Why Islamic Law should be opposed?

1. One good thing about hearing our opponents - paying attention to their oppositions and criticisms - is that we may find some of our weaknesses and even a correct way to improve them.

What you are going to read is one these articles! ... the title is: "Why Islamic Law should be opposed?" ... So, let's read it, and see what it actually says. See if there is something to learn in it.

===============================

Why Islamic Law should be opposed?
By Azam Kamguian

Islamic Sharia law should be opposed by everyone who believes in universal human rights, women's civil rights and individual freedom, freedom of expression, freedom of religion and belief and freedom from religion. Islamic law developed in the first few centuries of Islam and incorporated Middle Eastern pre - Islamic misogynist and tribal customs and traditions. Shari'a developed not only from the Koran and the Sunna but also through juristic reasoning and interpretation and hence different sects. We may ask how a law whose elements were first laid down over a 1000 years ago can be relevant in the 21^st century. The Sharia only reflects the social and economic conditions of the time of Abbasid and has grown out of touch with all the human's social, economic, cultural and moral developments. The principles of the Sharia are inimical to human's moral progress and civilised values.

Islam is an all-encompassing religion that controls and has opinion on everything from the dowry to the periods of women, from the amputation of limbs of thief to the stoning of adulterers, from food to the creation of the World. No detail of daily life escapes its attention. It interferes in anything and everything. The Islamic law tries to legalise for every single aspect of an individual's life, the individual is not at liberty to think or decide for himself, he has but to accept Allah's ruling as interpreted infallibly by the doctors of law.

Islamic law forcefully opposes free thought, freedom of expression and freedom of action. Accusations of impurity, of apostasy is waiting to silence any voice of dissent. Suppression and injustice shapes the lives of all free minded people above all atheists, who are deprive of all freedom. One is borne Muslim, and one is forced to stay Muslim to the end of their life. Islamic law denies the rights of women and non- - Muslim religious minorities. Non -believers are shown no tolerance: death or conversion. Jews and Christians are treated as second - class citizens.

In countries which have proclaimed an Islamic state, such as Iran, the Sudan, Pakistan, some states in Northern Nigeria, and Afghanistan under the Taliban, we can already see the pernicious effects of the Sharia: the stoning to death of women exercising their right to personal freedom; random accusations of blasphemy - carrying a mandatory death penalty - being used to settle personal grudges, public hangings for apostasy, real or alleged, and many other cruelties.

A fundamental aspect of Islam is that the will of god should be followed. Thus it is god and not the people that decide how things are to be. In an open and free society, people lay the boundaries of powers of organs of state, that is, the people dictate the powers that state is to have over them and the people through their elected organs and representatives decide the laws. The situation is quite different under Islamic states or where Islamic law acts as an important part of the legal system. Examples are Saudi Arabia where the Koran has been declared to be the constitution and no laws contrary to it can be passed. Other examples are Iran, the Sudan, Afghanistan under the Taliban, and many other Middle Eastern countries where Islamic law has a considerable influence on the legal system. This is clearly not acceptable and is denying the people the right to determine the governance of their countries.

The Sharia & Human Rights

Human rights and the Sharia are definitely and irremediably irreconcilable and antagonistic. Oppression, massacres, intimidation, lack of freedom, ferocious censorship are the undeniable facts of all countries designated Islamic. Human rights are desirable to ensure a certain standard of living for people across the globe. It is often alleged that Human rights constitutes a means of enforcing western ideals on others who might not believe in them. It is not acceptable to let governments and authorities away with many of the abuses by using cultural relativism as an excuse. We cannot let cultural relativism becomes the last refuge of repression. To accept religion as a justification for human rights abuses is to discriminate against the abused and to send the message that they are un-deserving of human rights protection.

Perhaps the most unsavoury aspect of Islamic law from human rights perspective is the punishments doled out. Islamic law regulates individual morality, being opposed with sexual morality. From flogging to stoning to death of individuals. Sexuality and sexual behaviour is a realm that Islam has strict rule on. Adultery is strictly forbidden and harshly punished. The punishment is execution, death by stoning or flogging. Homosexuality is also forbidden and punishable by Islamic law. To add to the inhumane nature of executions, in majority of countries under Islamic states, these executions are carried out in front of crowds of people.

