 By Ayaan Hirsi Ali The recent Swiss referendum that bans construction of minarets has caused controversy across the world.
There are two ways to interpret the vote. First, as a rejection of political Islam, not a rejection of Muslims.
In this sense it was a vote for tolerance and inclusion, which political Islam rejects.
Second, the vote was a revelation of the big gap between how the Swiss people and the Swiss elite judge political Islam. In the battle of ideas, symbols are important. What if the Swiss voters were asked in a referendum to ban the building of an equilateral cross with its arms bent at right angles as a symbol of the belief of a small minority? Or imagine a referendum on building towers topped with a hammer and sickle – another symbol dear to the hearts of a very small minority in Switzerland. Political ideas have symbols: A swastika, a hammer and sickle, a minaret, a crescent with a star in the middle (usually on top of a minaret) all represent a collectivist political theory of supremacy by one group over all others. On controversial issues, the Swiss listen to debate, read newspapers, and otherwise investigate when they make up their minds for a vote. What Europeans are finding out about Islam as they investigate is that it is more than just a religion. Islam offers not only a spiritual framework for dealing with such human questions as birth, death, and what ought to come after this world; it prescribes a way of life. Islam is an idea about how society should be organized: the individual's relationship to the state; that the relationship between men and women; rules for the interaction between believers and unbelievers; how to enforce such rules; and why a government under Islam is better than a government founded on other ideas.
These political ideas of Islam have their symbols: the minaret, the crescent; the head scarf, and the sword. The minaret is a symbol of Islamist supremacy, a token of domination that came to symbolize Islamic conquest. It was introduced decades after the founding of Islam. In Europe, as in other places in the world where Muslims settle, the places of worship are simple at first. All that a Muslim needs to fulfill the obligation of prayer is a compass to indicate the direction of Mecca, water for ablution, a clean prayer mat, and a way of telling the time so as to pray five times a day in the allocated period. The construction of large mosques with extremely tall towers that cost millions of dollars to erect are considered only after the demography of Muslims becomes significant. The mosque evolves from a prayer house to a political center. Imams can then preach a message of self-segregation and a bold rejection of the ways of the non-Muslims. Men and women are separated; gays, apostates and Jews are openly condemned; and believers organize around political goals that call for the introduction of forms of sharia (Islamic) law, starting with family law. This is the trend we have seen in Europe, and also in other countries where Muslims have settled. None of those Western academics, diplomats, and politicians who condemn the Swiss vote to ban the minaret address, let alone dispute, these facts. More at NER 
 President Mohamed Nasheed said yesterday he would seek advice from religious scholars on Islam’s position on allowing non-Muslims to worship in an Islamic community. In his radio weekly address, the president said the constitution was "very clear" that laws contrary to Islam could not be made or enacted. "It has become very important for me to find out what Islamic sharia says about not allowing foreigners who want to worship other religions in the Maldives," he said. "When this bill comes from the People's Majlis for the president to ratify, the question before me will be what is the ruling in Islamic sharia on people of other religions living in an Islamic community to worship?" The president said he needed an answer to the question before ratifying the bill. "When I know, it will be easier for me to make a decision on ratify the bill before it becomes law," he said. Last week, a bill proposed by independent MP Ibrahim Muttalib Fares-Maathoda on outlawing places of worship for non-Muslims was sent to committee for further review with unanimous consent of all MPs who participated in the vote. At the sitting, Muttalib said he learned that inquiries had been made with the government on establishing places of worship for expatriates and there was no law to forbid it. “The other thing we have to think about today is that the government is considering establishing wedding tourism in the country and this will indirectly set up churches in the country,” he said. While the bill states that foreigners or expatriates will be allowed to worship in the privacy of their homes, involving Maldivians or encouraging them to participate will be an offence. The bill specifies a jail term of three to five years or a fine of between Rf36,000 (US$2,800) and Rf60,000 (US$4,669) for those in violation of the law. Several MPs called for longer jail terms and higher fines, while others said