Launch of One Law for All - Campaign against Sharia law in Britain

ONE LAW FOR ALL, NO SHARIA CAMPAIGN

Let's get behind this worthwhile campaign.

What a great initiative by Maryam Namazi, the spokesperson for council of ex-muslims in Britain.

It is so heartning to see plenty of Muslim names associated with this effort , giving a voice to the many Muslims who know how the inhumane (see the latest barbaric stoning by the IRI) Shariah laws (see Iranian court sentences man to be blinded by acid) work and don’t wish to be subjected to its rules.

One Law For All
Your View, December 1st 2008, 2:17 pm
This is a guest post from Maryam Namazie
The One Law for All campaign against Sharia law in Britain is to be launched at the House of Lords on International Human Rights Day, December 10, 2008 from 4:00 to 5:00pm.
Even in civil matters, Sharia law is discriminatory, unfair and unjust, particularly against women and children. Moreover, its voluntary nature is a sham; many women will be pressured into going to these courts and abiding by their decisions. These courts are a quick and cheap route to injustice and do nothing to promote minority rights and social cohesion. Public interest, particularly with regard to women and children, requires an end to Sharia and all other faith-based courts and tribunals.
The campaign has already received widespread support including from AC Grayling; Ayaan Hirsi Ali; Bahram Soroush; Baroness Caroline Cox; Caspar Melville; Deeyah; Fariborz Pooya; Gina Khan; Houzan Mahmoud; Homa Arjomand; Ibn Warraq; Joan Smith; Johann Hari; Keith Porteous Wood; Mina Ahadi; Naser Khader; Nick Cohen; Richard Dawkins; Shakeb Isaar; Sonja Eggerickx; Stephen Law; Tarek Fatah; Tauriq Moosa; Taslima Nasrin and others. It has also received the support of organisations such as Children First Now; Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain; Equal Rights Now – Organisation against Women’s Discrimination in Iran; European Humanist Federation; International Committee against Stoning; International Humanist and Ethical Union; Iranian Secular Society; Lawyers Secular Society; the National Secular Society; and the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan.
The campaign calls on the UK government to recognise that Sharia law is arbitrary and discriminatory and for an end to Sharia courts and all religious tribunals on the basis that they work against and not for equality and human rights.
The campaign also calls for the Arbitration Act 1996 to be amended so that all religious tribunals are banned from operating within and outside of the legal system.
In the words of the Campaign Declaration: ‘Rights, justice, inclusion, equality and respect are for people, not beliefs. In a civil society, people must have full citizenship rights and equality under the law. Clearly, Sharia law contravenes fundamental human rights. In order to safeguard the rights and freedoms of all those living in Britain, there must be one secular law for all and no Sharia.’
Roy Brown, immediate past president of the International Humanist and Ethical Union said, “IHEU is lending its full support to this campaign. It is intolerable that the very values on which UK society is based - human rights, equality and the rule of law - are being undermined by the quiet and insidious application of systems of law that have no basis in equality or justice.”
Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, which is also supporting the One Law for All campaign, said: “It is a grave error for the authorities in this country to give credence to Sharia in any form – whether legally or in terms of informal arbitration. When women are being subjected to violence in their marriages, it is not acceptable for religious authorities – which are, by definition, misogynistic – to arbitrate. A two-tier legal system, with women’s rights being always secondary to religious demands, is unnecessary, undesirable and ultimately unjust.”

