Egypt court upholds ban on veils in exams

A court in Egypt has ruled in favour of the government's decision to ban students from wearing the face veil (niqab) while taking university examinations.

But female students who had appealed the ban when it was originally imposed by the government last October have vowed to appeal the verdict.

The students said the ban on niqab infringed on their religious rights.

"We had never hoped to see such a verdict issued by our fair Egyptian judicial system. Our rights are being raped. What freedom would we have after this? Where is freedom in Egypt?," one student told Al Jazeera after Sunday's verdict.

Nizar Ghorab, the lawyer of the students, said the ban "supports rape and sexual harassment".

"It forces a woman to expose part of her body she doesn't want exposed. It is soul-crushing for these women," he told Al Jazeera.

The government said it banned the niqab in part because students, male and female, were attending exams disguised as other candidates by wearing a face veil.

Sunday's administrative court ruling will not necessarily be definite because such cases can be appealed and refiled many times in Egypt's legal system.

"We will hold on to our right and we will go to a higher court. They claim we are the ones who are backward, then they turn around and ban us from our education," a student told Al Jazeera.

Some of the students were in tears at the news but vowed they would not be fazed or put off by the decision.

"I will go to my exams anyway, and if they prevent me from entering and expel me, I swear by God, I will never forgive this," another student said.

"I swear, I will sue every person who prevents me from sitting my exams. I will never take off my niqab. Never."

Full facial cover was also outlawed from the dormitories of public universities in October but the court overturned that ban in mid-December saying it violated the constitutional right of freedom to practice faith.

The number of women wearing various grades of hair- and face covers have increased in Egypt in recent years, and so has the controversy around the garb.

Al Jazeera's Rawya Rageh, reporting from the Egyptian capital, Cairo, said the trial reflected a divide in the Egyptian society

"It highlights the intensifying divide between the government’s brand of moderate Islam and a population increasingly turning to stricter interpretations of the religion.

"For some, covering up has even been a tacit defiance against the system."

In 2007, a court ruled that the American University in Cairo, seen as a bastion of Western liberal education in Egypt, was wrong to bar a female scholar from using its facilities for wearing a niqab. The court cited personal and religious freedom as grounds for its ruling.

A majority of Islamic scholars say they believe wearing a headscarf is a must, while few consider the niqab obligatory.

Al Jazeera

Islamic plan to criminalize Gospel message crumbling

By Bob Unruh

U.N. vote shows 'continuing pattern of growing opposition' to proposal

Support for a United Nations proposal that critics contend would be used to ban criticism of Islam, censor the message of Jesus Christ and attack and kill Christians and members of other faiths is plunging, according to the newest vote totals.

A resolution has been pending in one form or another since 1999 and originally was called "Defamation of Islam."

The name later was changed to "Defamation of Religions," but Islam remains the only faith protected by name in the proposal.

It is being sought by the 57 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference to "protect" Islam from what OIC members perceive as "criticism," which could include anything referencing Christianity since that could be considered a challenge to the beliefs of Muslims.

The latest vote on the nonbinding proposal came as the U.N. headed into the weekend, with 80 votes in favor of the proposal, 61 against and 42 abstentions. The results show support declining from the 86 yes votes a year ago and the 108 yes votes from two years ago.

Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, has been working to raise the world's awareness of the implications of the plan for several years. He's especially concerned that the ultimate goal appears to be a binding action by the U.N.

"For several years now, we have been working to oppose this resolution and this afront to religious freedom," he said in a blog posting shortly after the vote. 'During that time, we have seen a dramatic decline in support for this resolution.

He saw today's vote as "a very encouraging sign."

"What this tells us is that our message is getting through," he said. "A growing number of nations around the world understand that this resolution is unacceptable – that it is harmful, not helpful, to preserving religious liberty and freedom.

We will continue to work on this issue and to educate more nations about the dangers of this resolution and encourage them to vote against it."

Lindsay Vessey, advocacy director for Open Doors USA, an international Christian ministry operating in many Islamic states, previously told WND that U.N. human rights provisions always have focused on individuals, but the concept of protecting a religion would give authoritarian governments virtually unrestrained power to attack individuals whose message they don't like.

"It would legitimize national blasphemy laws in countries that are actually going to persecute religious minorities, such as Pakistan and Afghanistan," she said.

Open Doors President Carl Moeller recently published a commentary describing what could happen under the proposal.

"The United Nations is once again on the verge of introducing a resolution that goes against everything the world body supposedly stands for. A successful resolution would actually undermine the religious liberty and personal safety of Christians and members of other faiths," he wrote.