foreigners in violation of the law should be deported. But, some MPs argued the law was unnecessary as the constitution states that Islam shall be the basis of all laws and non-Muslims cannot be citizens. Most MPs said laws were needed to seal off all avenues to freedom of religion being established in the Maldives. Mohamed Shaheem Ali Saeed, state minister for Islamic affairs, told Minivan News today the president's office had not officially asked for the ministry’s advice. "But the matter has been sent to the Fiqh academy and they will issue a decree on it," he said. Shaheem said he believed laws should be made to protect Islam and strengthen Maldivians' faith. "Right now, Muslims aren't getting their rights," he said. "For example, there's no way for students to pray at schools, you can't get some jobs if you wear the burqa and there are some jobs where you can't grow beards." He added the ministry had drafted regulations under the Religious Unity Act of 1994 together with the police and sent it to the president's office. The regulations will be published in the government gazette next week, he continued, and would provide a legal framework to protect Islam. Speaking to Minivan News today, Abdullah bin Mohamed Ibrahim, president of religious NGO Salaf Jamiyya, said he believed the bill was necessary to safeguard Islam. "What the president said doesn't match what was in the bill," he said. "The bill is about making it illegal to build places of worship for non-Muslims. It doesn't make it illegal for foreigners to pray in their rooms or houses." Abdullah said the association had information that Christian missionaries were trying to infiltrate the country and proselytize in the Maldives. "I believe the bill is essential because the constitution does not forbid building places of worship," he said. Minivan News
 By Robert Spencer Pakistan is, of course, an Islamic Republic, but why is it that "there is no compulsion in religion" (2:256) seems only to be invoked by Islamic apologists in the West, and never where it could actually do some good for non-Muslims in an Islamic state?
Hmmm, now why might that be?
Islamic Tolerance Alert from the Land of the Pure: "All students in Pakistan's schools required to study Islam," from AsiaNews, September 26 Islamabad (AsiaNews) - The new guidelines for school students in Pakistan requires non-Muslims to study Islam and ignore other religious traditions in the country.
The National Commission for Justice and Peace (NCJP) of the Church of Pakistan is critical of the National Education Policy 2009, launched September 9 by the government in Islamabad. Mgr. John Saldanha, Archbishop of Lahore and chairman of the NCJP, and Peter Jacob, secretary of the Commission are concerned about the often implicit discriminatory and coercive aspects of the new guidelines content. In a press release issued on 25 September, the two leaders of NCJP point the finger at Chapter 4 of the document, dedicated to Islamic Education. They claim that "If government thinks public education is not possible without a compulsory subject of Islamic Studies and Arabic, then we are forced to demand religious education for Hindu, Christian, Sikh, Parsi, etc. in their respective religions". The program drawn up by the Government contemplates that Islamiyat (Islamic studies) become compulsory until the 12th class (15 and 16 years). For students that from then on will not want to follow the lessons of Islam attendance of alternative courses of public ethics is permitted, but the Commission notes also on this front the discrimination, though latent, is clear.... Source: JihadWatch
 By Dr. Sami Alrabaa “Islam is a tolerant religion.” This is what a Dutch convert and Islam expert said in an interview with the Saudi daily, Al Sharq Al Awsat (March 10, 2009). The woman works for the Amsterdam Free University. Her name is “Stella Van Der Wetring.” This is a transliteration from Arabic. I could not find how her name is written in Dutch. The Dutch convert reiterates, “Islam is a tolerant and merciful religion.” She also says, “The bad picture about Islam in school and university curricula in Holland and in other Western countries was established by orientlists.” Obviously, the Dutch convert has not read all those egregious passages in the Koran and Hadeeth which preach hatred and violence. Neither has she checked out the Saudi school books which also teach hatred and violence against other religions, the West, and women. We should all be proud of apologists like our Dutch convert. She is really a great peace-loving convert. Here is a corroboration of her views, which clearly show that Islam is “really a tolerant faith.” Read more ...Source: Family Security Matters
 January 15, 2009
A RADIO announcer's call for a ban on Islamic hijabs has been backed by the National Retailers Association.
The peak national body has called for all hijabs, helmets and hoodies to be banned in shops and banks for security purposes.
Brisbane radio presenter Michael Smith angered listeners after calling for Muslim women who wear a hijab to be fined.