One Law for All
Campaign against Sharia law in Britain
Declaration
We, the undersigned individuals and organisations, call on the UK government to bring an end to the use and institutionalisation of Sharia and all religious laws and to guarantee equal citizenship rights for all.
Sharia law is discriminatory
Sharia Councils and Muslim Arbitration Tribunals are discriminatory, particularly against women and children, and in violation of universal human rights.
Sharia law is unfair and unjust in civil mattersProponents argue that the implementation of Sharia is justified when limited to civil matters, such as child custody, divorce and inheritance. In fact, it is civil matters that are one of the main cornerstones of the subjugation of and discrimination against women and children. Under Sharia law a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man’s; a woman’s marriage contract is between her male guardian and her husband. A man can have four wives and divorce his wife by simple repudiation, whereas a woman must give reasons, some of which are extremely difficult to prove. Child custody reverts to the father at a preset age, even if the father is abusive; women who remarry lose custody of their children; and sons are entitled to inherit twice the share of daughters.
The voluntary nature of Sharia courts is a sham
Proponents argue that those who choose to make use of Sharia courts and tribunals do so voluntarily and that according to the Arbitration Act parties are free to agree upon how their disputes are resolved. In reality, many of those dealt with by Sharia courts are from the most marginalised segments of society with little or no knowledge of their rights under British law. Many, particularly women, are pressured into going to these courts and abiding by their decisions. More importantly, those who fail to make use of Sharia law or seek to opt out will be made to feel guilty and can be treated as apostates and outcasts.
Even if completely voluntary, which is untrue, the discriminatory nature of the courts would be sufficient reason to bring an end to their use and implementation.
Sharia law is a quick and cheap way to injustice
Proponents argue that Sharia courts are an alternative method of dispute resolution and curb legal aid costs. When it comes to people’s rights, however, cuts in costs and speed can only bring about serious miscarriages of justice. Many of the laws that Sharia courts and religious tribunals aim to avoid have been fought for over centuries in order to improve the rights of those most in need of protection in society.
Sharia law doesn’t promote minority rights and social cohesion
Proponents argue that the right to be governed by Sharia law is necessary to defend minority rights. Having the right to religion or atheism, however, is not the same as having the ‘right’ to be governed by religious laws. This is merely a prescription for discrimination, inequality and culturally relative rights. Rather than defending rights, it discriminates and sets up different and separate systems, standards and norms for ‘different’ people. It reinforces the fragmentation of society, and leaves large numbers of people, particularly women and children, at the mercy of elders and imams. It increases marginalisation and the further segregation of immigrant communities. It ensures that immigrants and new arrivals remain forever minorities and never equal citizens.
One law for all
Whilst arbitration tribunals are part of British law, they are subject to such safeguards as are necessary in the public interest. Clearly, public interest, and particularly the interests of women and children, requires an end to Sharia and all faith-based courts and tribunals.Rights, justice, inclusion, equality and respect are for people, not beliefs. In a civil society, people must have full citizenship rights and equality under the law. Clearly, Sharia law contravenes fundamental human rights. In order to safeguard the rights and freedoms of all those living in Britain, there must be one secular law for all and no Sharia.
Petition
One Law for All
· We call on the UK government to recognise that Sharia and all religious laws are arbitrary and discriminatory against women and children in particular. Citizenship and human rights are non-negotiable.· We demand an end to all Sharia courts and religious tribunals on the basis that they work against and not for equality and human rights.· We demand that the Arbitration Act 1996 be amended so that all religious tribunals are banned from operating within and outside of the legal system.

Read more!

More on the Sharia Law of Blood-money!

We have lost Raheleh. We all feel sad and exhausted.

Rahaleh was convicted of murdering her husband, to which she had confessed. However the Islamic courts of the Islamic Republic did not recognise the concept of 'battered wife syndrome' nor accepted her defense of 'insanity'. I leave it for another time to write about why such a principle as 'Battered wife/woman syndrome' is not recognised in the Islamic Republic and how women's rights are infringed, although it is not difficult to guess why!

Raheleh was forced to marry her husband when she was 15. She was subjected to continuous abuse by her brutal husband who had lately put her on medication to cope with the battering. The drug had psychotic side effects, which resulted in her killing her abusive and brutal husband who had brought into the family-house another woman to satisfy his sexual needs. He told Raheleh that she was no longer useful to him as a woman.

Raheleh was hanged despite all the efforts of all the human rights activists. Her originally planned date of execution, which was on 19 December 2007 was only delayed by a couple of weeks to give her more time to find the blood-money to pay the relatives. This is based on the principle of Qesas.

Qesas is the medieval principle that the sharia law of the Islamic Republic legal system applies to cases where the state convicts the accused and passes the sentence and fixes an amount as the blood-money. The victim or their relatives can then decide either to relieve the convict by accepting the full amount; negotiate the amount; pardon without payment; or refuse the blood-money and request the execution of the capital punishment. Therefore, potentially dangerous criminals could be back in the community if they were able to afford to please or even threat or intimidate the victim's relatives without spending any time in prison to regret their criminal misdeeds. How could this make a community safe if the whole purpose of the laws of the community is to bring security to that community as well as carry out justice? In modern societies, the state is responsible for the safety and security of its citizens from the criminals. The legal system, therefore, locks up those who are proved dangerous to the society. How could Qesas fulfill this burden if the convicted man or woman can buy his sentence? If the legal system of the Islamic Republic considers that the victim in any case deserves to be compensated that is a different matter. The victim should be compensated and the criminal should still be punished.

If the Islamic Republic's courts considered that Raheleh did not pose any danger and therefore, could return to the community provided she compensated the victim, then The Islamic Republic has beyond any doubt murdered Raheleh for being unable to afford the blood-money. The Islamic Regime has simply murdered a poor woman whom it considered as no threat to the society. The Islamic Republic's deafening rhetoric since its inception has been to uphold the rights of the poor! The people who are suffering the most under the Islamic Republic are the poor. Over 40% of the population are said to be under the poverty line - the poverty line in the Islamic Republic means not enough food let alone other necessities.

