Islamic Injustice/Discrimination - The Shariah

[iris89]

Islamic Injustice/Discrimination - The Shariah

INTRODUCTION:

Originally I intended to write a short article showing the discrepancies and injustices of Shariah Law. However upon researching the subject I readily learned the evil outcomes were much worse than how I knew it as a child, and after receiving denials from Muslims (Sunni, I believe) to something I said with regard to the injustice of this law in the reporter Jill Carroll situation. Then, I realized much more was required to expose this horrible unjust law, so you will find in this article whom to contact to protest in some situations an and organization trying to rectify unjust situations, Amnesty International, INTERNATIONAL SECRETARIAT, Telephone [phone], Fax number [phone], 1 Easton Street, London WC1X 0DW, UK, www.amnesty.org.

To start off, here are some short news items of 2006 on the unbelievable case of Jill Carroll a kidnapped victim actually slated to be tried under Shariah Law.

Situation Information and Facts on Shariah Which Are Pertinent:

Situation Facts:

[1] Quote:
Boudai said Al-Rai had received a message from "sources close to the kidnappers." He said the message was not conveyed in a videotape, but "another method." He declined to how it was received and whether the message was delivered to Al-Rai's head office in Kuwait or its bureau in Baghdad - where Thursday's video of Carroll was received.

"Sources close to the kidnappers informed Al-Rai TV that the kidnappers have set a Feb. 26 deadline for their demands to be met or they will execute her according to Shariah," he said, referring to Islamic law. [source - Associated Press 02/102006]

[2] Quote:
People close to the kidnappers told the private TV channel earlier Friday that Carroll is "in a safe house owned by one of the kidnappers in downtown Baghdad with a group of women," Jassem Boudai told The Associated Press.

[3] Quote:
Kuwait TV: Carroll Kidnappers Set Deadline

KUWAIT CITY - The Iraqi kidnappers of American journalist Jill Carroll have set a Feb. 26 deadline for their demands to be met or they will kill her, the owner of Kuwait's Al-Rai television said Friday. People close to the kidnappers told the private TV channel earlier Friday that Carroll is "in a safe house owned by one of the kidnappers in downtown Baghdad with a group of women," Jassem Boudai told The Associated Press. [source - Associated Press on 02/10/2006]

As I previously said, the denials and sidestepping of obvious facts by some Muslims (Sunni, I believe) I spoke with just made me realize I was only seeing the tip of an iceberg. They threw up arguments that I had NOT provided sufficient facts, resorted to calling females half witnesses, of they are terrorist, etc. Just trying to rationalize the none rational injustice of the situation and Shariah Law.

Now most of the remainder of this article or should I say white paper will consist of short quotes on news items respect the unloving and injustice outcomes of Shariah Law or sometimes known as Hudood laws, and how they are not only unjust but designed to suppress women's rights. But first, some items of deficiencies and lack of love to look for when reading the news accounts.

DEFICINCIES AND LACK OF LOVE TO LOOK FOR IN NEWS ACCOUNTS:

[1] Only Islamic males can serve as a judge in a Shariah trial.

[2] Islamic authorities can issue a general FATAH which is especially efficient in rectifying situations in Islamic countries such as Iraq.

[3] Shariah Law does NOT have an effective appeal process; therefore, according to the greatest authority on law, Blackstone, any law without an effective appeal process is BAD LAW.

[4] Shariah Law does NOT provide for a trial by jury.

[5] Shariah law considers women only half human. How so? We all know that a witness is, i.e., someone who has personal knowledge of something that has happened; however, under Shariah Law, if this person happens to be a women, her testimony is only counted as one/half as valid as a man.

However, as I told one of the deniers, "There is no such thing in reality as a half witness; either one has seen, witnesses, something or he/she has not. Calling someone a half witness is an outright untruth and discrimination not only against the person so called, but against reality and truth. Wake up to the facts."

Here is a quote on the subject, "At trial, the judge questioned the defendant about the claim made against him. If the defendant denied the claim, the judge then asked the accuser, who had the burden of proof, to present his evidence. Evidence almost always took the form of the direct testimony of two male witnesses of good character (four in adultery cases). Circumstantial evidence and documents were usually inadmissible. Female witnesses were not allowed except in cases where they held special knowledge, such as childbirth. In such cases, two female witnesses were needed for every male witness. After the accuser finished with his witnesses, the defendant could present his own." [source - The Origins of Islamic Law by CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS FOUNDATION ]

My comment, "I clearly listed the injustice, a women being treated 2 nd. Rate to a man. There is no excuse for this at any time and/or place. And I know of what I speak as I personally experienced it. Now are you denying and/or sidestepping what I said with respect to the discriminated against females with regard to our testimony not being equal to that of a male which of course is both stupid and unjust and/or are you disputing the findings of Dr. David A. Kolb. Who in his research found no difference with respect the reliability and memory of women that would in any way disqualify them from making good witnesses."

[6] Shariah Law makes it illegal for a women to ride in a taxi or other public conveyance without a male member of her family; this is the ultimate suppression.

[7] Shariah Law as applied in some areas even condones raping a women if she is not covering her face or wearing a headscarf, and sentences women to death for killing their attacker, the rapist. I know this sounds unbelievable, but believe me it is true as you will see.

ACTUAL TWO WAY DISCUSSION WITH MUSLIMS [Sunni, I believe] ON FAILURE OF ISLAMIC AUTORITY IN IRAQ:

Now let's consider what the Islamic authorities in Iraq should have done immediately in this case and HAVE NOT DONE as of this date.

They should have issued a general FATWA (ÝÊæì) against the kidnappers of Jill Carroll and their accomplices before and after the fact which removed all rights of Islam from them, to use a Catholic term, excommunicated them. Now one may ask what would that accomplish.

First, the criminals would NOT be able to hold a Shariah since as per fact [1] Iin previous section 'only Islamic males can serve as a judge in a Shariah trial, and they would no longer be such.

Second, it would have brought tremendous pressure on the perverted criminals since as we all know Iraq is a Islamic country.

And here is an actual question I put to the deniers.
"Now do you agree or disagree that per Hadity, only members of Islam can serve as judges in Sharia cases? Let me hear your answer!" PS: this case really has me ticked off.

The denier's reply, "Only Muslims can serve as judges in Islamic Sharia Cases. What exactly does that prove?"

Well let's fact it, I have already shown the significance of this. Now on to the actual news cases in brief.

ACTUAL NEWS EVENTS - YOU BE THE JUDGE [IN NO PARTICULAR ORDER]:

KANO, Nigeria (Reuters) - A court in the northern Nigerian city of Kano has fined 45 motorcycle taxi riders for transporting women, in violation of a new rule to comply with Islamic Sharia law, a court official said on Friday. The ban on women passengers, brought in last year to make Kano state traffic laws compatible with Sharia, has caused controversy in the city, which is predominantly Muslim but has a sizable Christian community. Hisbah committees, or volunteers who help uphold Sharia, have clashed with motorcycle taxi riders caught with women passengers. Women are supposed to ride in special motorised...

And,

Sudan: Criticising Islam & death threat over a woman
On September 26th members of Islamic government of Sudan issued a fatwa on best-selling author Kola Boof, a Sudanese woman's writer who lives in California. The details of the fatwa: Kola Boof has been found guilty of "Blasphemy and Treason" Ms. Boof is to be beheaded. The matter was ratified by the following: Hassan Turabi (National Islamic Front), Ali Muhammad Taha (NIF), Sharif al-Tuhami (NIF) Tanzim Wasti (London's Sudan Committee), Saad Faqih and Mohammed Sobieh.
Kola Boof points out that she has not been Muslim since around 10 and that the men issuing the fatwa are not qualified to do so. Ms. Boof states that she has been receiving "death messages" and warnings to "shut up" from Sudanese government officials by telephone since February 2002. Leader of the NIF, Hassan Turabi, under house arrest by Khartoum Regime has been especially threatening Boof.
A diplomat from Sudan's government, Gamal Ibrahaim, wrote a scathing article about Kola Boof in London's largest daily Arabic newspaper, "Al-Sharq al- Awsat in which he basically called Kola Boof, "a blasphemer of Islam" "mentally unstable"..."a prostitute" and "a liar".
Kola says that after nearly a year of constant intimidation tricks, death threats and an attempt on her life, they should not only drop the fatwa but do it publicly, so that she could believe it. [source - www.secularislam.org/women/bulletin8.htm#Pakistan]

And,

Nosrat Abouii, a woman who was stoned in Yazd prison managed to escape while she was being stoned but was arrested immediately by the government and put in jail.
According to Islamic Sharia, women are buried up to their armpits for stoning, while men are buried up to their waist. Earlier, on September 25, Goli Nik-Khou was stoned to death after serving her 15 -year sentence in the town of Naqadeh, western Iran.
At the moment there are four women - Ferdows, Ashraf, Sima and Shahnaz - in prison waiting to be stoned to death.
[source - www.secularislam.org/women/bulletin8.htm#Pakistan]

And from BBC,

I have been wrestling with the rights and wrongs of attitudes expressed by Muslim spokesmen, both here in the United States and around the world, since the World Trade Center attack last year. I am not a Muslim, or an expert on Islam, but I have been trying to understand how the world looks from an "Islamic" or "Arabic" perspective. I've wanted to understand why so much public commentary by Muslim spokesmen sounds wrong to my Western ears. I've concluded that much of the Islamic world is doing a poor job of facing up to some grim realities, and doing a good job of blaming everyone else (especially the US and Israel) for their self-inflicted injuries.

So here is my message to the Islamic world. I believe you need to do the following:

1) Acknowledge that every nation of significance that has embraced Islam as the state religion, and has tried to govern according to the laws of Sharia, is a miserable failure. Egypt, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia: These are totalitarian nations that repress their own citizens every bit as savagely as did the former Soviet Union. Citizens in these countries have no freedom, no rights, and no hope for a better life. They cannot speak freely. They can be arrested, imprisoned, tortured, or killed for any reason. The governing authorities can even order mass slaughter of their own people at will (witness Syria).

See Page 2 of Islamic Injustice/Discrimination - The Shariah

[iris89]

Page 2 of Islamic Injustice/Discrimination - the Shariah


Part of the reason for the abject failure of these nations is the tribal origins of their peoples. After communism, tribalism has been responsible for more slaughter and suffering than any other single cause in history. Tribal communities are, by definition, barbarian. True civilization arises only when tribal limitations are relegated to the dustbin of history.

Another reason for their failure is Islam itself. The laws of Sharia assume that the highest principle of governance is justice, not freedom. Justice, in this case, means that decisions are made by religious authorities in consonance with the teachings of the Koran. There are no checks on the power of these authorities, as their mandate is given as coming straight from God. Thus Sharia forbids the notion of rule by the people, with laws being made by the people and their elected representatives.

In contrast, Western civilization holds freedom as the highest principle of governance. Government is by the people, for the people. Laws are made by the people and their elected representatives. Western civilization, and especially American civilization, is based on the concept of preserving freedom by limiting powers through a system of checks and balances. Laws are, deliberately, man made, not taken as coming from God, although religious (Judeo-Christian) teachings are influential in guiding legislation.

