 by Supna ZaidiI have always viewed push-up bras as false advertising, but does wearing one deserve a whipping because of their "deceptive" and "un-Islamic" nature? I don't know, but the controlling Islamist Shabaab party of Somalia seems to think so. And if our bras are not at issue, it's some other part of our bodies. Apparently, women should simply not participate in public life and if they try, they should be marginalized with one misogynist application of Islamic law after another. Otherwise, if you believe Islamists in Muslim-majority countries, free will would transform Muslim women into western ones. Not real American women, for example, who are busy working, raising families, but the one-dimensional women portrayed on shows like "Melrose Place" and Hooter ads on American highways. Such simplification was reinforced rather than combated on an Oct. 4, 2009, Islamic news show by Dalia Mogahed, President Obama's appointee to his Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. She made no effort to separate herself from extremist positions offered by fellow guests like a representative from Hizb-ut-Tahrir, or the Islamic Liberation Party.
HT members want Islamic law applied globally, and agitate for it with conferences like, "The Fall of Capitalism, the Rise of Islam" presented in Chicago a few months ago. Mogahed's failure to defend secular democracies as societies where the law protects an individual's right to be as orthodox or as "liberal," "progressive," or "cultural" as they choose makes sense considering her contribution to a controversial study, "Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think." The study defines Shariah as "the rule of law," including ethics and morals. Such a loose interpretation justifies her radio show comment that "the majority of women around the world associate Shariah with 'gender justice.' " She added that "the perception of Shariah and portrayal of Shariah has been oversimplified even among Muslims." Oversimplified? That is ironic considering Mogahed's definition of Shariah. What ethics? Whose morals, and whose law legitimizes Shariah? If I took a poll of all Americans today defining Islamic law simply as "living ethically and morally," I guarantee that 100 percent would want to live under it. This is because each person would insert his or her unique understanding of right and wrong, just as the Saudi, Iranian and Somali Islamists do. Muslims who do not want to live under Islamic law are not oversimplifying. Rather, they are accepting that Mogahed's vapid description bears no resemblance to Islamic law in practice. Reformers like Asma Jahangir, a Muslim human rights activist and lawyer in Pakistan know. Jahangir regularly defends men and women against discriminatory laws and cultural mores in the name of Islam. She is also one of many men and women in Pakistan fighting to have the misogynistic religious Hudood laws repealed. Mogahed sounds a lot more like Abu Tayyeb, one of the Taliban kidnappers of New York Times journalist David Rohde. The kidnapper claimed "the Taliban treated women better than Americans did ... women in the United States were forced to wear revealing clothes and define themselves solely as sex objects. The Taliban protected women's honor by not allowing them to appear in public with their faces unveiled." Promiscuity and "male disrespect for women" are not the definitive traits that govern relations between men and women in the West, just as abuse of women, child brides, female genital mutilation, honor killings, and denial of equal opportunities for women are not the only way women live in Muslim-majority countries. But those are realities that Islamists do not wish to address, preferring to defend their egos on radio shows like the one in which Mogahed participated. Obama will only make progress when he chooses to appoint spokespeople who do not pander to current global anti-Americanism by abandoning universal human rights, but show that they can be proud practitioners of their faith in a society that defends everyone irrespective of faith. Source: Middle East Forum H/T: Solstice Witch 
By Gramfan According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary Feminism is defined thus: Date: 1895 1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests Who can ever forget the iconic cover of "The Female Eunuch", by Germaine Greer? It was everywhere when it was first published in 1970. It was virtually the next best thing that had happened to women since Emmeline Pankhurst and her Suffragettes worked to get women the vote. So we were told. And certainly you cannot deny the benefits and progress that have come from these two women, and the many others who have taken over the baton and changed the lives of millions. Many of today's other famous feminists are living very comfortably on self-earned wealth: fine with me, it's well-deserved. They have turned their politics and activism into income sources by working in journalism and other media. People listen to them. They have power, enormous power. Camille Paglia is but one of many whose opinions are highly respected, and it is easy to see why. Germaine Greer is still going on strongly about all kinds of issues. Gloria Steinem is another member of this esteemed crowd and there are also very many not-so-famous feminists. These feminists are in almost all professions from politics to pianists, parents and yes, prostitutes - the oldest "profession" of them all! Then of course there are the other women in the world who don't occupy this rarified space but who have decided, and yes, it is a decison now, to become home-makers and mothers. Some of them decide to resume successful careers and some chose not to. But I wonder if we all really received so many benefits from all these feminists? Some of us didn't. With all that is good and liberating in human progress there are often side effects and "unintended consequences". Sadly there are goals that have not, and will not be achieved. Certainly many of us get equal work for equal pay nowadays but not all of us. Then there are those who chose to be wives and mothers, who are often scorned, or looked down upon, for their choices. They had jobs, but feminists weren't satisfied; every other woman had to get one too. So they opened fire on homemakers with a savagery that still echoes throughout our culture. A housewife is a "parasite," [Betty] Frieden writes; such women are "less than fully human" insofar as they "have never known a commitment to an idea." And.... Housewives, not men, were the prey in feminism's sights when Kate Millett decreed in 1969 that the family must go. Feminists do not speak for traditional women. Men cannot know this, however, unless we tell them how we feel about them, our children, and our role in the home. Men must understand that our feelings towards them and our children are derided by feminists and have earned us their enmity. Whether or not this understanding garners men's support, traditional women must defend ourselves because the feminist offensive is, most essentially, a breach of solidarity with us, a disavowel of the obligation to honor the Women's Pact [that religious celibates, professional women, and homemakers respect each other] that women in the movement owed to us (Source). Oh yes, this site has more. Feminism today goes on and on, intellectualising and re-defining feminism to the extent where it is almost too difficult to follow, let alone comprehend. Quite frankly I am more interested in the practical day-to-day realities. I take the two definitions at face value and I note it doesn't specify any nationality,political allegiance or religion. 