[Politics_CurrentEvents_Group] islam and related

 

Sick Dreams of a Fanatic Islamist
by Azam Kamguian
Instead of putting chastity belts on women or burning them, contemporary
Christians merely pressurise girls and young women into wearing virginity rings
on their wedding fingers. This may be progress of a kind, but as some American
commentators have already pointed out, when wearers of the rings do have sex it
is more likely to be unprotected, and rather than reducing unwanted pregnancies
the rate is actually higher among these self-declared “virgins”. We live in
the 21st century and thanks to powerful secularist and liberationist women’s
movements, Christian nonsense of this kind had been forced onto the defensive -
but it is fighting back. We need to push it back to where it belongs â€" to
history. 

Mr. Iftikhar Ahmed envies American Christians and sees the Afghan-style
oppression of women as the solution to teenage pregnancy: he proposes burkas and
sexual apartheid in British schools. He suggests that if we segregate girls, we
would have no sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), no teenage pregnancies and
stable families.

Like all other religionists and fanatics, Mr. Ahmed either himself lacks
intelligence or refuses to use it. Do we have regular and systematic surveys and
statistics on STD, teenage pregnancy and divorce rate in Afghanistan, Iran and
other Islam stricken societies? No, of course not. Instead, how many times have
we heard about depression, self immolation, suicides and honour killings, and of
young women and girls escaping from home and the brutal violence used against
them? 

Mr. Ahmed intends to sell the products of a closed, corrupt Islamic society such
as Afghanistan to the people - and particularly the youth - in the West. You
want to get rid of STDs and teenage pregnancy? Lock up your girls, wear burka,
hijab and jilbab! Let women suffer lifelong sexual oppression while the men
follow the example of the Prophet Mohammed and the army of ayatollahs:
innumerable sexual relationships, as many as they wish! This is Islamic
morality. 

But what about the real problems of teenage pregnancies and STDs? We should
educate youth. We must provide proper sex education and provide free, safe and
reliable contraceptives. We should give young girls more control over their
lives and more choices. As experience from Holland has shown, this is the only
humane and effective way to reduce unwanted pregnancies, abortions and sexually
transmitted diseases. 

Islam and Christianity with their chastity rings and burkas belong to the dark
past, and in the name of human dignity and women’s autonomy must be
rejected. 

Burka, Hijab and Jilbab are nothing but the sick dreams of a fanatic Islamist.
Iftikhar Ahmad of the so-called “London School of Islamics” widely
circulates e-mails advocating the establishment in Britain of Muslim schools of
the most undesirable kind - the sort that devote most of the day to teaching
“traditional” Islam in Asian languages. His latest opus praises the Silver
Ring Thing evangelists and makes the case for enforcing Islamic ideas of
“chastity” on women. He writes: “In Afghanistan 99.9% of teenagers are
virgin. The reason is that all teenager girls leave homes wearing Afghani
Burkhas. There is no mix gathering. They attend single sex schools. They marry
as early as possible. If the teenager girls start wearing Afghani Burkhas or
Jilbab, I am sure that they are not going to lose their virginity before
marriage. The other alternative is the wearing of Jilbab. The success of
chastity crusade will depend on the number of teenagers leaving homes for
schools with Jilbab or Afghani Burkhas.”

