 By Cinnamon Stillwell In thinking about women’s rights, sharia law, or Islamic law, doesn’t typically come to mind. Yet, according to a survey conducted by Dalia Mogahed, executive director and senior analyst of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies and appointee to President Obama’s Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, the two are closely intertwined. Her survey alleges that a majority of Muslim women believe sharia law should either be the primary source or one source of legislation in their countries, while viewing Western personal freedoms as harmful to women. The survey’s findings appear in the book, Who Speaks for Islam?: What a Billion Muslims Really Think, co-authored by Mogahed and John Esposito, Georgetown University professor and founding director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, named for its Saudi royal benefactor. While Esposito is well-known as one of the foremost academic apologists for radical Islam, Mogahed is making her name as a shill for sharia law. Mogahed employs the Gallup poll, which has been criticized by knowledgeable authorities as misleading and unscientific, to portray sharia law as what Muslims women want. Read more ...Source: FPM
Meet the Islamist Hardeline Women of Iran Who Ahmedinejad wants in his Cabinet
August 30, 2009 - Tarek Fatah
Meet the Islamist hardline women of Iran who Ahmedinejad wants in his cabinet Friends, Much has been made by Leftist supporters of the Islamic regime in Iran about the decision by Ahmedinejad to have female ministers in his next cabinet. On paper, this seems a like a hopeful sign, but like all things Islamist, this move fits the adage, “one step forward, two steps backward.” Massoumeh Torfeh is a research associate at the Centre for Media and Film at SOAS and a former BBC World Service senior producer. In an article for the UK Guardian, she says:
“Both women, as members of Iran's parliament, have been advocating draconian changes to family laws and women's rights laws making it even more difficult for women to benefit from equal rights, get divorced, have custody of their children, or have an abortion if they so choose. They are both strong supporters of the role of women as pious mothers devoted to Islam, to their duties to their husbands, and to the Islamic republic.” Read and reflect. Tarek ------------------- Monday 17 August 2009
Hardline women won't help Iran I wish I could feel proud about the proposal for female cabinet members in Iran – but they will do nothing for equal rights
Massoumeh Torfeh
The Guardian, UK It is difficult to know how to react to the decision by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran to propose three women in his new cabinet, two of whom he has already named. Should I be proud, as an Iranian woman, that for the first time in the history of the Islamic Republic women will be proposed for cabinet posts? Well, I wish I could feel proud. The reality is that if Ahmadinejad had chosen two ultra-hardline conservative men for the same posts it would have made no difference in terms of policy and vision. He has proposed Fatemeh Ajorlou for the welfare and social security ministry and Marzieh Vahid Dastjerdi for the health ministry. Both women, as members of Iran's majlis or parliament, have been advocating draconian changes to family laws and women's rights laws making it even more difficult for women to benefit from equal rights, get divorced, have custody of their children, or have an abortion if they so choose. They are both strong supporters of the role of women as pious mothers devoted to Islam, to their duties to their husbands, and to the Islamic republic.
Ajorlou, who is an MP in the present parliament, is a notorious advocate of punishment of women who ignore the dress code. She is an outspoken supporter of the chador – the head-to-toe black Islamic cover – as the protector of women's chastity and modesty. Her professional career has been in serving the Revolutionary Guards and Basij militia. She worked as a nurse in the Revolutionary Guards and later was influential in setting up the Basij Sisters militia, which has been involved in brutal attacks and arrests of women's rights activists. More recently she advocated the controversial draft law for positive discrimination for men in attending universities. That had become necessary, according to Ajorlou, because girls had won 70% of university places, thereby causing an "imbalance" in society. More generally she believes that western societies have lost their morality because women have given priority to their jobs rather than their families. Vahid-Dastjerdi, who was an MP in two previous parliaments, is perhaps, professionally, a suitable candidate for the ministry of health as she has spent most of her career in medical practice and research specialising in women's infertility. However, she is another clear hardliner. During her days as an MP, Vahid-Dastjerdi opposed the bill that could have facilitated Iran joining the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.
The most intriguing question is why Ahmadinejad has chosen to propose women in his cabinet when he knows full well that the Islamic establishment does not allow women to be "leaders". While women can work as deputy ministers or as advisers to ministers, there is a serious debate between the reformists and conservatives on whether women can be "allowed" to lead an entire ministry. Perhaps Ahmadinejad is hoping that he would be a winner whatever the outcome. If the parliament or the Islamic establishment does not approve his choice of women ministers, he could still claim he had tried to raise the status of women. If they do accept his nominations, then he could champion the cause of womenwhile still having two hardliners in his cabinet. Ahmadinejad, who has recently witnessed thousands of women marching against his presidency in the streets of Tehran and other major cities, may be wishing to appease women by his cabinet selection. He tried once before to make it legal for girls to attend football stadiums. Young girls keen on football welcomed the decision but the Islamic authorities vetoed it. This time the scenario may be even harsher. Both women and the Islamic establishment could reject his choice. With the increasing number of women arrested, imprisoned and killed during his presidency – accused of advocating women's equal rights – Ahmadinejad will find it hard to convince women that this latest move is anything but another political show. Source: http://www.averroespress.com/AverroesPress/Main/Entries/2009/8/30_Meet_the_Islamist_hardline_women_of_Iran_who_Ahmedinejad_wants_in_his_cabinet.html
 By Clive James September 2009 In February 2005 the Australian journalist Pamela Bone, already close to her death from cancer, published an article in the Melbourne Age entitled "Where are the Western Feminists?" Some of us would still like to know. The immediate spur to Pamela Bone's article had been the piercing silence from Western feminists on the subject of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's condemnation of how women were being treated in Islamic culture. In asking her question, Pamela Bone already knew why the Western feminists were saying so little. They were saying little not just about Islam, but about Hinduism or any other culture which, when the behaviour of its more extreme groups towards women attracts criticism, bridles as if it is being attacked as a whole. Of all the liberal democracies, Australia is the one where the idea is most firmly entrenched among the local intelligentsia that the culture of the West is the only criminal, all other cultures being victims no matter what atrocities they might condone even within their own families. Perhaps the most successful example of how a Western liberal democracy can absorb migrant diasporas into its social texture, Australia would have reason to vaunt itself as a multicultural society if the supposedly universal unhappiness of the Aboriginals did not, in the eyes of its guilty intelligentsia, make the claim seem empty. But in Australia multiculturalism is not only a social aim, largely attained, it is also an ideology, in which form, to borrow Pascal Bruckner's useful phrase, it becomes the racism of the anti-racists. Australian multiculturalist ideologues will call anyone a racist who dares to suggest that another culture than the one in which they flourish might have aspects more repellent than their own. And it was just such accusations that Pamela Bone heard ringing in her ears when she made her exit. The essay you are reading now has its own history, which will probably be part of its subject, because I have nothing original to say on the matter. Indeed, that was why I could never seem to get the thing written. That there were countries in the world where the culture visited hellish violence on women even when their governments professed a measure of equality, and that these governments were unlikely to temper the psychopathic inclinations of the culture unless there was a measure of democracy sufficient to separate the state from theocratic pressure: these conclusions seemed obvious. The only mystery was why so few female intellectuals seemed willing to reach them. Read more here ... Source: Standpoint Magazine
H/T: DF
 Tens of thousands of people
have protested against the new lawBy Martin Vogl The president of Mali has announced that he is not going to sign the country's new family law, instead returning it to parliament for review.Muslim groups have been protesting against the law, which gives greater rights to women, ever since parliament adopted it at the start of the month. President Amadou Toumani Toure said he was sending the law back for the sake of national unity. Muslim leaders have called the law the work of the devil and against Islam. More than 90% of Mali's population is Muslim. Some of the provisions that have proved controversial give more rights to women. For example, under the new law women are no longer required to obey their husbands, instead husbands and wives owe each other loyalty and protection. Read more ...Source: BBC NewsH/T: Jihad Watch
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
British Muslim takes off her Hijab after realizing it is worn for social reasons, not religious as claimed by Islamists Video: http://www.averroespress.com/AverroesPress/Main/Entries/2009/8/5_British_Muslim_takes_off_her_Hijab_after_realizing_it_is_worn_for_social_reasons,_not_religious_as_claimed_by_Islamists.html Jobeda Ali, a British Muslim, bravely rebels against the recent acceptance of the hijab and embarks on a journey to unwrap the liberal western tolerance of the hijab and discover the degree to which women in the Muslim world are prepared to rebel against the hijab.
