Free speech in Bangladesh?

[solicitr]

Why, that's so kind, Vison. Given my original title, since edited, I think it was pretty clear my target was "radical Islamic theocracy."


--------

I must say, SW, that it appears that in every nation where Sharia is declared to be in part or in toto the law of the land, the Official Version adopted is cruel, brutal, and entirely at variance with civil liberties. Did you have some other version in mind?

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

And I was not arguing moral equivalence but the grim results of exercising free speech in all parts of the world. I was thinking of the victims not the perpetrators.
There is an impulse to violently silence anyone who disagrees all over the world. I agree that when it is bound up with the legal system it is so much more pernicious. That is why Amnesty International is a tiny spark of hope in a darkening world.

[solicitr]

And not necessarily violently, except by the implied threat of force possessed alike by all governments: vide Canada's out-of-control Human Rights Commissions cum Thought Police.

[vison]

And not necessarily violently, except by the implied threat of force possessed alike by all governments: vide Canada's out-of-control Human Rights Commissions cum Thought Police.

Well, I'm not so sure I'd describe it that way, but needless to say I think the whole thing is wrong from the get-go.

I wish the Conservatives, currently in power, had the gumption and/or the moral backbone to dismantle both the Commission and its enabling legislation. However, the issue is never that simple, each province has its own commission and in the recent case against Mark Steyn the complainers went shopping from province to province until they found one that would cooperate. I, personally, think Mark Steyn is a stain on the pavement of life, but I don't think he should be prosecuted.

[solicitr]

While on the subject of thoughtcrime vis a vis Israel:

Iranian Vice President Esfandiar Rahim-Mashaei has been summoned by parliament for having made pro-Israeli comments, Iran's ISNA news agency reported Tuesday.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1010890.html

[solicitr]

And this:

The lives of the prestigious members of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice are not easy. All day they have to be on the alert, patrolling the streets of Saudi Arabia with an eagle eyes, tuned in the slightest hint of impropriety among the thankful Saudi populace.

But sometimes, the whiff of vice hits too close to home, and the results can be tragic.

In this case, one of our heroes, an upstanding member of the Muttawa, found out a terrible secret that his sister had been keeping from him:

She had converted to Christianity.

The woman, named Fatma Al-Matairi, confided in her brother about her terrible secret, secure in the knowledge that he would be understanding and supportive.

Little did the 26-year old know that her brother, as a member of the Commission, has a much higher moral code than just brotherhood and support. Converting to Christianity is blasphemy, and is punishable by death.

So he killed her.

Now, Saudi Arabia has one less blasphemer, and our hero can sleep well knowing he did the right thing.

[superwizard]

Superwizard -- I'm always grateful when you step in!

So am I. It's always a good thing to hear from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

I don't equate acts such as the Oklahoma bombing or the bombings of abortion clinics with oppressive laws, though. The acts of individuals or even groups are not the same as oppression and tyranny by a state. It is one thing for a nutcase to kill someone he disagrees with, that doesn't alter or remove the right of free speech in the USA: even if the killer wants that right removed, or wants the law to force his point of view on everyone or rather wants the law to prevent any other point of view from being heard.

Thanks really I would post more often but usually someone on this board has already voiced my opinion on the matter in a much more articulate manner than I would have done!

I must say, SW, that it appears that in every nation where Sharia is declared to be in part or in toto the law of the land, the Official Version adopted is cruel, brutal, and entirely at variance with civil liberties. Did you have some other version in mind?

Oh I completely see you point solicitr! Yes as you can imagine I have a totally different idea in mind when it comes to shariah. If things were my way the first thing I would do is at least stop all capital punishments that are claimed to be based on Shariah. You can read Tariq Ramadan's (currently an Oxford professor and Muslim theologian) call for a moratorium here: http://www.tariqramadan.com/spip.php?ar ... 90&lang=en

His conclusion is:

This call for an immediate moratorium on corporal punishment, stoning and the death penalty is demanding on many fronts. We are defining it as a call to consciousness of each individual so that she/he realizes that Islam is being used to degrade and subjugate women and men in certain Muslim majority societies in the midst of collusive silence and chaotic judicial opinions on the ground. This realization implies:

A mobilization of ordinary Muslims throughout the world to call on their governments to place an immediate moratorium on the application of hudûd and for the opening of a vast intra-community debate (critical, reasonable and reasoned) between the ulamâ, the intellectuals, the leaders and the general population.

Taking the ulamâ to account so that they at last dare to report the injustices and instrumentalization of Islam in the field of hudûd and, in the name of fidelity to the Islamic texts, to put out a call for an immediate moratorium emulating the example of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab.

Promoting education of Muslim populations so that they go beyond the mirage of the formalism and appearances. The application of the repressive interpretations, measures and punishment does not make a society more faithful to the Islamic teachings. It is more the capacity to promote social justice and the protection the integrity of every individual, woman or man, rich or poor, that determines a truly authentic fidelity. The priority, according to the norms of Islam, is given to the protection of rights not to administering punishments which are meant to be implemented under strict and conditioned exceptions.

This movement for reform from within, by the Muslims and in the name of the message and reference texts of Islam, should never neglect listening to the surrounding world as well as to the inquiries that Islam raises in non-Muslim minds. Not to concede to responses from “the other”, from “the West”, but, in order to remain, in its mirror, more constructively faithful to oneself.

After that I would ask for a major reinterpretation of shariah bearing in mind the new (relatively at least) understandings of individual rights. There are already some scholars who attempt to do that currently (Dr. Abou el Fadl professor at UCLA comes to mind) but sadly the Wahabi ideology is both repressive and stifling and as such tries to stifle such discussions and debate (it is not coincidental that Tariq Ramadan is not allowed into Saudi Arabia or that Abou el Fadl's books are banned there). I won't go into a rant about this over hear but you can read Abou el Fadl's opinion in this LA Times article (http://www.scholarofthehouse.org/batlosantimj.html)

I would be glad to go into more detail about this if anyone wants

[Primula Baggins]

Swiz, I would love to hear more. Many of us (I'm one of them) have long known that we don't know as much about Islam as the media and others tell us we do.

Although I don't know what it's like to be demonized as Muslims have been recently (and other faiths in different places and times), as a politically liberal Christian I have certainly had the experience of having to explain to supposedly educated people that not all Christians are right-wing fundamentalists (and often feeling fairly sure that I made no impression whatsoever on their "highly educated" certainties about my lifelong religion, about which they apparently know more than I do).

[superwizard]

Thanks Prim

I have certainly had the experience of having to explain to supposedly educated people that not all Christians are right-wing fundamentalists (and often feeling fairly sure that I made no impression whatsoever on their "highly educated" certainties about my lifelong religion, about which they apparently know more than I do).

Exactly! I feel that so often nowadays. I'm frequently annoyed by people making claims about 'what Muslims believe' and other such crazy generalizations. In fact the internet is so ridiculously filled with useless dialogues that really the only place that I ever bother posting my beliefs is here on this board!

To take for example something that is commonly seen as part of Shariah: the so called punishment of death to an apostate of Islam. Now I will not deny the fact that this was sometimes seen as the law in previous times and that it still is the opinion of some scholars but my point is that it is not the only opinion that is out there. There are many scholars (especially who live in the west) who disagree with that opinion. A quick quote from Tariq Ramadan, who I previously alluded to before, during a Q&A session:

Q What about apostasy? What happens if you are born and educated a Muslim but then say: I have now decided that Islam is not for me. Would you accept that someone born into a Muslim family has a right to say that they no longer believe, and that families and communities must respect that?

A I have been criticised about this in many countries. My view is the same as that of Sufyan Al-Thawri, an 8th-century scholar of Islam, who argued that the Koran does not prescribe death for someone because he or she is changing religion. Neither did the Prophet himself ever perform such an act. Many around the Prophet changed religions. But he never did anything against them. There was an early Muslim, Ubaydallah ibn Jahsh, who went with the first emigrants from Mecca to Abyssinia. He converted to Christianity and stayed, but remained close to Muslims. He divorced his wife, but he was not killed.

It is different for someone who becomes a Muslim during a war with the purpose of betraying Muslims. They are committing treason. This is why the context is so important because the Prophet never killed anyone because he changed religion. From the very beginning, Muslim scholars understood this. Islam does not prevent someone from changing religion because you feel that this is not right for you, or if you are not happy. There are two records of the Prophet saying that someone changing religion should be killed. But both sources are weak. The most explicit one—"He who changes his religion, kill him"—was not accepted as being authentic by Imam Muslim, [one of the top six biographers of the life of the Prophet].

Q But what you say is not accepted in many predominantly Muslim countries.

A No, you are right, it's not the majority position. It has not been the majority position for centuries. But now in our situation we have scholars and people more and more speaking about that. I wrote 15 years ago saying: this is not the only position we have in Islam.

link

So my point is simply that you really can't generalise with things like this because unlike regular law which is very clear cut these things are all open to interpretation and it really depends on the way you look at these things and the context you approach them in.

I hope I made any sense...

eta: thought this link with statements by over 100 Muslim scholars (both sunni and shi'i) who all say apostasy shouldn't be punishable by death link might be helpful in showing that there are scholars who are trying to reform shariah.

[superwizard]

dp

[solicitr]

You know, I've been subject to much the same myself, if to a considerably lesser degree, in a triple-whammy: as a Christian among intellectual sophisticates, as a Catholic among Southerners, and as a Southerner among intellectual sophisticates.

But, Superwizard, how are decent, moderate Muslims going to avoid being steamrolled by Wahabi expansion, with its immense Saudi funding; and get out from under 'spokesmen' and 'advocacy groups' who are merely fronts for the Muslim Brotherhood?

Take a look at An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America (English follows the Arabic)-especially items like

4- Understanding the role of the Muslim Brother in North America:
The process of settlement is a "Civilization-Jihadist Process" with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions.

This is straight from the horse's mouth, not some paranoid fantasy concocted by Islamophobes. So where is the distancing, where are the denunciations of the MB front groups named in this document? Cannot a genuine Muslim 'NAACP' arise which forthrightly condemns this philosophy and its adherents?

[superwizard]

But, Superwizard, how are decent, moderate Muslims going to avoid being steamrolled by Wahabi expansion, with its immense Saudi funding; and get out from under 'spokesmen' and 'advocacy groups' who are merely fronts for the Muslim Brotherhood?

I agree that there are many difficulties facing Muslims in the US and one of them is simply the reliance of Wahabi money. It is just so easy to get things funded that way (or used to a decade or so ago) and many regular average Muslims were lured into it. Its quite sad really.

Take a look at An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America (English follows the Arabic)-especially items like

4- Understanding the role of the Muslim Brother in North America:
The process of settlement is a "Civilization-Jihadist Process" with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions.

First thing first: this is really a very disturbing article. I'm quite surprised I haven't heard of it before. Do you have any information on where it was found or any news clips on it or anything? I mean I've known of people connected to the Muslim Brotherhood in the US claim that they wish for all of the US to convert to Islam but they meant it in a gradual uncoerced way the way you might here certain christains for example say that they want all americans to become christian. So the true question is how do they plan on going about doing what they claim they want to do? Do they want to do it via preaching and other such normal methods or do they want to try and use force to achieve their goals? If it is the former, while I still disagree with them, it is less threatening then if it is the latter. I only glanced through the article quickly but I don't think I read anything about promoting violence...

This is straight from the horse's mouth, not some paranoid fantasy concocted by Islamophobes. So where is the distancing, where are the denunciations of the MB front groups named in this document? Cannot a genuine Muslim 'NAACP' arise which forthrightly condemns this philosophy and its adherents?

Now to be fair there are many Muslim leaders and thinkers here in the US who have said that that is not their aim and they simply want to live in peace with everyone else. I'm sure many many scholars don't agree with these goal's but instead of calling for change from outside they attempt to convince those moderate muslims who probably agree with them in the first place but without being completely cast as an 'outsider'.

[solicitr]

This was a May 1991 memo was written by Mohamed Akram for the Shura Council of the Muslim Brotherhood. In the introductory letter, Akram referenced a "long-term plan…approved and adopted" by the Shura Council in 1987 and proposed this memo as a supplement to that plan and requested that the memo be added to the agenda for an upcoming Council meeting. It was first made public as part of the Government's evidence in the Holy Land Foundation trial this year.

Appended to the document is a list of all Muslim Brotherhood organizations in North America as of 1991:

1- ISNA = ISLAMIC SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA
2- MSA = MUSLIM STUDENTS' ASSOCIATION
3- MCA = THE MUSLIM COMMUNITIES ASSOCIATION
4- AMSS = THE ASSOCIATION OF MUSLIM SOCIAL SCIENTISTS
5- AMSE = THE ASSOCIATION OF MUSLIM SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS
6- IMA = ISLAMIC MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
7- ITC = ISLAMIC TEACHING CENTER
8- NAIT = NORTH AMERICAN ISLAMIC TRUST
9- FID = FOUNDATION FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
10- IHC = ISLAMIC HOUSING COOPERATIVE
11- ICD = ISLAMIC CENTERS DIVISION
12- ATP = AMERICAN TRUST PUBLICATIONS
13- AVC = AUDIO-VISUAL CENTER
14- IBS = ISLAMIC BOOK SERVICE
15- MBA = MUSLIM BUSINESSMEN ASSOCIATION
16- MYNA = MUSLIM YOUTH OF NORTH AMERICA
17- IFC = ISNA FIQH COMMITTEE
18- IPAC = ISNA POLITICAL AWARENESS COMMITTEE
19- IED = ISLAMIC EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
20- MAYA = MUSLIM ARAB YOUTH ASSOCIATION
21- MISG = MALASIAN [sic] ISLAMIC STUDY GROUP
22- IAP = ISLAMIC ASSOCIATION FOR PALESTINE
23- UASR = UNITED ASSOCIATION FOR STUDIES AND RESEARCH
24- OLF = OCCUPIED LAND FUND
25- MIA = MERCY INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
26- ISNA = ISLAMIC CIRCLE OF NORTH AMERICA
27- BMI = BAITUL MAL INC
28- IIIT = INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR ISLAMIC THOUGHT
29- IIC = ISLAMIC INFORMATION CENTER

[superwizard]

hmm but the question remains: why should we be afraid of them any more than anyone else striving for reform in the US? What do they really mean by destroying the western civilisation and do all the groups that you've listed agree with them on this mission (the note said organizations that were 'friendly' towards the Muslim Brotherhood but that does not make them MB organizations. If they mean they want to change certain ethics and western ways of living then what sets them apart from other groups trying to do that (for example the christian right)?

[solicitr]

I'm not sure I would quite use "reforming" to describe "eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within .... so that it is eliminated". That's a bit like saying the Inquisition wanted to 'reform' Protestantism.

The Christian Right certainly want (unacceptably) to impose certain religiously-based prohibitions on all of us, but that's rather a different thing from destroying and eliminating American civilization, don't you think?

It's true the list of organizations doesn't distinguish between 'ours' and 'friendly to us'- although I think a group 'friendly to' the MB would be one of rather suspect philosophy - but evidence of the MB linkage of many of the chief groups listed, such as ISNA and NAIT, has been turned up from many more sources than just one document. Several of the groups listed (IAP comes to mind) have since been convicted of terror-related offenses.

[Dave_LF]

The Christian Right certainly want (unacceptably) to impose certain religiously-based prohibitions on all of us, but that's rather a different thing from destroying and eliminating American civilization, don't you think?

On the contrary, I'd argue that many elements of the radical Christian Right have theocratic goals that would be tantamount to the destruction of American civilization if achieved, even if it were done without the type of violence we've seen from the radical Muslim right (but no, outlawing abortion and putting ID in the classroom would not qualify by themselves).