Sharia Law Is Dangerous For Ppl ?

[Rasputin]

Islamic sharia law is gaining an increasing foothold in parts of Britain, a report claims.

Sharia, derived from several sources including the Koran, is applied to varying degrees in predominantly Muslim countries but it has no binding status in Britain.

However, the BBC Radio 4 programme Law in Action produced evidence yesterday that it was being used by some Muslims as an alternative to English criminal law. Aydarus Yusuf, 29, a youth worker from Somalia, recalled a stabbing case that was decided by an unofficial Somali "court" sitting in Woolwich, south-east London.

Mr Yusuf said a group of Somali youths were arrested on suspicion of stabbing another Somali teenager. The victim's family told the police it would be settled out of court and the suspects were released on bail.

A hearing was convened and elders ordered the assailants to compensate their victim. "All their uncles and their fathers were there," said Mr Yusuf. "So they all put something towards that and apologised for the wrongdoing."

Although Scotland Yard had no information about that case yesterday, a spokesman said it was common for the police not to proceed with assault cases if the victims decided not to press charges.

However, the spokesman said cases of domestic violence, including rape, might go to trial regardless of the victim's wishes.

Mr Yusuf told the programme he felt more bound by the traditional law of his birth than by the laws of his adopted country. "Us Somalis, wherever we are in the world, we have our own law," he said. "It's not sharia, it's not religious — it's just a cultural thing."

Sharia's great strength was the effectiveness of its penalties, he said. Those who appeared before religious courts would avoid re-offending so as not to bring shame on their families.

Some lawyers welcomed the advance of what has become known as "legal pluralism".

Dr Prakash Shah, a senior lecturer in law at Queen Mary University of London, said such tribunals "could be more effective than the formal legal system".

In his book Islam in Britain, Patrick Sookhdeo, director of the Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity, says there is an "alternative parallel unofficial legal system" that operates in the Muslim community on a voluntary basis.

"Sharia courts now operate in most larger cities, with different sectarian and ethnic groups operating their own courts that cater to their specific needs according to their traditions," he says. These are based on sharia councils, set up in Britain to help Muslims solve family and personal problems.

Sharia councils may grant divorces under religious law to a woman whose husband refuses to complete a civil divorce by declaring his marriage over. There is evidence that these councils are evolving into courts of arbitration.

Faizul Aqtab Siddiqi, a barrister and principal of Hijaz College Islamic University, near Nuneaton, Warwicks, said this type of court had advantages for Muslims. "It operates on a low budget, it operates on very small timescales and the process and the laws of evidence are far more lenient and it's less awesome an environment than the English courts," he said.

Mr Siddiqi predicted that there would be a formal network of Muslim courts within a decade.

"I was speaking to a police officer who said we no longer have the bobby on the beat who will give somebody a slap on the wrist.

"So I think there is a case to be made under which the elders sit together and reprimand people, trying to get them to change."

[Khorsheed]

Hm . . .thanks for the info . .

[Rasputin]

Sharia Law must be Opposed ?

Sharia law is the instrument by which Political Islam seeks to control the Muslim world. Whilst the Sharia may have been inspired by the Holy Quran, it has developed and evolved through time and through the efforts of men. The Sharia should be open to analysis, research and criticism like any other system of law, practice and belief. Its divine inspiration should no more shield it from criticism than Christianity should have been spared criticism for burning heretics or massacring unbelievers. The more pernicious interpretations of the Sharia today fall far short of the minimum standards of justice widely demanded by the international community and by Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

The Sharia should be opposed for its imposition of theocracy over democracy, its abuse of human rights, its institutionalized discrimination, its denial of human dignity and individual autonomy, its punishment of alternative lifestyle choices, and for the severity of its punishments.

In the west, in countries that have a sizable Muslim population, there have been calls for the Sharia to be adopted for the Muslim community. These calls should be vigorously opposed; the Sharia conflicts with many basic human values, such as equality before the law, that punishments should be commensurate with the crime, and that the law must be based on the will of the people. The Sharia as it developed in the first few centuries of Islam incorporated many pre-Islamic Middle-Eastern misogynist and tribal customs and traditions. The Sharia was developed not only from the Holy Quran but incorporates legal principles from other sects. We may ask how a law whose elements were first laid down over 1,000 years ago can possibly be relevant in the 21st century. The Sharia reflects the social and economic conditions at the time of the Abbasids and has become further and further out of touch with later social, economic, technological, cultural and moral developments. The principles of the Sharia are inimical to moral progress, humanity and civilized values.

The problem for all of us is how to oppose the violations of human rights inherent in the Sharia without being accused of blasphemy or apostasy. We would suggest that the answer lies in a return to the Five Pillars of Islam.

For non-Muslims who want to help, the problem is how to avoid charges of cultural imperialism, neocolonialism and racism, or of failing to respect “the other”. But cultural relativism is not the answer. In India, each religion has its own social laws. Muslim women do not enjoy the same rights as Hindu women. Why not? Justice cries out for secularism. One law for all – equality before the law – for Muslims and non-Muslims, for men and women alike, must be the answer.

Many of the arguments for permitting each religion or culture to determine its own laws are based on a misunderstanding of the nature of human rights. Human rights as defined in the UDHR are vested in the individual, not the group. As soon as rights are accorded to a group rather than to individuals, conflict becomes possible not only between one group and another, but between the group and its own members. Any group that denies the right of its members to leave is in contravention of one of the most fundamental principles of human rights. Yet clearly, one of the reasons for the growth of Islam over the past century has been that becoming a Muslim is a one-way street. Whether by birth or conversion (historically likely to have been a forced conversion) once you are a Muslim the only way out, under the Sharia, is death.

When Political Islam really does advocate jihad to achieve world domination, then anyone deeply concerned with humanity and human rights will be critical. Of all the existing ideologies, Political Islam remains the greatest danger to humanity. Political Islam has been neither tamed nor moderated by progressive forces. It has the power to inspire the terrorist mind, and, through its ties to oil-rich states, the funds to pursue its plans.

