Friday, November 20, 2009 | Reason : Commentary | print version

Print | Comments |

Just say no to sharia law

by Peter Tatchell - guardian.co.uk

Thanks to Adam for the link.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/19/islam-religion

This Saturday's London rally against sharia law and all religious tyrannies should be huge. Millions of people are suffering at the hands of clerical regimes, especially our Muslim brothers and sisters in countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Sadly, the turn out in Hyde Park will probably be quite small. This is odd. Most liberals and leftwingers would protest loud and strong if these persecutions were perpetrated by a western regime or by Christian fundamentalists. But they get squeamish when it comes to challenging human rights abuses committed in the name of Islam. They fear being denouned as Islamophobic. They confuse protests against fundamentalist, political Islam, which seeks to establish a religious dictatorship, with an attack on Muslim people and the Muslim faith. These are two very different things. Saturday's protest is in defence of Muslim people – and all people everywhere – who are victims of any form of religious tyranny.

While other faiths are also often oppressive, sharia law is especially oppressive. Its interpretations stipulate the execution of Muslims who commit adultery, renounce their faith (apostates) or have same-sex relationships. Sharia methods of execution, such as stoning, are particularly brutal and cruel – witness the stoning to death this week in Somalia of a 20-year-old woman divorcee who was accused of adultery. This is the fourth stoning of an adulterer in Somalia in the last year.
...
Continue reading
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/19/islam-religion

Posted: Friday, November 20, 2009 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 37 of 37 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #433440 by Peacebeuponme on November 20, 2009 at 1:04 pm

Who wants to go first?

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

2. Comment #433446 by John Locke on November 20, 2009 at 1:16 pm

seems a good enough article to me - for the grauniad anyway ;)

not much more to say meself

Other Comments by John Locke

3. Comment #433450 by Peacebeuponme on November 20, 2009 at 1:24 pm

I like Peter Tatchell

My only niggles with this latest campaign are:

1) Why is he protesting in the UK about Islamic regimes abroad? What is he expecting to happen - the last time the UK Government got rid of an Islamic regime I don't think Mr Tatchell was best pleased.

2) There are hints of conflating the very real issue of draconian and unjust laws in islamic countries and the entirely separate issue of how to deal with sharia arbitration in the UK.

Peter retains my utmost admiration nevertheless.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

4. Comment #433456 by weavehole on November 20, 2009 at 1:38 pm

One of Saturday's speakers will be Johann Hari. Here's an article he wrote that you may be interested in:

Johann Hari - Renouncing islamism: To the brink and back again.

Other Comments by weavehole

5. Comment #433458 by AllanW on November 20, 2009 at 1:43 pm

I wholly support this rally. The rule of law needs to be seen to apply to all citizens with no exceptions for race, sex or creed. Religiously inspired legal systems cannot afford protection equally for all citizens and actively discriminate against women, homosexuals and others. Demonstrations of support for these principles in this country are necessary to remind our Government of their duty as our representatives.

Why this rally makes the tactical decision to tie the situation in this country with those in other countries is a mistake in my opinion. Concentrating more closely upon the influence that various religious factions have on government policy formation here would I think serve this secular cause better rather than diluting it by highlighting the sterling work done under oppressive circumstances by like-minded secular liberals in other countries. This information is welcome to raise consciousness of the progress that still needs to be made towards the installation of genuinely universal human rights but nevertheless distracts unnecessarily from the work to be done here first.

I listened to a lecture that Grayling gave in Manchester on Wednesday (he will talk at this rally tomorrow as well) and like him I’m dismayed that the vast majority of reasonable, secular and tolerant people in this country (vastly outnumbering the regular church/mosque/Temple/synagogue-attending people) do not find it possible to exert the influence on Government policy that their overwhelming numbers would justify. Why is that?

The reasons why this may be so seem to be that this ‘silent majority’ do not see themselves primarily through the lens of their religious standpoint (as opposed to the religiously inclined for whom it is defining) and so are indifferent or divided as to any particular initiative that is undertaken. The net result is a continuing death by a thousand cuts as secularism in this country is eroded and, to mix a metaphor, we secular liberals are the frogs in the pan as the water is gradually being heated.

I hope that this rally is well supported tomorrow but will continue to try to find ways that more effectively consolidate the voice of the majority of voters in this country.

Other Comments by AllanW

6. Comment #433472 by Linda Ward Selbie on November 20, 2009 at 2:18 pm

Back in 2005 this issue came up in Ontario. I participated in the protest and we won.