The Bitter Lament of a Muslim Woman
By Jahanara Begum
  "Allah Amader Kandte Dao!" Allah, Please let us weep in peace! â€"Jahanara
Begum  
Please, Allah, leave us alone to cry and weep in peace. From behind the veil,
beyond public gaze we want to cry till we cannot cry any more. This is the only
right you have left to us Muslim women, throughout the Islamic world, where your
laws are meticulously followed. The world beyond is undergoing so many changes,
so many evolutions over the ages; year after year, new discoveries are being
made both in the sciences and philosophies, in the rest of the world, improving
upon old ideas and beliefs. But we are tied forever to the rigid and immutable
shackles of your laws, Allah. No one ever came forward for our emancipation.
Unique is our society! Men like Raja Ram Mohun Roy or Swami Vivekananda are not
born in this society. No Sharat Chandra comes forward in this society to write
an account of the volumes of tears that flow from our eyes. Educated Muslim men
like Badruddin Tyebji, Hamid Dalwai and others like them have written on
measures to stop the
killing of cows but have failed to utter a single word of sympathy for us,
Muslim women. Abdut Jabbar can write a big fat volume on the eunuchsâ€"and on
the castrated in different Muslim societiesâ€"but he has nothing to say in our
behalf. Syed Mustafa Siraj was at least honest when he said that the Hindus can
fearlessly write on the injustices and other inadequacies of their social
system, but we, the Muslims, are afraid to criticize the defects of the Islamic
society. Nargis Sattar has started to write a few articles on the subject of
Islamic marriage laws and we were so hopeful. But that hope too, once again, has
been taken away from us. More than a hundred female lawyers had demanded
women’s emancipation in the streets of Lahore in Islamic Pakistan. The
‘heroic’ Pakistani policemen attacked the female lawyers with sticks and
batons. A Muslim female member of the ADMK party of India had raised the subject
of the emancipation of India’s Muslim
women in the nation’s parliamentâ€"but then, all the progressive members of
parliament remained silent on the issue, for no one wanted to offend the
fundamentalist mullahs and lose the Muslim votes.
Oh Allah! the political leaders and their supporters in this land are very
peculiar. They are just like the eunuchs who used to live among the innumerable
young and beautiful women of the harems. All the lust, passion and sexual
desires that overtook them, were of no avail for after all, they were eunuchs
and so quite helpless. Our political leaders are exactly like those eunuchs.
These leaders talk in high-sounding, noble words such as ‘freedom’,
‘non-discrimination’, ‘secularism’ and many other beautiful words. But
alas, they do not have the means to apply a single such word to the day-to-day
life of our Muslim society. And so, the crying and weeping of the Muslim women
go on unchecked; from one age to another. Their tears are symbolized by the
waters that cover three quarters of this planet. What a horrible, inhuman and
illogical existence we have! Leaving his hundreds of concubines behind, the
octogenarian Sheikh from Arabia comes to
India to ‘marry’ a Muslim teenager. The news is flashed in all papers but
behold, not a single political leader even registers a protest. Not a single
mullah or maulvi declares ‘jihad’ or holy war on such goings-on. On the
other hand, the mullah presides over these "Muta Marriages" that last for only a
short fixed time.
What an unbearable existence for us to live and survive among co-wives!
Innumerable children, unhealthy surroundings, poverty and lack of education have
made a mockery of our social lives. Even goats and cows live better than us. The
frequent fights among the co-wives, the pulling at one another’s hair are so
degrading! And then, God forbicl, if the miyan or husband gets into the fray,
then we get beaten like a beast until we cannot take it anymore. And after the
beating, to make it even more degrading, the miyan takes his other wife into the
bedroom and shuts the door into our face.
If there is the slightest shortcoming in the wife’s attention to the physical
needs of the miyan or husband, then woe be to her. She goes on suffering forever
from an acute uncertainty, and intense anxiety. The sword of ‘Talaq’ or
divorce could come down on her any moment. The slightest inattention eoulo
provoke a divorce. All is in the hands of the Muslim husband. Just the
pronouncement of the word ‘Talaq’ three times can move the earth from under
the feet of the Muslim wife. The consequence? Cheap labour or prostitution. The
little children suffer from lack of mother’s love, a sense of awesome
insecurity and an unhealthy environment. If the children manage to survive then
the society is burdened with more beggars and criminals. Admittedly such
occurrences do take place in other societies as well, but then they are much
fewer in number and, what is more important, in other societies such a state of
affairs is not allowed to persist in the
name of their ‘religion’, while in our society the mullahs preach such
treatment to us women in the name of ‘Islam’. The motto among us is:
‘Breed and profit’â€"take over the land by increased birth rate. And we, the
married Muslim women, have to bear all the burden of the entire operation. That
is why no one ever finds a married Muslim woman who is not nursing her own baby
or is not pregnant. They are with a child all the time. They die young.
We observe the lives of Hindu women who live near or around us. What a sense of
purity, security and trust surrounds their family lives! Where is the hope of
chastity, of purity in our lives? If the Muslim husband comes to regret
divorcing his wife, if it happens at all, he still can do nothing to redress the
situation. Allah, your laws of the ‘shariat’ prevent re-marriage with the
ex-husband. The mullah will get into the act, get the woman ‘married’ to
someone else and she has to consummate the ‘marriage’ for three days and
three nights, and then, and then only, she can re-become ‘pure and virgin’.
If the new husband ‘divorces’ the woman obligingly, then only the previous
and now repentant husband can ‘re-marry’ her. On the other hand, if the
bride happens to be a good woman, the new husband may not wish to divorce her
and then trouble starts between the two men. Fighting breaks out culminating in
murders in many cases. Such is
our life, Allah! Who should we go to with our sorrows and complaints? If we
rebel, then we are physically beaten and punished in accordance with the laws
laid down by you. If we complain, then we are accused of being hypocrites or
‘munafiq’. In every other religion, respect is accorded to chastity,
self-control and purity. But not so, in your religion. Oh Allah, the only
privilege that we have is to cry our hearts out.
There are many ‘educated’ Muslims who are not unaware of all this. But they
do not protest for they too are out to have fun at our expense. Those Muslims
who are truly liberated, abandon us and do not want to concern themselves with
our problems. It was with us in mind that Kazi Abdul Oclud once said that in the
last 1400 years, Islam has not been able to light even a small candle
eradicating darkness from human civilization. Abu Syed Ayub spent his entire
active life singing Tagore songs. He married the Hindu woman Gouri Dutta and
lived a free and healthy life like any other Hindu. Mohamnled Ali Karim Chagla
did the same. Vice President Hidayetullah, political leaders like Sikandar
Bakht, Dr. Jeelany, Syed Mujtaba Ali too, did the same; in fact any one from our
society that has gone up in civilized life away from our miseries, pains and
problems moved closer to the society of the Hindus. (We are not sure about
Ghagla, but Humayun Kabir and Sadiqu
Ali married Hindu ladies. â€"Publisher). Only we the abandoned ones are left
behind in the dark prison controlled by the mullahs and the maulvis. We just cry
here in an endless pain. No writer or reporter writes a story on us or makes an
attempt to fathom the depth of our sorrow. The Government of India gave us the
right to vote but denied us a healthy and peaceful married life by perpetuating
the ‘Muslim Personal Marriage Code’. The ‘Hindu Code Bill’ liberated the
Hindu women but we still remain the victims of polygamous practices. No remedy
has been provided to prevent frivolous divorces in our Islamic society.
Once upon a time we used to trust the Marxists on this score. The Muslim women
of Tazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan have found their freedom in Soviet
Russia. No Sheikh from Arabia can buy them. These women do not spend their lives
among innumerable children, unending pregnancies and degrading fights among
co-wives. They have meaningful lives to lead. The mullahs do not have control
over them. But here in our land, even the Marxists are under the thumb of the
mullahs. A Marxist like Mansur Habibullah went to Mecca, became a ‘Haji’
just to please the mullahs. And everyone knows that in his personal life,
Habibullah does not care about this religion. His life is like that of a logical
Hindu. And so we were saying Allah, you have not given us the slightest
opportunity to have a little peace, a little happiness. Your lack of concern for
us is eternal. In the middle ages, nawabs and sultans used to keep thousands of
women in their harems. Most of our
days and nights then were spent in weeping. Some spent their time in laying
plots and some in profligacy and unnatural practices. We were the fuel for the
lusts of these sultans. Interminable fights have taken place among brothers,
between father and son and among the nawabs themselves for us women. The chariot
of civilization, slowly but surely, has crossed many paths. Radical changes have
taken place in other societies and other lands. Even the burning of the
‘suttee’, a terrible Hindu practice, has been eradicated by social progress.
The marriage of very old men with very young brides that used to take place
among some Hindus, following the ‘Kaulinya’ systemâ€"has also been abandoned
in time. Many bad social customs and practices have disappeared in other
societies. Even in our Islamic society some good changes have taken placeâ€"but
then these changes have always been to the advantage of Muslim males only.
There is a villaye near Basra in Iraq. That village was well-known for supplying
eunuchs for the nawabs’ harems. Nearly 60% of the young lads who were
castrated there used to die. This butchery has ceased today. There are many
Muslims like Idi Amin who have numerous wives but the eunuchs are no more there
to watch over the women. But for us, nothing has changed. The men of our society
are completely without concern for their women. By granting a few property
rights they seem to think that a lot has been done for us Muslim women. What
good are these property rights when our marriages are scarred with an unending
chain of divorces and re-marriages? The Muslim law has, on the other hand, given
rise to a lot more persecution of Muslim women. If a divorced Muslim woman files
a suit for her property and alimony rights, then the Muslim court moves very
slowly indeed. In the meantime, the husband can get remarried without any
hindrance from our Islamic laws.
The law of the land that helps women of all other communities under similar
circumstances is of no use to us Muslim women because we are supposed to go by
the laws of Islam only and nothing else. It was Abdul Rauf who wrote in the
Bengali newspaper ‘Jugaantar’ describing the sorrows of Muslim women all
over the country but, alas, there was no reaction. A few letters appeared in the
press supporting the article and that was all.
But our Muslim leaders are very sensitive when it is a question of their own
vested interest. Muzaffar Hussain wrote from north India that the Hindi movie
‘Talaq, talaq, talaq’ was renamed ‘Nikaah’ on the advice of the mullahs.
The mullahs said that to mention the name of the film to their wives, the Muslim
husbands would have to pronounce the magic word three times which would
automatically end their marriages. These are funny men who are afraid to
pronounce the word ‘Talaq’ but would do nothing to eradicate the dreadful
practice of frivolous divorces. Such a great number of Muslim women lead a
helpless and miserable life due to this abominable practice of ‘Talaq’. But
then none of the ‘pious’ Muslims worry about it.
The Islamic soldiers of Pakistan’s Yahya Khan gang-raped hundreds of thousands
of women in Bangladesh. More than two hundred thousand women became pregnant. A
great number of these women later became insane. Only Mujibur Rahman tried to
help a little, but the rest of the Islamic world maintained a complete silence.
Khomeini’s Iran is currently killing hundreds of women. Their fault is that
they do not support his rule. So, in the name of Islam, these women are being
butchered. Vishnu Upadhyay has written about the incidents in the newspaper
‘Aaj Kal’ but then no one says a wordâ€"the Muslin world is still silent. In
any other society, if a woman is raped, the papers cry out in her support,
raising a storm of protest in the community. Islam means peace. To watch
silently the persecution of women is perhaps this peace. Such lack of concern
for women has prevented all improvement in our condition. No blessing or show of
kindness from our angels has
been bestowed upon us and so, Allah, we are telling you once again about our
sadness. You are the master of this world and universe. You are the one we are
addressing our complaints to. You have denied us a happy life. If we happen to
be one of many wives of a rich Muslim then we spend our lives in jealousy,
rivalry and unending pregnancies. If on the other hand, we belong to a poor
husband then there is back-breaking hard work for all day and one pregnancy
after another as well. Wherever we go, the sword of ‘Talaq’ or divorce
always hangs over our heads. The uncertainty and insecurity of our lives affect
not only ourselves but our children as well. They have no better choice and get
into begging and street crimes. You have seen the crowds of Muslim women and
their numerous children roaming around the Howrah station of Calcutta. That they
are Muslims can be guessed by the presence of the bearded mullahs that hang
around these women. The only concern
of the mullahs is to ensure that these women remain Muslims. They are not
concerned with their health, well-being, safety and simple humanness. And so,
there is nothing for a Muslim woman to look forward to. There is a lot of tears
to shed though. A lot of weeping that has no remedy. And so we are crying out to
you, Oh Allah, you have given us one and only one privilege and that is to weep.
Please therefore let us weep in peace and leave us alone

Is Islam Compatible With Democracy and Human Rights?
" Islam has never favoured democratic tendencies..."
                                    Hurgronje [277]

       " The Democratic system that is predominant in the world is not a
suitable system for the peoples of our region... The system of free elections is
not suitable to our country"
                                         King Fahd of Saudi Arabia
At least King Fahd has had the honesty to admit the incompatibility of Islam and
Democracy. Meanwhile Western Islamic apologists and modernising Muslims continue
to look for democratic principles in Islam and Islamic history.
 