Islamic apologists often claim that many so-called violations of human rights are based on a misreading of the Holy Quran and will quote this or that sura in its defense. But the arguments against Political Islam are not against the holy texts but against the Sharia as it is practiced today in Islamic states. We are told that Islam is a religion of peace and that the struggle, jihad, to impose Islam by conquest is not to be taken literally. But for Political Islam it is. Ask the suicide bombers. The only possible response to the charge of misunderstanding or misreading Islam is to look at the reality of what is happening in those countries such as Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and northern Nigeria where the Sharia now holds sway.

The world is a battleground of social movements and ideas. It took people in the west over 400 years of often-bloody struggle to gain the right to criticize Christianity. Even now, that right is still not fully recognized. In Britain, for example, there is still a law against blasphemy, and many Islamic clerics have argued that it should be extended to cover Islam as well. It should be scrapped. Once we are prevented from expressing our point of view in the market place of ideas we will be heading back to the Dark Ages.

We must recognize that we now live in a global community. Society is far larger, more diverse and far more complex than the primitive tribal society of 7th century Arabia that gave birth to Islam. It is time to renounce the idea that anyone should be ruled exclusively by the Sharia. More than ever before, people need a secular state that respects freedom of religion, and freedom from religion for those that have none, and human rights founded on the principle that power belongs to the people. This means that we must reject the claims of the Islamists that sovereignty belongs exclusively to Allah – by which they mean His representatives, that is, themselves. Indeed it demands that the very concept of an Islamic state be challenged. The imposition of Sharia law for political ends must be opposed.

What is needed is nothing less than the secularization of Islamic society, and the establishment of the idea that individual conscience must be our guide and the judge of personal, private conduct. But secularization cannot be imposed from outside by force. Attempts by America and its allies to impose democracy and human rights on the Islamic world will rightly be resisted as neocolonialism and will simply drive more and more Muslims into the arms of the extremists. The onus is on us to promote the ideals of personal freedom, progress and change from within Muslim society, with help from those in the rest of the world who share our ideals and hopes for the future.

[bism87]

Sharia law has been corrupted by cultural forces and by bad interpretations of the spirit of the Qur'anic or other regulation. The uncorrupted Truth is still only the Qur'an.

[zubin]

I guess two questions are how compatable is a purer more accurate version of Sharia with "human rights". Also, how could such a purer version of Sharia be fostered (and implemented in societies today)?

[bism87]

I guess two questions are how compatable is a purer more accurate version of Sharia with "human rights". Also, how could such a purer version of Sharia be fostered (and implemented in societies today)?

A pure Sharia, based on the word of God, is the definition of human rights as it preaches the equality of humanity and the freedom of humans as long as their actions do not harm society (an action that violates ethical or moral values).

I am very pessimistic about a purer version of Sharia being fostered in today's world, because people are getting their bread from it (they live on the current system) and so they aren't going to change anything that would detract from them.

The only time when pure Sharia (the true sharia) might possibly be applied is with the appearance of Imam Zaman a.j.

[zubin]

The only time when pure Sharia (the true sharia) might possibly be applied is with the appearance of Imam Zaman a.j.

So there's no chance of humans smartening up and implementing a much better version of the Sharia? Is this a dominant view or are there other views as well? Just curious...

[Rasputin]

A dangerous political ideology?

In the last few days, Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Rocky Mount, has been subjected to an unfair and biased persecution, orchestrated by the extremist, Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations, for positions that he expressed in a recent letter to his constituents.

In this letter, Goode wrote with concern over Muslim immigration into the United States, and criticized the decision of Rep.-elect Keith Ellison, D-Minn., to use the Quran at his swearing-in ceremony. Goode has also received several threatening phone calls, according to the Franklin County sheriff -- simply for writing a letter to his constituents.

Enough is enough. I am writing to ask for your support for Goode. The symbolism of using the Quran at a ceremony where Ellison will swear to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States should raise questions about the obvious conflict of interest that Ellison must have in fulfilling such an oath. We need to stand firm against pressure from extremist Islamist advocacy groups, and from their appeasers in the media and in our Congress.

Rep. Goode of course supports the right of any American to practice his or her religion, no matter what it is. So do I. But he doesn't support the right to practice a dangerous political ideology, in the form of radical Islam, that is masquerading as a religion.

Radical Islam is a political ideology, like communism or fascism, that threatens most Muslims and all non-Muslims worldwide. People of all other religions, including freedom-loving Muslims and atheists, are in its gunsights. All races are its victims, and people all over the world are being blown up, beheaded, tortured and intimidated by those who act in the name of this bullying political ideology.

When Goode and our other elected representatives put their hands on the Bible to swear an oath, they are simply asking God to be their witness. They are not citing Christian or Jewish or other religious authority to justify or require any particular legislative action.

But a Muslim's holy book requires him to wage jihad and create certain political -- not religious -- institutions such as Sharia law, which are in direct opposition to American values and the American Constitution. The Quran, which to Muslims is the word of God, compels believers to install by any means the legal and political system of Sharia in all human societies. It regards the land as belonging only to Allah and commands believers to return it to the community of Islam from the occupying nonbelievers.

The literal application of teachings in the Quran would compel our society to live under these harsh strictures of Sharia law, the legal code prescribed by the Quran, which denies basic rights to women, prescribes death to Islam's apostates and forbids or subjugates other religions.

This political ideology of radical Islam is a clear and present danger in this country and throughout the civilized world. America's traditions of open-handedness and religious tolerance have been used against us. If we do not take a stance against this political ideology, and its apologists like the Council on American-Islamic Relations, someday the tradition of American tolerance will no longer exist.

For this reason I ask you to support Goode in his concern that the Quran demands loyalties that directly counter our constitutional liberties. I ask that you call on all Muslims in America to repudiate publicly the Islamic scriptures and traditions that sanction conquest by violence, oppression and religious intolerance.

We live in a dangerous world, one in which deceit and disinformation are being used against us by an implacable enemy. Self-appointed spokesmen such as CAIR pretend to represent Muslim Americans but in fact represent nothing more than the interests of their fundamentalist millionaire backers.