The bottom line is that no successful civilization of significant size can exist without the separation of church and state. The weight of history has demonstrated this over and over again, as the utter failure of Islamic nations shows. Sharia prohibits this separation, therefore Sharia must be discarded.
[source - muslimpundit.blogspot.com/2002_08_01_muslimpundit_archive.html , Muslimpundit.com]

Legislation allows the Sharia court to hear any criminal case that falls under Islamic laws called the Hudood laws. These cases include rape and adultery. [source - BBC]

And,

An Islamic cleric in Denmark has demanded that all girls from Muslim families be circumcised. Mustafa Abdullahi Aden said: "It is good for girls to be circumcised. It is a sign that they are true Muslims." He recommended a method that involves the removal of both the clitoris and the labia. The imam said that Islamic tradition must take precedence over Danish law.
His remarks provoked a backlash among the mainstream leaders of Denmark's political parties. Main party leaders demanded that doctors inspect the girls at school, and if it is found that they have been mutilated, their parents must be prosecuted.
FGM is against the law in Denmark, although there is little that the authorities can do to stop parents sending their daughters on "holiday" to countries that where the barbarism is legal.
The Right-wing nationalist Danish People's Party demanded that girls who are found to have been genitally mutilated should be taken away from their parents, placed in foster homes, and the parents expelled from the country. But school doctors resisted the call, saying that enforced examination would simply keep the children away from school.
Danish health authorities estimate that about 3,000 girls up to the age of ten are at risk.
[Source: Newsline 15 November 2002, the National Secular Society- UK]

And - Shariah and Religious Freedom,

Faithfreedom.org ^ | 2/20/2009 | Khaled Waleed
This is how we treat the infidels in Saudi Arabia: We abuse the non-Muslims living and working in Saudi Arabia all the time, especially the Christians and the Jews. We call them grandsons of pigs and monkeys. We say this openly, everywhere, particularly in mosques. We do not respect any religions except Islam. This is the Saudi official policy: all religions other than Islam are false. Only Islam is the true religion. To accomplish this extremely bigoted notion, the Saudi state policy is to convert to Islam as many infidels as possible. So, proselytising for Islam is a major activity...

And,

News24 (South Africa) ^ | 27 January 2006 | News24
Islamabad - A Pakistani court has sentenced an Afghan national to amputation of his hand and foot under Islamic "Hudood law" after finding him guilty of robbery, a news report said on Friday. The daily Dawn reported that the lower court judge in the Northwestern Frontier Province (NWFP) directed that Ajab Khan's right hand from the wrist and his left foot from the ankle be chopped off as punishment for the crime. Additionally, Khan will undergo a five-year jail term and shall have to pay a fine of about $500. Khan, a resident of Afghanistan's eastern Jalalabad city, robbed a...

And,

Newsmax ^ | February 5, 2006 | Carl Limbacher, et al.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is warning that Western countries must increase their defense budgets in order to prevent the rise of a "global extremist Islamic empire" that could be as deadly as Hitler's Third Reich. Speaking at a global security conference in Munich on Saturday, the U.S. defense chief said that Islamic radicals "seek to take over governments from North Africa to Southeast Asia and to re-establish a caliphate they hope, one day, will include every continent. "They have designed and distributed a map where national borders are erased and replaced by a global extremist Islamic empire," he added....

And,

7 January 2006 -- Iran's "Etemad" newspaper reports today that an 18-year-old woman has been sentenced to death by hanging for killing a man she said was trying to rape her.

The newspaper reported that the woman, identified only as Nazanin, testified during her trial that she and her niece were out with their boyfriends when they were accosted by two men who chased away the boyfriends then tried to rape the two young women.

Nazanin admitted stabbing one of the men to prevent her and her niece from being assaulted.

Nazanin was only 17 years old at the time, but under Iranian law a boy can be executed from the age of 15 and a girl from the age of nine.

At least 81 people were executed in 2005 in Iran, which has been heavily criticized within the international community for its laws and practices on capital punishment. [source - AFP]

And,

Telegraph ^ | February 19 2006 | Patrick Hennessy and Melissa Kite
Four out of 10 British Muslims want sharia law introduced into parts of the country, a survey reveals today. The ICM opinion poll also indicates that a fifth have sympathy with the "feelings and motives" of the suicide bombers who attacked London last July 7, killing 52 people, although 99 per cent thought the bombers were wrong to carry out the atrocity. Islamic law is used in large parts of the Middle East, including Iran and Saudi Arabia, and is enforced by religious police. Special courts can hand down harsh punishments which can include stoning and amputation. Forty per cent...

And,

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
/wiki/Image:Mukhtar_mai.jpg/wiki/Image:Mukhtar_mai.jpg
/wiki/Image:Mukhtar_mai.jpg/wiki/Image:Mukhtar_mai.jpgMukhtaran Bibi
Mukhtaran Bibi (??????? ?????) (c. 1972 - ) is a Pakistani woman from the small and impoverished village of Meerwala, located in the rural tehsil (county) of Jatoi in the Muzaffargarh District of Pakistan. Also known as Mukhtar Mai, Mukhtiar or just Mukhtaran, she was gang-raped on the demands of tribesmen - or by some accounts, on the orders of a panchayat (tribal council) - of a local clan known as the Mastoi. The Mastoi clan reportedly had bitter disputes with Mukhtaran's clan, the Tatla.
After the conviction of her attackers, Mukhtaran became a symbol for advocates for the health and security of women in her region, attracting both national and international attention to these issues. Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf awarded Mukhtaran a financial settlement of Rs.500,000 (about US$8000) which she used to build two local schools, one for girls and another for boys. There were no schools for girls in Mukhtaran's village before this and she never had the opportunity to get an education. Some Western donors have also come forward with contributions.

And,

By Sharon Lapkin
FrontPageMagazine.com | December 15, 2005
In Australia this week amidst anger over an Islamic man's rape conviction and the bashing of two Aussie life savers, working-class locals erupted in a rampage of anger and brawling in some of the worst racial riots in decades. But there is more to the story than is being repeated in the American mainstream media....
Four days after he set foot in Australia, the rape spree began. And during his sexual assault trial in a New South Wales courtroom, the Pakistani man began to berate one of his tearful 14-year-old victims because she had the temerity to shake her head at his testimony.
But she had every reason to express her disgust. After taking an oath on the Qur'an, the man - known only as MSK - told the court he had committed four attacks on girls as young as 13 because they had no right to say "no." They were not covering their face or wearing a headscarf, and therefore, the rapist proclaimed: "I'm not doing anything wrong."
MSK is already serving a 22-year jail term for leading his three younger brothers in a gang rape of two other young Sydney girls in 2002. In his own defence, he argued that his cultural background, was responsible for his crimes.

And,

There is only one ISLAM
Worldwide Media | Ginne
Posted on 12/23/2005 12:27:03 AM PST by Oledoy
"There is only one Islam"
Quote from the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils.
In an article published in the Australian newspaper (September 6, 2005) Australian Muslims made a public announcement of the formation of an Australian Islamic Political Party, and their policy to make Shariah (Islamic) Law the law for all Australians.
Shiite Muslim Mohammed Jomahaa cuts the head of his son with a sword during the annual ritual to mark Ashoura Day in the southern Lebanese town of Nabatiyeh,.
Tuesday March 2, 2004.
Shariah Law or Islamic Law contradicts with Australian culture in that;
§ Alcohol is forbidden.
§ Honour killing of daughters, wives and mothers for "sexual mis-conduct" is permitted (this includes being raped).
§ Women are inferior to men, for example, the value of a woman's testimony is half that of a mans.
§ Muslim men can have up to four wives, with his rights divine. Punishment for leaving the religion is death.
While some believe this is only true of militant or extreme Muslims, moderate Muslims share exactly the same goals and values. For example, Islam is promoted through war; as shown in quotes from the English translation of the Holy Quran (Koran), published by Penguin Classics (1997).
1. I [Allah] shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels [Non-Muslims]. Strike off their heads; strike off the very tips of their fingers. That is because they defied Allah and His apostle. (8:12)
2. Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. But you may hate a thing although it is good for you, and love a thing although it is bad for you. Allah knows, but you know not. (2:216)
3. The true believers [Muslims] fight for the cause of Allah, but the infidels fight for the devil. Fight then against the friends of Satan. (4:76)
4. Believers [Muslims] make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them. Know that Allah is with the righteous. (9:123)
5. Prophet [Muhammed], make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate. (9:73)
In Europe, Muslims numbers have doubled over the last 30 years and now make up more than a quarter of the population of Marseilles and 15% in Paris and Brussels. Within a decade, Muslims will form the bulk of the population in Amsterdam and Rotterdam. However, Muslim numbers will not swell purely through immigration, but also through their high birthrate. For example, the most popular boys name in Brussels over the past four years has been Mohammed. It has been predicted that by 2070 there will be a Muslim majority in Europe, first France, followed by the Netherlands, Spain and Germany. (The Weekend Australian, November 26-27, 2005).
The Australian Federal Government is funding the expansion of Islam in Australia with multi-millions of dollars for the development of Islamic schools, while funding to State Government schools and Tertiary Institutions decreases. Currently there are 100 Islamic schools in Australia. The NSW Education Dept. publications push the Muslim cause, for example the 2004 issue of Inform featured a Muslim girl wearing a scarf. The Education Resource Guide also features a Muslim girl in Muslim uniform. However, there has not been an equal emphasis of other religious groups like Christians or Jews.
Racist rapes: Finally the truth comes out
So now we know the facts, straight from the Supreme Court, that a group of Lebanese Muslim gang rapists from south-western Sydney hunted their victims on the basis of their ethnicity and subjected them to hours of degrading, dehumanising torture. The young women, and girls as young as 14, were "very *friendly* persons" and "Aussie pigs", the rapists said. So now that some of the perpetrators are in jail, will those people who cried racism and media "sensationalism" hang their heads in shame? Hardly.
The journalists, academics, legal brains and politicians who tried to claim last August that the gang rapes of south-western Sydney were just a run-of-the-mill police blotter story being beaten up by racists, scaremongers and political opportunists don't ever want to acknowledge the truth about that ugly episode in Australian history. They don't want to acknowledge the fear and tension that ran through a part of Sydney they rarely visit and can never understand.
This newspaper was the first to report the story, which had been common knowledge in police and media circles, and it has never censored the race element.
Even last week, with the conviction of two brothers for their part in the gang rape of Miss D, who was 16 when she was held at gunpoint in a Greenacre park, there were media outlets that downplayed the story and air-brushed race from it. Yet the victims have been crying out for the truth to be told. In court on Friday, one victim gave another a card on which she had written you're an Australian," the rapists told her during the five-hour attack.It's just so inconvenient of the victims to insist on telling the truth. "I looked in his eyes. I had never seen such indifference," one 18-year-old victim, codenamed Miss C, told the court, remembering one of the 14 men who called her "Aussie pig", gang raped her 25 times over a six-hour period in Bankstown and Chullora, and then turned a hose on her. "I'm going to f*** you Leb style," he said.
Fourteen gang rapists have been convicted, or pleaded guilty, thanks to the courage of seven victims who testified for days in court as their tormentors smirked nearby, the men's families threatened them and defence lawyers suggested they had enjoyed the rapes. "They're very brave, very strong and very courageous young women," said Salvation Army Major Joyce Harmer, who held the hands of many of the victims through the trials. "They knew this was something they had to do."
These were racist crimes. They were hate crimes. The rapists chose their victims on the basis of race. That fact is crucial to this story. If the perpetrators had been Anglo-Celtic Australians, the furore would have been enormous. No newspaper would have left out that fact and you can bet the guilt and shame would have been spread far and wide.
Multiculturalism serves to encourage ethnic groups to form niche communities rather than assimilating into a homogenous society. Multiculturalism will never work in Australia with Muslims as they are prohibited from friendship with non-Muslims. (4:144, 5:51). There is no integration or assimilation with Multiculturalism.
Western Countries face the first defeat in history by non-military means. Australians like Europeans, face becoming a minority in their own country by demographic change due to population flows that we seem to have little say in. Your grandchildren will suffer the consequences of an unchallenged migration program that ensures we could not in the future, challenge the implementation of Shariah law.
WHY? Once any one group (ethnic or religious) become the majority it is their culture and ideals that become the norm and eventually legislated, which is called a DEMOCRACY. It is their voting majority right.
Did you know that 90-95% of the conflicts in the world today are Muslims fighting non-muslims or each other?
Islam is intolerant of other religions, so much so that Christians in Nigeria, Sudan and middle eastern countries are killed for practicing their religion. Muslims are also responsible for burning down their churches. Sydney has recently seen an attack on four churches for similar reasons. (December 16, 2005) How can we tolerate such intolerance?
WHAT YOU CAN DO
Learn more and educate yourself beyond the regular channels of information such as TV / Radio and daily newspapers.
Access citizens media via personal blogs, websites, radiocasts, alternative newspapers and avoid the politically correct filters currently enforced by so many outlets today. Join groups such as;
Support legislation/groups that demand integration/assimilation of new arrivals as a mandated minimum requirement.
Learn to view common "name calling' like racist, flag waver or patriot for what it is, an attempt to shutdown informed debate when someone cannot argue further with you and reverts to slurs.
Encourage discussion on immigration, with your friends, workmates and strangers. Immigration is not a taboo subject, nor does it make you "racist".
Contact the Government, start a petition and tell others.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
www.jihadwatch.org/
www.masada2000.org/islam.html
www.muslimsout.org/