Muslim women in the west defend their right to veil themselves only because they already benefit from the privileges of western liberalism and feminism. The debate is overshadowed by French, British and American Muslim women, who have portrayed the hijab is an acceptable cultural norm. But by wearing the hijab, they actually do a disservice to women in the Muslim world, for whom one of the effects of wearing the hijab is to be denied equality and freedom. Do women in Turkey defend the hijab as passionately as their western counterparts? Source: http://www.averroespress.com/AverroesPress/Main/Entries/2009/8/5_British_Muslim_takes_off_her_Hijab_after_realizing_it_is_worn_for_social_reasons,_not_religious_as_claimed_by_Islamists.html
By Aunohita Mojumdar in Kabul  | | Female candidates contesting the poll have received threats in many parts of the country [AFP] | Shinkai Karokhail, a member of parliament in Afghanistan, has hopes that candidates running in upcoming presidential elections will bring women's issues to the fore. She says she is concerned that since the US-led effort to oust the Taliban in 2001, women in many parts of the country have continued to face a lack of liberties and access to education. Karokhail, who campaigned against a controversial Shia Family Law passed by the government in April, believes the major contenders for the presidential race have largely avoided women's issues in their election campaigns. "Women's issues are as sensitive as the Durand line (the contested border between Afghanistan and Pakistan). Why should they [candidates] do something that might lose them the votes of conservatives and extremists?" Women's political rights Rights activists in Afghanistan are concerned that local media have focused on the high profile electoral campaigns of the candidates, particularly the top contenders, but sidelined women's issues. Hoping to push their agenda forward, a group of women activists from Kabul organised a loya jirga (grand assembly) to mobilise women's votes and raise awareness of their rights. Bringing together activists from around the country, the jirga was designed to put women's issues back on the agenda and to make sure that their voices are not ignored. "We want women to learn how to obtain their political rights in a society dominated by men," Karokhail told Al Jazeera. "Men will realise we have a voice. We need more women ministers, more diplomats, and for those who are there to come together and speak in one voice." Read more here,,,, Source: Al Jazeera (English)
 Critics accuse President Hamid Karzai
of betraying Afghan womenAn Afghan bill allowing a husband to starve his wife if she refuses to have sex has been published in the official gazette and become law. The original bill caused outrage earlier this year, forcing Afghan President Hamid Karzai to withdraw it. But critics say the amended version of the law remains highly repressive. They accuse Mr Karzai of selling out Afghan women for the sake of conservative Shia support at next week's presidential election. The law governs family life for Afghanistan's Shia minority. Sexual demands The original version obliged Shia women to have sex with their husbands every four days at a minimum, and it effectively condoned rape by removing the need for consent to sex within marriage. Western leaders and Afghan women's groups were united in condemning an apparent reversal of key freedoms won by women after the fall of the Taliban. Now an amended version of the same bill has passed quietly into law with the apparent approval of President Karzai. Just ahead of this Thursday's Afghan presidential election, human rights groups suggest the timing is no accident. "There was a review process - Karzai came under huge pressure from all over the world to amend this law, but many of the most oppressive laws remain," Rachel Reid, the Human Rights Watch representative in Kabul, told the BBC. "What matters more to Karzai is the support of fundamentalists and hardliners here in Afghanistan whose support he thinks he needs in the elections." Women's groups say its new wording still violates the principle of equality that is enshrined in their constitution. It allows a man to withhold food from his wife if she refuses his sexual demands; a woman must get her husband's permission to work; and fathers and grandfathers are given exclusive custody of children. Source: BBC
H/T: JihadWatch
 'Oppressive, suffocating and oppressive': Liz Jones' verdict on the burkaBy Liz Jones Squatting next to me is my burka. It looks so innocuous: just a few yards of black fabric. But, my goodness, how oppressive it is, how suffocating, how transforming. Moved by the plight of Lubna Hussein, a Sudanese woman who faces 40 lashes for wearing trousers in public, I decided to spend a week enveloped in what she should have been wearing. Out shopping one day, I caught sight of myself in a Knightsbridge store window. Instead of me staring back, I saw a dark, depressed alien. A smudge. A nothing. On my first day, I was unaccountably afraid to put on my burka. When I did pluck up courage, I felt suffocated. Driving to my local station, I felt blinkered, like a racehorse. Walking to the platform, I could hardly breathe: I kept getting my nose out from beneath its shroud for fresh air. I felt weak, and faint and itchy. I walked to the kiosk to buy coffee, staring at my feet to avoid catching anyone’s eye. ‘Mumble mumble,’ I said to the young man serving. To his credit – the station is in Somerset, so I’m pretty sure this was the first time he’d encountered the full burka – he didn’t bat an eyelid. I automatically lifted the cup to my lips. Ah. How on earth do women eat or drink? Later that day, at a coffee shop in Fulham, I sat outside at a table, faced with an insurmountable sandwich. An Arab man shouted abuse. I have no idea what he was saying – perhaps I shouldn’t have been out on my own, or perhaps eating is a sin – but the interesting point is that during my week in a burka, he was the only person who gave me any abuse whatsoever. Read more here..... Source: Daily Mail
 July 28 | By BlogSpot Reema Abulaziz from Riyadh made her move: She went to Riyadh airport with her two boys, and asked for the guardianship system to be removed. Reema works in a bank in Riyadh. She is not only the mother of these two boys; she is the wife of a drug- addicted husband. Although Reema’s husband is now in Riyadh Amal Hospital receiving medical treatment for his long addiction problem, he still has total control of Reema’s life and her sons’ lives. In Riyadh airport, Reema and her sons are denied the right to leave the country; the addicted guardian did not give them the permission to leave. The Saudi guardianship system considers men guardians and responsible for their families’ affairs even if the men have addiction problems or a criminal history. Reema’s story conveys how oppressive this system is. The campaign to defend women’s rights in Saudi Arabia will continue recording these experiences of Saudi women who are trying to get rid of their control by male guardians. Please, wherever you are, support Saudi women who are trying to gain their lives back. Source: Hudson New York