It is no longer enough to take their word that they and their co-religionists mean the rest of us no harm. It is both reasonable and prudent to ask Muslims to demonstrate by both word and deed that they support the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law, even if it disagrees with their religion's instructions -- especially if it disagrees with their religion's instructions.

This is the line we are drawing. We need to know who is standing on our side of the line. I welcome you, and people of all religions, including Islam, to stand with me.

[Rasputin]

There is tremendous variance in the interpretation and implementation of Islamic law in Muslim societies today. Liberal movements within Islam have questioned the relevance and applicability of sharia from a variety of perspectives. Several of the countries with the largest Muslim populations, including Indonesia, Bangladesh and Pakistan, have largely secular constitutions and laws, with only a few Islamic provisions in family law. Turkey has a constitution that is officially strongly secular, but where the state systematically favours Sunni Islam. India is the only country in the world which has separate Muslim civil laws, framed by Muslim Personal Law board, and wholly based on Sharia. However, the criminal laws are uniform. Some controversial sharia laws favor Muslim men, including rejection of alimony and polygamy.

Most countries of the Middle East and North Africa maintain a dual system of secular courts and religious courts, in which the religious courts mainly regulate marriage and inheritance. Saudi Arabia and Iran maintain religious courts for all aspects of jurisprudence, and religious police assert social compliance. Laws derived from sharia are also applied in Afghanistan, Libya and Sudan. Some states in northern Nigeria have reintroduced Sharia courts. In practice the new Sharia courts in Nigeria have most often meant the re-introduction of harsh punishments without respecting the much tougher rules of evidence and testimony. The punishments include amputation of one/both hands for theft, stoning for adultery and apostasy.

Many (including the European Court of Human Rights) consider the punishments prescribed by Sharia as being barbaric and cruel. Islamic scholars argue that, if implemented properly, the punishments serve as a deterrent to crime. In international media, practices by countries applying Islamic law have fallen under considerable criticism at times. This is particularly the case when the sentence carried out is seen to greatly tilt away from established standards of international human rights. This is true for the application of the death penalty for the crime of adultery, and other such punishments such as amputations for the crime of theft and flogging for fornication or public intoxication.

An unusual secular-state example was the rejected proposal for a Sharia arbitration court to be established in Ontario, Canada. That province's 1991 arbitration court law allows disputes to be settled in alternative courts to avoid congestion and delay in the court system. The proposed sharia court would handle disputes between Muslim complainants. Critics claimed that misogyny which they held to be inherent in Sharia might influence the Canadian justice system, but proponents argued that those who do not wish to go by the court's rulings are not forced to attend it. Moreover, these sharia courts in Canada would be only orthodox in a limited way as they respect the priority of Canadian civil law. Anybody not satisfied with a ruling from the sharia court could appeal to a civil court. Accordingly, this sharia court would be only a very pale version of Sharia.

On September 11, 2005, Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty stated in a telephone interview that religious arbitration would no longer be allowed. However, the proposed changes to the Ontario Arbitration Act do not specifically mention religious arbitration, but reduce the power of private arbitration in the area of family law, and introduce other changes. Specifically, under the proposed changes family arbitrators will be regulated, participants in family law arbitration cases will not be able to give up their right to appeal an arbitrator's decision to a court, and a prenuptial agreement to resolve family law matters, should they arise, through an arbitrator rather than through a court will no longer be binding.

Nevertheless, the proposed changes were condemned by parts of the Muslim community.

Though Islamic law is interpreted differently across times, places and scholars, following fundamentalist's literal and traditional interpretations, Muslim scholars believe it should legally be binding on all people of the Muslim faith and even on all people who come under their control.

[Rasputin]

"مسعود صبری"، با شلوار خاکستری و پيراهن گشادش از لحاظ ظاهر هيچ شباهتی با يک روحانی ندارد. او که معاون بخش فتوای "اسلام آن لاين" است، درباره شمار مراجعان به اين سرويس اينترنتی می*گويد: "در ابتدا ما روزی ۵۰ فتوا صادر می*کرديم، ولی حالا تعداد آنها به ۳۰۰ مورد می*رسد." به اين ترتيب "اسلام آن لاين" که دفترش در مصر است اينک به بزرگترين سرويس اينترنتی ارائه*دهنده اطلاعات درباره فرايض و بايد و نبايدهای اسلامی بدل شده است.