The 4BC drive presenter said on Wednesday that wearing the hijab or burka posed a security risk because it obscured the face, making it difficult to identify the wearer in the instance of a crime.
Smith said it should be made an offence.
Retailers association executive director Scott Driscoll said it had been a long accepted practice to require customers to remove helmets and other identity obscuring headwear when entering a shop or bank.
"Retailers should not have to fear any form of retribution or backlash for requiring the removal of any obscuring headwear, including hijabs, as a condition of entry,'' Mr Driscoll said.
"This is about ensuring a more safe and secure retail environment for all and being able to readily identify any and all perpetrators of armed hold-ups or shop theft.''
Islamic Council of Queensland president Suliman Sabdia said he was disappointed by Smith's remarks.
"He has every right to say it but we do say he displays intolerance, and a complete lack of understanding of the Muslim code of conduct," Mr Sabdia said.
He said he did not think Mr Smith should be fired, instead inviting him to a meeting to discuss the issues.
"Does revenge really, at the end of the day, solve anything? No," he said.
"We forgive him for his lack of understanding, we pray that God almighty gives him the wisdom and the understanding to respect every other individual."
A poll on the station's website today asking, ``Should we impose restrictions on the wearing of burkas in Australia?" had a yes result of 76 per cent, and 23 per cent no, at 10am (AEST).
Comment was being sought from 4BC. Source: The Australian
 By Hussein Solomon Forget the 'Clash of Civilizations' thesis; the battle lines within Islam have been drawn. Two years ago I published a paper entitled "Between Tolerance and Totalitarianism, Between Islam and Islamism"* The basic thrust of my argument then was that Islamic principles of tolerance and compassion are increasingly being displaced by Islamism. Islamism is a twentieth century totalitarian ideology that seeks to mould Islamic religious tradition to serve narrow political ends of domination. Not only is Islamism totalitarian in character, it is also violent in its methods and, in the process, betrays the very Islamic ideals it supposedly champions. At the time of writing that paper two years ago I recall feeling pessimistic, feeling that Islamism was on the ascendancy. However, recent events have tempered my despondency and filled me with renewed hope that Muslims are recapturing the true ideals of their faith -- those of tolerance and compassion -- whilst rejecting the Islamist extremisms and distortions of their faith. A key catalyst for this is that Muslims are increasingly being turned off by the barbaric methods employed by Islamists. In Iraq, unprecedented revulsion was displayed by Iraqi Muslims at the fact that young children were being recruited as suicide bombers by Al Qaeda. Two cases earlier this year illustrate the point well. In one incident, a young girl aged 13 exploded her suicide belt in Diyala, and in September, a 10-year old boy blew himself up next to Sheikh Imad Jassem, the leader of the Sons of Iraq in Tarmiya. Not only was Muslim public opinion affronted by the age of the suicide bombers, but also at the fact that they were recruited by coercive means and, in one case, did not even know that they were being strapped with an explosive device. The use of child suicide bombers by Al Qaeda may make tactical sense since less attention is paid to children at security checkpoints, but in the process they are alienating Muslim public opinion, which they do need in order to sustain their campaign. Increasingly, Iraqis are now co-operating with authorities in sharing information, which is contributing to more preventive action in Iraq. As such, the death toll is dropping and the security situation is improving whilst Al Qaeda and others of its ilk are increasingly on the defensive. Read more ...Source: MidEast Web
 WAM Abu Dhabi, Nov 28th, 2008 (WAM): The US Department of State has lauded the religious tolerance and cultural coexistence found in United Arab Emirates.
The International Religious Freedom Report 2008 released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labour affiliated to the Department of State, surveyed the life in the UAE to establish that the country keenly protects freedom of faith and encourages tolerance among the followers of various religions.
The recent edition of the report cited several efforts being made in the country to boost interfaith understanding.
Among them was a symposium organised by the Centre for Information Affairs in Abu Dhabi, on 'The Role of the Vatican in Spreading the Principles of Coexistence in the World and the Religious Tolerance in the United Arab Emirates'.