And,

Iran: According to Iranian official press, since the beginning of this year, four women Ms. Shahnaz, Ms. Ferdows B and Ms. Sima and Ms. Ashraf have been sentenced to death in the most brutal form of execution according to Islamic law in Iran.
Nigeria: Amina Lawal Kurami, Fatima Usman, Ahmadu Ibrahim and Ado Baranda are now on the death Row of Islamic Sharia
We call upon all women/human rights organisations to protest against this Islamic cruel and inhuman treatment of women.
Please send your protest letters to:
Mohammad Khatami - Iran
Khatami, [e-mail]
[e-mail]
Fax: [phone]

See Part 3 of Islamic Injustice/Discrimination - The Shariah

[iris89]

Part 3 of Islamic Injustice/Discrimination - The Shariah

Olusegun Obasanjo, President of the Republic,
The Presidency, Federal Secretariat
Phase II, Shehu Shagari Way, Abuja; Nigeria
Fax: [phone] (press office), Email: [e-mail]
Alhaji Sule Lamido, Minister of Foreign Affairs,
Maputo Street, Zone 3 Wuse District, Abuja, Nigeria;
Fax: [phone].
Kanu Godwin Agabi, Minister of Justice, Ministry of Justice,
New Federal Secretariat complex Shehu Shagari Way, Abuja,
Federal Capital Territory, Nigeria;
Fax: [phone].
Alhaji Uman Musa Yar'adua,
Governor, Office of the Military Administrator,
Katsina, Katsina State, Nigeria.
Nigerian Embassy,
173 Avenue Victor Hugo
75016 Paris
Fax: [phone] or
[source - Committee to Defend Women's Rights in the Middle East Co-ordinator: Azam Kamguian.
Email: [e-mail] , [e-mail]/women, Tel: [phone],
Fax: [phone] , Web-site: www.eclipse.co.uk/women ]

And,

Daily Telegraph ^ | 23 Feb 2006
ANYONE who believes Islamic sharia law can co-exist with Australian law should move to a country where they feel more comfortable, Treasurer Peter Costello said today. All Australian citizens must adhere to the framework in society which maintains tolerance and protects the rights and liberties of all, he said. It is a pre-condition for citizenship of Australia. Mr Costello was giving a speech on the meaning of Australian citizenship to the Sydney Institute. "There is one law we are all expected to abide by," Mr Costello said. "It is the law enacted by the Parliament under the Australian Constitution. "If...

And,

www.rferl.org ^ | Saturday, 07 January 2006
Iran's "Etemad" newspaper reports today that an 18-year-old woman has been sentenced to death by hanging for killing a man she said was trying to rape her. The newspaper reported that the woman, identified only as Nazanin, testified during her trial that she and her niece were out with their boyfriends when they were accosted by two men who chased away the boyfriends then tried to rape the two young women. Nazanin admitted stabbing one of the men to prevent her and her niece from being assaulted. Nazanin was only 17 years old at the time, but under Iranian law...

And,

BBC ^ | 12-13-2005 | Ado Sale Kankiya
Nigerian women ignore bike ban Women say there is no public transport alternative Women in the northern Nigerian state of Kano are ignoring a ban stopping them travelling on public motorbike taxis. On Monday religious authorities began implementing the ban passed earlier this year. In accordance with Sharia law, men and women are not allowed to travel together on public transport. The women say there are not enough public transport alternatives in the state that adopted Sharia law in 2000. The BBC's Ado Sale Kankiya in the city of Kano says some 9,000 religious marshals are on the streets to...

And,

Recent developments
The Lahore high court ruled on 10 June 2005 that the rapists must be released. Just over two weeks later the supreme court suspended those acquittals and ruled that the men, along with six more who were acquitted at the original trial, would be retried. [1]
Also on 10 June 2005, shortly before she was scheduled to fly to London on the invitation of Amnesty International, Mukhtaran was put on Pakistan's Exit-Control List (ECL) [2], a list of people prohibited from traveling abroad, a move that prompted protest in Pakistan and around the world.
On 17 June 2005, Musharraf in a press conference in Auckland, New Zealand revealed that he had ordered the travel ban to protect Pakistan's image abroad.
Musharraf said Mukhtaran Mai was being taken to the United States by foreign non-government organisations ("NGOs") "to bad-mouth Pakistan" over the "terrible state" of the nation's women. He said NGOs are "Westernised fringe elements" which "are as bad as the Islamic extremists". [3]
On 15 June 2005, Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz ordered Mukhtaran's name removed from the ECL (Mukhtaran allowed to go abroad, NA told). However, it was reported on 19 June 2005, by New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, that as Mai returned from the US embassy in Islamabad, after getting her passport stamped with a US visa, it was confiscated once again, rendering her unable to travel outside the country [4].
On 29 June 2005, on his personal web site [5] Musharraf wrote that "Mukhtaran Mai is free to go wherever she pleases, meet whoever she wants and say whatever she pleases."
On 2 August 2005, the Pakistani government awarded Mukhtaran the Fatima Jinnah gold medal for bravery and courage.
On 2 November 2005, The US magazine Glamour named Mukhtaran as their Woman Of The Year. Upon her visit to the United States, President Musharraf told the Washington Post that claiming rape had become a "moneymaking concern" in Pakistan. Musharraf denied making the comment, prompting the Post to issue a tape of the interview.[6]
On 12 January 2006, Mukhtaran Mai published her memoir with the collaboration of Marie-Thérèse Cuny under the title "Déshonorée". The originating publisher of the book is OH ! Editions in France and her book is published simultenaously in german by Droemer Verlag under the title "Die Schuld, eine Frau zu sein".
On 12 January 2006, To coincide with the publication of her memoir, Mukhtaran Mai will be in Paris (France) from the 12th to the 17th January. She will be attending a press conference on Thursday 12th, at the headquarters of The International Federation for Human Rights.
Mukhtaran was originally slated to speak at the United Nations on 20 January 2006, but the UN postponed the visit at the last minute after Pakistan complained that her appearance was scheduled for the same day as a visit by Aziz. The UN wanted to move it to sometime after 24 January, but since Mukhtaran was due to leave New York on 21 January, Islamabad's complaint effectively cancelled the visit. She claimed she was not going to say anything bad about Pakistan or its government. "I was just going to talk about my work and what people are doing," she told the Times. Aziz claimed he didn't know that Mukhtaran was due to appear. [note, no effective appeal mechanism in Shariah, had to go to secular court].

And,

For doubters with respect any case I have mentioned or those just wanting more information,
Contact Amnesty International, INTERNATIONAL SECRETARIAT, at 1 Easton Street, London WC1X 0DW, UK

Telephone [phone]

Fax number [phone]

Or go to their web site www.amnesty.org

CONCLUSION:

No one has any need to educate himself/herself with regard to any unjust law to know that it is unjust, please get real. TRUE Justice is NOT suppression of women. LET'S GET THIS STRAIGHT..[NOTE, I was actually accused by some of the deniers of claiming to be a scholar with regard Islam; however I am neither a scholar of Islam, nor do I claim to be. I am actually a Bible scholar and an individual out for true justice exercised in love, a quality apparently lacking in the Quran and Hadith].

Let's face it members of Islam get overly excited about little things with respect silly cartoons, but a big thing, an terrible injustice, they do not react to. In other words, they strongly react when they should NOT, but fail to react when they should.

This is a good point.
"While it's fair to remark that many Muslim associations, sheiks etc have condemned kidnappings and killings etc, I haven't seen millions of Muslims in the streets getting excited about this (let alone burning down the Embassies of the countries whose citizens are respondible for these crimes)" [source - another].

I find it strange that so far no one has addressed the Sharia case of newspaper women Carroll which of course is an extreme injustice. It can not be passed off by saying the judges are terrorist as first of all since they are invoking Sharia law they are Muslims. Remember per Hadith only members of Islam can invoke Sharia and act as judges in Sharia cases.
Let's face it members of Islam get overly excited about little things with respect silly cartoons, but a big things, such as terrible injustices, they do not react to and in many cases actually condone as shown by the news quotes in this article. In other words, as I previously said, they strongly react when they should NOT, but fail to react when they should. And this, when it is a salient violation of the principles expressed in Hadith. Something is rotten in Denmark so the saying goes, here!

One Muslim [Sunni, I believe] actually said this of Shariah and I am making it apart of my article so you can see the absurd thinking with respect Shariah:

"When we practice the rules of Shari`ah, we must keep in mind the objectives of Shari`ah; yet very often, we follow the rules but we ignore and overlook the spirit and real purpose of those rules. The following are examples:

1. The Qur'an speaks about taharah (purification), ghusl (purificatory bathing) and wudu' (ablution): We take these rules and apply them, but we do not take the objective of cleanliness very seriously.

2. We pray in jama`ah (congregation), but we have not learned the system of organization from our salah.

3. We give zakah, but we have not been able to establish a system of social justice.

4. We go for Hajj, but we have not been able to develop a unified Ummah, a community that transcends nationalistic divisions.

5. We recite the Qur'an many times, but we do not try to understand its meaning and message.

6. We talk of the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) but this is mostly related to appearances. We pay little attention to Prophet's character of love, kindness, honesty, truthfulness, sincerity, fulfilling promises, and so on."