من اجازه دارم در ماه رمضان همسرم را در آغوش بگيرم؟ آيا يک زن بايد بعد از وضع حمل روزه*های قضا شده خود را جبران کند؟ آيا يک مرد می*تواند بعد از وضو با زن دست بدهد؟ پرسش*هايی از اين دست،* روزانه مشغوليت ذهنی ميليون*ها نفر در جهان اسلام است. همين امر باعث شده که سرويس*های راحت و سريعی مانند "اسلام آن لاين" روز به روز جذابيت و رونق بيشتری پيدا کنند و تقاضا برای فتواهای آنها رو به فزونی باشد. علاوه بر سرويس*های اينترنتی صدور فتوا، واعظان و مفتيان ارشد مسجد و دانشگاه الازهر و همچنين سرويس*های تلفنی مشاوره مذهبی نيز بازار گرم و پر رونقی دارند.
فتوا با اس ام اس
هر ۵ نفری که در "اسلام آن لاين" به صدور فتوا مشغولند فوق* ليسانس در رشته الهيات دارند. علاوه بر اين عده،* نزديک به صد شيخ و مفتی نيز در سراسر جهان، از هند گرفته تا آمريکا، از طريق اينترنت،* " اسلام آن لاين" را در صدور فتوا ياری می*دهند. برای مثال "شيخ محمد المختار الشنيقتی" از مرکز اسلامی "لوبک" در تکزاس آمريکا بعد* از ظهرهای يکشنبه به مدت دو ساعت*آن لاين می*شود و به سوال*هايی مانند سوال "مونا" پاسخ می*دهد که درباره روزه*خواری در ايام وضع حمل پرسيده است. پاسخ شيخ چنين است: "زنان باردار کلا از گرفتن روزه معاف*اند و لازم نيست که بعد از اين دوره آن را جبران کنند." فرد ديگری اين سوال را با شيخ مطرح می*کند که چگونه می*تواند نامزدش را قانع کند که شستن دندان*ها با مسواک و خميردندان،* بعد از نماز سحر هم به باطل*شدن روزه منجر نمی*شود؟ و شيخ پاسخ می*دهد: "مسئله اصلی اين است که نبايد بعد از اذان صبح به هنگام شستن دندان*ها چيزی از حلق انسان پايين برود."
سوال*های يادشده،* سوال*های رايج در ماه رمضان هستند که در طول روز خوردن غذا ممنوع است و انسان بايد از وسوسه*های جنسی و فکر وانديشه*های ناصواب اکيدا خودداری کند. ساير استفتائات به گفته صبری به مسائل مربوط به پول و تجارت مربوط می*شوند،* مثلا يکی می*پرسد که فعاليت در معاملات بورس حلال است؟ ديگری سوالش اين است که آيا سپردن پول به بانک برای گرفتن سود،* منع شرعی ندارد؟ پاسخ*های "اسلام آن لاين" اغلب غيرعام هستند و تنها در مورد مشخص سوال*کننده مصداق دارند. برای صدور فتواهايی که جنبه عام دارند و به رفتار و کردار جماعت بزرگی از مسلمانان مربوط می*شوند، "اسلام آن لاين" وقت بيشتر و مشاوره گسترده*تری را سازمان می*دهد. مثلا برای پاسخ دادن به اين سوال که آيا خدمت سربازان مسلمان آمريکايی در عراق با شرع سازگار است و آيا اين سربازان در صورت ضرورت اجازه تيراندازی به روی مسلمانان را دارند چندين فقيه به مشاوره و رايزنی پرداختند که پاسخ آنها در نهايت چنين بود: "در صورتی که امکان امتناع از خدمت وجود نداشته باشد، اين خدمت، ارتکاب به گناه تلقی نمی*شود."
آغاز به کار و جنبه*های فعاليت
"اسلام آن لاين" سال ۱۹۹۹ توسط يک روحانی جنجال*برانگيز مصری به نام "شيخ يوسف القرداوی" ايجاد شد. القردوای مقيم قطر است و با وعظ و خطبه*هايش در تلويزيون "الجزيره" نام و آوازه*ای به هم زده است. به لحاظ مشی و انديشه، القرداوی جزء محافظه*کاران مدرن به حساب می*آيد. ليبرال*ها به خاطر انديشه*های مغاير با دمکراسی*اش با او مخالفند. در مقابل، تندروان اسلامی به او ايراد می*گيرند که تعبير و تفسيراتش از اسلام زيادی باز و ليبرال است. "حسام الدين السيد حسن"، معاون سردبير "اسلام آن لاين" در واکنش به اين انتقادات می*گويد: "ما می*خواهيم اسلام را به عنوان يک فرهنگ معرفی کنيم و نشان بدهيم که چگونه می*توان احکام آن را در زندگی روزمره به کار بست. مسئله صرفا به نماز و روزه مربوط نمی*شود،* بلکه نحوه*ی دستيابی مسلمانان به يک زندگی با کيفيت نيز بخشی از سياست تبليغی و ترويجی ماست."
سايت "اسلام آن لاين" که به دو زبان عربی و انگليسی قابل دسترسی است روزانه ۲ ميليون بار کليک می*خورد. دفتر اين سايت در محله "دوقی" قاهره،* ديگر به سختی فضای کافی برای فعاليت ۷۰ عضو تحريريه خود را دارد. علاوه بر اين، به شمار استفتائات هم، روز به روز به طور تصاعدی افزدوه می*شود و همين سبب شده که شمار فعلی کارکنان کفايت نکند و استخدام همکاران بيشتری در دستور کار قرار گيرد. و همه اين*ها "اسلام آن لاين" را به فکر ساختن دفتری جديد و بزرگتر در شهرک "۶ اکتبر" قاهره واداشته است.
ايجاد امکان ارسال سوال*های شرعی از طريق اس.ام.اس نيز، از ديگر برنامه*های آتی سايت "اسلام آن لاين" است. حسام الدين السيد حسن می*گويد: "پاسخ به اين سوال*ها را از طريق ايميل می*دهيم، چون نمی*توان آنها را در چند کلمه خلاصه کرد."
از سوالات چه استنتاجی می*توان کرد؟
روی*آوردن به رسانه*های جديد و نوع سوال*ها نشان می*دهند که مراجعان به "اسلام آن لاين" عمدتا در سن و سال جوانی هستند. همچنين،* دقت بيشتر در سوال*ها حاکی از آن است که برخی از آنها به رغم ظاهر شرعی*اشان عمدتا به مسائل و چالش*های روحی و ذهنی سوال*کنندگان ارتباط دارند و نه لزوما به حساسيت*ها و وسواس*های دينی و مذهبی* آنها. به همين خاطر، "اسلام آن لاين" بخش*هايی را هم با عنوان "مشاوره در فضای سايبر" و "مشاوره برای والدين" دائر کرده است. در اين دو بخش به جای فقها، روانشناسان و جامعه*شناسان هستند که به سوال*های مراجعان پاسخ می*دهند.