Eight years after the Taliban were toppled, Janine di Giovanni returns to Afghanistan and sees how a proposed law is instilling fear in its women  Afghan women protest at the proposed new family law Photograph: Robert Nickelsberg A few days after the Taliban were toppled in 2001 I was in Kabul. The city was jubilant and full of hope for the future, and I remember talking to some laughing teenage girls in the street. One was excited because she could now go back to school. Another sang terrible disco songs and showed me dance steps she had been practising for five years in secret. A third debated whether to take off her burka. "Is it safe enough yet?" she asked me. "For five years, I lived inside this prison." Eight years later I returned, but the Afghanistan I found was far from jubilant. Despite the money poured into reconstruction and development, it is one of the five poorest countries in the world. There is 40% unemployment – nearly 80% in some parts of the country. A third of children under five are malnourished. Life expectancy is 43 – and it is one of only three countries in the world where women die earlier than men. I arrived to meet women before the presidential elections next month and to talk about a new law, which if brought in, could have drastic repercussions for women. The Shia Family Planning law was signed last March by President Hamid Karzai in an attempt, many believe, to appease powerful mullahs. The Afghan constitution allows Shias to have a separate family law from the Sunni majority based on traditional Shia jurisprudence, and some think the law is linked to the August elections and the Shia electorate who would have to abide by it (they could form up to 20% of the electorate). The proposed law led to furious protests from women's groups. It sanctioned marital rape and brought back Taliban-era restrictions on women by outlining when a woman could leave her house and the circumstances in which she has to have sex with her husband; Shia woman would be allowed to leave home alone "for a legitimate purpose" only which the law does not define, and could refuse sex with their husbands only when ill or menstruating. Following international outrage, Karzai backtracked and said the law would be reviewed. This month it was amended and re-signed by the president, but has not yet been ratified by parliament. Human rights groups say it is unclear how much the amendments have done to improve the law. And the law has already achieved its aim – instilling fear and insecurity among an already traumatised female population. Soraya Sobhrang, a human rights activist I meet in her Kabul office, says, "The law will affect all women if it goes through. It opens the door for other repressive laws to be passed, for Sunni Muslims as well as Shia." A young doctor friend, Najeeb Shawal, says he is seeing more female patients who were depressed since news of the law emerged. "They have the kind of hopelessness that comes with knowing your life is incredibly repressed.
And might become more so." Read more here... Source: The Guardian
 By Phyllis Chesler Today, Britain granted political asylum to a married Saudi princess who had an out-of-wedlock child with a non-Muslim British man. The unnamed princess, married to a much older man, feared that she would be honor murdered, probably stoned to death, back home in the Kingdom. I recall the 1978 fate of another Saudi Princess, Misha, who dared to fall in love with a commoner. They married secretly, she disguised herself as a man, and was about to flee the country when they were both apprehended; both husband and wife were publicly and gruesomely executed. Two thousands Saudi princesses were forced to watch this sickening spectacle. Neither Saudi princess was a fighter for others. Each sought personal happiness which, as women, was utterly denied to them. They were - and are - desperate rebels, perhaps even tragic role models. President Obama has recently promised to allow "battered" women from other countries to apply for political asylum here. If so, I previously wrote, we will soon find ourselves flooded with such applications. Read more ...Source: PJM
Seeks to raise opposition to law that discriminates against womenJuly 20 | By Bob Unruh 
A Quran | Facebook is one of the top social networking sites, and probably sees millions of invitations posted each day, but one put up by a journalist in the Sudan probably is unique: It invites her friends and the public to her flogging. According to a report today from the Middle East Media Research Institute, Lubna Ahmad Hussein posted the invitation to her friends and supporters to "stir up a scandal around her case." As WND reported just days ago, she was among the women – including many Christians – arrested and flogged for wearing trousers. The MEMRI report said Hussein hopes the case "will shed light on Clause 152 of Sudan's 1991 criminal law." "This is not a matter of a personal attack against me as a journalist, nor of preserving my personal dignity. Far from it … The issue has taken on a different character, [and I call] on the public to be [my] witness and [to judge for themselves whether this incident] is a disgrace for me or for the public order police. You will decide after hearing the charges and the prosecution witnesses, rather than [only] my side of the story," MEMRI reported the posting said. A variety of Arabic-language reports documented the invitation. "My case is the same as that of 10 young women flogged that day, as well as of dozens, hundreds, and maybe thousands others flogged in the public order courts because of their dress, day after day, month after month, and year after year," she wrote. "They emerge from there dejected, because society does not believe them – indeed, it will never believe that a girl can be flogged only because of the way she dresses. Learn the true story about Islamic punishment. Get "The Stoning of Soraya M." "The result [of this punishment] is [society's] death sentence against the girl's family; for her parents it means an attack of diabetes, hypertension, or heart failure. [Just think of] the girl's emotional state, and the disgrace that will follow her for the rest of her life – and all because [she wore] trousers. The number [of victims] will keep growing, because society refuses to believe that a girl or woman can be flogged because of what she wears," MEMRI reported. The organization reported that such abuse of women was thrust into the national debate by the arrests of the women. Ten of those accused already have been given 10 lashes while three other cases, including the one against Hussein, await resolution. "Incidents of this kind are widespread in Sudan and are usually disregarded by the local and global media," the organization said. "Hussein, however, decided to bring the issue to the attention of the public, and printed 500 invitations to her court proceedings and to the flogging to which she would likely be sentenced, distributing them to journalists and friends. "In an interview with Al-Arabiyya TV, Hussein explained that she had given out the invitations because otherwise no one would believe that she was to be flogged for wearing ordinary clothes," MEMRI reported. "I wanted the punishment to be executed in the presence of observers, so that they see for themselves why I was being flogged," she told Al-Arabiyya. Read More here,,,, Source: WND
Breaking the Silence: ensuring Justice for Women
By William Gomes Various organizations and individuals have been fighting for decades to ensure justice for women and children in Bangladesh. While progress has been nominal, violence continues to be notable.