It is our responsibility to know the rules of Allah and put them into practice with sincerity. But before anything, we should ask ourselves if we are really practicing justice. Are we really fair to others, to our spouses, to our relatives, to our neighbors, employees, employers, to Muslims, to other human beings, to animals, to anything and everything? Are we really compassionate people? Are we really increasing in compassion or are we becoming angry, hateful, arrogant, or complacent about ourselves? We must improve ourselves in justice and compassion. If we do not have `adl (justice) and ihsan (compassion) or rahmah (mercy), then we are not practicing the Shari`ah. Similarly, if we think that we are following the law of Allah but the result is injustice and lack of compassion, then it means that we have not properly understood the law of Allah or we are not interpreting it right."

Apparently there is no "light at the end of tunnel" in areas where Shariah is in force. Why? Simple Shariah Law turned off the light of true justice and love.

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

[iris89]

Arab-American Says Shariah Law Belongs to the Middle Ages Not the Modern Age:

INTRODUCTION:

An outspoken Arab-American Doctor of Psychiatrist blames medieval Shariah Law for holding back many Muslim countries and declares it concepts, ever in the background, for preventing progress in the Muslim world in a major speech on Al-Jazeera. Doctor Wafa Sultan, a Syrian-American psychologist from Los Angeles, put the blame for lack of progress on a clash between two opposite eras.

CLASH OF MENTALITIES BETWEEN THAT OF MIDDLE AGES AND 21 ST. CENTURY:

Dr. Sultan clearly stated the clash we are witnessing is not a clash of religions, or a clash of civilizations; but a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21 st. century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality.

She made it clear that it is a clash between freedom and oppression, between democracy and dictatorship. In other words, it is a clash between human rights and rights of women, on the one hand, and the violation of these rights, on the other hand as witnessed recently in Nigeria and Iran.

It is a clash between those who treat women like beasts and use Shariah Law as the justificanion, and those who treat them like human beings.

At that, the Al-Jazeera host then asked: "I understand from your words that what is occurring today is a clash between the culture of the West, and the backwardness and the ignorance of many Muslims?"

Doctor Wafa Sultan answered, "Yes, that is exactly what I mean."

In saying this and directly inditing 7/8 th. Century Shariah Law as a thing belonging to the Middle Ages, Doctor. Wafa Sultan voiced truths that many Muslims well know: That their civilization is, in many places, in turmoil, falling further behind the world in science, education, industry, and innovation, while falling everr deeper and deeper into the grips of crackpot clerics, tin-pot dictators, violent mobs and such madman as the likes of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

DEMOCRACY NOT THE CUREALL:

Doctor Wafa Sultan made the point that, whereas, President Bush of the US keeps talking about Iraq and the Arab world as if democracy alone is the cure and all that is needed is to get rid of a few bad apples; however, this is an over simplification. The real problem is much deeper-we are dealing with a civilization that is still highly tribalized and is struggling with modernity. Yes, President Bush of the US is right in thinking it is important to assist Iraq become a model where Arab Muslims could freely discuss their real problems, the ones identified by Doctor Wafa Sultan, and chart new courses. His failing or crime was thinking it would be easy.

She said, "I do not know how Iraq will end, but I sure know that we are not going to repeat the Iraq invasion elsewhere anytime soon." Yet the need for reform in this region still is desperate and cries out. Yes, nurturing internally generated Arab models for evolutionary reform, and one of the best is Dubai, the Arab Singapore.

DUBAI AN EVOLUTIONARY MODEL FOR REFORM:

While Dubai is NOT a democracy, and it is not without its warts; yet it is a bridge of decency that leads away from the failing civilization I have previously described, said Doctor Wafa Sultan. It has cast out most of the links to Middle Age thinking and Shariah Law, and leads the way to a much more optimistic, open and self confident society. Dubaians are building a future based on butter, not guns; private property, not caprice; services more than oil; and globally competitive companies, not terror networks. Dubai is about nurturing dignity through success not suicide. As a result, its people want to embrace the future, not blow it up or burn it down.

That is why Arab progressives are stunned by our behavior. As an Arab businessman friend said to me of the Dubai saga: "This deal has left a real bad taste in many mouths. I mean this was Dubai, for God's sake! You could not have a better friend and more of a symbol of globalization and openness. If they are a security danger to the US, then who is not?"

So whatever happens with the Iraq experiment, but especially if it fails and it well may, we need Dubai to succeed. Dubai is where we should want the Arab world to go and leave the Middle Ages and Shariah Law behind. Unfortunately, the US Congress basically just told Dubai to go to h**l.

CONCLUSION:

What is so crazy about the current (March 2006) Dubai ports issue is that Dubai is precisely the sort of decent, modernizing model we should be trying to nurture in the Arab-Muslim world. However, we really have never had an honest discussion about either the real problems out there, to wit, a mentality and a law that belongs to the Middle Ages; and a modern mentality that belongs to the 21 st. century. We are seeing a clash between civilization and backwardness, between barbarity and the rational.

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

[Starjade]

Phew Iris that is a whole lot of data. I copied it to disc.

Fond regards Starjade

[iris89]

An intellectual Kshatriya-III
V SUNDARAM

The heroic story of the Quran petition

Sita Ram Goel was a fearless intellectual fighter who dedicated his life to the terribly important task of representing the collective suffering of the Hindus in India, testifying to their travails, reasserting their enduring presence and reinforcing their collective memory going back to the dawn of history. Through his powerful writings for more than four decades, he succeeded in explicitly universalising the Hindu crisis in India, thereby giving a greater scope for all round the world to see and understand the Hindu predicament in India. In this context, I cannot help recalling the work done by him to make the people of India aware of the facts and issues relating to The Quran Petition which came up before the Calcutta High Court 21 years ago.

Three heroic sons of India, namely Sri Chandmal Chopra, advocate of Calcutta High Court, Sri Hamangshu Kumar Chakraborthy and Sri Sital Singh filed an application in the Calcutta High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on 29 March, 1985, praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the State of West Bengal to declare each copy of the Quran, whether in the original Arabic or in its translation in any of the languages, as forfeited to the government.

In their petition they had stated, among other things, the following reasons for moving the above petition:

'In terms of Section 95 Cr P C read with Sections 153A and 295A I P C every copy of a book is liable to be forfeited to the government if the book contains words or sayings which promote, on ground of religion, disharmony, enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious communities or which outrage the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India or insult the religion or religious beliefs of that class of people. This is so whether the book is classic or epic, religious or temporal, old or new.'

'For example, the Quran incites violence by saying, 'Believers! make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Let them find harshness in you' (Surah 9: ayat 123) or by saying, 'Do not yield to the unbelievers, but fight them strenuously with this Koran' (Surah 25: ayat 52) or by saying, 'If you do not fight He will punish you sternly and replace you by other men' (Surah 9: ayat 39) or by saying, 'When the sacred months are over, slay the idol-worshippers, wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them and lie in ambush everywhere for them' (Surah 9: ayat 5)'.

The judgment in this case was delivered by Justice Bimal Chandra Basak of the Calcutta High Court on 17 May 1985. He dismissed the petition. If we carefully go through the case records, we get a very clear idea of the politics and pseudo-secularism of injustice reigning supreme in India after our independence on 15 August, 1947. The application was first moved before Justice Khastgir J of the Calcutta High Court. The learned Judge entertained the petition, gave directions for notice to the contending parties. Thereafter perhaps on account of political pressure from the Congress government in New Delhi and the Marxist government in Calcutta, the learned Judge chose not to proceed in this matter, releasing this matter from her list. As was expected Justice Bimal Chandra Basak dismissed the petition. This judge was also suitably rewarded by the Congress government. All that I am worried about is that there seem to be effective competitors to the likes of Buta Singhs and Natwar Singhs even in the field of judiciary in India!

On 18 June 1985, Chandmal Chopra filed an application in the Calcutta High Court for review of judgement dated 17 May 1985 given by Justice Bimal Chandra Basak. Aggrieved by some mistakes or errors apparent in the judgement dated 17 May '85, he gave a petition for review on the following grounds:

1. The findings in paragraph 28 of the judgment that the Quran is of divine origin and that the Quran has no earthly source, based as they are not on any evidence but on mere religious beliefs, are derogatory to the basic Constitutional principle of secularism and are therefore unconstitutional.

2. The finding given in paragraph 34 of the judgment that a court cannot sit in judgment on a holy book is unconstitutional.

3. A book, even if it be a book held sacred by any community living in India, loses protection of Sec 295 of the Indian Penal Code if its publication amounts to offences under Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code and should have been held accordingly.

4. The finding given in paragraph 31 that the Quran does not insult other religions is not correct in view of the various sayings of the book already quoted in para six of the Writ application.

5. The finding given in paragraph 37 of the judgment that Sec 153A I P C has no application in this case is not correct as the various sayings of the Quran, already quoted in para five of the Writ application, do promote, on grounds of religion, disharmony or feeling of enmity, hatred and ill-will between different religious communities.

Instead of going into the substantive merits of the fundamental issues raised in the case under review, Justice Bimal Chandra Basak of the Calcutta High Court peremptorily dismissed the review petition on 21 June, 1985 on the flimsiest technical ground of the time-barred nature of the review petition. I derive my inspiration to sit in judgement on the verdict of Justice Bimal Chandra Basak from the words of Lord Atkin in this context: 'Justice is not a cloistered virtue; she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments of ordinary men'.

After Justice Bimal Chandra Basak dismissed the famous Quran petition as also the review petition in June 1985, Sita Ram Goel compiled, edited and published a book entitled 'The Calcutta Quran petition' in July 1986. This book states the truth about the dastardly nature of the vote-bank politics of pseudo-secularism in India based on romantic infatuation for the minorities and congenital political hatred for the helpless Hindus in majority.

Soon after publication of the book in July 1986, Indra Sain Sharma, president of the Hindu Raksha Dal, Delhi, and Rajkumar Arya, secretary of the Hindu Raksha Dal, Delhi, were arrested under Sections 153A and 295A of the Indian Penal Code for publishing a poster which had cited 24 Ayats of the Quran under the caption, 'Why riots take place in the country?' They had added the comment: 'These Ayats command the believers (Musalmans) to fight against followers of other faiths' and that 'so long as the Ayats are not removed from the Quran, riots in the country cannot be prevented'. Unlike the hyper politically-inclined Judge of the Calcutta High Court Justice Z S Lohat, Metropolitan Magistrate of Delhi gave a landmark verdict discharging Rajkumar Arya and Indra Sain Sharma on 31 July, 1986. I give below the operative portion from his judgement:

'It is found that the Ayats are reproduced in the same form as are translated in the said 'Quran Majeed'. In my opinion the writer by writing the above words has expressed his opinion or suggestion and at the most it can be branded as a fair criticism of what is contained in the holy book of Mohammedans'.. With due regard to the holy book of 'Quran Majeed', a close perusal of the Ayats shows that the same are harmful and teach hatred and are likely to create differences between Mohammedans on one hand and the remaining communities on the other. In view of the above discussion, I am therefore of the view that there is no prima facie case against the accused as offences alleged against the accused do not fall prima facie within the four corners of Sections 153-A/295-A of the Indian Penal Code and hence both of the accused are discharged'.

The pseudo-secular tragedy created by the Congress and the other part behind it is that Sections 95 Code of Criminal Procedure (CRPC) and Sections 153 A and 295 A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) are meant to be used by every government only against the majority Hindus and not against the minority Muslims and Christians in India. The best way to protect the Hindus of India is to amend the CRPC and IPC, deleting these provisions.