[A]  Human Rights and Islam
Let us look at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 and compare  it
to Islamic law and doctrine.
Article 1 " All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They
are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a
spirit of brotherhood   ".
Article 2 " Everyone is entitled to all rights and freedoms set forth in this
Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex,
language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin,
property, birth or other status ".
 Article 3 " Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person "
 Article 4 No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave
trade shall be prohibited in all their forms "
Comments: (1) Women are inferior under Islamic law; their testimony in  a court
of law  is worth half that of a man; their movement is strictly restricted, they
cannot marry a non-Muslim
                (2) Non - Muslims living in Muslim countries have inferior
status under Islamic law, they may not testify against a Muslim. In Saudi
Arabia, following a tradition of Muhammed who said " Two religions cannot exist
in the country of Arabia ", non _ Muslims are forbidden to practice their
religion, build churches, possess Bibles etc.
              (3) Non-believers -- atheists (surely the most neglected minority
in history) -- in Muslim countries do not have   "the  right to life ". They are
to be killed. Muslim doctors of law generally divide sins into great sins and
little sins. Of the seventeen great sins, unbelief is the greatest, more heinous
than murder, theft, adultery etc..
                (4) Slavery is recognised in the Koran. Muslims are allowed to
cohabit with any of their female slaves (Sura iv.3); they are allowed to take
possession of married women if they are slaves (Sura iv.28); the helpless
position of the slave as regard his master illustrates the helpless position of
the false gods of Arabia in the presence of their Creator (Sura  xvi.77).
 Article 5 No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment.
Comments (1) We have seen what  punishments are in store for the transgressers
of the Holy Law: amputations, crucifixion, stoning to death, floggings. I
suppose a Muslim could argue that these were not unusual for a Muslim country,
but what of their inhumanity? Again a Muslim could contend that they are of
divine origin and must not be judged by human criteria. By human standards, they
ARE inhuman.
 Article 6  Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before
the law.
 The whole notion of a person who can make choice, and can be held morally
responsible is lacking in Islam; as is the entire notion of human rights.
 Articles  7,  8, 9, 10, 11 deal with the rights of an accused person to  a fair
trial.
Comments (1) As Schacht has shown under the Sharia considerations of good faith,
fairness, justice, truth, and so on play only a subordinate role. The idea of
criminal guilt is lacking.
         (2) Revenge for a killing is officially sanctioned, though a money
recompense is also possible. 
          (3) The legal procedure, under Islam,  can hardly be called impartial
or fair, for in the matter of witnesses all sorts of injustices emerge. A non
_Muslim may not testify against a Muslim. For example, a Muslim may rob a non
_Muslim in his home with impunity  if  there are no witnesses except the non_
Muslim himself.  The evidence of Muslim women is admitted only very
exceptionally and then only from twice the number required of men.
 Article 16 deals with the rights of marriage of men and women
Comment (1) As we shall see in our chapter on women, women under Islam do not
have equal rights: they are not free to marry whom they wish, the rights of
divorce are not equal.
 Article 18 " Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and
religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and
freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to
manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance ".
Comments (1) Quite clearly under Islam, one does not have the right to change
one's religion, if one is born into a Muslim family.  Applying double standards,
Muslims are quite happy to accept converts to their religion, but a Muslim may
not convert to another religion, this would be apostasy  which is punishable by
death.  Here is how the great commentator Baydawi (c.1291) sees the matter:

" Whosoever turns back from his belief, openly or secretly, take him and kill
him wheresoever you find him, like any other infidel. Separate yourself from him
altogether. Do not accept intercession in his regard ".
Comment (2) Statistics on conversions from Islam to Christianity, and therefore
apostasy, are  hard to establish for obvious reasons.  There is, however, a myth
that Muslims are impossible to convert.  On the contrary we do have enough
evidence of literally thousands of Muslims abandoning Islam for Christ from the
Middle Ages to Modern Times; the most spectacular cases being, amongst others,
those of Moroccan and Tunisian princes in the 17th century, of the monk
Constantin the African.  Count Rudt - Collenberg has found evidence at the Casa
dei Catecumeni at Rome  of 1087 conversions between 1614 and 1798.According to
A.T. Willis and others between two or three million Muslims converted to
Christianity after the massacres of the communists in Indonesia, in 1965, 
described earlier [chapter x] In France alone, in the 1990s, there are two or
three hundred converts to Christianity from Islam, EACH YEAR. According to Ann
Mayer, in Egypt conversions
have been " occurring with enough frequency to anger Muslim clerics and to
mobilize conservative Muslim opinion behind proposals to enact a law imposing
the death penalty for apostasy "[Mayer177].  Ms. Mayer points out that, in the
past, many women have been to tempted to convert from Islam to ameliorate their
lot.
Comment (3) Those who convert to Christianity and choose to stay in the Muslim
country do so at great personal danger. The convert has most of his rights
denied him, identity papers are often refused him, so that he has difficulties
leaving his country; his marriage is declared null and void, his children are
taken away from him to be brought up by Muslims, and he forfeits his rights of
inheritance.  Often the family will take matters into their own hands and simply
assassinate the apostate; the family are, of course, not punished.  [Gaudeul]
 Article 19 " Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this
right includes freedom to hold opinion without interference and to seek, receive
and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers
".
Comments (1) The rights enshrined in articles 18 and 19 have been consistently
violated in Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. In all three countries, the rights
of their Bahai, Ahmadi and Shia minorities respectively have been denied. All
three countries justify their actions by reference to Sharia. Christians in
these countries are frequently arrested on charges of blasphemy and their rights
denied.
 Here is how Amnesty International describes the scene in Saudi Arabia: "
Hundreds of Christians, including women and children have been arrested and
detained over the past three years, most without charge or trial, solely for the
peaceful expression of their religious beliefs. Scores have been tortured, some
by flogging, while in detention... The possession of non_ Islamic religious
objects - including Bibles, rosary beads, crosses and pictures of Jesus Christ
__ is prohibited and such items may be confiscated.  " AINO 62 JUly / Aug 1993
Similarly scores of Shia Muslims have  been harassed, arrested, tortured and in
some cases,  beheaded. For example, on September 3, 1992 Sadiq Abdul Karim
Malallah was publicly beheaded in al- Qatif after being convicted of apostasy
and blasphemy.  Sadiq, a Shia Muslim, was arrested in 1988 and charged with
throwing stones at a police station, then of smuggling a Bible into the country.
He was  kept in solitary confinement, where he was tortured.
The situation of Ahmadis in Pakistan is somewhat similar. The Ahmadiyya movement
was founded by Mirza Ghulam Ahmed (died 1908), who is regarded as  a prophet by
his followers Amnesty International [ASA  / 33 / 15 / 91] summed up their
situation in this manner:

"Ahmadis consider themselves to be Muslims but they are regarded by orthodox
Muslims as heretical because they call the founder of the movement al- Masih
[the Messiah]: this is taken to imply that Mohammad is not the final  seal of
the prophets as orthodox Islam holds, i.e. the prophet who carried the final
message from God to humanity. According to Ahmadis their faith does not involve
the denial of the Prophet Mohammad's status because Mirza Ghulam Ahmed did not
claim to bring a new revelation of divine  law which could add to, replace or
supersede  the Koran. Mirza Ghulam Ahmed considered himself a mahdi, a
reappearance of the Prophet Mohammad, and thought it his task to revive Islam.
As a result of these divergences, Ahmadis have been subjected to discrimination
and persecution in some Islamic countries. In the mid- 1970s, the Saudi
Arabia-based World Muslim League called on Muslim governments worldwide to take
action against Ahmadis. Ahmadis are 
since then banned in Saudi Arabia."
Throughout Pakistan's history, the Ahmadis have been subjected to harassment,
which has, on occasion, led to serious bloodshed. Things got worse for them,
when President Zia - ul Haq came to power in 1977 after a military coup. He
introduced a policy of Islamization,  and imposed severe restrictions on the
Ahmadis. In 1984, further legislation was introduced aimed explicitly at these
so - called heretics. Henceforth, the Ahmadis could no longer call themselves
Muslims.  Since then, scores of Ahmadis have been charged and sentenced severely
under sections of the Pakistan Penal Code.  Thus Ahmadis can be imprisoned and
even sentenced to death solely for the exercise of their right to freedom of
religion including the right to express their religion.  Again, it is important
to realise that such attitudes to " heretics " is a logical consequence of the
orthodox Muslim position that Muhammad is the seal of the Prophets, that Islam
is the most perfect and
final expression of God's purpose for all mankind, and that salvation outside
Islam is not possible.
Comment (2) Blasphemy towards God and the Prophet are punishable by death under
Islam. In modern  times, blasphemy has simply become a tool for Muslim
governments to silence opposition; or for individuals to settle personal scores;
or, as we saw earlier, to seek out and punish " heresy ". A report in the
Economist points out the manipulation of  "blasphemy " in Pakistan: " A judgment
by the High Court in Lahore is worrying Pakistan's Christians. The court decided
recently that Pakistan's blasphemy laws are applicable to all the prophets of
Islam. Jesus is a prophet in Islamic teaching. By worshipping Jesus as the son
of God, Christians are, it could be argued, committing a blasphemy....There are
about 1.2 [million] Christians in Pakistan, out of a population of 120
[million]. Many of them are of low caste, doing menial jobs. Some have suffered
for their beliefs. Tahir Iqbal, a mechanic in the air force who converted to
Christianity and  was charged
with blasphemy, mysteriously died in prison while awaiting trial. Manzoor Masih
was accused of blasphemy, given bail and shot dead in the street.... Human
-rights watchers say there is often sectarian and political rivalry, a dispute
over property or competition for jobs " [May 7, 1994]
Article 23.1  Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to
just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. 
Comment (1) Women are not free to choose their work under Islam, certain jobs
are forbidden to them, even in so - called liberal Muslim countries.  Orthodox
Islam forbids women from working outside the home. [see Chapter x] 
Comment (2) Non - Muslims are not free to choose their work in Muslim countries,
or rather certain posts are not permitted them. A recent example from Saudi
Arabia makes the point. A group of Muslims working in a company owned by a
Muslim were shocked when the Muslim owner appointed a new manager, who was a
Christian. The Muslims demanded a religious ruling asking whether it was
permissible under Islam to have a Christian in authority over them. Sheikh
Mannaa K. Al Qubtan at the Islamic Law College of Riyadh declared that it was
intolerable under Islam that a non - Muslim should wield authority over Muslims.
He pointed to two verses from the Koran to back up his argument: Sura iv. 141: "
Allah will not give the disbelievers triumph over the believers " Sura lxxiii.8:
Force and power belong to God, and to His Prophet, and to believers "  
Article 26 deals with the right of education.
 Comment (1) Again certain fields of learning are denied to women (see chapter
x)
Conclusion: It is  clear that Islamic militants are quite aware of the
incompatibility of Islam and The 1948 Declaration of Human Rights. For these
militants met in Paris in 1981 to draw up an Islamic Declaration of Human 
Rights which left out all freedoms that contradicted Islamic law. Even more
worrying is the fact that under pressure from Muslim countries in November 1981,
the United Nations Declaration on the elimination of religious discrimination
was revised, and references to the right "to adopt "(Article 18, above) and,
therefore to " change " one's religion were deleted, and only the right " to
have " a religion was retained [FI Spring 1984 p 22].
 