Innocent souls are crying for justice. According to a local human rights organization Ain o Salish Kendra (ASK)[ Ain o Salish Kendra (ASK). ] ,From January to March 2009, 73 women and children were the victims of rape or attempted rape; among those, 29 were gang raped and 13 were between ages 7 and 12. In May alone, 33 women and girls were the victims of rape. Among those, 16 were women and 17 were children under the age of 16. Out of the 16 women, five were victims of gang rape and three were killed after being raped. Out of the 17 girls, five were victims of gang rape and two were killed after being raped.
According to a local human rights organization Ain o Salish Kendra (ASK), Between January and March 2009, six serious acts of violence against women were instigated by fatwas. When I discussed this issue with the law minister, he denied the necessity of introducing a specific law to ban fatwas. I repeatedly insisted on the necessity of a specific law to fight fatwa, as well as a law to identify the paternity of a child in cases where it is disputed.
Dowry is another social disease in Bangladesh. From January to March 2009, 44 women faced dowry-related violence; among these women, 23 died.
Bangladesh has the highest maternal mortality rate in the world: 440 per 100,000 live births, according to UNICEF, and more than 20,000 women in Bangladesh die annually from complications related to pregnancy and childbirth.
In Bangladesh, women do their best to fulfill their duties and take care of all their men’s needs; yet, from January to March 2009 alone, 45 women were abused by their husbands or their husbands’ relatives. Very recently, a woman, Parul Akter, who was seven months pregnant, was killed and her body thrown in a river; her two other children are still missing. This is the reality that many women in Bangladesh face.
We can name thousands of ways that women and children are facing oppression and repression in Bangladesh. Confucius said, “We should feel sorrow, but not sink under its oppression.” I do agree with that. For almost two decades, Bangladesh’s prime ministers have been women. The number of people who oppose and oppress woman and children are larger than the number of people who are oppressed or suppressed.
Women’s empowerment alone will not solve the problem; we need to treat women as human beings first, rather than simply as women. We need to break the silence and stand up against religious and cultural traditions that encourage the repression of women and children. I dream of a day when a woman will be treated as a human being first, when women will really be empowered and lead the nation toward a more humane way, as they are the source of the human race.
The whole system in Bangladesh is male-dominated, inspired by common prophet religions that have a culture of suppressing women historically. We need to deal with these oppressors first. Many aw and wonderful steps had been taken to bring an end to the suppression to woman and children but hopefully none of them succeed.
Sometimes, a police officer who oppresses his wife in the home is used to investigate a case of oppression against a woman. In this case, the police officer should be brought to trial before anything else. Bangladesh even has cases where, after being raped, the woman gets raped again in the police station by police officers.
More than anything, the religion of Islam encourages the majority of people in Bangladesh in the historical cultural traditions of oppressing women. Laws can change, while religion inspires adherents through heaven and hell; in this light, how will jail or capital punishment be able to make any significant change?
The Prophet Mohammed said, “I was standing at the edge of the fire (hell) and the majority of the people going in were women.” When the Quran and the Prophet Mohammed guide the majority of people in Bangladesh, and the Quran (4:34) orders a man to beat his wife if she doesn’t obey him, how will the law prevent the beating of women? Laws and conventions contradict the holy sayings of the Prophet and Allah and will surely fail to ensure the rights of women.
I silently cry for justice for women like Parul, Rahima, Rebeka, Shima, who was raped in front of her father, and Mili Rani, a minority girl who was raped and later committed suicide. All this happened inside of the society before you and me.
We need to break the silence and step up a revival for humanity and justice.
William Gomes is an independent human rights activist ,Freelance Journalist and a political analyst. He can be reached at cda.exe@gmail.com. Source: http://www.faithfreedom.org/2009/07/10/breaking-the-silence-ensuring-justice-for-women/
This weekend, Cyrus Nowrasteh’s “The Stoning of Soraya M.” continues to expand its theatrical run, including the entire state of Florida. As brave Iranians once again take to the streets chanting, “Death to the dictator,” there’s no better way to put that plea into context than with a screening of this powerful and unforgettable film. Big Hollywood’s reviews can be found here, here and here. For more information on where Soraya’s playing, please go to the website. For those of you living in Florida, starting tomorrow, “Soraya” can be seen at these location: Aventura Mall 24 Theatres Aventura, FL
Shadowood 16 Boca Raton, FL
Delray Beach 18 Delray Beach, FL
BMC PGA Cinema 6 Palm Beach Gardens, FL
Hollywood 20 - Sarasota Sarasota, FL
Veterans Expressway 24 Tampa, FL
Winter Park Village 20 Winter Park, FL Watch this clip at Big Hollywood. Source: Big Hollywood
By Saira Khan | 24th June Shopping in Harrods last week, I came across a group of women wearing black burkhas, browsing the latest designs in the fashion department. The irony of the situation was almost laughable. Here was a group of affluent women window shopping for designs that they would never once be able to wear in public. Yet it's a sight that's becoming more and more commonplace. In hardline Muslim communities right across Britain, the burkha and hijab - the Muslim headscarf - are becoming the norm.
Saira Khan, runner up in the first series of The Apprentice, believes the burkha is an oppressive tool and says it is time to ban it from the streets of Britain
In the predominantly Muslim enclaves of Derby near my childhood home, you now see women hidden behind the full-length robe, their faces completely shielded from view. In London, I see an increasing number of young girls, aged four and five, being made to wear the hijab to school. Shockingly, the Dickensian bone disease rickets has reemerged in the British Muslim community because women are not getting enough vital vitamin D from sunlight because they are being consigned to life under a shroud. Thanks to fundamentalist Muslims and 'hate' preachers working in Britain, the veiling of women is suddenly all-pervasive and promoted as a basic religious right. We are led to believe that we must live with this in the name of 'tolerance'. And yet, as a British Muslim woman, I abhor the practice and am calling on the Government to follow the lead of French President Nicolas Sarkozy and ban the burkha in our country. The veil is simply a tool of oppression which is being used to alienate and control women under the guise of religious freedom. My parents moved here from Kashmir in the 1960s. They brought with them their faith and their traditions - but they also understood that they were starting a new life in a country where Islam was not the main religion. My mother has always worn traditional Kashmiri clothes - the salwar kameez, a long tunic worn over trousers, and the chador, which is like a pashmina worn around the neck or over the hair. When she found work in England, she adapted her dress without making a fuss. She is still very much a traditional Muslim woman, but she swims in a normal swimming costume and jogs in a tracksuit. I was born in this country, and my parents' greatest desire for me was that I would integrate and take advantage of the British education system.  East meets West: A pair of women walk down the high street in Birmingham in full Muslim dress
They wanted me to make friends at school, and be able to take part in PE lessons - not feel alienated and cut off from my peers. So at home, I wore the salwar kameez, while at school I wore a wore a typical English school uniform. Now, to some fundamentalists, that made us not proper Muslims. Really? I have read the Koran. Nowhere in the Koran does it state that a woman's face and body must be covered in a layer of heavy black cloth. Instead, Muslim women should dress modestly, covering their arms and legs. Many of my adult British Muslim friends cover their heads with a headscarf - and I have no problem with that. The burkha is an entirely different matter. It is an imported Saudi Arabian tradition, and the growing number of women veiling their faces in Britain is a sign of creeping radicalisation, which is not just regressive, it is oppressive and downright dangerous. The burkha is an extreme practice. It is never right for a woman to hide behind a veil and shut herself off from people in the community. But it is particularly wrong in Britain, where it is alien to the mainstream culture for someone to walk around wearing a mask. The veil restricts women. It stops them achieving their full potential in all areas of their life, and it stops them communicating. It sends out a clear message: 'I do not want to be part of your society.' Every time the burkha is debated, Muslim fundamentalists bring out all these women who say: 'It's my choice to wear this.' Perhaps so - but what pressures have been brought to bear on them? The reality, surely, is that a lot of women are not free to choose. Girls as young as four are wearing the hijab to school: that is not a freely made choice. It stops them taking part in education and reaching their potential, and the idea that tiny children need to protect their modesty is abhorrent. And behind the closed doors of some Muslim houses, countless young women are told to wear the hijab and the veil. These are the girls who are hidden away, they are not allowed to go to university or choose who they marry. In many cases, they are kept down by the threat of violence. The burkha is the ultimate visual symbol of female oppression. It is the weapon of radical Muslim men who want to see Sharia law on Britain's streets, and would love women to be hidden, unseen and unheard. It is totally out of place in a civilised country. Precisely because it is impossible to distinguish between the woman who is choosing to wear a burkha and the girl who has been forced to cover herself and live behind a veil, I believe it should be banned.