As an enlightened citizen, I am firmly of the view that the so-called 'law' which prohibits Hindus from having a public discussion on the Quran, embodies a disability which was once imposed upon them at the point of the sword. The law courts cannot be helpful so long as that lawless law remains on the statute book. Its repeal is a task to be undertaken by an informed public opinion. India is a democracy in which the historical sword of Islam is not supposed to have any sway. Moreover, it has to be borne in mind that there is a court higher than the Calcutta High Court or the Supreme Court of India or the purely transitory pseudo-secular UPA anti-Hindu government in New Delhi. That is the court of human reason, of human values, of human conscience, of human aspiration for a purer and loftier life. The Quran should be taken up for review by that court.

As an intellectual Sita Ram Goel fought relentlessly for upholding certain values: honesty, rigour of thought and conscience, and a sublime disdain for dogma. To conclude in the beautiful words of the 'intellectual Kshatriya' Sita Ram Goel: 'Islam in India is still suffering from the high fever of self-righteousness, though lately it has shifted its claim from the 'only true religion' to the 'only human brotherhood'. Powered by petro-dollars, is it again dreaming of an empire in India? . Will Hindu society have to pay the price again?'

(concluded)
(The writer is a retired IAS officer)
e-mail the writer at
[e-mail]

www.newstodaynet.com/2006sud/06mar/1403ss1.htm

[iris89]

Arab-American Says Shariah Law Belongs to the Middle Ages Not the Modern Age:

INTRODUCTION:

An outspoken Arab-American Doctor of Psychiatrist blames medieval Shariah Law for holding back many Muslim countries and declares it concepts, ever in the background, for preventing progress in the Muslim world in a major speech on Al-Jazeera. Doctor Wafa Sultan, a Syrian-American psychologist from Los Angeles, put the blame for lack of progress on a clash between two opposite eras.

CLASH OF MENTALITIES BETWEEN THAT OF MIDDLE AGES AND 21 ST. CENTURY:

Dr. Sultan clearly stated the clash we are witnessing is not a clash of religions, or a clash of civilizations; but a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21 st. century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality.

She made it clear that it is a clash between freedom and oppression, between democracy and dictatorship. In other words, it is a clash between human rights and rights of women, on the one hand, and the violation of these rights, on the other hand as witnessed recently in Nigeria and Iran.

It is a clash between those who treat women like beasts and use Shariah Law as the justificanion, and those who treat them like human beings.

At that, the Al-Jazeera host then asked: "I understand from your words that what is occurring today is a clash between the culture of the West, and the backwardness and the ignorance of many Muslims?"

Doctor Wafa Sultan answered, "Yes, that is exactly what I mean."

In saying this and directly inditing 7/8 th. Century Shariah Law as a thing belonging to the Middle Ages, Doctor. Wafa Sultan voiced truths that many Muslims well know: That their civilization is, in many places, in turmoil, falling further behind the world in science, education, industry, and innovation, while falling everr deeper and deeper into the grips of crackpot clerics, tin-pot dictators, violent mobs and such madman as the likes of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

DEMOCRACY NOT THE CUREALL:

Doctor Wafa Sultan made the point that, whereas, President Bush of the US keeps talking about Iraq and the Arab world as if democracy alone is the cure and all that is needed is to get rid of a few bad apples; however, this is an over simplification. The real problem is much deeper-we are dealing with a civilization that is still highly tribalized and is struggling with modernity. Yes, President Bush of the US is right in thinking it is important to assist Iraq become a model where Arab Muslims could freely discuss their real problems, the ones identified by Doctor Wafa Sultan, and chart new courses. His failing or crime was thinking it would be easy.

She said, "I do not know how Iraq will end, but I sure know that we are not going to repeat the Iraq invasion elsewhere anytime soon." Yet the need for reform in this region still is desperate and cries out. Yes, nurturing internally generated Arab models for evolutionary reform, and one of the best is Dubai, the Arab Singapore.

DUBAI AN EVOLUTIONARY MODEL FOR REFORM:

While Dubai is NOT a democracy, and it is not without its warts; yet it is a bridge of decency that leads away from the failing civilization I have previously described, said Doctor Wafa Sultan. It has cast out most of the links to Middle Age thinking and Shariah Law, and leads the way to a much more optimistic, open and self confident society. Dubaians are building a future based on butter, not guns; private property, not caprice; services more than oil; and globally competitive companies, not terror networks. Dubai is about nurturing dignity through success not suicide. As a result, its people want to embrace the future, not blow it up or burn it down.

That is why Arab progressives are stunned by our behavior. As an Arab businessman friend said to me of the Dubai saga: "This deal has left a real bad taste in many mouths. I mean this was Dubai, for God's sake! You could not have a better friend and more of a symbol of globalization and openness. If they are a security danger to the US, then who is not?"

So whatever happens with the Iraq experiment, but especially if it fails and it well may, we need Dubai to succeed. Dubai is where we should want the Arab world to go and leave the Middle Ages and Shariah Law behind. Unfortunately, the US Congress basically just told Dubai to go to h**l.

CONCLUSION:

What is so crazy about the current (March 2006) Dubai ports issue is that Dubai is precisely the sort of decent, modernizing model we should be trying to nurture in the Arab-Muslim world. However, we really have never had an honest discussion about either the real problems out there, to wit, a mentality and a law that belongs to the Middle Ages; and a modern mentality that belongs to the 21 st. century. We are seeing a clash between civilization and backwardness, between barbarity and the rational.

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

[iris89]

Freedom Vs. Backward Thinking of Shariah Law:

INTRODUCTION:

Every human being should have the right to freedom of conscience and religion and to do anything that does not hurt and/or endanger the rights, persons, or property of others. This was made clear in the Ten Commandments. However, many try and restrict and/or take away these rights in the name of one dictatorial barbaric religion or another. We saw this with the Catholic Church and its inquisitions, genocides, burning at the stake, Crusades, etc.

An today we still see it with respect Islam. Many Islamic fundamentalist seek to take away the rights of others and obfuscate the issue by saying show me where this is wrong in the Quran or the Hadith, but do not wish to deal with reality which is the right of freedom for all.

ONE MUSLIM DOCTOR OF PSYCHOLOGY CALLED IT A CLASH BETWEEN CIVILIZATION AND BACKWARDNESS:

Doctor Wafa Sultan in an interview on al-Jazeera said, "The clash we are witnessing is not a clash of religions, or a clash of civilizations; but a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21 st. century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality.

She made it clear that it is a clash between freedom and oppression, between democracy and dictatorship. In other words, it is a clash between human rights and rights of women, on the one hand, and the violation of these rights, on the other hand as witnessed recently in Nigeria and Iran.

It is a clash between those who treat women like beasts and use Shariah Law as the justificanion, and those who treat them like human beings."[source - re-run of an Al-Jazeera program]

LEGAL BRIEF OF THE PALM BEACH POST:

A legal brief in 'The Palm Beach Post' of Monday, March 20, 2006 shows how backward anti-freedom thinking results in serious injustices and the removal of freedom that every human has the right to, freedom of religion of his/her choice. It reported on an Afgan man, 41-year old Abdul Rahman who was put on trial for converting to Christianity. How absurd and not in keeping with the basic principles of freedom. The account said, "Abdul Rahman is being prosecuted in a Kabul court and could be sentenced to death on a charge of converting from Islam to Christianity, a crime under this country's Islamic laws (Shariah Law), a judge said Sunday."

The newspaper made the point that this trial highlights a struggle between religious conservatives and reformists over what shape Islam should take here four years after the ouster of the Islamic fundamentalist. This case highlights two things, Shariah Law is a farce and is being used to strip individuals of basic human rights guaranteed to them in the constitutions of most civilized nations. Strange, in civilized lands, Muslims demand their right to freedom of religion, but in their own lands, many seek to deny it to others.

None members of Islam are even forbidden from visiting some cities in Saudi Arabia; yet Muslims regularly visit centers of apostate (counterfeit) Christianity such as the Vatican, St. Mary, the Cathedrals in England and France, etc. without restriction due to religion. Now of course this is wrong, if you want freedom for yourself, you should also extend equal freedom to everyone else. As Jesus (Yeshua) said at Matthew 22:37-40, "Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." (Authorized King James Bible; AV).

OTHER HIGHLIGHTS OF RESTRICTION OF BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS:

In northern Nigeria women are being prohibited from riding in Taxis without a male family member, in many Muslim countries the right to build churches and other religious meeting places is being denied; whereas, in civilized countries freedom of religion is extended to all and Muslims are as free to build Mosques as are other religions to build churches or other forms of buildings for religious assembly.

In other words, the clash is between civilization and backwardness, and between the civilized and the primitive. In some Muslim lands women are actually forced to wear tent like clothing such as Burkas; note, the word is forced to and not a question of freedom of choice with respect the style of clothing they wish to use. Now if women desire to wear outlandish tent like clothing by choice, of course that should be their right, but they should NOT be forced to do so.

It gets so bad, that in some areas men feel they have the right to rape women who are not wearing what they consider proper attire. This fact came to light when one man from Pakistan moved to New South Wales, Australia, and went on a rape spree four days after he set foot in Australia as reported in FrontPageMagazine.com of December 15, 2005. In court, this wicked man even berated one of his tearful 14-year old victims because she had the temerity of shake her head at his testimony.

However, she had every right to express her disgust. This wicked man even told the court, "That he committed the four attacks on girls as young as 13 because they had no right to say "no." They were not covering their face or wearing a headscarf, and therefore, 'I'm not doing anything wrong.'" Of course the judge did not see it that way, nor would any right thinking individual. Now why would any one think this okay? Because of his Islamic cultural background which of course gives no consideration to the rights of women. All women have an absolute right to say "no" to being raped, and in fact a girl younger than 16 can not even give legal consent to con-sexual sex in most civilized countries.

FrontPageMagazine.com | December 15, 2005
In Australia this week amidst anger over an Islamic man's rape conviction and the bashing of two Aussie life savers, working-class locals erupted in a rampage of anger and brawling in some of the worst racial riots in decades. But there is more to the story than is being repeated in the American mainstream media....
Four days after he set foot in Australia, the rape spree began. And during his sexual assault trial in a New South Wales courtroom, the Pakistani man began to berate one of his tearful 14-year-old victims because she had the temerity to shake her head at his testimony.
But she had every reason to express her disgust. After taking an oath on the Qur'an, the man - known only as MSK - told the court he had committed four attacks on girls as young as 13 because they had no right to say "no." They were not covering their face or wearing a headscarf, and therefore, the rapist proclaimed: "I'm not doing anything wrong."
MSK is already serving a 22-year jail term for leading his three younger brothers in a gang rape of two other young Sydney girls in 2002. In his own defense, he argued that his cultural background, was responsible for his crimes.

SHARIAH LAW AGAINST BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS - THE PROOF:

One Muslim (Sunni) said,
<<"People arent put to death for changing their religion. They are put to death for apostasy. Two different things in Islam. doof. Changing religions is not punishable... Apostsy is defined as treason after one abandons his or her religion, which is also punishable by death in the USA and other western societies">>

Changing one's religion is in no way treason, but a basic human right. I was brought up in a mixed household, Roman Catholic and Muslim (Sunni), and when I got about seven years of age I could clearly see both were wrong, so I left both of them. One has the absolute basic human right to get out of any religion that he/she finds to be in error, and the liking it to treason against a nation clearly shows warped Medieval backward thinking that has absolutely no place in 21 st. century. It is just backwardness and primitive rationality for suppression of free thought and freedom of religion.