He contended the resolution would "silence words or actions that are deemed to be against a particular religion, and that religion is Islam. While the stated goal seems relatively innocuous – blocking defamation of people's deeply held religious beliefs – in practice the statement is used to silence those whose only crime is to believe in another faith, or no faith at all."

He said the OIC is the driving force behind the plan and noted, "The OIC's goal is anything but peaceful."

More at WND

It Really Is Better Here

Although we Americans have the right to attend whatever Church, Synagogue, or Mosque we choose to, it isn’t so peachy in lots of other places.

The photo that accompanies this piece is of an Iranian woman who was flogged for having the temerity to worship as a Christian, for example.

The American Spectator’s December 11th analysis of the State Department’s 2009 Report On International Religious Freedom illustrates how really bad it is not only in Iran, but in at least 30 different countries.

Author Doug Bandow divides the offenders into two basic camps:

“The first are Muslim nations that seek to reinforce the Muslim faith — often the particular branch, Shia or Sunni, that controls the state. The second are authoritarian states that either are still communist or have only recently escaped communism. Their authoritarian impulses typically cover civil and political liberties as well as religious freedom.”

The old saw about Muslims demanding full rights to worship (minarets, anyone?) while simultaneously denying it to others (including incompatible strains of their own religion) rings particularly true here.

And the Communists just keep humming along.

Whether it’s Burma, Eritrea, or even India, those with power often seek to force others to adhere to their narrow conception of the Godhead – and if the “others” fail to feel the magic, they are often tortured and killed.

Although it is tempting to want to ban religions that preach the destruction of all competitors, so far we in the U.S. have stayed above the fray.

Perhaps the adherents of those religions can learn something from our approach.

Of course that isn’t guaranteed.

NewsReal Blog

Swiss Minaret Ban: Muslims’ Rights vs. Non-Muslims’ Rights

by M. A. Khan

The Swiss ban on mosque-top minarets on the ground of its being a symbol of political domination of Islam, an instrument incompatible with the secular Swiss society with strict separation between religion and state, has attracted widespread condemnations worldwide.

Most of all, Switzerland is poised to be brought before the European or the U.N. Commission of Human Rights because the ban, if enforced, would constitute a violation of religious freedom of Muslims.

Does the minaret ban constitute a violation of Muslims’ religious freedom? It may constitute such a violation, but only to a small measure, as their freedom of worship, including the freedom to build mosques, is not tampered with.

The Minaret, religiously, is not a major component of Islam.

On the flipside, the Swiss ban may represent a backlash against the widespread Muslim violation of religious freedom -- even the right to life -- of non-Muslims.

While the world has engaged in the intense condemnation of the Swiss minaret ban as a violation of Muslims’ religious freedom, hundreds, probably thousands, of non-Muslims across the Muslim world have been suffering intimidation and violence, even death, for simply being non-Muslim or trying to observe their religious rituals and rights in the most peaceful and submissive manner.

Over the past weeks, while the Swiss minaret ban hysteria was going on, a 3,000-strong hysterical Muslim mob engaged in rioting in Egypt, attacking Christians and their businesses -- a frequent occurrence.

More at Hudson New York

Christian couple in court over comments about Islam

Christian hotel owners Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang go on trial today for comments they made about Islam.

The couple, who own the Bounty House Hotel in Liverpool, are being prosecuted for a religiously aggravated public disorder after a Muslim guest complained they had made offensive comments to her on March 20.

They allegedly described Muslim dress for women as “bondage” and described the Prophet Mohammed as a “warlord”.

Their legal defence is being funded by the Christian Institute. Its director Colin Hart is appealing to Christians to pray for the couple as they stand before Liverpool Magistrates' Court today and tomorrow.

“We believe that it is the first case of its kind in the UK and could have significant implications for the religious freedom of all Christians,” he said.

Christian Institute spokesman Mike Judge said previously that there were “significant free speech and religious liberty issues at stake”.

The Vogelenzangs fear the court case could lead to financial ruin after a nearby hospital stopped referring patients to the hotel over the accusations.

The Christian Institute said the move had led to an 80 per cent drop in the hotel’s income. They face a £5,000 fine and criminal record if found guilty.

Their defence lawyer David Whiting said: “Ben and Sharon do not accept they were threatening, abusive or insulting.”