French President Sarkozy has backed moves to outlaw burkhas in France
President Sarkozy is absolutely right to say: 'If you want to live here, live like us.' He went on to say that the burkha is not a religious sign, 'it's a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement... In our country, we cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity.' So what should we do in Britain? For decades, Muslim fundamentalists, using the human rights laws, have been allowed to get their own way. It is time for ministers and ordinary British Muslims to say, 'Enough is enough'. For the sake of women and children, the Government must ban the wearing of the hijab in school and the burkha in public places. To do so is not racist, as extremists would have us believe. After all, when I go to Pakistan or Middle Eastern countries, I respect the way they live. Two years ago, I wore a burkha for the first time for a television programme. It was the most horrid experience. It restricted the way I walked, what I saw, and how I interacted with the world. It took away my personality. I felt alienated and like a freak. It was hot and uncomfortable, and I was unable to see behind me, exchange a smile with people, or shake hands. If I had been forced to wear a veil, I would certainly not be free to write this article. Nor would I have run a marathon, become an aerobics teacher or set up a business. We must unite against the radical Muslim men who love to control women. My message to those Muslims who want to live in a Talibanised society, and turn their face against Britain, is this: 'If you don't like living here and don't want to integrate, then what the hell are you doing here? Why don't you just go and live in an Islamic country?' Source: Daily Mail
  On President Obama's "New Era": "Obama has now clearly defined that he is different from the previous administration. So far, that clearly has been his goal: To show the Muslim world that they are different, and that this is the beginning of a new era, etc. I think once he has succeeded in creating the image that he is different, then I hope he will say look, I am different but -- and this was a statement I really liked -- I will always protect the security of Americans. American security is going to repeatedly be attacked in the name of Islam. When that happens, he can always point back to this speech and to negotiations with Iran and say 'I came with outstretched arms, I tried to include you…I told you some things about how fabulous you are.' And when all of that is rejected, then that’s when he can say 'Now let['s] really discuss what is wrong with your religion, and where do our [American] values clash with Islamic values?' Will he do that? That’s the real question. But I don’t know if he will do it. George Bush never did it. He used the term 'Islamofascism'; once but quickly took it back. So I don’t know. We will see."
On women's rights: "President Obama's speech didn’t do much for Muslim women. He defended their rights in Western countries to wear the hijab. He didn’t touch on Muslim women being confined, being forced into marriages or being victims of honor killings: These traditions and principles in the Koran and in Islam are being practiced in the West. He didn’t address that. I think he was just appeasing the Muslim world because they perceive -- they have these notions that Muslim women in Western countries -- are not allowed to wear the headscarf or cover themselves. I mean you can wear whatever you want in the United States. In Egypt where he spoke, women who do not wear their veil in public are subjected to very obscene remarks on the street and even sexual assault. Nowadays, even if they are covered they become victims of the same things: That is, in public, in Egypt, as a woman, you run 80% of the time the risk of being assaulted simply because you are a woman walking down the street. They are forced into marriages; their testimony in countries where Sharia is law is just half of that of a man. They can be divorced with no rights. They need guardians, a married guardian or they cannot sign any legal papers. The President simply did not address Sharia or Islamic law in relation to women."
On Islamic extremism: "Who is a real reformer? Obama’s message is that all of this [violence] has nothing to do with Islam. He says that progress and human rights are perfectly reconcilable with Islam. 'Islam is peace.' He sticks to the line that there is nothing to reform in there. According to the President, we are only fighting a very small number of extremists, but it's not Islam, so if that’s the case then there really isn’t much to reform. The true reformers -- the moderate Muslims -- take away from the speech that they can’t depend on the Obama administration to criticize Islam. Between the lines it's as if he is saying that he will prevent Islam from negative stereotyping or something like that, which is ridiculous because he can’t do that. But most Muslims as we know, believe that negative stereotyping is equal to criticizing Islam. Obama said 'let’s speak plainly to one another'; I would have liked him to have added, 'and that means let us face some of your religious principles and how they are radically different from American principles.' That’s what we need to talk about. His plain speaking went as far as saying we have a right to be in Afghanistan because Al-Qaeda attacked and keeps trying to attack us…but what inspires Al-Qaeda? Why are people we call moderates not facing up to Al-Qaeda? What is it about Islamic values that causes this? His plain speaking ended exactly where George Bush’s and all the Presidents that came before him…and Tony Blair…ended: with the selective quoting from the Koran. It's like Hillary Clinton putting on the headscarf as a 'sign of respect.' That said, some of the speech's passages were tough. I liked it the way he told them that 'we are in Afghanistan and we are not leaving,' and I liked what he said about Holocaust denial. But overall, the speech just didn't go far enough."
Source: Booker Rising
1. Speech by Nonie Darwish - Meeting by Conservative Women's Network & Heritage Organization 27.4.2009 – BookTV
2. Ex-Muslim Warns West of Plot to Impose Islamic Law
By Michelle A. Vu - Christian Post Reporter - Sat, Apr. 04 2009 12:55 PM EDT
Open, tolerant, and generous Western nations are being taking advantage of, warns a former Muslim from the Middle East who now lives in America.