برای مثال،* يکی از مراجعان ِ به بخش ِ "مشاوره در فضای سايبر" که از اهالی سوريه است مشکلش نوسان ميان شيوه زندگی به سبک غربی و پايبندی به آموزه*های اسلامی است. او می*گويد که گهگاهی دنبال دختربازی می*رود و گهگاهی هم اهل نماز و عبادت می*شود. او ياس و سردرگمی را بر زندگی خود غالب می داند و و اذعان می*کند که بعضی* مواقع هم به فکر خودکشی می*افتد، ولی بعد،* با توجه به حرام بودن اين کار در اسلام از "خير" آن می*گذرد. مشاوره دهنده*ای که اين سوی خط و در مرکز" اسلام آن لاين" نشسته وقت زيادی را صرف گفتگو با اين جوان می*کند. او ايرادش به دوران معاصر اين است که همه فکر و ذکرشان اين شده که زندگی چه چيزی برای عرضه*کردن دارد و سعادت را هم صرفا در تحقق آرزوها و روياهای خود می*دانند؛ در حالی که انسان بايد روح و معنای واقعی اسلام را احياء کند و بکوشد که آن را به ديگران نيز انتقال دهد. همين روح و معناست که به گفته مشاور می*تواند ياس و خلاء درونی انسان*ها را رفع و رجوع کند.
شمار سيل*آسای سوال*هايی که هر روز به سوی "اسلام آن لاين" ارسال می*شود قسما ريشه در يک دغدغه و نگرانی بزرگ دارد. فرهنگ و شيوه زندگی غربی در حال پيشروی است و همزمان موج جديدی از اسلام*گرايی جهان عرب را دربر گرفته است.
خانم "ژرژه ساوديس" رييس بيمارستان "بهمان"، که اولين موسسه روانکاوی خصوصی در مصر به شمار می*رود، با استناد به تجاربی که از صحبت با بيماران خود به دست آورده،* می*گويد: "جوانان عرب امروز زير تاثير فرهنگ و راه و رسم غربی از يک سو و تبليغات و رهنمودهای افراط گرايانه مذهبی از سوی ديگر،* به نوعی تناقض و روانپارگی دچار شده*اند. انسان*ها توازن روحی خود را از دست داده*اند و کورکورانه به تقليد از يکی از دو راه و رسم يادشده می*پردازند. ياس و سرخوردگی در ميان جوانان ابعاد بزرگی به خود گرفته و آنها برای احيای تعادل روحی و روانی خود دائم نيازمند آن هستند که مورد تاييد و حمايت واقع شوند." ساوديس در ادامه می*گويد که گرايش به مذهب در سال*های اخير به نوعی "مد" بدل شده و فشار و اجبارهای ملموس و ناملموس محيطی نيز در اين زمينه نقش موثری بازی می*کند.
"سلامه احمد سلامه" تفسير*نويس روزنامه مصری "الاهرام" نيز، صدور شمار بی*سابقه*ای از رهنمودها و تجويزات شرعی از سوی سايت*هايی مثل "اسلام آن لاين" را به "سيل فتوا" تشببه کرده و می*گويد: "انسان*ها تشويق می*شوند که در برخورد با ساده*ترين مسائل روزمره نيز،* عقل و منطق خود را تعطيل کنند و به دنبال رهنمودهای فقهی و شرعی بروند."
نگرانی مراکز و نهادهای سنتی
راست اين است که استقبال وسيع از "سرويس" سايت*هايی مانند "اسلام آن لاين" و يا وعظ و خطابه*هايی که برخی از مفتيان و روحانيون در تلويزيون*ها ايراد می*کنند نهادها و مراجع فقهی پرسابقه*ای مانند دانشگاه الازهر را نيز به نگرانی دچار کرده است. از ديد علمای اين مرکز پرنفوذ جهان اهل تسنن، در گسترش و شيوع غير کنترل*شده فتاوی کسانی نقش اصلی را بازی می*کنند که به لحاظ کيفی و معرفتی صلاحيت ارائه فتوا را ندارند. مفتی "محمد ويسام"،* رييس بخش فتوای الازهر که ۱۲ فقيه تحت مسئوليت او فعاليت می*کنند، موسسه خود را از اشکال يادشده بری دانسته و می*گويد: "ما به يک سنت فقهی پر سابقه متکی هستيم. برای مثال، خود من از ده سالگی در الازهر مشغول تحصيل بوده*ام و کل قرآن را از بر می*دانم. پس از فارغ*التحصيلی در رشته الهيات نيز، ده سال دستيار يکی از فقهای الازهر بوده*ام... يک وجه مميزه ما اين است که ما درهای ذهن خود را به روی مدرنيته نبسته*ايم."
برای رقابت با سايت* "اسلام آن لاين" و سرويس*های مشابه، بخش فتاوی الازهر نيز از سال گذشته چندين سرويس خدمات اينترنتی به زبان*های عربی، انگليسی، فرانسوی و آلمانی دائر کرده است.
در اتاق انتظار بخش فتوای الازهر دو زن و يک مرد منتظرند تا نوبتشان فرارسد. به گفته ويسام اينک تنها روزی حداکثر ۳۰ نفر به اين مرکز مراجعه می*کنند. سوال*های آنها هم عمدتا به مسائل پيچيده*ای مانند ارث و حق طلاق مربوط می*شود. نزديک به ۲۰۰۰ سوال هم ماهانه از طريق اينترنت به مرکز فتوای الازهر می*رسد که در قياس با شمار سوال*هايی که به "اسلام آن لاين" می*رسد چندان چشمگير نيست. البته ويسام اين کاهش مراجعات را چندان جدی نمی*داند و با اين سخن که به خاطر مشی و رويکرد محافظه*کارانه الازهر در تفسير و شرح احکام و آموزه*های اسلام، بسياری از مردم از آن روی برگردانده*اند هم موافق نيست.
با اين همه انکار نمی*توان کرد که الازهر از زمانی که زير نظر دولت قرار گرفته با کاهش شان و اعتبار خود مواجه شده است. اين موسسه قديمی فقه و آموزش*های اسلامی در جهان تسنن اينک کم و بيش با اين اتهام روبروست که هسته اصلی فعاليتش را مشروعيت بخشيدن فقهی به راهبردها و رويکردهای سياسی حکومت مصر تشکيل می*دهد. با اين همه، يک نقطه قوت مثبت الازهر در مقايسه با رقبا اين است که خدمات و مشاورات فقهی*اش مجانی است. علاوه بر اين، در مصر هنوز هم نظر فقهی و کارشناسی الازهر در مسائل مربوط به ارث و طلاق وزن و اعتبار به مراتب بيشتری دارد تا ارشادات و فتاوی يک روحانی بر صفحه تلويزيون.