The key speakers of the symposium held earlier in May this year included Archbishop Mounged El-Hachem, the Papal Nuncio to the United Arab Emirates and Bishop Paul Hinder, Apostolic Vicar for the entire Arabian Peninsula and Bishop of St. Joseph's Catholic Cathedral.
The report noted that the constitution of UAE provides for freedom of religion in accordance with established customs.
Earlier in June 2008, President Khalifa's Religious Affairs Adviser Al-Sayed Ali al-Hashemi hosted an interfaith gathering at his residence, to which he invited the Apostolic Vicar of Arabia and Roman Catholic Bishop of Abu Dhabi, Paul Hinder, and the local Coptic Church patriarch to deliver homilies to a gathering of Muslim scholars, clergy, and foreign (including non-Muslim) diplomats, the report noted.
On April 15, 2008, the President received the credentials of 13 ambassadors, including a new envoy from the Vatican. The Vatican envoy passed to President His Highness Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan the greetings of Pope Benedict XVI, who paid tribute to the country's leadership for its care for cultural diversity and intercultural dialogue. He touted the country as a model in its support for and advocacy of tolerance and respect for cultural diversity and cross cultural interaction. President Khalifa reaffirmed the country's determination to foster dialogue among cultures and civilizations and tolerance among various religious groups, the report cited.
In March this year, Higher Education and Scientific Research Minister HE Sheikh Nahyan bin Mubarak al-Nahyan opened a new Evangelical Church building in Abu Dhabi, which will house 21 congregations in larger accommodations than were previously available to them. The church inauguration coincided with Easter celebrations. Sheikh Nahyan congratulated Christians for Easter and the inauguration of the church, adding that 'the Evangelical Church building in Abu Dhabi reflects once more that the country is tolerant and respects the beliefs of others'.
The report also noted that there are temples shared by Sikhs and Hindus in Dubai, and Buddhists, Hindus, and Sikhs conducts religious ceremonies in private homes without interference. Source: WAM
Four Algerian Christians have been given suspended jail terms and fines for worshipping illegally. The case has provoked accusations in the West of religious repression in the largely Muslim country of 33 million - a charge the government denies. But Christian groups point to the ordered closures of some churches. The state-appointed Higher Islamic Council said Protestant evangelicals are secretly trying to divide Algerians to colonise the country. Read more ...Source: BBC
JAKARTA, Indonesia: Islamic hard-liners broke up a religious tolerance rally Sunday, beating demonstrators with bamboo sticks and calling for the deaths of members of a Muslim sect they consider heretical, witnesses said. About 200 Christians, moderate Muslims and members of Ahmadiyah — an Islamic group the government is considering banning — gathered at the National Monument in the nation's capital of Jakarta to celebrate the country's tradition of pluralism, said Gunawan Mohamad, a prominent magazine publisher who took part in the rally. At least 12 people were injured and four of them were taken to hospitals after members of the Islamic Defenders Front rushed the square waving flags and swinging sticks, organizer Anick Tohari said. "Repent or die," shouted men dressed in green and white Islamic outfits as they punched and kicked bleeding protesters, video footage showed. Read more ...Source: AP
By Rabbi Yitzchok AdlersteinAn Orthodox Jew and an Egyptian meet on an international flight. The debate turns to whether there were or could be Muslim moderates. Think that you can predict who picked which position? It was just not what I wanted to hear. The middle seat on the flight from Los Angeles to London had stayed unoccupied, and both of us at the ends hoped it would remain that way. Just before the doors closed, a gentleman walked on and sat himself in what could have been great extra space on a long flight. Then, he turned to me and began speaking, and the flight became longer yet. "Hi!" he opened with a large smile. "I'm Egyptian." We did not reenact the Yom Kippur War at 35,000 feet. We did wind up debating Middle East politics for a tolerable portion of the journey, but it did not go the way you might have expected. He turned out to be a Christian, a Copt to be precise, a group that has been persecuted for quite some time in Egypt, has had its churches burned and its adherents assaulted, and is under increasing pressure from the Muslim Brotherhood. The argument concerned whether there were or could be Muslim moderates. He refused to consider such a thing. It took me, the Orthodox rabbi, to argue the contrary both from history and from my own experience. We parted friends, although he continued to look at me like some naïve Westener, who couldn't possibly know what was going down. The question is not academic. At stake is just what the Western world can and will do to stop the jihadist juggernaut. If Islam is locked into a model that permits, in the final analysis, only loyal Muslims on the one hand and dead people on the other, then what the rest of us must do is arm ourselves to the