Muslims in Arab countries as well as some born and bred in the West are aggressively pushing to impose Sharia law, or Islamic law, in countries such as Britain and the United States, among others, claims Nonie Darwish, who lived under Sharia law for 30 years in Egypt.
“To live under Islamic Sharia law is to live in the world’s largest maximum-security prison, and I for one don’t want to be incarcerated again,” writes Darwish in her new book, Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law.
For many Westerners, it is hard to believe that cruel punishments, extreme oppression of women’s rights, and unjust marriage customs as seen in Sharia can still exist in the 21st century.
But it does exist, Darwish says, and is applied in strict Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Libya, and Sudan. Some states in northern Nigeria also have Sharia courts, and recently the Northwest region of Pakistan was allowed to enact Sharia law to appease terrorists.
In the West, Canada allowed Sharia family arbitration from 1991 to 2006, and Great Britain allows it on a limited scale.
Women’s Rights (or lack thereof)
Under the Islamic legal system, women without a headdress on in public can be flogged, rape victims under certain circumstances can be punished, and adulteresses can be beheaded.
In her book, Darwish tells the story of a Saudi woman who was gang raped by seven men, but sentenced by the court to flogging because she was allegedly seen talking to a man who was not her relative. Her attackers said they saw that violation as justification to rape her and the judge agreed. Under Sharia law, women are not even allowed to make eye contact with men that are not their relatives.
Women are further at a disadvantage in courts because their testimony only counts as half the value of a man’s.
Sharia law is especially cruel when it comes to rape cases. To prove rape, either the rapist has to confess or there must be four male witnesses of the rape that testify on behalf of the victim.
Darwish, a former Muslim who became a Christian after coming to America, calls Sharia “the most inhumane, cruel and punitive system of laws practiced today.”
Marriage Laws
In her book, Darwish also writes extensively about the marriage contract in Muslim society. Under Islam, a man is allowed up to four wives. On the marriage contract, there are a number of lines under the heading of wife that a man can fill with several names. But the author – who has appeared on CNN, MSNBC, Fox, Al-Arabiya, National Public Radio and Israeli TV – says the “most shocking sexual privilege Sharia grants to men is that they are allowed to seek sexual gratification with children.”
There is no legal age of marriage under Sharia and a girl can be given in marriage as young as the age of one. But marriage can only be lawfully consummated with a girl when she reaches the age of nine.
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the Supreme Leader of Iran, the Shia Grand Ayatollah between 1979 and 1989, said in an official statement, which appears in his book, Tahrirolvasyleh:
“A man can quench his sexual lusts with a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate. Sodomizing the baby is halal (allowed by Sharia). If the man penetrates and damages the child, then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl, however, does not count as one of his four permanent wives…It is better for a girl to marry when her menstruation starts, and at her husband’s house rather than her father’s home. Any father marrying his daughter so young will have a permanent place in heaven.”
Also, in June 2008, Saudi marriage official Dr. Ahmad Al Mubi said in an interview aired on LBC TV: “There is no minimal age for entering marriage… the Prophet Mohammed is the model we follow.”
Mohammed supposedly married his wife Aisha when she was six years old and consummated their marriage when she was nine.
“The clerics wish to hide as much of this from us as they can,” Darwish claims. “Many Muslims themselves are embarrassed by this and are trying to hide these facts about male sexual rights – even from their sons.”
Taming the Wife
Under Islam, husbands, in order to make their wife (or wives) obedient, are also given permission to beat her if she “rebels.”
Quran 4:34 reads:
“Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and [as to] those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.”
Furthermore, the Hadith, or the sayings of Islamic prophet Mohammed, says, “A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife.”
As a result of these “religious rights,” many Muslim women who are beaten hide their abuse because it is considered rebelling against your husband to complain about him, even if he beats you.
Harm to Non-Believers
Perhaps more widely known to Westerners is Sharia’s call to harm non-believers. There have been many high-profile cases of death threats and actual murders of those who leave Islam, often times by their immediate family.
There are 35,213 Quran verses, Hadiths, Sharia laws, and various Muslim scriptures that command and encourage killing, violence, war, annihilation, corporeal punishment, hatred, boycott, humiliation, and subjugation, mostly against non-Muslims, according to Darwish.
“Most Muslims are unaware of or in denial about the intrinsic problems within Islam and Sharia that create a serious threat to lives of non-Muslims, both as individuals and as nations,” the sought after speaker writes.
She adds, “Non-Muslims cannot simply count on an eventual reformation of Islam because it might never happen. The starry-eyed West talks more about the reformation of Islam than Muslims themselves do. Islamic jihad is likely to continue to be a threat forever.”
Darwish calls jihad the driving force behind Sharia and describes it as the “never-ending relentless expansion and enforcement of Islam worldwide.”
Quest to Impose Sharia in the West
While most of her book is devoted to explaining the tenets of Sharia, Darwish is clear from the beginning that she wrote the book to warn Western nations, especially the United States, about the threat of Islamic law.
Most Americans do not understand what Sharia actually calls for, she says, and believe it is just a normal set of religious laws.
“[T]he West must never allow even limited Sharia marriage and family laws to be practiced in any Western democracy, simply because it is against basic principles of human rights and equality between the sexes,” Darwish declares. “Sharia strips a woman of her God-given right to be a human being.
“Bringing such laws to the West will be the beginning of the end of true Western democracy,” she adds.
In her book, Darwish recalls an exchange she had with Muslim American students at a U.S. college campus.
In 2007, Dariwsh was invited to take part in a panel discussion called “Islam and Democracy: Companions or Competitors?” at Mount San Antonio College in Southern California.
One of the panelists, the head of the Muslim student organization, had “fiercely” defended Sharia.
Darwish recalls asking him, “If Sharia is the perfect system that every Muslim should follow, why are you living in America and not in a Muslim Sharia state such as Iran or Saudi Arabia?”
His answer, which was echoed by many other Muslim students at the debate, was that all Muslim countries have failed to be a true Sharia state. Other students at the event said they believe that perhaps the United States could be the first country to properly apply the law as Allah intended. Others even expressed a desire to demand the enforcement of Sharia in America.
“Muslims are often unhappy with their Muslim countries of origin, but instead of looking within to make them better, they want to force an ‘ideal’ Muslim state on other civilizations, especially those that are unsuspecting and peaceful,” Darwish claims. Darwish says the “most troublesome” problem with terrorism is not as much the terrorists attacking from the outside, but more so “the attack on democracy from within.”
“They have lived in Western democracies most of all their lives and have developed a disconnect from the reality of life under Islamic Sharia,” she says.
Peaceful Muslim Majority
It is true, however, that the majority of Muslims in the world are not violent and would not want to live under Sharia. Most Muslims are moderate and practice the ritualistic side of Islam and “barely know what is in their scriptures,” says Darwish.
