Skip to search.

Breaking News Visit Yahoo! News for the latest.

×Close this window

MuslimChronicle · The Liberal Muslim

The Yahoo! Groups Product Blog

Check it out!

Group Information

  • Members: 3332
  • Category: World Politics
  • Founded: Dec 1, 2001
  • Language: English
? Already a member? Sign in to Yahoo!

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...
Real people. Real stories. See how Yahoo! Groups impacts members worldwide.

Messages

Advanced
Messages Help
Messages 1727 - 1756 of 2983   Oldest  |  < Older  |  Newer >  |  Newest
Messages: Show Message Summaries Sort by Date ^  
#1727 From: Tarek Fatah <tarekfatah@...>
Date: Mon Apr 2, 2007 9:54 am
Subject: Kuwaiti Education MInister warned: "Wear the Hijab or else..."
tarekfatah
Send Email Send Email
 
April 01, 2007

Hijab-less Subeeh can
be cause of next crisis

By B Izzak
The Kuwait Times
 
KUWAIT: Islamist MPs are targeting new Education Minister Nouriya Al-Subeeh because she does not wear a headscarf, or hijab, as they insist that this violates sharia regulations cited in the elections law.
 
When MPs passed the women political rights in May 2005, they voted on a recommendation requiring women to comply with "sharia regulations" which have never been explained or detailed. A number of Islamist MPs insist that wearing the hijab is one of the regulations that female members of the Assembly must comply with.
 
Sabih is the second Kuwaiti woman to be appointed minister. With the first, Health Minister Maasouma Al-Mubarak, the issue of hijab was not raised because she already wears a hijab. Islamist-tribal MP Dhaifallah Buramia called on Subeeh in a statement yesterday to wear the hijab, insisting it is an essential part of sharia regulations.
 
The first test of the hijab issue will arise when Subeeh, along with all Cabinet ministers, will take the oath in the National Assembly on Monday to become members in the house. Buramia said he will raise the issue during a meeting of the 17-MP Islamic Bloc today and will urge his colleagues to adopt the issue and raise it during the session.
 
Last week, Islamist MP Waleed Al-Tabtabae also advised Subeeh to wear the hijab in compliance with sharia rules. The fundamentalist Ummah Principles Alliance, a group of Salafists, called on Sabih last week to abide by Islamic teachings by wearing the hijab, saying this is an essential requirement by Islam.
 
Speaker Jassem Al-Khorafi last Wednesday denied that the wearing of hijab was required by the internal charter of the Assembly or other laws. He said that if wearing hijab was required in the Assembly, it must become mandatory everywhere else in the country, which is not the case.
 
The minister herself got into the controversy and said that she was a religious woman but not a hardliner and she thought that wearing the hijab was not necessary. The issue could snowball into another crisis between the new government and the conservative bloc in the house which consists some two-thirds of the 50-member Assembly.


------------------------------------------------
"Morality is doing what is right, regardless what we are told. 
Religious dogma is doing what we are told, no matter what is right."

#1728 From: Tarek Fatah <tarekfatah@...>
Date: Tue Apr 3, 2007 10:58 am
Subject: Manitoba Islamic Foundation President :: "Moderate Muslims need to speak out"
tarekfatah
Send Email Send Email
 
Sun Mar 25 2007
 
Winnipeg Free Press
Sunday, March 25th, 2007


Moderate Muslims
need to speak out
 
By Asad U. Khan
The Winnipeg Free Press
 
 
RECENTLY CBC-TV aired a special documentary on the threat posed by Islamic fundamentalist to their secular and liberal co-religionists.
 
The documentary detailed death threats, bullying, and charges of blasphemy and apostasy. It showed an interview with a newspaper publisher receiving warnings on phone, and alleged to be threatened by the Imam of a Toronto mosque.
 
In another interview, a young Afghan journalist showed a facial scar from a beating and described the verbal threats he had been receiving for writing a piece on family violence.
 
The report also showed an interview with Mubin Sheikh, the famous CSIS informer, who was raving against secular community leaders and moderate Muslim organizations.
 
The documentary also had a clip of York University Prof. Haideh Moghissi, who said the threats against moderate Muslims are real and should be taken seriously.
 
What is the reason for this intolerant behaviour? This behaviour is not unique to Ontario and Muslims throughout Canada have had similar experiences. In one incident in western Canada, a learned imam was fired because of his independent moderate views, and his supporters were ostracized by the city's mosque leaders.
 
One explanation may be that average Muslims are not interested or do not have time for religious politics, thus providing an open field for the flag bearers of political Islam to grab the leadership of the community.
 
Most of these groups have affiliations with the fundamentalist Wahabi organizations of the Middle East, and promote their ideology. They usually erect myths to mobilize and coerce Muslim society, and promise solutions for all the social and material ills in the philosophy of political Islam. They believe that the leaders in Islamic communities should be chosen on the basis of their religious credentials.
 
What makes this movement reactionary is its promotion of an archaic ideology that is not based on present-day realities. They lack religious tolerance, which is the prerequisite for the functioning of a free society. Islam is a religious faith and not an ideology.
 
According to author Yahiya Emerick, there is heated ideological debate going on in the majority of North American Muslim communities that goes beyond the Shi'ite-Sunni struggle. It threatens to destroy the vibrancy of rising Muslim communities and has the potential to create a new gulf between Muslims as serious as the one plaguing the Muslim world.
 
Emerick says the debate is centred around three powerful forces. These are Wahabi, the Moderate and the Sufis, another prominent sect in the Islamic world. But because Islamic organizations, magazines, mosques and centres are often controlled by one of the three groups, it's inevitable that the ordinary Muslim gets embroiled in these contentious issues.
 
For obvious reasons, the moderates are most hated by the Wahabi /Salafi group. The moderates belong to the large well-established members of Muslim community, are mostly professionals, and follow the liberal traditions.
 
In Europe, the moderate Muslims are distancing themselves from Islamic organizations and forming separate entities to represent them, according to a recent report in the Globe And Mail.
 
These three opposing ideologies can be found in many Muslim communities in Canada. Each is struggling for the future direction of Islam.
 
We Muslims often fail to appreciate that Islam in North America is free, probably closer to the true teaching of the Prophet Muhammad then anywhere else in the last 500 years. Here we have free access to Islamic teachings, and religious literature, and above all have the freedom to observe our faith without fear or intimidation. Can any Muslim country truly make this claim?
-------------------------------
Dr. Asad U. Khan is president of the Manitoba Islamic Education Foundation Inc.


------------------------------------------------
"Morality is doing what is right, regardless what we are told. 
Religious dogma is doing what we are told, no matter what is right."

#1729 From: Tarek Fatah <tarekfatah@...>
Date: Thu Apr 5, 2007 5:46 pm
Subject: Mona Eltahawy : Qaradawi damaging Palestinian cause by turning it into Islamist weapon
tarekfatah
Send Email Send Email
 
 
Qaradawi damages
Palestine’s
cause by
turning global issue
into Islamist weapon
 
   
Friday, 30 March 2007




By Mona Eltahawy
http://www.saudidebate.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=579&Itemid=124

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not a Muslim issue. It is a dispute over land, it is about an occupation that must end and it is about a people who deserve a state. But it is not a religious dispute. Clerics, rabbis, priests and any one else who claims religious authority for his opinion should stay out of it. As a Muslim, I’m particularly eager to keep our clerics away from Palestine.

For too long the easiest Friday sermon to give began and ended by cursing the “Zionists”, often interchanging Zionist with Jew, stopping along the way to enflame the worshippers with news of the latest humiliations or atrocities committed by the Israelis against the Palestinians.

The conflict has been one of the most jumped upon bandwagons in both the Arab and the Muslim world – but framing it in religious terms serves no one’s interest, least of all the Palestinians. With the Islamist Hamas at the helm of the Palestinian government the temptation is great to lose ourselves in the religious kaleidoscope they would love to wrap around the conflict. But just as Islamists are more about power than religion, so is the conflict less about religion than land.

Which is why it always rankles to hear the Egyptian-born cleric Youssef al-Qaradawi opine about the conflict as he did when asked if he had a message for Arab leaders who held a two-day summit in Saudi Arabia recently to revive an Israeli-Palestinian peace plan.

Qaradawi said Arab countries should not take any step toward normalizing ties with Israel until a Palestinian state is created and the Jewish state withdraws from their territories. “Some people (Arab nations) have normalized with Israel, some of them reject the idea. We will not normalize and we don't accept normalization as long as the occupation is still there,” Qaradawi told a news conference in Algeria on the sidelines of a meeting attended by Muslim and Christian figures.

Moderates and martyrs

Since when do Arab leaders or Muslim leaders need the opinion of a cleric on the permissibility of ties with another country? Answer: when politics so disastrously weds religion as the Arab-Israeli conflict did almost exactly 40 years ago. The humiliation of the 1967 defeat – the Naksa, as it is known in Arabic – not only dealt a deadly blow to pan-Arabism – which up till then had been the patron father of the Palestinian cause – but it also opened the door for Islamists to claim the Israeli-Palestinian issue as their own. And ever since, they have steadily shaped it to their liking.

The Muslim Brotherhood – of which Qaradawi and Hamas are both products – and other fundamentalist groups in the Arab world used the 1967 defeat to remind the region’s mostly secular leaders that their defeat was because of those leaders’ godlessness. And ever since, the more Islamic you could make Palestine, the more legitimate you appeared.

I am not a fan or follower of Qaradawi, who astoundingly is often considered a “moderate” by non-Muslims looking for a cleric to speak for all Muslims. That they would settle on Qaradawi is typical of those who want their authenticity with an extra dose of conservatism on top. Nowadays he is instantly recognizable for his al-Jazeera show on Islamic issues, which he has famously used to brand the pan-Arab satellite channel with the Muslim Brotherhood stamp he has long carried.

True to fundamentalist colours, Qaradawi obsesses over “moral values” – homosexuality, Muslims who convert to other religions, women’s rights – but his position on Palestine will guarantee him a spot on the list of clerics who have brought ruin to the Muslim sense of justice. His support and endorsement of suicide bombings – or “martyrdom operations” as he calls them - led not only to the lionization of death among too many Palestinians, but oiled the slippery moral slope along which suicide bombings began as a “legitimate” weapon against the Zionists and Occupiers and ended as the means by which hundreds of Iraqis are torn to shreds.

So it is no wonder that Hamas has moved to the forefront of Palestinian politics. Encouraged to flourish by Israel in the 1980s as a counterweight to the secular Fatah – in the same way that the late Egyptian President Anwar Sadat encouraged the Muslim Brotherhood in a bid to keep in check Nasserites and leftists – Hamas was all too happy to frame the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis in religious terms that pitted Muslims against Jews.

The less democratic and more corrupt Palestinian politics became under the late Yasser Arafat, the more the Islamist way of doing things moved centre stage. And so suicide bombings, which had long been the bloody signature of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, were adopted by the al-Aqsa Martyr’s Brigade.

The first Palestinian intifada gained international sympathy because it pitted Palestinians and their rocks and caterpaults against Israel’s considerable armoury. Much of that international sympathy was squandered during the second intifada with its bloody string of suicide bombings that portrayed less a people nobly fighting an occupation than the nihilism that lies at the heart of the Islamist embrace of Palestine.

When Muftis and clerics like Qaradawi gave their blessings to suicide bombings they had to have known they did not come with an “off” button: once they were made legitimate against Israelis, what was to stop them from being used against others?

A culture of death

Over the past few years, we’ve seen suicide bombings migrate out of Israel to kill Muslims and non-Muslims alike on public transport in London, in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Afghanistan and Egypt, and yet our imams and scholars could not condemn them outright. Suicide bombings were wrong when they killed civilians in Israel and they were wrong when they killed civilians anywhere else. When they were used to kill Israeli soldiers and were justified with the excuse that their targets were military they were still wrong because such reasoning promoted that culture of death and nihilism that will take years to erase from the Palestinian narrative. Life is desperate indeed under occupation, but the promotion of a culture of death through suicide is ruinous for the Palestinian future. Suicide is one of the gravest sins in Islam and yet the clerics inserted their asterisks making exceptions to that sin.

And what were the attacks on September 11, 2001 but suicide bombings writ large? To read Qaradawi’s condemnation of those attacks, and the pains to which he went to distinguish them from “martyrdom operations” in Israel, is to appreciate the myopic immorality of his values. And nowhere is the bloody apotheosis of Qaradawi’s views more realized than in Iraq, where suicide bombings have slaughtered hundreds of Muslims.

Was anyone paying attention when two young British men of Pakistani descent went to Israel to carry out a suicide attack on a Tel Aviv nightclub on April 30, 2003? Assif Muhammad Hanif, blew himself up at Mike's Place, a Tel Aviv nightspot, killing three other people. Two weeks later, the body of another British citizen, Omar Khan Sharif, who Israeli investigators say fled the bar after a bomb he was carrying failed to detonate, was found in the sea off Tel Aviv. Who persuaded these young men to leave Britain and go to Israel to die for Palestine?


Yes Israel must end its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and yes the Palestinians deserve a state. But cynical terrorist masterminds who are all too willing to send young Muslim men to their deaths have long exploited the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for their own ends. And irresponsible clerics and religious leaders, radical or otherwise, use the conflict to flesh out the ‘victimized-Muslim’ scenario. Would they deliver equally impassioned sermons encouraging our young people in the West to become more active members of their communities and to not live caught between two worlds: a Muslim one at home and in the mosque, an “infidel” one outside?

Holy lands

Muslims do not own the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - it concerns Christians too. Jerusalem is holy to Muslims, Jews and Christians. Jerusalem is home to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher; Bethlehem is home to the Church of the Nativity. There are plenty of Palestinian Christians also living under occupation and their plight is not made any easier because they are Christian. Israeli soldiers and Israeli tanks do not distinguish between Muslim and Christian Palestinians.

But by allowing Islamists to co-opt the conflict, by allowing it to become an issue that is supposed to inflame Muslim anger around the world, the Palestinian cause loses the sympathy of many people who might otherwise lend support but feel alienated by the increasingly Muslim terms within which the conflict is expressed.

It is long past time to wrestle back Palestine from the Islamist grasp. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not a Muslim issue. It is a human issue.


------------------------------------------------
"Morality is doing what is right, regardless what we are told. 
Religious dogma is doing what we are told, no matter what is right."

#1730 From: Tarek Fatah <tarekfatah@...>
Date: Fri Apr 6, 2007 11:27 am
Subject: Ali Eteraz: "How The Left Can Criticize Muslim Human Rights Hypocrisy"
tarekfatah
Send Email Send Email
 
Friends,
 
In January 1985, the Sudanese government, with the backing of the Muslim Brotherhood, sentenced Sheikh Muhammad Mahmoud Taha to death on charges of being critical of religion. As the Muslim scholar and politician was hanged to death, hundreds of Ikhwan members chanted "Allah O Akbar" and "Islam is the Solution".
 
Mahmoud Taha was the head of the Republican Party and his crime was that he and his colleagues were opposing the imposition of Shariah law in Sudan by the dictator Jaafer Nimery.
 
Across the Muslim world, there was not a single government that protested. The so called OIC--Organization of Islamic States-- stayed mum as the head of a political party was killed by one of the member states' government.
 
The same OIC has now rammed through a UN committee a resolution asking that any criticism of religion be deemed a criminal and punishable offence. Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran were not alone in their effort to criminalize any discussions about religion that challenge established norms and practises. In Canada, the Canadian Islamic Congress came out endorsing the effort of the dictatorships in the Muslim countries as it denounced Canada's opposition to such curbs on free speech.
 
Ali Eteraz, 26, is an international human rights lawyer. During law school he worked on litigation against US defense contractors involved in the Abu Ghraib torture scandal, and since represented plaintiffs defrauded by Wall Street. He is the founder of Eteraz.Org: States of Islam, a think tank and interactive web portal dedicated to cataloging and taking action on legal and legislative reform in the Muslim world.
 
In this article for the Huffington Post, Ai Eteraz laments the fact that "Western liberals generally shy away from calling Muslim states out on their human rights duplicity."
 
Here is his piece on how the "Left can Crtiticize Muslim Human Rights Hypocrisy."
 
Read and reflect.
 
Tarek
-------------------------
April 5, 2007

How The Left Can Criticize
Muslim Human Rights Hypocrisy

By Ali Eteraz
The Huffington Post
 
On Friday, in the UN's Human Rights Council, a block of 17 Muslim countries in alliance with such human rights paragons like Russia, China and Cuba, passed a resolution "urging a global prohibition on the public defamation of religion." The demand "makes no mention of any other religion besides Islam." European nations, Canada, Japan, and South Korea all opposed.
Such a resolution might have been worth supporting had the Muslim member states involved demonstrated even an atom's worth of accountability with respect to their own violations of most human rights.
 
Saudi Arabia considers freedom of religion a capital crime. Pakistan considers blasphemy a capital offense, where it is selectively enforced upon Ahmadis and Christians. Indonesia, too, considers blasphemy a capital offense, and enforces it selectively on religious minorities.
 
Western liberals generally shy away from calling Muslim states out on their human rights duplicity. There are many reasons for this. Some of us come from post-colonial theory and believe that the real cause of repression in the Muslim world is the history of Western colonialism.
 
Others among us take the position that we are not in a position to extol human rights norms upon Muslim states given our own violations. Yet others simply abstain from speaking out against violence and repression in Muslim states because we do not wish to provide the right wing hawks with more justification for creating war.
 
This reluctance is reasonable. However, the reluctance degenerates to silence, which then allows our right wing peers to appropriate (and hijack) the entire human rights project. Once appropriated, the right wing then determines which "solutions" to apply. Most of their solutions rely upon force.
 
Liberals need a way to call out Muslim states on their human rights hypocrisy while simultaneously creating a culture of cooperation and respect.
 
Here are some suggestions:
 
1) Recognize that political freedom is more important than the political model a country employs. Obsessing over whether a country is a democracy or a monarchy is not as important as whether citizens have basic rights like life, liberty, freedom of press and assembly and infrastructure. These rights enable democracy; they are not a by-product of it. A state that does not have the infrastructure to provide for its citizens' material needs, even if it turns democratic, will be quickly subverted.
 
2) Recognize that the so called Muslim states aren't necessarily "Islamic." The majority of the laws in the Muslim world are an amalgam of European civil code, Shariah, and Anglo-Saxon common law. As such, fixing Religious Law is neither sufficient nor necessary. The most important element of human rights reform in the Muslim world is via legislation or regulation, not the clerics. We must not buy the right wing spin, rooted in Christian supremacism, that until the religion of Islam reforms, change is unlikely. Religions change and mature at their own pace; states evolve and legislate on their own.
 
3) Recognize and work with dissidents in the Muslim world. As it stands, they have no help. Iranian reformers like Shirin Ebadi have vociferously denounced using Iran's human rights violation as a way to justify military strikes against it. This shows that the dissidents are not willing to work with the American Right. Instead, as Fariba Dawoodi Mohajer, an Iranian human rights activist states: "We must be exposed to new experiences and stay in contact with women from other societies in our efforts to eliminate discrimination, poverty among women, elimination of violence, greater respect etc. Women's problems around the world belong to all women." Statements like that seem to me to be open appeals to Western liberals.
 
Rafia Zakaria, an international lawyer, makes the same point: "Iranian intellectuals, despite being in the direct line of fire of the neo-conservative military agenda, are demonstrating that fighting the expansionist military agendas of the Bush administration does not require silence about the injustices perpetrated by the Iranian regime." Iran is not the only place where such reformers are active: Kuwait, Egypt, Qatar, Bahrain, Pakistan, also come to mind. Yet, aside from a few Soros backed liberals, the global left does not seem to be noticing.
 
In the middle of the 20th century the American left, pushed along by Albert Camus and Isaiah Berlin, slowly realized that supporting the Soviet Union was inconsistent with the principles of leftism. We must realize something similar today; namely, that the principles of leftism today (international law, human rights, freedom of expression), are inconsistent with staying silent towards Muslim states that violate these principles regularly.


------------------------------------------------
"Morality is doing what is right, regardless what we are told. 
Religious dogma is doing what we are told, no matter what is right."

#1731 From: Tarek Fatah <tarekfatah@...>
Date: Sat Apr 7, 2007 12:23 pm
Subject: The case of the "Flying Imams" :: "It was not about the right to prayer or freedom of worship"
tarekfatah
Send Email Send Email
 
Dec. 11, 2006 10:52 AM

From a Muslim outlook,
imams have missed the
point on flight behavior

 
By Muhammad Zuhdi Jasser
The Arizona Republic
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/viewpoints/articles/1211jasser1210.html
 
 
The first thing one must understand about this whole hullabaloo with the Muslim imams taken off a Phoenix-bound plane in Minneapolis is that it most definitely was not about the right to prayer or freedom of worship. And much as the imams and their handlers may try, it is certainly not about victimization.
 