teeth, build larger walls, and try harder to ferret out the danger already in our midst. If, as I strongly believe, the centuries-old struggle within Islam can resolve itself if a way that more pacific voices prevail, then there will be a different response. We must still take all precautions in the interim, but also do our utmost to identify and deepen our relationship with those who can become a significant counterforce from within to the jihadists. Not that small numbers are the only possibility. Late last year, a delegation of Indonesian religious leaders visited Israel as guests of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, led by a colleague, Rabbi Abraham Cooper, Associate Dean of the Center in conjunction with the LibForAll Foundation. These religious leaders met with Palestinians, and visited Ramallah, but also saw Sderot up close. They visited Jewish and Christian holy sites, and prayed at Islamic ones. They danced with hesder yeshiva students celebrating Chanuka in Kiryat Shemonah. They presented President Shimon Peres with a kippah emblazoned with "Kedamiain" the Indonesian word for peace. They stuffed packages in a food distribution facility that serves poor Jews and Arabs in Yaffo. One of them openly wept at Yad Vashem. "How could this have happened? They were only children!" These Muslim leaders are part of two religious organizations that comprise seventy million people of the 195 million Muslims in the most populous Muslim country in the world. What will come of the visit? Hopefully, a changed perspective on the part of the participants, and future visits by others. The initial press coverage was positive; it later precipitated inspired fierce argumentation on Indonesian blogs. After a week, the model response was, "OK, perhaps Israel wouldn't be my personal travel destination. But all they did was talk. How bad could that be?" Minimally, a debate has begun. Can we dare, though, to think of more? Might it not lead to a few less terrorists in the future, or a few more teachers in classrooms who will deliver a different message than the one heard in Gaza, or a rediscovery by some people of the interpretative tradition that was once the rule in Islamic thought? What happens to Muslims trained in Salafist madrassas, taught from childhood that Christians and Jews are pigs and monkeys, when they meet Christians and Jews who act different in every regard from the ugly stereotypes they took for granted? We know that in many cases they not only change their attitudes towards those they previously hated, but they are forced to painfully reexamine every other stereotype, every other extremist view they were taught. When some of these become journalists, professors, and clergy, how many people can they reach, in the space of very few years? Might some in time become potential bridges to the Palestinians? Jews in particular have historical reason to be hopeful. For close to two millennia, we had good reason to believe that Christianity itself was an enemy of Judaism, and that some of its texts and traditions precluded any softening of its stance against the Jews. A hundred years ago, could anyone have predicted a document like Nostra Aetate, or a Pope's visit to the Western Wall, asking G-d for forgiveness for the Christian treatment of Jews? Protestant denominations ate supersessionism -- the doctrine that the Jews of the Bible had been replaced in G-d's favor by the New Jews, i.e. Christians -- for breakfast. Who would have thought that group after group of Protestants, standing shamefacedly in the aftermath of the Holocaust, would have moved supersessionism to a locked cellar, reached out to the Jewish people, and worried about the theological details later? (No, they did not eliminate antisemitism from their midst, and the record of some of those groups regarding Israel is appalling. But the change in attitude is still a step in the right direction.) Reason overwhelmed them and they found a way for faith to accommodate it. Decades of interfaith dialogue will not be as effective as multifaith contact that leads to change coming from within, not negotiated or compelled from without. Could this not happen to Muslims? This optimism may prove to be groundless, but does it make any sense for Christians and Jews not to try to facilitate change? On my way back from London, the cabin attendants brought out the meals rather quickly. As I struggled through the various layers of covering of my kosher meal, the fellow sitting next to me peered at the food. "I see you are eating a kosher meal. I am Egyptian…" Then I noticed that he, too, had a special meal: halal. This flight, however, was not going to be a rerun. He was not a Copt, but Muslim. This could turn into a long flight, I thought. But my cabin mate continued. "Hmm. The kosher meal reminds me of a good friend of my oldest daughter. Shoshana from Tel Aviv…." Might I dream that the pleasant conversation that ensued will take us all, in time, to a better place between Muslims and Jews? Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein is Director of Interfaith Affairs at The Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles. He is also a contributing member to AskMusa.org, a site that promotes understanding and tolerance between Muslims and Jews through knowledge and dialog.