“Muslims need to be informed about what is in their scriptures simply because, believe it or not, they do not know,” the former Muslim writes.
But even if 10 to 15 percent of Muslims read their scriptures and take it literally, that is a major problem for the West. Darwish says jihadists have been “unabashed” and “straightforward” when it comes to stating that their scriptures are the motivation behind their actions.
“The West has been warned of the Islamist intentions, but so far it is in denial, relying on the hope that Islam will eventually reform,” Darwish says.
“However, let me be clear: The West must understand that the problem is not individual Muslims as much as it is Muslim scriptures commanding them to kill.”
Darwish is calling on Western governments to oversee the selling and buying of books that order the murder of non-Muslim citizens, even if they are called holy scriptures.
“The West must unequivocally declare that Sharia is totally incompatible with democracy and human rights and that it is ‘cruel and unusual punishment,’” says the author.
Published by Thomas Nelson this past January, Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law is the second book written by 60-year-old Darwish. Her first, Now they Call Me Infidel; Why I Renounced Jihad for America, Israel and the War on Terror, was published by Sentinel Trade in November 2007.
Source: http://www.christianpost.com/Intl/Human_rights/2009/04/ex-muslim-warns-west-of-plot-to-impose-islamic-law-04/index.html
Lily-livered Europe has surrended to Islam
Ayaan Hirsi Ali - May 5, 2009 In 2006, I had a debate with Tariq Ramadan, the author of Western Muslims and the future of Islam. In the hypothetical event of a war between Egypt and Switzerland, for which community would he be prepared to die, I asked him.
Mr Ramadan has dual citizenship. He's an Egyptian by birth and a Swiss by naturalisation. His response was one of rage on different levels. Above all I think he was outraged that one should ask such a question. He refused to answer.
Mr Ramadan, like many other Muslims, may have two or more citizenships. From all that he expresses both in person and on paper, it is clear that his loyalty, above all, is to Islam. I do not doubt that he would die for Islam, like most Muslims, and that's his prerogative. But what European countries have done is give citizenship to individuals who feel no obligation to share in their societies for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer and in the event of a catastrophe, sacrifice themselves.
No debate is more explosive than the debate on the future of Islam in Europe
In this way, they evade one of the chief criteria of citizenship. Political allegiance to the constitution of your country is the minimum requirement. It is this state of affairs that makes Christopher Caldwell's book Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration and the West (Allen Lane, £17.99), which opens with the sentence, "Western Europe became a multi-ethnic society in a fit of absence of mind," a chilling read.
This absence of mind, which Caldwell lays bare, is reflected in Europe's immigration policies and especially in its response to Islam. No debate today is more explosive, more sensitive, more confusing and more frightening than the debate on the future of Islam in Europe.
In March this year, the French intellectual Pascal Bruckner and I spoke about Caldwell's book. Bruckner said, "Americans [like Caldwell] do not understand Europe. There are many Muslims who, in their daily lives, are more agnostic and in their practices even atheist, but are just Muslim in name."
This seems to be reassuring. But would these agnostic and unpracticing Muslims, if push came to shove, die for Islam or for France? My guess is they would, most likely, die for Islam.
Caldwell discusses this theme in an interesting light: he does not overlook the Europeans who feel that Islam is a danger to European values but asks, "How can you fight for something you cannot define?" And this is Europe's problem - insecurity about who we are, what our various flags mean, why, with every turn, we spend less and less on the military.
Europe has become a place for new religions, new creeds, multiculturalism, cosmopolitanism, transnationalism. Everything is thus relative. This is an uncertainty that the Muslim does not share. The Muslim ethic and tribal spirit are far more resilient and fierce in war than the protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism.
The numbers and insights that Caldwell has collected in his book are visible to many Europeans. During my life in Holland, and in my trips back, I have spoken to European intellectuals who see the revolution that Caldwell describes so well in his book. They may not call it a revolution, they may also not see it as complete, but they see the identity crisis in Europe. [PICTURE] Muslims protest in London against the publishing in Danish newspapers of cartoons mocking the Prophet Mohammed in 2006 Take the debate on freedom of expression. In 1989 and afterwards, the provocations in the name of Islam were greeted with a confident, "No way! This is Europe, and you can say what you like, write what you like," and so on.
Two decades later, Europeans are not so sure about the values of freedom of expression. Most members of the media engage in self-censorship. Textbooks in schools and universities have been adapted in such a way as not to offend Muslim sentiment. And legislation to punish 'blasphemy', if not passed, has been considered in most countries - or old laws that were never used are being revived. Today, in the name of Islam, synagogues are vandalised Take anti-Semitism in Europe. The sensitivity and guilt Europeans feel about the Holocaust is comparable to the sensitivity and guilt that Americans feel towards black Americans. A decade or two ago, it was unthinkable for Jews to be slandered openly and be targeted for no other reason than their Jewishness.
Today, in the name of Islam, synagogues are vandalised. There are open denials of the Holocaust. There is an active network of Muslim organisations lobbying to curtail or even get rid of Israel. There are incidents of Jews being harassed, beaten, even killed. All this is met with grim silence and rationalisations that it's not really anti-Semitic but anti-Israel. Can you imagine anything like this happening today in America to black people and it being met with silence?
Take the history of women's liberation in Europe. In the 1970s, women were burning their bras, abortion was legalised almost everywhere and rape in marriage was penalised. Today, more and more European elites, including some feminists, argue that it might, perhaps, just be better to respect the culture and religion of a minority.
Women's shelters have adapted their curriculum - instead of teaching the women who come to them how to become self-reliant, the shelters facilitate prayer rooms and employ mediators from the Islamic community. All this mediation serves only one purpose - that is, to return the woman to the circumstances of abuse she left.
Here is a system, which was a tool to emancipate, that has been completely transformed to serve the Muslim purpose of obedience. If the wife obeys, then the husband no longer needs to beat her. The matter is settled.
The same applies to gays. Ten years ago, it would have been unthinkable that anti-gay sentiment would pass without condemnation. In Holland, for instance, we pride ourselves on allowing gays to have the exact same rights as heterosexuals. Yet today, they are beaten on the streets of Amsterdam. To be on the safe side in certain neighbourhoods in Europe, it's advisable to conceal your identity if you are gay or lesbian. Muslims try to abolish freedom of expression using the vocabulary of freedom The terrifying paradox about these developments is that Muslim immigrants were admitted into European borders on the basis of universal rights and freedoms that a large number of them now trample on, while others perhaps watch passively, or seek to defend only the image of Islam.
Even worse, those who lobby to abolish freedom of expression and to discriminate against Jews, women and gays do so while using the vocabulary of freedom and through the institutions of parliament and the courts that were designed to protect the rights of all.
American observers like Caldwell, Bruce Bawer, Walter Laqeur and many others who go to Europe and write candidly about these things can return to America, where they can write on another topic, keep their jobs and their social networks.