Christian Today

Berlin court rules in favour of Muslim prayer in school

Berlin school officials and parents are disappointed after an administrative court granted a Muslim high school student the right to pray in between lessons, daily Berliner Morgenpost reported on Wednesday.

The court on Tuesday ruled in favour of 16-year-old Yunus M., who attends the city's Diesterweg Gymnasium. During a four-hour hearing, Judge Uwe Wegener said he was aware that the case was quite significant and could set a precedent.

Lawyer Margarete Mühl-Jäckel, who argued on Berlin’s behalf, insisted that allowing prayer in schools would compromise the religious neutrality of the state institutions. But the court found that the basic right to religious freedom was in conflict with Article 7 of the constitution, which requires school neutrality.

Wolfgang Harnischfeger, head of the VBS association of Berlin school leaders called the ruling “a naïve decision that misses reality in schools,” the paper reported.

Meanwhile the state parents committee said it feared the ruling would mean further reduction of a willingness to integrate among Muslim students. Head of the committee, André Schindler, told Berliner Zeitung he feared it would divide students and said the group was considering an appeal.

Berlin city government school administrators also said they would review an appeal.

“We feel we’ve been left alone on the question of space considerations,” spokesperson Jens Stiller told the paper.

He explained that because prayer has a demonstrative character, schools must make extra rooms available and criticised that the court ruling did not address that issue.

Source: The Local

Move over France: Oregon wants to ban teachers from wearing hijabs in public schools

By J. Samia Mair

Oregon Senate Bill 786, which effectively bans Muslim women who wear a headscarf from teaching in public schools, may soon be law in Oregon, needing only Governor Ted Kulongoski’s signature.

The operable language states:

No teacher in any public school shall wear any religious dress while engaged in the performance of duties as a teacher. A school district, education service district or public charter school does not commit an unlawful employment practice under ORS chapter 659A by reason of prohibiting a teacher from wearing religious dress while engaged in the performance of duties as a teacher.

Ironically, the proposed legislation is entitled the Oregon Workplace Religious Freedom Act. Read more ...

Editor's note:
Ironically? Religious Freedom means Freedom of Religion and Freedom from Religion!

Source: Examiner

Who Invited Ahmadinejad to Dinner?

By Dr. Laina Farhat-Holzman

Being the host country for the United Nations, every year world leaders arrive that we do not like. Not long after Fidel Castro took over Cuba, he came to New York (as he has many more times since) and American administrations fume. Soviet leader Khrushchev once angrily took off a shoe to pound it on the table. Yasser Arafat arrived dressed in military fatigues, carrying a "freedom fighter's gun" (presumably unloaded) and an olive branch. Hugo Chávez of Venezuela came and noted that the preceding speaker, President Bush, left an odor of sulfur behind, "the devil!" he said, crossing himself.

One of my favorite visitors is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran, who has admirers among liberal dreamers of "world peace and religious tolerance," and illiberal radicals who believe that the enemy of their enemy (the U.S. and Israel) must be their friend. They seem unaware of the hilarious contractions of this position. Scott Kennedy, a former mayor of notoriously nutty Santa Cruz, California and founder of "the Resource Center for Nonviolence" (very selective nonviolence some say), even managed a private meeting with the Iranian president. Read more ...

Source: Family Security Matters

Religious intolerance in Pakistan widespread: US

By Khalid Hasan

WASHINGTON: While Pakistan was credited with have taken ‘some steps’ to improve the treatment of religious minorities, the International Religious Freedom Report, released at the weekend, described the general situation on this front in pretty negative terms.

The report, covering 2007, said, “The government took some steps to improve its treatment of religious minorities during the period covered by this report, but serious problems remained. Law enforcement personnel abused religious minorities in custody. Security forces and other government agencies did not adequately prevent or address societal abuse against minorities. Discriminatory legislation and the government’s failure to take action against societal forces hostile to those who practice a different religious belief fostered religious intolerance, acts of violence, and intimidation against religious minorities.” Read more ...

Source: Daily Times
H/T: Shariah Finance Watch

2007 Report on International Religious Freedom

The purpose of this report on religious freedom is to document the actions of governments - those that repress religious expression, persecute innocent believers, or tolerate violence against religious minorities, as well as those that respect, protect, and promote religious freedom. We strive to report with fairness and accuracy on abuses against adherents of all religious traditions and beliefs. The governments we report on range from those that provided a high level of protection for religious freedom in the broadest sense (those that "generally respected" religious freedom) to totalitarian regimes that sought to control religious thought and expression and regarded some or all religious groups as threats. Read more ...

Source: State Department