[Rasputin]

Sharia laws have a broad space to follow and certainly parts of Sharia are applicable in Europe since it concerns religious norms like praying, fasting, building of mosques, according to Professor Dr. Matthias Rohe, a judge at the court of appeals in the German city of Nuremberg and an expert on Islamic law.

In an interview with IRNA, Rohe said even some legal aspects of Sharia are applicable in Europe.

He noted that in two countries in Europe, Bulgaria and Thrace in Greece, Muslims are living under Sharia law.

The freedom of religion is granted in all European societies, said Rohe who was in Brussels to take part in a conference on multiculturalism.

"We would accept that in other countries there are other set of rules which to some extent would contradict our ideas and our rules." "But to a certain extent we are ready to accept these kind of differences and would apply the norms. When people cross the border, when they come to us we wouldn't destroy their family structures even if we wouldn't agree to this model because people are already relying on it," said the German professor.

He cited a example of mehr agreement in Islamic marriage law which would be acceptable under German family law.

Rohe who has worked on Muslim laws in India said there is a pluralistic system of personal laws there.

So the Hindus follow their laws, Christian their laws and Muslim their own personal law but which is not the European model.

In Europe you have the model of a unique law which creates individual regulations.

"We don't separate communities and give them their own personal laws. Our approach is to give individual freedom to create legal relations under the same rule of law," he added.

[Rasputin]

This month’s Foreign Affairs from the Council on Foreign Relations features an in-depth look into the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) (Ikhwan al-Muslimeen) by Robert S. Leiken and Steven Brooke. Leiken and Brooke attempt to make the case for a pragmatic engagement of what they call the “Moderate Muslim Brotherhood” as an organization whose “relative moderation offers Washington a notable opportunity for engagement.” Borrowing from their own meetings with MB leadership from across the Middle East and Europe, they navigate the dizzying number of national permutations of the MB theme from Hassan al-Turabi in Sudan to Yusef al-Qaradawi in Qatar to Kamal el-Helbawi in the U.K. to name a few. As an example of what Leiken and Brooke believe to be the “moderate” stance of the Muslim Brotherhood, they note:



Compare the statement from the Brotherhood’s Yusuf al-Qaradawi who argues that ‘the enmity between us and the Jews is for the sake of land only’ with this one from Zawahiri: “God glory to him, made the religion the cause of enmity and the cause of our fight.” Yet, the authors admit, “Despite these denials, Brotherhood literature has expressed hatred for al Jews, not just Zionists.”



We are, in the end, supposed to take this away from their work: “the beginning of wisdom lies in differentiating it (MB) from radical Islam and recognizing the significant differences between national Brotherhood organizations…a conversation with the Muslim Brotherhood makes strong strategic sense.”



As a devout anti-Islamist American Muslim I have been struggling to explain to all those who will listen the central incompatibility of the Islamist doctrine with America’s pluralistic ideology. The literal Islamization of society, consciousness, and government as advocated by the Muslim Brotherhood is an anathema to America as it is to a pluralistic and liberated Islam. Leiken and Brooke, in effect, whitewash an international organization whose mission is at odds with our own Constitutional system of governance.



Such oversimplification ignores the long term Islamist threat against our homeland security and our national cohesion. What would be the authors’ stance on the “moderation” of the Muslim Brotherhood if they were to become a majority in the United States? Would it not be more academically sound and pertinent to our global conflict first to investigate the opinion of the leaders of the Brotherhood on how “Islamic” or un-Islamic American Jeffersonian democracy is? Have we not learned from our past mistakes? Close non-critical relationships with radicals like the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia only contribute to their global power and the manifestations of radical Islamism today. So is the suggestion now that we empower even more of our ideological enemies?



Some form of engagement, even with our greatest enemies, is certainly necessary for any type of

negotiation and diplomatic progress - a détente if you will. However, the deeper, entirely unanswered question here is - in what form should this engagement be manifest - soft assistance or hard critical deconstruction?



The case for choosing from the lesser of two evils as the authors note in their reckless comparison of Qaradawi’s Islamism to Zawahri’s radical jihadism is certainly easy to make but sure folly. Zawahiri and Al Qaeda are a military threat with a militant Islamist ideology which speaks to only the fringe and most radical Islamists in the Muslim community. Qaradawi and the Brotherhood are actually far more dangerous ideologically to the West. Their similarly Islamist message may, in fact, resonate with a far greater number of Muslims in the West and the East as evidenced by the millions of western Muslims engaged almost daily by satellite watching al-Qaradawi. He and the Brotherhood at times speak of “justice”, “a middle ground” (wasatiya), democratic principles (voting and parliaments), and of women’s rights, among other attractive principles.



Qaradawi, is moreover for the record, clearly no moderate. He has defended the barbarity of female circumcision and terrorism in Israel and Iraq. His duplicity on such issues demonstrates the inherent pathology of political Islam which will often even among supposed moderates sacrifice principle for the ends of Islamism. Yet, the attraction of Qaradawi and his so-called ‘moderate Islamism’, is built upon a societal and governmental formula which is incompatible with American governance and Jeffersonian democracy as we know it.



The Muslim Brotherhood is based upon a strictly Islamist approach to governance and law. At the very core of their approach to the branches of government is a toxic mixture of politics and theology. The toxicity of this mixture was foreseen by our forefathers who escaped religious persecution by the Church of England and sought to prevent it after 1789 years of the absence of liberty in the West. No matter how “moderate” or “democratic” Islamists report their processes to be, it is still under the mandate and intellectual control of Islamic scholars of sharia law also known as the ulemaa.