The bizarre tale of the “flying imams” is now known around the world. Was their behavior part of a pre-arranged stunt for the purpose of gathering sympathy on a false premise that Muslims in America are being “victimized?” 


But because the case of the six imams (five from the Valley) and US Airways Flight 300 has taken on a life of its own, it would be helpful to look and see what lessons can be gleaned from this story.
 
All of us as Americans have endured the incremental inconveniences of air travel since 9/11. From 3-ounce fluid limits to random searches, those of us with the first name Mohammed can also attest to humbling profiling. Most of us are quite willing to endure all this because we know the inherent dangers of flying in the world today.

There is little argument that American airport concourses have become clinics of anxiety-laden travelers who have become vigilant in spotting anything out of the ordinary. This vigilance and anxiety is even more acutely felt by U.S. Transportation Security Administration agents and airline crews. They will never be rewarded for a safe flight. But they will be globally vilified for one lax call that leads to tragedy.

Into this highly charged environment comes this incident of the imams returning from their conference. To ignore the larger context is to virtually live in an airtight bubble.

The preponderance of evidence points to some troubling coincidences during flight preparation, regardless of where we stand on this issue. The distribution of their seats, while in fact random, raised concern. Changing seats after boarding, rather than before, raised concern. Conversations in Arabic after boarding raised concern. Seatbelt extenders raised concern. However, no passengers refused to board after seeing and hearing the imams pray aloud at the gate. Taken individually, each of the reported actions could be something any of us would do. However, in totality, although unfortunate in retrospect, it remains hard to fault a cautious crew who must act with little information to ensure a safe flight.

But let us look at the response of the imams since the incident.

They rushed toward the media never looking back. They have taken their story of victimization to every soft media they could find. They then stoked the same tired Muslim flames of victimization through their own political pulpits in mosques around the Valley.

Organizations like CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) and the Muslim American Society also immediately jumped on board, even before the imams' flight reached Phoenix the next day, and began whipping up the drums of victimization. Their handlers flew in from across the country staging rallies and pray-ins so they could teach the American people about this supposed tragedy of injustice.

As a devout Muslim, I have watched this painfully protracted saga unravel, fearing what comes next. The media, especially print media, have bent over backward to hear minorities' fears. Yet public opinion has not seemed to budge in favor of the imams. The lesson here lies in why. It has to do with credibility.

We are all creatures of passion. This fiasco has stirred the passionate cry of victimization from the Muslim activist community and imam community. But where were the news conferences, the rallies to protest the endless litany of atrocities performed by people who act supposedly in my religion's name?
 
Where are the denunciations, not against terrorism in the abstract, but clear denunciations of al-Qaida or Hamas, of Wahhabism or militant Islamism, of Darfurian genocide or misogyny and honor killings, to name a few? There is no cry, there is no rage. At best, there is the most tepid of disclaimers. In short, there is no passion. But for victimization, always.

Only when Americans see that animating passion will they believe that we Muslims are totally against the fascists that have hijacked our religion. There is only so much bandwidth in the American culture to focus upon Islam and Muslims. If we fill it with our shouts of victimization, then the real problems from within and outside our faith community will never be heard.

Though this was not about prayer, let us look at the prayer itself: certainly a central part of our faith both alone and in congregation. The Quran teaches Muslims that God did not make our faith to be too difficult. Thus, during travel, many of us pray alone in silence when we cannot find a private place or where public display is not appropriate.

Prayer is an intimate thing, five times a day for Muslims. It is a personal conversation with God and not about showing others how devout we are. Congregational prayers are preferred, but in travel (as three of the imams did apparently do) they can be combined upon their arrival in Phoenix.

Alija Izetbegovic, former president of Bosnia-Herzegovina, once said he was never so close to God in his prayers as a Muslim as he was during his solitary confinement for 12 years as a political prisoner struggling for liberty under Josip Broz Tito's oppression.

These imams would do well to learn from President Izetbegovic. He further understood the separation of religion and politics.

He understood God teaches us in the Quran that our religion is based upon intention and that if we perceive that the public situation is not conducive to our congregational prayer, that a forgiving God will understand.

Because these imams and their handlers just don't get it, it's time we Muslims found leadership and organizations that do.

Our predicament is unique, fragile and precarious. We Muslims are a relatively new minority in a nation that gives us freedoms that no other Muslim nation would allow.

Whether we acknowledge it or not, a radical subset of our faith community is seeking to destroy the basis for this liberty.

Either we predominantly direct our passions against these radicals or Americans will not count us as allies in this consuming struggle.
--------------------------------------
M. Zuhdi Jasser is a Phoenix physician and chairman of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy. He can be reached at Zuhdi@....


------------------------------------------------
"Morality is doing what is right, regardless what we are told. 
Religious dogma is doing what we are told, no matter what is right."

#1732 From: Tarek Fatah <tarekfatah@...>
Date: Sat Apr 14, 2007 11:22 am
Subject: Pakistani mosques warn of "God's Wrath" as phony phone virus causes death scare
tarekfatah
Send Email Send Email
 
‘Deadly virus’ phone threat causes scare

The Daily DAWN, Karachi
 
KARACHI, April 13: Mobile service providers across the country were on Friday inundated by calls from subscribers worried by a prank message that they could die of a deadly virus being transmitted via their phones.

The rumour was so effective that some mosques in Karachi made announcements that people were being killed by a mobile virus and they should be aware of God's wrath.

In a prank reminiscent of the plot in a hit Hollywood movie, `The Ring’, in which people die within a week after watching a video, the prankster warned users that a deadly virus transmitted through phones had killed 20 people.

There are more than 52 million mobile users in the country.

Farah Hussain, a spokeswoman for Warid Telecom, said that their customer service centres had been inundated with panicky subscribers inquiring about the so-called virus.

The cellular operators moved to calm down subscribers and said in a joint statement: “These rumours are completely baseless. They do not make any sense in technological terms.” — Agencies

Our correspondent in Lahore adds: The fear of contracting a deadly cell phone virus gripped the city on Friday as Rescue 1122 received over a hundred such complaints. "The callers told us that a man has fallen unconscious and blood was oozing out from his mouth and nose after receiving a call on the cell phone. The rescue teams responded to a few calls, which turned out to be hoax. Thereafter, we decided not to take them seriously," a Rescue 1122 official told Dawn.

A number of people also contacted cell phone companies and the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) to inquire about the rumors.

The rumours were so strong that most people preferred not to take calls on cell phones, especially those that came from unknown numbers.

Announcements were also made from some mosques in areas such as Chungi Amer Sadhu, Kahna and Chuhng advising people to refrain from using their cell phones. They warned the people that the `deadly virus’ could kill them.

A large number of people sent SMSes to their families, relatives and friends urging them not to receive calls from anonymous numbers or the ones starting with certain digits.

Dismissing the rumors as baseless, the PTA’s Punjab chief, Col (retd) Nayyar Hassan, said there was no cell phone virus that could harm the human body. “There has never been a virus that could affect humans through cell phones. Viruses are programmes that affect software and operating systems.”

Mobile phone companies also expressed concern, saying the rumors were absurd and showed ignorance of the people. “The rumours sprang from Daska a couple of days ago when someone came out with a theory that a company has erected a tower in the graveyard. This annoyed the dead, who reacted by sending deadly virus through anonymous calls,” said a company official.


------------------------------------------------
"Morality is doing what is right, regardless what we are told. 
Religious dogma is doing what we are told, no matter what is right."

#1733 From: Tarek Fatah <tarekfatah@...>
Date: Sun Apr 15, 2007 3:33 pm
Subject: 300,000 Turks demonstrate: "We don't want an imam as president"
tarekfatah
Send Email Send Email
 

300,000 Turks protest against
Islamic-rooted prime minister

Associated Press
 
ANKARA, Turkey — Some 300,000 Turks protested against their pro-Islamic prime minister Saturday, draping themselves in flags and pouring into streets and squares in a demonstration of the intense secular opposition he will face if he runs for president.
Protesters called on the government to resign and chanted: “We don't want an imam as president!”
 
Flags of support fluttered from balconies and windows.
 
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has brandished his strong religious convictions, speaking out against restrictions on wearing Islamic-style head scarves in government offices and schools, and taking steps to bolster religious institutions in this country founded on the principle of secular rule.
 
He also tried to criminalize adultery before being forced to back down under intense pressure from the European Union, which Turkey is trying to join.
 
The country's pro-secular president, Ahmet Necdet Sezer, has been a brake on the pro-Islamic movement but is stepping down on May 16. Mr. Erdogan's Justice and Development party, which dominates parliament, is expected this month to announce its candidate to replace Mr. Sezer in the appointed presidency.
 
If Mr. Erdogan runs, his party is expected to select him. Another pro-Islamic official could then be selected for the premiership, placing the executive branch entirely in Islamist hands.
Turkey aspires to become the first Muslim member of the European Union, and has long touted itself as a bridge between the Western and Islamic worlds. Mr. Erdogan enjoys some support in Europe and the United States, where backers hold up Turkey as proof that devout Islam and democracy can be compatible.
 
But many opponents at home are suspicious. Tens of thousands travelled from across the country overnight to attend the rally in downtown Ankara.
 
Military officials estimated the crowd at close to 300,000, while organizers said the total number of participants was more than 1 million. Military estimates of past demonstrations have generally proven more accurate than organizers' numbers.
 
Police cordoned off the official meeting area — near the mausoleum of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the revered founder of modern Turkey and the symbol of its secular identity.
Starting in 1923 in the ruins of the Ottoman Empire, Ataturk, a soldier, set about on a series of secular reforms that imposed Western laws, replaced Arabic script with the Latin alphabet, banned Islamic dress and granted women the right to vote.
 
The fiercely pro-secular military staged three coups between 1960 and 1980 and retains a strong influence over politics.
 
“We hope that someone who is loyal to the principles of the republic — not just in words but in essence — is elected president,” Gen. Yasar Buyukanit, chief of the military, said Thursday in a statement widely interpreted as a warning to Mr. Erdogan not to run.
Any serious tensions between the government and the military could have a serious effect on the economy, analysts warn.
 
The demonstration at times turned into a pro-military rally, with a changing of the guard accompanied by shouts of “Turkey is proud of you!” to the soldiers.
 
“I'm here to prevent Recep Tayyip Erdogan from becoming president,” said Serkan Ozcan, a 30-year-old engineer who travelled nearly 370 miles from Izmir to attend the rally. “Never has someone of that mentality been president and never will there be.”
 
Adding to secularists' concerns over a run by Mr. Ergogan, some members of his party have floated the idea of moving Turkey toward a U.S.-style presidential system with a more powerful executive rather than the current parliamentary system.
 
The generally pro-government newspaper Zaman reported Friday that Mr. Erdogan had ordered his party to avoid talk of moving toward a presidential system until after the elections.
 


------------------------------------------------
"Morality is doing what is right, regardless what we are told. 
Religious dogma is doing what we are told, no matter what is right."

#1734 From: Tarek Fatah <tarekfatah@...>
Date: Mon Apr 16, 2007 3:48 pm
Subject: Christian extremists in the White House: Paul Krugman says, "For God's Sake"
tarekfatah
Send Email Send Email
 
April 13, 2007
 
For God’s Sake
 
In 1981, Gary North, a leader of the Christian Reconstructionist movement — the openly theocratic wing of the Christian right — suggested that the movement could achieve power by stealth. “Christians must begin to organize politically within the present party structure,” he wrote, “and they must begin to infiltrate the existing institutional order.”
 
Today, Regent University, founded by the televangelist Pat Robertson to provide “Christian leadership to change the world,” boasts that it has 150 graduates working in the Bush administration.
 
Unfortunately for the image of the school, where Mr. Robertson is chancellor and president, the most famous of those graduates is Monica Goodling, a product of the university’s law school. She’s the former top aide to Alberto Gonzales who appears central to the scandal of the fired U.S. attorneys and has declared that she will take the Fifth rather than testify to Congress on the matter.
 
The infiltration of the federal government by large numbers of people seeking to impose a religious agenda — which is very different from simply being people of faith — is one of the most important stories of the last six years. It’s also a story that tends to go underreported, perhaps because journalists are afraid of sounding like conspiracy theorists.
 
But this conspiracy is no theory. The official platform of the Texas Republican Party pledges to “dispel the myth of the separation of church and state.” And the Texas Republicans now running the country are doing their best to fulfill that pledge.
 
Kay Cole James, who had extensive connections to the religious right and was the dean of Regent’s government school, was the federal government’s chief personnel officer from 2001 to 2005. (Curious fact: she then took a job with Mitchell Wade, the businessman who bribed Representative Randy “Duke” Cunningham.) And it’s clear that unqualified people were hired throughout the administration because of their religious connections.
 
For example, The Boston Globe reports on one Regent law school graduate who was interviewed by the Justice Department’s civil rights division. Asked what Supreme Court decision of the past 20 years he most disagreed with, he named the decision to strike down a Texas anti-sodomy law. When he was hired, it was his only job offer.
 
Or consider George Deutsch, the presidential appointee at NASA who told a Web site designer to add the word “theory” after every mention of the Big Bang, to leave open the possibility of “intelligent design by a creator.” He turned out not to have, as he claimed, a degree from Texas A&M.
 
One measure of just how many Bushies were appointed to promote a religious agenda is how often a Christian right connection surfaces when we learn about a Bush administration scandal.
 
There’s Ms. Goodling, of course. But did you know that Rachel Paulose, the U.S. attorney in Minnesota — three of whose deputies recently stepped down, reportedly in protest over her management style — is, according to a local news report, in the habit of quoting Bible verses in the office?
 
Or there’s the case of Claude Allen, the presidential aide and former deputy secretary of health and human services, who stepped down after being investigated for petty theft. Most press reports, though they mentioned Mr. Allen’s faith, failed to convey the fact that he built his career as a man of the hard-line Christian right.
 
And there’s another thing most reporting fails to convey: the sheer extremism of these people.
 
You see, Regent isn’t a religious university the way Loyola or Yeshiva are religious universities. It’s run by someone whose first reaction to 9/11 was to brand it God’s punishment for America’s sins.
 
Two days after the terrorist attacks, Mr. Robertson held a conversation with Jerry Falwell on Mr. Robertson’s TV show “The 700 Club.” Mr. Falwell laid blame for the attack at the feet of “the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians,” not to mention the A.C.L.U. and People for the American Way. “Well, I totally concur,” said Mr. Robertson.
 
The Bush administration’s implosion clearly represents a setback for the Christian right’s strategy of infiltration. But it would be wildly premature to declare the danger over. This is a movement that has shown great resilience over the years. It will surely find new champions.
Next week Rudy Giuliani will be speaking at Regent’s Executive Leadership Series.


------------------------------------------------
"Morality is doing what is right, regardless what we are told. 
Religious dogma is doing what we are told, no matter what is right."

#1735 From: Tarek Fatah <tarekfatah@...>
Date: Tue Apr 17, 2007 7:23 pm
Subject: The Great Candadian Hijab Controversy Continues :: Prof. Tyseer Aboulnasr in Globe & Mail
tarekfatah
Send Email Send Email
 
Friends,
 
It seems there is never a week when a new controversy surrounding the Hijab hits the headlines. This week a group of 8 to 13 year old Muslim girls refused to take off their Hijab in a Tae Kwon doo tournament, to meet the sport guidelines, and pulled out of the tournament.
 
This despite the fact that the Tae Kwon Doo head protective helmets permitted by the sport rules, more than covers the head.
 
Here is a Ottawa Prof. Tyseer Aboulnasr's take on the controversy in today's Globe and Mail. In the piece, she does not address why the girls refused to wear the helmet as a head cover, when it quite adequately could substitute for a hijab.
 
Tarek
---------------------------------------------

Muslim woman wears her hijab
and a black belt with pride

Tae kwon do is an ideal sport for devout
Muslims, professor believes

MONTREAL -- When news came that young Muslim girls had been turned away from a tae kwon do competition in Quebec because they wore Islamic head scarves, one of the people upset was the former dean of engineering of the University of Ottawa.
Aside from being an electrical engineer, Tyseer Aboulnasr is a hijab-wearing black belt in tae kwon do, a mother of two who began practising martial arts in her 40s.
While she understands that officials at the Fédération de Tae kwondo du Québec are applying their rules to the letter, she feels that they are betraying the sport's spirit of inclusiveness.
"Honestly, when I heard about it, I thought, this is unbelievable," she said yesterday.
Dr. Aboulnasr's embrace of tae kwon do is a rebuke to the traditional image of hijab-wearing Muslim women as people from a cloistered, inward-looking community.
The Egyptian-born 52-year-old is one of the rare women, let alone Muslim women, to have been a dean in such a male-dominated academic field as engineering.
She had never heard of tae kwon do until 1995, when her eight-year-old daughter wanted to learn martial arts after watching The Next Karate Kid, starring Hilary Swank.
When Dr. Aboulnasr took her daughter to a tae kwon do school, she noticed that it was an ideal sport for devout Muslim women because it allowed them to be athletic while remaining modestly covered.
"I went into tae kwon do because I saw it as a sport that is very Islamic," she said.
What happened during Sunday's tournament in Longueuil, Que., underlines the complex reality of both the world of sports and the world of Canadian Muslims.
The tournament was held under the rules of the Seoul-based World Taekwondo Federation. WTF rules are unambiguous. Article 4.2 states that "wearing any item on the head other than the head protector shall not be permitted."
However, unlike other sports, tae kwon do does not have a single world body. The Vienna-based International Taekwon-do Federation, under which Dr. Aboulnasr has competed, has looser rules that allow "bandaging or strapping" as long as they don't give a competitor an advantage.
In more than a dozen years practising under ITF rules, no one ever questioned whether she should remove her hijab. "It never came up. It is soft. It poses no threats to anybody."
The girls who were banned from competing are between the ages of 10 and 14 and come from the Centre Communautaire Musulman de Montréal, an organization of mostly Lebanese Shia Muslims whose website promotes a religiously orthodox view of the world.
"Wearing the hijab . . . liberates women from the trap of Western fashion and maladies," one article on the website says.
One of the girls' coaches, Mahdi Sbeiti, said the tae kwon do program uses the Centre Communautaire's facilities but is not restricted to Muslims and does not feature any religious instruction.
"There's no religion, these are sports classes," he said, noting that the team's other coach is an old-stock francophone Quebecker.
Jean Faucher, president of the Fédération de Tae kwondo du Québec, has argued that the hijab isn't banned for religious reason but rather in the same way as other non-standard items, such as sweatbands.
But Dr. Aboulnasr said the hijab should be allowed precisely because it is not a mere sweatband but a religious garment, albeit not a dangerous object.
"There is a difference between people wearing things out of conviction and people wearing something for convenience. And if you cannot see the difference between the two, I would say, 'Go back, find out about the spirit of tae kwon do and apply that.' "
While tae kwon do is a contact sport, there is no grappling on the floor like judo or wrestling, Dr. Aboulnasr said, so it is unlikely a head scarf could throttle a competitor.
Also, blows to the head are forbidden, she noted. "Even when you kick, you're supposed to touch with the tip of the toe to score points."
Mr. Sbeiti said his group has been invited to a meeting in two weeks with the Quebec federation. Meanwhile, he said, they will ask the World Taekwondo Federation to clarify its rules.


------------------------------------------------
"Morality is doing what is right, regardless what we are told. 
Religious dogma is doing what we are told, no matter what is right."

#1736 From: Muslim Canadian Congress <muslimcongress@...>
Date: Wed Apr 18, 2007 9:54 am
Subject: Globe & Mail Op-ed: "Islamists have turned the Hijab into the central pillar of Islam"
muslimcongress@...
Send Email Send Email
 
"Islamists have turned the hijab into the central pillar of Islam. They consider Muslim women who do not cover their heads -- the vast majority -- as sinners or lesser Muslims. They should come out and debate the issue rather than using young Muslim girls as shields to pursue a political agenda."
=========
April 18, 2007
 
Muslims are not
required to cover up

The hijab has nothing to do with morality,
say FARZANA HASSAN and TAREK FATAH

Originally a source of modesty, the hijab, or Muslim head scarf, has become a political tool. Its latest manifestation came this week with the sight of 10-year old Muslim girls refusing to give up their hijab in a Quebec tae kwon do tournament, when the helmets would have served the same purpose of modesty and much more.
 