Trying to draw a technical difference between changing one's religion and abandoning one's religion is just plain silly 'crapola' as both are exactly the same thing, just as is calling a car an automobile so get real. This one statement that this poster made clearly shows the difference between barbarity of mental thought and the rationality of freedom of thought a basic human right as agreed to in the UN Charter. To imply that abandoning one's religion is treason is so utterly ridicules and this can clearly be seen by reference to the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Also, changing and/or abandoning one's religion is not treason in any way as made clear in the US Code of Federal Regulations and in the Uniform Code of the US Military so get real.

This one statement,
<<" ... Apostsy is defined as treason after one abandons his or her religion, which is also punishable by death in the USA">>

Clearly shows that Shariah Law is a Farce since it, per one Muslim (Sunni), incorporates such injustice against basic human rights which are nowhere found in the law of any civilized modern nation nor in the UN Charter or the European Union charter. Just as Doctor Wafa Sultan, a Muslim, said when being interviewed by Al_Jazeera, "The clash we are witnessing is not a clash of religions, or a clash of civilizations. It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21 st. century. It is a clash between civilizations and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality. It is a clash between freedom and oppression..." Is really proven true by this statement by a Muslim (Sunni). It clearly confirms what I have been saying all along that Sarah Law is un-just, insane, and unloving, no more proof required as his statement provided all the proof necessary to prove these facts.

All should consider a law of human freedom written long before the unjust Shariah Law by a religious freedom loving king, Cyrus the Great:

The first Charter of Human Rights written 2500 years ago
I am Kourosh (Cyrus), great king,...Now that I put the crown of the kingdom of Iran, Babylon, and the nations of the four directions on the head with the help of Ahura, I announce that I will respect the traditions, customs and religions of the nations of my empire and never let any of my governors and subordinates look down on or insult them while I am alive. ...I will impose my monarchy on no nation. Each is free to accept it, and if any one of them rejects it, I never resolve on war to reign. While I am the king...I will never let anyone oppress others,... I will never let anyone take possession of movable and landed properties of the others by force or without compensation. While I am alive, I will prevent unpaid, forced labour. Today, I announce that everyone is free to choose a religion....No one could be penalised for his or her relatives' faults...[source - an archaeological find of a royal decree by Cyrus the Great over 2,500 years ago].

OBFUSCIATING TACTICS AND CONCLUSION:

Some members of Islam do NOT want to admit that Shariah Law is a Farce based on actual events that happen because of it and the women downing culture it creates. They say show it to me in the Quran or Hadith knowing full well you are not an expert on either, rather than being honest and open and realizing that a law must be judged by what it produces and NOT obscure writing and wording. In fact, most writing about law in the news and in abstracts deals with its implementation and results not wording. But this fact is put aside by those who do not want to deal with reality; to wit, a law is either good or bad based on whether it provides true justice and/or does NOT. The failing of most laws is in their wording and implementation, and all law makers should be required to state exactly what the purpose of the law is and if that purpose can be meant in another way, it should of course be allowed.

When a law produces BAD results, it is a BAD law regardless of its wording. Many laws start out good, but as situations change, they fail to change to meet the new situation and/or keep up with scientific development. A classic example of this is the New Your City Building Code that required lead pipe from the street main to the residence/building being served which may have been good long ago, but not after it was discovered that lead in drinking water was harmful to humans.

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

[iris89]

Hi Everyone

As I told one Muslim [Sunni] on another forum, most Muslims think that Sariah Law comes straight from the Quran, but it does not. Here is my post to him for all to review:


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi ********* [name deleated to protect the privacy of the guilty]

Your statement proves what I have been saying all along, you do NOT know the subject you are posting on and just grabbing garbage from anywhere as clearly shown by your statement,

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Believe me you I did not write this, this is reserched and written by an ex christian [most probaly a x priest], as the last name of the authour sugge
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You clearly can NOT tell the difference between good research and trash research put forth to deceive, and that you can NOT even write your own material as I do. I know plenty about Islam and you know practically nothing of so called Christianity, neither the apostate (counterfeit) Christianity from whose garbage you quote, and absolutely nothing with respect genuine (true) Christianity. You should learn the facts, the truth, before posting in line with John 8:32, “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” [Authorized King James Bible; AV]. It simply amazes me, also, how little many Muslim posters even know about their own religion. Another poster, not you, told me I should only bring up subjects I can show reference to in your holy book or the Bible when I mentioned Shariah Law, but Shariah Law is really NOT found in the Quran at all, but is mainly from examples occurring up to 200 years AFTER the death of Muhammad. Now I know this fact, why do not all Muslims? Should make you stop and think.

Now, you should be ashamed of yourself telling untruths and false accusations with respect myself. That is not a nice thing to do, and as I told you before:

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let’s get something straight, a good researcher, a digger of facts and a presenter of facts goes to reliable sources where he/she has good reason to believe the facts are. He/she does not go to self-serving items where he/she knows the facts can not be found.

For example, if you were trying to find facts to prove Joseph Smith was a false prophet, you would NOT go to the Book of Mormon as you would well know the facts you are digging for would NOT be found in this self serving book. You would go to historical records/writings, encyclopedias, etc.

Another example, would be if you were doing research on the shortcomings of Communism, you would NEVER go to the self-serving book on Communism written by Carl Marx. You would go to reliable third party sources such as historical records/writings, encyclopedias, news accounts, etc.

Likewise if you are doing research on the old middle eastern Moon god, “Allah,” you would not go to the self-serving Quran. You would go to reliable third party sources such as historical records/writings, encyclopedias, news accounts, archaeology, etc.

So let’s get real and stop making crazy request that go completely against reliable research methods and ultimately are nothing but ‘dead ends.’

Now stop telling untruths and making false accusations. You outright lie when you say,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So start getting real, open your mind, and start learning. Go to the following as a good start,

preacher.proboards7.com/i...068&page=1 on Counterfeit vs. genuine Christians – an entire thread on the subject.

love.proboards9.com/index...580&page=1 On Mainstream Christianity

love.proboards9.com/index...671&page=1 Documentary on our savior Jesus (Yeshua)

love.proboards9.com/index...922&page=1 False Doctrine of Apostolic Succession Claimed,

preacher.proboards7.com/i...1137232810 discourse Belief In The Trinity A Distinguishing Feature

preacher.proboards7.com/i...273&page=1 Discourse on the Two Paths of Christianity

preacher.proboards7.com/i...1139935138 Documentary on Book of John being anti-Trinitarian

love.proboards9.com/index...1141753369 Data on the Name of The True God (YHWH) of Abraham

love.proboards9.com/index...717&page=1 Bible Canon

love.proboards9.com/index...1141754994 Data on Allah

p197.ezboard.com/ffreedom...=967.topic Purged combined data on Allah

love.proboards9.com/index...1141873404 Shariah

love.proboards9.com/index...1142952156 Shariah Law is for hatred as shown in the Quran


love.proboards9.com/index...200&page=1 Islam Does Not Understand The Bible Or Who Its God Really Is

love.proboards9.com/index...1142819237 Worshippers of false gods are irrational.

love.proboards9.com/index...366&page=1 Let’s clear up the confusion Jesus and God

love.proboards9.com/index...870&page=1 On Prophecy by others

Your Friend in Christ Iris89[/quote]

Now let's look at what Shariah Law is using information supplied by Muslim intellectuals:

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. WHAT IS SHARIA
What does " Sharia Law" mean? In whatever way we define the word "Law" it ultimately means the logical application of conscience. The word "Sharia" literally means "the path on sand created by camels walking to water-spots" but spiritually it means guidance. Islam initially revolutionized women's rights by taking the first steps in that desert society by banning female-infanticide, preventing forcing of women into unwanted marriages, allowing women to retain their fathers' names after marriage, permitting women to be witnesses (albeit their testimony counted as half of a man's) and establishing their ownership rights to property and their income. All of these advances in women's rights occurred in the Middle East when Europe was in the midst of the Dark Ages.

Sharia laws were created to rule the vast expanding Muslim empire after 200 years of Prophet's death. In the 7-8th century, disciples of four Islamic jurists codified the laws in their four respective Masters' names according to their personal understanding of the Qura'an and Prophet's examples. Thus the term "Fiqh" emerged, which literally means human understanding. Their codification is divided in two sections: Hudud and Ta'zir. The word Hudud comes from Hadd, which means limit. The Hudud laws are mostly penal and include stoning to death or cutting hands of thieves. These are considered beyond human authority to change. As Mawdudi, the father of modern Political Islam notes:

"Where an explicit command of God or His Prophet already exists, no Muslim leader or legislature, or any religious scholar can form an independent judgment not even all the Muslims of the world put together, have any right to make least alteration to it".
[Source - Islamic Law and Constitution - Maolana Mawdudi.]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



And,


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Believing so is regarded as alliance to Islam itself. All books on Sharia law univocally maintain this dictum.

Yet Sharia is not merely a codification of laws. It is the main pillar of Islamic theocracy. To its followers it is God's divine command to establish a global Islamic State in order to apply Sharia. In that sense, Sharia is the constitution of the institution of Political Islam, which is defined by its founding father, Maolana Mawdudi (1903-1971) as: -

"Islam wishes to destroy all States and Governments anywhere in the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam?.. If the Muslim Party commands adequate resources it will eliminate un-Islamic governments and establish the power of Islamic governments in their stead." -[Source - Jihad In Islam--Maolana Mawdudi]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



And,


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This may be taken as an informal declaration of war against all the world's non-Muslims to establish a global Islamic theocracy by defeating secular democracy. Mawdudi was the first person to fuse the century-old philosophy of Political Islam with modern democracy in 1941. Sixty-three years later his voice resonates today throughout the world including major European cities with the promise of a "Clash of Civilizations".

Modern Jihadis remain inspired by Mawdudi's call. Consider this recent internet posting:

"They (European Muslims) swear allegiance to Osama bin Laden and his goal of toppling Western democracies to establish an Islamic superstate under Shariah law, like Afghanistan under the Taliban".
[Source - Bangladesher Dak "European Muslims Call For Jihad". Posted by: News Monitors on Apr 27, 2004]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.

And,


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modern laws are based on human rights. Sharia however is based on perceived duties to God. In Sharia there is hardly any distinction between crime and sin. Social obligations are fused and confused with worship of the Creator. Political Islam, the main torchbearer of Sharia, was born out of a misleading conviction of the political dimensions of Muslim-empire with Islamic faith system. It integrated political events of Muslims with Islam itself. It is important to note that in the ongoing debates on Sharia in numerous articles books and interviews, Political Islamists make only sweeping comments. Quoting the actual Sharia laws are carefully avoided. As examples are better than explanations, here are a few laws on women's rights and human rights from Islamic world's most authentic sources namely: - (A) Umdat Al Salik, Imam Shafi'i, one of Islam's four foremost Jurists in 7th century. (B) Hedaya of Imam Abu Hanifa, one of Islam's four foremost Jurists in 7th century. (C) Text of Pakistan's Hudood Law. (D) Penal Law of Islam (E) Sharia the Islamic Law - Dr. Abdur Rahman Doi and (F) Islamic Laws - Ayatollah Seestani.


1. A Muslim cannot be put to death for the murder of an unbeliever. (According to clause #14 of Prophet's Medina-Charter, proudly claimed by Sharia-proponents as "The First Written Constitution in the World".