The Sharia & Women's Rights

In the Koran and according to the Sharia, women are considered inferior to men, and they have less rights and responsibilities. As regards testimony in the court of law and inheritance, a woman is counted as half a man, equally in regard to marriage and divorce, her position is less advantageous that that of the man, her husband has the legal, moral and religious duty to beat her. She does not have the right to choose her husband, her clothing, her place of residence, and to travel. A very young legal age of marriage ranging from 9 in Iran to 13, 15 and 17 (in Tunisia) is also another aspect of Sharia. This is according to the way Muhammad the prophet of Islam married Aisha a 9 - year old girl when he was 43. The four orthodox law schools plus shi'i mainly differed on points important to women. In all schools marriage is a contract according to which husband should perform sexually and provide materially for the wife. The wife must have sex whenever husband wishes. A man can easily divorce a woman by pronouncing it three times. Polygamy up to four wives was permitted, in shi'i sect, temporary marriage is allowed where man can have access to unlimited number of women. The practice is known as Mot'a or Sigheh. According to Islamic law men were permitted concubines and female slaves. Islamic law and the Koran permit men to beat their wives if they disobey.

Another discriminatory rule is that in many Muslim inhabited countries a woman is not allowed to marry a non-Muslim whereas men are allowed to marry non-Muslims. With the object of protecting morality and preventing sexual anarchy women are expected to cover their whole bodies bar their faces and their hands up to their wrists. Islamic law is totally against dress freedom. This is obviously a huge infringement on the personal development of women, not allowing them to develop sexually and as people. It is inhumane to imprison women behind veils when it is men, who according to Islam and Islamic law cannot be trusted to control themselves.
Once again, in order to protect morality it is dictated that women cannot be in contact with men to whom they are not related without the presence of some male relative. The segregation of sexes in this way makes it very difficult for women to leave their houses and participate in society in any way at all. Islamic law in this way completely prevents women from taking part in society and keeps them locked up, isolated and unable to reach their potential. Women deserve to be treated as human beings and for this reason alone Islamic rule and Islamic law which are completely misogynist must be opposed.

The Sharia & Discrimination against non- Muslims

In addition to the imposition of Islamic morality on non-Muslims, Sharia law dictates that there should not be equality between Muslims and non-Muslims. Under strict Sharia law only Muslims can be full citizens of a Muslim state. Many of Islamic states shamelessly discriminate against non-Muslims. In Saudi Arabia and in Kuwait being Muslim is a precondition of naturalisation. A person who believes in a scriptural religion, such as Christianity or Judaism will have limited rights in an Islamic state; they cannot participate in public life or hold positions of authority over Muslims. Anyone else is deemed to be an unbeliever and is not permitted to reside permanently in an Islamic state. In addition, the Koran only recognises People of the Book as religious communities. Others are pagans. Pagans must be eliminated.

In many Islamic states, non-Muslims men are not allowed to marry Muslim women and in criminal prosecutions non-Muslims are given harsher punishments than Muslims. Crimes against Muslims are often punished more severely than crimes against others. In many countries the testimony of a non-Muslim in court s not equal to that of a Muslim.

Freedom of religion does not just mean freedom to hold a faith but also the freedom to change one's religion or belief. Apostasy is when a Muslim advocates the rejection of Islamic beliefs or announces his own rejection of Islam by word or by act. That is when a Muslim abandons his or her faith. Apostates face the most ferocious violence, often are punished to death. This discrimination is clearly contrary to freedom of belief and religion and the principle that religion should be a private affair of individual. The use of any and especially such violent coercion in matters of faith is completely unacceptable.

Believing in religion should be voluntary and as a private matter, otherwise people who practice a religion are not doing so of their own convictions but rather because of the sanctions that will be imposed on them if they don't. When the law gets involved, religion is no longer between the individual and what or whom they believe, as it should be.

The Sharia & Freedom of Expression

Under the Sharia and where Islam oppresses, writers, thinkers, philosophers, activists, artists are all deprived of their freedom of expression. Islamic regimes are notorious for suppressing freedom of expression. Often, as the government aligns itself so closely with Islam any critics of the government are accused and charged with vague charges of heresy and insulting Islam. Under Islamic law people are deprived of drinking, playing music, reading literature on philosophy, sexuality, and arts.