[B] Democracy and Islam 

"  Western ideas of individualism, liberalism, constitutionalism, human rights,
equality, liberty, the rule of law, democracy, free markets, the separation of
church and state often have little resonance in Islamic, Confucian, Japanese,
Hindu, Buddhist or Orthodox cultures "
                 Samuel P. Huntington, " The Clash of Civilisations? "
 The values  and principles  of  Democracy are defined and enshrined in the
British and American Constitutions, and both the British (1688) and American
Bill of Rights (proposed 1789 and ratified 1791).
 
Separation of Church and State
 One of the fundamental principles of Democracy is the separation of church and
state (Amendment I of the American Bill of Rights: " Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof...").We have seen, that in Islam there is no such separation, instead,
we have, what Thomas Paine calls, the adulterous connection of church and state.
Why is this separation so essential? If Muslims are sincere in espousing the
cause of Democracy in their own countries, then they must learn the profound
reasons underlying the adoption of this separation. They must then decide
whether these underlying principles are at all compatible with Islam, or whether
they entail too many compromises with the orthodox tenets of their creed. This
is not the time for moral, intellectual and doctrinal evasiveness. 
[1] The idea of a separation of church and state has been formulated by many
Western philosophers:  Locke, Spinoza and the "philosophes" of the
Enlightenment. In his " A Letter Concerning Toleration ", Locke gives three
reasons  for adopting this principle:
(1)  " First, because the care of souls is not committed to the civil magistrate
[i.e. the state], any more than to other men. It is not committed unto him, I
say, by God; because it appears not that God has ever given any such authority
to one man over another, as to compel any one to his religion.  Nor can any such
power be vested in the magistrate [state] by the consent of the people; because
no man can so far abandon the care of his own salvation as blindly to leave it
to the choice of any other, whether prince or subject, to prescribe to him what
faith or worship he shall embrace. For no man can, if he would, conform his
faith to the dictates of another. All the life and power of true religion
consists in the inward and full persuasion of the mind; and faith is not faith
without believing. " 
(2) " In the second place, the care of souls cannot belong to the civil
magistrate , because his power consists only in outward force: but true and
saving religion consists in the inward persuasion of the mind, without which
nothing can be acceptable to God. And such is the nature of the understanding,
that it cannot be compelled to the belief of anything by outward force.... It
may indeed be alleged that the magistrate  may make use of arguments... But it
is one thing to persuade, another to command; one thing to press with arguments,
another with penalties... The magistrate's power extends not to the establishing
of any articles of faith, or forms of worship, by the force of his laws."
(3) "... There being but one truth, one way to heaven; what hope is there that
more men would be led into it, if they had no other rule to follow but the
religion of the court, and were put under a necessity to quit the light of their
own reason, to oppose the dictates of their own consciences, and blindly to
resign up themselves to the will of their governors, and to the religion, which
either ignorance, ambition, or superstition had chanced to establish in the
countries where they were born?  In the variety and contradiction of opinions in
religion, wherein the princes of the world are as much divided as in their
secular interests, the narrow way would be much straitened; one country alone
would be in the right, and the rest of the world put under an obligation of
following their princes in the ways that lead to destruction..."
In other words, it is not the business of the state to interfere with the
freedom of conscience and thought of its citizens, it cannot make people
religious by force; at best, there may be outward observance, but at the cost of
sincerity of belief. Locke 's third point above, a point also made by Kant, is
that by behaving in the above manner one is cutting one self and an entire age
or generation off from further enlightenment and progress. As Kant put it: "...
To unite in a permanent religious institution which is not to be subject to
doubt before the public -- that is absolutely forbidden ". That is to abdicate
reason, renounce enlightenment and trample on the rights of mankind. Locke
further argues that we must get away from the notion that we are " born Muslims"
or " born Christians " and that we cannot do anything about it. We should be
free to enter or leave any particular creed, otherwise there would be no
progress, freedom or reform.  Once the
principle of the separation of church and state is admitted, there should
follow a free discussion of religion without fear of torture. However, of
course, this is precisely   what theocratic governments or  religious autocrats
fear -- free-thought. As Paine put it, " The adulterous connection of church and
state, wherever it has taken place, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish
[Muslim], has so effectually prohibited by pains and penalties every discussion
upon established creeds, and upon first principles of religion, that until the
system of government should be changed, those subjects could not be brought
fairly and openly before the world; but that whenever this should be done, a
revolution in the system of religion would follow. Human inventions and
priestcraft would be detected; and man would return to the pure, unmixed and
unadulterated belief of one God, and no more ". 
04.03
Following the example set by Locke, the Founding Fathers of  the American
Constitution, especially Madison, defended religious freedom by adopting the
Bill of Rights, which, of course, includes the separation of state and church. 
It has played such an important role in safeguarding the rights of religious
minorities, dissenters and heretics.  Hitherto, the latter had suffered
persecution, intolerance, disenfranchisement and discrimination.
In his " Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments " of 1785,
Madison wrote: " The Religion...of every man must be left to the conviction and
conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as
these may dictate. The same authority which can establish Christianity, in
exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease any
particular sect of Christianity in exclusion of all other Sects. Whilst we
assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to have the Religion
which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to
those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us ".
Madison's greatness can be seen in his generous attitude to non-believers. Even
the great Locke was intolerant of  atheists.  Madison's words written at the
occasion of the  Virginia Ratification Convention of 1788 are even more 
relevant in this age of multifaith and multi-ethnic societies:  Is a bill of
rights security for religion,...If there were a majority of one sect, a bill of
rights would be a poor protection for liberty. Happily for the states, they
enjoy the utmost freedom of religion. This freedom arises from the multiplicity
of sects, which pervades America, and which is the best and only security for
religious liberty in any society. For where there is such a variety of sects,
there cannot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the rest...
There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with
religion.  Its least interference with it would be a most flagrant usurpation. 
I can appeal to my
uniform on this subject, that I have warmly supported religious freedom."
What the separation of church and state means in modern terms was clearly
explained by the Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black in the 1947 Everson ruling:

 "The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least
this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither
can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion
over another.  Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or remain away
from church against his will or  force him to profess a belief or disbelief in
any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious
beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any
amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or
institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to
teach or practice religion.  Neither a state nor the Federal Government can,
openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organisations or
groups and vice versa.  In the words of Jefferson, the clause against
establishment of religion
by law was intended to erect  'a wall of separation between Church and State.'"
 