2. A Muslim man is allowed to beat his wife or wives. - Qura'anic dictum.

3. A Muslim man is allowed to have four wives at one time. - Qura'anic dictum

4. A Muslim man can divorce his wife or wives instantaneously. Then he can marry a new set of wives and continue the cycle. - Corollary of Qura'anic dictum.

5. A Muslim woman must pay money to the husband by court orders to have the marriage dissolved. - Faulty human development on Qura'anic dictum..

6. If a divorced couple wants to remarry each other, the wife must marry another person, must have complete sex with him and must be divorced by him willingly. - Qura'anic dictum.

7. The evidence required in a case of adultery is that of four Muslim adult men - Faulty human development on Qura'anic dictum.

8. Women's testimony is not accepted in cases of adultery or in any capital offence. - Faulty human development.

9. Evidence of a female singer and slave (male or female) is not admissible. - Faulty human development.

10. Testimony of a non-Muslim that has been punished for false accusation is inadmissible. If s/he later becomes a Muslim, her/his evidence is then admissible. -Faulty human development.

11. The Judge of the Court shall be a Muslim. The Judge may be a non-Muslim only if the accused is a non-Muslim. -Faulty human development.

12. Adoption is not allowed in Sharia. - Faulty human development on Qura'anic dictum.

13. Custody of children goes to mother as long as the kids need care, normally 9 years for boys and 7 for girls, after which the father takes over. But if the mother does not pray or gets married, the kids immediately go to the father. - Faulty human development.

14. Women inherit half of men. - Faulty human development on Qura'anic dictum..

15. Women's witness is half of men's in business transactions. - Faulty human development on Qura'anic dictum..

16. If a woman is killed, the blood money (the money a killer has to pay to the family of the killed on demand to get acquitted) is half of that of a Muslim man. - Faulty human development on Qura'anic dictum.

17. Apostates (Muslims who leave Islam) automatically get death penalty. If not available for killing, their marriage is dissolved and they cannot inherit from Muslim parents or children. - Faulty human development on Qura'anic dictum.

18. Muslim men can marry Christian and Jews women but Muslim women can marry only a Muslim man. - Faulty human development on Qura'anic dictum.

19. A Muslim virgin cannot marry without permission of her male guardian.- Faulty human development on Qura'anic dictum.

20. A man can marry a woman for a fixed time, from few hours to several years (Mu'ta Marriage, - Sharia of Shia sect.). Rich men from the Middle East travel to Southern India to take advantage of this law on financially poor women, so do rich Iranian men on their women. The misery of those women and children born out of this practice are beyond comprehension. - Faulty human development.

Although full with pro-women advices, it is difficult to find pro-women laws in Sharia. There is no punishment for violating the pro-women advices either. So, in case of conflict of interest, law overrules advice. In that sense it perfectly represent strong patriarchy. Obviously, what Dr. Hisham Kamali, one of strongest authorities on Sharia suggested in his voluminous "Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence" has never been taken care of, quote- "I have consequently commented on the nature of the challenge that Muslim scholars and jurists must take up if the methodology of Usul-al-Fiqh and Ijtihad are to be revitalized and integrated into the process of law and government in modern times".

It is strange that without taking the burden of the challenge Political Islam acts a copycat of the past and tries to impose Sharia without updating. Once updated, Sharia might be very similar to existing laws of secular democratic countries. Muslims are not alone regarding objection to few laws such as same-sex marriage or abortion; some non-Muslims share the same vision. It is indeed surprising that Political Islamists remain vague about explaining how to integrate "Islamic teaching" in universal legal matters. They never point out which Western Law is against Islamic teaching and why. Dr. Hisham Kamali showed the serious and huge work done in 7-8th centuries to build Islamic Jurisprudence. But at the end it does not meet justice to humanity in general and women rights in particular. It is like the huge fifty thousand pages research-paper of a medicine that has serious and malignant side effects.
[source - Anti Terrorism Resources - Free Muslim coalition]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



And,


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Qura'an and the Prophet's sayings are two of the most important sources of Sharia. Though Sharia violates the Qura'an in many of its major laws, (see - Violation of the Qura'an) it is undeniable that some Qura'anic verses, such as on wife beating, slave sleeping, women's inheritance and witness etc are unacceptable to today's concept of human rights. On the other hand, we should acknowledge that Islam began by establishing some revolutionary progress on women rights. Those were only the first steps to set the direction, Muslims were supposed to take it further towards women's complete equity. That has never happened. It may be noted that particular interpretations of the Qura'anic verses in law making were never univocal among Muslims. Different versions of Sharia were creates by individuals personally, not by public opinion or by institution. So, with a different interpretation of a different individual, laws have become different. Different Islamic scholars always interpreted verses of wife-beating, slave sleeping, women's half inheritance or witness etc, differently. But political Islam takes the codified Sharia as infallible.

Regarding the role of the Prophet Mohammed, suffice it to say that Abu Bakar and Omar, Prophet's two closest companions burnt their records of Prophet's sayings for fear of getting mixed up with the Qura'an (Shortened Encyclopaedia of Islam - from "Sangskar" - Jamilul Basher). Yet within two centuries of his death, hundreds of thousands, even a million "recorded examples" were established. The reason was probably to protect the Kings' vested interests or to validate their crimes in the Prophet's name. A few of the Prophet's sayings relating to women are quoted here mainly from "Women's Exegesis in Islam" - Abul Kasem. (A compilation about women-related "Prophet's examples" from most authentic Islamic sources).


(A) Women would have been commanded to prostrate before their husbands, had anyone be commanded to make prostration before another. -Sunaan Abu Dawud 11.2135, & Ehya Ulum Al Deen - Imam Gazzali Vol 2.
(B) If the body of the husband from head to toe would be full with pus and the wife would eat that by licking, still her gratitude (to him) would not be fulfilled - Ehya Ulum Al Deen - Imam Gazzali Vol 2.
(C) Majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire are women. -Sahi Bukhari 1.6.301.
(D) If a dog, a donkey or a woman pass in front of the praying people, Prayer is annulled. - Sahi Bukhari 1.9.490.
(E) Evil omen is in the women, the house and the horse. -Sahi Bukhari; 7.62.30.
(F) Women are more harmful to men than anything else. - Shahih Muslim 36.6603.
(G) The house, the wife and the horse are bad luck. - Shahih Muslim 26.5523.
(H) A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife. - Sunaan Abu Dawud 11.2142.
(I) "The essence of marriage is slavery. After marriage the wife enters slavery of the husband". - Imam Gazzali - Ehya Ulum Al Deen Vol 2.
(J) People ruled by a woman will never be successful. - Sahi Bukhari 5.59.709.
(K) Nothing is more harmful to men than women. - Shahih Bukhari 7.62.33.
(L) "The devil says to women: ?You are half my army". - Imam Gazzali Ehya Ulum Al Deen - Vol. II, p367.
(M) Because of Eve women are unfaithful towards their husbands. - Shahih Muslim 8.3471.


This is how our Prophet is misused by countless similar examples recorded in core Islamic scriptures. In secondary or tertiary so-called Islamic sources, extremely objectionable words are mentioned in his name. Example: -. "If a woman offered one of her breasts to be cooked and the other to be roasted, she still will fall short of fulfilling her obligations to her husband. And besides that if she disobeys her husband even for a twinkling of an eye, she would be thrown in the lowest part of Hell, except she repents and turns back." - Tuffaha, Ahmad Zaky, Al-Mar'ah wal- Islam, Dar al-Kitab al-Lubnani, Beirut, first edition, 1985, p. 176. It is also quoted in Al-Musanaf by Abu Bakr Ahmad Ibn 'Abd Allah Ibn Mousa Al-Kanadi who lived 557H, vol. 1 part 2, p. 255. (Original reference is not checked).
[source - [source - Anti Terrorism Resources - Free Muslim coalition]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



And,


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These documents continue to embarrass good Muslims. No good law can be made based on such examples. That is why Dr. Hashmi says, - "Sharia was destined to be corrupt because it is made out of a corrupt element called Prophet's examples". The vast Muslim population is illiterate and mentally weak, their Islam is whatever their clergy says. They cannot even think outside the clergy's sermons.

There are a few other sources of Sharia, reflecting the patriarchy prevailing at that time. The concept of women's rights did not develop in the Muslim empire mainly because Muslims have a tendency to detach themselves from others. As Dr. Maimul Ahsan Khan very eloquently said: -

"Surprisingly enough, the Muslim rulers, politicians, intellectuals, and religious personalities overlooked the entire ongoing process of constitutional and legal developments in the Western countries". -
[Source - Human Rights in the Muslim World: Fundamentalism, Constitutionalism and International Politic]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Now, with this attitude of staying aloof is reflected in every recent important development of human civilization. When the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and International Law was constructed, instead of proposing modifications to it, Muslim clergy were quick to formulate an alternate Islamic Declaration of Human Rights and Islamic International Law. With better cooperation from Muslims, as important members of humankind, human progress could be easier and faster. But let's consider UN Declaration 18,

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UN covenant on civil and political rights
Article 18
Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.
Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.[source - United Nations]

Now do you consider the UN a reliable source or do you choose radical Muslim fundamentalist?

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

[iris89]

Religious Freedom is a Simple Issue When Stripped Down To Bear Facts Less All the Obfuscation

INTRODUCTION:

Ones depriving others of religious freedom seek to hide the fact is diversionary subjects and obfuscation. They label individuals seeking religious freedom and the free practice of their religion as traitors, dangerous to society, apostates, heretics, infidel, deserter, blasphemers, etc. During the Spanish Inquisition many Jews, none Catholic Christians, and Muslims were put to death just for being desirous of freedom to practice their religion, a basic inalienable human right. (1). This occurred in Europe during what was commonly known as the 'dark ages.'

You would think in a modern world that people would no longer be persecuted and murdered for practicing the basic human right of exercising a basic human right of freedom to worship as one pleases as long as he/she does not interfere with the rights of others. But this is NOT the case as many want to return to the 'dark ages.' Specifically the case of Abdul Rahman who has publicly declared that, "I am not a deserter and not an infidel." (2). And this in a country whose constitution incorporates the UN's Universal Declaration on Human Rights. That declaration's Article 18 specifically recognizes the right of all people to change their religion. Even to prepare a trial for a person who has committed this "crime" is a gross violation of that declaration, and of the new Afghan Constitution as well.(3)

So much for the rule of law and the wording of a law when the justice department wants to commit an injustice wording means nothing. But that is to be expected by religious groups that wish to revert to the 'dark ages.' However, this may seem strange, these self-same religious groups want others to give them their basic human rights even on trivial things in other lands where they are not in control; what hypocrisy. (4). It's the old story, give us our rights, but let us trample on the rights of others. Of course any group that does this is of course clearly shows they do NOT worship the true God (YHWH) of Abraham whose basic attribute is love per 1 John 4:8, "He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love." (5)

In other words, their thinking that crimes against basic human rights of others are okay, but not ones against their basic human rights; can you imagine such an arrogant and unloving attitude?

ORIGINAL 'DARK AGES' EVENTS:

The original 'dark ages' saw one so called Christian church, actually an apostate one, denying basic human rights to all except themselves with their devilish designs against the basic human right to worship as one sees fit. Let's look at some of the details in brief.