For the human rights abuses sanctioned by, the discrimination institutionalised in, the autonomy deprived by, the lifestyle choices deprived by and the human dignity eroded by Islamic Law, this barbaric inhumane law should be opposed.

In the west, even in countries which have a sizeable Muslim minority, any idea that the Sharia could have any sway should be strongly opposed since it conflicts with many basic human values, such as equality before the law, that punishments should be commensurate with the crime, and that law must be based on the will of the people.

Islamophobia & Racism

The problem for us in the west is how to oppose these violations of human rights without being accused of neo-colonialism and racism, and of failing to respect different cultures. There is a key - point here, that human rights are vested in the individual, not the group. As soon as rights are accorded to any group rather than to individuals it creates the possibility for conflict that only between the group and those outside it, but between the group and its own members. Any group, which denies the right of its members to leave, is in contravention of one of the most fundamental principles of human rights. It is clearly one of the reasons for the growth of Islam over the past century that becoming a Muslim is a one way street. Whether by birth or conversion (historically likely to have been a forced conversion and an imposed phenomenon) once you are a Muslim the only way out - under the Sharia - is death.

Apologists for Islam often claim that this sort of argument is based on a mis-understanding of Islam, the religion of peace. Apologists will quote this sura rather than that to prove their point. But like the Christian Bible, of course, the Koran has arguments to support every possible point of view. The only answer to this is to show by actual examples the reality of what is happening in countries that have fallen under the sway of the Sharia. It is also frequently claimed that critics of Islam are guilty of a) racism, and b) Islamophobia. Since we are discussing religion and not race, the first argument fails. Certainly in the west there is a high degree of correlation between race and religion. The Muslims in Britain, for example, tend to be of Middle Eastern origin. Nevertheless, it is perfectly feasible to love the believer but hate the belief. Human beings are worthy of respect but not all beliefs must be respected. Attempts to make Islamophobia a crime are thinly disguised attempt to equate anti-Islamic arguments with racism. It is essential to distinguish criticism of Islam both from fear of Islam and from fear, hatred or contempt for Muslims. But often, moral criticism of Islamic practices or criticising the Islamic religion is dismissed as Islamophobic.

When Islam really does promote violence by advocating jihad to achieve world domination, when it really does say that men should beat women and that the testimony of a woman in court is worth half that of a man and that followers of Islam should not befriend Jews or Christians, then why not having fear to it? Why not criticising it?

The world is a battleground of social movements and ideas. It took people in the west over 400 years of often-bloody struggle to gain the right to criticise Christianity. Even now, that right is still not fully recognised. In Britain, for example, there is still a law against blasphemy, and many Islamic clerics have argued that it should be extended to cover Islam as well. It should be scrapped. But once we are prevented from expressing our point of view in the market place of ideas: then we are on the slippery slope back to the dark ages.

Of all the existing ideologies and religions, Islam remains the greatest danger for humanity, as it has not been caged by progressive forces and because of the terrorising power of political Islam and the close ties of states and the establishment Islam.

We must recognise that our society is far larger, diverse and complex than the small primitive tribal society in Arabia, 1400 years ago, from which Islam emerged. It is time to abandon the idea that anyone in the region should live under Sharia. More than ever before, people need a secular state that respects freedom from and of religion, and human rights founded on the principle that power belongs to the people. This means rejecting the claims by orthodox Islamic scholars that, in an Islamic state, sovereignty belongs to the representative of Allah or Islamic justice. It is crucial to oppose the Islamic Sharia law and to subordinate Islam to secularism and secular states.

Adapted from a speech given by Azam Kamguian at a discussion panel & debate on 10 October 2002, organised by University Philosophical Society of Trinity College, Dublin - Ireland -- MiddleEastWomen.Org

Political Islam & the Secularist Liberationist Women's Movement in Iran

I am going to talk about political Islam and women's struggle for secularism and freedom in Iran. Contrary to the dominant and distorted image that portrays Iranian women as defining their rights within the framework of Islamic law and trying to reconcile women's rights with Islam, I talk about the secularist liberationist women's movement in Iran.