1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests It is true a lot of this has happened in the West but rather than have Greer et al espouse "intellectual yada yada" I would rather see these women get militant again and do something to help their long-suffering sisters who live in Islamic countries, and who can but only dream of the lifestyle many of their famous feminist sisters enjoy. All too often I see stories of honour killings, rape, female genital mutilation, subservience, domestic (and other) violence, forced marriage and utter discrimination perpetrated against women in Muslim countries and now also in the West. Some women are getting hymenoplasties and buying repair kits before they marry. Some are being recruited as homicide bombers. One is punished for drinking beer, others face lashings or stonings. An Australian Islamist tries to justify polygamy for everyone. There are women who suffer terribly from acid attacks quite frequently. Women in Gaza are not allowed to ride motorcycles, and Somali women are being scrutinised when wearing a bra! Where's Germaine when you need her, or would this make her happy I wonder? And recently we have the on-going case of Rifka Bary who, as a minor, cannot chose her religion, and could become a victim of honorcide for apostasy. If she is sent back to her parents her fate is unknown. If she is allowed to remain alive the Islamists can deny honorcide even exists. This is happening in the USA now. Yet in spite of these incidents feminists like Naomi Wolfe manage to defend discrimination towards women in Islam and it then takes a compassionate feminist, Phyllis Chesler, who has actually lived in a Muslim country, to sort it out for her! I know many feminists, and women in general, can be fearless fighters. Code Pink, for example, have gone to Iraq and Afghanistan. True, they are an anti-war movement, but perhaps, just perhaps, they could have drawn some attention to the women who live and suffer in the war zones they are so adamantly against. They could have easily added one more mission statement to what is on their website which mentions "social justice". Indeed, any other anti-war group could easily have done the same. I know they do not define themselves as feminists per se, but why not do more? Could they not have met with Malalai Joya and offered some help? Indeed, could not some of our famous feminists, female politicians and celebrities who spend so much time choking on their own venom over Sarah Palin have done the same? Are they afraid? Or are they simply not interested in the women's issues of today because they think it is another culture and therefore they shouldn't interfere. They know it isn't right but they can turn a blind eye to it, even as it happens under their noses, in their own countries. It's a cop-out. The improvement of the condition of women in Islam is, to me, a far loftier goal than getting to wear trousers, getting equal pay, getting an abortion on demand, and having a man treat a woman more like a man! This was definitely an "unintended consequence" for me: trivial as it may seem. I am much heartened by the fact that progress is being made, albeit in small steps. Kuwati women in parliament refuse to wear the veil. An Egyptian Cleric wants to ban burquas and other facial coverings. Honor killing or Honorcide is getting more attention. Lubna Hussein got a lot of media attention over her sentence for wearing trousers. Najwa Bin Laden and her son, Omar, wrote a book about their husband and father, Osama, and seem to be fearless about it. They have provided a fascinating insight into this man. I think the real "feminist"heroines now are the ones who have literally put their lives on the line, not only for women in Islam but for the world in general. Their goals and committment are what is truly deserving of our respect and support. I am referring to women like Dr Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Nonie Darwish, Supna Zaidi, Irshad Manji and women like them. There is another one who would have possibly made it to this list: Neda Soltan. Tragically she cannot, but in spirit she can inspire so much. I feel she deserves a mention among these brave, dedicated and fascinating women. This is my challenge to todays feminists. Use your power again. I am "just a Mom". I do not have your platform and power. This is indeed a most worthy cause to support and fight for. ("Gramfan" has been 'blogging since 2002. She is "just a Mom" of two grown-up sons, and helps her husband of 38 years. She has occasionally written pieces for other 'blogs, and posts comments. She now writes exclusively for Muslims Against Sharia).
 By Supna Zaidi Recently, I crossed paths with a cute, chubby prepubescent girl on a street in Philly. She was about six years old, dressed in an ankle length hijab. As we crossed paths, I smiled and thought nothing of it. Later, though, I was bothered by the idea that someone so young would be required to wear a headscarf, since even the most orthodox interpretation of Islam requires a woman to cover her hair upon hitting puberty, and otherwise, simply dress "modestly". Then I remembered her mother and an op-ed I read last year. Her mother wore a niqab, which is a hijab-plus garment that not only covers a woman's hair, but also her face and body, leaving slits for eyesight only. Suddenly, the headscarf on the six-year-old made sense. The daughter was being mentally prepared for the niqab. The niqab is controversial. A ban is being called for from France to Canada. It has become a symbol of not only female suppression, but radical Islam's invocation of separatism and criminality as well. Unfortunately, the niqab is but one issue facing Muslim women today. Remember Lubna Hussain, the Sudanese journalist found guilty of indecent dress for wearing trousers in Sudan, or the more recent news highlighting Egyptian clerical outrage against Chinese hymen reconstruction kits now available for $30? Read more ...Source: Washington ExaminerH/T: FPM
 By Supna Zaidi
In Philadelphia, I recently crossed paths with a small, chubby cheeked African-American girl swathed in a black cotton ankle length head-scarf. Her amorphous little body walked passed me, holding hands with her niqab clad mother without eye contact or a smile.
Normally, I wouldn’t think anything of this. Since 9/11 the increase in hijabs, niqabs and other "Islamic" dress by women has grown highlighting the politicized nature of Muslim identity in the U.S. But to see such a little girl wearing clothing that purports to protect her sexuality from strangers seemed grossly at odds with her prepubescence. But then I realized that the child was probably being mentally prepared for the full face covering her mother wore when she reached puberty. The dress length hijab on this 5-7 year old girl, was merely a transitional garment.
Unlike most parts of the US, The niqab is a very common garment in Philadelphia. The city has a very large convert community of African Americans to Islam, who have been "evangelized" by particularly politicized, anti-establishment Salafi Muslims. The Salafi ideology is the same as that of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and shares the same ultra-conservative tendencies of the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia. In Philadelphia it is normal to see as many as ten niqabis in a day, where one would be hard pressed to see one or two in Los Angeles or Houston.
European nations from Italy and France to the UK, are debating banning the niqab. The arguments against the garment range from labeling it as a symbol of Islamic female oppression to the security and safety risk the face covering poses to the public at large. On the other hand, supporters of the niqab focus on religious freedom, cultural diversity and the right to personal choice, hallmarks of western societies, which should not be denied Muslims in the West.
The niqab/burka debate has not reached national media scrutiny yet in the US. It may with Philadelphia as a contentious starting point. Multiple robberies in the past two years were committed by burka clad women and men highlighting the security risk the niqab poses to the public. But, how likely is an all out national ban?
Unlike European nations, the U.S. anti-niqabi position must contend with the First Amendment and its protection of religion. The First Amendment requires that a state restriction against a religious practice survive strict scrutiny. This is the highest standard before our judiciary where the state must provide a compelling argument on the ground’s of protecting the public health and safety.
Many writers, like Daniel Pipes, have written repeatedly that this requirement is met by the security and identification risks face coverings like the niqab and burka pose in the public space. Pointing to Philadelphia alone, he cites:
"Philadelphia, Pennsylvania boasts multiple robberies (3 banks and 1 real estate leasing office) in a sixteen-month period in 2007-08, including the murder of a police officer."
With the conclusion:
"Some observers would ban hijabs from public places, but what legal grounds exist for doing so? Following my rule of thumb that Muslims enjoy the same rights and obligations as other citizens, but not special rights or obligations, a woman’s freedom of expression grants her the option to wear a hijab.