To the Brotherhood and Islamists, the Holy Qur’an and the tradition of the Prophet Mohammed is not “a” source of law but “the” source of law. Thus, Islamist systems can never claim to be pluralistic or blind to religion. They are based upon the inculcation of Islamic religious law into the confines of government. It is based upon the interpretative imposition of clerics upon the greater society in the name of a community (ummah) primarily inspired by Islam rather than by all faiths equally. Their political disagreements are not driven by argumentation over humanism or natural law. They are rather driven by a renewal of the interpretation of Islamic scripture. This renewal or modernization, is very necessary for internal Muslim thought, but should rather remain the private matter of Muslims only and not for imposition through the will of the majority in government upon the minority. Those not schooled or trained in sharia law would be unable to function in the daily legal or political semantics of a Brotherhood-type government. The national citizenry and religious community are incomprehensibly mixed. Anti-Islamist Muslims do not accept such mixture.



If the United States is to begin a process of publicly engaging and supporting the so-called “moderate Muslim Brotherhood”, where does that leave unaffiliated Muslims who are plausibly the majority of the world’s 1.4 billion Muslims? These unaffiliated who are raising their children to be Muslims when given an understanding of how pious Americans are within our pluralistic system of government, could easily become advocates of the separation of religion and government in the Muslim world. They first need to understand that Muslims in America could not be more free to practice their faith or more Muslim in personal character. They need to hear the argument made concerning the preeminence of the tradition of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison who brought forth a nation with our founding fathers which separates religious laws from our central government in order to protect us through our Constitution and Bill of Rights from theocracy. They need to hear the argument made that government in order to be truly pluralistic “under God” must be blind to specific scriptural language and theological interpretation of one particular faith while respecting the values, morals, and inspiration of that which guides all faiths from the God of Abraham. They need to hear Muslims make the argument that the ummah (the Muslim community) is stronger, purer, and more holy when it is humbly involved with the spiritual and not a tool of the political. Muslims also conversely need to express how the nation’s citizenry are more unified and secure when not threatened by global religious allegiances as is seen with Islamists or the Brotherhood.



With time, American Muslims can win this argument about systems of governance by expressing how religion is entirely abrogated when government interprets and imposes scriptural law upon all members of society. At the end of the day, one of the most central beliefs of a Muslim or any God-fearing individual is the need to be able to exercise choice and free will. An individual must be free in order to prove their belief in God to God by refraining from sin and choosing good. If government makes that choice unilaterally through law, individual freedom and thus personal faith is negated. Our government can certainly be “under God” in spirit but should not be a “representative” of God on earth as is suggested with a caliphate concept. A government “by the people” and “for the people” is in complete antagonism with Islamism but not at all with Islam.



Most Muslims left to their own devices do not believe in a clergy or any religious hierarchy. Islam is a personal faith between a Muslim and God. The mosque is in fact just a place to worship, gather, and educate in the example of the Prophet Mohammed and in the Islamic tradition. Nowhere in the Qur’an is it mandated that the mosque be a house of political discourse of governmental policy. Yet, one will never hear the Brotherhood admit this.

[Rasputin]

We have a lot of work ahead of us to defeat Islamism. Let us not begin down the road toward the inevitable critical engagement with Islamism (political Islam) by actually facilitating Islamists with our endorsement of their “moderation”. Certainly, right now they may fit the bill of the lesser of two evils. But we should not take our eye off the long term ball—the defeat of the ideology of Islamism. To endorse the Brotherhood is to put off that defeat.



The most dangerous Islamists in this conflict of ideologies between Americanism and Islamism are the ones which can hide behind electoral processes, token anti-terrorism stances, and peaceful progress while they work domestically and globally insidiously against our Constitutional system. Just because Islamists may be honest or non-violent, that doesn’t make their ideology more compatible with America.



If we passively engage the Brotherhood free of critique, where does that leave the anti-Islamist Muslims?



The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) was very quick to distribute Leiken’s and Brooke’s piece to its readership last week without criticism. An apparent endorsement is posted at their site. Our greatest hope in countering the global Islamist political movement is from pious American Muslims who understand the central incompatibility of Islamism with Americanism. The fact that CAIR, an organization which stands to receive $100 million from Saudi Arabia and Dubai combined in just one year, met this U.S.-Brotherhood détente piece with approval should stand as clear and convincing evidence that such a foreign policy of soft engagement puts our long term security in peril domestically. We need to begin to develop a long term policy of hard critical engagement with Islamists. We should engage the “moderate Islamists” via an American Muslim anti-Islamist critique through new think tanks and centers of learning. This should be done while we continue to engage the militant Islamists on the battlefield.



The Muslim Brotherhood is not America’s ideological friend. Islamism and Americanism are not compatible. We are in a global competition to sell our ideology to Muslims as they come to terms with modernity, individual freedoms, and pluralism. Ignoring this fact is very short-sighted. Americans who happen to be Muslim will have to endorse and facilitate an anti-Islamist position in order ultimately to avoid the question of “ideological insurgency”. The battle of ideas between Islamism and Americanism needed to be waged yesterday, not tomorrow.

[Rasputin]

The List: The World’s Stupidest Fatwas

Salman Rushdie

Who: Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini of Iran

What: A fatwa is simply a religious ruling in Islam—most often, it seems, fatwas are about sexual matters—but Westerners usually associate the term with the notorious 1989 death sentence against British author Salman Rushdie. At the time, Khomeini was seeking to distract his followers from the pointless slaughter of the recently ended Iran-Iraq war, during which hundreds of thousands of Iranians were killed and wounded. Rushdie had just authored The Satanic Verses, an edgy novel about the origins of the Koran, and thus proved the perfect foil for Khomeini’s designs. Thousands of irate Muslims around the world protested the book as an insult to Islam. For a decade, Rushdie lived in hiding, fearing assassination for his “apostasy.” More recently, when Queen Elizabeth II knighted the author for his literary achievements, al Qaeda called for retaliation against Britain. And Khomeini’s successor, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khomeini, reversed his earlier position and said that the original 1989 fatwa remains in force.