Freedom House puts out a Freedom in the World annual report, scoring each of 193 countries for political rights and for civil liberties. Based on these scores, they categorize each country as “Free”, “Partly Free”, or “Not Free”. Their report is in for 2008, and the difference between Muslim countries and non-Muslim countries is stark.
Freedom House does not separate the countries into categories by their predominant religion, so I’ve done that. Here are the countries as I’ve classified them (I would be grateful for a heads-up in the event of any errors):
50 Muslim countries: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Brunei, Burkina Faso, Chad, Comoros, Cote d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, The Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Yemen.
143 non-Muslim countries: Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo (Brazzaville), Congo (Kinshasa), Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominica, Dominican Republic, East Timor, Ecuador, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Kiribati, Laos, Latvia, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Madagascar, Malawi, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia, Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, North Korea, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Serbia, Seychelles, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Vietnam, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Comparison: Of the Muslim countries, 25 of 50 (50%) were “Not Free”. 22 (44%) were “Partly Free”, and only 3 (6%) were “Free”. Looking at the extremes, 5 (10%) received the worst score, and none (0%) received the best score. Contrast that with the non-Muslim countries, of which 18 of 143 (13%) were “Not Free”, 38 (27%) were “Partly Free”, and 87 (61%) were “Free”. (That’s 101% due to rounding.) As for the extremes, only 3 (2%) received the worst score while fully 48 (34%) received the very best possible score. Perhaps a table format shows it best:
Categories
| Religion | “Not Free” | NF % | ”Partly Free” | PF % | ”Free” | F % |
|---|
| Muslim | 25 | 50% | 22 | 44% | 3 | 6% | | Non-Muslim | 18 | 13% | 38 | 27% | 87 | 61% |
Extremes| Religion | Worst Score | Worst Score Percent | Best Score | Best Score Percent |
|---|
| Muslim | 5 | 10% | 0 | 0% | | Non-Muslim | 3 | 2% | 48 | 34% |
Number of Countries for Each Score14 is the worst possible score, 2 is the best. Note that no Muslim countries scored 2, 3, or 4, which means that 78 out of 143 non-Muslim countries, which is 55% of the total number, are freer than any Muslim country.| Religion | 14 | 13 | 12 | 11 | 10 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 |
|---|
| Muslim | 5 | 4 | 4 | 12 | 4 | 6 | 7 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Non-Muslim | 3 | 5 | 3 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 10 | 11 | 9 | 16 | 14 | 48 |
Trends: From 2007 to 2008, 8 Muslim countries became less free, and 3 became more free, for a net change of 5 countries out of 50 (10%) moving less free. In comparison, 6 non-Muslim countries became less free, and 3 became more free, for a net change of 3 countries out of 143 (2%) becoming less free. The trend toward less freedom in Muslim countries is consistent with claims that the Muslim world is, in general, suffering the effects of a worldwide Islamic movement.It is also worth mentioning that the three countries categorized as “Free” (Indonesia, Mali, and Senegal) are borderline. In Freedom House’s scoring system, the best possible score is 2, and these three countries scored a 5. 2-5 is “Free”, 6-10 is “Partly Free”, and 11-14 is “Not Free”. You can find many examples of religious intolerance in Indonesia. Less information is available about Mali and Senegal in West Africa, in part because they are quite small, with a population of about 12 million each. However, the little information I have found indicates they are relatively tolerant and quite unorthodox, with little Islamist activity at this time. Copyright 2008, Citizens Against Sharia, All Rights Reserved. Source: Citizens Against Sharia
 |
|
|
Copyright Muslims Against Sharia 2008. All rights reserved.
E-mail: info AT ReformIslam.org
|
|
|
Posts
