his ground while event stewards, police and cameras engaged him. Being a product of a faith school myself I was drawn to his argument that secularism can be fundamentalist too. Most of Gupta’s speech was harrowing reportage from her social worker role supporting victims of patriarchal abuse. However her assertion that ‘the concept of equality in a capitalist society is an empty shell’ was alienating.
National Secular Society’s Terry Sanderson message was brief ‘Sharia law you know where you can shove it’!
In front of the stage was a huge banner resolutely held throughout by an anti death penalty group. It contained execution porno including the image I first saw outside the Iranian embassy, of a young gay man about to be murdered signaling farewell to loved ones within the confines of his ‘cuffed’ hands
My car parking time was running out and I had to leave even though I could see headline acts around me. The big-haired philosopher AC Grayling and, looking healthy and happy in a denim shirt Peter Thatchell.
A charismatic south London musician faithfully strummed Phil Ochs’ When I Am Gone, before International Humanist and Ethical Union’s, Geneva based UN worker, Roy Brown delivered the day’s vital message.
The United Nations is being transformed by the fifty-seven country strong Organisation of Islamic Conference and fellow traveler non aligned nations – China, India, Russia, Brazil Their immediate project is to make blasphemy (peace be upon it) a crime equivalent to racism.
| 22 November 2009, 1:11 am |
Venichka, Israelinurse
be carefull of the company you keep.
That sharia law posing as a religious personal domestic law (that has already strayed into the civically illegal non-equal inheritance provisions for sona vs daughters in intestate matters and Imam counselling for wife beaters rather than the criminal prosecution now standard for anyone else)
Has advanced as far as it has because of an extraordinary and at times unknowing but solid coalition of opinion makers.
!. The conservative legal establishment. The paradigm of which is commercial law, contract and arbitration (through an act to allow for and enforce voluntary arbitration Shariah has slipped through).
these reactionaries have opposed almost all civil law reform that impinges on the ‘right’ to make an attrociously unfair and misrepresented agreement, through consumer legislation often com ing from europe, and the ability of ‘clubs’ to have exclusionary policies based upon any criteria that you like.
They hate that this ‘ancient English Liberty’ to be conned by the more knowing conniver’ has been eroded by nasty Voltarian anti discrimination reform, often coming from Europe.
I was in a court of appeals court case where a judge asked why can’t a private club be allowed to discriminate against disabled people it is a private arrangement.
2. The liberal political and legal establishment that think it is inherently progressive to segment and communalise society according to ethno-nationalist and ethno-religous pillars. To oppose Shariah is a species of racism in this view.
3. Religionists who with an eye to halt restore or advance the position of their religion, have engaged in a multi-faith politicisation agenda. They are short sighted and rather foolish as only Islamism has benefited from this arrangement (and perhaps in a destrucdtive side sweep at Anglicanism the Vatican).
There is no evidence that an increasing regard for religious non-discrimination works for anyone other than ‘ethnic’ religious believers.
I don’t get the religionists at all.
I will continue to call you all religionists as long as you mis understand and misrepresent secularism as something other than the centuries long in the development Euro-american solution to religious peace between warring Christian and Jewish sects.
No to Shariah does not mean no to observant Muslims it means no to unequal treatment before the law.
It means no to sacrificing the legal, civic and political emancipation of women within the United Kingdom a struggle that was one for and by the citizens and residents of this state, that we all be equal before the law.
I for one believe that all the people of Britain which ever confessional group lays claim to their allegiance have the universal right of access to that law.
And in this case I don’t care what any sectarian believers choose to say, because I demand as many have fought over the centuries to demand that they be treated equally before the law.
For those religionists who so strongly hold that their religious belief is incompatible with the laws of the land in which they live always have the Mennonite option;
They can hitch up and move from country to country every time the laws demand an unconscionable act (such as the contribution to a National Social Insurance system which caused a mass migration of Canadian and Mexican migration to South America in the 50’s and 60’s).
What is so objectionable for ye of faith to equal treatment before the law, you might surely need it yourself someday?
| 22 November 2009, 8:46 am |
Someone called me a fascist!!!!! I will rspond by saying that my accuser is a communist. Just as logical.
| 22 November 2009, 10:07 am |
Nope. To a lot of people communism and fascism are identical. It has no effect as I am neither.
Not many turned up.
One law for all.
That doesn’t sound very democratic.