'Islamophobe' head Erica Connor wins Surrey County Council payout

He said that the school’s governing body had become dysfunctional as a result of the behaviour of the two, and that the authority’s failure to act had led to low morale and stress among staff. The council had shown excessive tolerance for the two governors and had lost sight of the adverse effects of such conduct on the school.

Judge Leighton-Williams said that the men had an agenda to increase the role of the Muslim religion in the school and that this, combined with the authority’s failure to protect Mrs Connor, had led her to suffer serious depression. [Times Online] Read more

It's little wonder liberal Muslims feel betrayed: Their views are seldom heard as ministers prefer to court radical Islamists

No political movement can hope to win arguments if it turns the best and bravest into its foes. For the most courageous British Muslims, the Labour government and wider liberal society already seem slippery and hypocritical. Soon, they will be irredeemably tainted.

Take Ansar Ullah, a Bengali leftist from the old school. Like many secularists of his generation, his life has been dominated by the struggle against Jamaat-e-Islami. The party's name is rarely mentioned in our public life, although its supporters in the Muslim Council of Britain and the Islamic Foundation are on the radio almost daily. The Bengali equivalents of British Observer readers know it all too well. They regard Jamaat as we regard the BNP: the sworn and potentially deadly enemy of all their best principles. [Guardian CiF] Read more

My imam father came after me with an axe

“When I’ve been working with girls who were trying to get out of an arranged marriage, or want to convert to Christianity, and they have contacted social services as they need to get out of their homes, the reaction has been ‘we’ll send someone from your community to talk to your parents’. I know why they are doing this, they are trying to be understanding, but it’s the last thing that the authorities should do in such situations.”

This is the sort of cultural sensitivity displayed by Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, last year when he suggested that problems within the British Muslim community such as financial or marital disputes could be dealt with under sharia, Islamic law, rather than British civil law. What did Hannah, now an Anglican, think on hearing these remarks?

“I was horrified.” If you could speak to him now, what would you say to the archbishop? “I would say: have you actually spoken to any ordinary Muslim women about the situation that they live in, in their communities? By putting in place these Muslim arbitration tribunals, where a woman’s witness is half that of a man, you are silencing women even more.” [Times Online] Read more

BBC's Question Time broadcasts slander against the MCB

Viewers of Question Time yesterday will have heard the exchange of views by Charles Moore, columnist in the Daily Telegraph, and Baroness Sayeeda Warsi (both pictured), on the MCB.

Moore used the discussion on the protestors in Luton as an opportunity to tarnish the MCB, which he slandered with his ill formed remarks on its stance and statements concerning soldiers and individuals kidnapped in Iraq and Afghanistan. [ENGAGE] Read more

One law for all

In Quebec, the issue was snuffed out just as it was about to ignite. In Ontario, it festered for months before the Premier finally put his foot down and declared there would be one law for all.

But in Britain, shariah courts are thriving, applying Islamic law and principles to personal disputes between Muslims and -- worst of all, say their detractors -- to family matters: divorce, child custody and inheritance.

Speaking with Maryam Namazie, the Iranian-born British human rights activist, reminded me of when debate raged across this country in 2005 over the place these Islamic tribunals have in a modern, secular society. [National Post] Read more

Elderly Saudi woman sentenced to lashings

A 75-year-old Saudi Arabian woman has been sentenced to receive 40 lashes for hosting two unrelated men in her house, local media reported.

The Saudi daily newspaper al-Watan said the woman, Khamisa Mohammed Sawadi, has appealed her sentence after being charged with offenses against Islam by the religious police, the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, CNN reported Monday. [United Press International] Read more

Don't Say a Word: A U.N. resolution seeks to criminalize opinions that differ with the Islamic faith

The Muslim religion makes unusually large claims for itself. All religions do this, of course, in that they claim to know and to be able to interpret the wishes of a supreme being. But Islam affirms itself as the last and final revelation of God's word, the consummation of all the mere glimpses of the truth vouchsafed to all the foregoing faiths, available by way of the unimprovable, immaculate text of "the recitation," or Quran.

If there sometimes seems to be something implicitly absolutist or even totalitarian in such a claim, it may result not from a fundamentalist reading of the holy book but from the religion itself. And it is the so-called mainstream Muslims, grouped in the Organization of the Islamic Conference, who are now demanding through the agency of the United Nations that Islam not only be allowed to make absolutist claims but that it also be officially shielded from any criticism of itself. [Slate] Read more

Private Arrangements: “Recognizing sharia” in England

Women tend to accept the tribunals’ formal decisions because, strategically, religious divorces are important. But most then turn to the civil courts to obtain rulings on child custody and divorce settlements. In the case of the Leyton Council, the scholars may give their opinion concerning an appropriate settlement regarding children and finances, but, much to their chagrin, their custody and financial decisions almost never stick.

The Archbishop’s last objection to recognizing Islamic arbitration was that doing so would weaken Muslims’ commitment to a common law and thus threaten national unity. The Archbishop spent the most time on this point, but it seems to have worried him much less than it worries others. [Boston Review] Read more

Talk Islam

Recently, Yemen passed a legislation raising the minimum age of marriage to 17. But the legislation may be rescinded because some parliamentarians say it violates Shariah. .... If Shariah doesn’t set a minimum, does that necessarily lead to the conclusion that a community cannot set a minimum age on their own for…any number of reasons…not least of which would be the abuse of children. It seems like the law would only violate Shariah if Shariah explicitly forbade setting such a minimum.

.... It may have something to do with the general principle that one cannot outlaw what has been declared permissible.

Example: conservative Muslims would have a problem with an outright prohibition on polygamy because it has been deemed permissible through the example of the Prophet and the early Muslims. There are arguments that a man should not take a second (or third, or fourth) wife if he is unable to treat each of the wives equally or if there is fear of jealousy from any of the wives, which is why (level-headed) scholars generally discourage the practice. But none of them would declare it outright impermissible.

Likewise, according to Shariah, a woman is of marriageable age once she hits puberty…the obvious example is the marriage of Aisha. Ultra-conservative thinking dictates that if the Prophet did it, it cannot be declared as illegal by any governing body. So while it can be discouraged based on arguments like child abuse and immaturity of the bride-to-be, these types would not be ready to declare it illegal. [Talk Islam] Read more

Against 'sneak Islamization'

Siv Jensen, head of the Norwegian Progress Party (FRP), came out hard against the government and what she calls 'sneak Islamization' in Norway, during the party's national meeting. "The reality is that people are now in the process of allowing a form of sneak-Islamization in this society and we must put a stop to that," Jensen said in her speech. Clearly referring to the hijab-debate, the head of the FRP came out against what she thinks is the special treatment of minority groups in Norway today.

"When we give in to demands for halal food in prisons, when we give in that Muslim girls won't be able to do sports together with Norwegian children. This is already special treatment which I think weakens the ability to integrate people in Norwegian society and which will cause greater challenges in the next decade," she told TV2. Jensen thinks prisoners should be very satisfied having three warm meals a day.

"We will not accept demands for more vacation days of a religious character," she said, and will neither accept that some Oslo schools practice sex-segregated sports and swimming. [Islam in Europe] Read more

Sharia is why so many of us have fled and are fleeing ....

.... Yes of course there is a difference between letting Islamic courts and councils decide on civil matters rather than criminal ones. But the difference is a matter of degree; the fundamentals are the same. Losing custody of your child at a pre-set age irrespective of the child’s welfare, being told to remain in an abusive relationship or having your forced marriage at 13 stamped with the approval of these sham courts can be just as destructive.

In fact, discriminatory family and personal status codes are important pillars in the oppression of women in Islamic states. And much of the struggle for women’s rights is taking shape in countries like Iran against these very aspects of Sharia. [Thought For the World] Read more

The idiocy of "defamation of religion"

The whole idea of defamation of religion is nonsense. Taken literally, it would mean that I could not utter any falsehood that is damaging to the reputation of a religion (so, it might lead people to leave the religion or doubt its doctrines, or fail to be convinced to convert to it).

But a religion has no right to flourish, be believed, retain adherents, gain converts, or anything of the sort. On the contrary, it is in the public interest that the truth and credibility of various religions be tested continually, and it is quite within my rights to try to convert people from their current religion to my religion of choice or to an anti-religious position.

Much like political ideologies, religions have to take their own chances. Many things will be said for and against various religions, and some of those things will not be true, even if they are said sincerely. [Russell Blackford] Read more

Death Knell For Freedom of Speech

The UN Special Rapporteurs on Human Rights are individuals who work on behalf of the United Nations to investigate, monitor and recommend solutions to human rights problems across the world. One of the mandates under which these individuals serve is ensuring the freedom of opinion and expression in all countries.

On the 28th of January 2009, The Independent newspaper in UK published an article “Why should I respect these oppressive religions” by Mr. Johann Hari wh0 reported on a surprising development in the United Nations. Mr. Hari pointed out that in the past year, the job description of the special rapporteur was changed by a coalition of religious fundamentalist states to report on “abuses of free expression” including “defamation of religions and prophets.”

In his article, Mr. Hari, exposed the not-so-sacred agenda of some Islamic and Christian fundamentalist countries like Saudi Arabia and the Vatican to restrict the right to freedom of speech under the guise of respect for the sensibilities of the religious. He also went on to question inane religious beliefs and argued that respect for such beliefs should not and cannot be our default position. He finally concluded that. [Nitwit Nastik] Read more

In support of Johann Hari

On 28 January 2009, an opinion piece by young British journalist Johann Hari was published in The Independent. This piece is a strong argument for our right to criticise religion. Hari is, quite properly, scathing about recent developments within the UN, as a result of which the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression has now been tasked with reporting on so-called abuses of freedom of speech, including "defamation" of religion. In other words, the Special Rapporteur's functions will no longer be confined to detecting and shaming those who suppress freedom of speech; it will now include attacking those who exercise freedom of speech in which ways that offend the religious.

Note that we are not talking here about the incitement of specific crimes against the religious, such as if I addressed a rioting crowd and told them to vandalise a mosque or a synagogue. We are talking about any speech that can be characterised as "defamatory" of a religion or its prophets, such as criticism of Jesus or Muhammad. We are talking about a mechanism to try to censor a wide range of robust anti-religious speech. Hari is justifiably outraged by this development. [Russell Blackford] Read more

'Islam must not be used to discriminate against women'

KUALA LUMPUR: Muslim women activists championing equality and justice in the Muslim family said they will no longer accept the use of Islam to justify discrimination against women.

Project director of Musawah (the global meeting for equality and justice in the Muslim Family) Zainah Anwar said that, very often, Muslim women who demand justice and want to change discriminatory laws and practices were told that this was 'God's law' and, therefore, not open for negotiation or change. [Star Publications] Read more

The anniversary of Khomeini's ruling comes at a time of great controversy over Geert Wilders' right to free speech

I have written a number of pieces for Cif over the past couple of years reflecting back over the Satanic Verses controversy, so as we mark the 20th anniversary of Khomeini's fatwa let me quickly summarise my thoughts:

Those of us – including me – who marched and called for the book to be pulped/banned were in the wrong. Calls for pulping or banning the book gave rise to understandable fears about increased censorship and intolerance. A more sensible response would have been to just ignore the book or to write a proper rejoinder pointing out Rushdie's shortcomings in his fictional treatment of the Prophet Muhammad and allow readers to then make up their own minds.

Khomeini's fatwa – as Kenan Malik rightly notes – should be viewed in the context of Iran's rivalry with Saudi Arabia for leadership of the world's Muslim community. Iran is predominantly Shia whereas around 90% of Muslims are Sunni. The fatwa enabled Iran's revolutionary leadership to outmanoeuvre the Saudis and to transcend the sectarian divide by portraying itself as being stauncher in their defence of the honour of the Prophet Muhammad and his message than the decadent Saudis. [Guardian CiF] Read more

The Satanic Verses: Iqbal Sacranie, Lisa Appignanesi and Zarah Hussain discuss the effect Khomeini's fatwa has had

Twenty years ago the Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa calling for the death of the British author Salman Rushdie for his book, The Satanic Verses. It prompted a passionate debate across the world about freedom of speech and whether it should be curtailed to prevent offence to deeply-held religious belief.

This was the first time that cultural conflict between Muslims and western liberal democratic values had erupted: it has subsequently emerged as one of the dominant issues of our age.

We bring two of the original protagonists of those debates in 1989, Sir Iqbal Sacranie and Lisa Appignanesi back together again to reflect on what happened and whether the intervening years have changed their minds at all. [Guardian CiF] Read more

About Defending Blasphemy

I linked to Johann Hari's excellent defense of free speech in the face of religious intimidation here. The piece was eventually published in India - and this is what happened:

That night, four thousand Islamic fundamentalists began to riot outside their offices, calling for me, the editor, and the publisher to be arrested – or worse. They brought Central Calcutta to a standstill. A typical supporter of the riots, Abdus Subhan, said he was "prepared to lay down his life, if necessary, to protect the honour of the Prophet" and I should be sent "to hell if he chooses not to respect any religion or religious symbol? He has no liberty to vilify or blaspheme any religion or its icons on grounds of freedom of speech."

Then, two days ago, the editor and publisher were indeed arrested. They have been charged – in the world's largest democracy, with a constitution supposedly guaranteeing a right to free speech – with "deliberately acting with malicious intent to outrage religious feelings". I am told I too will be arrested if I go to Calcutta.

Read the original piece. It is a classic piece of political polemic, the kind of thing that no free society should ever suppress. And yet in one of the world's largest democracies, fundamentalism is strong enough to arrest a publisher for printing it. Put that with the pathetic collapse of the British government in the face of Islamist thuggery, and it is hard to be encouraged. [TheAtlantic.com] Read more

Editor arrested for 'outraging Muslims': Protests against Indian newspaper over article reprinted from Independent

The editor and publisher of a major Indian newspaper have been arrested for "hurting the religious feelings" of Muslims after they reprinted an article from The Independent. Ravindra Kumar and Anand Sinha, the editor and publisher of the Kolkata-based English daily The Statesman, appeared in court yesterday charged under section 295A of the Indian Penal Code which forbids "deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings".

Sections of central Kolkata have been paralysed by protests for much of the past week after The Statesman republished an article by The Independent's columnist Johann Hari. Titled "Why should I respect oppressive religions?", the piece was originally printed in The Independent on 28 January. In it, Hari said he believed the right to criticise any religion was being eroded around the world. [independent.co.uk] Read more

Exploding the fatwa myths - The Rushdie affair demonstrates that speech must be as free as possible in a plural society

Ayatollah Khomeini's fatwa transformed the Rushdie affair into a global conflict with historical repercussions. It also helped shroud it in myths about what caused it and about the lessons to be drawn from it. Twenty years on it is time we laid to rest the myths of the Rushdie affair.

Myth 1: The controversy over Rushdie's novel was driven by religion. It wasn't. It was a political conflict. The Satanic Verses first became an issue in India because an election was due in November 1988, two months after the publication of the novel. No politician wanted to alienate any section of India's 150-million strong Muslim community just before an election. Hardline Islamist groups used Rushdie's book to try to win political concessions. [Guardian CiF] Read more

Muslim teaching shake-up agreed

Khorchide’s study concludes Muslim teachers in Austria have largely anti-democratic beliefs and one in five is "fanatical". Khorchide, himself a Muslim, said 22.6 per cent of the 210 Muslim teachers he had surveyed had "fanatical attitudes" and 21.9 per cent rejected democracy as incompatible with Islam.

According to Vienna weekly "Falter", the study shows 8.5 per cent of the Muslim teachers said it was understandable for violence to be used to spread Islam, 28.4 per cent said there was a contradiction in being both a Muslim and a European, and 44 per cent said they had to make their students understand they were better than non-Muslims. [Austrian Times] Read more See Also: [Islam in Europe] Read more

Assassins of the Mind

In the hot days immediately after the fatwa, with Salman himself on the run and the TV screens filled with images of burning books and writhing mustaches, I was stopped by a female Muslim interviewer and her camera crew and asked an ancient question: “Is nothing sacred?” I can’t remember quite what I answered then, but I know what I would say now. “No, nothing is sacred. And even if there were to be something called sacred, we mere primates wouldn’t be able to decide which book or which idol or which city was the truly holy one.

Thus, the only thing that should be upheld at all costs and without qualification is the right of free expression, because if that goes, then so do all other claims of right as well.” I also think that human life has its sacrosanct aspect, and though I can think of many circumstances in which I would take a life, the crime of writing a work of fiction is not a justification (even in the case of Ludlum) that I could ever entertain. Two decades on, Salman himself is thriving mightily and living again like a free man. But the culture that sustains him, and that he helps sustain, has twisted itself into a posture of prior restraint and self-censorship in which the grim, mad edict of a dead theocrat still exerts its chilling force. [Vanity Fair] Read more

Why should I respect these oppressive religions? Whenever a religious belief is criticised, its adherents say they're victims of 'prejudice'

The right to criticise religion is being slowly doused in acid. Across the world, the small, incremental gains made by secularism – giving us the space to doubt and question and make up our own minds – are being beaten back by belligerent demands that we "respect" religion. A historic marker has just been passed, showing how far we have been shoved. The UN rapporteur who is supposed to be the global guardian of free speech has had his job rewritten – to put him on the side of the religious censors.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights stated 60 years ago that "a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief is the highest aspiration of the common people". It was a Magna Carta for mankind – and loathed by every human rights abuser on earth. Today, the Chinese dictatorship calls it "Western", Robert Mugabe calls it "colonialist", and Dick Cheney calls it "outdated". The countries of the world have chronically failed to meet it – but the document has been held up by the United Nations as the ultimate standard against which to check ourselves. Until now.

Starting in 1999, a coalition of Islamist tyrants, led by Saudi Arabia, demanded the rules be rewritten. The demand for everyone to be able to think and speak freely failed to "respect" the "unique sensitivities" of the religious, they decided – so they issued an alternative Islamic Declaration of Human Rights. It insisted that you can only speak within "the limits set by the shariah [law]. It is not permitted to spread falsehood or disseminate that which involves encouraging abomination or forsaking the Islamic community". [independent.co.uk] Read more

It's OK to hit your wife, says Melbourne Islamic cleric Samir Abu Hamza

A MELBOURNE Muslim at the centre of a storm over a lecture where he apparently directed his followers to hit their wives and force them to have sex reportedly says his message was taken out of context.

Coburg mosque cleric Samir Abu Hamza has told a confidant his message about hitting was meant in a metaphorical sense. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Islamic leaders have condemned the lecture. Mr Rudd said Mr Hamza's comments had no place in modern Australia. [The Australian] Read more

Is Geert Wilders inconsistent in calling for banning the Qur'an and defending free speech?

Ian Buruma said it awhile ago in the New York Times:

"Whether Mr. Wilders has deliberately insulted Muslim people is for the judges to decide. But for a man who calls for a ban on the Koran to act as the champion of free speech is a bit rich."

Then Charles Johnson said it yesterday at the once-worthwhile site Little Green Footballs (no link, as the adolescent Johnson has blocked links from this site), as he continued to libel anti-jihadists with false charges of "smelly fascist associations.

"However, Wilders himself does not deserve to be called an icon of free speech, since he explicitly wants to ban the Koran and make Islam illegal in Europe; in other words, he wants to take away other people’s freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and that is simply wrong. Book banning is what totalitarians do, not believers in free speech." [Jihad Watch] Read more