Authoritarianism, Democracy, and Islam
As soon as you have an established  religious institution which is beyond doubt,
then, as Kant and Paine (quoted above) showed, you have tyranny, thought police,
an absence of the critical sense that hinders intellectual and moral progress.
In the Islamic theocracy, God is the absolute ruler whose words must be obeyed
absolutely, without discussion, without doubt, without questions; we cannot plea
bargain with God; nor can we override God's veto.  The Islamic God is not a
Democrat; we cannot get rid  of Him as we can  a human representative elected by
the people in  a Representative Democracy. If power corrupts, then absolute
power corrupts absolutely.
While one  historian of religion, writing in 1942, finds the fact that the 
career of Muhammad, the Prophet, presents " certain analogies to that of a
nationalist leader nearer to our own day ", disturbing,   so many   others  in
the West find this  very absoluteness, self-confidence and authoritarianism of
Islam  appealing.. For example in a remarkable passage from a book written in
about 1910, J.  M. Kennedy first deplores the quietism of the Buddhists and the
theosophists, castigates the Jews for being too soft, and then accuses
Christianity of 

" inoculating as much of the world as it can reach with the degenerate
principles of humanitarianism, let us be thankful that there are many millions
of Moslems to show us a religion which is not afraid to acknowledge the manly
virtues of war, courage, strength, and daring __ a religion which does not seek
new followers by means of cunning dialectics, but which boldly makes converts
with the sword."
In recent years, Western apologists of Islam have also argued for " principled
autocracy ", as exemplified by Franco in Spain. In terms similar to Kennedy,
Martin Lings shows his essential contempt for democracy and his advocacy for a
kind of Islamic theocracy in such works as " The Eleventh Hour: the Spiritual
Crisis of the Modern World in The Light of Tradition and Prophecy, " 1987.
Indeed autocracy and Islam are far more natural bedfellows than Islam and
democracy. Democracy depends on freedom of thought and free discussion, whereas
Islamic Law explicitly forbids the discussions of decisions arrived at by the
infallible consensus of the ulama. The whole notion of infallibility whether of
a " Book " or a group of people is profoundly undemocratic and unscientific.
Democracy functions by critical discussion, rational thought, by listening to
another point of view, by compromise, by changing one's mind, by tentative
proposals which are submitted to criticism, by testing of theories by  trying to
refute them.  Islamic law is not legislated but divinely revealed and
infallible, and, as T.H. Huxley noted (see motto to chapter x), the notion of 
infallibility, in all shapes, lay or clerical, has  done endless mischief, and
has been responsible for bigotry, cruelty and superstition. 
 
Why Islam is Incompatible With Democracy and Human Rights:
A Summary:
(1)   Islamic law tries to legislate for every single aspect of an individual's
life, the individual is not at liberty to think or decide for himself, he has
but to accept God's rulings as interpreted infallibly  by the doctors of law.
The fact is  we do not have, nor can  such a  complete ethical code  exist in  a
liberal democracy; we do not and cannot have an all -embracing, all-inclusive
scale of  values.
 (2) The measure of any culture's level of democracy is the the rights and
position it accords to women and its minorities.  Islamic law denies the rights
of women, and non- Muslim religious minorities.  Pagans or non-believers are
shown no tolerance: death or conversion.  Jews and Christians are treated as
second class citizens.  Because of the Islamic doctrine of Muhammad being the
last of the true prophets and Islam being the final and most complete word of
God, " Muslim sects " such as the Ahmadis are persecuted, harassed and
physically attacked.  Muslims have yet to appreciate that democracy is not "
majority rule ", that the tyranny of the majority must be guarded against,
every  democratic  society must be wary of imposing  "its own ideas and
practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them ".  
As I discuss both the case of women and non-Muslims under Islam elsewhere, I
shall only summarise their legal status here. 
Women are considered inferior to men, and they have less rights and duties from
the religious point of view. As regards blood-money, evidence, and inheritance,
a woman is counted as half a man; equally in regard to marriage and divorce her
position is less advantageous than that of the man; her husband may even beat
her, in certain cases. [Schacht 126 127].  
Here is Schacht ' s summary of the legal position of non-Muslims: " The basis of
the Islamic attitude towards unbelievers is the law of war; they must be either
converted or subjugated or killed (excepting women, children, and slaves); the
third alternative, in general, occurs only if the first two are refused.  As an
exception, the Arab pagans are given the choice only between conversion to Islam
or death. Apart from this, prisoners of war are either made slaves or killed or
left alive as free dhimmis or exchanged for Muslim prisoners of war...". Under a
treaty of surrender, the non-Muslim is given protection and called a dhimmi. "
This treaty necessarily provides for the surrender of the non_ Muslims with all
duties deriving from it, in particular the payment of tribute, i.e. the fixed
poll-tax (jizya) and the land tax (kharaj)...The non-Muslim must wear
distinctive clothing and must mark their houses, which must not be built higher
than those of the
Muslims, by distinctive signs; they must not ride horses or bear arms, and they
must yield the way to Muslims; they must not scandalize the Muslims by openly
performing their worship or their distinctive customs, such as drinking wine;
they must not build new churches, synagogues, and hermitages; they must pay the
poll-tax under humiliating conditions.  It goes without saying that they are
excluded from the specifically Muslim privileges...". The dhimmi cannot be a
witness against a Muslim, he cannot be the guardian of his child who is a
Muslim. [Schacht 130-132]  In the U.S. Constitution, the Fourteenth Amendment
says:"...no State shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws".  Originally intended to end discrimination against
black Americans, it was later extended to provide protection against
discrimination on other criteria than race, and many minorities felt protected
for the first time. 
(3) Islam continuously manifests  hostility towards human reason, rationality,
critical discussion without which democracy, and scientific and moral progress
are not possible. Again, I  treat this subject elsewhere. 
(4) The notion of an individual -- a moral person -- who is capable of taking
rational decisions and accepting moral responsibility for his free acts is
lacking in Islam. Ethics is reduced to obeying orders. Of course, there is the
notion of an individual who has legal obligations, but not in the sense of an 
individual who may freely set the goals and contents of his life, of the
individual who may decide what  meaning he wants to give to his life.  Under
Islam, it is God and the Holy Law which set limits  as to the possible agenda 
of your life. 
It is worth emphasizing that the American Bill of Rights is essential for
safeguarding the civil and political rights of an individual against the
government, as Jefferson put it: "... A bill of rights is what the people are
entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what
no just government should refuse, or rest on inference ".  Individuals have
rights that no mythical or mystical collective goal or will can justifiably
deny.  To quote Von Hayek: " individual freedom cannot be reconciled with the
supremacy of one single purpose to which the whole society must be entirely and
permanently subordinated ".The First Ten Amendments, and the 14th Amendment of
the U.S. Constitution limit the power of the governments, they protect
individuals from unfair actions by the government, they protect individuals'
rights of freedom of religion, speech, press, petition, and peaceful assembly,
and the rights of persons accused of crimes
against state abuses. They prevent a state from depriving anyone of civil
liberties.  Liberal democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom and
attaches all possible value to each man or woman.  Individualism is not a
recognisable feature of Islam, instead the collective will of the Muslim people
is constantly emphasised, there is certainly no notion of individual rights
which only developed in the West, especially during the 18th century.  The
constant injunction to obey the Caliph who is God's Shadow on Earth is hardly
inducive to creating a rights based individualist philosophy. The hostility to
individual rights is manifest in this excerpt from a recent Muslim thinker who
has written on human rights from an Islamic perspective, A.K.Brohi, a former
Minister of Law and Religious Affairs in Pakistan:  

"   Human duties and rights have been vigorously defined and their orderly
enforcement is the duty of the whole of organized communities and the task is
specifically entrusted to the law enforcement organs of the state.The individual
if necessary has to be sacrificed in order that the life of the organism be
saved. Collectivity has a special sanctity attached to it in Islam.
"[In Islam] there are no "human rights or "freedoms" admissible to man in the
sense in which modern man's thought, belief and practice understand them: in
essence, the believer owes obligation or duties to God if only because he is
called upon to obey the Divine Law and such Human rights as he is made to
acknowledge seem to stem from his primary duty to obey God."
The totalitarian nature of this philosophy is evident, and further underlined by
the line, " By accepting to live in Bondage to this Divine Law, man learns to be
free ", which  frighteningly reminds one of Orwell's " Freedom is Slavery ".
 Another Muslim thinker wrote in 1979:

 "The Western liberal emphasis upon freedom from restraint is alien to
Islam....Personal freedom [in Islam] lies in surrendering to the Divine
Will....It cannot be realized through liberation from external sources of
restraint... individual freedom ends where the freedom of the community
begins.... Human rights exist only in relation to human obligations....Those
individuals who do not accept these obligations have no rights... Much of Muslim
theology tends toward a totalitarian voluntarism ".
Here, at least, the author admits the totalitarian nature of Islam.
(5) The notion of the infallibility of a group and a "book" are impediments to 
moral, political and scientific progress 
(6) A Muslim doesnot have the right to change his religion. Apostasy is
punishable by death.
(7) Freedom of thought is discouraged in various forms and guises, any
innovation is likely to be  branded " blasphemy" which is punishable by death. 
Perhaps one of the greatest obstacles in Islam to a progress towards a liberal
democracy is its emphasis that it is the final word of God, the ultimate code of
conduct: ISLAM NEVER ALLOWS THE POSSIBILITY OF  ALTERNATIVES.By contrast, in a
liberal democracy,what is meant by the freedom of thought, speech and press is
the right to argue, the freedom to present another side of an argument, anyone
may present an alternative philosophy, the majority do not have the right to
prevent a minority from expressing its dissent, criticism or difference.
(8) Human Rights
 The idea that there is good reason for ascribing rights to human beings simply
because they are human beings is something which developed in Western
civilisation. Some would trace the idea back to Plato and Aristotle, others to
at least, the Stoics who maintained that there was a natural law, distinct from
the laws of Athens or Rome, a law binding upon all men in such a manner that "
whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature ".
[quoted in Melden 1] Some philosophers have tried to ground these rights in
human nature or the nature of man; while others, not happy with talk of human
nature, since what we sometimes take to be human nature turns out to be a
particularity of one specific culture or civilisation, prefer to talk of human
rights in consequentialist terms. However, modern discussions by western
philosophers of human rights nowhere appeal to God or Divine Will, but only to
human reason, rational arguments and
critical thought. 
Most philosophers would agree that the notion of human rights involves the
accompanying ideas of self-respect, moral dignity, free-agents, moral choice,
person, the right to equal concern and respect.  Since Locke's further
development of the idea of human rights in the 17th century, modern advocates
claim at least three things: (1) " that these rights are fundamental in the
sense that without them there could not be any of the specific rights that are
grounded in the specific social circumstances in which individuals live, (2)
that just these rights cannot be relinquished, transferred, or forfeited (i.e.,
they cannot be alienated from them by anything that they or anyone else may do),
since (3) they are rights that human beings have simply because they are human
beings, and quite independently of their varying social circumstances and
degrees of merit " [Melden 3].In other words, they are universal and not
culturally bound or relative.
Under Islam, nothing like the above ideas has ever developed. Human beings have
duties, duties towards God; only God has rights.  Under Islam, there is no such
thing as " the equal right of all men to be free ".  Nowhere in modern Muslim
discussions is there a clear account as to how " human rights " can be derived
from " human duties" as described in the Sharia.
 
 Lewis on "Islam and Liberal Democracy."
In an important article, " Islam and Liberal Democracy ", Bernard Lewis explains
very well why Liberal Democracy never developed in Islam.  Like many scholars of
Islam, Lewis deplores the use of the term " Islamic Fundamentalist " as being
inappropriate.  I agree.  I have already pointed out that, unlike Protestants,
who have moved away from the literal interpretation of the Bible, Muslims, all
Muslims, still take The Koran literally. Hence, in my view, there IS NO
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ISLAM AND ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM Islam is deeply embedded in
every Muslim society, and "fundamentalism" is simply the excess of this
culture. 
Lewis himself tells us that the Islamic fundamentalists intend  " to govern by
Islamic rules if they gain power ".The Islamic fundamentalists will apply Islam
--  the Islam of Islamic Law, and all that it entails.  Lewis also tells us that
" their creed and political program are not compatible with liberal democracy ".
I also agree.  But now we see immediately why Lewis and Islamic apologists, in
fact, find this term," Islamic fundamentalist ", so convenient, while, at the
same time, deploring it.  It is an extremely useful and face-saving device  for
those unable to face up to the fact that Islam itself is incompatible with
democracy, and not just something we call " Islamic fundamentalism ". To repeat,
Lewis himself says the latter will apply " Islamic rules ", now if their creed
is incompatible with democracy, then these " Islamic rules " themselves must be
incompatible with democracy.  Thus " Islamic fundamentalist " enables the
apologists to
set up a specious distinction, a distinction without any justification. 
The curious fact is that Lewis himself shows in his article why, by its very
nature, Islam is incompatible with liberal democracy. The West developed certain
characteristic institutions which were essential for the emergence of democracy.
One such institution was the council or representative assembly, whose effective
functioning was made possible by the principle embodied in Roman Law, that of
the legal person -- a corporate entity that for legal purposes is treated as an
individual, able to buy and sell, enter into contracts, appear as a defendant
etc.  There was no Islamic equivalent of the Roman senate or assembly or
parliament. Islam simply lacked the legal recognition of corporate persons.  (As
Schacht put it, " Islam does not recognize juristic persons; not even the public
treasury is construed as an institution... " [Schacht 125]) 
One of the major functions of these Western assemblies was legislative.  But
there was no legislative function in the Islamic state, and thus no need for
legislative institutions.  The Islamic state was a theocracy, in the literal
sense of a polity ruled by God.  For pious Muslims, legitimate authority comes
from God alone, and the ruler derives his power from God and the holy law, and
not from the people. Rulers were merely applying or interpreting God's law as
revealed to Muhammad.  Lacking legislative bodies, Islam did not develop any
principle of representation, any procedure for choosing representatives, any
definition of  the franchise or any electoral system.  Therefore it is not 
surprising, concludes Lewis, if the history of the Islamic states is  " one of
unrelieved autocracy. The Muslim subject owed obedience to a legitimate Muslim
ruler as a religious duty. That is to say, disobedience was a sin as well as a
crime ".
Having clearly shown that Islam is incompatible with Liberal Democracy, Lewis
then tries to show that there might, after all, be elements in the Islamic
tradition which are not hostile to democracy.  He particularly leans heavily on
the the elective and contractual element in the Islamic institution of the
Caliphate. Lewis himself admits that the Islamic caliphate was an " autocracy ",
but he also insists that it was not a " despotism ".
Lewis waxes lyrical about the caliph, insisting that the relationship between
the Caliph and his subjects is contractual: " The bay'a [denoting the ceremony
at the inauguration of a new caliph] was thus conceived as a contract by which
the subjects undertook to obey and the Caliph in return undertook to perform
certain duties specified by the jurists. If a Caliph failed in those duties --
and Islamic history shows that this was by no means a purely theoretical point
-- he could, subject to certain conditions, be removed from office."
First, an autocracy is not a democracy; the distinction between autocracy and
despotism is  a dangerous and bogus one, often used in the past to legitimise
undemocratic rule, indeed T.W. Arnold calls the power of the Caliph  " despotic
" (see below).  Second, as it was originally elaborated, the orthodox doctrine
emphasised two essential characteristics: that the caliph must be of the tribe
of the Kuraish, and that he must receive unhesitating obedience, for anyone who
rebels against the Caliph rebels against God.  This duty to obedience to the
established authorities is constantly emphasised in the Koran, e.g. Sura iv.59:
" O you who believe ! Obey God, and obey the messenger and those of you who are
in authority "  [See also Sura iv.83]
As T.W. Arnold says, " This claim on obedience to the DESPOTIC [my emphases]
power of the Khalifa as a religious duty was impressed upon the faithful by the
designations that were applied to him from an early date, -- Khalifa of God, and
Shadow of God upon earth ".  Neither of the above "essential characteristics is
democratic.  Third," the elective " characteristic of the institution was purely
" theoretical ", for the office, in fact, became hereditary in the families of
the Ummayad and the Abbasid, from the reign of Mu'awiya (661 _680) almost every
caliph had nominated his successor.  As Arnold says," the FICTION of election
was preserved in the practice of bai'a (or bay'a)". 
Finally the functions of the Caliph clearly emphasise the undemocratic nature of
the office.  Al Mawardi (died 1058) and Ibn Khaldun define these functions as
follows: the defence of the religion and the application of the divinely
inspired law or Sharia, to sort out legal disputes, appointment of officials,
various administrative duties, the waging of holy war or jihad against those who
refuse to accept Islam or submit to Muslim rule. According to Ibn Khaldun he
must belong to the tribe of Kuraish, and be of the male sex, again, not a
democratic principle.   Much has also been made of the Islamic principle of
"consultation ".  But Lewis dismisses this fairly briskly: " This principle has
never been institutionalized, nor even formulated in the treaties of the holy
law, though naturally rulers have from time to time consulted with their senior
officials, more particularly in Ottoman times ". 
Lewis lays a great store by Islamic pluralism and tolerance. But as I show in
the next chapter, there never was an inter- faith utopia (to use Lewis' own
phrase).  Lewis also says: " Sectarian strife and religious persecution are not
unknown in Islamic history, but they are rare and atypical..."  And yet, earlier
in the same article Lewis  himself tells us: " But Islamic fundamentalism is
just one stream among many. 
In the fourteen centuries that have passed since the mission of the Prophet,
there have been several such movements -- fanatical, intolerant, aggressive, and
violent ". If  Lewis is not formally contradicting himself, he is certainly seen
to be wanting it both ways -- "several such movements" as opposed to "rare and
atypical".
 