The principle of Qesas becomes even more absurd when the legal procedure is also flawed and the conviction is unsafe. However the case of Raheleh is not about Qesas, although she could had walked free if she could afford to pay the blood-money. Alas she had spent the last few years in the prison and her very poor family didn't have enough money to pay to the husband's relatives. Raheleh's case is about miscarriage of justice. She had perfectly sound defenses but none of them were recognised or accepted by the Islamic courts of the Islamic regime.

We lost Raheleh but we mustn't forget Delara Darabi and Akram Mahdavi, and many others who are still on death row waiting to be executed. Delara was seventeen at the time of the alleged crime which she denies.

Read more!

Sharia is Mercy and love

What is Sharia?


Examples of laws prove what Sharia actually is. Here is one from Law #344 of Codified Islamic Law Vol 1 – “Witness for a husband is not a condition to divorce his wife”. This law violates Sura Twalak verse 2 of the Qur’an that instructs to keep two witnesses of divorce. Another example is Law #914 C from Codified Islamic Law Vol 3 - Head of Islamic State cannot be charged for Hudood cases (murder, theft, robbery, adultery, drinking etc.). The same law is in Hanafi Law page 188 too. As a Muslim how can I not protest this is violation of justice? Can you imagine more than three thousand raped women were in prison for “illicit sex” for ten to fifteen years by Pakistan’s Hudood (Sharia) Ordinance #7 of 1979 amended by Law #20 of 1980 that says proof of adultery and (emphasis mine) rape is confession of the accused or eye-witness of four male adult Muslims (the women could not prove rapes by this “proof”)?

Can you imagine an Iranian woman appealing to the Sharia court to order her husband to beat her not everyday but once a week? Can you imagine many minor raped girls are publicly beaten by shoes and whips in Bangladesh by decree of informal Sharia Courts? Can you imagine hundreds of such cruelty is regularly reported in Muslim world but not a single of the world’s top Sharia-Bolsheviks is known to protest effectively? It is shocking to see tons of such unjust laws established as Allah’s Law. It is shocking to see most of Sharia-supporters never read the laws and most of Sharia-leaders speak and write of justice but never show the laws. There was never any empirical study on the impact of Sharia on non-Muslims and Muslim women (more than half of world-Muslims), nor were they consulted to frame these laws. There is not a single female Sharia-Imam in Muslim history.

The result was predictable. Sharia emerged not as a benign law book but malignant inspiration of creating a global Islami State which is diametrically opposite to the Islamic faith system. The West must realize any Sharia-supporter not only has to believe in a global Islamic state but also try for it. Supported by powerful, resourceful and cunning players it conquered most of Muslim-majority countries and now poses the deadliest cultural threat human civilization ever faced. The now defunct Canadian Sharia Court was its pinnacle of success in West. How many Americans know that the blueprint of American Sharia Court was created as early as in 1991by TAM (The American Muslims)?

Read more!

Impending Stoning in Iran

Kamangir: The state-run newspaper Qods reported that a mother of three is sentenced to stoning. Reportedly, the evidence is video tapes of her having sex with another person [Persian].
We have to stop this! Spread the news and send the link in the comment section. We have to stop this.
Do we want this to happen again (Very Graphic)?


p.s. I didn’t even care translating the rest of the piece, but, as our commenter Ahwazi has correctly pointed out, the sex was obviously an act between her and a man and the man got away with 100 lashes.
Blogger are helping: Jim from Gateway Pundit, WeaselZipper of Stop the ACLU.

Read more!

A Discussion About stoning, Iranian revolution and cultural relativism

Below is a very important piece that addresses the "useful idiots'", the savvy (savage non-Iranian) Islamists' and in general racist cultural relativists' various amoral arguments:

Pleateau of Iran:

Some of you may have already heard that according to Islamic Republic judiciary spokesman Alireza Jamshidi in Tehran, the stoning of the man, Jafar Kiani, was carried out in a village in Qazvin province (northwestern Iran). This punishment was allegedly for commiting adultery.

As a result of this recent news, someone (a non-Iranian) made the following comment elsewhere. Note: the comment was not directed at me, but I did respond to the commentator. I want to focus on the content and nature of both the comment (not the person) and my response to it since I believe they are sufficiently important to republish them here:

The Comment:

“Again: Would you be outraged if Saddam Hussein was stoned???