In contrast, burqas and niqabs should be banned in all public spaces because they present a security risk. Anyone might lurk under those shrouds - female or male, Muslim or non-Muslim, decent citizen, fugitive, or criminal - with who knows what evil purposes."
Bank robberies are only the beginning. Photographs for legitimate identification purposes have become an issue in multiple states, including Florida, where women refuse to show their face. Women appearing before a judge in civil disputes refuse to testify if they are asked to reveal their face, ignoring the legitimate legal need to ascertain a witness’ character by demeanor, body language and facial expression.
In schools neither students nor teachers should be permitted to wear the niqab since it interferes with the learning process. A teacher, for example, compromises the student-teacher relationship by creating a harmful barrier between herself and her students, limiting trust and clear communication necessary in class. Students, on the other hand, isolate themselves from their peer group and their teacher, limiting communication and bonding, which assist in the learning process as well.
The state right to marginalize the face coverings of any kind in public for the safety of all citizens is supported by "soft" policy arguments as well. It is a well known fact that most Muslims do not wear the niqab. Rather, it is a garment worn by women in a few Arab countries, but unfortunately, due to increased Wahhabi proselytizing around the globe, more and more women are being told that it is necessary in order to be considered a good Muslim. Its pre-Islamic history is evident in Yemen, where some tribes socialize women to keep their faces covered before their own husbands and children until death. Yet, many Muslims and Muslim clerics demand that it be worn to keep women marginalized in society.
At the end of the day, it should not matter whether one believes the niqab is religiously legitimate or "cultural," it should simply be illegal.
US law protects everyone’s right to believe what they like, but not practice anything if it violates the law. Mormons know polygamy is illegal. Evangelical Christians cannot deny minor children medical treatment where the doctor raises the issue before a judge. A doctor or pharmacist cannot deny a patient birth control just because he or she believes using it is a sin.
The niqab prevents girls from integrating into mainstream society. It supports the creation of parallel societies within mainstream American society that advocates an anti-establishment attitude makes American born citizens feel foreign. Lastly, the garment is a threat to a cohesive American identity for all, where individuals of all faiths or none are expected to come together and respect each other’s backgrounds.
American citizens should take note of the debates Europeans are currently engaged in over religious dress. Philadelphia offers a unique opportunity for its local citizens to ask their congressmen and law enforcement officers why there is no policy on the niqab given its prevalence there. Source: Muslim World Today
 Last fall, Islamist Watch wrote to the Minnesota Board of Education warning that some applicants who wish to sponsor charter schools in the state, like the Minnesota Education Trust (MET), have a religious agenda that violates the neutrality public schools must maintain before their student body with regard to religion. The MET is suing the school board after it was rejected for attempting to promote Islam. Today's Star Tribune reports: The Education Department denied the application because a new state law forbids religious groups from sponsoring charter schools, and MET has a "sectarian nature and mission," state Education Commissioner Alice Seagren said in a letter to the group last week.
Seagren's letter laid out a list of "entanglements" that she said MET has with the Muslim American Society of Minnesota. She also pointed out that several people who helped found the group have ties to Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy (TiZA), including the school's principals. Even if the MET can argue its way out of such "entanglements," how can it take back its self-declared purpose on its 990 tax forms, which explicitly states that the MET's goal is to "promote the message of Islam to Muslims and non-Muslims and promote understanding between them, promote interfaith activities and dialogue, support schools, community centers, mosques, and other organizations that serve the goals of the organization"? IW encourages all its readers to write letters to the Star Tribune and the Minnesota Board of Education, reminding them that it is illegal to use taxpayer money to promote any one faith in any public institution, including charter schools. The Star Tribune can be reached at: Editorial Department, Star Tribune, 425 Portland Avenue, Minneapolis, MN 55488. Submissions may be sent by fax to 612-673-4359 or by email at this link. The Minnesota Department of Education can be reached at: 1500 Highway 36 West, Roseville, MN 55113. The phone number is 651-582-8200. Source: Islamist Watch
 By Supna Zaidi
Despite being born at the same time as India, Pakistan seems to be regressing while India becomes an increasingly influential player in global politics. This is because Pakistan has refused to end the feudal system unlike India. Pakistani land reforms were first attempted in the 1950s by General Mohammad Ayub Khan's government, who wanted, among other social improvements, to increase "agricultural output, promote social justice, and ensure security of tenure". However, the regulations didn't really break up large land holdings or reduce the power of the zamindars. The ceiling was placed on individual ownership, not on families, so land was simply distributed among the family members, thus leaving all the power and control with the zamindars.
In 1973, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's government attempted land reform again. Legislation required, "landlords to pay all taxes, water charges, seed costs, and one-half of the cost of fertilizer and other inputs. It prohibited eviction of tenants as long as they cultivated the land, and it gave tenants first rights of purchase. Other regulations increased tenants' security of tenure and prescribed lower rent rates than had existed." However, Bhutto's government was ousted by Zia Ul-Haq, who did not implement the reforms.
Zia chose to ignore the practical needs of the people, preferring to inject a politicized Islamic identity to foment public support in the fight for Kashmir against India and Communism in Afghanistan. Zia passed the misogynist Hudood laws resurrecting archaic practices like the stoning of women for adultery, and made piety a factor in promotions of civil servants. If you were not an orthodox Sunni Muslim, kiss your chance at upward mobility good-bye.
Today, the air is tense wherever you walk in Pakistan. Whether you talk to a middle-class housewife in Karachi, the driver taking you to Lahore, or a schoolteacher in Rawalpindi, the people are jittery. I spoke to a widow who was evicted from her rental after the owners found out she was Shia, a minority Muslim sect in Pakistan. In her new rental, electricity rationing turns off the fans and AC for 3 hours in the morning and two in the evening. At the height of summer, temperatures can reach 115 degrees with humidity. Worse yet, while Musharaff had a tariff on electricity in the 50% range, Zardari raised it to the 70s. Most people believe he is personally pocketing the tax to benefit himself. His fertile history of accepting kickbacks in the 90s makes this conspiracy theory very palatable and explains his nickname of "Mr. 10%."
Tension, is especially among the middle class, who make up less than 10% of the population. Many don't vote because they know they don't matter numerically, but Pakistan technically has elections, so it is sadly considered a democracy. Unfortunately, in a nation where Parliamentarians double as zamindars, or landlords, the debate over what the government should be doing for the average Pakistani is limited to tea-time banter among "educated" types. None actually do anything about the inequality and corruption they see around them because, if you're a landlord, it would go against your own interests to empower the people working your lands. Or, as a member of the middle-class, efforts towards "change" feel meaningless since it might get one killed, jailed or in the very least cause undue embarrassment to family for putting yourself "out there", especially if you're a girl.