Our current and then Premier of Ontario:

There will be no Shariah law in Ontario. There will be no religious arbitration in Ontario. There will be one law for all Ontarians

While this upset some:

However a representative from Ontario's Jewish community expressed disappointment and shock over McGuinty's decision.

Other Comments by Linda Ward Selbie

7. Comment #433478 by Sandra S on November 20, 2009 at 2:31 pm

The "Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights" is a mighty interesting and revealing read.

II Right to Freedom

a) Man is born free. No inroads shall be made on his right to liberty except under the authority and in due process of the Law.

Presumably man in this case does mean man.

( http://www.alhewar.com/ISLAMDECL.html )

How did we get here? How did we become so tolerant that we tolerate intolerance in Europe?

I'm sure I'm not first to say this but; tolerance of intolerance is intolerance.

Other Comments by Sandra S

8. Comment #433488 by Peacebeuponme on November 20, 2009 at 3:01 pm

Linda Ward Selbie

There will be one law for all Ontarians

That maybe true, but it means everybody is inconvenienced now. There is less freedom for everybody to arbitrate in their own way and at low cost, and I assume more government interference in private matters.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

9. Comment #433507 by Absinthius on November 20, 2009 at 3:46 pm

@ Comment #433478 by Sandra S on November 20, 2009 at 2:31 pm

Indeed, a slight difference in the semantics of these kind of sentences changes their meaning so drastically.

Other Comments by Absinthius

10. Comment #433516 by God fearing Atheist on November 20, 2009 at 4:04 pm

4. Comment #433456 by weavehole

Interesting article. It was well worth reading. I recommend it. It does need confirmation from other sources (of course). Thanks for linking.

Other Comments by God fearing Atheist

11. Comment #433522 by Bonzai on November 20, 2009 at 4:22 pm

peace

That maybe true, but it means everybody is inconvenienced now. There is less freedom for everybody to arbitrate in their own way and at low cost, and I assume more government interference in private matters.

You can always enter into private contracts. This only says when there are disputes, they should be settled in real courts in order that the settlements be binding.

So, the government doesn't really intrude into your private affairs. It just wouldn't recognize arbitration by private courts, but it wouldn't put you in jail for doing that.

How is that an infringement of your personal freedom? Let's get it straight, you are saying that your *private* whims should be recognized by *public* institutions. It is you who wants government to interfere in private business, not the other way around.

In the same way, you can have a private agreement with someone to become his slave, just don't expect the government to recognize it or enforce the contract if you decide to run off. What can be more free?

Edited The law exists to protect the right of all citizens. It is not 'freedom' if you are coerced into participating in these kangaroo 'courts'. It may be inconvenient for some, but a little inconvenience is a price worth paying for when the stake is the rights for all citizens.

Other Comments by Bonzai

12. Comment #433526 by Linda Ward Selbie on November 20, 2009 at 4:43 pm

Peacebeuponme - wrong - you don't seem to know much about law in Ontario by that remark. Arbitration is a key aspect of civil disputes.

Other Comments by Linda Ward Selbie

13. Comment #433529 by DeusExNihilum on November 20, 2009 at 4:51 pm

I whole heartedly agree with the article and the damning of Sharia law and the injustices it brings upon the world and those subjected to it...Although I viruently disagree with some of the implications in this article that to deplore Islam is racist.

Other Comments by DeusExNihilum

14. Comment #433534 by Peacebeuponme on November 20, 2009 at 5:07 pm

LWS

wrong - you don't seem to know much about law in Ontario by that remark. Arbitration is a key aspect of civil disputes.

Ok, fine. That I don't know much about Ontario law is correct regardless of my remark being true or false!

However, arbitration being a key aspect of civil disputes, are citizens able to choose their preferred method of resolution?

Bonzai

This only says when there are disputes, they should be settled in real courts in order that the settlements be binding.

Of course a contract is only 'binding' in the first instance if there is some legal force to back it up, but no-one is suggesting that we restrict the ability to form contracts, so why restrict the manner in which contracts are resolved?

To take a family matter: the Government does not say a wedding cannot take place under the banner of Islam, but you are saying that the divorce proceedings cannot. That seems a bit backward to me.

It is not 'freedom' if you are coerced into participating in these kangaroo 'courts'.