All Canadian women have, at some time in their lives, chosen to wear a head cover. In blinding snow storms or freezing rain, the covering of the head, irrespective of what religion one practises, is crucial to one's survival. Halfway across the world, in the deserts of Arabia, whether one was a Muslim or a pagan, the covering of one's head and face was an absolute necessity -- not just when facing a blistering sandstorm, but any time one stepped out of the home in the searing sun. What was essentially attire for a particular climate and weather has been turned into a modern symbol of defiance and, at best, a show of piety by Islamists and orthodox Muslims.
 
There is not a single reference in the Koran that obliges Muslim women to cover their hair or their face. The only verse that comes close to such a dress code (Sura 24, "The Light," verse 31) directs believing women to let their head coverings obscure their bosoms.
 
Yet, in the past few decades, Islamists and orthodox Muslims have made the covering of a woman's head the cornerstone of Muslim identity. The head cover been pushed as a symbol of piety and only the Egyptian and Saudi version of the head cover -- the hijab -- is considered worthy of respect. Coverings that originate in South Asia, the sari or the dupatta, have been relegated as less authentic under Islam.
It is true that through history, Muslim women have chosen to wear the hijab for reasons of modesty. Today, however, some wear it for the opposite reason. "Young women put on a hijab and go dancing, wearing high heels and lipstick. They wear tight jeans that show their bellies," 75-year old Nawal Al-Saadawi, Egypt's leading feminist, noted recently. She is bitter at how the covering of a women's head has been misrepresented as an act of piety and the most defining symbol of Islam.
 
Beyond fashion, however, this supposed symbol of modesty has assumed a decidedly political and religious tenor, dominating the debate on civil liberties and religious freedoms in the West. Any opposition to the hijab is viewed as a manifestation of Islamophobia.
 
This was the argument when young Asmahan Mansour was barred from a soccer league in Quebec, as she refused to remove her hijab while playing the sport. Quebec's electoral officer recently moved to disallow fully veiled Muslim women from voting, as they would not be able to identify themselves adequately.
 
The piece of cloth becomes a subject of controversy also because those who favour its use claim it is religiously mandated and regard its use as their Charter-protected right. To dispense with the garment while playing a sport would amount to committing a sacrilege.
 
An inquiry into historical precedent, however, suggests the Koran does not mandate the hijab at all.
 
It should be noted that the khimar, a head scarf that predated the hijab, was worn by Arab women before the Koran's stipulations on modesty of dress and demeanour. Verse 24:31 did not introduce the garment, but modified its use when it said that Muslim women should "wear their head-coverings over their bosoms" -- previously, they were left bare, although decked with jewellery and ornaments.
 
The intent of the verse was to exhort believing women to cover their nakedness rather than their hair, which was left partially uncovered even though the khimar was a head dress. Moreover, the khimar was never rooted in religious precept -- it was rooted in custom. Modifications for its use were introduced into Islamic practice when the religion spread into Byzantine and Persian territories, where once again the head dress was prevalent as a social custom.
 
The khimar was also a symbol of class and distinction rather than of religion precept in pre-Islamic and early Islamic history. Indeed, there existed a hierarchy of sorts where slave women were actually barred from veiling. Omar bin Khattab, Islam's second caliph, for example, ordered harsh treatment to slave women who donned the veil. Surely, if the veil was based on religious precept, its use would not be enforced so selectively.
 
Therefore, to turn the hijab or khimar into a religious and political issue belies its original intent. Muslim women who so vociferously defend its religious use should consider its history before determining whether they must wear it.
 
Islamists have turned the hijab into the central pillar of Islam. They consider Muslim women who do not cover their heads -- the vast majority -- as sinners or lesser Muslims. They should come out and debate the issue rather than using young Muslim girls as shields to pursue a political agenda.
------------------------------------
Farzana Hassan, president of the Muslim Canadian Congress, is author of Islam, Women and the Challenges of Today.
 
Tarek Fatah, a founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress, is author of Chasing a Mirage: An Islamic State or a State of Islam, to be published next year.

#1737 From: Tarek Fatah <tarekfatah@...>
Date: Thu Apr 19, 2007 11:20 am
Subject: "Islamists have turned the Hijab into the central pillar of Islam"
tarekfatah
Send Email Send Email
 
"Islamists have turned the hijab into the central pillar of Islam. They consider Muslim women who do not cover their heads -- the vast majority -- as sinners or lesser Muslims. They should come out and debate the issue rather than using young Muslim girls as shields to pursue a political agenda."
 
=========
April 18, 2007
 
Muslims are not
required to cover up

The hijab has nothing to do with morality,
say FARZANA HASSAN and TAREK FATAH

Originally a source of modesty, the hijab, or Muslim head scarf, has become a political tool. Its latest manifestation came this week with the sight of 10-year old Muslim girls refusing to give up their hijab in a Quebec tae kwon do tournament, when the helmets would have served the same purpose of modesty and much more.
 
All Canadian women have, at some time in their lives, chosen to wear a head cover. In blinding snow storms or freezing rain, the covering of the head, irrespective of what religion one practises, is crucial to one's survival. Halfway across the world, in the deserts of Arabia, whether one was a Muslim or a pagan, the covering of one's head and face was an absolute necessity -- not just when facing a blistering sandstorm, but any time one stepped out of the home in the searing sun. What was essentially attire for a particular climate and weather has been turned into a modern symbol of defiance and, at best, a show of piety by Islamists and orthodox Muslims.
 
There is not a single reference in the Koran that obliges Muslim women to cover their hair or their face. The only verse that comes close to such a dress code (Sura 24, "The Light," verse 31) directs believing women to let their head coverings obscure their bosoms.
 
Yet, in the past few decades, Islamists and orthodox Muslims have made the covering of a woman's head the cornerstone of Muslim identity. The head cover been pushed as a symbol of piety and only the Egyptian and Saudi version of the head cover -- the hijab -- is considered worthy of respect. Coverings that originate in South Asia, the sari or the dupatta, have been relegated as less authentic under Islam.
It is true that through history, Muslim women have chosen to wear the hijab for reasons of modesty. Today, however, some wear it for the opposite reason. "Young women put on a hijab and go dancing, wearing high heels and lipstick. They wear tight jeans that show their bellies," 75-year old Nawal Al-Saadawi, Egypt's leading feminist, noted recently. She is bitter at how the covering of a women's head has been misrepresented as an act of piety and the most defining symbol of Islam.
 
Beyond fashion, however, this supposed symbol of modesty has assumed a decidedly political and religious tenor, dominating the debate on civil liberties and religious freedoms in the West. Any opposition to the hijab is viewed as a manifestation of Islamophobia.
 
This was the argument when young Asmahan Mansour was barred from a soccer league in Quebec, as she refused to remove her hijab while playing the sport. Quebec's electoral officer recently moved to disallow fully veiled Muslim women from voting, as they would not be able to identify themselves adequately.
 
The piece of cloth becomes a subject of controversy also because those who favour its use claim it is religiously mandated and regard its use as their Charter-protected right. To dispense with the garment while playing a sport would amount to committing a sacrilege.
 
An inquiry into historical precedent, however, suggests the Koran does not mandate the hijab at all.
 
It should be noted that the khimar, a head scarf that predated the hijab, was worn by Arab women before the Koran's stipulations on modesty of dress and demeanour. Verse 24:31 did not introduce the garment, but modified its use when it said that Muslim women should "wear their head-coverings over their bosoms" -- previously, they were left bare, although decked with jewellery and ornaments.
 
The intent of the verse was to exhort believing women to cover their nakedness rather than their hair, which was left partially uncovered even though the khimar was a head dress. Moreover, the khimar was never rooted in religious precept -- it was rooted in custom. Modifications for its use were introduced into Islamic practice when the religion spread into Byzantine and Persian territories, where once again the head dress was prevalent as a social custom.
 
The khimar was also a symbol of class and distinction rather than of religion precept in pre-Islamic and early Islamic history. Indeed, there existed a hierarchy of sorts where slave women were actually barred from veiling. Omar bin Khattab, Islam's second caliph, for example, ordered harsh treatment to slave women who donned the veil. Surely, if the veil was based on religious precept, its use would not be enforced so selectively.
 
Therefore, to turn the hijab or khimar into a religious and political issue belies its original intent. Muslim women who so vociferously defend its religious use should consider its history before determining whether they must wear it.
 
Islamists have turned the hijab into the central pillar of Islam. They consider Muslim women who do not cover their heads -- the vast majority -- as sinners or lesser Muslims. They should come out and debate the issue rather than using young Muslim girls as shields to pursue a political agenda.
------------------------------------
Farzana Hassan, president of the Muslim Canadian Congress, is author of Islam, Women and the Challenges of Today.
 
Tarek Fatah, a founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress, is author of Chasing a Mirage: An Islamic State or a State of Islam, to be published next year.

#1738 From: Tarek Fatah <tarekfatah@...>
Date: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:09 am
Subject: Toronto journalist accused of being "anti-Islam" :: Car smashed, man injured in attack by goons
tarekfatah
Send Email Send Email
 
Thu Apr 19, 5:45 PM

Journalist, family live in terror after
beating, threats for being 'anti-Islam'

 
By Colin Perkel
 
TORONTO (CP) - A Muslim journalist beaten with a cricket bat outside a Toronto-area home fears for his life after facing repeated death threats apparently because someone has deemed his writing to be anti-Islam.
 
Jawaad Faizi, a columnist for the weekly Urdu-language Pakistan Post based in New York, suffered cuts and bruises in the attack, which has alarmed his wife and three children and drew the condemnation Thursday of free-press advocates.
 
"I'm really very, very scared," Faizi said in an interview on Thursday. "I'm scared especially for my kids."
 
The Pakistan Post, North America's largest Urdu-language newspaper with an office in Mississauga, Ont., is published in Toronto, Montreal and Calgary as well as in 16 major American centres.
 
Faizi, 35, said the threats began after he wrote in January about a lecture at a Toronto-area mosque given by a Pakistani cleric, Muhammad Tahir Ul Qadri, leader of the international Islamic-based organization, Minhaj ul Quran.
 
Two weeks ago, Faizi wrote a critical column based on news reports from Pakistan about charismatic claims made by Ul Qadri, who often visits Canada, that he had inscribed the name of the prophet on the moon.
 
That sparked further telephone threats accusing him of apostasy, prompting Faizi and Post editor Amir Arain to complain on Monday to police, who advised them to be careful.
 
On Tuesday, just as he arrived at Arain's Mississauga, Ont., home, Faizi said two men attacked the vehicle. They smashed the windshield and windows, leaving him with cuts and bruises on his head and arm. They fled when he dialled 911 on his cellphone.
 
"It was very shocking to me," Faizi said. "They were saying so many bad things to me in Urdu and Punjabi."
 
Canadian Journalists for Free Expression expressed dismay at the attack and called on police to take the incident seriously.
 
"That this attack happened here in Canada is of great concern to us," said Anne Game, the group's executive director.
 
A spokeswoman for Peel region police said the criminal investigation bureau was indeed investigating.
 
Just last month, Secretary of State for Multiculturalism Jason Kenney said he was deeply disturbed by a threat to "slaughter" two members of the moderate Muslim Canadian Congress for "smearing Islam."
 
Congress founder Tarek Fatah, a target of the death threats, said Thursday that such intimidation is common in places like Pakistan or Egypt. "For it to be rearing its head in Canada is very, very scary," Fatah said.
 
Faizi, who was a well known investigative journalist in Pakistan, and his wife Ayesha Jawaad, 30, fled the country for Canada in 2002, where they sought political asylum.
Now, they said, they have no idea where to go to be safe.
 
"We thought that we were safe now, but I don't think that any more," said Jawaad, adding her writer father was murdered in Pakistan by extremist Muslims five years ago.
 
"I'm really scared. I'm feeling lost. I don't know what I'm going to do and what's going to happen in the coming days."
 
Faizi, who works part-time at a dry-cleaning plant, said he's afraid to go to work.
 
Also, the family's two boys, aged 10 and five, and four-year-old daughter are staying home from school at the urging of the vice-principal. "She advised me it would be safer for them to keep them at home," said Jawaad.


------------------------------------------------
"Morality is doing what is right, regardless what we are told. 
Religious dogma is doing what we are told, no matter what is right."

#1739 From: Tarek Fatah <tarekfatah@...>
Date: Sat Apr 28, 2007 9:47 am
Subject: Prof. Vijay Prashad: "Multiculturalism Kills Me"
tarekfatah
Send Email Send Email
 
Friends,
 
Vijay Prashad is Professor of International Studies at Trinity College in Hartford, USA. He is the author of a dozen books, including two chosen by the Village Voice as books of the year (Karma of Brown Folk and Everybody Was Kung Fu Fighting). He is on the board of the Center for Third World Organizing (www.ctwo.org) and writes a monthly column for Frontline, India (www.frontline.in).
 
In this column for ZNet, an on-line magazine, Prof Prashad critiques multiculturalism as "a narrow view of "culture," ... It gets caught in who it allows to define the boundaries of a "culture," and in who gets to regulate it. Typically, because theocratic and conservative forces organize on the field of culture, they have come to dominate it."
 
As a Hindu himself, Professor Prashad takes up the example of the Hindu Students Council in New Jersey that was created as an offshoot of the VHP in India. He writes, "For them, concern over the identity struggles of young Indian Americans could easily be reconciled with their anti-Muslim politics. Multiculturalism in the U. S. provided cover for the cruel, cultural chauvinism in India"
 
He goes on to write: "Given the strictures of liberal multiculturalism, everyone, including college administrators, must stand by and applaud" as the group organized its activities.
 
Prof. Prashad writes about the presence of right-wing Hindu activists on the American campuses, but if one were to switch the word "Hindu" for Muslim or Sikh, the story would still be the same. Hiding behind the shield of multiculturalism, religious extremists in both groups foster segregation and religious nationalism.
 
Read and reflect.
 
Tarek Fatah
---------------------
April 26, 2007
 
Multiculturalism Kills Me
 
By Vijay Prashad
ZNet Magazine
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2007-04/26prashad.cfm
 
Not as much as straight-up racism. That's made a comeback these days. This year, the number of incidents of "black face" and other assorted throwbacks to Jim Crow racism is astounding. My own campus suffered this, as did Texas A&M (where the scandal broke just as President George W. Bush nominated its president, Robert Gates, to be his Secretary of Defense). Such Klan-variety racism is generally couched as juvenile thoughtlessness, lubricated with drink and drugs, although it doesn't feel like a prank for African American students. For them, this is terrorism of a domestic sort.
 
Colleges respond to such racism with a call for tolerance and diversity.
 
More diversity, less racism. That's the received wisdom. Diversity and tolerance are part of an ensemble of concepts that form the heart of liberal multiculturalism. College administrators rightly cast out cruel racism.
 
Against intolerance of difference, they champion a diverse cultural life world and ask that we respect that which is unfamiliar. With experience comes comfort. On the surface, there is nothing wrong with such an attitude.
 
Indeed, it is far better to have differences championed than denigrated.
 
Liberal multiculturalism, whose main concepts are tolerance and diversity, provides a raft for students who otherwise would be on the frontline of juvenile cruelty. But, liberal multiculturalism does as much long-term harm as it does short-term good. Here are some of its problems:
 
(1) It adopts a narrow view of "culture," seeing it as the property of a "people" rather than a set of resources and traditions that emerge in different parts of the world, filled with contradictions and opportunities. As Gandhi said of a narrow idea of culture, "if I can't swim in tradition, I'll sink in it."
 
(2) It gets caught in who it allows to define the boundaries of a "culture," and in who gets to regulate it. Typically, because theocratic and conservative forces organize on the field of culture, they have come to dominate it. Therefore, it is not ordinary people, with all our contradictions, who fashion the "culture" of multiculturalism. Rather it is most often the most conservative elements, those who have an investment in making purity central to their cultural project, who seize control of the multicultural dynamic.
 
(3) Finally, because multiculturalism sets up culture to such a high standard for the understanding of the world's people's, "culture" operates as the determinant of destiny. There is no place for political economy or social institutional analysis, if indeed culture can explain everything about how and why people behave.
 
The descent of multiculturalism into the provision of cover for projects of cruelty is best illustrated in the world of Indian America. In 1990, a group of committed activists of the hard right formed the Hindu Students Council (HSC) in the woods of New Jersey.
 
Their public pronouncement was along the grain of liberal multiculturalism, that they wanted to assist Hindu students who struggle with the "loss and isolation" due to their "upbringing in a dual culture Hindu and Judeo-Christians.We try to reconcile our own sorrows and imperfections as human beings in a variety of self-defeating ways. And we usually go through this confused internal struggle alone. It was precisely to assist you with this spiritual, emotional and identity needs that HSC was born." Given the strictures of liberal multiculturalism, everyone, including college administrators, must stand by and applaud.
 
But the HSC was never simply about the identity struggles of those whom it called Hindu Americans. It was also the youthful fingers of the long-arm of Hindutva-supremacy in India. It was initially a "project of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad of America," the far right "cultural wing" of the hard right Sangh Parivar (Family of the Faithful). When activists of the right destroyed a five hundred year old mosque in 1992, the VHP egged them on, the VHPA cheered, and so did the leaders of the HSC. For them, concern over the identity struggles of young Indian Americans could easily be reconciled with their anti-Muslim politics. Multiculturalism in the U. S. provided cover for the cruel, cultural chauvinism in India.
 
All this is revealed in a new report, Lying Religiously: The Hindu Students Council and the Politics of Deception, released in early April 2007 by the Campaign to Stop Funding Hate (the report is available at http://hsctruthout.stopfundinghate.org ). In 2002, the Campaign had unmasked another "front" organization of the far right, the India Development and Relief Fund (IDRF), a U. S. based charity organization that raises money for mayhem (it continues to operate with impunity).
 
The HSC tried to rebut the report, saying in a press release that it is not only "open about its activities," but that it does such ordinary things as "hosting speakers, performing community service, holding poojas, celebrating festivals, and participating in interfaith discussions." But, as the report shows, in 2000, the head of the VHP, the cultural wing of the hard right, Ashok Singhal said of the HSC, "Now, the first project we have in mind is strengthening the Hindu Students Council.
 
The second-third generation Hindu youth do not want to identify themselves with India because they are American citizens, but they do not hesitate to call themselves Hindu. This is the generation which is going to throw up the leadership of the future.
 
We therefore feel that they should be the focus of our attention. Our anxiety is that they should not be torn asunder from their own roots."
 
Singhal, who is a fire-breathing leader of the Hindutva right, is currently in the midst of an election campaign, where he is defending the use of a repellent election DVD made by the party of the Hindutva right, the BJP (it shows, for example, graphic details of a Muslim butcher killing a cow, an image intended to inflame hatred against Muslims). So much for tolerance and diversity.
 
The HSC now claims to be a separate organization. The Report from the Campaign makes the circumstantial claim that its independence is a sign of its maturity within the far right, "Such a severance of links signifies the very opposite, that is, this marks the graduation of the HSC from being a mentored project of the VHPA to a full member of the Sangh."
 
This might be so. It is, of course, hard to prove beyond a circumstantial argument. But the claim is sufficient to start a discussion inside and around the HSC.
What is the nature of its independence, and what are its links with the VHPA and the "family"?
 
But it is another worthwhile place to hold a discussion about multiculturalism, the social ideology on our college campuses that allows a conservative idea of culture to take charge. Diversity trumps over a forthright campaign against white supremacy, and one that dispatches all hurtful cultural forms, whatever their provenance.


------------------------------------------------
"Morality is doing what is right, regardless what we are told. 
Religious dogma is doing what we are told, no matter what is right."

#1740 From: Tarek Fatah <tarekfatah@...>
Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 11:01 pm
Subject: Islam vs. Islamists :: How PBS buckled in the face of Islamist pressures
tarekfatah
Send Email Send Email
 
Friends,
 
Recently, PBS ran a series of documentaries about Islam and Muslims. What many people didn't realise is that one of the documentaries that was supposed to air, was dropped after objections from the folks in charge of vetting the docs. The film, Islam vs. Islamists, documented the threats and intimidation moderate Muslims face at the hands of their extremist co-religionists. The people featured in the doc came from Denmark, France, Canada and the US.
 
Now we know that one of the men responsible for censoring the Canadian documentary, Leo Eaton, is the son of Charles Le Gai Eaton aka Shaykh Hasan Eaton, a convert to Islam who lives in the UK and is linked with people like CAIR's Jamal Badawi and Hamza Yusuf.
 
It is no wonder that Martyn Burke's documentary got dropped while the one featuring Hamza Yusuf and other conservative Muslims was aired.
 
Another person employed by PBS to vet the docs was a professor linked to Warith Deen Muhammad. The documentary showed how WD Muhammad's group recieved millions from the Saudis. The Prof too recommended the doc be dropped. And so it was.
 
Now, the Canadian producer of the film, Martyn Burke is fighting back against this censorship. He has done a screening at the US Congress, watched by both Demorcats and Republicans. The media is just now finding out how Islamists have managed to censor a public tax funded documentary.
 
This Tuesday evening I will join Burke in screening this documentary for the media in New York. If you wish to see this doc and are in NY City, please do come, but  call or e-mail and RSVP.
 
Date:       Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Location:  Regal Union Square Stadium, Theater 14
               850 Broadway at 13th Street
               New York City

Time:    6:00 pm Doors Open
            6:30 pm Private Screening Begins
 
RSVP nterzulli@...  Tel: (212) 588.9148
 
Here is a report on this controversy from one of the USA Today papers. I am aslo attaching a US News & World Report article on the subject.
 
Tarek
----------------------------------
April 18, 2007 12:15 am
by Bill Steigerwald
 
Canadian novelist and veteran documentary filmmaker Martyn Burke is not someone you’d expect to get into an ugly ideological spitting match with the folks who run PBS.
 
Burke, who lives and works in the heart of the Hollywood creative community, considers himself neither conservative nor liberal. But “Islam vs. Islamist,” the documentary he made about how moderate Muslims are being silenced and intimidated by Islamist extremists, will not be part of “America at a Crossroads,” PBS’s new 11-part, six-night series about post-9/11 America.
 
Executives at WETA in Washington, D.C., the public station overseeing the series for PBS, say the documentary was cut from the “Crossroads” lineup because it wasn’t completed in time and because it was “alarmist” and not objective. PBS says it may run it at a later date.
Burke, however, says his documentary, made with $700,000 in Corporation for Public Broadcasting money, was interfered with and then dropped because he refused to fire his two co-producers, Frank Gaffney and Alex Alexiev, who run the Center for Security Policy think tank.
 
Burke says he is telling his side of the story because “of a long litany of unbelievably unprofessional things” that have happened and because PBS series producers violated “the basic tenets of journalism.” I talked to Burke by telephone on Thursday, April12, from his home in Santa Monica, Calif.:
 
Q: Is this what you get for taking $700,000 from the taxpayers to make a documentary?
A: Probably. I think I’m paying for my sins of working on the public purse right now. But, no, we took this on because we just wanted to ask one simple question after 9/11: Where are the moderate Muslims and why aren’t they speaking out? We took this for a very serious purpose. We thought it was a question that needed answering and the answer we found was that the moderate Muslims have been generally intimidated, in many cases, through coercion, ostracism or sometimes outright fear of physical violence. That is what we wanted to show.
 
Q: That’s what “Islam vs. Islamists” is about?
A: Yes. We portrayed a number of moderate Muslims in Denmark, in France, in Canada and in the United States — the U.S. being one community in Flint, Mich., and one in Phoenix. We chose moderate Muslims. We hired a team of journalists, some of the best we could get our hands on, who are reporters from major newspapers in France, Denmark and Toronto. We had a Pulitzer Prize nominee and a woman profiled in The New York Times for the excellence of her team. We were just about making a documentary on this topic but we found ourselves enmeshed in politics unlike I have never seen before.
 
Q: A lot of people don’t realize that documentaries are not meant to be balanced and neutral — they always have a point of view. So what is the slant or agenda of “Islam vs. Islamists”?
A: One of the absolutely growing elements of hysteria from WETA within PBS was that we have a point of view. We said, “Of course we have a point of view.” Our point of view — based on the research, based on the reporting and the discussions with all these world-class reporters that we had engaged on this topic — was that there is a large community of moderates within the Muslim world who are afraid to speak up and we’re showing why. It’s because of the attacks of the Islamists.
 
What PBS/WETA attacked us on was they wanted us, in our opinion, to become virtually apologists for the Islamists, those who are the fundamentalists in this world.
Basically, the attitude of this one small group — and again I have to say within WETA — was that the Muslims we were portraying as the moderates were in some way, in their view, not true Muslims because they were Westernized; they believed in democracy, which by the way the Islamists do not and will openly say that.
 
But they (the group within WETA) felt that the Islamists … somehow represented a truer strain of Islam. We said that is not the case as we have found it. And it became a sort of battle, with them saying to us, “Well, you control this. It is your film, but” – and it was a huge, capital-letter “But” – “if you do not do what we want, we will throw you out of the series.”
 
Q: What did they want?
A: They wanted to portray the Islamists in a way that would represent them as being the truer strain of Islam, the truer representatives of Islam. And we said they represent a very virulent, aggressive form of Islam, that is one strain, but the moderates within Islam — and there are millions of them — have an equally valid voice within Islam. They did not want that balance.
 
Q: What are your politics and are they relevant in this?
A: First of all, you have to know that I am a card-carrying Canadian — a green card-carrying Canadian — and that my wife is a liberal and a member of the ACLU. I am basically an avid observer of the American political scene. I have been accused as being a “red Tory” up in Canada, which is as close as I can come to my politics. There are parts of both major parties that I would attack, that I would not subscribe to. Basically, I made a huge point of trying to keep politics, as it’s understood in the United States, completely out of this film.
I have socialists, conservatives, liberals amongst the moderate Muslims we are portraying. I didn’t care what the politics of the people we are portraying are -– I couldn’t have cared less. Just as long as they were qualified as a moderate Muslims speaking out against the Islamists within their own religion, that was all that we took as a criteria. Their political beliefs had no place in this, nor did it have a place behind the cameras.
 
Q: You don’t consider the critiques of your film from the PBS/WETA people — that you had written an “alarmist” or unfair film — to be constructive criticism but censorship, is that true?
A: Yeah. What started happening was that we received these increasingly almost hysterical critiques from WETA. ... They demanded that I fire my two partners (Frank Gaffney and Alex Alexiev), who had brought me into this film, because my partners were conservatives.
I made the point that I had done a documentary about the Blacklist Era in Hollywood, about the Hollywood Ten, and about the liberals and leftists who were blacklisted in those days, and I was not about to be party to a blacklist from the other side. I didn’t care whether it was liberal or conservative, I was not about to blacklist or fire anybody because of their political beliefs.
 
I was asked a question I never thought I’d hear in America — “Don’t you check into the politics of the people you work with?” My answer was, “No. I do not. I check into their journalistic integrity. I check into their pursuit of the truth as they understand it — a truth that can stand up to criticism and scrutiny.”
 
That’s what I check into. I don’t check into “Are you a Democrat? Are you a Republican? Are you a liberal or are you a conservative?” That to me is absolutely abhorrent to a free pursuit of journalism in this country.
 
Q: Did you know what the politics of Gaffney and Alexiev were?
A: The answer is yes. How I got brought into this was 20 years I was inside Afghanistan with the Afghan rebels who were attacking the Soviets. I went inside and slept in caves and trekked up and down mountains. I was on the border with Alex Alexiev, who was over there at the time researching a lot and he knew more about the Islamic situation and more about the Soviet situation than anyone I ever met. He was an amazing research resource. I didn’t see him for 16 or 17 years and then I got a call from him. He says there is a chance to do a film about moderate Muslims within Islam – a topic I was fascinated about.
 
I said yes.
 
Frank Gaffney was a partner on this. I met Frank Gaffney for the first time and my question to myself was, “Am I going to find myself as part of an agenda-driven film, because if so, I was not going to be party to it.” Frank Gaffney and I and Alex Alexiev and I talked, and basically there was no agenda driving this film other than as rigorous an examination of the situation as we could make it. Not once did I feel a political agenda from Frank Gaffney or from Alex Alexiev during this film. The only politics I ever felt came from WETA. Had I had felt there was a political agenda driving this film, from neoconservatives or anything else, I would not have gone into it.
 
Q: How do you think this squabble will end, versus how you’d like to see it end?
A: I can’t really answer that. We feel like a ship on the sea right now, waiting for dawn to find out where we are. There are tremendous discussions and negotiations going on in Washington. We have told Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the financiers of this film, “Please get PBS to air it or release it.” There was a letter that went out this morning, as a matter of fact, to that effect, to Pat Harrison, the head of Corporation for Public Broadcasting, saying please do exactly that.
 
Q: One of the WETA execs said your film was dealt with in a “fair and professional manner.” Do you agree?
A: No. I have worked for networks all over the world. I have worked in France, Britain, Canada and the United States. This was the most unprofessional dealing I have ever had and the most politically biased. In some ways, it’s just raw politics taking precedence over journalism. It’s that simple.
---------------------------------
Bill Steigerwald is a columnist at the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. E-mail Bill at bsteigerwald@.... Distributed by CagleCartoons.com.


------------------------------------------------
"Morality is doing what is right, regardless what we are told. 
Religious dogma is doing what we are told, no matter what is right."

#1741 From: Tarek Fatah <tarekfatah@...>
Date: Mon Apr 30, 2007 1:14 pm
Subject: Two Arab artists need our help: Marcel Khalife & Qassim Haddad under attack by Islamists
tarekfatah
Send Email Send Email
 
Friends,
 
Marcel Khaliffe is a renowned Lebanese musician and composer, while Qassim Haddad is a prominent Bahraini poet. The two are in trouble after being accused of violating Islamic morals and Shariah laws.
 
The two need your support in the face of this Islamist attack.  There is an on-line petition in both Arabic and English, and I hope you can add your name to it.
 
 
Thanks for your help and please spread the word.
 
Tarek
-------------------------
27 March 2007
 
Two Arab Artists under Attack
 
Marcel Khalife and Qassim Haddad
cause fury in Bahrain's parliament
 
 
Members of parliament in the small Gulf kingdom Bahrain attacked a performance by Lebanese composer Marcel Khalife and Bahraini poet Qassim Haddad as being a violation of Islamic morals and sharia laws
 
Controversy has emerged with a new work by the famous Lebanese musician and composer Marcel Khalife and Bahraini poet Qassim Haddad. The controversy revolves around the setting of an epic love poem entitled 'Majnoon Laila', or 'Laila Wal Majnoon', (which means 'Laila and the Possessed' or 'Laila and the Madman'), to music, dance, song and drama by Marcel Khalife.
 
The performance premiered in Bahrain on 1 and 2 March 2007 as part of the inauguration of the annual Spring of Culture Festival which was organised by the Bahraini Ministry of Information. Marcel Khalife sang at the show while male and female dancers staged the relationship between the two famous Arab lovers, Laila and Qais.
 
The show was attacked by fundamentalist members of the Bahraini parliament as being in violation of Islamic morals and sharia laws after an Islamic preacher, Sheikh Ali Matar, had complained in a prayer sermon that the Spring of Culture Festival features a play with scenes that "arouse [sexual] instincts" and "encourage debauchery".
 
Parliament second vice-chairman Dr Salah Abdulrahman said the event included "sleazy dance moves" which were offensive to Muslims and non-Muslims.
 
On 13 March 2007 the Bahraini parliament voted to create an investigative committee look into the controversy. Islamists control three-quarters of the 40 seats in the parliament in Bahrain.
Defending freedom of expression
 
"This is a dangerous precedent that will take us back to the Middle Ages and the Inquisition," said theatre director Khaled al-Roueie to Agence France Presse's writer Mohammad Fadhel.
"We have resolved to wage a battle to defend freedom of expression and creativity, and we will mobilise all intellectuals and artists to confront this precedent, which risks undermining our liberties," said Ibrahim Abu Hindi, who heads a writers' association.
 
Mohammad Fadhel writes that the Bahraini press joined the fray, running editorials and interviews with thinkers and artists describing the parliament's move as an attempt to "gag" citizens.
The Spring of Culture Festival runs in Bahrain until mid-April 2007.


------------------------------------------------
"Morality is doing what is right, regardless what we are told. 
Religious dogma is doing what we are told, no matter what is right."

#1742 From: Tarek Fatah <tarekfatah@...>
Date: Tue May 1, 2007 8:15 am
Subject: Canadian filmmaker demands PBS air censored film, "or give it back"
tarekfatah
Send Email Send Email
 
Mon Apr 30, 5:52 PM ET
 
Canadian filmmaker demands
U.S. public broadcaster air film or give it back
TORONTO (CP) - The Canadian producer behind a controversial documentary about the rift between moderate and conservative Muslims said he wants American public broadcasters to air the film as is or give him back the rights to the project. Martin Burke said he's had requests from networks in Canada, France, Denmark and the United States for permission to air his film "Islam vs. Islamists: Voices from the Muslim Centre," but that it remains on the cutting-room floor of Washington's WETA - an affiliate of PBS.
 
"Either show it, or give it back. It's quite simple," he said in a telephone interview from New York City where he was preparing to screen the film for U.S. journalists on Tuesday.
The public broadcaster commissioned the film as part of its "America at a Crossroads" series but dropped it last month from its inaugural weeklong line-up.
 
The decision set off a wave of controversy after the film's producers, which include Frank Gaffney and Alex Alexiev of the Center for Security Policy - a conservative advocacy group - cited censorship as the real reason why the show was spiked.
 
While WETA contends the film is alarmist, one-sided and lacking in context and flow, spokesman Joe DePlasco said it's far from a complete write-off.
 
There was only room to air 11 documentaries during the series introduction, said DePlasco. Efforts are underway to bring the other 11 films that were initially approved for television as stand-alone features under the "Crossroads" banner, DePlasco added.
 
"As we've said all along, we're hoping that 'Islam vs. Islamists' can go out as a stand alone as well," he said.
 
"It's an extraordinarily important topic. There's some riveting stories and personalities in the film and once these guys agree to sit down and work with the larger team to complete the film, it will hopefully go out as a stand alone like the others."
 
Burke suggests the film was left out due to Gaffney and Alexiev's neo-conservative political views and because the PBS officials behind the series are biased towards conservative Muslims.
 
"It became apparent that what they wanted was one long apology for the Islamists," Burke said, noting great efforts were taken to edit the film more to their liking.
 
He said PBS officials argued that moderate Muslims featured in the documentary, like Tarek   Fatah who hosts the Toronto-based current affairs program Muslim Chronicle, are not true Muslims.
 
"This is about Muslims fighting for the very soul of their community and their faith, said Fatah. "It's really unfortunate the only attempt made to show the huge problem that ordinary, moderate Muslims face at the hands of Islamists was censored."
 
The film was screened last week to a group of both Democrat and Republican politicians to positive reviews, said Burke.


------------------------------------------------
"Morality is doing what is right, regardless what we are told. 
Religious dogma is doing what we are told, no matter what is right."

#1743 From: Muslim Canadian Congress <muslimcongress@...>
Date: Thu May 3, 2007 9:24 am
Subject: MCC founder wins National Press Club 's 9th Annual Press Freedom Award
muslimcongress@...
Send Email Send Email
 
May 3, 2007
 
Tarek Fatah wins National Press
Club's Annual Press Freedom Award
 
OTTAWA - The founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress, Tarek Fatah is being recognized today by the National Press Club for his work perseverance as an activist, writer and broadcaster despite facing numerous death threats and intimidation by extremists.
 
For his work, Fatah has been named as winner the 2007 Press Freedom Award. Fatah was nominated for the award by the by the Canadian Journalists for Free Expression. The National Press Club award was founded in 1998 to recognize press freedom initiatives and to honour journalists who fall victim to harm or death as they perform their jobs.
 
Tarek Fatah will be recognized at a luncheon today at the National Arts Centre in Ottawa, which will also be attended by Helen Thomas, the veteran American journalist also known as the First Lady of the White House Press Corps. The event will be moderated by Don Newman of the CBC.

The runner up prize will go to Jim Poling, 42,who is Managing Editor of The Hamilton Spectator. Poling, will be recognized at a luncheon at the National Arts Centre in Ottawa. It's the first time the club has named a runner-up for the award.
Poling is being recognized for his work in setting up a program for foreign-trained journalists at the newspaper and Sheridan College.
The luncheon is being co-hosted by the Press Club and the Canadian Newspaper Association.
 
- 30-

#1744 From: Tarek Fatah <tarekfatah@...>
Date: Fri May 4, 2007 3:11 pm
Subject: Resisting the Islamist influence: "Pakistan in Peril"
tarekfatah
Send Email Send Email
 

May 4, 2007

MINORITY REPORT

Pakistan in peril

By Natasha Fatah
CBC.ca
http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_fatah/20070504.html

Canada is a country that revels in diversity and multiculturalism, and each year we dedicate May as Asian Heritage Month. As we explore and enjoy the diversity of all things Asian — be they Middle Eastern, Central, East or South Asian — I cannot help but think of the corner of Asia where I come from, a place that is now considered one of the most dangerous countries in the world — Pakistan.
 
You cannot open a newspaper without coming across a story about Pakistan. Suicide bombers, militant Islamists, young girls gang raped by men who go uncharged, corruption, crime, religious extremism — these are the portraits of today’s Pakistan. In the West, young Pakistani men have been implicated and accused of involvement in terrorist plots in the U.K., the U.S. and in Canada. Even Pakistan’s favourite pastime is not exempt from scandal — earlier this year, the Pakistani cricket team coach Bob Woolmer was murdered after his team lost a game to Ireland. It seems that wherever Pakistan is concerned, bad things happen. Is this Pakistan’s heritage?

60 years of independence

This year also marks the 60th anniversary of Pakistan’s independence from British colonial rule and separation from India. When it first emerged as an independent state in 1947, Pakistan set the example of a moderate Muslim nation; it served as a model for Muslim countries across Asia and Africa that were also breaking from the shackles of European colonialism.
 
While Pakistan's independence was met with mass confusion, racial rioting, and one of the biggest and bloodiest human migrations in history, this remained a time of real promise for the young democratic nation. The country’s founder, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, was a Shia Muslim, the first minister of law was a Hindu and the first foreign minister was Ahmadiyya, a sect within Islam. Diversity was commonplace and a source of pride in the early days. But today, sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shias is a major national problem, Ahmadiyyas have been labelled non-Muslims and most of the Hindu population left Pakistan long ago.
 
The dream of what Pakistan was meant to represent is a distant memory, and the reality is that a military dictatorship now takes its cue from the Islamists.
 
However, during the '50s, '60s and '70s, Pakistan was thriving. Students from all across Asia wanted admission into Karachi University, and visitors came from everywhere to visit the city of Lahore, one of the most cosmopolitan and beautiful cities in the continent.
 
But in 1977, military General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq took power in a bloodless coup, and implemented a brand of militant Islam and social conservatism that crippled Pakistan for the next 11 years. Pakistan has never fully recovered. Zia-ul-Haq implemented Sharia law in the country, making it impossible for rapists to be convicted, outlawing music and dancing, putting restrictions on the press, slowly eroding the democratic principles that Pakistan had worked so hard to achieve.

Culture under attack

But the most damaging repercussion of Zia-ul-Haq’s influence was that all things Indian became the enemy, forcing Pakistan to abandon its cultural links to India.
 
There are no questions about Indian heritage — the Moghul Empire, the Taj Mahal, the Vedic scriptures, the River Ganges, the dozens of languages, the incredible foods and spices, the intoxicating music and the dancing, all the things that have drawn visitors to the sub-continent for centuries. But what represents Pakistan?
 
Pakistan and India share immense cultural commonalities — one’s history cannot be complete without the other. But Zia-ul-Haq and all the subsequent conservative Islamists after him have made Islam the sole basis of Pakistan’s identity.
 
Pakistani traditional customs, arts and even clothing like saris, are under attack. President Pervez Musharraf, who is a secularist himself, is powerless against the might of the militants in Pakistan.
 
Sixty years ago, when Pakistan and India went their separate ways, the world assumed that each would grow side by side, separate but equal. But a very different narrative is unfolding. India is turning into a superpower, the world’s largest democracy, with one of the fastest-growing economies in history. Meanwhile, Pakistan is on the verge of descending into a medieval state, threatened by vigilantism and chaos.
 
There are brave and courageous Pakistanis who are resisting the Islamist influence from Afghanistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia, but they are few in number.
 
However, history is always in motion. Until and unless Pakistan’s silent majority fights for a secular, democratic state, Pakistan will continue to be volleyed between mosques, mullahs and the military. And that’s a heritage few of us will be celebrating this month.


------------------------------------------------
"Morality is doing what is right, regardless what we are told. 
Religious dogma is doing what we are told, no matter what is right."

#1745 From: Tarek Fatah <tarekfatah@...>
Date: Sat May 5, 2007 11:28 am
Subject: The Left is engaging in "racism of lower expectations" as it allies with Islamists
tarekfatah
Send Email Send Email
 
May 05, 2007 04:30 AM
 
Struggling to find a moderate voice
 
Frustrated Muslim Tarek Fatah
fights `the racism of low expectations'
 
By Stuart Laidlaw
The Toronto Star
http://www.thestar.com/Life/article/209846
 
Tarek Fatah, a long-time left-leaning Muslim, jokes that maybe he's just too good looking to be taken seriously as a representative of Islam. Certainly, the things he has to say about small-l liberals and the radical left in Western democracies – and their attitudes toward his faith – are anything but pretty.
 
"The liberal-left has a preconceived vision of what a Muslim is, and most of us don't fit that mould," says Fatah, a moderate leader in the Canadian Islamic community.
 
Clean-shaven himself, Fatah says many on the left expect Muslims to have dark, unruly beards and to be wearing unflattering flowing robes.
 
Fatah and many of his friends eschew both, but he's known Muslims to rent robes when they meet with politicians or activist groups, in order to provide good visuals for the media.
 
But more disconcerting, he says, is a tendency he's noticed among many on the left to embrace radical Muslims because they like the anti-U.S., anti-George W. Bush rhetoric of such people.
 
"They think they're like the Sandinistas," he says, referring to the Nicaraguan rebels of the 1980s.
 
Fatah's frustration boiled to the surface this week as he prepared to fly to New York for a private screening of Islam vs. Islamist, a film cut from the line-up of the America at a Crossroads series of documentaries last month after PBS producers decided it was too alarmist.
 
For Fatah, the abrupt cancelling of a film looking into intimidation of moderate Muslims such as himself by conservatives is a symptom of something much more troubling he's noticed in Western society – liberal guilt feeding liberal racism.
 
"It's the racism of low expectations," he says, adding the left is too willing to overlook the sexist and homophobic attitudes of conservative Muslims in hopes of gaining an ally against the U.S. administration.
 
Add to that liberal guilt for being part of the rich West, he says, and a situation soon develops in which the most outspoken Muslim critics of the West get the most attention.
 
"Moderate Muslims don't have a place where they can speak, and the censoring of this film shows it," says Fatah, who is featured in the film, produced by Martyn Burke.
 
Fatah lashed out at anti-war groups who march shoulder to shoulder with conservative Muslim groups to protest the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, without paying enough attention to the politics of the groups they are allying with.
 
A one-time member of the New Democratic Party who worked on Bob Rae's Liberal leadership bid, Fatah also had harsh words for NDP leader Jack Layton for his vociferous defence of Taliban prisoners captured in Afghanistan. "There is an arrogant view that these rednecks in America are the idiots and we are the civilized people living north of the 49th parallel," he says. "And the manifestation of our generosity is how well we treat the Taliban prisoners."
 
Karl Belanger, a spokesperson for Layton, says the party is simply trying to ensure Canada lives up to its Geneva Conventions commitments on the treatment of prisoners. A spokesperson for the Canadian Peace Alliance, Canada's largest anti-war group, could not be reached for comment.
 
A subject of numerous death threats for his criticism of conservative Muslims, Fatah says members of the left, by trying to be culturally sensitive, have at times become little more than apologists for those making the threats.
 
"The people who we hope in Western society would say, `How dare you make death threats,' are saying, `Oh, we can understand, there's a cultural disposition that permits people to be idiots'," he says. "They're homophobes, but we understand."
 
Fatah was in New York on Tuesday night as Burke showed his film in what was billed as a private screening for invited media. PBS, which commissioned the documentary for its series looking at America after the 9/11 attacks, holds the rights to the film – so no public viewings are allowed.
 
PBS has said the show was too one-sided and called for two changes, including a stronger narrative arc in order to clarify the point of the film and a less alarmist "voice" for a "fair and accurate documentary looking at today's struggle between forces of moderation and extremism."
 
Burke wants PBS to hand rights to the film back to him so he can find another way to get it to the public. "Either show it, or give it back. It's quite simple," he told Canadian Press.
 
But for Fatah, the issues are much larger, a marriage of convenience between the left and conservative Muslims.
 
"Nothing makes them feel better than to say, `Those people who are being pissed on by George Bush, we'll take care of them,'" Fatah says.
 
In so doing, he says the left may be falling into the same trap that the right once did – allying with Muslim fundamentalists to satisfy short-term goals, without enough attention paid to what those people believe.
 
"Toronto's downtown war-withdrawers, Trotskyites march with the very people who would hang them," he says, pointing out that many on the left are atheists. "The biggest crime in the eyes of Islamists is someone who denies the existence of God."
-----------------------
 
NOTE:
To see the trailer of the banned PBS documentary, click here.
To hear an interview with Martyn Burke, the film's director, on CBC Radio, click here.
To see see a CNN discussion about the banned documentary, click here.


------------------------------------------------
"Morality is doing what is right, regardless what we are told. 
Religious dogma is doing what we are told, no matter what is right."

#1746 From: Tarek Fatah <tarekfatah@...>
Date: Sun May 6, 2007 11:06 am
Subject: “The Christian Taliban is Running the US Department of Defense”
tarekfatah
Send Email Send Email
 
05/03/07
 
The Christian Taliban is running
the US Department of Defense

By Robert Koehler
Information Clearing House
 
Sixteen words may be all that stand right now between the apparatus of government and the Founding Fathers’ worst nightmare. And those words are starting to give.
 
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .”
 
When George Bush, in the wake of 9/11, puffed himself into Richard the Lionheart and declared he would lead the country in a “crusade” against terrorism - you know, crusade, as in slaughter of Muslim infidels - turns out . . . oh, how awkward (if you’re on White House spin duty) . . . he may have been speaking literally.
 
What’s certain, in any case, is that a lot of people in high and low places within the Bush administration - and in particular, the military - heard him literally, and regard the war on terror as a religious war:
“The enemy has got a face. He’s called Satan. He lives in Fallujah. And we’re going to destroy him,” a lieutenant colonel, according to a BBC reporter, said to his troops on the eve of the destruction of that undefended city in post-election 2004.
 
“I knew my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol,” Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Jerry Boykin notoriously boasted a few years back, speaking of a Muslim warlord in Somalia. And by the way, George Bush is “in the White House because God put him there.”
 
And, of course, just the other day, Lt. Col. Ralph Kauzlarich, who conducted the first official investigation into Pat Tillman’s death, opined that Tillman’s family is only pestering the Army for the, ahem, truth about how he died because their loved one, a non-believer with no heavenly reward to reap, is now “worm dirt.”
 
Until I read the newly published “With God on Their Side” (St. Martin’s Press), Michael Weinstein’s disturbing account of anti-Semitism at the U.S. Air Force Academy, I shrugged off each of these remarks, and so much more, as isolated, almost comically intolerant noises out of True Believer Land. Forgive them, Lord, for they know not what they do . . .
Now my blood runs cold. Weinstein, a 1977 graduate of the Academy and former assistant general counsel in the Reagan administration, and a lifelong Republican, has devoted the last several years of his life to battling what he has come to regard as a fundamentalist takeover of the Academy, turning it, in effect, into a taxpayer-supported Evangelical institution. He charges that the separation of church and state is rapidly vanishing at the school, which routinely promotes sectarian religious events, tolerates the proselytizing of uniquely vulnerable new recruits and, basically, conflates evangelical interests and the national interest.
 
If you think this is just a fight over some abstract principle, with ramifications only for atheist, Jewish, Buddhist and other cadets who may be “offended” by fundamentalist God talk, I urge you to check out Weinstein’s book or website. He documents a chilling phenomenon: The whole U.S. military, up and down the chain of command, is coming to be dominated by members of a small, characteristically intolerant sliver of Christianity who truly regard themselves as Christian soldiers, on a God-appointed mission to harvest souls and battle evil.
 
Weinstein, whose family tradition of national service is pretty impressive, does not do battle lightly with those who now run his alma mater. One of his sons is a recent graduate of the Air Force Academy and the other is still a cadet there.
 
The fact that both of them endured anti-Semitic harassment initially spurred him to take action. But this goes deeper than disrespect for other faiths. The attitude he has encountered in his attempt to hold the institution, and the rest of the military, accountable smacks of a coup: “The Christian Taliban is running the Department of Defense,” he told me. “It inundates everything.”
 
Can you imagine a contingent of religious zealots, with their contempt for secular values (and such manifestations of secular order as the U.S. Constitution) - and with their zest for holy war - in control of the most potent fighting force and weaponry in human history? Is this possible?
 
Well, said Weinstein, consider the 523rd Fighter Squadron, based at Cannon Air Force Base, N.M., which calls itself The Crusaders, and whose emblem consists of a sword, four crosses and a medieval knight’s helmet. Check ‘em out at globalsecurity.org, which reports that the payload on the F-16s they fly consists of “a wide variety of conventional, precision guided and nuclear weapons.”
 
And listen once again to Commander-in-Chief Bush, speaking in 2003 to Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, according to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz: “God told me to strike at al-Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East.”
 
If this is a religious war - a “clash of civilizations,” waged by competing agents of God’s will - victory may be indistinguishable from Armageddon. God help the human race.
 
Robert Koehler, an award-winning, Chicago-based journalist, is an editor at Tribune Media Services and nationally syndicated writer. You can respond to this column at bkoehler@....


------------------------------------------------
"Morality is doing what is right, regardless what we are told. 
Religious dogma is doing what we are told, no matter what is right."

#1747 From: Tarek Fatah <tarekfatah@...>
Date: Mon May 7, 2007 12:17 pm
Subject: Canada is the soft underbelly for Islamists, warns Quebec MNA, Fatima Houda-Pepin
tarekfatah
Send Email Send Email
 
Friends,
 
Fatima Houda-Pepin is Canada's first Muslim women elected politician. Despite this pioneering accomplishment, she has won the scorn of Islamists for her stand against religious fundamentalism and the proposal to introduce Shariah in Canada.
 
It is not just mullas who have hounded Fatima, she has also been scorned by Toronto Star's pro-Shariah columnist Haroon Siddiqui, who has gone to the extent of questioning her very Muslimness.
 
In a speech in Montreal last month, reported by the daily La Presse on May 3, Fatima Houda-Pepin told her audience that fundamentalists of different faiths, "in spite of their difference, have two common objectives: undermine the foundations of secularism, in the name of a certain idea of God and exercise an obsessional domination over the women, control of their reproduction, as well as the freedom of thought and movement."
 
She then said, "Canada appears as the soft underbelly because it allows freedom to extremists to spread their message."
 
"The strategy of the Islamists, as they move forward in the closed circles, is not the incorporation of the Muslims in Quebec and in Canada, but their incorporation in a community without borders, an Islamic planet where a Muslim must be governed according to the sharia, independently of the country where he lived," she added.
 
Read and reflect.
 
Tarek Fatah
-----------------------
May 3, 2007
 
Planet Islamist
 
By Fatima Houda-Pepin
La Presse,  Montreal
 
[Elected from Pinière to the National Assembly of Quebec, Ms Fatima Houda-Pepin was the guest speaker on April 18th of this year at the Institute of Women Studies of the University of Ottawa . Here is an extract from her speech at the conference on the question of politico religious fundamentalism.]
 
Born in Morocco, a country where Islam is the state religion, I was part of the middle class where religion is part of the daily life. It is synonymous with creed, singing, music and  joy. My Jewish and Christian friends, along with my family participated in each other's religious holidays. I could run freely in the mosque, without headdress, pray with a scarf around my neck as a respect for my God, without any one telling me that my hair showed.
 
Shock in Canada
 
What shocked me on my arrival in Canada, 35 years ago, when I discovered circles of indoctrination  where women are veiled even inside their own houses, with ramifications in the Middle East, Pakistan , Iran , Europe and the United States.
 
Imams trained in fundamentalist ideology, sent on missions and paid by foreigners, spread a radical Islam aiming at isolating Muslims from their host  society. Messages called for jihad and to hate the agnostics, Jews, moderate Muslims, and  Christians.
 
The second shock was the indifference of the authorities. As long as these problems were contained within the communities, why bother? A lack of knowledge of Islam and Muslims allowed the Islamists freedom to impose their views.
 
The Islam of knowledge and tolerance that marked my youth in Morocco was transformed under my eyes, in Canada, into a straitjacket, reduced to a series of impositions, most often on the women. At the same time Muslims were being degraded thanks to pictures of violence coming from the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and close to us, the violence of September 11, 2001, in the United States.
 
Islamic groups, using indifference and surrounding ignorance, adapted a negative strategy. They managed to set themselves up as "spokesperson" of communities to the distress of the moderate Muslims who struggle to integrate and ask only to live in harmony with their fellow-countrymen.
 
This is the vulnerability of these communities, among which the silent majority do not dare to confront the Islamists on their own ground. A broken up leading role, weak community structures and the feeling of exclusion from the young people also contributes to their marginalization. However their contribution in human resources, competences, economic and cultural provision is considerable.
 
When they observe the rise of religious extremisms and violence,  equality between the men and the women, they cannot remain silent. Adopting, approximately 50 years ago, a Statement of Rights, the prime minister at the time, John Diefenbaker,  declared: "No Canadian will tolerate fanaticism." The Charter of rights and freedom, which has celebrated its 25th anniversary, reinforces these rights.
 
Statement or Charter, founding principle in a pluralist society are meant to be fair and equitable to protect minorities against abuses of the majority. Religious extremism is first obvious inside minorities themselves.
 
It is the case of the sharia that fundamentalists tried to impose in Toronto, in 1990, before standing back under the pressure of the Muslim women. This battle was won inside communities themselves, before it surfaced in the public in 2003, with a more sophisticated sales talk and a plan of communication. Happily, Ontario abandoned this plan.
 
The Religious Right in America
 
Also, the right-wing religious American has had a searing ascent. In 1978, 22 % of the Americans declared themselves Evangelists. They were 33 % in 1986. Since then, the movement did not cease growing and is being completely transformed.
 
The message of Evangelist who was at the origin of the order of creed was transformed into a powerful instrument in the hands of a lobby with its entries in the high spheres of power. This strong and active Right demands nothing at least than the modification of public order. Conversion of "born again Christians" is not enough any more; it is all America which is necessary to be saved.
 
At the centre of its strategy is the conflict against the abortion, homosexuality and the «destruction of families». This impacts  the national and international policy of the United States significantly.
 
The rise of the religous right is swarming everywhere. In Canada, different fundamentalist spheres of influence are already at work. Everywhere they aim at the school, at the family, at institutions and at political power.
 
The fundamentalists, the same battle
 
At the same time, Islamic spheres of influence spread in several Muslim countries where they lead a conflict against regimes in place, considered as corrupted, "faithless " and morally "decadent."
 
This law which guarantees them religious freedom is targeted as backward  to destabilize these political regimes and at the same time, allow postponement of democracy. In this regard, Canada appears as the soft belly  because it allows freedom to extremists to spread their message.
 
The strategy of the Islamists, as they move forward in the closed circles, is not the incorporation of the Muslims in Quebec and in Canada, but their incorporation in a community without borders, an Islamic planet where a Muslim must be governed according to the sharia, independently of the country where he lived.
 
This allows fundamentalists, in the eyes of community and government leaders, as the spokepersons for all Muslims. In this sense, any advancement of these groups on juridical or symbolic plan is a powerful lever to impose an ultimatum - in the name of religious freedom - in a secularized society a model of governace where the sovereignty of God will dominate on  the men.
 
Charter guarantees « the freedom of religion ». But about what freedom do they speakoff? Who causes, for instance, norms to impose on the women in Islam? A religion where there is no ministry, and where the relation with God is without intermediary? Why to endorse the ideology of these groups while the religion on which they are based gives them no authority to make it?
 
A true threat

Religions justify inquisition, wars, interreligious conflicts or violations of the rights of the person. In our opinion, the true threat in democracy comes from the rise of extremisms under the pretence of religion.
 
That this applies to right-wing Americans, radical Islamists or Hindu fundamentalists, everywhere strategy is the same: exploit fundamental freedom with the intention of subverting it
 
These groups, in spite of their difference, have two common objectives: undermine the foundations of secularism, in the name of a certain idea of God and exercise an obsessional domination over the women, control of their reproduction, as well as the freedom of thought and movement.
 
======================
The Original in French
======================
 
Planète islamiste»
 
Fatima Houda-Pepin
 
Députée de La Pinière à l'Assemblée nationale du Québec, Mme Fatima Houda-Pepin était l'invitée le 18 avril dernier de l'Institut d'études des femmes, de l'Université d'Ottawa. Voici un extrait résumé de sa conférence sur la question de l'intégrisme politico-religieux.
 
Née au Maroc, pays où l'islam est religion d'État, j'ai baigné dans un milieu où la religion fait partie du quotidien. Elle est synonyme de foi, de chants, de musique et de joie. Les fêtes religieuses étaient l'occasion de retrouvailles familiales et mes amies juives et chrétiennes y participaient, comme moi aux leurs. Je pouvais circuler librement à la mosquée, tête nue, prier avec un foulard, par respect pour Dieu, sans que nul ne m'interpelle sur mes cheveux qui dépassaient.
 
Choc au Canada
 
Quel choc à mon arrivée au Canada, il y a 35 ans. J'y ai découvert des cercles d'endoctrinement où les femmes sont voilées entre elles, à l'intérieur de leurs propres maisons. Des organismes de prédication ont des ramifications au Moyen-Orient, au Pakistan, en Iran, en Europe et aux États-Unis.
 
Des imams formés à une école de pensée rigoriste, envoyés en mission et payés par l'étranger, propageaient un islamisme radical visant à isoler les musulmans de leur société d'accueil. Des messages appelaient au jihad et à la haine des infidèles, juifs, musulmans démocrates, ou chrétiens.
 
Deuxième choc: l'indifférence des pouvoirs publics. Dans la mesure où ces problèmes se vivaient à l'intérieur des communautés, pourquoi s'en mêler? Un déficit de connaissances de l'islam et des musulmans laissait les islamistes libres d'imposer leur vision.
 
L'islam du savoir et de la tolérance qui a marqué ma jeunesse au Maroc se transformait sous mes yeux, au Canada, en une camisole de force, réduit à une série d'interdits, imposés le plus souvent aux femmes. Puis, la perception qu'on a des musulmans se dégradera à la faveur d'images de violence venues du Moyen-Orient, d'Afrique, d'Asie, et plus près de nous, suite du 11 septembre 2001, des États-Unis.
 
Des groupes islamistes, profitant de l'indifférence et de la méconnaissance ambiantes, ont raffiné leurs stratégies. Ils sont parvenus à s'ériger en «porte-parole» des communautés, au grand désarroi des musulmans démocrates qui peinent à s'intégrer et ne demandent qu'à vivre en harmonie avec leurs concitoyens. D'où la vulnérabilité de ces communautés, dont la majorité silencieuse n'ose pas confronter les islamistes sur leur terrain. Un leadership fragmenté, de faibles structures communautaires et le sentiment d'exclusion des jeunes aussi contribuent à leur marginalisation. Pourtant leur contribution en capital humain, compétences, apport économique et culturel est considérable.
 
Lorsqu'on observe la montée des extrémismes religieux et les menaces qu'ils font peser sur des acquis gagnés de haute lutte, l'égalité entre les hommes et les femmes notamment, on ne peut rester silencieux. Adoptant, il y a près de 50 ans, une Déclaration des droits, le premier ministre d'alors, John Diefenbaker, avait déclaré: «Aucun Canadien ne tolérera le fanatisme.» La Charte des droits et libertés, dont on célèbre le 25e, est venue renforcer ces droits.
 
Déclaration ou Charte, le principe fondateur en société pluraliste qui se veut juste et équitable est de protéger les minorités contre les abus de la majorité. Or, l'extrémisme religieux s'impose d'abord à l'intérieur des minorités elles-mêmes.
 
C'est le cas de la charia que des intégristes ont tenté d'imposer à Toronto, en 1990, avant de reculer sous la pression des femmes musulmanes. Cette bataille a été gagnée à l'intérieur des communautés elles-mêmes, avant qu'elle fasse surface sur la place publique en 2003, avec un argumentaire et un plan de communication plus sophistiqués. Heureusement, l'Ontario a renoncé à ce projet.
 
La droite religieuse américaine
 
De même la droite religieuse américaine a connu une ascension fulgurante. En 1978, 22% des Américains se déclaraient évangélistes. Ils étaient 33% en 1986. Depuis, le mouvement n'a cessé de croître et de se métamorphoser.
 
Le message évangéliste qui était à l'origine de l'ordre de la foi s'est transformé en un puissant instrument entre les mains d'un lobby qui a ses entrées dans les hautes sphères du pouvoir. Cette droite forte et agissante revendique rien de moins que la modification de l'ordre public. La conversion des «born again Christians» ne suffit plus, c'est toute l'Amérique qu'il faut sauver.
 
Au centre de sa stratégie: la lutte contre l'avortement, l'homosexualité et la «destruction des familles». Cette influence sur la politique nationale et internationale des États-Unis est considérable.
 
La montée de la droite religieuse essaime partout. Au Canada, différentes mouvances intégristes sont déjà à l'oeuvre. Partout on vise l'école, la famille, les institutions et le pouvoir politique.
 
Les intégristes, même combat
 
Parallèlement, les mouvances islamistes se sont propagées dans plusieurs pays musulmans où elles mènent une lutte contre les régimes en place, considérés comme corrompus, et contre l'Occident «infidèle» et moralement «décadent».
 
Cet Occident qui leur garantit des libertés religieuses est ciblé comme base arrière pour déstabiliser ces régimes politiques et du même coup, y faire reculer la démocratie. Dans cette logique, le Canada apparaît comme le ventre mou de l'Occident à cause des libertés fondamentales dont les extrémistes eux-mêmes jouissent.
 
La stratégie des islamistes, qu'ils avancent dans les cercles fermés, n'est pas l'intégration des musulmans au Québec et au Canada, mais leur intégration à une communauté sans frontières, une planète islamiste où un musulman doit être régi selon la charia, indépendamment du pays où il vit.
 
Un tel objectif passe par le contrôle des islamistes sur les communautés musulmanes et par leur reconnaissance par les autorités politiques, dont ils deviendraient les interlocuteurs officiels. Dans ce sens, toute avancée de ces groupes au plan juridique ou symbolique est un puissant levier pour imposer ultimement - au nom de la liberté religieuse - à une société sécularisée un modèle de gouvernance où la souveraineté de Dieu primera sur celle des hommes.
 
La Charte garantit «la liberté de religion». Mais de quelle liberté parle-t-on? Qui détermine, par exemple, les normes à imposer aux femmes en islam, religion où il n'y a pas de clergé, et où la relation avec Dieu est sans intermédiaire? Pourquoi endosser l'idéologie de ces groupes alors que la religion sur laquelle ils se basent ne leur donne aucune autorité pour le faire?
 
Une vraie menace
 
Les religions ont été instrumentalisé es pour justifier inquisition, guerres, conflits interreligieux ou violations des droits de la personne. À notre époque, la vraie menace à la démocratie vient de la montée des extrémismes sous couvert de religion.
 
Qu'il s'agisse de la droite religieuse américaine, des radicaux se réclamant de l'islam ou de fondamentalistes hindous, partout la stratégie est la même: exploiter les libertés fondamentales dans le but de les subvertir.
 
Ces groupes, malgré leurs différences, ont deux objectifs en commun: saper les bases de la laïcité, au nom d'une certaine idée de Dieu et exercer une domination obsessionnelle sur les femmes, dont il faut contrôler le pouvoir de reproduction, ainsi que la liberté de pensée et de mouvement.
 


------------------------------------------------
"Morality is doing what is right, regardless what we are told. 
Religious dogma is doing what we are told, no matter what is right."

#1748 From: Tarek Fatah <tarekfatah@...>
Date: Thu May 10, 2007 10:57 am
Subject: Man stabbed at Toronto Mosque after refusing to pray
tarekfatah
Send Email Send Email
 
Thursday, May 10, 2007

Man stabbed at mosque
for not praying, police say

Attacker slices own throat in suicide attempt

Matthew Coutts
National Post

An attacker who stabbed a man at a downtown mosque before attempting to kill himself did so because the victim had refused to pray with him, police said yesterday.

"The suspect wanted the victim to come pray," said Detective Ron Boyce, adding the man declined because he wasn't clean enough according to Muslim custom. "He told him that he didn't want to go, but the other gentleman insisted."

The two men began arguing at 6 p.m. on Tuesday in the lobby of the Downtown Muslim Community Centre on Parliament Street near Shuter Street. According to security footage given to police, one man pulled a 16- inch kitchen knife from his pants and attacked the other.

"He just started recklessly trying to stab this young man," Det. Boyce said. The victim, a 21-year old who police say knew his attacker casually, was stabbed in the neck and forearm. The assault continued outside, police said, and the wounded man escaped north on Parliament.

His attacker re-entered the mosque and "attempted to kill himself " by cutting his own throat, then stumbled back outside and around the block, before collapsing near the back entrance of the mosque.

"It all happened really fast," said Mohd Mustafa, a mosque member who provided the police footage from a newly installed lobby security camera. He arrived shortly after the attack, and followed a trail of blood in time to see a man being loaded into the back of an ambulance. "I saw blood all over the place."

Blood stains remained on the mosque's doorstep where people gathered yesterday for prayers and to discuss the stabbing.

"You stab someone and then come back in and stab yourself. That's absurd," said Tanvir Ahmed, who like Mr. Mustafa did not know the two men.

Both men were taken to St. Michael's Hospital. The victim is recovering at home, while the accused is in hospital under police watch.

Det. Boyce said it was fortunate the victim survived the attack. "The victim's brother happened to be walking home and saw his brother struggling down the street with a wound to the neck. It likely saved his life."

Mafas Hashem, 23, is charged with attempted murder, assault with a weapon, weapons dangerous and carrying a concealed weapon.


------------------------------------------------
"Morality is doing what is right, regardless what we are told. 
Religious dogma is doing what we are told, no matter what is right."

#1749 From: Tarek Fatah <tarekfatah@...>
Date: Fri May 11, 2007 3:44 pm
Subject: A US Muslim's letter to Chomsky: Why are you silent about the threat of "Extremist Islam"
tarekfatah
Send Email Send Email
 
Friends,
 
Ali Eteraz is a young international finance and human rights lawyer, who during law school worked on litigation against US defence contractors involved in the Abu Ghraib torture scandal, and has since represented plaintiffs defrauded by Wall Street. A self-professed leftist, he has agonized like so many of us about the inability of the Left to see through the Islamist agenda.
 
In this piece for the Huffington Post, Eteraz laments the silence of Noam Chomsky in facing up to the threats posed by what he calls "extremist Islam." He writes:


"...the fact is that today, globalization, which Chomsky always said was the handmaiden of neo-liberalism, and a construction of powerful Western governments, has an equally sordid evil twin, and this is the globalized monstrosity of extremely extreme extremist Islam. By the way, when I talk about extremists, I am not referring to terrorists alone. Would it were that this globalized undercurrent of violence was merely political! There exists today a form of globalized lifestyle and cultural extremism galvanized and organized and idealized by millions."
 
Read and reflect.
 
Tarek
--------------------
May 11, 2007
 
Chomsky Dissent is Not Enough
 
By Ali Eteraz
The Huffington Post
 
I hope Professor Chomsky is well. Though I must warn that today I am writing not to praise, but to complain against him. At the outset, allow me to state that my respect for him should be presumed. My complaints are borne not from malice, but need. I am writing to say that the theory of dissent which has so long served Professor Chomsky, and allowed him to cast such a shadow upon the world, though still necessary, is no longer sufficient.
 
I confess that I will always remain beholden to the spirit of vociferous dissent he articulated, but I cannot concur with the entirety of its substance. It is not true what his critics say. He does not dissent too much. Rather, if Professor Chomsky will accept a rejoinder from a meager youth: he does not dissent enough.
 
I say this knowing that he has been the foremost investigator of political and corporate lies over the past half century. He unearthed child labor and human slavery and laid it bare for all to behold and found all the Western agents complicit in such horror. He spoke out against Israeli aggression, and against the war in Iraq, and documented the acute inter-relationship between Wall Street, international arms trafficking, and economic exploitation. I cannot deign to list his contributions because their importance can be assumed by simply asserting that they exist.
 
Yet, the fact is that today, globalization, which Chomsky always said was the handmaiden of neo-liberalism, and a construction of powerful Western governments, has an equally sordid evil twin, and this is the globalized monstrosity of extremely extreme extremist Islam.
 
By the way, when I talk about extremists, I am not referring to terrorists alone. Would it were that this globalized undercurrent of violence was merely political! There exists today a form of globalized lifestyle and cultural extremism galvanized and organized and idealized by millions.
 
This extremism, where it is not suffocating art, scholarship, freedom and love, it is murdering, killing, and beating to death. It must be identified and spoken out against with the same gusto reserved for neo-imperialism and corporatism. Dissent against all three is not inconsistent as they each mutually feed one another and leave vast numbers of human beings without a voice, without life.
 
  • I just read that in Kurdistan a Yezidi girl was stoned to death with bricks to her head because she loved a Sunni boy; meanwhile security forces watched and people made videos on cell phones.
  • I just read that Egyptian hardliners hold parties where the works of jurists like Abu el Fadl - who writes about the Search for Beauty in Islam - are burnt. I just read that the Taliban "Book of Rules" contains exhortations to kill school-teachers, which is usually accomplished by disemboweling.
  • I just talked to a police officer from a Muslim country who recalled to me instances of boys raped upon stacks of Qurans by heads of religious institutions.
  • I spoke with small business owners in a Muslim country who are regularly extorted by their religious leaders.
  • I just read that Hezbollah is now operating in South America (quite distant from Lebanon, no?), recruiting and drug-running like common thugs, and we have known this since 2002.
  • I just read of "ninjabis" in Pakistan - veiled women who with sticks and rage beat brothel owners, music store owners and video store clerks.
  • I just read of Iranian police officers who kick and beat women for daring to wear earrings.
  • I just read that in some places (Saudi Arabia) women are being beaten so they will wear the veil; in other places women are being beaten (Mogadishu) so they will not wear the veil.
  • I just read that in the world there are over 5,000 (reported) honor killings every year including in places as forward and progressive as Turkey, Italy and England, and in most places courts routinely fail to prosecute offenders.
  • I just read of a German judge affirming that Muslim men are supposed to beat their wives (alternate view here).
  • I just read of a British school where the Jewish Holocaust is no longer discussed because it hurts the feelings of the Muslim students.
  • I just read of imported Muslim brides in the West who are shackled at their new home and beaten and expected to behave like slaves, and this behavior is given legitimacy by male and female scholars of Islam that they purport to follow.
  • I just read that a powerful Iranian cleric called for the death of a journalist who published the Danish cartoons, while an American cleric on a mosque payroll wished that a popular female thinker should be removed to a Muslim country so she could be killed for being an apostate.
  • I just read that a journalist in Canada was beaten with cricket bats after he questioned a Pakistani cleric's metaphysical ability to reveal the face of the Prophet Muhammad on the surface of the moon.
 
In this list I did not include the events we already know: 9/11 NYC, 7/7 London, 3/11 Madrid, bombings in Kenya and Tanzania and Bali and Karachi, or any of the other acts of "political" violence. I wish to only make the point that at some point, extremism came to impose itself the Muslim world; it organized, became more than just political violence, and due to the mass migrations of late 20th century, globalized.
 
Can this extremism be linked to the predation of capitalism? Of course! But that does not explain why extremist Muslim industrialists, and their wives, work diligently to create teams of religious "scholars" whose responsibility is to propagate creationism, mandate the face veil, demonize homosexuals, and create a culture of religious supremacism where everyone who is not a "Muslim" cannot even be a citizen of the state, and anyone who satires them is censored and shut down and forcibly divorced and exiled.
 
Meanwhile, atheists, and secular humanists (such as Chomsky) are lambasted as apostates, and asked to choose between repentance and death.
 
People who allot great deference and respect to Professor Chomsky do so because he spoke out against the inhumanity of arms trafficking, predatory capitalism, ideological politicians, and covert wars. His moral clarity and courage in the face of his detractors galvanized a thousand and one activists and thinkers to challenge authority, question leadership, and stand firm against nation-states. It galvanized yours truly.
 
I learned from him that dissent usually means standing alone where no one else will. I thank him for that lesson. Now I must apply it.
 
Given that neither he, nor those who invoke him, have added extremist Islam (specifically in its cultural and lifestyle manifestation) to the list of things to dissent against, I have to part ways with him and look around for a place to stand.
 
I will not cease to speak out against the unilateralism of the superpower, the predation of the executive, or the murderous arms dealers. These things matter. However, I have seen too many people - my people - living lives of shame, fear, and cowardice in the face of an unchecked global predator, and I cannot stay silent because the established dissenters have not said anything about it.
 
The current discourse of dissent is not enough. There must be more dissent. I hope that when Professor Chomsky looks across the world at the dissent he inspired, he will recognize some of himself in the rest of us.


------------------------------------------------
"Morality is doing what is right, regardless what we are told. 
Religious dogma is doing what we are told, no matter what is right."

#1750 From: Tarek Fatah <tarekfatah@...>
Date: Mon May 14, 2007 10:38 am
Subject: Malaysia's Mohamad Mahathir on the "sad plight of so many Muslims"
tarekfatah
Send Email Send Email
 
Islam’s Forsaken Renaissance
 
Mahathir Mohamad
Project Syndicate

Children often play a game where they sit in a circle. One whispers something to his neighbor, who then whispers that information to the next child, and so on, around the circle. By the time the last child whispers the information to the first, it is totally different from what was originally said.

Something like that seems to have happened within Islam. The Prophet of Islam, Muhammad, brought one – and only one – religion. Yet today we have perhaps a thousand religions that all claim to be Islam.

Divided by their different interpretations, Muslims do not play the role they once did in the world; instead, they are weakened and victimized. The Shia/Sunni schism is so deep that each side condemns followers of the other as apostates, kafir. The belief that the other’s religion is not Islam, and its followers not Muslim, has underpinned internecine wars in which millions have died – and continue to die.

Even among the Sunnis and Shias there are further divisions. The Sunnis have four imams and the Shias have twelve; their teachings all differ. Then there are other divisions, including the Druze, the Alawites, and the Wahabis.

We are also taught by our ulamas (religious instructors) that their teachings must not be questioned. Islam is a faith. It must be believed. Logic and reason play no part in it. But what is it that we must believe when each branch of Islam thinks the other one is wrong? The Koran, after all, is one book, not two or three, or a thousand.

According to the Koran, a Muslim is anyone who bears witness that “there is no God (Allah) but Allah, and that Muhammad is his Rasul (Messenger).” If no other qualification is added, then all those who subscribe to these precepts must be regarded as Muslims. But because we Muslims like to add qualifications that often derive from sources other than the Koran, our religion’s unity has been broken.

But perhaps the greatest problem is the progressive isolation of Islamic scholarship – and much of Islamic life – from the rest of the modern world. We live in an age of science in which people can see around corners, hear and see things happening in outer space, and clone animals. And all of these things seem to contradict our belief in the Koran.

This is so because those who interpret the Koran are learned only in religion, in its laws and practices, and thus are usually unable to understand today’s scientific miracles. The fatwas (legal opinions concerning Islamic law) that they issue appear unreasonable and cannot be accepted by those with scientific knowledge.

One learned religious teacher, for example, refused to believe that a man had landed on the moon. Others assert that the world was created 2,000 years ago. The age of the universe and its size measured in light years – these are things that the purely religiously trained ulamas cannot comprehend.

This failure is largely responsible for the sad plight of so many Muslims. Today’s oppression, the killings and the humiliations of Muslims, occurs because we are weak, unlike the Muslims of the past. We can feel victimized and criticize the oppressors, but to stop them we need to look at ourselves. We must change for our own good. We cannot ask our detractors to change, so that Muslims benefit.

So what do we need to do?
 
In the past, Muslims were strong because they were learned. Muhammad’s injunction was to read, but the Koran does not say what to read. Indeed, there was no “Muslim scholarship” at the time, so to read meant to read whatever was available. The early Muslims read the works of the great Greek scientists, mathematicians, and philosophers. They also studied the works of the Persians, the Indians, and the Chinese.

The result was a flowering of science and mathematics. Muslim scholars added to the body of knowledge and developed new disciplines, such as astronomy, geography, and new branches of mathematics. They introduced numerals, enabling simple and limitless calculations.

But around the fifteenth century, the learned in Islam began to curb scientific study. They began to study religion alone, insisting that only those who study religion – particularly Islamic jurisprudence – gain merit in the afterlife. The result was intellectual regression at the very moment that Europe began embracing scientific and mathematical knowledge.

And so, as Muslims were intellectually regressing, Europeans began their renaissance, developing improved ways of meeting their needs, including the manufacture of weapons that eventually allowed them to dominate the world.

By contrast, Muslims fatally weakened their ability to defend themselves by neglecting, even rejecting, the study of allegedly secular science and mathematics, and this myopia remains a fundamental source of the oppression suffered by Muslims today. Many Muslims still condemn the founder of modern Turkey, Mustafa Kamal, because he tried to modernize his country. But would Turkey be Muslim today without Ataturk? Mustafa Kamal’s clear-sightedness saved Islam in Turkey and saved Turkey for Islam.

Failure to understand and interpret the true and fundamental message of the Koran has brought only misfortune to Muslims. By limiting our reading to religious works and neglecting modern science, we destroyed Islamic civilization and lost our way in the world.

The Koran says that “Allah will not change our unfortunate situation unless we make the effort to change it.” Many Muslims continue to ignore this and, instead, merely pray to Allah to save us, to bring back our lost glory. But the Koran is not a talisman to be hung around the neck for protection against evil. Allah helps those who improve their minds.


------------------------------------------------
"Morality is doing what is right, regardless what we are told. 
Religious dogma is doing what we are told, no matter what is right."

#1751 From: Tarek Fatah <tarekfatah@...>
Date: Tue May 15, 2007 9:24 pm
Subject: "Dil Dil Pakistan" : As my country burns, a song to cheer you up...
tarekfatah
Send Email Send Email
 
Friends,
 
As Pakistan burns, splinters and suffers, many of us mourn the country we cannot even recognise. Pakistan was by any standards a pleasent place to live and thrive in the 50s and 60s. In fact right up to the late 70s; until the arrival of the CIA, their Al-Qaeda operators, the Taliban, and the Saudi funded mercanaries, many from Canada, it was ok. They came, raped our land, destroyed our culture and customs, spit at our darker skin, yawned, and then left us to clean our souls.
 
How I hate Bin Laden and his boys for destroying my home. This song captures the time and spirit of that lost nation, we called once knew as Pakistan.
 

Aisi Zamee'n...Aur Aasma'n...
Inkay Siwa...Jaana Kahan...
Bhadti Rahay...Yeh Roshni...
Chalta Rahay...Yeh Karvan...
 
Dil Dil Pakistan...
Jaa'n Jaa'n Pakistan...
Dil Dil Pakistan...
Jaa'n Jaa'n Pakistan...
 
Dil Dil Say Miltay Hain...
To Pyar Ka Chehra Banta Hai...
Chehra Banta Hai...
Phool Ik Ladi Main Piroyen To Phir...
Sehra Banta Hai...
Chehra Banta Hai...
 
Dil Dil Pakistan...Jaa'n Jaa'n Pakistan...Dil Dil


------------------------------------------------
"Morality is doing what is right, regardless what we are told. 
Religious dogma is doing what we are told, no matter what is right."

#1752 From: Tarek Fatah <tarekfatah@...>
Date: Wed May 16, 2007 12:01 pm
Subject: Meet Iraqi feminist Yanar Mohammed: How the US Occupation brought Sharia to Iraq
tarekfatah
Send Email Send Email
 
May 2007

First Victims of Freedom

An interview with Iraqi
feminist Yanar Mohammed

Guernica: a Magazine of Art and Politics
http://www.guernicamag.com/interviews/326/the_black_glove/

For someone who faces death threats, swaps apartments regularly and hides the location of her organization from authorities, Yanar Mohammed, one of Iraq’s leading feminists, hasn’t lost her sense of humor. Even during a recent conversation about the demise of women’s rights and safety in post-war Iraq, her wry perspective asserted itself in small ways, revealing her humanity and suggesting a certain defiance. She laughed at her English on the rare occasions that it proved faulty, and poked fun at Islamist attire as worn by women in Baghdad’s fundamentalist neighborhoods, likening the all-black, body-concealing uniform to radioactive protective gear.

In 2003, Mohammed founded the Organization of Women’s Freedom in Iraq (OWFI), which shelters Iraqi women targeted in honor killings and sectarian violence (both on the rise since the war and occupation). It also monitors women in jail and assists formerly detained women, such as prostitutes. And, most visibly, OWFI speaks out loudly and insistently for women’s legal rights and secular law in opposition to Iraq’s growing Islamism. Her demands shed light on the precarious position of women under radical Islamism but, perhaps more to the question at hand, they confirm the disastrous consequences of the Iraq war and the political repercussions of occupation, which, according to Mohammed, has unleashed militant fundamentalism that is proving impossible to subdue.

Mohammed asserts unequivocally that war and occupation have cost Iraqi women their legal standing and their everyday freedoms of dress and movement—a topic that has received surprisingly scant news coverage beyond scattered reports on sectarian violence and infamous prison abuses. “The first losers in all of this were women,” Mohammed says of post-invasion Iraqi society.

Born in 1960, Mohammed is an architect and sculptor who was raised in Iraq, earning undergraduate and master’s degrees at Baghdad University. In 1993, she and her family moved to Canada, in part to escape the dim economic prospects of her home country under international sanctions. In Canada, she raised a son, now 18, but after the 2003 invasion, she decided to return from an exile she describes as happy. In addition to founding OWFI, she has been featured in the New York Times, NPR and Democracy Now!, and was named a finalist for the 1325 Award recognizing international women leaders. In early April, she spoke with me by phone from Canada, where she was on a brief visit on her way back to Baghdad.


—Amy DePaul

yanar_bodyguards.jpg

Guernica: Tell me about the Organization of Women’s Freedom in Iraq.

Yanar Mohammed: OWFI was founded by a few Iraqi women who decided to have a voice. We were sure the future government would not be a woman-friendly one. From the first day our policy was to try to gain support from outside Iraq. We got help from Canadian, European and U.S. supporters. We formed in 2003, and spoke about full equality. We represent the modern, secular voice of Iraq that will not allow this country to be turned into another Afghanistan under the Taliban.
 
Guernica: Where are your offices?

Yanar Mohammed: We mainly work out of our main office in Baghdad and also in the southern city of Nasiriyah. In Kirkuk we have representatives but we couldn’t maintain the office. We still have our representatives working from their homes. They open their homes when a woman needs sheltering.

Guernica: Four years after OWFI’s founding, what are its challenges?

Yanar Mohammed: In this last year, the challenges, or let’s say the dangers, became very imminent. Some days it was hard for activists to arrive at our office. For many reasons. But the biggest one, the one that comes first to my mind, is you’re speaking about a city of different militias, each of them funded by another country and fighting amongst themselves. Everybody is hanging out with their machine guns. It’s a place where speaking about your rights is not a priority for these militias. Some sort of government is trying to survive while doing a new military security plan every other month. At times, your whole neighborhood is surrounded by military who are searching houses, or streets are closed for some international conference where they are trying to solve political issues, though nothing is being solved. Imagine living in a city where you can reach your office three days a week. Then again, we’re thankful on the days when we don’t face the enemies of women with machine guns and they’re asking us questions: what do you guys do?

Guernica: Do you get hassled by militias?

Yanar Mohammed: When I was a student, I was dressed like a modern girl and I wore long shorts. That is part of the past. There is fear in the streets. You cannot go out in the streets. You are looked at as if you come from another age. If there are any militias on your street, they will tell you to go back home and dress decently. They could beat you up or punish you worse than that. Some of us who have grown up in Baghdad are used to wearing what we please and walking where we please.
Guernica: You have said that women in Iraq are far less free after the U.S.-led invasion and occupation. Can you talk about some of the reasons why?

Yanar Mohammed: The first losers in all of this were women. That was because of the mixed-up politics that came with occupation. The country is under the authority of Islamic militias: Shiite Islamic militias, who are in power, or Sunni Islamist militias, who are underground. Sometimes they compete. What is the first thing they do? Sadr City, which is a Shiite suburb of Baghdad, is considered to be the proletariat part of Baghdad, the source of social and political change for Iraq’s future. If you go to this city, it’s under the authority of Shiite Islamist militias. The kind of veil the women wear there is usually black. At its worst, the women look like black objects: black gloves and black stockings—no flesh can show. I have never before in my life seen young women dressed like that. In 1993, when I left Iraq, I had never seen the black gloves. Now you go to Baghdad and with the high level of poverty you see women begging on the sides of the street; even the beggars wear black.

Guernica: Are women being targeted?

Yanar Mohammed: A big number of professional women were assassinated for no other reason than being women in high places. Deans of colleges and many academics are now living under threat, because tons of their colleagues have been killed. I have a friend who’s a surgeon in the hospitals in Baghdad. She says if you have a high degree in medicine, and are known to do a good job, you will be killed as soon as possible. The number of academics and doctors killed in the last three years is more than 150 people. These are not political people. They are just making a living.

Guernica: Is this all the result of sectarian violence?

Yanar Mohammed: Women’s welfare is like another card that is used between misogynist parties to pressure each other. Sunni Islamist party representatives have accused the Shiite party of raping Sunni women. We have received many reports of women who were assaulted and later killed by the militias, and it was for sectarian reasons. On one side, women are being used to exploit or defy the other sect. On the other side, the sad part of the political story is that these Islamist parties also have their women representatives. They have put them in parliament seats and tell the whole world they represent Iraqi women. Most women in government represent Sharia.

Guernica: What other dangers face women of Iraq?

Yanar Mohammed: It is very dangerous for a woman to go into a prison or be detained. We put together a prison-watch team to go into women’s prisons. We’ve been doing that for more than a year now. We found out that rape in police stations sometimes was routine procedure. We knew that it was happening. When the Sabrine issue [the rape of a Sunni woman by Shiite police officers] came out, and she started talking, I immediately wrote a statement, saying that we know this kind of atrocity is being committed routinely against women in police stations, mostly run by Shiite Islamic militias. Sabrine is not the only one. We have spoken to more than 250 women in the prisons. We have raised the issue to the Ministry of the Interior. But then the woman in charge of our program began to get threats to her and her family. So she left Iraq.

Guernica: Why are the women being detained in the first place?

Yanar Mohammed: There are all sorts of reasons. One of these women said she had killed a translator. She lied because she was facing domestic abuse at home. She thought she was going to be safe, but she was beautiful, and raped by the whole police station. Another woman came home and found her husband with another woman and killed her. There are all kinds of situations; a few women were accused of being caught in brothels. In the previous Iraq, the law didn’t say you put a prostitute in prison, but lately they have been putting them in prison. They have nowhere else to go. The moment they step out of prison, their pimps put them back into the industry. OWFI’s third initiative is to break the vicious cycle forcing these women back into prostitution. We have been able to assist three of them so far this year. The third woman is the cook for our organization.

Guernica: I know that honor killings are a problem in many parts of the world. How has the U.S. occupation affected the frequency of honor killings in Iraq?

Yanar Mohammed: Honor killings are a very old story, but if you look at it historically, in the ‘60s and ‘70s the numbers were much less. Women got educated and it was easy for Iraqi women to have economic independence. By the 80s, women constituted 40 percent of the public workforce. The number of honor killings almost disappeared; they only happened in the suburbs and rural areas. Then again, remember the process through which Iraq came into the center of the political spotlight: the first Gulf War and 13 years of economic sanctions, then the second Gulf War. All of this has made the Iraqis go into a process of impoverishment. The war caused a very big number of widows, and millions of young men were killed. Widows have nobody to take care of them. As a result, the modernization of the country went backwards. We began to lose our social status and started to slip back into a premodern situation in Iraq, where a big number of women had to agree to be second or third wives of some affluent man just because these women don’t have other sources of income.

Just imagine that this country had to let go of all the achievements of modernity. Before the sanctions, Iraq wasn’t really a third-world country. It was better off because of the income from oil and higher education women got for free. The rights of women started in the ‘50s and ‘60s, but by the ‘90s they began to take another direction. The clock began to turn counter-clockwise. You find out that 10 years is a very long time. You could lose a big part of your status and economic welfare. The constitution and laws were still in place [leading up to the war] but no longer applied. Polygamy was not a problem in the ‘80s. I do not remember one single woman in Baghdad who was the second or third wife. Now it’s a very common story. Sometimes two wives living with a man in a 5 by 10 foot room. It’s a very miserable economic situation.

Guernica: Has OWFI been able to protect women from honor killings?

Yanar Mohammed: We are becoming an underground railroad for Iraqi women. Some have to leave the country or they will be killed. Women cannot dream of having political standing or status. You are treated as a second-class creature inside your house. You do not have any choices and people do not expect much from you.
Guernica: But what about the constitutional benchmark of 25% female representation in the Council of Representatives?

Yanar Mohammed: The 25% is a big farce. Most of them have voted yes to a constitution that totally cancels women and is based on Islamic Sharia. In the very first part of the constitution there is the article that refuses any law or any article in discrepancy with Sharia. We Iraqis feel it was imposed on us. It wasn’t a local thing. Iraqis have led a sort of secular life for almost 50 years. Influences from the Islamic Republic of Iran are in control of almost half the Iraqi government. They have written the very heavy introduction to our constitution that insists Iraq has to be an Islamic country now. The introduction sets the tone for the rest of the constitution.

Guernica: Can you say more about the changes to women’s legal status?

Yanar Mohammed: There are other articles, articles 39 and 41, which would refer family law to religion. [Note: Previously, “personal status law” gave women favorable treatment on divorce, custody, inheritance, etc., in Iraqi civil courts. The new constitution would allow women to choose Shiite, Sunni and other systems of religious jurisprudence instead of civil law.] So if a woman wants to marry or divorce, it’s in deference to Islamic Sharia. If she is Christian, to Christian laws. Or you could also go to previous personal status law. In this way, the tribal lifestyle is being reborn. A woman would be forced by all of her tribe to follow whatever system they tell her. The constitution has put women in a position where no one will protect them from religious cliques. If a woman is the third or the fourth wife and she has no rights inside her home and, on top of that, there is domestic abuse in her house, she is doomed. Under Islamic Sharia law a woman must accept beatings from her husband. Under Islamic Sharia, she must not revolt because she is the third or fourth wife.

Guernica: Is this all a result of the Shiites’ assertion of power in Iraq?

Yanar Mohammed: Is it Shiite? These sects of the Islamic religion have existed forever in Iraq. For example, my father is from one sect and my mother from another, but there was a secular law that regulated relationships. Nobody cared from which Islamic sect you were. Starting in the ‘80s, the new Islamic Republic of Iran affected all of the political democracy of the Middle East. It was the model for state laws modeled on Shiite Islamism. You cannot say the Sunni are more advanced. Sunni fundamentalism, from which Al Qaeda has emerged, is more notorious than Shiite. Under Sunni fundamentalism, it is legal to kill or destroy a big number of people because they think of them as apostates.

Guernica: So OWFI exists to counter these effects. It seems like a tremendous task. How hard has it been over the years?

Yanar Mohammed: In the beginning, a number of buildings were empty because the government no longer owned them, or banks were robbed, or for all sorts of reasons. What we did in the OWFI was we went into an empty building and took the best room and hung the sign OWFI on the door. The upper floor could serve as a shelter for women in need. It’s a city where everyone is looking at each other with a big question mark: what are you allowed to do and what are you not allowed to do? We decided to open a women’s shelter. We rented a house where we made it a formal shelter for women, then opened one in Kirkuk, then opened a few of our activist houses. All of a sudden in the last year, the government became a little stronger and wanted to exercise authority over NGOs and set conditions on us. They said you can’t open a shelter without the approval of five ministries. Some of these ministries are run by the most notorious Islamists in Iraqi politics. They spoke openly against us, denounced us as promiscuous women. We looked at conditions they set for us and knew we could not meet them. We do not admit in Iraq to these shelters. We do it in secret from the government. We have a central office in Baghdad. We have to change the location of shelters once a year.

Guernica: News reports suggest the Kurds are faring better than groups in Baghdad and other parts of Iraq. Does that hold for women as well?

Yanar Mohammed: The Kurdish organization in the north is different from central and southern Iraq. The Kurdish constitution is written differently than ours, not as Islamic. They have one article, 7, that would make women vulnerable to Islamic Sharia if families decide it. OWFI member and Kurdish feminist Houzan Mahmoud has been campaigning against it, pressuring regional government. The difference with the Baghdad government is it is almost all dominated by Islamist parties. In the center and south, if you can guarantee you’re alive the next day, you’re a winner.

[NOTE: A U.N. report that was released after this interview documented a rise in honor killings in the Kurdish regions of Iraq.]
Guernica: I know OWFI will continue to shelter women and document abuses, but what is your next step politically?

Yanar Mohammed: For an outsider, it may look like the constitution was approved and that’s it. But 80 percent of us feel it is not legal. We do not take it seriously. No one has the feeling that this government is authentic.

Guernica: Eighty percent? That’s a startlingly high number.

Yanar Mohammed: I don’t know if you’ve heard about Star Academy. [This an “American Idol”-like show produced in Lebanon that was won by an Iraqi singer based on call-in votes.] When your administration tells the whole world that this government represents the people of Iraq and it is an Islamic government, what about the seven million votes that went to Star Academy? That’s a real referendum, unlike the phony referendum they held. The Star Academy winner is a young woman who is in an open dress and is lovely. She is a symbol of the Iraqi life we used to have. That's what people voted for. If these Islamists grow stronger and more powerful, she will not be able to look like that or sing like that. This is the answer to the U.S. administration when it tells us that this is the elected representative government of Iraq. These Islamist parties are not only U.S.-backed but also backed by the Iranian government and ruling parties. They do not represent the people of Iraq. The U.S. said they’d bring democracy but they waited to see who is stronger— the rule of the jungle—and gave power to the strongest, best funded and best armed. But, then again, maybe the U.S. was hoping to have an Islamist modernist government, similar to the Saudis. They were thinking of something like that, but the genie came out of the bottle, and it will not go back any more.

Guernica: I understand you have faced death threats.

Yanar Mohammed: I went back to Iraq in 2003. I was walking to the Internet café close to our offices. In my email in-box there was a death threat. It was very clear. The death threats came twice, in the beginning of 2004. It really affected the way I could move inside Iraq. It was very hard to walk freely on the streets. Usually people are with me, and we move around in a car. I have one single body guard who is a friend. He is one of those people who believe in the freedom of women. He sticks around me and takes care of my safety. My political friends, who are secular, are usually close to me and give me instructions over what to do and what not to do: they have experiences confronting Islamists.

Guernica: How so? How do you confront Islamists?

Yanar Mohammed: For example, there was this man who tried to sue us. He was upset at a comic I drew [for the newspaper she edits, Equality]. I was trying to describe women in traditional dress, to make it sound like a space suit: that not a single part of skin should show, or otherwise nuclear radiation could get in. I was trying to be sarcastic about not letting any part of your body show. This man, he was offended and he tried to sue me for $5,000. The next day I find out there were 30 lawyers who stood up against him. He gave up.

Guernica: How was it living in Canada and watching events unfold in Iraq?

Yanar Mohammed: Those years empowered me a lot. When you first leave Iraq, you live in trauma until you get settled, until you feel you have the right to have dreams. Then, with the beginning of 2003, I had a feeling I couldn’t focus on architecture or sculpture anymore. In the beginning of 2003, I had to face the fact that it’s hard to stay in my apartment in Toronto and live the peaceful life that is here while all the atrocities are happening inside Iraq. I had to be part of the scene.

Guernica: Will you stay in Iraq?

Yanar Mohammed: You just know that your life is there. All the challenges are there.

Guernica: It must be terrifying to live in a war zone.

Yanar Mohammed: I lived for a while in a dangerous part of the city close to the green zone; it was like hell. Let’s say it’s evening and you’re back from work and you had a hard time arriving because one of the bridges was closed, and when you ask why, they tell you it is full of resistance pockets. It takes two hours to reach your door and you go inside your house and when it begins to get dark you hear a few shots here and there and machine guns closer to your house, like 20 meters from your house; then all of a sudden a mortar bomb goes off, and the ground shakes.

Guernica: What is next for you?

Yanar Mohammed: We need to have a secular egalitarian constitution put in place. We need a humane government where women and the working class are represented.

Guernica: Is it possible to make reforms to the constitution?

Yanar Mohammed: Islamic Sharia is the founding base of this constitution. How much of a reform can you do? It has to be repealed, and there are a number of people in Iraq speaking about canceling the whole process so far.

Guernica: So, final verdict, are women worse off than before the war?

Yanar Mohammed: Let’s put it this way. At this point, the women of Iraq do not even dream to have even a small part of the reality we used to have before. We have been put under the most notorious Islamic authority in Iraq. Our monies and resources have been taken away from us. If there was the possibility of a resourceful society, we have lost that also.

[Her voice lowers] There isn't much to be hopeful about. We will have to live it one day at a time and try to find ways out of this dilemma.


------------------------------------------------
"Morality is doing what is right, regardless what we are told. 
Religious dogma is doing what we are told, no matter what is right."

#1753 From: Tarek Fatah <tarekfatah@...>
Date: Thu May 17, 2007 10:40 am
Subject: Pakistan's MQM is now in Canada: General Busharraf's goon squad spreads its wings
tarekfatah
Send Email Send Email
 
Friends,
 
Anyone following the Pakistani poltical scene will be familiar with role of the MQM party in Karachi. Its hit squads have struck terror in the city, killing people and acting like General Busharraf's brown shirters, hired to disrupt any opposition to the military regime.
 
The MQM now has a presence in Canada. Here is a write-up on their activities in the National Post of Toronto.
 
Tarek
--------------------
April 14, 2007
 
Pakistan's MQM Party operates in Canada

The hidden risks
of the photo op

By Stewart Bell,
National Post, Toronto
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=155368cd-571d-4225-b1dc-fadc304164e1

 
In Pakistan, Syed Safdar Ali Baqri was a senior official in a political party called MQM, but since moving to Toronto in 1998, he has become an active supporter of the Conservatives.
 
During the past two federal elections, Mr. Baqri has been photographed with Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day, House Speaker Peter Milliken, Conservative campaign cochairman John Reynolds and several other Conservative and Liberal MPs.
 
In some of the pictures, the 42-year-old is shown handing the politicians a booklet listing the "issues that matter most" to the MQM's Canadian chapter, MQM-Canada, which Mr. Baqri heads.
Safdar Ali Baqri (Left) with Prime Minister Stephen Harper
Safdar Ali Baqri (Left) with Prime Minister Stephen Harper
 
MQM-Canada endorsed the Conservative party in 2004 and 2006, and held a Support Conservative Car Rally and a "Picnic and BBQ" for the Conservative candidate in Don Mills. It says its volunteers worked on campaigns in seven cities.
 
"We welcome MQM-Canada's support and hope to receive cooperation from all chapters of MQM-Canada," says a statement attributed to Conservative MP Leon Benoit and posted on the group's Internet site in 2004. (Mr. Benoit said he does not recall making the comment.)
The ties between MQM-Canada and the Conservatives continued post-election. When MQM held its three-day annual convention in Toronto last June, Conservative MP Patrick Brown gave a speech. But what exactly is the MQM?
 
The Conservatives are apparently beginning to ask that same question. The Privy Council Office did some background research on the group last year and sent a memo to Mr. Harper's chief of staff, Ian Brodie.
 
The four-page memorandum, released under the Access to Information Act, says the MQM is a Pakistani political party with a history of involvement in ethnic riots, kidnapping, torture and murder.
 
"Terrorist elements" in the MQM have engaged in harassment of opponents and used crime to raise money for the party, it says, adding that MQM leader Altaf Hussain, who lives in exile in Britain, faces "numerous" criminal charges.
 
While the MQM was at one time considered a security threat to Canada, it has not been a serious concern since it renounced violence and curbed the extremists in its ranks.
 
But some still wonder why the Conservatives have aligned themselves with a Pakistani political party that human rights groups and even Canadian officials say has a violent past.
"The MQM has a long and well-deserved reputation for violence, extortion and other criminal acts such as murder," said Tom Quiggin, a former RCMP terrorism expert now working at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore.
 
When they were the Opposition, the Conservatives often criticized the Liberals for attending events hosted by organizations close to violent groups such as the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka. But since taking office, the Conservatives are apparently finding it is not always easy to avoid such situations. Which of the many community associations that want the ear of the Prime Minister are worth meeting and which are fronts for extremists? Which photo ops are harmless and which could prove politically damaging down the road?
 
Conservatives said in interviews they had no idea that even as they were posing for photos with MQM-Canada reps, the Canada Border Services Agency was working to deport dozens of former MQM party workers --and continues to do so -- on the grounds the group was involved in crimes against humanity.
 
Among those that immigration officials have claimed were complicit in atrocities in Pakistan: Mr. Baqri, the MQM-Canada leader, who was an MQM party boss in Karachi before coming to Canada.
 
A former minister of industries in the Sindh region of southern Pakistan, Mr. Baqri served as the head of an MQM zone in Karachi. He fled Pakistan and eventually made his way to the United States, where he was part of a committee that tried to build the MQM in North America.
 
In 1994, an anti-terrorist court in Pakistan convicted him in absentia of kidnapping and torturing an army major, but a higher court overturned the ruling.
 
When his U.S. asylum claim was rejected, he came to Canada in 1998. The Canadian immigration board's Convention Refugee Determination Division turned down his refugee claim on the grounds that he was aware of abuses committed by MQM members while he was a party leader.
 
That decision was set aside in 2001 by the Federal Court of Canada, which said immigration officers had failed to query Mr. Baqri about any specific incidents. The court sent the case back for another review, but Mr. Baqri still does not have landed immigrant status.
 
"He has continued his political activity while in Canada," Mr. Justice Allan Lufty wrote in his 2001 decision on Mr. Baqri's case. "He has organized protests in Ottawa and in Toronto against the government in Pakistan. There are some 9,000 MQM supporters in Canada."
In interviews, Mr. Baqri said it was not unusual that he had met so many of Canada's most powerful politicians despite his unresolved immigration status.
 
"I'm legally residing in Canada under the prevailing Canadian immigration laws. Also, regarding those politicians, Canada is still a free country and one of the freedom leaders in the world. Therefore, any democratic-minded person can meet with the politicians with [a] common agenda."
 
A physician by training, Mr. Baqri said he has been unable to work as a doctor in Canada because of his ongoing immigration case. He estimated 100 other former MQM party workers are in a similar limbo.
 
But he said neither he nor the MQM had ever been involved in violence, and the memo sent to the Prime Minister's Office is inaccurate.
 
Mr. Baqri said that while individual members of the MQM may have committed crimes on their own, the party did not sanction their activities and those involved were expelled.
 
Made up partly of MQM party workers who have moved to Canada, MQM Canada describes itself on its Web site as an "active unit" of the MQM. Mr. Baqri said the Canadian group reports to the exiled British leader rather than to MQM headquarters in Pakistan.
 
MQM-Canada has never been linked to violence. It has chapters in Toronto, Ottawa, Windsor, Calgary and Montreal and describes itself as "perhaps one of the most dynamic Pakistani organization[s] in Canada." A Vancouver chapter is to open soon.
 
In 2003, MQM-Canada formed a Political Action Committee, and when the writ dropped the following year, the group backed the Conservatives.
 
"Our workers and supporters in Windsor, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Winnipeg, Calgary and Vancouver were very active with their candidates in their respective cities," Mr. Baqri said.
He said their main objectives are to become part of mainstream Canadian politics and to bridge the gap between immigrants and non-immigrants. "In this process we also like to clarify misunderstandings towards the MQM in Canada," he said.
 
Political action is just one of the MQM's activities in Canada. In an attempt to stop immigration officials from deporting party members, an MQM activist filed a $50-million lawsuit against the Canadian government in 2005. The suit alleged that MQM members were being routinely refused permanent residency in Canada because immigration authorities have concluded the group has been involved in terrorism. A judge dismissed the case last May.
 
Supporters of the group also took their complaints to the Security Intelligence Review Committee, the watchdog over the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. A decision is expected any day, although the government is not obliged to follow its recommendations.
 
The MQM was formed more than two decades ago to represent the interest of Muhajirs, Urdu-speaking Muslims whose families migrated to Pakistan from India at partition in 1947.
Many Muhajirs settled in the southern cities of Karachi and Hyderabad, where they dominated business and the civil service-- until the Pakistani government purged them from key government posts and nationalized their businesses. A quota system was imposed to limit their access to universities and government.
 
A student leader at the University of Karachi, Altaf Hussain, formed the MQM in 1984 to defend the rights of Muhajirs, and confrontations followed. Tensions between Muhajirs and ethnic Sindhis, Pashtuns and Punjabis led to violence. "MQM was the main player in the ethnic riots of 1986-87," the Canadian government memo says.
 
Mr. Baqri disputes that, saying: "We were the victims of the riots." He said the riots were instigated by Pakistan's ISI military intelligence service.
 
Human rights groups acknowledge that the MQM was the target of a brutal crackdown by Pakistani government forces, but they say MQM activists engaged in violence as well.
"Despite protestations by MQM leader Altaf Hussain that the MQM does not subscribe to violence, there is overwhelming evidence and a consensus among observers in Karachi that some MQM party members have used violent means to further their political aims," Amnesty International wrote in a 1996 report.
 
The rights group said there was evidence that opponents of the MQM were tortured and killed while in MQM custody. Pakistani forces in Karachi allegedly found torture rooms used by the MQM.
 
"During its early history," the Canadian government memo says, "MQM drew its power from terrorist elements in the party, who helped it maintain a stronghold over the densely populated poor areas of Karachi and Hyderabad.
 
"In addition to the harassment of political and ethnic opponents, these insurgent elements were also responsible for generating funds for the party through criminal activities. The resulting lawlessness effectively crippled Karachi until the Pakistan army launched an operation to restore law and order in 1992."
 
With Karachi in chaos, the military was sent in to intervene and a repressive campaign against the MQM ensued. "Before the Pakistan army launched its 1992 operation," the memo says, "Altaf Hussain had already fled to the UK in order to avoid prosecution; he remains there in self-imposed exile."
 
The MQM split into two factions, called MQM (H) and Mr. Hussain's group MQM (A). The MQM (H) was allegedly supported by the Pakistani government to weaken the MQM(A). "Since 1992, the MQM factions have directed their violence against each other, as well as against the Pakistani government," the memo says.
 
There were almost daily killings between the factions in 1994, and the following year there were up to 10 political killings a day in Karachi, according to a research paper published by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
 
Mr. Baqri said the human rights groups are wrong. They were relying on locals for their information who were either biased or influenced by the government, he said. "It was an organized campaign to malign MQM in the eyes of the West."
 
In Pakistan's 2002 elections, MQM emerged as the leading party amongst Urdu-speaking Pakistanis. It now has 18 members in the Pakistan National Assembly and is an ally of President Pervez Musharraf against the Islamist militant groups in the political opposition.
The Canadian memo adds that nine MQM members were sentenced to death for the murder of the Governor of Pakistan's Sindh province. While it says Mr. Hussain was acquitted of charges stemming from the kidnapping of an army major, "There are still numerous other criminal cases pending against him."
 
The memo concerning MQM-Canada was written by Kevin Lynch, the Clerk of the Privy Council. Why it was sent to the Prime Minister's Office is not explained in those parts of the document made public.
 
"We have no comment on specific pieces of correspondence," said Myriam Massabki, the Privy Council Office spokeswoman.
 
Mr. Benoit said he knew nothing about the group, although he did remember attending an MQM-Canada campaign event with several Torontoarea Conservative candidates.
 
He said a news conference was held following the meeting, but he does not believe he made the statement that is attributed to him on the MQM-Canada Web site. "I do know what they had attributed to me, I absolutely didn't know that that was being attributed to me. I mean, they've done that on their own."
 
Wajid Khan, the Pakistan-born MP who ran for the Liberals but crossed the floor to the Conservatives, had no recollection of meeting the MQM, although his photo is shown on the Web site with Mr. Baqri.
 
"I can tell you that Mr. Khan has no affiliation, nor has he ever, with the group you mentioned," said his executive assistant Stefano Pileggi.
 
"He barely remembers meeting someone from MQM ? He doesn't even remember the man's name, and no he had no knowledge of any criminal allegations."
 
Melisa Leclerc, Mr. Day's spokeswoman, said the Minister had no idea Mr. Baqri had been accused of atrocities. People often see Mr. Day and ask to have their photo taken with him, she said. "I don't think the Minister knew. He's a strong defender of human rights."

 


------------------------------------------------
"Morality is doing what is right, regardless what we are told. 
Religious dogma is doing what we are told, no matter what is right."

#1754 From: Tarek Fatah <tarekfatah@...>
Date: Fri May 18, 2007 10:02 am
Subject: Hoodbhoy: Islamabad is becoming a Taliban stronghold
tarekfatah
Send Email Send Email
 
May 17, 2007 9:30 PM

Islamabad succumbs

Pakistan's president is doing nothing to prevent the
country's capital from becoming a Taliban stronghold.
 
By Pervez Hoodbhoy
The Guardian, UK
 
After his ill-advised dismissal of the chief justice of Pakistan's supreme court ignited violent protest, President Pervez Musharraf may be banking on Islamic fanatics to create chaos in the nation's capital, Islamabad. Many suspect that an engineered bloodbath that leads to army intervention, and the declaration of a national emergency, could serve as a pretext to postpone the October 2007 elections. This could make way for Musharraf's dictatorial rule to continue into its eighth year - and perhaps well beyond.
 
This perverse strategy sounds almost unbelievable. Musharraf, who George Bush describes as his "buddy", supports an "enlightened moderate" version of Islam, and wears two close attempts on his life by religious extremists as a badge of honour. But his secret reliance upon the Taliban card - one that he has been accused of playing for years - is increasing as his authority weakens.
 
Signs of government-engineered chaos abound. In the heart of Islamabad, vigilante groups from a government-funded mosque, the Lal Masjid, roam the streets and bazaars, imposing Islamic morality and terrorising citizens in full view of the police. Openly sympathetic to the Taliban and tribal militants fighting the Pakistan army, the two cleric brothers who head Lal Masjid, Maulana Abdul Aziz and Maulana Abdur Rashid Ghazi, have attracted a core of banned militant organisations around them. These include Jaish-e-Muhammad, considered a pioneer of suicide bombings in the region.
 
The clerics openly defy the state. Since January 21, baton-wielding, burka-clad students of the Jamia Hafsa, the woman's Islamic university located next to the headquarters of Lal Masjid, have forcibly occupied a government building, the Children's Library. In one of their many forays outside the seminary, this burka brigade swooped upon a house that they claimed was a brothel, and kidnapped three women and a baby.
 
Male students from Islamabad's many madrasas are even more active in terrorising video-shop owners, whom they accuse of spreading pornography. Newspapers have carried pictures of grand bonfires made with seized cassettes and CDs. Most video stores in Islamabad have now closed. Their owners duly repented after a fresh campaign on May 4 by militants blew up a dozen music and video stores, barbershops and a girl's school in the North-West Frontier Province.
 
Astonishing patience has been shown by the Pakistani state, which on other occasions freely used air and artillery power to combat such challenges. Lal Masjid seems to operate with impunity - no attempt has been made to cut off its electricity, gas, phone or website - or even to shut down its illegal FM radio station. The chief negotiator appointed by Musharraf, Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, described the burka brigade kidnappers as "our daughters", with whom negotiations would continue and against whom "no operation could be contemplated".
 
Clerics realise that the government wants to play ball. Their initial demand - the rebuilding of eight illegally constructed mosques that had been knocked down by Islamabad's civic administration - became a call for enforcement of Sharia law across Pakistan. In a radio broadcast on April 12, the clerics issued a threat: "There will be suicide blasts in the nook and cranny of the country. We have weapons, grenades, and we are expert in manufacturing bombs. We are not afraid of death."
 
Lal Masjid's head cleric, a former student of my university in Islamabad, added the following chilling message for our women students:

 
"The government should abolish coeducation. Quaid-e-Azam University has become a brothel. Its female professors and students roam in objectionable dresses. I think I will have to send my daughters of Jamia Hafsa to these immoral women. They will have to hide themselves in hijab, otherwise they will be punished according to Islam. Our female students have not issued the threat of throwing acid on the uncovered faces of women. However, such a threat could be used for creating the fear of Islam among sinful women. There is no harm in it. There are far more horrible punishments in the hereafter for such women."

 
Indeed, on May 7, a female teacher in the QAU history department was physically assaulted in her office by a bearded, Taliban-looking man who screamed that he had instructions from Allah.
 
What's next? As Islamabad heads the way of Pakistan's tribal towns, the next targets will be girls' schools, internet cafes, bookshops, and shops selling western clothing, followed by purveyors of toilet paper, tampons, underwear, mannequins and other un-Islamic goods.
 
In a sense, the inevitable is coming to pass. Until a few years ago, Islamabad was a quiet, orderly, modern city no different from any other in Pakistan. Still earlier, it was largely the abode of Pakistan's elite and foreign diplomats. But the rapid transformation of its demography brought with it hundreds of mosques with multi-barrelled audio cannons mounted on minarets, as well as scores of madrasas, illegally constructed in what used to be public parks and green areas. Now, tens of thousands of their students with prayer caps dutifully chant the Qu'ran all day. In the evenings, they roam in packs through the city's streets and bazaars, gaping at store windows and lustfully ogling bare-faced women.
 
The stage is being set for transforming Islamabad into a Taliban stronghold. When Musharraf exits - which may be sooner rather than later - he will leave a bitter legacy that will last for generations, all for a little more taste of power.


------------------------------------------------
"Morality is doing what is right, regardless what we are told. 
Religious dogma is doing what we are told, no matter what is right."

#1755 From: Tarek Fatah <tarekfatah@...>
Date: Sat May 19, 2007 12:37 pm
Subject: Muslim woman president of UN General Assembly slams Sharia Law:
tarekfatah
Send Email Send Email
 
May 17, 2007

U.N. Assembly leader
seeks women's rights.

UNITED NATIONS May 17 (UPI) -- Strict interpretation of Islamic texts has led to discrimination against women in the Middle East, says the president of the U.N. General Assembly.

"Women are subject to family laws that are Sharia based which strictly follow the interpretations of the Islamic scholars that lived 1,000 years ago at the beginning of Islam," said Sheikha Haya Al Khalifa. "These interpretations are applied now without making any allowances to the very different social contexts of today.

"In fact, these interpretations are sanctified as holy which prevent them from criticism and change."

Khalifa was one of the first women in Bahrain to practice law. She has advocated for women's rights in a region where women still struggle for a legal foothold. She spoke Wednesday at a panel discussion at Rutgers University. The remarks were made available at U.N. World Headquarters in New York.

She called for "new interpretations of Islamic text in light of contemporary circumstances and needs."

Under Sharia family law, women can't get married without a male guardian and can't get a divorce without a court proceeding. Men can divorce their wives by a verbal declaration.

Khalifa said the social structure in the Middle East, where the family -- not the individual -- is the basic unit of society, has "created a mentality that fears the autonomy of women."

"These attitudes which were based on traditions are now associated with religion, making it harder to criticize or change them," she said.


------------------------------------------------
"Morality is doing what is right, regardless what we are told. 
Religious dogma is doing what we are told, no matter what is right."

#1756 From: Tarek Fatah <tarekfatah@...>
Date: Wed May 23, 2007 11:40 am
Subject: Pakistan's UN peacekeeping troops in Congo "traded gold for guns"
tarekfatah
Send Email Send Email
 
Friends,
 
Is it any surpirse that some of the richest men in the world are Generalsof the Pakistan Army? Corrupt to the core, the Pakistan Army is a cancer that will not rest till the patient dies.
 
Tarek
----------------------------
Tuesday, 22 May 2007
 
UN troops 'traded gold for guns'
 
By Martin Plaut
BBC News, eastern DR Congo
 
Pakistani troops in DR Congo in 2007
Pakistan is the biggest contributor to the UN peacekeeping effort
Pakistani UN peacekeeping troops have traded in gold and sold weapons to Congolese militia groups they were meant to disarm, the BBC has learnt.
 
These militia groups were guilty of some of the worst human rights abuses during the Democratic Republic of Congo's long civil war.
The trading went on in 2005. A UN investigative team sent to gather evidence was obstructed and threatened.
 
The team's report was buried by the UN itself to "avoid political fallout".
These events took place in and around the mining town of Mongbwalu, in north-eastern Democratic Republic of Congo.
 
The Pakistani battalion of the UN peacekeeping mission deployed there two years ago and helped bring peace to an area that had previously seen bitter fighting between the Lendu and Hema ethnic groups.
Locals welcomed them, but the lure of the rich alluvial gold mines proved too much to resist for some, recalls the head of the miners' association, Liki Likambo.
 
"I saw a UN Pakistani soldier who came to buy gold from one of the gold negotiators here in Mongbwalu. I was there in the shop. I saw it with my own eyes."
 
Deals
 
Soon the Pakistani officers were doing deals directly with the FNI militia.
 
Weighing gold
The gold from mines run by militias went to Pakistani peacekeepers
Evarista Anjasubu - a local businessman said he had known of transactions between Pakistani officers and two of the most notorious militia leaders called Kung Fu and Dragon who controlled the gold mines.
 
"They were already friends. I knew well. It was gold that was the basis of their friendship. So the gold extracted from the mines went directly to the Pakistanis. They used to meet in the UN camp in Mongbwalu, in a thatched house."
As the trade developed the Pakistani officers brought in the Congolese army and then Indian traders from Kenya.
 
Richard Ndilu, in charge of immigration at Mongbwalu airstrip, became suspicious in late 2005 when an Indian businessman arrived there and went to stay at the camp of the Pakistani peacekeepers.
 
Scandal
 
Alerted to this illegal trade by her officials, the District Commissioner of Ituri, Petronille Vaweka, went to Bunia airport to intercept a plane from Mongbwalu.
 
Liki Likambo
I was there in the shop. I saw it with my own eyes
Miners' association head Liki Likambo
She said her way was blocked by Congolese army officers, who refused to allow her to inspect the cargo.
 
"I knew they had gold because the price of gold increased when the Indians went to Mongwalu," she said.
 
"When we wanted to verify what was inside the plane the pilot refused to allow us to enter the plane - me who was the chief, he refused! It was a big scandal."
When the UN was alerted to the allegations of gold trading by Human Rights Watch in late 2005, they instituted a major investigation by the Office for Internal Oversight Services.
 
What they uncovered was even more explosive.
 
Rearming
 
This is from a witness statement given to the UN by a Congolese officer engaged in the disarming of the militia in the nearby town of Nizi:
 
Gold mining
The battle for mining concessions has cost countless lives
"The officer expressed his regrets over the malpractices of a Pakistani battalion under the auspices of Major Zanfar. He revealed the arms surrendered by ex-combatants were secretly returned to them by Major Zanfar thereby compromising the work they had collectively done earlier.
 
"Repeatedly he saw militia who had been disarmed one day, but the next day would become re-armed again. The information he could obtain was always the same, that it would be the Pakistani battalion giving arms back to the militia."
 
This evidence was backed up by an interpreter working with the Pakistani battalion at Mongbwalu.
 
On arriving at the Officer's Mess, the interpreter found two militia leaders - known as Kung Fu and Dragon.
 
The interpreter said that the first question from Major Ali was to Kung Fu - asking him: 'What about the weapons I gave you? What about the weapons Monuc gave you?'
 
Stand-off
 
A UN investigation team arrived in Mongbwalu in August 2006.
At first the Pakistani battalion there cooperated with them. But when they attempted to seize a computer with apparently incriminating documents on it a stand-off ensued.
Mongbwalu
The UN-found weapons were returned to militias in Mongbwalu
 
The Pakistanis surrounded the UN police accompanying the investigators with barbed wire and put two armoured personnel carriers outside their living quarters at a nearby Christian mission.
Thoroughly intimidated, the investigators were airlifted out of Mongbwalu.
 
The Pakistani troops are replaced every six months and the BBC investigation concerns events that took place prior to the deployment of the current Pakistani battalion.
 
When we put the allegations of weapons trading to the head of the UN in Congo, Ambassador William Swing, he denied emphatically that peacekeepers had been rearming the militia.
 
"This I can categorically deny. What we have done is just the opposite. We have demobilised more than 20,000. We have taken in caches of arms. We have destroyed arms. We have done public burnings of these arms. And there is absolutely nothing to that allegation."
 
He says that the investigation into gold trading has yet to be completed.
A UN official connected with the inquiry told the BBC there seems to have been a plan to bury it, to avoid alienating Pakistan - the largest contributor of troops to the UN.
 
The UN in New York has refused to explain what took place or why, nearly two years after the allegations first surfaced, the Congolese people have no idea what action - if any - has been taken to discipline the Pakistani soldiers concerned.


------------------------------------------------
"Morality is doing what is right, regardless what we are told. 
Religious dogma is doing what we are told, no matter what is right."

Messages 1727 - 1756 of 2983   Oldest  |  < Older  |  Newer >  |  Newest
Add to My Yahoo!      XML What's This?

Copyright © 2010 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Guidelines NEW - Help