The most zealous of this group of deniers of basic human rights to others were the Dominicans and Franciscans, popish monks who implicitly obeyed the Church of Rome: these, therefore, the pope thought proper to invest with an exclusive right of presiding over the different courts of Inquisition. He gave them the most unlimited powers, as judges delegated by him, and immediately representing his person. They were permitted to excommunicate, or sentence to death all whom they thought proper, upon the most slight information of heresy. They were allowed to publish crusades against all whom they deemed heretics, and enter into leagues with sovereign princes, to join their crusades with their forces. (6).

This went from bad to worse, and in 1244 AD, their power was further increased by the emperor Frederic II, who declared himself the protector and friend of all the inquisitors, and published the cruel edicts, viz., 1. That all heretics who continue obstinate, should be burnt. 2. That all heretics who repented, should be imprisoned for life. (6).

This sadistic zeal in the emperor, for the inquisitors of the Roman Catholic persuasion, arose from a report which had been propagated throughout Europe, that he intended to renounce Christianity, and turn Mohammedan. The emperor therefore, attempted, by the height of bigotry, to contradict the report, and to show his attachment to popery by cruelty. (6).

The officers of the Inquisition were three inquisitors, or judges, a fiscal proctor, two secretaries, a magistrate, a messenger, a receiver, a jailer, an agent of confiscated possessions; several assessors, counsellors, executioners, physicians, surgeons, doorkeepers, familiars, and visitors, who are sworn to secrecy.(6).

The principal accusation against those who are subject to this tribunal is heresy, which comprises all that is spoken, or written, against any of the articles of the creed, or the traditions of the Roman Church. The inquisition likewise takes cognizance of such as are accused of being magicians, and of such who read the Bible in the common language, the Talmud of the Jews, or the Quran of the Mohammedans. (6).

Upon all occasions the inquisitors carry on their processes with the utmost severity, and punish those who offend them with the most unparalleled cruelty. A Protestant, a so called none Catholic Christian, has seldom any mercy shown him, and a Jew, who turns Christian, is far from being secure, and a Mohammedan did not even merit consideration before being burnt at the stake or otherwise murdered.(6).

A defense in the Inquisition was of little use to the prisoner, for a suspicion only is deemed sufficient cause of condemnation, and the greater his wealth the greater his danger. The principal part of the inquisitors' cruelties is owing to their rapacity: they destroy the life to possess the property; and, under the pretence of zeal, plunder each obnoxious individual. (6).

A prisoner in the Inquisition is never allowed to see the face of his accuser, or of the witnesses against him, but every method is taken by threats and tortures, to oblige him to accuse himself, and by that means corroborate their evidence. If the jurisdiction of the Inquisition is not fully allowed, vengeance is denounced against such as call it in question for if any of its officers are opposed, those who oppose them are almost certain to be sufferers for the temerity; the maxim of the Inquisition being to strike terror, and awe among those who are the objects of its power into obedience. High birth, distinguished rank, great dignity, or eminent employment, are no protection from its severity; and the lowest officers of the Inquisition can make the highest characters tremble.(6).

When the person impeached is condemned, he is either severely whipped, violently tortured, sent to the galleys, or sentenced to death; and in either case the effects are confiscated. After judgment, a procession is performed to the place of execution, which ceremony is called an auto 'da fe,' or act of faith. (6)

Now here is the account of one 'da fe' performed at Madrid, Spain, in the year 1682. The officers of the Inquisition, preceded by trumpets, kettledrums, and their banner, marched on the thirtieth of May, in cavalcade, to the palace of the great square, where they declared by proclamation, that, on the thirtieth of June, the sentence of the prisoners would be put in execution.

Of these prisoners, twenty men and women, with one renegade Mohammedan, were ordered to be burned; fifty Jews and Jewesses, having never before been imprisoned, and repenting of their crimes, were sentenced to a long confinement, and to wear a yellow cap. The whole court of Spain was present on this occasion. The grand inquisitor's chair was placed in a sort of tribunal far above that of the king.

Among those who were to suffer, was a young Jewess of exquisite beauty, and only seventeen years of age. Being on the same side of the scaffold where the queen was seated, she addressed her, in hopes of obtaining a pardon, in the following pathetic speech: "Great queen, will not your royal presence be of some service to me in my miserable condition? Have regard to my youth; and, oh! consider, that I am about to die for professing a religion imbibed from my earliest infancy!" Her majesty seemed greatly to pity her distress, but turned away her eyes, as she did not dare to speak a word in behalf of a person who had been declared a heretic. Then, Mass began, in the midst of which the priest came from the altar, placed himself near the scaffold, and seated himself in a chair prepared for that purpose, and proceeded with the business of the execution of all the poor innocents who should have been, of course, given the basic human right to worship as they pleased. (5)&(6)

THE NEW 'DARK AGES' EVENTS:

As strange as it may seem, one group that suffered immensely under the Inquisitions instead of learning anything from how they suffered from the Catholic Inquisitions now seeks to impose their own form of inquisition against individuals that only desire to be able to exercise their basic human right to worship as they please. They are attempting to make themselves into modern day inquisitors and return to the 'dark ages.' They obviously are desirous of having almost unlimited powers, as judges delegated by their religion which does not believe in basic human rights for others, but only for themselves. They want to be like the evil Roman Catholic Inquisitors of the original 'dark ages,' and to bring back the 'dark ages,' and to be permitted to excommunicate, or sentence to death all whom they thought proper, upon the most slight information of heresy, such as someone learning the truth about their religion and changing to another.

They cry to be granted basic human right of freedom of worship for themselves when even any nation denies it to them in even the slightest or most trivial way, but when it comes to the same right for others, they care not what the UN Declaration on Human Rights says as follows:

"Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 10 December 1948.
Article 18 : Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.(7).

Nor do they care what the UN covenant on civil and political rights
Article 18 says,

"Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.
Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.(8).

Freedom of religion and belief is a guarantee by a government for freedom of belief for individuals and freedom of worship for individuals and groups. It is considered to be a fundamental human right. Freedom of religion must also include the freedom to practice no religion (irreligion) or the belief that there exists no deity (atheism).

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the 58 Member States of the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948, at the Palais de Chaillot in Paris, France defines freedom of religion and belief as follows:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance."(9)

This attempt by these religious fanatics like the Roman Catholic fanatics in the original 'dark ages' is nothing but a barbaric desire to return the world to a new period of inquisitions, the new 'dark age.'(10).

As one Islamic source admitted, “This is how our Prophet is misused by countless similar examples recorded in core Islamic scriptures. In secondary or tertiary so-called Islamic sources, extremely objectionable words are mentioned in his name. Example: -. "If a woman offered one of her breasts to be cooked and the other to be roasted, she still will fall short of fulfilling her obligations to her husband. And besides that if she disobeys her husband even for a twinkling of an eye, she would be thrown in the lowest part of Hell, except she repents and turns back." - Tuffaha, Ahmad Zaky, Al-Mar'ah wal- Islam, Dar al-Kitab al-Lubnani, Beirut, first edition, 1985, p. 176. It is also quoted in Al-Musanaf by Abu Bakr Ahmad Ibn 'Abd Allah Ibn Mousa Al-Kanadi who lived 557H, vol. 1 part 2, p. 255. (Original reference is not checked).(11).

As we can readily see human history of injustice, hatred, and crimes against humanity as witnessed in the ‘dark ages’ under the Inquisition of the Roman Catholic Church is apparently now to be repeated under the new ‘inquisition’ and ‘dark ages’ of Islam as shown by the present case of Mr. Abdul Rahman. This is even noted my modern Muslim intellectuals that have no interest to returning to the barbaric times of the original ‘dark ages.’ One group, the Free Muslim Coalition, said, “It is strange that without taking the burden of the challenge Political Islam acts a copycat of the past, the original “dark ages,’ and tries to impose Sharia without updating. Once updated, Sharia might be very similar to existing laws of secular democratic countries. Muslims are not alone regarding objection to few laws such as same-sex marriage or abortion; some non-Muslims share the same vision. It is indeed surprising that Political Islamists remain vague about explaining how to integrate "Islamic teaching" in universal legal matters. They never point out which Western Law is against Islamic teaching and why. Dr. Hisham Kamali showed the serious and huge work done in 7-8th centuries to build Islamic Jurisprudence. But at the end it does not meet justice to humanity in general and women rights in particular. It is like the huge fifty thousand pages research-paper of a medicine that has serious and malignant side effects.”(11).

CONCLUSION:

As said in the introduction, You would think in a modern world that people would no longer be persecuted and murdered for practicing the basic human right of exercising a basic human right of freedom to worship as one pleases as long as he/she does not interfere with the rights of others. But this is NOT the case as many want to return to the 'dark ages.’ Specifically the case of Abdul Rahman who has publicly declared that, "I am not a deserter and not an infidel." (2). And this in a country whose constitution incorporates the UN's Universal Declaration on Human Rights. That declaration's Article 18 specifically recognizes the right of all people to change their religion. Even to prepare a trial for a person who has committed this "crime" is a gross violation of that declaration, and of the new Afghan Constitution as well.(3)

With respect the basic human right to worship as one pleases, the U.S. Supreme Court declared, “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that NO official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein, If there are ANY circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us."(12).

And as Imam Shafi'i and Imam Abu Hanifa noted with respect Shariah Law, that it is indeed man-made law because more than six thousand laws cannot be made based on only few Qura'anic verses relating legal instruction, which are indeed contextual. As other sources of Sharia are not divine, those cannot contribute to so called "Allah's Law".(13).

As noted also Imam Shafi'i and Imam Abu Hanifa The very concept of Sharia as a tool of governance violates the Qura'an in Chapters Ahkwaf -9, Ahzab-45 & 48, Anam -48, 52, 66, 69 & 107, Araf -61, 62, 67, 68, 79 & 93, 188, Bakara 272, Gashiyah -21 & 22, Kwahf - 29 & 56, and Mayedah -92 & 99, Nisa 165, Kwaf 45, Yunus -108, As-Shura 48, Ra'ad 40 etc. In these verses, the Qura'an clearly declares that the only responsibility of Prophets was not to govern, but only to deliver God's message. Even the word "Poygamber" (Prophet) comes from the word "Poygam" (Message). Examples- "I send messengers only to deliver message", "Prophets' task is only to deliver", "Duty of My Prophets is nothing but to deliver the message", "You are not their administrator, you are only a messenger", "Do you want to force them?" etc.(13).

References:

(1) Foxes Book of Martyrs, Marie Gentert King, Editor, Author was John Foxe who was born in 1517.
(2) news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4841812.stm [a British Broadcasting Corp. web cast on 03/24/2006.
(3) Christian Science Monitor, www.csmonitor.com/2006/0324/p09s01-coop.html 03/24/2006.
(4) European Parliament, Committee on Citizens Freedoms and Rights, Justice, and Home Affairs LIBE at www.europarl.eu.int/comparl/libe/elsj/charter/art10/default_en.htm#2
(5) Authorized King James Bible; AV
(6) FOXE's BOOK of MARTYRS Edited by William Byron Forbush, Author John Foxe who was born in 1517.
(7) European Parliament, Committee on Citizens Freedoms and Rights, Justice, and Home Affairs LIBE at www.europarl.eu.int/comparl/libe/elsj/charter/art10/default_en.htm#2
(8) United Nations
(9) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia on 03/24/2006.
(10) The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) , www.uscirf.gov/mediaroom/press/2006/march/03222006_AfghanHR.html
(11) Anti Terrorism Resources - Free Muslim coalition
(12) United States Supreme Court (1943) West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 US 624.
(13) Imam Shafi'i's and Imam Abu Hanifa's books as reported by Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism.