Half A Man
Notes on gender apartheid in Iran
Akbar Ganji
Boston Review
http://www.bostonreview.net/BR32.6/ganji.php
Akbar Ganji is an Iranian dissident journalist and writer. He was arrested on April 22, 2000 after he took part in a conference held in Berlin on April 7 and 8, 2000. He was imprisoned in Evin Prison in Tehran until his release on March 18, 2006.
Iran's political-legal system is founded on apartheid, on unjust and untenable discrimination among members of society. Social opportunities and privileges are not distributed on the basis of merit, but according to such indefensible criteria as race, religion, and allegiance to the political regime. While some are deprived of certain basic human rights and the chance to benefit from their talents and efforts, others are afforded "special rights." They benefit handsomely from coveted social opportunities and privileges. One of the most glaring fault lines of this apartheid system is gender. In Iran, women suffer every injustice and deprivation endured by Iranian men, and gender injustice as well.
Unfortunately, gender apartheid has not drawn as much outrage around the world as racial apartheid has. The international community was rightly united in its opposition to the regime in South Africa that denied blacks equal rights with whites, and it rose up to topple that system. But it has voiced little opposition to many societies in which the rights of women are systematically trampled upon. Under the guise of cultural pluralism, or respect for religious freedom, some clerical leaders have even rationalized gender apartheid.
In Iran, those in power justify gender apartheid with religious arguments and claim divine origins for it. They accuse internal critics of violating divine edicts, and through such intimidation they hope to silence defenders of women's rights. With this strategy, their own history of passing misogynist laws is cast as a defense of religion and Shari'ah, divine law. And because this strategy gains them support from ostensibly apolitical traditionalist religious forces, the regime can use the gender issue to consolidate its political power. That is why every time there is a crisis in Iranian society, the regime increases pressure on women and anyone who champions their cause.
Equality should be the foundation of democracy. Citizens of a democratic society must have equal rights and opportunities. As a result, equality between men and women must be considered a cardinal element of a democratic system. For this reason, fighting discrimination against women has a special place in the Iranian democratic movement. Here I hope to show the areas in which women's rights have been denied on the basis of Shari'ah, and also to address the questions: do the laws that discriminate against women in fact have divine origins, and is rejecting them tantamount to renouncing Islam itself?
It is important first to clarify the term "discrimination against women." According to the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1979, discrimination against women is "any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field." One hundred and eighty-five countries are signatories to this convention, including all of Iran's neighbors, but Iran is not.
In Iran today, any discussion of laws that oppress women is dangerous. It can bring about a prison sentence, or even cost one's life. Religious traditionalists who support these laws might construe any such criticism as hubris or an attack on the prophet. Some clergy have declared that such critiques imply a rejection of divine edicts, and the more radical followers of these clerics take such declarations as a license to kill the critics. Indeed, according to the criminal laws of the Islamic Republic of Iran, if someone murders me on the suspicion that I have committed heresy, the murderer will not receive any punishment if he proves my heresy in court.
Nonetheless, at the end of this essay I will offer my views on what should be done in the realms of politics, society, and culture to fight the widespread abrogation of women's rights in Iran.
* * *
Here are some of the most important arenas in which the rights of women are disregarded in the name of religion.
Health and the value of life
Statistics show that Iranian women suffer more than men from hunger and malnutrition, and they have less access to health care. In traditional families, boys enjoy more privileges than girls in the realms of medical care, sports, and nutrition; as a result they have better general health. This inequality flows from the cultural attitude—with roots in Shari'ah—that values the life of a man more than the life of a woman. According to Shari'ah, the blood money for a man is twice that for a woman. Assume, for example, that an illiterate criminal rapes and brutally murders a woman who is a scholar and a university professor. If the woman's family forfeits its right to blood money and instead kills the murderer in retribution (which is allowed by Shari'ah), they must pay the man's family a sum equal to half the blood money stipulated in the law for the woman's murder, while the man's family pays nothing.
Sanctity of the body
Women's rights to the sanctity of their bodies are freely violated in Iran. Women are, on a large scale, victims of rape, coerced sexual relations with their husbands, domestic violence, and all manner of insults and sexual violations in the public domain. Again Iran's traditional religious culture paves the way for this injustice. One of the obsessions of Shari'ah is to exercise control over women's bodies. According to traditional religious values, a good woman is chaste. A woman whose behavior deviates from an ideal image of chastity is labeled "unchaste" and men are no longer required to respect her. For example, according to the culture promoted by the rulers in Iran , a woman who is bad hejab—who does not wear the clothing approved by the regime—is said to invite men to abuse her sexually. And if she is assaulted the perpetrator easily escapes legal punishment.
The sanctity of women's bodies is also violated regularly in their own homes. According to the traditional interpretation of Islam, a man has the right to physically punish an "unruly" wife. Only if her injuries are excessive can the law, under some circumstances, allow the woman to file for divorce; physical abuse alone is not sufficient grounds for divorce or legal action. Related is the problem of rape in married life. According to the traditional reading, a woman must always comply with her husband's sexual demands. If she refuses, the man has the right to force her into compliance. Underlying the law is the notion that a woman's body is not hers, and that she has no right to make decisions about it on her own. Unfortunately, the concept of rape within marriage is either defended or altogether absent from Iran's cultural and legal discourse. The law can even punish a woman for resisting. There are harsh punishments for rapists who are not married to the victim, but the reasoning is concerned with protecting the husband's property. In short, the law defends not the sanctity of women's bodies, but the rights of the men who own them.
The most visible injustices are the humiliating physical punishments meted out to women who have broken the law or are convicted of crimes. For example, the punishment for a woman who engages in an extramarital sexual act is whipping or stoning. According to the law, these punishments must be carried out in public.
Dress
Freedom to choose one's own dress is an individual's prerogative. No authority, and certainly not the state, has the right to coerce a certain style of dress from its citizens . Unfortunately, Iranian women have long been deprived of this freedom. In modern Iranian history, for example, Reza Shah forced women to take off their head-covers, and subsequently the Islamic Republic forced them to wear head-covers again.
Work outside the home
One of the most important freedoms is the ability to safely seek employment outside the home, to choose one's work, to find employment without discrimination, and to receive fair pay. But Iranian women who work outside their homes must first gain the right to leave home when they wish. According to Shari'ah, a woman can leave the house only if she has the permission of her father or her husband. The husband can easily withhold this permission. In addition, the current legal and political system in the country has strictly forbidden women to hold certain jobs. They cannot become judges, or the president, or the spiritual leaders. It is common practice in the Islamic Republic to bar women from many top governmental posts, including ministerial appointments, the Council of Experts, and the Guardian Council. Excluding women from the centers of power has curtailed their ability to bring about changes in their social condition. Traditionalist Islamic theorists, as well as regime apologists, claim that these restrictions reflect women's natural limitations, that due to their emotional and sensual nature , women are unfit for managerial and leadership positions that require the application of reason and logic.
Mobility and free assembly
If a woman is not entitled to leave her home to work without her husband's permission, neither can she leave it to buy groceries or visit her parents. In many Islamic countries, including Iran, women cannot leave the country without the written permission of their husbands. Needless to say, limiting women's mobility implies, by extension, restricting their right to assembly, particularly for the purpose of political protest.
Free expression and political participation
In a despotic society (such as racial apartheid), even men are deprived of the rights to free expression and political participation, but religion imposes especially strict limits on women in this area. Again, religion's role in limiting women's mobility is likely to limit their free expression and political participation. Another contributing factor is the relatively high rate of illiteracy due to religiously grounded cultural attitudes.
The right of citizenship and the right to transfer it to children .
According to the U.N. Convention, the right of citizenship must be transferable to a child equally through the mother and the father. Iranian law allows no independent right of citizenship for women. A child born to an Iranian mother and an Afghani father, for example, is not considered a citizen of Iran and cannot receive an Iranian identity card.
Marriage and family
Family law is the arena where women's rights are most trampled upon in the name of religion. Religious rules as well as traditional culture largely deny women the right to choose their husbands. Most often, men choose their mates, and, particularly in non-urban areas, girls must follow the wishes of their fathers; only a father's permission makes a marriage acceptable in both civil law and Shari'ah. In family life, most crucial decisions about children are made by the father. If the marriage proves unhappy, only the man may file for divorce. Women can ask for divorce only if they can submit to the court special evidence of a husband's impotence or unwillingness to perform his conjugal duties, say, or desertion. But most often preparing such evidence is impossible. After divorce, the father is invariably granted custody of the children. Another particularly demeaning reality for women is the practice of polygamy. Current laws recognize not only men's right to polygamy but also their right to enter numerous temporary marriages (sighe).
Birth control
Fortunately, contraception is legal in Iran today and clinics provide means of preventing unwanted pregnancies as well as family-planning programs. But only the pressures of a population explosion led the government to urge theologians to endorse contraception or at least stop publicly opposing it. Bearing fewer children not only improves the health of women, but also fosters better conditions for them to develop and improve their lives. Yet the question of abortion remains a highly sensitive issue in Iranian society. Fatwas issued by many clerics ban abortion, regardless of whether they view the fetus as having a soul. And abortion is legally banned except in extraordinary circumstances. But what is most striking about the clerical debate is the stark absence of any reference women's right to their own bodies. In the West, the dilemma of abortion is often perceived as a conflict between two competing rights: a fetus's right to life and a woman's right to control her own body. The real question is under what circumstances one of these two rights takes precedence over the other. For Iranian clerics, women do not have such rights, so they are unable to make independent decisions about their bodies, including the decision to terminate a pregnancy.
Education
While women's access to education in Iranian society has improved, considerable obstacles remain. Women's entry into certain fields is either entirely barred or severely limited. In many small towns young girls are denied the chance to study at a major university, since all such universities are in big cities and traditional religious families will simply not allow their young daughters to live in the city unsupervised. Even after graduation, women have a far more difficult time entering the job market and finding suitable jobs in the areas of their expertise.
The list of arenas in which women's rights are denied in the name of religion is much longer than what is introduced here, which should be enough to show that gender apartheid exists in Iranian society.
* * *
Is criticizing laws that deny women's rights tantamount to rejecting religion and violating divine edicts? For many people of faith the answer is no. Let me explain.
First, theologians share no consensus on the meaning of many edicts. Even among traditionalist theologians we can find fatwas that contradict some discriminatory laws. In matters under contention, the pious can simply follow the rulings of those theologians who have shown more sensitivity to issues of gender justice.
Second, theologians divide the entire collection of religious edicts into two categories: those dealing with prayer (ebadat), and those dealing with contracts. The first category covers the relations between individuals and God, such as the laws on daily prayers and fasting. The second category covers social relations between individuals. Laws relating to women fall for the most part in the latter category. Abu Hamed al-Ghazali, one of the most eminent theologians in the history of Islam, has suggested that religious laws (particularly those concerning contracts) are not part of religious learning. In his opinion, piety must be defined in ethical and spiritual terms, and not through religious laws or kalam.
Similarly, some Shia theologians have argued that doubting or rejecting religious rules is not in itself apostasy. For example, Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic, has written clearly on the subject in one of his books.
What is essential in Islam, and its acceptance makes a person a Muslim, is the principle of God's existence and of his unity, the prophetic principle, and maybe belief in the day of reckoning. The rest are Islamic rules and they have no relation to the principle of belief in Islam. If somebody believes in those principles, but because of some errors does not believe in Islamic rules, that person is a Muslim, on the condition that disbelief in rules does not result in denial of the prophetic principle? Fairness requires that we do not accept the claim that Islam consists of accepting every rule and opinion offered by the prophet and the refusal to accept any one of them, for any reason is tantamount to apostasy.
The founder of the Islamic Republic, who is a traditionalist theologian, posits that even denying the obligatory nature of daily prayer or pilgrimage (hadj), both of which fall under the theological category dealing with prayer and are accepted by all theologians, is not in itself apostasy. If such an argument can be made about rules dealing with these fundamental components of Islam, it can certainly be extended to rules that discriminate against women. Even in the context of traditional Islamic theology, then, there is room to reject laws that hurt women.
Third, over the past century reformist religious movements have tried to find new interpretations of religion, within the context of religious logic, that are compatible with modern rationality and human rights. Theologians have used several methods for correcting laws that discriminate against women.
The first is grounded in what can be called the "conservative critique." Many traditionalists argue that the Islamic legal system for women is essentially just but that some aspects need correcting to reflect our times. Their style is a form of mending; they resist change for as long as possible, and when resistance becomes too difficult or costly, they offer a limited solution to a specific problem. They invariably try to legitimize these changes by citing some Qur'anic verse or Hadith. When it comes to the question of women, these theologians characteristically address only specific problems and avoid a systematic approach. Regarding the question of the right of women to divorce, for example, they suggest that a woman can, upon marriage, demand that her husband grant her the right to divorce. In such cases the woman's legal status is no doubt improved. But the fundamental principle—that divorce is the right of men and can be granted only when men give their consent—remains unchanged.
The second approach can be called the "historical critique." In this critique, we must place religious rules in their specific cultural and historical context to evaluate them. We know that a majority of Islamic rules, as enumerated in the Qur'an and in Hadith, existed in Arabia before the advent of Islam. Islamic Shari'ah merely gave them a seal of approval. They call these "reconfirmed" rules (emzai). Only a handful of rules were formulated during the life of the prophet on the basis of Islamic ideas. These are called "foundational" rules (tasisi). Both reconfirmed and foundational rules (particularly those dealing with contracts) were based on economic and intellectual exigencies in Arabia at the time of Islam's founder. Some argue that if the historical circumstances have changed, the rules they gave rise to have become obsolete. For example, today no one thinks that the rules endorsing slavery are still valid. The same argument has been made about polygamy. According to some theologians, polygamy was practiced by tribal societies in which men were responsible for the safety of women and children. Today, when civic institutions can provide the protection needed by women and children, they argue, polygamy is unjustifiable. If we expand this point of view, we arrive at an important principle: that religious rules are applicable only to the time of the prophet, unless their usefulness in other times can be rationally established.
A third approach, which can be called the "radical critique," is more innovative and different in two ways. It is also more prevalent among religious intellectuals. Some argue that the Qur'an, as revelation, has a transhistorical and transcultural essence that speaks to all humans, at all times and in all cultures; it also has a contingent or historical aspect that is a reflection of Arab culture at the time the book was revealed to the prophet. The prophet was forced to take into account the culture of those directly receiving his revelation in order to make his message more palatable to them, but the way the Arabs lived fourteen hundred years ago should not be privileged religiously over the values and social practices of other societies. Being a Muslim means accepting the essence, and not the historical aspects, of the religion. This interpretation holds that many religious rules (particularly those dealing with contracts) are simply contingent aspects of faith. Being a Muslim in no way requires belief or dedication to these rules. According to these religious thinkers, the prophet simply used the Arab culture of his time as an example to demonstrate to future generations how they could give a society a more divine direction without tearing it asunder. This analysis suggests that all religious rules regarding women are contingent aspects of religion. Negating them in no way implies a rejection of religion or opposition to the prophet.
These three positions are offered by some people of faith. The issues are different for secular thinkers. For them religion is nothing more than the history of religion, which is a history of discrimination and inequalities among Muslims and non-Muslims, men and women, slaves and freemen, clerics and non-clerics. When theology is politicized, and when the state becomes religious, these inequalities are forced on society by the religious state. For them problems that are founded on religion, such as gender apartheid, cannot be solved by a different reading of religion. The solution is to separate the institution of the mosque from the state.
Most secular intellectuals see Iran 's gender apartheid as an integral part of the country's general system of apartheid. Iranian apartheid is based on a particular interpretation of Islam that divides society into "insiders" and "outsiders." The class of insiders includes the coterie of the ruling Court, but extends beyond that to encompass all of the pious. This pervasive privileging of the rulers' ideology ends up creating gender apartheid, because every time the rulers increase inequalities between men and women, they receive the approbation of the traditionalists. The rulers have on occasion shown some flexibility and have even made some adaptations in their ruling ideology. And they have no qualms about suspending beliefs considered foundational to the faith, such as the sanctity of the mosque; the country's former supreme leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, once temporarily suspended belief in the oneness of Allah. But they have never wavered in their belief in the natural superiority of men over women, and its concomitant idea that women are less capable than men of using reason and bearing responsibility.
As secular intellectuals have emphasized, the ruling ideology conceives of society as analogous to a family, whose members are uninformed minors in need of supervision. This notion of guardianship is intimately connected to the traditional belief in Islamic jurisprudence, which maintains that among minors women are the most minor of all, that among the uninformed women are the most uninformed of all.
Many secular intellectuals believe that devaluing and humiliating women is not only in itself despicable, but that it also degrades the entire society. Their insight sheds light on many events in the history of the Islamic Republic. Every time the rulers want to intimidate their opponents, they increase their attacks on women. Their suppression of women today in fact signals their weakness. Seeking to bring the society around to their vision, they are being defeated by the condemnation they have received both externally and internally.
Leftist thinkers have paid special attention to the double exploitation of working-class women. Some secular theories assert that men in society try to conceal their own humiliation, or compensate for it, by showing off their power over women. The official ideology in Iranian society betrays a male inferiority complex that is unleashed on women. A litany of humiliations contributes to this inferiority complex, including the one resulting from historical backwardness compared with the West.
In the secular intellectuals' approach to the question of women, cultural critique is central. They point out that humiliating and insulting women, viewing them as sexual objects, and subjecting them to policies that institutionalize these views have contributed to the deterioration of men's attitude toward women. Iranian culture, they say, has regressed much in this area since the advent of the Islamic Republic. Criticism of women's subjugation, they stress, must not be confined to politics and law. Rather, fundamental cultural change is needed: a democratic re-education of the entire society, which requires imbuing men with the spirit of freedom and equality.
When we talk of secular intellectuals, we must bear in mind that not all of them are anti-religion, although they accuse religious intellectuals of a vain search for modern progressive ideas in religion. It is possible to have faith, even Islamic faith, and yet believe in secularism, in the separation of church and state, and in the potential of reason to assess and explicate the affairs of this world. In the West, there are many thinkers who hold religious beliefs but are secular in their approach and offer radical critiques of the religious tradition. According to some who are indebted to feminist critiques of patriarchy, traditional religion has been formed by masculine sensibility and cognition. In the age of the Enlightenment, Kant warded off those who saw religion as mere superstition by insisting that religion remain in the realm of reason. Feminist critics today rightly point out that Kant's reason still had obvious masculine qualities and that modern religion must embrace the kind of sensitivity and cognition that invites all to peace and coexistence. Peace is not possible without equality between genders. Rejecting ideas that lead to gender apartheid is the primary mark of a humanitarian and ethical society.
* * *
What can be done to fight gender apartheid? We must begin on three fronts: culture, law, and politics.
To address the plight of women in our society, we need to work on culture more than anything else. Discriminatory laws against women have their genesis in traditional images of men and women, in ideas about "femininity" and "masculinity." As long as these images pervade our society and family lives, the status of women will not improve much. These images have deep roots in religious as well as non-religious literature, so our first task is to become conscious of them and subject them to criticism. In my view, we must recognize that the following deeply embedded, traditional views on gender are not "natural":
Boys and girls do not have the same ability to master technology. According to this view, women do not have sufficient rational and logical faculties, and tend to be more emotional and instinctive. In traditional literature, women are symbols of the soul, while men represent reason;
Differences in body, mind, and psyche should dictate men's and women's roles in society and family; therefore, it is natural that men take the lead in these social hierarchies, since a healthy society is like a healthy body, and in a healthy body, the mind dominates the passions;
"Justice," according to our ancestors, is putting everything in its natural place. Thus, if women's natural place is to be subservient to men, then men's domination over women is a requirement of justice;
Boys should be raised for roles that are natural to their capacities (like management, supervision, and leadership) and girls for naturally feminine roles (like bearing children, housekeeping, and taking orders). The poet Sa'edi describes the "ideal good woman" as one who obeys her husband's orders, keeps herself for her husband, and has, as the ultimate goal of her life, making her husband, and not herself, the "king." The good, obedient and pious woman turns a poor man into a king;
Since in the traditional vision women are naturally inferior to men, they cannot enjoy equal rights with them;
Any change in the "natural" order can only bring about ruinous consequences for everyone, including women.
Given these deeply entrenched, mutually reinforcing ideas about gender, we must begin our cultural effort in the household, in schools, in our textbooks and our pedagogy, and in the way we raise our children. In the context of the family, we must recognize that in the nature of familial relationships and division of labor, injustices hurt women. Assigning social roles and responsibilities can be considered just only when men and women are afforded an equal chance to take them on; when they accept roles commensurate with their individual abilities and talents; and when their choices are made freely. Otherwise, the structure of the family and of society will remain unjust. I am not suggesting that traditional roles for women in the household and society are unjust. But it is unjust to force these roles on women.
In families founded on women's degradation and humiliation, it is difficult to raise sons who respect women. It is also hard to raise daughters who believe in their equality with men and have the self-confidence and independence they need to compete with men in the social arena. As a corrective, both mothers and fathers should perform roles traditionally regarded as masculine or feminine. Men must spend more time with their children and women must take more active roles in activities outside the home. This process will heighten our children's awareness of the gender inequalities around them, and will help us raise children who find gender apartheid as despicable as political apartheid.
There is a second important point I would like to make about Iranian culture and family life. This relates to our idea of the morally good human being. We all strive to raise good and laudable children. We generally do this with a conscious or unconscious image of the "good person." Unfortunately this image is invariably masculine or male-centered, synonymous with the "good man." For example, we refer to a solid and dependable promise as a "manly promise," and when someone shows compassion and justice, we say that that person has behaved in a manly manner. The Arabic word for compassion, morrova, has at its etymological root the word mor, which means manly.
If we look at the list of characteristics that our mystics have considered "masculine" and "feminine," we notice that most of the qualities we consider virtues are associated with men. According to stereotype, men are independent, competitive, aggressive, forceful, rational, inattentive to appearances, dependable and reliable, sexually active, and inarticulate about emotions. Women are dependent, cooperative, emotional, sensual, tender and nonviolent, overly concerned with appearances, disciplined and tidy, in need of protection, sexually passive, and comfortable articulating their feelings. But we must define moral virtue and vice independent of gender. If independence is a virtue, it is a virtue for both men and women. If the spirit of cooperation is a virtue, it must be a virtue for both genders. That is why parents must, within the confines of family life, teach their daughters to become independent and self-reliant, to follow logic and reason, and to show firmness when necessary. They must also teach their sons to cooperate, and to articulate their emotions without shame. The goal of families, in short, must not be raising good men or women but good people.
Rethinking traditional notions of masculinity is also a great challenge on the legal front. Legislators made these discriminatory laws against women based on what they assumed were lordly edicts. Some of the traditionalist theologians do not consider it necessary to garner public support for laws that are founded on Shari'ah. In their view, God's commandments must be implemented, regardless of public approval. More moderate theologians have suggested that since the majority of the people are religious, the rules of Shari'ah become law on account of the majority's desire, and respecting these laws becomes incumbent on every citizen. For example, covering women's bodies according to Islamic rules (Hejab) becomes mandatory even for non-Muslim women.
But neither position holds up. Civil laws cannot be deemed enforceable simply on religious grounds. And lawmakers must never pass laws that conflict with principles of human rights (including the rights of the society's minorities.)
Let me explain these two claims. Assume, for example, that some people, based on their religious beliefs, think that following Hejab should be mandatory for all members of their society, and they require it by law. In such a case, the rights of non-Muslims, or of Muslims who prefer not to follow these dress rules, are violated. Some might claim that following religious rules, including Hejab, will bring about the health and spiritual salvation of a society, and that everyone, even nonbelievers, who is forced to accept these rules will ultimately benefit from their consequences. What if, however, the same people were to move to another society where followers of another religion are in the majority, and this majority enforces their rules on the society at large? What if, for example, the second society forbids girls to cover their hair in public schools? Most likely followers of the first religion will object, claiming that the rule conflicts with freedom of religion and human rights. Their claim is certainly valid. But if the rules of the second society are unjust, so must be the first. This is, in fact, precisely what is happening today: In Iran , religious fundamentalists insist on enforcing Islamic rules of Hejab on everyone. At the same time, when countries such as France attempt to bar girls from wearing Islamic Hejab in public schools, the same fundamentalists suddenly become defenders of human rights and religious freedom. The double standard is untenable rationally and morally.
If respecting human rights and religious freedom is a good thing (and I certainly think it is), then in our own society we must afford the same rights to those who follow other religions, or hold different ideas and opinions. The state must recognize the right of women to choose their own dress (as well as other rights). Laws and public policies must be based not on religion but on society's collective secular reason.
An important conclusion follows from what I have said: We must not support any law or public policy that limits our lives and behavior, unless there are rational, secular arguments favoring such limits. I mean arguments whose validity does not require belief in God, or in certain religious rules, or in the views of certain religious authorities.
Everyone agrees that laws must abide by moral principles, particularly the principle of justice. Why should morality take precedence over religion in the law? The precedence of moral principles over religion has in fact had many supporters among Islamic theologians both past and present. Most E'tezali theologians, who are rationalists indebted to Plato and Aristotle, and many Shia theologians have believed that moral principles (like justice) are defined independently of religion, take priority over religion, and even constitute the foundations for understanding and legitimizing religion. We must, in other words, first define the meaning and parameters of justice according to secular reasoning, and using that definition try to decide whether religion is just or not. Laws that breach human rights, including the laws that discriminate against women, are clear examples of injustice. Even the most devout must question their validity.
Defenders of women's rights must, along with their work in the cultural and legal domains, call for urgent and significant political action. We Iranians must fight for the concrete demand that the Islamic Republic join the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.
If the Islamic Republic signs this convention, it will commit itself to work toward seven clear goals: To include in its laws and its constitution the principle of equality between men and women; to pass laws prohibiting discrimination against women and establish penalties for such discrimination; to ensure the full implementation of these laws through the judiciary and other relevant institutions; to forbid public officials to discriminate against women; to use all means at its disposal to end any discrimination against women by any person, institution or organization; to eliminate all rules, regulations, and rituals that are discriminatory against women; and to repeal all discriminatory criminal laws.
Unfortunately, all attempts to urge Iran to join the convention have been blocked by traditional religious ayatollahs and fundamentalist groups. Among the top religious authorities, only one cleric, Ayatollah Montazeri, has supported this aim .
The women's freedom movement has a long, hard road ahead. But the horizon is bright as long as we do not forget that just laws and freedom can only come about through the efforts of women and men who prize these values. We must begin our work in our homes and schools. Our most important work is to raise children and citizens who love freedom and demand justice.
Translated by Abbas Milani.
The Muslims are the new Jews. It seems they have inherited the mantle of despised other and are learning the hate and anti-semitic bigotry that is the foundation of European (and thus America) culture.
As this article points out, Christians have always been more Jew hating and intolerant than Muslims. If that seems different now, Zionism is to blame.
Give me a break, the Jews are the new Jews. Attacks on them are at the highest point in Europe since WWII.
Bligh put the megaphone software away ok. We all know better.
I would if I knew what megaphone software was. Anyway, attacks against anyone because of their religion is unacceptable. There were, however, Over 300 attacks against Jews in France alone last year.
As long as Israel causes trouble they will get attacked in other places.
The I in Israel stands for Idiocy.
Bligh now you know:
http://giyus.org/
Attacks against anyone is wrong I agree but the truth of the matter is that Jewish people are not under threat in Europe or America they are doing quite well for themselves and criticism against Israel does not equal antisemitism or hatred against Jewish people as much as many Zionist organizations want that to be the case. Attacks and discrimination against Muslims in the US and in Europe are at an all time high and getting worse in contrast.
When I mention that Jewish people are doing well and are succesful in America its not my words it the Jerusalem Post's see here:
http://tinyurl.com/2kcmh8
No one wants to be a victim more than a Jew. Hell, they are still raking it in over the holocaust. If they would start respecting the Muslims of the world the attacks on them would decrease.
Hoa binh
Well, my Jewish neighbor seems to be doing ok. That is not what is being discussed. Beating someone, or defacing graves, or setting fire to their place of worship, does not equate to "critisism". Attacks against Muslims should be rightly condemned and prosecuted. It shouldn't be accompanied however by dismissing the rise of Jew-hatred that is endemic in most European countries. Even with the rise in such attacks, they do not approach the level of attacks being directed at Jews in Europe. And Jews make up a far smaller percentage of the population. Oh, and no- I'm not a Jew.
Kelmer;
"As long as Israel causes trouble they will get attacked in other places.
The I in Israel stands for Idiocy."
Couldn't that be said for Muslims vis a vis Al-Qaida?
but bligh does happen to be the devil's advocate.
Regarding the "new Jews", it seems to me that hostility to both Jews and Muslims is on the rise, for various reasons. In the case of the Muslims, hostility here in North America goes back to the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979 and the abduction of US diplomats and the chants of "death to America" that were heard by incomprehending North Americans, 99.9999% of whom were utterly ignorant of the historical factors that produced anti-US feeling in Iran. Far more importantly, the only time a North American city has ever been bombed so far, on 11 September 2001, it was Muslims who did it. That bombing was a profound shock to us. North American cities are not supposed to be bombed. It goes against our whole perception of our place in the world and the way the world is supposed to function. So when a group of Arabs and Muslims bombed New York and Washington, naturally that produced a hostile reaction. In Europe on the other hand, hostility towards Muslims is analogous to hostility towards Mexicans in northern America. In Europe, dark-skinned poor immigrants are usually Muslims; in northern America they are usually Mexicans. Being dark-skinned, poor and foreign will get you in trouble, whether you're Muslim, Christian or whatever.
Regarding anti-Semitism, I have the distinct impression that hostility towards Jews is on the rise in North America. I think that this hostility tends to be more a phenomenon of the left and of people who are sympathetic to the Palestinians. Jews have been closely identified with the State of Israel for so long that it is almost natural that any increase in sympathy for the Palestinians is going to produce a proportional decline in favourable feelings about Jews (I say this by way of explanation, not justification). There is also a growing perception that Jews have political influence out of proportion to their numbers in North America, and that has produced a negative backlash. I admit that I have acquired this impression almost exclusively from my observations of Internet feedback features like this one. So maybe I'm getting a distorted image of what's really going on out there in the society. I would be most interested in getting the feedback of others on this matter.
Mark Marshall
Toronto
Canada
Certainly it matters what the press reports, but remember that when you read these things, you are viewing the world through the eyes of someone else.
There are some very bad forces at work in the world. And there exist now forces for good, the likes of which have never before existed.
Perhaps what is most important is what you hold in your own awareness, whether you're growing in your ability to handle diversity, whether you're increasing you own internal peace and harmony—or whether you're adding fuel to the fired of contention.
Diversity abounds in the universe. Thorns have their place on the stem of the rose along with the soft blossom. There is no conflict, they are there together. Each has its purpose.
Just as the great variety of musicians in a symphony orchestra unite to create beautiful sounds while retaining their individuality in the playing from one musical score, mankind, experiencing his peaceful inner nature, can grow to live as an expression of that peaceful, universal inner life, and live less on the surface of life, where differences will always naturally exist.
The world is being thrown together as a result of many disparate forces. The outcome depends on each individual, what he is doing, being, and becoming in the process of life.
Take the highest knowledge available, if you can, and apply it to your life, to create peace within yourself and lead the world from that level.
www.tm.org—timeless knowledge from the Vedic Tradition of India is available and used throughout the world by people of all stripes…
Why does it have to be a new anything?
we have been hating our cousins and those who look slightly different and extrapolating it to the nearest tribe who speak a different language and the non believer.
We have to look within ourselves in a fundamentally deeper way to be inclusionary.
Give up this petty stuff and honestly, give up your beliefs.
Then we might be able to talk.
If we can not do it ourselves, how can you expect those that perpetrate crimes to be able to do it?
love
Zero
This is really a wonderful article and I agree with the comments in general. The only thing I can add is that racism and intolerance towards ANY group of people, whether on the basis of their ethnicity, colour, religious convictions or social status has to be fought and opposed tooth and nail without any semblance of compromise.
I wonder what the response would be if someone wanted to build a Catholic Church in Saudi Arabia? Somehow, I have a feeling that it would go far beyond being bombarded with sausages.
'Islamophobia' on the rise in Europe, report says
Report cites attacks and discrimination
The Associated PressPublished: 2006-12-18 14:49:23
VIENNA: "Islamophobia" is on the rise across Europe, where many Muslims are menaced and misunderstood — some on a daily basis — the European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia said Monday in a new report.
The Vienna-based center, which tracks ethnic and religious bias across the 25-country European Union, said Muslims routinely suffered problems ranging from physical attacks to discrimination in the job and housing markets.
It called on leaders to strengthen policies on integration, and on Muslims to "engage more actively in public life" to counter negative perceptions driven by terrorism or violence, such as the backlash this year caused by cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad.
"The key word is 'respect,'" said Beate Winkler, director of the group. "People need to feel respected and included. We need to highlight the common ground that we have."
Since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, many of Europe's nearly 13 million Muslims feel "they have been put under a general suspicion of terrorism," Winkler said.
The report listed hundreds of cases of violence or threats against Muslims in the EU since 2004.
The incidents include vandalism against mosques and Islamic centers, abuse against women wearing Islamic head scarves, and attacks, such as one by a gang carrying baseball bats emblazoned with swastikas and racist slogans that targeted a Somali family in Denmark.
Muslims are all too often "disproportionately represented" in unemployment statistics, and many are well behind the European mainstream in education and housing conditions, the report says.
It cites a 2004 study by the University of Paris, which replied to 258 job advertisements for a sales position and concluded that an applicant with a North African background was five times less likely to get a positive reply.
"Many European Muslims, particularly young people, face barriers to their social advancement," said the report. "This could give rise to a feeling of hopelessness and social exclusion."
But Carla Amina Baghajati, a spokeswoman for Austria's Islamic community, said she was unnerved by inflammatory comments posted on Web forums Monday by people suggesting Muslims had brought their troubles upon themselves.
"We have to be very careful that making Islamophobia a general issue is not counterproductive," she said. "There's the danger that people say, 'Well, he deserves it.' We have to create a climate that makes it possible to overcome prejudice and racism without showing Muslims as victims."
The monitoring center called on EU countries to improve "equal access to employment" for Muslim job seekers, revise school policies and textbooks to offer more balanced perspectives on Western culture, and require "discussion of racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia."
In accompanying interviews with 58 Muslims from 10 EU countries, many respondents bitterly complained of feeling like second-class citizens because of perceptions that the Islamic community is intolerant of Western values and supportive of terrorist groups.
A Muslim woman living in Austria, told the center: "We face Islamophobia in daily life: small incidents, small things … Somebody walks his dog and says, 'Fass!'" — German for "Attack!"
Yet even a crisis can provide opportunities to improve relations, the center said, highlighting how the authorities and clerics in Britain worked together to mitigate tensions after bombings on the London transit system in July 2005 triggered a sharp increase in Islamophobic incidents.
"Integration is a two-way street," said Anastasia Crickley, chairwoman of the group's board. "There is no room for complacency."
"The most potent anti-Semites and bigots in Europe do not live in run-down housing projects but grace the corridors of power. They are not Muslim; they are Christian."
Why does that sound so familiar?
"At a time when the United States is encouraging greater religious freedom in Muslim nations, soldiers on the battlefield have told disturbing stories of being force-fed fundamentalist Christianity by highly controversial, apocalyptic "End Times" evangelists, who have infiltrated US military installations throughout the world with the blessing of high-level officials at the Pentagon.
A couple of weeks ago, the White House sent out Christmas cards signed by President Bush and his wife Laura that contained a Biblical passage from the Old Testament…" (Leopold, Truthout, 12-21-07.)
Europe is simply playing follow the crazy leader…
bligh, what part of France, been here a bit, many Jews, have not seen an attack.
I am always amazed, although, when referring to a comment that pertains to a Jew the word anti-Semite runs right on in, anti-Semitic pertaining to Jews only was not used until the late 1900's. You darn well know Arabs are Semites. I love "since WWII", I always wonder why it is Jews think they own the word 'Genocide'. You know that is not true, as well.
I have been defending my young Muslim daughter(no, I am not Muslim) since post 9/11 from verbal and physical assault. I will not do your work for you. Look up stats on attacks on Muslims post 9/11, not including the 1.3 MIL Iraqis, right, and check Europe they seem to be great at it.
Mark I posted the JPost article because I believe Jewish success is a good thing it shows that America is very tolerant towards the Jewish people and that Jews are welcome and safe in this country and free to be succesful which is a testement to the American people in general. Many Jews are actually leaving Israel to live in the United States. We have a museum to remeber the Holocaust here and students are taught about this in the classrooms and Americans are proud of the fact that we fred the Jewish people from Germany's horrendous death camps in the 1940's. I'm not saying anti-semitism doesn't exist in America because there are instances of it I'm simply saying that bligh is wrong when he says Jewish people are in danger in the US and Europe the way they were during the rise of Hitler. That's simply untrue.
There is currently a backlash against Zionism because of the treatement of Palestinians but there should be one. People are finally seeing through 1/2 a century of propoganda and understanding the other side of the story. Its about time they do before there are no longer any Palestinians left in the Holy Land at all. A peaceful settlement must come about for the Israelis and Arabs.
Contrast this with how Muslims are treated in the US or Europe where in both places there is open discrimination and hatred directed at Muslims where an American born Muslim congressman, Keith Ellison, is attacked for wanting to take the oath of office on the Holy Quran. Where many people justify waterboarding and other torture against Muslims. No 911 does not justify or explain this discrimination as it existed before then and even before the Iranian Revolution. It existed in Europe from the time of the crusades and this racism and Islamophobia was brought over to the US.
I just happened to pick up this translated news story from an Italian site; don't know whether it's a Berlusconi outfit or not. If accurate, Iran is also looking forward to an Islamic Europe.
http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Politics/?id=1.0.1696552901
Iran: Europe will become a Muslim continent, says Khamenei's spokesman
Tehran, 21 Dec. (AKI) - Europe will eventually become a Muslim continent, according to a representative of Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei.
"In a dozen years, Europe will be an Islamic continent," said Rasul Jalilzadeh on Friday as he was speaking to the basiji, a voluntary organisation in the capital Tehran.
"The Islamisation of the European continent is imminent and this step favours the arrival of the Mahdi," he said, referring to the 12th imam of Shiite Islam.
Shiites believe that the Imam Mahdi, who disppeared as an adolescent, will return to bring an end to chaos and bring universal justice.
Rasul Jalilzadeh believes that "the Islamisation of Europe is one of the consequences of the Islamic revolution in Iran" in that "the messages and values that this revolution has transmitted to the Europeans, to convince them "to abandon their current faiths and convert to Shiite Islam."
Several things I would like to add after reading this article and the discussion. First, I hate to encounter the attitude that "as long as Israel causes trouble they will be attacked in other places." That is an unfortunate statement based on many assumptions and also a logic that would lend itself to the same anti-Muslim attacks going on around the world, mainly that Jews as a monolithic group are sympathetic to the crimes of Israel's government and are a part of the problem, and that they thus deserve the resulting racist backlash. That is a horrible attitude. Attacks against people based on their religion and ethnicity should be uniformly rejected. I'm very sympathetic to the Israelis myself, and I would think that a lot of Americans would be, because they too are a country of strongly divided opinions who are led into disaster by a rogue government, much like Americans are, except that in their case, the government of Israel pursues policies that make their country extremely unsafe and vulnerable to attacks from organized groups located right next door, rather than from far away as in the case of the USA. A lot of Israelis are working hard for peace, but it is really difficult in a country where the backlash against peace activism includes being ostracized as traitors (sound familiar? But I think in Israel it is even harsher). As American supporters of peace and justice, we need to support Israelis that are working to protect human rights and create a peaceful future for the people of Israel and Palestine. Writing off anti-semitic attacks in Europe as justifiable is no help; it is hate, and it is the attitude that we are trying to change as we work towards a peaceful future for all.
Furthermore, many of the anti-Jewish attacks in Europe are traceable to the same elements that are carrying out attacks against Muslims. Europe has a strong xenophobic current that was directed against the Jews so frequently and to atrocious ends throughout history, and this same xenophobic current is now being directed against Muslims and other immigrants. Countries like Germany are seeing a resurgence in Neo-Nazism that attacks both Jews and Muslims. Spain has seen a recent rash of anti-immigrant attacks targeting people from South America who are neither Jews nor Muslims. There is a bigger problem in Europe, a problem of xenophobic nationalism that has no place in a globalized world of immigration, a world where people from the very former colonies created by Europe are now looking to be mobile in search of work and better living conditions. Europe is simply going to have to accept that the best way to create a peaceful and prosperous future is to be accepting and welcoming towards immigrants and to make them a part of society. Just as the Jews have been an important part of Europe for time immemorial, immigrants from all over the world are helping Europe build a prosperous future.
Europe, afterall, has no other choice. With falling birthrates, population decline in places like Germany and France would lead to economic decline. Immigration will prevent that. But only if everyone works together to welcome immigrants and make them a part of society.
Militant Liberal: thank you for your contribution. It may very well be true that Rasul Jalilzadeh said what was attributed to him in that website - that he predicts that Europe will become Muslim. After all, Jalilzadeh is Muslim, and Muslims believe that the Muslim religion is the Truth. For a person who believes in Islam to predict that Islamic truth will be embraced in the future by parts of the world that so far have resisted it strikes me as no more sinister than for a person who believes in democracy to predict that democracy will take hold in parts of the world where it has historically been weak - the Middle East, for example. And for that matter, a person who believes in Christianity may very well predict that some day all of humanity will accept the true message of Jesus Christ. Why not?
But it goes without saying - I hope - that any effort to spread democracy or any other belief system by force is totally unacceptable to civilized people everywhere.
Mark Marshall
Toronto
O roe, I never used the word Anti-Semite once, so I don't know what the heck you are talking about. I learned long ago never to use that word or some knucklehead will jump back with "Arabs are Semites too". (So I guess I could say someone was "inhuman" because I myself am a human). I use a much better term - Jew Hatred. And in Europe, between the skinheads and some parts of the Muslim population, it is on the rise. But again, NO attacks based on a persons race, religion, ect. should be tolerated in the least.
"For fascism–and the xenophobic, racist and nationalistic elements that are its most vile manifestations–has returned as a mainstream ideology in Europe. Its advocates not only run in elections but win them. They control local councils and sit in parliaments. In Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France and Italy, hard-right nationalist and anti-immigrant parties regularly receive more than 10 percent of the vote."
This has been the case for a long time in Europe, the reason being that fairer electoral systems, such as proportional reprsentation, give minority parties a chance. Not mentioned is that parties on the left such as the Greens and Communists often get more than 10 percent as well. The Greens are huge in Germany and France has one the biggest communist parties in the world. If the US had a fair electoral system it would too see extremist parties getting power. In Britain, far-right parties have virtually no power, yet the author portrays Britain in the same light as other European countries. The reason is that Britain has a first-past-the-post electoral system like the US, effectively shutting minority parties out.
And that is why our system is better. I do not really want the KKK party in congress. Nor the Communists.
One solution could be that Italy will GUARANTEE the safety of one new mosque for every now church who´s safety is GUARANTEED in Saudi Arabia or Indonesia.
Greaserman there are churches all over the Islamic world. When I was in Kuwait I visited a Catholic church which was located in downtown Kuwait City and open to the public. I also visited a Catholic church in Tunis, Tunisia and saw ancient Christian mosaics from the time of the Roman Empire preserved honorably in Tunis's Bardo Museum. In Syria and Lebanon and Egypt and Turkey churches are abundant. The one exception in the Islamic world is Saudi Arabia and Muslims will tell you the Saudis are disrepectful of other faiths as well as Islam. Majority of Muslims out there really don't like the strict Wahhabi Salaffi movement practiced by the Saudi gov't and this movement also rejects Shia and Sufi Muslims in addition to other religions. Islam as it is practiced by the majority of its 1 billion adherents is the only religion on earth aside from Christianity that recognizes and honors Jesus (peace be upon him) and the Virgin Mary (peace be upon her. The Qu'ran itself calls Christians and Jews people of the book and it has an entire chapter devoted to the Virgin Mary something the bible itself does not have. Islam honors the prophets of Judaism and Christianity and this is found in the Qu'ran.
Obviously from all your posts your an extreme Islamophobe. You've only proved the authors point. Hatred against Islam is on the rise thanks for demonstrating that.
http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=254
Muslims in Europe: Economic Worries Top Concerns About Religious and Cultural Identity
Few Signs of Backlash From Western Europeans
Released: 07.06.06
Summary of Findings
Muslims in Europe worry about their future, but their concern is more economic than religious or cultural. And while there are some signs of tension between Europe's majority populations and its Muslim minorities, Muslims there do not generally believe that most Europeans are hostile toward people of their faith. Still, over a third of Muslims in France and one-in-four in Spain say they have had a bad experience as a result of their religion or ethnicity
However, there is little evidence of a widespread backlash against Muslim immigrants among the general publics in Great Britain, France, Germany, and Spain. Majorities continue to express concerns about rising Islamic identity and extremism, but those worries have not intensified in most of the countries surveyed over the past 12 months; a turbulent period that included the London subway bombings, the French riots, and the Danish cartoon controversy.
Opinions held by Muslims in Europe - as well as opinions about Muslims among Europe's majority populations - vary significantly by country. No clear European point of view emerges with regard to the Muslim experience, either among Muslims or in the majority populations on many issues.
(more at the link
http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=253
The Great Divide: How Westerners and Muslims View Each Other
Europe's Muslims More Moderate
Released: 06.22.06
Introduction and Summary
After a year marked by riots over cartoon portrayals of Muhammad, a major terrorist attack in London, and continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, most Muslims and Westerners are convinced that relations between them are generally bad these days. Many in the West see Muslims as fanatical, violent, and as lacking tolerance. Meanwhile, Muslims in the Middle East and Asia generally see Westerners as selfish, immoral and greedy - as well as violent and fanatical.
A rare point of agreement between Westerners and Muslims is that both believe that Muslim nations should be more economically prosperous than they are today. But they gauge the problem quite differently. Muslim publics have an aggrieved view of the West - they are much more likely than Americans or Western Europeans to blame Western policies for their own lack of prosperity. For their part, Western publics instead point to government corruption, lack of education and Islamic fundamentalism as the biggest obstacles to Muslim prosperity.
Nothing highlights the divide between Muslims and the West more clearly than their responses to the uproar this past winter over cartoon depictions of Muhammad. Most people in Jordan, Egypt, Indonesia and Turkey blame the controversy on Western nations' disrespect for the Islamic religion. In contrast, majorities of Americans and Western Europeans who have heard of the controversy say Muslims' intolerance to different points of view is more to blame
The chasm between Muslims and the West is also seen in judgments about how the other civilization treats women. Western publics, by lopsided margins, do not think of Muslims as "respectful of women." But half or more in four of the five Muslim publics surveyed say the same thing about people in the West.
Yet despite the deep attitudinal divide between Western and Muslim publics, the latest Pew Global Attitudes survey also finds that the views of each toward the other are far from uniformly negative. For example, even in the wake of the tumultuous events of the past year, solid majorities in France, Great Britain and the U.S. retain overall favorable opinions of Muslims. However, positive opinions of Muslims have declined sharply in Spain over the past year (from 46% to 29%), and more modestly in Great Britain (from 72% to 63%).
(more at the link)
2007 Hate Crime Survey - Companion Survey on Islamophobia - Hostility and Violence toward Muslims
Human Rights First
Obstacles to religious freedom for Muslims that provide a backdrop to violence have included the harassment of women wearing Islamic dress, and the denial of permits to build mosques or to establish religious schools - with the latter leaving most Muslims seeking religious training no alternative other than to attend schools in Muslim countries. In its periodic reports on discrimination in the Council of Europe, the anti-discrimination body the European Commission on Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) highlights bars on establishing places of worship or schools by Muslims as an ongoing problem of discrimination. Proposals for the building of mosques continue to be the object of political opposition in many countries.
In Germany, ECRI observes, Muslims faced continued discrimination with respect to "opening of places of worship and kindergartens or provision of religious instruction in schools." Muslim women who wear the headscarf, in turn, are "particularly vulnerable" to harassment and discrimination in schools and employment.[2]
In Greece, there is no official mosque available for the some 200,000 Muslims who live in the Athens area, due to opposition from the Greek Orthodox Church over the location and funding of such a mosque. Muslims have been obliged to worship in makeshift settings in homes and apartments. After thirty years of negotiation, the government in July 2006 said it would authorize the building of Athens' first official mosque, but no time-table for the construction was announced.[3]
In Norway, Vidar Kleppe, an opposition political leader, has pledged to block the building of a new mosque in Kristiansand, declaring that the proposed mosque would be "a beachhead for criminal activity and inhumane attitudes," and that "[w]e will not have a Muslim symbol in our city." The city's mayor spoke to condemn the statement, declaring that: "You can't say things like this. We can criticize specific events but not generalize about an entire religion."[4]
In Spain, ECRI reported in 2006 that Muslims "have experienced opposition, sometimes with explicitly racist content, when pursuing plans to open places of worship."[5]
The absence of equal treatment in many parts of Europe extends even to the dead, as permits to establish Muslim cemeteries are also frequently denied. There has been some limited progress. The official plan to allow a mosque to be built in Athens, for example, includes also provisions for the first Muslim cemetery to be established there.[6] In September 2006, moreover, the first Muslim cemetery in Denmark opened in Brøndby, south of Copenhagen, after fifteen years of protests and demands. The dead of Denmark's estimated 200,000 Muslims had hitherto been buried in Muslim sections of public cemeteries or shipped abroad for burial.[7] But even before it opened, racist vandals in July 2006 vandalized the new cemetery with swastikas and by driving a car across the plot.[8]
Vandalism in Muslim cemeteries or in Muslim sections of public cemeteries has likewise occurred in France and the Russian Federation. In France, in April 2007, vandals daubed Nazi slogans and swastikas on about 50 graves in the Muslim section of a WWI cemetery. The act was decried by then-French President Jacques Chirac as "an unspeakable act that scars the conscience."[9] In the Russian Federation, on August 3, 2006 vandals smashed about ten gravestones and memorials in a closed Muslim cemetery in Yekaterinburg.[10]On August 6, 2006, vandals desecrated a number of Muslim gravestones in a cemetery in the village of Reamash in the Moscow region. The leader of the Sergeev Posad Muslim community was quoted as saying that "we believe that this crime was committed on the basis of racial and religious hatred."[11]
Attacks on Places of Worship
Mosques and other places of worship were particular targets of vandalism and arson in 2005 and 2006. In some incidents, religious texts were also desecrated and destroyed.
In Austria, unknown attackers hurled rocks through the windows of a mosque on September 24, 2005 in Linz.[12] Prior to that, in 2003, unknown assailants vandalized a Muslim cemetery in the same city.[13]
In the Netherlands, in Rotterdam, on June 15, 2005, a man known as a follower of extreme right organizations set fire to the Surinamese Djama Mahid Shaan-e-Islam mosque. The attackers wrote epithets on the walls of the mosque including "Theo rest in peace," "no mosques in the south," and "Lonsdale."[14]
In the Russian Federation, in September 2006, attackers broke windows and threw gasoline bombs into a mosque in the city of Yaroslavl as a prayer service was underway, but no injuries were reported. The attack, in which windows were also broken in cars parked by the mosque, came one day after the beginning of the holy month of Ramadan. Although reported by religious leaders there, police contacted by the press reportedly said they were unaware of the incident.[15]
In Spain, in Soria, on January 26, 2006, assailants burned a copy of the Koran and threw other religious books in a trash can outside a mosque. Three months before, the mosque had been defaced with graffiti. [16]
Also in Spain over the Easter weekend in 2006, arsonists attacked the Sidi Bel Abbas sanctuary, a mosque located in the city of Cueta. The attack came three months after arsonists attacked a similar sanctuary within the enclave.[17]
In the United Kingdom, a rash of attacks on mosques and Muslim religious centers followed the terrorist attacks of July 7, 2005. They included the following:
On July 8:
Attackers threw fire-bombs at the Al Madina Jamia mosque in Leeds. [18]
Attackers threw stones at the Jamia mosque in Totterdown, Bristol.
Two men poured gasoline through the letter-box of the Shajala mosque, in Birkenhead, Wirral, setting the building alight. Boshir Ullah, an elderly imam at the mosque, was trapped in his upstairs bedroom before firefighters extinguished the blaze and pulled him to safety. Paramedics treated the victim for smoke inhalation. The mosque had previously been damaged by fire bombs after the September 11, 2001 attacks.[19]
Arsonists attempted to set fire to the Jamiat Tablighul Islam Mosque in Armley, Leeds, by throwing a burning cloth through a window, according to police.[20]
On July 9:
Vandals broke seven windows at the Shajalal mosque in Easton, Bristol.[21]
Vandals smashed 19 windows at the mosque at the Mazahirul Uloom Education and Cultural Institution, in London. The mosque had been a target of threatening hate mail, with one note reading: "You filthy Muslim dogs. You will be torched this Friday. Many Muslim pigs will burn."[22]
On July 10:
A fire-bomb attack on the Tan Bank, Wellington mosque, in Shropshire was prevented from damaging its interior by fire services.[23]
Two women vandalized the Islamic Centre, in Rose Lane, Norwich, breaking four windows.[24]
On July 18:
Vandals broke into the Shah Jalal Mosque and Islamic Cultural Centre in Cathays, Cardiff (Wales) and strewed the interior with animal parts.[25]
In the United States, in Lubbock, Texas, attackers vandalized a mosque three times in the month of October. In the most recent attack, on October 26, 2006, vandals spray-painted the word "redemption" on the exterior of the building. Vandals had trampled on the mosque's flower bed and smashed its outdoor lights in two previous incidents.[26]
Also in the United States, in Clarksville, Tennessee, a defaced copy of the Koran was found on the steps of the Islamic Center of Clarksville, on April 7, 2007. The Koran was also smeared with two strips of bacon. Authorities labeled the incident a hate crime and officials from the Federal Bureau of Investigation were also involved in the investigation.[27]
Assaults on Individuals
Violent attacks are another form of anti-Muslim sentiment and prejudice that is commonly termed Islamophobia. The everyday violence of anti-Muslim bias is both symbolic of larger problems of discrimination and a powerful instrument of intimidation.
Accounts of individual cases and the reports of European antidiscrimination bodies have highlighted the prevalence of attacks on "visible" minorities, and in particular people who are distinguished by distinctive clothing or other signs of faith. ECRI, in its most recent report on Austria, for example, observes that Muslims are "particularly vulnerable to harassment and discrimination when displaying visible signs of their faith."[28]
While no specific incident triggered an international wave of anti-Muslim violence in 2006, attacks took place within the regional context of increasingly polarized political debates concerning Muslim integration within the European Union. Attacks were frequently both racist and anti-Muslim, fueled by a hatred of immigrants and minorities made even more volatile by religion. These incidents took the form of personal assaults on individuals identified, rightly or wrongly, as Muslims. In a number of reported incidents, attacks motivated by racist and religious hatred resulted in murder.
In Belgium, on May 11, 2006, anti-immigrant fanatic Hans Van Themsche murdered 24-year-old Oulemata Oudibo, a pregnant Malian au pair, and the two-year-old Belgian infant in her charge, Luna Drowart. Shortly before he had shot and seriously wounded Songul Koç, a woman of Turkish origin wearing a Muslim headscarf, as she sat on a bench reading. The attacker was shot and detained by police soon afterward. Citizens mobilized to remember the victims of the attacks of May 11 and other incidents of racist violence with a March Against Racism in Antwerp on May 26, 2006.[29]
Also in Belgium, on April 30, 2006, 23-year-old Moroccan immigrant Mohammed Bouazza was reportedly chased by racist white youths after an incident outside an Antwerp nightclub and later found drowned in the Schelde River.[30]
In Denmark, on July 9, 2005 an unidentified man in Copenhagen reportedly shouted "London" as he attacked a Sikh bus driver with a baseball bat, having mistaken him for a Muslim.[31]
In Poland, on July 22, 2006, at least four men attacked Moroccan actor Abdel M. at an antiracism festival in the northern city of Olsztyn, hitting him over the head with a bottle and stabbing him repeatedly, leaving him in critical condition. Abdel M., a member of the Migrator troupe of refugee actors, had just finished a performance about the life of refugees in Poland when he was attacked. Cameroonian national Simon Mol, who heads the theatre group, said "I spoke to him when he regained conscious and he told me that before he was attacked his attackers said there were 'too many foreigners.'"[32]
In the Russian Federation, as Human Rights First reported in its 2006 report Minorities Under Siege: Hate Crimes and Related Intolerance in the Russian Federation, people from the Caucasus and Central Asia - both Russian citizens and foreigners - are probably the group suffering the highest number of racist attacks. At the same time, reporting of attacks on migrants from these areas and others who have not established Russian nationality probably remains the least comprehensive, as these victims also tend to fear police abuse or arrest and are least likely to report bias-motivated attacks. The attacks come in an environment in which discrimination against non-Slavic, non-Orthodox Russian citizens is openly advocated. Attacks on people from these regions are generally perceived to be motivated by racism, but sometimes have an overlay of religious hatred and intolerance: most people from the Caucasus and Central Asia are Muslims.
In the United Kingdom, there were a number of serious incidents in 2006: on June 9, 34-year-old Pierre Brabant confronted Imam Said Jaziri outside the St. Michael mosque, brandishing a knife and remarking, "Do you want to die a Martyr?" before asking "'Are you carrying belts full of explosives?" The assailant fled on foot without physically injuring the imam. Police arrived on the scene moments later and arrested Brabant. Police subsequently announced that they were treating the incident as a hate crime.[33]
On July 7, Alan Young walked into a health center in Northhampton and punched a Muslim man in the face. Young made remarks about Muslims and shouted it was "kill a Muslim day." He made further comments about Muslims and hit another Asian man on a nearby property. Young's actions came on the first anniversary of the July 7 terrorist attacks. Young admitted to the charges of common assault, religiously aggravated assault, and harassment and was given a four-month suspended jail sentence.[34]
On January 11, 2007, a white male in his twenties attacked a 37-year-old Muslim woman in Southampton. According to police, the assailant hurled racial slurs at the woman and unsuccessfully tried to pull off her veil. The unidentified victim resisted and managed to flee the scene without further harm.[35]
In the United States, in Brooklyn, New York, on the night of October 29, 2006, a group of five teenagers assaulted Shahid Amber, a 24-year-old Pakistani immigrant while hurling anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant slurs at him, calling him a "terrorist," and shouting "Go back to your country." The attackers reportedly spit on him, knocked him to the ground, kicked him, and punched him in the head and body with brass knuckles. Police arrested the five suspects, who were charged with assault as a hate crime, gang assault, and possession of a deadly weapon. The five reportedly pled not guilty to the charges.[36]
Hostility towards Muslims
In some cases, crimes attributed to Muslim immigrants, rightly or wrongly, became the object of national outrage and fueled racist violence. In Belgium, authorities' attribution of the April 12, 2006 robbery and murder of white Belgian teenager Joe Van Holsbeeck to young "North Africans" set off a national outpouring of grief and outrage.[37] Much of the outrage was directed at Belgium's large Moroccan minority, and while some Muslim leaders themselves called for people to turn in the suspects if they knew them, others were reviled for failing to help produce the killers.[38]
More than 80,000 people went into the Brussels streets in solidarity with the victim's family. The family of the slain boy had opposed efforts by the political right to transform the march into an anti-immigration demonstration. His mother spoke out firmly to condemn anti-immigration parties that tried to capitalize upon the tragedy, declaring that: "Nobody should come to me, asking me to hate all Arabs…. The youths who killed my son were scum. It's that kind of individual that inspires hatred in me…But don't come to me making generalizations. Scum can be found everywhere."[39]
Almost two weeks after the murder, authorities confirmed that the suspects were not in fact North Africans when two Polish nationals were arrested and charged with the murder. Some national authorities expressed remorse for the public branding of the North African community as complicit in the killings. Minister of Justice Laurette Onkelinx spoke out clearly in this regard in criticizing those who "without knowledge of the results of the investigation had pinpointed a culprit, stigmatized an ethnic community." "Now," he added, "they have to face their own conscience."[40]
In the United Kingdom, Muslim organizations reported increased levels of hostility and harassment against Muslim women following the continued public debates over a ban on Muslim headscarves. In October, British Labor Party leader Jack Straw told a local newspaper that the Muslim niqab - a veil which fully covers the face - constitutes a "visible statement of separation and of difference" and that it should be banned in the public square. While Straw's comments received support from British Prime Minister Tony Blair and other officials in the U.K. government, Muslim organizations in Britain, like the Muslim Safety Forum, reported that Straw's comments led to an increase in harassment and attacks against women that wear Muslim headscarves.[41] The visibility of Muslim women who wear a headscarf make them easy targets for those who wish to carry out an indiscriminate attack on a symbol of Islam.
For full PDF report:
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/discrimination/reports.asp?country=&id=28&misc1=survey-islamophobia2
Oh, gimme a break! 71% rise of anti-Muslim attacks in Denmark in 2006 - why didn't you bother to mention why? And what the numbers were before, like close to zero, right? Because Muslims burned down Danish embassies in Muslim countries, threatened Danish tourists in the Middle East, boycotted Danish products et al. Just because of some cartoons in a paper! So what one side does is perfectly ok, but the other side is supposed to just endure it? That's not the way average people react.
The problem is rather that Muslims flock to Europe without anybody actually needing them. Many European countries don't have immigration quotas. Most Europeans don't want Muslim immigration but got it nevertheless for various reasons.
The question is: Do they HAVE to accept them whole-heartedly? I mean, if a group of people gate-crashes your party, do you have to love them? And that's about what happened. THEY wanted to come, it wasn't like Europeans lured them to come for the past 20 years.
Once there, though, far too many either keep very much to themselves - many women from Muslim countries have definitely been discouraged from even learning the local language, let alone participate in any activities of their local society - so of course many people quite rightly view Muslim immigrants as people who just want to make use of a superior European infrastructure without wanting to be part of their new home!
Internet and satellite TV have equally contributed to their never really "arriving". IMO it's a much-overlooked fact when discussing immigrants' integration or lack of same (and this includes America) that it is pretty easy nowadays to still "live" in the old home country via TV and the cyberspace. In the old days, all you could do is exchange some letters or call home once in a blue moon, once you left your home town.
Immigrants' minds are very much in their homelands while their bodies live in another country these days, in other words. Integration is thus becoming more and more difficult.
Anyway, I fail to see any moral obligation to accept a neighbor who just uses the amenities his new home offers without giving anything in return and without actually wanting to be part of his new homeland. An immigrant who just wants to be able to send home as much money as possible, period.
The article is a particularly strange verdict from an American - if all immigrants to America had behaved the way most Muslims behave in Europe, there would be no "America".
There's freedom of speech and there is hate speech. The cartoons promoted hate speech and were offensive to Muslims. Muslims don't even allow any pictures of Mohammed to be shown to begin with even potraits of Mohammed in a mosque for example. Statues do no exist inside mosques as they do in churches. If the Danish paper had published anti-semitic pictures these too would be hate speech and it would be equally outrageous and offensive. Why the double standard with Islam? Why do something like that except to purposely provoke a reaction?
That being said there were some Muslims around the world that over-reacted with riots etc. This was wrong and should be clearly said so. Lets put things into context. This all didn't happen in a vacuum.
Araquin—-guess you do not adhere to the belief that we are all ONE. Too bad….if you did, you might actually have more Love and Light in your life. Nothing makes me sadder than when human beings wilfully blind themselves and take the attitude of separation, rather than inter-connectedness and inter-dependency. The TRUTH of this will be more apparent in the not-too-distant-future.
"Semite" is a racial term, same as "negro" or "caucasian". It refers to people of middle east descent. It does not mean "jew", specifically. That understood, the anti-muslim attitudes are simply anti-semitic. The story of modern israel is that of semites pushed out of their homes by european settlers. European? Well, I've seen TV footage of the israelis, and those guys are white.