Capital punishment whether it’s stoning, hanging, electrocution, or lethal injection is not torture. It may cause pain but that’s not the primary reason capital punishment is enforced. The primary reason is to put to death the criminal. Nice try but the issue is not whether someone values life more than marriage. You can value both. The issues are what is valued in a soceity, what crimes constitutes a capital offense and why?

Laws reflect and punishments for breaking those laws tell you what is valued in a soceity. Why shouldn’t adultery be a capital offense? Is adultery even wrong to you? Try not to name call when you answer the questions. I’m just asking. I don’t think anybody, outside of being a Christian, can give me a sound reason why adultery should not be a capital offense.

My Response:

You have raised some very interesting, but complex points as far as Iran under the ruling Mullahs is concerned.

1. Whether capital punishment, in general, should exist is debatable and I don’t think it is the sole issue here. Personally, I don’t believe in a death verdict/sentence for adultery.

2. Regardless of capital punishment and death sentence (as ultimate verdicts), the process of arriving at such verdict and the method by which the death sentence is carried out are equally important.

Are you aware that stoning prior to mullah rule was not part of the law in Iran? Bear in mind that I’m referring to 3000 year plus history of Iran, not just the Shah’s era. Do you also realize that the act of stoning is often performed by a group of people including children? Stoning is in fact torture which leads to death. It is a slow and painful death/execution. Stones used to hit the person must be of certain shape and size. Using big stones that can lead to instant death are against the Islamic law (sharia) in Iran.

Moreover, the basis for stoning a person is a ritual which is practiced by muslim pilgrims visiting Mecca. It is called “stoning of the Devil/Satan”. During this ritual, pilgrims must personally look for and gather appropriate shape/size stones, bring them back to an appropriate location and begin to throw them at a pretend-to-be devil as an act of denouncing and renouncing the Devil (Satan). However, there are vast differences between stoning a pretend-to-be-devil vs. a real person.

3. The judiciary, legal system and courts, in general, in Mullah ruled Iran are absolutely dysfunctional. Two different people can be sentenced to two different punishments for exactly the same crime depending on how much each one is favored by those in charge of passing the sentence. If stoning for adultery was to be applied across the board, then many of the ruling mullahs and their cohorts should have stoned to death long ago. Not to mention that many of the articles which currently exist in Islamic government constitution are not adhered to or are generally so vague and codified that one can interpret them any way one wants to and is expedient. They are highly subjective. Regardless, stoning, as a form of punishment for a capital offense, is actually mentioned in IR constitution including articles 83, 102 and 104.

4. “what is valued in a soceity, what crimes constitutes a capital offense and why?” Adultery is not valued in Iranian society, but nor is stoning. Stoning is valued and enforced by Mullahs in the society. There lies the difference. However, I don’t dispute that certain groups actually enjoy it such as: Bassij thugs and those who get their kicks out of torture and killing of others. I consider them sadists and mentally unstable i.e. psychotic.

5. How do we define adultery in Mullah ruled Iran? Have you heard of temporary marriage “seegheh”? Under sharia (Islamic law in Iran) with a few words, you can become temporarily married to someone for any period of time. Women often practice it due to economic/financial hardship. Even married women, whose husbands may be unable to provide for them and the family because of drug addiction (Iran has a very high percentage of drug addicts) can be temporarily married in order to feed their family and children. Of course, “seegheh” to me is not only a legalized form of prostitution, but it can also be construed as adultery. Men in current Iran can have 4 wives at the same time. Additionally, men can have up to 12 “seegheh” i.e. concubines. Traditionally, the practice of polygamy and “seegheh” - an arab/muslim practice - are frowned upon by the mainstream in Iran and never existed in Persian society or culture, certainly not prior to Islamic laws being enforced in the society and in people’s personal lives.

In conclusion, I think your reasoning, as far as mullah ruled Iran is concerned is rather simplistic. And, I hope you will find the above informative."

Also below I have selected a few sample of my previous posts regarding the amoral/racist/fascistic cultural relativist argument and their uninformed assertion about the Iranian revolution: This might seem repetitive to those who have been a long time reader of my blog. However, I think they're worth re-posting for my new readers who have shown interest in learning about Iran and the Iranian revolution and how it was hijacked by Khomein's thugs:

"Cultural relativists say Iranian society is Muslim, implying that people choose to live the way they are forced to. It's as if there are no differences in beliefs in Iran, no struggles, no communists, no socialists, and no freedom-lovers.

If so, why have 150,000 people been executed for opposing the Islamic Republic of Iran? If it’s the entire society's culture and religion, why does the Islamic regime need such extensive tools for repression? If it’s people’s beliefs, why does the regime control their private lives - from their sexual activities, to what video they watch, to what music they listen to?