Conclusion:
The truth of the matter is that Islam will never achieve democracy and human
rights if it insists on the application of the Sharia; and so long as there is
no separation of church and state. But as Muir put it: " A reformed faith that
should question the divine authority on which they [the institutions of Islam]
rest, or attempt by rationalistic selection or abatement to effect a change,
would be Islam no longer ".
Many Islamic reformers wanting to adopt Western institutions have pretended to
find Islamic antecedents for them in order to make these foreign institutions
palatable to their own people.  But this strategy has led to much intellectual
dishonesty and has left the problem where it was __ " the real Islam treats
women as equals ", the real Islam is democratic " etc.. The real problem,
whether the Sharia is any longer acceptable, has been left untouched.
Nor is it  necessary to invent Islamic antecedents to accept the principles of
democracy, human rights, the separation of church and state. India adopted
democracy in 1947, and it has lasted to this day; and as far as I am aware, no
one wasted time looking through the copious holy literature to justify the
decision to adopt a parliamentary system at independence.  The only country in
the Islamic world which can be said to be a democracy is Turkey; and,
significantly, it is the only Muslim country which has formally adopted the
separation of religion and state as law.  Islam has been removed from the
Constitution, and the Sharia is no longer a part of the law of the country.
 04.04
Ann Elizabeth Mayer: Islam & Human Rights
I propose to examine Ms Mayer's very important book on Islam and Human Rights.
Even though I have one fundamental reservation about her book, and to which I
shall refer later, I find her analysis excellent and very persuasive.  Ms. Mayer
shows with the utmost clarity how in various Islamic Human Rights schemes, "
distinctive ISLAMIC [my emphasis] criteria " have been used to cut back on the
freedoms guaranteed in international law, how for many Muslims the international
guarantees exceed the limits of rights and freedoms permitted in Islam.
Ms Mayer also shows how the official Islamization programmes in, especially, the
Sudan, Pakistan and Iran, have led to serious violations of the human rights of
women, non- Muslims, the  Bahai, the Ahmadis and other religious minorities.  In
these countries Islamization, " did much to eliminate due process, to erode the
independence of the judiciary, to place legal proceedings under the control of
political leaders, and to convert courts into instruments of repression and
intimidation.  Thus, in all three countries Islamization became associated with
a decline in the quality of the administration of justice." [35]
Ms. Mayer is refreshingly free of inhibitions when attacking the various Islamic
Human Rights schemes from the perspective of International Human Rights, which
she takes to be universally valid.(" The way governments of countries treat
those they govern should not be ruled off-limits to critical scholarly inquiry,
and judging Islamic schemes of human rights by the standards of the
international human rights norms that they seek to replace is entirely
appropriate " [21]
Rejecting cultural relativism (without giving any philosophical arguments), Ms
Mayer points out that, as a matter of empirical fact, there are many Muslims
throughout the world who have and are risking their lives to " stand up for the
same human rights principles that cultural relativists would maintain are not
suited for application in the Muslim because of its dissimilar culture. 
Cultural relativists may fail to perceive how rapid urbanization,
industrialisation, and factors like the growing power of the state are creating
awareness of the need for human rights guarantees in non-Western cultures ".
[While writing this chapter, I heard the news of the murder of Youcef Fathallah,
president of the Algerian League for Human Rights, by Islamicists, (Le Monde 21
June 1994)]
Ms. Mayer compares the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [UDHR] of 1948 with
the 1981 Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights [UIDHR].  The latter was
prepared by several  Muslim countries under the auspices of the Islamic Council,
a private, London -based organization affiliated with the Muslim World League,
an international, nongovernmental organization " that tends to represent the
interests and views of conservative Muslims ".  Other Islamic human rights
schemes examined are the Azhar Draft Constitution, prepared by the Islamic
Research Academy of Cairo, which is affiliated with Al - Azhar University, " the
most internationally prestigious institution of higher education in Sunni Islam,
and a center of conservative Islamic thought ", and the 1979 Iranian
Constitution, and the works of Muslim thinkers such as Mawdudi and
Tabandeh.[27]  
Her conclusion is that " Islam is viewed in these schemes as a device for
restricting individual freedoms and keeping the individual in a subordinate
place vis-à-vis the government and society ".[91]
 Ms Mayer shows how, using the Sharia as their justification, Muslim
conservatives have refused to recognize women as full, equal human beings, who
deserve the same rights and freedoms as men. Women under these Islamic schemes
are expected to marry, obey their husbands, bring up their children, stay at
home, and stay out of public life altogether. She is not permitted to develop as
an individual in her own right, acquire an education or get a job. These Islamic
schemes provide no real protection for the rights of religious minorities. " In
fact, to the extent that they deal with question of the rights of religious
minorities, they seem to endorse premodern Sharia rules that call for
non-Muslims to be relegated to an inferior status if they qualify as members of
the ahl al-kitab [the People of the Book] and for them to be treated as
nonpersons if they do not qualify for such inclusion " [160].  
These Islamic schemes afford no real protections for freedom of religion: 

"The failure of a single one of these Islamic human rights schemes to take a
position against the application of the shar'ia death penalty for apostasy means
that the authors of these schemes have neglected to confront and resolve the
main issues involved in harmonizing international human rights and sharia
standards....The authors' unwillingness to repudiate the rule that a person
should be executed over a question of religious belief reveals the enormous gap
that exists between their mentalities and the modern philosophy of human
rights." [187]
One Fundamental Objection to Ms. Mayer's Analysis
Like practically every single book and article published since February 1989,
especially for the non-specialist reader, Ms Mayer's book is at pains to point
out that
(1) " Islam " is not monolithic, that there is no such thing as THE Islamic
tradition, or just "one correct Islam " or one correct interpretation;
(2) that, in the Islamic Human Rights schemes examined and found wanting in
terms of International norms, it is not Islam which is at fault, it is, at most,
one particular interpretation of it by traditionalists or Muslim conservatives;
(3) that there is no such thing as THE sharia, i.e. Islamic law did not freeze
at some arbitrary point in the past 
(4) that, deep-down, Islam may not be hostile to rights and democracy, after
all.
The above four points are not really argued for, that is not the purpose of her
book. She explicitly states that the " core doctrines of Islam " are not being
subjected to critical assessment.  However, a close reading of Ms Mayer's book
reveals that she is only, after all, paying lip-service, for ecumenical harmony,
to the notion that there is no such thing as "Islam" about which we can make
valid generalisations.  In reality, Ms Mayer is as prone to sweeping  negative
statements and huge unflattering generalisations about " Islam " as any writer
who does believe that there are clearly identifiable ISLAMIC DOCTRINES, which
are independent of any capricious or dubious interpretations of the Koran or the
Hadith, and, furthermore, that these recognisable doctrines are inimical to
human rights and their development.
Here are some such generalisations, all of them true, in my view, about Islam,
Islamic civilisation, Islamic tradition, Islamic orthodoxy, Islamic law that
contradict Ms Mayer's pious hopes set forth above, points (1) _ (4):
Quote 1   " As we have seen, the individualism characteristic of Western
civilisation was a fundamental ingredient in the development of human rights
concepts.  Individualism, however, is not an established feature of Muslim
societies or of Islamic culture, nor can one find a historical example of an
Islamic school of thought that celebrated individualism as a virtue. Islamic
civilisation did not create an intellectual climate that was conducive to
according priority to the protection of individual rights and freedoms ".[47]
We might point out that while Ms. Mayer  accuses many westerners of taking Islam
as a monolithic system, she herself is quite happy to generalise in the above
manner both about Islam, AND the West.  Is there such a thing as " the West "?
Quote 2   " Orthodox theologians in Sunni Islam were generally suspicious of
human reason, fearing that it would lead Muslims to stray from the truth of
Revelation. The prevailing view in the Sunni world...has been that because of
their divine inspiration, sharia laws supercede reason.... Given the dominance
of this mainstream Islamic view, it naturally became difficult to realize an
Islamic version of the Age of Reason " [49]
Quote 4   " The analysis will show how Islamic rights schemes express and
confirm the premodern values and priorities that have predominated in orthodox
Islamic thought for more than a millennium ". [58]
Quote 5  " In such a scheme any challenges that might be made to Islamic law on
the grounds that it denies basic rights guaranteed under constitutions or
international law are ruled out ab initio; human reason is deemed inadequate to
criticise what are treated as divine edicts.This affirms the traditional
orthodox view, that the tenets of the shari'a are perfect and just, because they
represent the will of the Creator, being derived from divinely inspired
sources." [58]
Quote 6     " One notes that Brohi is sometimes speaking of subordination to God
and Islamic law, which is clearly required in the Islamic tradition ".[62]
Quote 7   " Since there was no human rights tradition in Islamic civilisation...
" [73]
Quote 8     " Although in Islamic law one can discern elements that in some ways
anticipate modern notions of equality, one does not find any counterpart of the
principle of equal protection under the law." [98]
Quote 9       "...But Islamic clerics and Islamic institutions have by and large
manifested strong opposition to allowing women to escape from their cloistered,
subordinate, domestic roles " [112]
Occasionally, Ms Mayer's desperate attempts to exonerate Islam lead her to bad
arguments and contradictions.  In her preface, she writes:

" Even without studying the question of how Islam relates to human rights
issues, my experience in work on behalf of the cause of human rights would have
sufficed to convince me that Islam is not the cause of the human rights problems
endemic to the Middle East. Human rights abuses are every bit as prevalent and
just as severe in countries where Islamic law is in abeyance or consciously
violated as in countries where it is, at least officially, the legal norm. "


www.isis.org

The St. Petersburg Declaration April 5, 2007
We are secular Muslims, and secular persons of Muslim societies. We are
believers, doubters, and unbelievers, brought together by a great struggle, not
between the West and Islam, but between the free and the unfree.
We affirm the inviolable freedom of the individual conscience. We believe in the
equality of all human persons.
We insist upon the separation of religion from state and the observance of
universal human rights.
We find traditions of liberty, rationality, and tolerance in the rich histories
of pre-Islamic and Islamic societies. These values do not belong to the West or
the East; they are the common moral heritage of humankind.
We see no colonialism, racism, or so-called "Islamaphobia" in submitting Islamic
practices to criticism or condemnation when they violate human reason or rights.
We call on the governments of the world to

reject Sharia law, fatwa courts, clerical rule, and state-sanctioned religion in
all their forms; oppose all penalties for blasphemy and apostasy, in accordance
with Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights;
eliminate practices, such as female circumcision, honor killing, forced veiling,
and forced marriage, that further the oppression of women;
protect sexual and gender minorities from persecution and violence;
reform sectarian education that teaches intolerance and bigotry towards
non-Muslims;
and foster an open public sphere in which all matters may be discussed without
coercion or intimidation.
We demand the release of Islam from its captivity to the totalitarian ambitions
of power-hungry men and the rigid strictures of orthodoxy.
We enjoin academics and thinkers everywhere to embark on a fearless examination
of the origins and sources of Islam, and to promulgate the ideals of free
scientific and spiritual inquiry through cross-cultural translation, publishing,
and the mass media.
We say to Muslim believers: there is a noble future for Islam as a personal
faith, not a political doctrine;
to Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Baha'is, and all members of non-Muslim
faith communities: we stand with you as free and equal citizens;
and to nonbelievers: we defend your unqualified liberty to question and dissent.
Before any of us is a member of the Umma, the Body of Christ, or the Chosen
People, we are all members of the community of conscience, the people who must
choose for themselves.
Endorsed by:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Magdi Allam
Mithal Al-Alusi
Shaker Al-Nabulsi
Nonie Darwish
Afshin Ellian
Tawfik Hamid
Shahriar Kabir
Hasan Mahmud
Wafa Sultan
Amir Taheri
Ibn Warraq
Manda Zand Ervin
Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi



http://www.care2.com/causes/civil-rights/blog/veterans-against-jihad-the-latest-anti-sharia-group-to-emerge/

from Civil Rights
Veterans Against Jihad the Latest Anti-Sharia Group to Emerge
A bubbling theme from the far-reaches of the paranoid right has made its way...
by: Jessica Pieklo

Forced marriage leads to minor girl's suicide
http://nation.ittefaq.com/issues/2010/10/07/news0339.htm

bdnews24.com, Rangpur 

A 12-year-old girl has committed suicide within three hours of being forced into marriage.

Aduri Begum, of Bakultala village under Kaunia Upazila in Rangpur was a class five student of Udirpar Ananda School.

Aduri's father Anwarul Islam arranged her marriage to Enamul Haque, son of Abdul Jabbar of Nazirdah village, against her will and her other relatives. The wedding took place on Monday night and while the wedding feast was going on, Aduri consumed poison. Kaunia officer-in-charge Krishna Kumar admitted the incident and told that the body had been sent for autopsy.

Upazila Women Affairs Officer Kawsara Parvin said the Upazila Executive Officer rushed to the spot after the locals had informed. But since the marriage was already over, he just the collected a bond from Aduri's father, which stated that Aduri will be handed over after she turns 18.

http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/10/07/top-10-movies-banned-in-the-middle-east/

Top 10 Movies Banned in the Middle East

2010 October 7

by Mark Tapson

"March of the Penguins" AGAIN?!

A year and a half ago, giddy and hopeful in the wake of Obama's inauguration, an unofficial but self-important delegation from Hollywood's Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (including actresses Annette Bening and Alfre Woodard, among others), set out for Iran as part of a "cultural exchange."

Hard to fathom how America was supposed to benefit from the exchange, but cultural advisor Javad Shamaghdari told the Hollywood reps exactly what Iran wanted: "We will believe Obama's policy of change when we see change in Hollywood too." In other words, no more movies critical of Islam or Iran. That's not all Shamaghdari demanded:

If Hollywood wants to correct its behavior towards Iranian people and Islamic culture then they have to officially apologize.

So Hollywood infidels are expected to publicly acknowledge and embrace their dhimmi status. Most Hollywood infidels would be right onboard with that. But not the following filmmakers.

We in the West usually take movies for granted and accord them little more significance than mere entertainment. But our Islamic enemies, like the Communists and Nazis before them, fully recognize the cultural power of cinema and work hard to control it. Movies, especially of the Western variety, are often banned as un-Islamic in sharia-controlled areas, especially ones that flaunt sexual immodesty (Sex and the City), homosexuality (even the merely metrosexual Zoolander), or the depiction of drug use.

That doesn't mean that such movies don't circulate underground; in very Westernized Iran, for example, the mullahs do their best to keep a lid on the populace's preference for American cultural decadence, but pirated DVDs are eagerly consumed by viewers privately.

What follows is a mostly chronological list of ten movies that for various reasons particularly offended Islamic values or regimes in the Middle East, especially Iran, which takes any opportunity to spew blustery propaganda about our warmongering, cultural aggression. With the exception of the Oscar-nominated French-Iranian film Persepolis, which I chose because Iran rated it as "more dangerous" than 300, I limited my selections to well-known Hollywood feature films, although Iran's Ahmadinejad banned all foreign films in late 2005 and even many from Iranian filmmakers.

Continue reading page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-51999620101006

Saudis charges Filipinos for proselytising-paper

RIYADH | Wed Oct 6, 2010 10:56pm IST

(Reuters) - Thirteen Filipinos have been charged with proselytising in Saudi Arabia after being arrested during a private Roman Catholic Mass celebrated in a Riyadh hotel last week, a Saudi newspaper said on Wednesday.

The Filipinos, one of whom is a Catholic priest, were briefly detained for organising the service raided by the Muslim kingdom's ultra-conservative religious police, Arab News said.

About 150 expatriates attended it, the newspaper said.

"They (the 13) were charged with proselytising," the daily quoted the Philippine Embassy's charge d'affaires in Riyadh as saying. They were later released on bail, the paper added.

Saudi Arabia, home to Islam's holiest sites, applies an austere form of Sunni Islam that confines any form of non-Muslim worship to the privacy of non-Muslim homes. Christians often hold services in hotel conference rooms.

Ibrahim al-Mugaiteb, head of the independent Saudi Human Rights First Society, said the overall situation for Christians had improved since King Abdullah took office in 2005.

"The fact that they were only briefly detained shows a change," he said. Neither Saudi officials nor the embassy were immediately available for comment.

Converting Muslims is a crime in Saudi Arabia punishable by death penalty, although such verdicts have rarely been handed out by Saudi courts, which are controlled by Muslim clerics.

The world's top oil exporter is home to several million expatriates, many of them non-Muslims.

The Catholic Church has urged Riyadh to lift the strict limitations on Christian worship there and allow construction of churches in return for the rights Muslims have in Western countries to build mosques.

Catholic bishops from across the Middle East will hold a two-week synod at the Vatican starting on Sunday to discuss how to help Christian minorities in the majority-Muslim region.

(Reporting by Souhail Karam and Ulf Laessing; Editing by Tom Heneghan and Michael Roddy)

A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.  ~Herm Albright~

Israel should not be fearing world opinion. Israel should be making the world fear (respect) her!!!  Mech'el B. Samberg

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ProJewishProZionistGroup/?yguid=368134690

http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/stillnotjustmusicanymore/?yguid=368134690

http://groups.yahoo.com/adultconf?dest=%2Fgroup%2Fwhateverreturns%2F%3Fyguid%3D368134690

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shieldofdavid/?yguid=373549731

Permission granted to share with others!!

__._,_.___

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic

Messages in this topic (1)

Recent Activity:

• New Members 3

Visit Your Group

Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use

.

__,_._,___