Tag: One Law for All

  • Yesterday in London

    Deutsche Welle reports on the One Law For All conference this past weekend:

    Should Shariah, the Islamic religious law, be blamed for the injustices faced by Muslim women and children or its rigid implementation? Can Shariah be adapted to the needs of secularism? Pakistan’s blasphemy laws and their political use that resulted in Asia Bibi’s death sentence prompted the discussion at a conference on Shariah, segregation and secularism in London on November 25.

    The conference also featured Saif ul Mulook, Bibi’s lawyer, who fled Pakistan to the Netherlands soon after the court overturned his client’s death sentence, which had kept her in prison for nearly a decade.

    Mulook praised the Pakistani constitution for its “secular credentials” and cited its Article 25 that guarantees equality to all citizens. He also spoke about his childhood when Christians and Muslims lived peacefully together in Pakistan.

    “Small groups of mullahs (Islamic clerics) gained prominence after General Zia-ul-Haq [a military dictator who ruled Pakistan in the 1980s] and the US intervened in Afghanistan, a peaceful country at the time,” Mulook told the audience, as he was given a standing ovation by the attendees for his long struggle to get justice for Bibi.

    The conference participants urged the British government to grant asylum to Bibi on humanitarian grounds. They also urged authorities to abolish all laws that are against the spirit of freedom of conscience and expression.

    The participants of the international conference, organized by Maryam Namazie, marked the 10th anniversary of the One Law for All Campaign, which campaigns for equality irrespective of background, beliefs and religions. They demanded “one law for all’ in opposition to those in Europe who are calling for more autonomy for the arbitration of religious courts and religious judges, especially over matters related to family law, inheritance, divorce, child custody and domestic violence.

    In her speech, Yasmin Rehman, a women’s rights campaigner, criticized British authorities for the “mess” they have created by categorizing minority communities “between good and bad migrants.”

    Rehman alleged that the British government tends to support any organization that speaks against Muslim radicalization without analyzing its credentials.

    The rights activist argued that authorities pander to the demands of right-wing Muslim organizations, giving them legitimacy by allowing Shariah courts to have authority in divorce cases, adding that these measures are tantamount to creating parallel legal systems in the country.

    Conference organizers shared Rehman’s views, saying that often the victims of parallel legal regimes in the UK are the most vulnerable people, such as women, children and minority communities.

    “We must acknowledge equal rights for all and stop dividing people into communities. We must all abide by human rights laws that are man-made and are subject to change, of course,” said Fariborz Pooya.

    But the UK government doesn’t agree.

    In February, a report submitted to the British parliament recommended regulation of Shariah courts in the country. It was, however, rejected by the government.

    Gita Sahgal, director of the Center for Secular Space organization, accused the British government of legitimizing a parallel legal system in the UK by allowing a dual divorce procedure — one civil and one religious — for British Muslims.

    Sahgal explained that the interpretation of Shariah laws is different in Muslim-majority and Muslim-minority countries. In Muslim-minority countries, Muslim organizations campaign for “cultural conservatism” and a more rigid form of Shariah law. Shariah, she said, has undergone a reformation over a period of time, depending on the political views of the Muslims organizing themselves in different societies or as different communities.

    The thing about religious law is that it’s religious, which means it can’t be discussed and analyzed and criticized in purely secular terms, that is to say, in purely this-world terms. There’s always the sacred/fictional element, which takes it out of human hands.

  • One law for all

    Maryam yesterday:

    Join us. #OneLawforAllBecause
    #StruggleNotSubmission

    Send us your message (including photo if you’d like) to be added to this page via social media or by sending it to onelawforall@gmail.com.

    One Law for All
    Gina Khan
    Houzan Mahmoud
    Yasmin Rehman
    Gita Sahgal
    Rumana Hashem
    Southall Black Sisters
    IKWRO

    Image may contain: one or more people, text and closeup

    Maryam

    Image may contain: 1 person, text and closeup

    Gina Khan

    Image may contain: 1 person, sitting and indoor

    Rumana Hashem

    Image may contain: 1 person, text

    Houzan Mahmoud

    Image may contain: 1 person, text

    Yasmin Rehman

    Image may contain: 1 person

    Gita Sahgal

  • “If I hear that anything is said against the holy Prophet Muhammad”

    Yesterday evening, One Law for All Co-Spokesperson Anne Marie Waters was to speak at a meeting on Sharia Law and Human Rights at the University of London. Maryam continues:

    It was cancelled by the atheist group organisers after police had to be called in due to Islamist threats. One Islamist filmed everyone at the meeting and announced he would hunt down those who said anything negative about Islam’s prophet. Outside the hall, he threatened to kill anyone who defamed the prophet. Reference was made to the Jesus and Mo cartoon saga at UCL.

    The University’s security guard – a real gem –arrived first only to blame the speaker and organisers rather than those issuing death threats. He said: ‘If you will have these discussions, what do you expect?’

    Well quite – they all “sparked the anger of Muslims” by holding and/or attending the meeting, so it was totes their fault.

     Again, this is not about lacking cultural sensitivity or discrimination as the pathetic UCL Union thinks. It is not about racism and ‘Islamophobia’. It is not our fault for raising the issues. We are not to blame for ‘provoking’ the Islamists; they need no such provocation…

    It’s about being able to criticise and speak out against that which is taboo and the barbarism of our century. Free expression is all we have at our disposal to do so.

    Stand up for it and refuse to budge or there will nothing left when they are through with you.

    We are not to blame for “provoking” or “sparking” or “triggering” anything.

    The New Humanist blog provides more details via the president of the Atheism, Secularism and Humanism Society at Queen Mary:

    Five minutes before the talk was due to start a man burst into the room holding a camera phone and for some seconds stood filming the faces of all those in the room. He shouted ‘listen up all of you, I am recording this, I have your faces on film now, and I know where some of you live’, at that moment he aggressively pushed the phone in someone’s face and then said ‘and if I hear that anything is said against the holy Prophet Muhammad, I will hunt you down.’ He then left the room and two members of the audience applauded.

    The same man then began filming the faces of Society members in the foyer and threatening to hunt them down if anything was said about Muhammad, he added that he knew where they lived and would murder them and their families. On leaving the building, he joined a large group of men, seemingly there to support him. We were told by security to stay in the Lecture Theatre for our own safety. On arriving back in the room I became aware that the doors that opened to the outside were still open and that people were still coming in. Several eye witnesses reported that when I was in the foyer a group of men came through the open doors, causing a disruption and making it clear that the room could not be secured. Unfortunately, the lack of security in the lecture theatre meant we and the audience had to leave and a Union representative informed the security that as students’ lives had been threatened there was no way that the talk could go ahead.

    This event was supposed to be an opportunity for people of different religions and perspectives to debate, at a university that is supposed to be a beacon of free speech and debate. Only two complaints had been made to the Union prior to the event, and the majority of the Muslim students at the event were incredibly supportive of it going ahead. These threats were an aggressive assault on freedom of speech and the fact that they led to the cancellation of our talk was severely disappointing for all of the religious and non-religious students in the room who wanted to engage in debate.

    So much for free speech and debate.