Completely agree. A while ago I suggested that there should be a responsibility for all arbiters to ensure those coming before them are not coerced. In cases of Sharia there should be extra care taken to assess whether any females have been unduly influenced.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

15. Comment #433535 by Tintern on November 20, 2009 at 5:08 pm

"‘silent majority’ do not see themselves primarily through the lens of their religious standpoint"
A very interesting point and it does seem to be the almost hidden reason for lack of unity. Awareness is hard to raise. However, we'd better do it soon, for our own sake and the many people living under religious oppression who, quite frankly, want out. We need to rescue them and ourselves, thereby rescuing western secular society. It ain't perfect but it's worth rescuing! I believe it tends to be against things like stoning women to death for having sex or being a rape victim. Also, it allows women to walk around themselves without a male family member's permission. How strange. Sounds like some weird all-inclusive thingy where being a citizen gives you equal rights. I know it ain't fully functioning yet but dammit, it's on the right path.

Other Comments by Tintern

16. Comment #433558 by Enlightenme.. on November 20, 2009 at 6:10 pm

Dammit, I'd really like to go to this, notwithstanding the possible appearance of EDL, BNP or Geert Wilders fans.

Can't afford the travel.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

17. Comment #433560 by Naser01 on November 20, 2009 at 6:12 pm

I always wonder why if these people are so concerned about Human rights in countries such as Saudi Arabia or Iran, why do they principly attack sharia and by doing so isolate those who they want to save? Sharia is defined as the code of law derived from the Koran and from the teachings and example of Mohammed (pbuh). By saying the sharia law is "oppressive", one is saying, by extention, that the law of the Koran and Mohammed (pbuh)is oppressive, a clumsy blunder which does little to win over "hearts and/or minds". We may disagree over the humanity of "true" sharia (sounds like a cop out already, but the majority of Muslims do not accept the interpretation of sharia in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Somalia etc and in fact shout out against these countries in Islamic terms rather than Secular English ones), but at least agree with me that by attacking the most fundamental core principles of a Muslim's heart is not the best way to achieve his/her support for a march like this.

Other Comments by Naser01

18. Comment #433563 by Bonzai on November 20, 2009 at 6:21 pm

Of course a contract is only 'binding' in the first instance if there is some legal force to back it up, but no-one is suggesting that we restrict the ability to form contracts, so why restrict the manner in which contracts are resolved?

Well this would be a different argument from the Libertarian position you commented from earlier. If you are against the state intruding into private affairs, why would you expect the state to back up your private agreements?

There is a contradiction.

To take a family matter: the Government does not say a wedding cannot take place under the banner of Islam, but you are saying that the divorce proceedings cannot. That seems a bit backward to me.

The government shouldn't recognize religious weddings either if I have my way. But law is not made based on pure logic. It seems that Islamic wedding doesn't raise as many issues as Islamic divorce, rightly or wrongly, we can only tackle one issue at a time.

I suggested that there should be a responsibility for all arbiters to ensure those coming before them are not coerced. In cases of Sharia there should be extra care taken to assess whether any females have been unduly influenced.

But how do you ensure that? In the end you would need some kind of state oversight in monitoring the arbitration anyway (and government will intrude into private affairs by your argument) so why not just cut out the middle man?

Other Comments by Bonzai

19. Comment #433570 by Barry Pearson on November 20, 2009 at 6:50 pm

#433478 by Sandra S:
The "Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights" is a mighty interesting and revealing read.

That was an earlier version (1981):
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/islam_universal.htm

The version that is accepted by the Organization of the Islamic Conference is "Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam" (1990):
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/islam_cairo.htm

They are, of course, both bad. Basically "obey Sharia Law and perform these duties".

#433507 by Absinthius:
@ Comment #433478 by Sandra S
Indeed, a slight difference in the semantics of these kind of sentences changes their meaning so drastically.

Slight? They simply give Sharia Law a total override:

"the term 'Law' denotes the Shari'ah, i.e. the totality of ordinances derived from the Qur'an and the Sunnah and any other laws that are deduced from these two sources by methods considered valid in Islamic jurisprudence."

"Each one of the Human Rights enunciated in this declaration carries a corresponding duty."

"All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari'ah."

"The Islamic Shari'ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification to any of the articles of this Declaration."

Other Comments by Barry Pearson

20. Comment #433575 by Sandra S on November 20, 2009 at 7:27 pm

19. Comment #433570 by Barry Pearson

(1990):
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/islam_cairo.htm

So much for progress, I'm pretty sure they just made it worse.

Other Comments by Sandra S

21. Comment #433599 by BeyondBelief on November 20, 2009 at 9:21 pm

@Tintern, Comment #15: Spot on! We may be a group of unherdable cats, but we had better start recognizing our common interests that (largely) lie in fostering a secular society, bound by a common law. Universal Human Rights.

Then, we'd better start standing up and fighting for them whenever a power seeker of any stripe tries to limit said rights.