If the entire society is Muslim, why did Zoleykhah Kadkhoda enter a voluntary sexual relationship for which she was buried in a ditch and stoned? If it is people's culture, why did the residents of Bukan revolt against the stoning and save her life? Why are thousands of women rounded up in the streets for “improper” veiling if its their culture and religion? How come, after two decades of terror and brutality, the universities are still not Islamic, according to an official of the regime? Though it's untrue, even if every person living in Iran had reactionary beliefs, it still wouldn’t be acceptable. If everyone believes in the superiority of their race, does that make it okay?

Cultural relativists say that we must respect people's culture and religion, however despicable. This is absurd and calls for the respect of savagery. Yes, human beings are worthy of respect but not all beliefs must be respected. If culture allows a woman to be mutilated and killed to save the family “honor,” it cannot be excused. In the Islamic Republic of Iran, religion rules and has become the mass murderer of people. If religion says that women who disobey should be beaten, that flogging is acceptable, and that women are deficient, it must be condemned and opposed"...more:

http://www.maryamnamazie.com/articles/cultural_relativism_fascism.html

Also Please read "Lost Wisdom" by Abbas Milani to realize that Iran was never run by Islamic laws (Sharia) despite its 1400 years of occupation by Islamist until the Islamic Republic took hold of Iran in the last 29 years.

http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Wisdom-Rethinking-Modernity-Iran/dp/0934211906


For the actual 3500 year history and culture I highly recommend Tom Holland’s “Persian fire : the first world empire and the battle for the West”.

http://www.amazon.com/Persian-Fire-First-Empire-Battle/dp/0385513119/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-1368292-5112658?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173677731&sr=8-1

My plea to leftis liberals: For God's or humanity's sake stop politicizing human sufferings for your own political agenda and expediencey.

You can also read all my posts regarding Persian culture of 3000 plus years and not just the past 28 years:

http://fleetingperusal.blogspot.com/search/label/Persian%20Empire


Must read articles regarding the Iranian revolution:

http://www.democratiya.com/interview.asp?issueid=9

Janet Afary's piece on Iranain nation's struggle for democracy, dating back to 100 years ago:

"Janat Afary and Kevin Anderson give us glimpses into the 100-year old struggle of Iranians to gain democracy and liberty. A long and almost thoroughly researched article but well worth the read. Some highlights:


What went wrong? When reform-minded Iranians discuss this question, the conversation often turns to the 1906-11 Constitutional Revolution, widely seen as a missed opportunity for democratic modernization. This has been especially true in the past couple of years, as its centenary is celebrated by Iranians at home and abroad.


The Constitutional Revolution was the first democratic revolution to take place in the Middle East, and perhaps the most important. The revolution established a freely elected Parliament and a Constitution with civil liberties, severely limited the powers of the shah and promoted the establishment of women's schools and councils. It also set up a state-based judiciary that challenged the traditional authority of the Shiite clerics. As Yann Richard, France's leading Iran specialist, observes in his latest book L'Iran: Naissance d'une république islamique (Birth of an Islamic Republic), from the late eighteenth century through the mid-nineteenth century the Shiite clergy had provided a counterweight to the monarchy.

But with the emergence of two heterodox offshoots of Shiism in the mid-nineteenth century, Babism and Bahaism--both of which challenged social hierarchies, including gender inequality--the clerical establishment drew closer to the state in order to combat these dissident religious movements. When the Constitutional Revolution broke out, some influential clerics sided with the state; one of them, Sheikh Fazlullah Nuri, was executed by the revolutionaries. Yet the leading clerics were by no means united in opposition to the revolution: Quite a few embraced the changes, with some going so far as to endorse Nuri's execution.


As Hamid Dabashi recounts in Iran: A People Interrupted, this "revolution in the very moral fabric of a nation" was, like most later progressive movements in Iran, marked by the participation of its ethnic and religious minorities--Azeris, Armenians, Bahais and Jews. The revolution also saw an unprecedented flowering of Iranian literature. Hoping to build what Dabashi calls "an anti-colonial modernity," the great writer Ali Akbar Dehkhoda launched a campaign in the press against oppressive social customs (especially regarding gender). Socialist ideas from the 1905 Russian Revolution entered the country through Baku and Tbilisi... Much more

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070716/afary

http://fleetingperusal.blogspot.com/2007/07/iranian-impasse.html

If you want to see what a stoning to death looks like, then click here. But be warned.

Also read, Potkin's reflections on Lenin and the recent stoning in Iran as a mother of three children awaits her scheduled stoning to be carried out by the savage Islamists.

Read more!