The last 24 years have been some of the darkest in women's lives in Iran. The Islamic regime which was the first established government of political Islam brought nothing but repression, death, torture, lack of rights and dark reaction. For 24 years Islamic laws have been and still are in full force against women in Iran. Women were amongst the very first targets attacked by the Islamic Republic. With Khomeini's pronouncements on the veil, immense outbursts of anger expressed by women on the streets on the International Women's Day in 1979. This anger was not simply because of their rejection of the veil. They saw in the attempts to impose the veil a much greater implied threat. They felt that this was just the beginning of a whole series of measures, which would lead to the seclusion of women from social and economic activity. Political Islam which first came to power in Iran is a major force that has imposed serious setbacks on women's lives in the region, in the recent decades. Political Islam is a political movement that came to the fore against the secular and progressive movements for liberation and egalitarianism and against women's rights and freedom in the region. In the 1970s, the political Islamic movement grew stronger and became more widespread. Political Islam is nothing but the enforcement of brutal laws and traditions, and killing, beheading, and genocide of people. In Iran, the Sudan, Pakistan and Afghanistan, Islamic regimes proceeded to transform the countries, and particularly women's homes into prison houses, where the confinement of women, their exclusion from many fields of work and education and their brutal treatment became the law of the land. In addition, the misogynist rhetoric they have let loose in the social sphere implicitly sanctions male violence towards women.

As women were the first victims of political Islam, they also became the pioneer force fighting against political Islam in Iran. In fact, the post - revolutionary period in Iran has seen an extra ordinary gender- awareness amongst Iranian women. During the last twenty - four years women's resistance against Islamic laws has been a daily fact of life. Tens of thousands of women have offended the rules and have been attacked by Islamic moral squads with fists and kicks, knives, cutters and throwing acid on their faces yearly. The penalty for breaking the rules of segregation and Hijab has been insult, cash fines, expulsion, and deprivation from education, arrest, imprisonment, beating and flogging. 80 percent of women resisted against these rules have been young women who were born after the coming to power of the Islamic Republic. No day has gone without resistance and hope during the last two decades.

Women in Iran have succeeded in pushing back the offensive of the Islamic regime inch by inch, re - appropriating spheres of public life that were lost immediately after the revolution. Their success in forcing the government to remove, at least on paper, the ban on certain fields of higher education is a case in point. Women have succeeded in placing their plight at the center of politics in Iran and as a major issue of conflict in political discourse and ideological mobilization. In the streets of Iran's major cities, growing clashes between the morality police and bystanders over the arrest of violators of the Islamic dress code demonstrate that women's resistance, together with the overall political and economic crisis of the Islamic regime have caused a disenchantment of ordinary Iranians with the Islamists who continue their policy of purifying the female soul and body from secular ideas and practices. In recent years many courageous women have either publicly thrown their veils away or burnt them in street demonstrations. Women and the politics of gender continue to be the Achilles' heel of the Islamic Republic.

During the post revolutionary period, women have struggled to open spaces and make opportunities in education and employment. They have campaigned against Islamic child abuse and have organized association for the defense of children's rights. They are actively involved in semi - legal and clandestine political struggle. Culturally, they resist and campaign against Islamic and traditional images of women dictated and portrayed by the Islamic cultural authorities in films, theatres, newspapers and magazines. Despite strict Islamic moral code and preserving taboos, more than ever before pre - marital sexual relationship is common and taboos have been broken. All of these make the women's movement a strong political reality at the center of Iran's political scene.

Here, I would like to talk about the so - called Islamic Feminism or Muslim feminists. This is a tendency, which tries to improve women's situation by reforming some of Islamic principles and Koranic verses. They mildly criticize some aspects of Islamic Republic's policies and some of its leaders. They are the political allies of the so-called reformist faction of the Islamic government of Iran whose agenda for shaping a tolerable Islamic regime has been badly defeated in the most recent years. This trend is not of any importance inside Iran, but again it has got publicity due to the efforts of Western governments and also western mainstream media that try to portray a distorted image of women's demands in Iran and reduce them to those of Islamic feminist's expectations. They promote and even try to impose a moderate Islamic government on Iranian people, which suits their interests in Iran and in the region.

But, the fact is that Iranian society has changed dramatically and deeply since 1979. The movement for secularism and atheism, for modern ideas and culture, for individual freedom, for women's liberation and civil liberties has been widespread and deep. Disgust for religion and the backward ruling culture is immense. Women and the youth are the champions of this battle; a battle that threatens the basic pillars of the Islamic system. The most hopeful signs and the most remarkable stimulus for change continue to come directly from Iranian women both in Iran and in exile. In Iran, women presented the first and the most effective challenge to the Islamic regime by courageously questioning the right of Islamic authority to define the conditions of their lives. Any change in Iran will not only affect the lives of people living in Iran, but will have a significant impact on the region and worldwide. Secularism is not only realizable, but also, after the experiences of Iran, Afghanistan, the Sudan and Algeria, is an urgent and pressing need and demand of the people of the region.

The answer to the question of Middle Eastern and Iranian women's liberation is secularism and the establishment of egalitarian political systems in Iran and in the region. Secularism has been and continues to be a pre-requisite for women's liberation. Our objectives must be:
The complete separation of religion from the state.

The elimination of all religious and religiously inspired notions from laws.

Religion to be declared the private affair of individuals.

The removal of any reference to a person's religion in laws, on identity cards and in official papers.

A ban on ascribing any religion to people, whether individually or collectively, in official documents and the media.

The elimination of religion from education.

A ban on teaching religious subjects and dogma or to the religious interpretation of subjects in schools.

And I should also like to add that we are not far from those days when women will be throwing away or burning the imposed veils, celebrating the overthrowing of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the beginning of a new era of secularism and an egalitarian society in Iran.

This was Adapted from the speech given by Azam Kamguian at the International Humanist & Ethical Union's International Women's Conference "Empowering Women" on 15 November 2003, in London - U.K. - MiddleEastWomen.Org

Women Insulted by Hugo Chavez's embraceof Iranian president Ahmadinejad:
Published on World War 4 Report - http://ww4report.com

Feminist dissent from Chavez embrace of Ahmadinejad
By WW4 Report
09/22/2006

From our correspondent Jennifer Fasulo:

Chavez's Shameful Embrace of Iranian President Ahmadinejad: Show Solidarity with the Women and People of Iran, not their Oppressors!

Hugo Chavez, one of the key important figures in the left populist movements spreading throughout Latin America, has publicly lauded and embraced Iranian president Ahmadinejad. (See "Two anti-US nations heap praise upon each other," AP [1], Sept. 17) It is moments like this, when feminists and any activists who care about women's liberation, are reminded of just how little women's lives matter in the world of patriarchal nationalist politics.

One expects Chavez to condemn all US war-mongering and threats against Iran. We can applaud as he uses the public stage to denounce Bush as a criminal who is out to dominate and destroy the world. But there is no excuse for declaring solidarity with a misogynist theocrat like Ahmadinejad. By embracing Ahmadinejad, Chavez is adding steam to the growing and dangerous alliance between left-wing and right-wing anti-imperialism. In this equation, the only thing that matters is one's opposition to US imperialism. Women's rights, worker's rights, student's rights-- the things that are supposed to matter to socialists and progressives-- be damned.

Apparently, Chavez, appears not to have noticed that the Iranian government has created one of the most brutal and misogynist regimes in modern history - turning Iran into a country where gender apartheid and sexist hatred of women has been enshrined in law, where women are still TODAY stoned to death for the "crime" of adultery, buried up to their necks and pelted in the face and head with stones until they die, where women have no right to divorce or child custody, are legally forced to veil under threat of physical beating or imprisonment, can't travel without the permission of a husband or father, where their testimony in a court of law is considered half that of a man, and where political dissent of any kind, for women and men, is punishable by imprisonment, often torture and death. This is the government that Chavez compares to his own as a "heroic nation," one which he deems, "revolutionary."

Chavez's lack of concern for women's rights under Islamic governments is reflective of the male left generally. The issue is not on the radar screen. If an ethnic or racial group were treated the way women in Iran or Afghanistan have been treated for the last 30 years, it would be widely and routinely denounced. But if its happening to women, its dismissed or excused as an issue of "culture." This insidious use of the word "culture" implies that women are brutally subjected not through force and violence, but because they or their "culture" wants it that way, and therefore it's okay and nothing to get upset about. This argument, aside from insulting the human spirit, which never passively accepts subjugation, is also profoundly ignorant of the actual conditions and historical facts in Iran. Any cursory investigation of Iranian society will show that the Iranian people are a people in utter revolt against their despotic rulers, with women leading the way.