The failure of the Pakistani government to provide for the people has allowed political Islam to grow and enamor too many citizens with a utopian vision of society that is untenable. While the Taliban may eventually be run out of town, the Jamaat-i-Islami party may gain favor as a "moderate" manifestation of the same emotional need for supremacy that a "Muslim first" identity demands; working off of latent desires among many that "Islam" is the answer.
Pakistanis are at a crossroads. Are they Pakistani first or Muslim first? The founder of Pakistan wanted a secular democracy for the Muslim peoples of the subcontinent. As a democratic constitutionals, Jinnah saw no conflict in living in a society where faith blurs the line between culture and religion daily, but at the same time respected every citizen equally under the law independent of their religious identity.
The recent murders of six Christians in Gojra, Punjab for allegedly violating Pakistan's blasphemy law serve as a reminder that in a land where most citizens do not have opportunities to better their lives, nor are equally protected under the law above gender, class, or faith, the "might" of the dominant religion will always be used as a pretext to harm others for personal gain if the faith is allowed to be politicized as Islam has in many Muslim majority nations, including Pakistan. Source: Muslim World Today
 By Supna Zaidi
"Now, I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the state."
If we polled Pakistanis today, what are the odds that anyone polled would be able to recognize that the above quote came from their nation's founder, Mohammad Ali Jinnah. Secularism in the Muslim world has evolved into a dirty word, indicative not of "individual conscious", but selfish dictatorship. Religious parties across the region realize that the people are taken care of by their governments and so, selfishly make a grab for power by offering what civil society fails to. Take Egypt for example, the Muslim Brotherhood has sought to indoctrinate Egyptians into its militant anti-colonial Islamist rhetoric by operating hospitals, schools and other charities.
In Pakistan, the greatest void is in the area of education. In a country where the majority of its budget is reserved for the military, countless children (and now adults) remain illiterate and uneducated for decades. Foreign money, mostly Saudi filled the gap with Islamist madrassas that indoctrinated the youth with the same militant anti-colonial rhetoric that the Muslim Brotherhood prescribe in the Arab world.
Today, democratic institutions are not overthrown by Islamists, but undermined through the system. Arguing falsely that secularism is anti-religion, and anti-Muslim, Islamists are pushing for a paradigm shift in the Muslim world toward Islamism that never found success in Pakistan.
Minus the period of Islamic history ending with four "rightly guided caliphs", Muslims always gave lip service to their adherence to Sharia, but never lived under governmental and societal systems that were founded on it. Rather, institutions varied from Byzantine, Mongol to latter European adaptations. The severity of a life under complete Sharia was romanticized, but never realized. Even in post British India, the Khilafate movement stirred emotions, but never a majority following. Jinnah was a secular constitutionalist who married a Parsi, and whose daughter later married a Parsi.
The most critical mistake Jinnah made was concede "Islamic" in the name of Pakistan to quiet the religious clerics. Thus, the "Islamic nation of Pakistan" was born, and the subsequent identity politics it fostered continues today. But, without any quality education for the masses, the majority of Pakistanis do not even know the history of the subcontinent up till partition and the goals of its founder. Yet, they know Islam. Or think they do. Pakistani human rights activist, Asma Jahangir quipped that she found it amazing (in a negative way) that her children, upon a visit to India, realized that she had Hindu friends. But, unfortunately, they feel very confident in enforcing their Wahhabi inspired fanaticism.
Last month, I heard about a poor girl in Lahore who went to a tailor shop to get some clothes mended. She was wearing a sleeveless top and wore no headscarf. As of today, the hijab is still not the norm in Pakistan. A fourteen year old boy with a hot iron burned her on one of her bare arms for "not dressing modestly" and ran off. The tailor watched silently as the girl wailed for someone to do something. The tailor's sad response went a little like this, "If I retaliated against the boy, he and all his friend's would burn down my shop at night."
This is the law and order situation in Pakistan today. Pakistanis are either confident Islamists, or stuttering cowards who are too afraid to get involved. As of the "2008 elections, the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), an alliance of religious parties that ruled the NWFP from 2002-07,won 10 of 100 seats in the NWFP Legislature. In Sindh province, religious parties failed to get even one of 130 seats, while in Baluchistan, the alliance took seven of 51 seats, and in Punjab, one seat out of 297."
But with Islamists gaining influence within the Obama administration, and Secretary Gates inviting Saudi Arabia to "help" Pakistan negotiate with the Taliban, religious parties just might seem reasonable to Pakistanis who never would have thought so before.
A history lesson would do Pakistanis good. The original lawyer's movement did not begin post-Musharaff, but with its own founder. Source: Muslim World Today
First Place (4 points):
Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser
Second Place (3 points):
Robert Spencer
Fourth Place (2 points):
Brigitte Gabriel / Clarion Fund / Rep. Frank Wolf / Irshad Manji / Paul J. Ruff / Sadiq Khan / Rep. Sue Myrick / Supna Zaidi / Tarek Heggy / United American Committee / US Airways Source: Muslims Against Sharia Blog
 By Supna Zaidi
It might be time for the Minnesota Board of Education (MDE) to do away with sponsors in their charter school program. Consider a report that came out earlier this year from the Office of the Legislative Auditor (the Auditor), which confirmed the lack of clarity between the MDE and its sponsors.
For example, the MDE and prospective sponsors both approve charter applications, but the MDE's relies on the prospective sponsor's review of the charter school rather than an independent review. While the evaluation report argues this as inefficient because it is "duplicating" work, it poses a greater problem. Since MDE's approval is colored by the sponsor's evaluation of the charter school, sponsors a lot of power in reviewing charter schools and presenting them to the MDE as they see fit.
This is important to consider given the separation of church and state issues raised in an application to sponsor three charter schools by the Minnesota Education Trust (MET) this year. This is because the MET's articles of incorporation state that one of its goals is "to promote the message of Islam to Muslims and non-Muslims and promote understanding between them."
Last year, the Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy (TIZA) was accused of leading students in Islamic prayer on Fridays and teaching Quranic classes after school everyday, among other religious practices, which violated the separation of church and state doctrine. In the end, some changes were made, but the school was not found to be in such gross violation as to have their funding or charter status taken away.
The MET is in a position to oversee three charter schools. The potential conflict of interest issues raised by MET's stated goals is a burden the MDE cannot and should not have to handle. Especially since the role of sponsor was created to remove the task of academic and fiscal oversight of charter schools from the MDE to these third parties, which as MDE staff have noted, is already a responsibility they cannot handle:
"…sponsors need to improve, but [sic] the department does not have the time or resources to implement standards." Adding the task of overseeing the presence of religion is unduly burdensome.
It is important to understand that the issue of religion in schools is not simply about Islam or any one faith. Rather, it is a matter of understanding the changing position of religious schools in American society.
Historically, religious schools presented competition to public schools. But with the advent of charter schools that do not ask for tuition, but strive to offer the quality of a private school, the latter is losing students. This is true for some Catholic schools, which are being forced to convert to charter schools to prevent closing their doors. Thus, the discipline, morals and rigor of the Catholic staff and teachers would remain, but all evidence of religion would be removed in favor of a secular curriculum.
The trend may be the opposite for Muslim and Jewish schools, which attempt to separate religion from culture to justify receiving taxpayer funding. As "identity schools", they are permitted to "focus their study and/or their student body based on a certain classification, and can include same-language/culture schools, single-sex schools, same-race schools and same-sexual orientation schools."
Some critics of Hebrew schools have argued that attempting to separate religion from culture is an "unrealistic and unsustainable" goal. "There's nothing wrong with preserving ethnic and cultural identity, but it's not the job of the state to do that," said Michael Stern. He is the chairman of the San Antonio Jewish Community Relations Council, who spoke on his own behalf to the Jewish Daily Forward.
Moreover, some fear that attempting to inculcate an ethnic identity will also encourage sectarianism instead of civic and American identity since a Hebrew or Islamic/Arabic school will logically be most attractive to families of those backgrounds alone making the school ethnically or religiously homogeneous.
Yet, even the Hebrew schools can be distinguished from the Islamic schools that come into question. It is one thing to have to revise curriculum that promotes a particular faith, it is another matter when the promotion of one faith includes political angendas or indoctrination of discrimination towards other faiths.
Some charter schools with large Muslim and/or Arab student bodies that have raised similar concerns are:
1. Silicon Valley Academy, a charter school in Sunnyvale, CA;
2. Carver Elementary School in San Diego, CA;
3. The Arabic Khalil Gibran International Academy in Brooklyn, NY;
4. Ohio Somali charter schools.
With the increasing inability of religious schools to find private funding, their conversion to identity schools is a potential threat to taxpayers who do not want their money used to promote religion.
The MDE should consider the Auditor's "Option 3", which suggests eliminating sponsors for direct MDE oversight. Citing Massachusetts as an example, the report states, "Single authorizer states [as opposed to a variety of sponsors] are bound to be more successful in many ways because there is a clear picture. We are able to give every school in the state the same information, the same clarification, the same point of contact."
Thus, prospective sponsors like the MET, who very likely wish to use charter schools to proselytize Islam, will not have the opportunity to use taxpayer money to do so subversively.
(Supna Zaidi is editor-in-chief of Muslim World Today and asst director of Islamist Watch at the Middle East Forum) Source: Muslim World Today
 By Supna Zaidi Last week, the attacks in India and the threat to New York City's subway system provided another stark reminder of the need for a united front against global terrorism. Yet instead of figuring out how to combat Islamic extremists, the United Nations is worried about offending them. On November 24, 2008, the U.N. passed a draft resolution against the defamation of religion sponsored by the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), where all U.N. members are being asked to pass domestic legislation against blasphemy. The resolution was originally introduced in 1999 by the OIC, asserting that "Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism." In reality, terrorism happens in Islam's name, or more accurately, in Islamism's name. Islamism is a 20th century product arising from the writings of sincere Muslims such as Hasan al-Banna and Syed Qutb. Frustrated by the fallen status of Muslims vis-Ã -vis the West, they offered a new version of Islam as a totalitarian socio-political alternative to democracy and Western license. Disparate followers from Osama bin Laden, Hezbollah and Hamas to the Jihadis that waged war on Mumbai last week are not deranged or crazy. Rather, they subscribe to a worldview that is antithetical to most Muslims and the West. The OIC nations charge critics of Islamic extremism with "racism" and "Islamophobia" to deflect attention from the fact that such violence originates at the hand of Muslim clerics born and bread in their lands. This is because they realize they can't control Islamism, or they tacitly agree with its message. These Muslim clerics also export this ideology to the West to radicalize Muslim immigrants abroad, and reform-minded Muslims are usually the first victims. Kadra Noor was beat up in 2007 for speaking out against "Islamic" female genital mutilation in Norway. In Sweden, cabinet minister Nyamko Sabuni proposed that honor killings be labeled a separate crime in the Swedish penal code and girls get mandatory gynecological exams to discourage female circumcision. She also told the Sunday Times that arranged marriages are not a part of Islam. As a result, she was called an "Islamophobe" and instead of supporting her, 50 Islamic Swedish organizations petitioned against her appointment to the cabinet in an effort to suppress her growing influence in Swedish politics. Pakistan, spokesman for the OIC, recently promoted a politician to minister of education after he defended the live burial of five girls in Balochistan as "tribal custom." It is not a stretch to argue that Pakistan is not an OIC member interested in reform. The 2005 Danish cartoon controversy kick-started the OIC campaign to pass last month's resolution when it was cited as another example of increased discrimination against Muslims after 9/11. The "cartoon intifada" arose 5 months after the original printing of the images of Muhammad, but only weeks before the UNHCR was due to consider the OIC's resolution on "Combating Defamation of Religion." Such a coincidence caused the National Secular Society to state in its Memorandum to the United Kingdom Parliament that "the Danish cartoon crisis was manufactured…to exploit sensitivities around racial discrimination and to promote (or even exaggerate) the notion of 'Islamophobia' in order to restrict possibilities for open discussion or criticism of Islam….[M]easures calling for legislation banning 'defamation of religion' …. aim[] to remove religion, especially Islam, from public scrutiny and public debate." The OIC forgets that Muslims are already protected in the West. The U.S., for example, increases sentences on crimes ranging from assault and battery to murder if they are deemed "hate crimes," which includes crimes against a victim based on his or her religious identity. So what is this 57-nation organization really pushing with this "anti-blasphemy" resolution at the U.N.? In the Muslim world, anti-blasphemy laws are regularly used to suppress free speech by attacking fellow Muslims and non-Muslims who criticize the government or protest human rights violations. Such laws are also used as pretext against individuals in personal and business disputes. The mere allegation puts mobs before the accused before the police can arrive to investigate. At the U.N., the OIC has manipulated the language of racism to make its anti-democratic agenda more attractive to "third world" nations recovering from their own genuine post-colonial struggles. Nations that voted in favor of the resolution or abstained were predominantly from Latin America or developing African nations. A final version of the resolution is up for a vote this month. It would be a mistake for these U.N. members to fall for anti-colonial rhetoric once again. By aligning with Islamists, the U.N. would be supporting the stifling of free speech and the suppression of human rights, and crushing the goal of building tolerant democratic societies. Source: The American Spectator
 By Supna Zaidi
The liberal-conservative divide has worsened since 9/11 to a point where each side is having a different conversation over the other's head, preventing Americans from coming together to defend democracy against the "enemy" in the "war on terror."
A possible explanation comes in the form of Herb London's book, "America's Secular Challenge - The Rise of a New National Religion." He is the president of the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank located in New York. In this work, London argues that western secularism has evolved to such an extreme form that it cannot fight militant Islam because it no longer knows what it stands for. By stretching the purpose and meaning of multiculturalism, and tolerance to a point where "anything goes" anti-democratic sentiment is applauded as diversity even though it threatens secularism itself.
Multiculturalism was once an appreciation for everyone's differences in society, especially minority groups. It has morphed into an assumption "that non Western cultures are somehow more equal, more worthy, than their Western counterparts. This Orwellian phenomenon preaches the gospel of equality, but proceeds as much from self-loathing as from egalitarianism." In other words, the West is embarrassed of its historically dominant role around the world. This has mistakenly given anti-western movements, like Islamism, the green light to spread their divisive message in their home countries and among their immigrant populations in the West without scrutiny.
This has resulted in a tolerance that "has degenerated into an unwillingness to discriminate. According to this anesthetic philosophy, right and wrong are archaic concepts that belong to the ash heap of history. What counts is 'openness', that perversion of tolerance that, as Allan Bloom observed in The Closing of the American Mind, is indistinguishable from indifference." Such indifference chips away at secularism itself. Supremacist ideologies like Islamism are allowed to use democratic institutions to grow and gain influence with the hopes of gaining enough voter support (via conversion and lobbying) to replace the very secularism that gave it a home and protected it under the U.S. Constitution.
Lastly, the decay of religion in favor of the "other" - any "new age" or spiritual" outlook has allowed secularists to forget its own origins in Judeo-Christian principles. This allows radical secularism to deride its parentage and further, fail to defend it against a religious ideology that specifically wants to replace other ideologies, including radical secularism wherever it can.
American secularism was meant to be neutral in its position on religion, but in a post-religious society, it looks down on individuals that actually practice their faith. This tendency prevents secularists from accepting that foreign religious movements could actually be sincere and truly rooted in religious sentiment.
Consider the statement, "Palestinian mothers love their children too." That was the answer an audience member received on November 10th, at the Anti-Defamation League's 10th Annual Conference on the Middle East, to a question regarding the connection between education and the indoctrination of Palestinian children into suicide bombers.
Shibley Telhami gave that odd answer. Odd, precisely because no one doubts the love Palestinian parents have for their children. It is this knowledge that demands an explanation as to why they still permit their children to be indoctrinated into violently killing themselves for a cause they cannot possibly have the emotional and intellectual maturity to understand, let alone "volunteer" for.
Secularists like Telhami argue that religion is simply the "rhetoric" behind socio-political, foreign policy or domestic frustrations of men and women in the Middle East.
Unfortunately, as London reminds his readers, this completely ignores the sincerity of the Islamist movement, which has been growing since the early 1900s in the Middle East with subversive "brother" organizations in the West. Islamists like Hamas, Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood advocate a separatist interpretation of political Islam as an ideology that divides global society into Muslim versus non-Muslim as an answer to the social, economic and political problems in the Muslim world. Quoting, a Hamas leader, London states, "It is hard for someone raised on university banalities [speaking on anti-American remarks after 9/11 at NYU] to believe that Hamas leader Sheik Hasan Josef can possibly be serious when he says 'We like to grow [Islamic martyrs] from kindergarten through college.'"
Though, they are by no means the majority of Muslims, Islamists offer leadership counter to autocratic governments who do not provide much needed social and civil services, leaving their respective citizenry vulnerable to the religious Islamist message. The material needs of Muslim populations have allowed real Islamist indoctrination to succeed where secular democracy or socialist movements have failed.
In pondering the dilemma of the West's failure to understand Islamism, and its consequent inability to create meaningful policy against it, London argues for the reassertion of Judeo-Christian values, which found the humane secularism that has been lost under radical secularism.
But what are Judeo-Christian values? I concede that when I first read London's book, I took his words as a literal call to reassert the Judeo-Christian faiths. This is one element of London's otherwise, strong argument that a reader might need more explanation of. London is not arguing for Americans to become evangelical and get on the crusader bandwagon. Rather, he wants Americans to respect the role of religion in society. Realize that it has been the evolution of multiple interpretations of God and faith in the US that forced Americans to seek overriding common principles to bring us together rather then keep us apart.
A simple internet search of the phrase "Judeo-Christian" offers some interesting background. The Oxford dictionary puts the origins of the phrase as early as the 1800s. With the rise of anti-semitism in the 1920s and 1930s the phrase reemerged as a way to unify Jews and Christians as Americans arguing that tolerance, equality and liberty were principles common to both faiths and inherent in the founding of American democracy as well. Today, the phrase, as London can attest to, evokes not these unifying themes, but an evangelical conservative paradigm that excludes all "others" by liberals.
It is important for liberals and conservatives alike to read Herb London's book, "America's Secular Challenge - The Rise of a New National Religion" to understand that we need a unifying civic culture or "religion" capable of unifying the diversity that makes America a country everyone wants to be a part of. Otherwise, we will continue to mistakenly allow divisive and separatist ideologies like Islamism to flourish within our own borders to the detriment of all democrats, especially radical secularists. Source: Muslim World Today
By Supna Zaidi On November 6, 2008, the U.S. Treasury Department hosted a seminar on Islamic banking to train government employees on Sharia-compliant finance (SCF). According to a press release, it was “designed to help inform the policy community about Islamic financial services, which are an increasingly important part of the global financial industry.” It is interesting to note that while many in the West deride parallel societies, the lack of integration, and overall “foreign-ness” of its Muslim populations, they have no problem embracing Islamic banking. Maybe because this is the one area of religious “encroachment” that allows the West to make money, and lots of it. Read more ...Source: Pajamas MediaU.S. Government
Latest recipient of The Dhimmi Award
By Supna Zaidi
Many liberals are voting as I speak in hopes of ending what they perceive as an illegitimate "war on terror." To liberals, McCain is the old white guy who is one missing heart-beat away from a Palin red-neck presidency. The only difference between the last eight years and the next four, then, would be a skirt and caribou on the White House menu.
Barack Obama on the other hand, is Mr. International. For liberals he is the embodiment of post-colonial multiculturalism in JFK packaging. If elected, all nations that "crusader" George W. alienated will be friends with us again.
But the problem is that neither 9//11, nor the bombings in London or Madrid happened because of President Bush. The enemy has a clear strategy because it has a clear enemy, western democracy, which bin Laden has called the "principles of heresy" against Islam.
The war on terror began with the hostage crisis in Tehran, Iran in 1979 which positioned America as "the Great Satan" for subsequent decades and inaugurated the American presence abroad as a legitimate target for all Islamists who seek to divide the world into Muslim versus non-Muslim. The hostage crisis was followed by:
1. April 1983: 17 dead at the U.S. embassy in Beirut;
2. October 1983: 241 dead at the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut;
3. December 1983: five dead at the U.S. embassy in Kuwait;
4. January 1984: the president of the American University of Beirut killed;
5. April 1984: 18 dead near a U.S. airbase in Spain;
6. September 1984: 16 dead at the U.S. embassy in Beirut (again);
7. December 1984: Two dead on a plane hijacked to Tehran;
8. June 1985: One dead on a plane hijacked to Beirut;
9. 1993 World Trade Center bombing;
10. 1996: Khobar Towers attack;
11. 1998 U.S. East African embassies attack;
12. 2000 U.S.S. Cole attack in Yemen.
Stopping before 9/11 leaves many terrorist attacks from this list, but should be a clear reminder to readers in 2008 that whether one supported or hated the Bush administration, it did not create the war on terror.
It is very likely that now liberals will have to sit and absorb these violent attacks and create policy to defend the US against the "terror" that remains undefined 7 years after 9/11. Any promises of timelines, dreams of isolationism, or tea parties with Islamists like Ahmedinijad will go out the window when the above reality sets in.
If you didn't like the "war on terror", clean it up. Here are a few suggestions:
1. Pick an enemy and label it.
Islamism is the clearest term that distinguishes apolitical Muslims from Islamists. Let analysts in government call the war on terror - Islamist, jihadi, etc., so they can finally do their job. Acknowledging Islamism's origins from Islam forces Muslim governments abroad and even the Muslim American community here, to counter Islamist interpretations of the Quran, and offer Muslims a non-violent, democratically compatible interpretation of their faith. Moreover, it will finally allow an educational campaign to teach the western world what Islamism is.
2. Only after articulating who the enemy is, can the US create policy beyond military strategy.
Free speech is under attack every day through litigation and lobbying by Islamists. The Islamist goal to spread Sharia or Islamic law in the west challenges basic tenets of secularism, democracy and, specifically the separation of church and state doctrines in each case. Asking questions, debating each incident locally, or at the national level leaves critics at the mercy of Islamists, who accuse them of Islamophobia, defamation, or even racism. But, if the Islamic nature of the enemy is accepted in policy, the term "Islamophobia" will finally lose its viability. The word will no longer have its chilling effect on free speech.
Let's not forget that at a global level, 57 countries that make up the Organization of the Islamic Conference realize the value of throwing the word Islamophobia around. It is the OIC that continues to lobby for a Resolution Against Defamation of Religon," though most signatories are notorious for their ill-treatment of minorities in their own nations.
3. Muslim Nations Will Be Empowered to Fight the Enemy At Home.
The majority of victims in the war on terror are Muslims. Its time Muslims realized this and fought back. Just by example, consider Pakistan. Currently, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari calls the fighting against radical Islamists in Pakistan "our war" in interviews, almost defensively. It is as if the Pakistani people still need convincing that they are under attack. This is very odd, considering the dramatic bombings at the Lal Masjid Bombing and Marriot hotel this year in Islamabad, which were just two from over fifty attacks Pakistan in 2008 alone.
Yet, Zardari may have a point in focusing on reminding his citizenry of the point when one considers the rampant anti-American sentiment the various English, Urdu and Punjabi papers throughout the country. Islamism hurts Pakistan even more than the United States. If the US fought for a clear articulation of the enemy, then real coalition building would finally be possible. No matter how pious Pakistanis are, I guarantee the majority do not want Pakistan to become Talibanized in any way.
The US has to fight the war of ideas abroad by re-connecting this war on terror to the attacks from 1979, to 9/11 and the Marriot bombings in Islamabad to the same enemy, who see the west and non-Islamist Muslims as equal enemies. The US is merely the poster child of western cultural hegemony that Islamists hate because it is the sole superpower today. If the US disappeared today, the war on terror would continue because France or Britain would be in its place, with its freedom of speech, gender equality, defense of all faiths and minorities.
It is the liberals turn to fight this war. (Most likely since election results are still pending at the time of this writing). It won't go away by ignoring it or appeasing it. But liberals addressing it might finally bring the country together against it and allow us to win sooner than later. Source: Muslim World Today
By Supna Zaidi
Its been seven years since 9/11, but the Bush administration has insisted on fighting the war on terror without naming the enemy. Faced with fears of alienating moderate Muslims, "legitimizing" jihadis, and strengthening the argument that we are indeed in a clash of civilizations, no official in the American government calls the terrorist - Islamist, jihadi or Islamic in any way.
This has been a huge policy mistake and has allowed Islamists to not only commit further violence since 9/11, but also engage in non-violent attacks on western culture through litigation and a global "Islamophobia" movement intent on suppressing legitimate debate on the social, political, and economic global agenda of Islamists.
There is finally a sign, though, that analysts at least are getting tired of having their hands tied in defending American interests. The Washington Times, reports on Washington Times, October 20, that a U.S. military "Red Team" published a report ("Freedom of Speech in Jihad Analysis: Debunking the Myth of Offensive Words") pressing the simple point that they cannot assist in advising against the enemy if they cannot rightfully call the enemy by its name, stating:" We must reject the notion that Islam and Arabic stand apart as bodies of knowledge that cannot be critiqued or discussed as elements of understanding our enemies in this conflict".
The unnamed contractors and civilian analysts for U.S. Central Command, (responsible for the Middle East and South Asia), continue by stating, "The fact is our enemies cite the source of Islam as the foundation for their global jihad," the report said. "We are left with the responsibility of portraying our enemies in an honest and accurate fashion."
What prevents these analysts from doing their job is the Islamist lobby in the United States who claim that Muslims will be the victims of rampant hate crimes if associated with terrorism. Thus, "unidentified American Muslims," successfully prevented the unnamed authors of the report from using words like "jihadist," "Islamic terrorist," "Islamist" or "holy warrior" in their work.
Unfortunately, the government officials who pander to these alleged Muslim "ACLU"'s, do not bother to look into their own governmental statistics to counter their unwarranted fears. For example, 66% of hate crimes in 2006 were committed against American Jews. Only 11% of the cases that year were Muslim.