@Barry Pearson... are you still maintaining the "Religions are Hobbies" web page? I got a bounce-back e-mail when attempting to write to you recently.

Other Comments by BeyondBelief

22. Comment #433607 by bethe123 on November 20, 2009 at 10:21 pm

Islam and Sharia in particular is oppressive.

Nassa01:
"By saying the sharia law is "oppressive", one is saying, by extention, that the law of the Koran and Mohammed (pbuh)is oppressive, a clumsy blunder which does little to win over "hearts and/or minds"

Well, no. The blunder is believing in the mythology of Mohammed and the Koran in the first place.
However, realizing that the Koran is myth first starts with education. That is why the Taliban, for example, attempts to prevent schoolgirls from going to school.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,451941,00.html

The rally is a righteous event. I only wish I lived nearby so I could attend.

Other Comments by bethe123

23. Comment #433618 by Border Collie on November 21, 2009 at 12:35 am

Reading articles like this make me want to throw all religion out the window. I'm beginning to understand Richard, Sam, Daniel and Christopher. Well, this religion's oppressive, but this other one is really, really oppressive and that other one is really, really, really oppressive ...

Other Comments by Border Collie

24. Comment #433630 by Enlightenme.. on November 21, 2009 at 3:24 am

17. Comment #433560 by Naser01 on November 20, 2009 at 6:12 pm
I always wonder why if these people are so concerned about Human rights in countries such as Saudi Arabia or Iran, why do they principly attack sharia and by doing so isolate those who they want to save? Sharia is defined as the code of law derived from the Koran and from the teachings and example of Mohammed (pbuh). By saying the sharia law is "oppressive", one is saying, by extention, that the law of the Koran and Mohammed (pbuh)is oppressive, a clumsy blunder which does little to win over "hearts and/or minds". We may disagree over the humanity of "true" sharia (sounds like a cop out already, but the majority of Muslims do not accept the interpretation of sharia in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Somalia etc and in fact shout out against these countries in Islamic terms rather than Secular English ones), but at least agree with me that by attacking the most fundamental core principles of a Muslim's heart is not the best way to achieve his/her support for a march like this.

As has been said in this thread, this should possibly better have been a march against Sharia being implemented in this country only, because it challenges a whole set of western enlightenment notions e.g. separation of powers in this secular (all 'beliefs' systems equal under the law) society.

To my mind, by the way, I think it should also be a march against Beth dins in UK as well as any other separate laws for groups.

It is unfortunately inescapable that the cultural historys of Islam and 'the west' diverge into some things that are completely incompatible, such as 'man made law' vs [god x]'s law. (or e.g. prophet x's purportedly perfect life)

Europe's bitter history of one set of Christians burning another set at the stake because they were following a 'corrupted' interpretation has taught us to transfer such powers from any clerics interpretation to the state.

You say:

"but at least agree with me that by attacking the most fundamental core principles of a Muslim's heart is not the best way to achieve his/her support for a march like this."

Can I ask of you then, how would you like to see it put, that you would not take as such an attack?

By that I mean, given what the march is about, what should it say it is for, that may hope to achieve his or her support?

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

25. Comment #433636 by The_Intangible_Fancy on November 21, 2009 at 4:47 am

@weavehole

Fantastic article! Thank you for providing the link. I will definitely share this with others.

Other Comments by The_Intangible_Fancy

26. Comment #433639 by zengardener on November 21, 2009 at 5:41 am

For these reasons, secularism ...is also the best guarantee of religious freedom, as it prevents any one faith becoming politically dominant and abusing its powers to oppress people of other faiths.

I look around, here in America, and wonder how true this is. I guess the abuse could be worse.

Other Comments by zengardener

27. Comment #433640 by retep57 on November 21, 2009 at 5:58 am

I lived in Saudi arabia for a while, Sharia is rubbish and evil! No NO NO to Sharia

Other Comments by retep57

28. Comment #433644 by godsbelow on November 21, 2009 at 6:12 am

"Most liberals and leftwingers would protest loud and strong if these persecutions were perpetrated by a western regime or by Christian fundamentalists. But they get squeamish when it comes to challenging human rights abuses committed in the name of Islam."

Too true - it's called 'double standards'.

Other Comments by godsbelow

29. Comment #433658 by Peacebeuponme on November 21, 2009 at 10:27 am

Bonzai

Well this would be a different argument from the Libertarian position you commented from earlier. If you are against the state intruding into private affairs, why would you expect the state to back up your private agreements?

I'm not so libertarian as to not recognise the value of society and the state. There are many areas in which state protection and indeed interference may be warranted. I just think the overriding principle should be to keep it to a minimum.