For 27 years women have resisted and defied the Islamic regime's persecution of them, often at great risk to their lives. Along with an inspiring women's movement, there are strong, secular workers and student movements, all of them opposing not only the Islamic regime, but also the US threats of military attacks and sanctions on Iran.

How can Chavez, who considers himself a socialist and a defender of the downtrodden, align himself with the leader of such a reactionary regime, rather than the inspiring socialist and feminist movements which are fighting against it? It is a terrible political choice that he need not make. Chavez can and should renounce his solidarity with Ahmadinejad and place it with the people of Iran where it belongs. He should be standing, not by the side of the executioner, but by the side of the unjustly accused and condemned, like 17-year-old Nazanine Fatehi who awaits execution for the crime of defending herself and her niece from a gang of rapists. Or Kobra Rahmanpour who also awaits execution and writes in a public letter, "I have suffered enough - Please help me! I don't want to die. But right now I am more like a lifeless body who has forgot happiness and laughter in the scare from the execution rope - My only hope lies in people and my fellow humans." (see the International Committee Against Executions [2]) How must Kobra, and Nazanine feel to see Chavez throw his arms around their excecutioner?

Chavez's stance needs to be condemned by all progressive forces within the international community. One group that has already issued such a condemnation is the Worker Communist Party of Iran (WPI [3]). In a statement issued on September 14, they write, "We see the attempts by right-wing pro-America forces to overthrow Chavez and we value every bit of positive reform by the Chavez government in the interest of deprived and hungry people, but defending the murderous and terrorist leaders of the Islamic Republic, rolling out the carpet for them under the guise of anti-imperialism is nothing but throwing dust in the eyes of the people and covering up the brutal reality of the Islamic regime."

The WPI goes on to challenge the very notion that the Islamic Republic is an anti-imperialist force. "We must make it clear to Chavez and Castro that the Islamic current, without the support of the US government and western powers, could not have come to power - and without their help could not have stayed in power."

In these bleak times, many on the left see Chavez as the great hope for the world and are loathe to call into question his commitment to revolutionary politics. Chavez does deserve credit for the things he's done to improve the lives of poor people and curb the abuses of capitalism in Venezuela. Many feminists have also praised his economic initiatives for women and willingness to recognize the contribution of women's unpaid labor in the home. Recently, he passed a historic bill which would compensate women for their unpaid housework, something that socialist feminists have been fighting for decades. Yet these facts must also be balanced by other disquieting aspects of Chavez's politics. He has frequently been criticized for his authoritarian leadership, including by the Venezuelan women who are pushing him to make good on his promises.

In a manner disturbingly close to Bush and Ahmadinejad, he likes to claim that he has "god on his side." After the recall election in which Chavez triumphed over efforts by the opposition to unseat him, he declared, "God has spoken." And while some feminists have praised him as a champion of women's rights, others have pointed to his strong anti-abortion stance, which included an attempt to create an anti-abortion amendment to the Venezuelan constitution.
Even the issue of paying women for housework is not clear cut. There has long been a debate within feminist circles as to whether this will have a liberating effect (raising women out of poverty) or whether it will further institutionalize women in the role of domestic servitude. All of these issues deserve to be reconsidered in light of Chavez~Rs alliance with an anti-feminist fundamentalist like Ahmadinejad.

We have to ask ourselves, what hope does Chavez represent, especially for women, if he's willing to align himself with a government that treats women like sub-humans? What hope do we have if we can't distinguish between revolutionary movements and the forces which seek to destroy them?

Precisely because things are so bleak right now and the forces of reaction and religious bigotry are on the rise around the world, we must not tolerate leftist alliances that seek to legitimize them. We must not allow the undermining of the women's liberation movement in Iran that is tirelessly fighting to save women's lives and break the chains of their legal imprisonment, nor the progressive revolutionary movements that are charting a third course between US domination and right-wing opposition to it. These are the movements that represent the true hope for the ideals of justice, equality and human liberation. Now, more than ever, we must stand up and defend them.

Source: ww4report.com/2525