Consequently, something else is going on that the government does not recognize. The benefit of convincing Muslims and non-Muslims alike that the former are victims of discrimination justifies creeping Sharia in the name of religious equality. Consider the resolution proposed by the OIC at the UN. Currently, the Organization of the Islamic Congress, consisting of 57 Muslim countries are lobbying in the United Nations to pass a resolution against the defamation of religion, legitimizing antiquated blasphemy laws in the West.
Yet, these same OIC countries are notorious for violence against non-Muslims. Just this week a Christian aide worker was shot in the head in Afghanistan for alleged proselytizing. If such a resolution were to pass, "Islamophobia" would become a legitimate word in the discourse of Islam and politics. While, it is, in actuality, a word meant to censor critics of Islamism.
The irony the war of words pits Muslim against Muslim, and the Islamists still won't do what is right. The FBI recently called the murder of two girls in Texas by their father an honor killing on the wanted poster. They took it back, concerned that they didn't want to "label" the murder.
Yet, family members interviewed by the media clearly stated that the father killed his daughters because they were dating non-Muslim boys and disgraced the family. Again as FOX News reports, "Some Muslims have objected to the term 'honor killing' because they say it attaches a religious motive to a crime, which could lead to discrimination against Muslims". Yet, Muslim communities initiate no awareness campaigns within their own communities to ensure education exists to make sure Muslims understand that violence against women isn't acceptable.
Until then, words matter. So, as the analysts at CENTCOMM and the some Muslims quoted herein believe, words also have an impact on combating or supporting violence, whether it is the war on terror, or domestic violence at home.
If Muslim groups focused on educating the Muslim-American community away from domestic violence, they wouldn't have to fight about the phrase "honor killings" being used because it wouldn't be happening. Similarly, if the Muslim American community accepted the Islamic aspects of the war on terror, they could fight it head on and then finally decrease its influence and attraction within the community, regardless of how prevalent or minor it allegedly is.
Ignoring the problem, requires "outsiders", non-Muslims like the CENTCOMM analysts are left to do it. They shouldn't be suppressed by their own government. Source: Muslim World Today
 By Supna Zaidi
Have you seen the little old lady who passes out Jehovah's Witness literature in your neighborhood? Some people stop and show interest. Others roll their eyes, and keep walking. But, would you ever expect anyone to threaten her? Call her a racist, and try to get her arrested?
Islamists would. And that is exactly what happened to two English Christian ministers who had the nerve to proselytize on a street corner in a predominantly Muslim immigrant area in the UK in 2007.
Such freedom of speech violations won't be an anomaly if the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which has a permanent delegation to the United Nations, succeeds in passing a UN resolution against "Defamation of Religion" Noboby in a western country will be able to discuss the socio-political consequences of Muslim immigration, for fear of being labeled "Islamophobic" and slapped with a fine, or even jail time.
Islamists are increasingly using lawful Islamism, or non-violent and legal strategies to spread Sharia, (Islamic law) in the West, encroaching on non-Muslim life everyday. Other examples include:
1. Sharia Finance;
2. Islam in public schools;
3. Violations of basic hygiene policy by Muslim medical staff;
4. Workplace violations in the name of religious freedom;
5. Censorship of literature.
Under the banner of "religious freedom," Islamists attack the very fabric of democracy in favor of Islam in the public sphere. The above examples are not examples of pluralism, but a violation of the separation of church and state doctrine meant to keep people of all faiths, or no faith, equal under the law. Liberals have forgotten that secularism is not a free-for-all, but has boundaries in order to remain meaningful.
Freedom of speech has already been attacked repeatedly. Islamists tried to censor criticism of Islamist terrorism when the Muhammad cartoons were published in Jyllens-Posten in 2005. Strangely enough, the "cartoon intifada" arose 5 months after their original printing, but only weeks before the UNHCR was due to consider the OIC's resolution on "Combating Defamation of Religion."
Such a coincidence caused the National Secular Society to state in its Memorandum (Section E, point 2) to the UK Parliament that, the Danish cartoon crisis was manufactured… to exploit sensitivities around racial discrimination and to promote (or even exaggerate) the notion of "Islamophobia" in order to restrict possibilities for open discussion or criticism of Islam….measures calling for legislation banning "defamation of religion" - …. aims to remove religion, especially Islam, from public scrutiny and public debate.
If any religion is to be integrated into the daily social, economic and political life of a nation, it must open the door for evaluation of its goals and application. Otherwise, OIC nations will be able to govern unilaterally without respect to international law. Consider the following precedent.
Saudi Arabia ratified the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) in 2000, with reservations, stating, "In case of contradiction between any term of the Convention and the norms of Islamic law, the Kingdom is not under obligation to observe the contradictory terms of the Convention."
Thus, Saudi Arabia confirms that it will only offer lip service to human rights by signing documents like the CEDAW charter. It will not actually improve the status of women, because it is a theocracy, and every move a woman makes is governed by Islamic law. CEDAW can do nothing for them. Moreover, if the Defamation of Religion resolution is passed, all human rights activists will feel even greater censorship, since protests from abroad will be construed as racism.
Consider the "Qatif girl" case. A Saudi girl was gang-raped in 2005 and blamed for it, since she was in the presence of unrelated men when it happened. Her attorney lost his license for challenging the Saudi courts. Only after generating global media pressure did the situation change in her favor. The king pardoned her and the attorney got his license reinstated. In a post- Defamation of Religion world, the attorney would have been trapped, unable to help the girl and disbarred if he dared to challenge Saudi Islamic law.
Lastly, the OIC resolution must fail because it is patently hypocritical. While professing great sensitivity toward religion, OIC members ironically regularly fail to show any respect for other faiths:
1. Saudi Arabia continues to use bigoted textbooks, and export them to American Islamic schools despite promises to change.
2. Iran sponsored a Holocaust cartoon contest in retaliation for the Danish cartoons of Muhammad in 2005. Yet, Jews had nothing to do with the Jyllands-Posten newspaper.
3. Pakistan's blasphemy laws attack Christians as a pretext for personal disputes.
The Defamation of Religion resolution is a free pass for Islamists to continue denigrating other religions and minorities through lawful Islamism. It ties the hands of any politician that questions the spread of Islamism in the West, and prevents critical evaluation of the treatment of women and minorities in Muslim societies.
Liberal and conservative citizens of the West must work together to prevent this resolution from passing in the UN. Source: Muslim World Today
 |
|
|
Copyright Muslims Against Sharia 2008. All rights reserved.
E-mail: info AT ReformIslam.org
|
|
|
by Supna Zaidi
Posts