---
Unclothed sex

Who: Rashad Hassan Khalil, former dean of Islamic law at al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt

What: When Khalil ruled in January 2006 that for married couples, “being completely naked during the act of coitus annuls the marriage,” liberal Egyptians howled with derision. Other scholars rejected Khalil’s logic on the grounds that everything but “sodomy” is halal in a marriage. Absorbing the criticism but seeking to appease religious conservatives, Abdullah Megawar, the fatwa committee chairman at al-Azhar, reached for an awkward compromise. Sure, he said, a husband and wife could see one other naked, but should not look at each other’s genitals. And they should probably have sex under a blanket, he added for good measure.
---
Pokémon

Who: Saudi Arabia’s Higher Committee for Scientific Research and Islamic Law

What: Denouncing the lovable Japanese cartoon characters as having “possessed the minds” of Saudi youngsters, Saudi Arabia’s highest religious authority banned Pokémon video games and cards in the spring of 2001. Not only do Saudi scholars believe that Pokémon encourages gambling, which is forbidden in Islam, but it is apparently a front for Israel as well. The fatwa’s authors claimed that Pokémon games include, “the Star of David, which everyone knows is connected to international Zionism and is Israel’s national emblem.” Religious authorities in the United Arab Emirates joined in, condemning the games for promoting evolution, “a Jewish-Darwinist theory that conflicts with the truth about humans and with Islamic principles,” but didn’t ban them outright. Even the Catholic Church in Mexico got into the act, calling Pokémon video games “demonic.”
---
Polio vaccine

Who: Local mullahs in rural Pakistan

What: Pakistan’s largest Islamist umbrella group, the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), issued a fatwa in January 2007 endorsing the provincial government’s efforts to immunize children from polio in the country’s Northwest Frontier Province. But even though health workers carried copies of the ruling with them as they trudged across the province, The Guardian reported in February 2007 that the parents of some 24,000 children had refused to allow the workers to administer polio drops. It turns out that influential antistate clerics had been issuing their own fatwas denouncing the campaign as a Western plot to sterilize Muslims. Although Pakistan only saw 39 cases of polio last year and most children have now been immunized, a similar religiously motivated firestorm against polio drops in Nigeria in 2003 allowed the eradicable disease to spread to 12 new countries in just 18 months.
---
Breast-feeding

Who: Ezzat Atiya, a lecturer at Cairo’s al-Azhar University

What: Many Muslims believe that unmarried men and women should not work alone together—a stricture that can pose problems in today’s global economy. So one Islamic scholar came up with a novel solution: If a woman were to breast-feed her male colleague five times, the two could safely be alone together. “A woman at work can take off the veil or reveal her hair in front of someone whom she breast-fed,” he wrote in an opinion issued in May 2007. He based his reasoning—which was quickly and widely derided in the Egyptian press, in the parliament, and on Arabic-language talk shows—on stories from the Prophet Mohammed’s time in which, Atiya maintained, the practice occurred. Although Atiya headed the department dealing with the Prophet’s sayings, al-Azhar University’s higher authorities were not impressed. They suspended the iconoclastic scholar, and he subsequently recanted his ruling as a “bad interpretation of a particular case.”

[Rasputin]

Sharia law would be 'catastrophic' for Britain, says Blunkett

Formalising sharia law in the UK would be "catastrophic" for social cohesion, the former home secretary, David Blunkett, warned today, as uproar continued over comments by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Blunkett said Rowan Williams' views were "very dangerous", adding that people must not be excluded from the law because of their culture or faith.

Williams yesterday claimed the adoption of elements of Islamic sharia law in the UK "seems unavoidable". He said there was a place for finding a "constructive accommodation" in areas such as marriage which could allow Muslim women to avoid western divorce proceedings.

The comments drew criticism from across the political spectrum as well as from religious groups. Gordon Brown's spokesman insisted British law would be based on British values, and sharia law would be no justification for acting against national law.
"I think this is very dangerous because the Archbishop used the term 'affiliations'," Blunkett told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. "We have affiliations to football clubs, to cricket teams, to all sorts of things that aren't central to our citizenship and the acceptance of that in terms of a common society.

"We don't have affiliations when it comes to the question of the law. And when it comes to equality under the law, we have to be rigorous in terms of making sure people do not find themselves excluded from it because of cultural or faith reasons."

Formalising sharia law "would be wrong democratically and philosophically, but it would be catastrophic in terms of social cohesion", he warned.

The Bishop of Southwark, the Right Rev Tom Butler, acknowledged the archbishop had strayed in to "a minefield" but insisted he had also raised legitimate questions.

"It might be better to formalise them [sharia councils] under British law, to make sure they do correspond to British law. But there are real practical difficulties."

The prominent Islamic scholar Professor Tariq Ramadan, who teaches at Oxford University, said: "These kinds of statements just feed the fears of fellow citizens and I really think we, as Muslims, need to come with something that we abide by the common law and within these latitudes there are possibilities for us to be faithful to Islamic principles."

The Archbishop won support from the Conservative MP Peter Bottomley, who said he had accurately described the present situation.

"For example, if I have a Muslim employee, I rightly make reasonable accommodation to meet their religious obligations. Ministers have been all over the radio and television for the past two years saying how they have adapted the financial laws to make sharia-compliant banking possible," he said.

"The archbishop says accurately it's inevitable, it's happening and the government have led it. The question of whether there will be further accommodation or adaptation is a more minor issue than some loudmouths have realised."

Williams said yesterday: "It seems unavoidable and, as a matter of fact, certain conditions of sharia are already recognised in our society and under our law, so it is not as if we are bringing in an alien and rival system.

"We already have in this country a number of situations in which the internal law of religious communities is recognised by the law of the land as justifying conscientious objections in certain circumstances.

"There are ways of looking at marital disputes, for example, which provide an alternative to the divorce courts as we understand them."

Sharia law sets out a broad code of conduct for all aspects of life, from diet and wearing of the hijab to marriage and divorce.

"Our general position is that sharia law cannot be used as a justification for committing breaches of English law, nor should the principles of sharia law be included in a civil court for resolving contractual disputes," the prime minister's spokesman said yesterday.

"If there are specific instances, like stamp duty, where changes can be made in a way that's consistent with British law ... to accommodate the values of fundamental Muslims, that is something the government would look at."