I don't think anyone here would disagree that the state should investigate fraud and penalise fraudsters. In my view if two people make a contract, or arbitrate a dispute, in good faith, and one of them reneges, then that is akin to fraud. State structures that police this seem fair to me.

However, the parties should be free to make agreement and resolve them in their own way as they see fit.

The government shouldn't recognize religious weddings either if I have my way.

Oh I agree with this. It doesn't seem like a matter for Government to me.

But how do you ensure that? In the end you would need some kind of state oversight in monitoring the arbitration anyway (and government will intrude into private affairs by your argument) so why not just cut out the middle man?

Well it doesn't really need much Government intervention. Lots of industries are self-regulated and this could be no different. Membership of an official arbiters association could require certain standards of practice. Disputees would be wise to only choose those arbiters that are a member of that association. The Government could also choose not to enforce judgements made by non-members.

This to me would leave the door open for proper sharia arbitration, while not recognising any resolutions made where there is coercion - either informally by the husband and wife alone, or by formal, but mispractising, sharia courts.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

30. Comment #433660 by Steve Zara on November 21, 2009 at 11:06 am

Comment #433644 by godsbelow

"Most liberals and leftwingers would protest loud and strong if these persecutions were perpetrated by a western regime or by Christian fundamentalists. But they get squeamish when it comes to challenging human rights abuses committed in the name of Islam."

Too true - it's called 'double standards'.

Not always. There can be good (albeit misguided) intentions behind this difference.

Islam is a religion that in Western countries tends to be associated with people with darker skins, and who therefore are subject to much racism. Often attacks on Islam are used as a proxy for attacks on a race (this is the policy of the facist BNP). This leads many people to think that defending Islam is a way of countering racism. (Which I think is rather strange, as it is like saying that some Asian groups should be free to experience self-oppression).

Sure, there are some far-left people who are simply against America and based on the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" principle will support those groups who hate America, but I don't think most left-wingers are that cynical.

The basis of these misguided attitudes is always that political principles should be put above people: people's rights (invariably gay and women's rights) can be sacrificed for the greater good.

Thank goodness that some people, like Peter Tatchell, are trying to introduce more sophisticated thinking - the rights of individuals can be strongly supported while the political ambitions of their religion can be strongly attacked.

But that is going to be a hard message to put across. I wish him well.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

31. Comment #433782 by Border Collie on November 21, 2009 at 9:04 pm

What makes anyone think that these people want their hearts and minds won over?

Other Comments by Border Collie

32. Comment #433795 by fatpiranha on November 21, 2009 at 10:07 pm

I went to the rally today. A fantastic line-up of speakers but only 400 people or so there to hear them. I guess people just aren't that bothered about freedom or equality. If only they'd got some X-factor wannabe or footballer's wag to turn up ...

Other Comments by fatpiranha

33. Comment #433805 by God fearing Atheist on November 21, 2009 at 10:46 pm

32. Comment #433795 by fatpiranha

Shame. Anything to do with the weather? I'm 150 miles from London and the rain storm has just abated.

Other Comments by God fearing Atheist

34. Comment #433807 by TQY on November 21, 2009 at 10:52 pm

I went to this too fatpiranha - and I agree, an excellent bunch of speakers but a very small turnout.

You have to wonder what sort of country we've become when an event like this attracts fewer people than a minor non-league game of football.

And in London too, with its proud, centuries long history of protest and activism. Tut.

Other Comments by TQY

35. Comment #433811 by TQY on November 21, 2009 at 11:01 pm

Forecast might have put some people off, but I decided to go as it was bright in South London this morning. It didn't actually start raining here until around 2.30, by which time the event had drawn to a close.

Other Comments by TQY

36. Comment #433812 by Enlightenme.. on November 21, 2009 at 11:02 pm

400 people or so.

Not surprised.
Everybody's skint, the weather is awful, the notice was short, the event-labelling poor, and most of all, the Islamophobia meme is robust.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

37. Comment #434301 by Cernunnos on November 23, 2009 at 9:16 pm

I was there. The weather was fine and I'd signed up to the mailing list of the One Law for All Campaign and therefore got two months' notice. Skint as people may be I would've thought they could have saved up a bit if they believed in this enough. Personally I thought it was a great event. We got a couple of goofs from the far right and far left wandering around distributing propaganda, but they got told where to go. There was one heckler and I was a bit irritated by the way people from the demo started to gravitate towards him, creating a visible distraction. Other than that good stuff. I hope we do it again soon.

Other Comments by Cernunnos

Reload Comments | Back to Top