Europeans who do the same thing as Caldwell, often face a campaign of ostracisation from their own compatriots. They run the risk of losing their jobs or not being promoted or not getting invitations to the circles of which they are a part. The more stubborn, like Geert Wilders, get prosecuted, and access to a neighbouring country is even denied.
In reality, if Europe falls, it's not because of Islam. It is because the Europeans of today - unlike their forbears in the Second World War - will not die to defend the values or the future of Europe. Even if they were asked to make the final sacrifice, many a post-modern lily-livered European would escape into an obscure mesh of conscientious objection. All that Islam has to do is walk into the vacuum. Source: http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/47336,opinion,its-time-lily-livered-europe-stood-up-to-muslim-bigots-ayaan-hirsi-ali H/T: PointDeBasculeCanada.ca
 By Roberta Bonazzi | April 24 Last March, the organisation Human Rights Activists in Iran issued an annual report on human rights violations in Iran. A total of 278 people had been condemned to death, 30 of whom were aged under 18. And 297 people had been executed, including 8 aged under 18. According to the report, the pressure on blog writers has progressively grown during the course of the year. Thousands of websites and blogs have been filtered, banned or closed down. Some 29 periodicals have also been banned and over 70 journalists had been brought before justice. Of these, according to the report, 21 have been fined, while 17 have received prison sentences. Students were not immune from the repression: 66 students had to pay large fines, while 215 students were imprisoned. Over 60 student newspapers were also banned and a total of 234 students were suspended for a number of university terms. Bahai students faced even harsher punishments: they were expelled from universities. The Human Rights Report also highlighted how also the situation of Iranian workers had deteriorated during the course of the year, with about 11,000 workers laid off and legal proceedings instituted against at least 26 workers. Tens of thousands of women have been detained for “failing to comply with Islamic dress codes”. Security forces issued summons against 25 female activists, interrogating them and putting them under pressure. Another 40 female activists had been condemned to long prison sentences and were now languishing behind bars. And several women had been in prison for some time without any court ruling. www.europeandemocracy.org Source: Hudson New York
'This is not what we want for Pakistan'Ayeshah Alam, V-Day activist Renowned social activist Ayeshah Alam speaks out against the recent flogging of a teenage girl by Taliban fighters. The violence was captured on a mobile phone and spread throughout the internet, highlighting militant brutality in the once-peaceful district, a sign of Taliban influence spreading deeper into the country of Pakistan.
When Samar Minallah first forwarded me the video of a young 17-year-old girl being flogged in public I was stunned. These were images that one had gotten used to seeing come out of Afghanistan but not my country. For years on my morning radio show and then later on my morning television show. I had been saying, “we are ignoring what's really happening in our tribal areas.” Hushed stories had been filtered through and my pathan friends kept going on about how the government was ignoring the gradual growing strength of extremist elements. We failed. As a society. When we could see the warning signs, they weren't in our faces and perhaps that's why it was easier to brush them aside...but we failed and today the flogging of our 17 year old sister...daughter is because we kept quiet then and didn't make a loud enough noise to say NO.... this is not what we want for Pakistan.
Today I am proud to see so many men and women stand up for the little girl and tell the people who did this...YOU WILL NOT DO THIS ANYMORE. I was even more pleasantly surprised to see clergymen, different political parties, all come together with one voice and say NO. Yet there are still the men in those areas, which are not under the write of the government who continue to have their beliefs and are making the women of that territory miserable. Some were cynical and said it was fake. Clearly Chaand Bibi's screams for help and mercy were not enough proof for them. Today we don't know where Chaand Bibi is. We don't know if she is still alive. The courts have asked for the victim to be produced but the family will never come forward as it "dishonors" the family name. That today in the year 2009, these events and ideas are still alive is a shameful thing. Yes governments have their role to play, but even as individuals, we can all contribute in making a change of opinions and ideas and ways of living and thinking, if only in the slightest way. We have a saying in Urdu that says "katray katray say durya bunta hai" which means “ a river can be created drop by drop,” or, as Margaret Mead liked to say "Never doubt a small group of people can change the world... it never happened any other way."
Thank you for your work in challenging accepted norms... lets keep challenging and changing so the Chaand Bibis' of the world don't have to scream helplessly anymore. - Ayeshah
Ayeshah Alam is a blogger, filmmaker and radio host based in Pakistan.Source: http://newsite.vday.org/vmoment/alamHumaira Awais Shahid: Fighting Forced MarriagesBy Tekla Szymanski - From the January 2004 issue of World Press Review A Pakistani legislator fights unspeakable women’s rights abuses—with surprising success. The acid burns the hair off their heads, fuses lips, melts breasts, and leaves the victims blind, in agony, unrecognizable, and scarred for life. According to the independent Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP), at least 211 women were killed in 2002 and countless others maimed when their husbands threw acid in their faces to punish them for disobedience. In Urdu, the acid is called tez ab—sharp water. Some victims say that it is worse than dying. Humaira Awais Shahid, 32, a former investigative journalist turned legislator at the Punjab Assembly, is lobbying to treat this "ruthless tribal custom" as attempted murder. On Aug. 5, 2003, the Assembly passed her resolution to treat it as a crime and prosecute the men who commit it. According to HRCP, an estimated 70-90 percent of Pakistani women have suffered some form of domestic violence—ranging from beatings and rape to maiming and murder. Shahid became aware of these practices while researching forced marriages for the Lahore-based daily Khabrain. The so-called "blood marriages" (vinni, from the Pashto word for blood) are forced unions between rival clan members in parts of northwestern Pakistan. They settle disputes, restore honor, win forgiveness, and turn mostly minor girls—some as young as 5 years old—into servant-mistresses. Tribal jirgas, or assemblies, order the unions. One girl above the age of 7 or two girls younger than that are an acceptable compensation for, say, murder. The girls become the property of the victim's family. According to Junaid Bahadur of Karachi's Dawn, "The girl's parents usually pray for her death so the period of their disgrace is shortened." During her research, Shahid came across the account of the forced marriages of a 17-year-old girl and her 8-year-old sister. Shahid challenged the local jirga: The marriages were dissolved and a monetary settlement between the families was worked out. Though part of the political establishment, Shahid, too, is a victim of prejudice. "To my horror, most of the time, [we] aren't allowed to speak up in debates," she says. "It's like we are just there to amuse the male legislators." Nevertheless, in February 2003, Shahid's resolution to outlaw vinni passed unanimously. "Women's issues...will never totally disappear from the agenda of the [Assembly]," says Shahid, "but they will only be touched upon and never debated. Women's empowerment is a fashionable discourse." Source: http://www.tekla-szymanski.com/englpeople2004.html
 |
|
|
Copyright Muslims Against Sharia 2008. All rights reserved.
E-mail: info AT ReformIslam.org
|
|
|
Posts
