Hi friends,
This speech was given by Homa, who was very active in the fight to
keep Sharia law out of Canada. Due to that victory, Jewish and
Catholic family arbitration in Ontario is now also under the civil
domain.
Please ignore the typos and misspellings as this was her own rough
draft of the speech.
Wish more 'Muslims' would open their eyes and their minds.
homawpi@nosharia .com
http://www.nosharia.com
416-737-9500
Feb 5,09
Speech delivered at panel discussion entitled: "Islam is incompatible
with Western Liberalism", hosted by Oxford Union, England, Feb 5th,
09.
I will start with practical aspect of Islam to prove Islam is
incompatible with the norm and values of the liberal democracy and
leave out the theory part. Since there are countless scholars sitting
on benches of universities, in on-going meetings, and conferences
globally working on that part. For this purpose I will focus on
reactionary rules of Islam on individuals, in particular children and
women .I will then discuss the limitation and restrains that this
religion put on freethinkers and seekers of freedom of expression to
prove that liberation or moderation in Islam is nothing but a utopia.
In Islam individuals have no rights or dignity, Islam identifies
people and individuals by their religion: Non-Muslim and Muslim. This
is a concept that cannot fit to any of modern definitions of
citizenship. No civil society can function based on such defining
identity. Dividing the society based on such clear-cut identity
ultimately creates a society based on discrimination or ghettos. The
legal aspect of such a division is beyond comprehension. Identifying
groups of people or a country by their religion by default would mean
denial of individual's right and dignity, to place collective
"minority rights" above individual rights".
Women in Islam are degraded totally as individuals, and are treated as
slaves. Their position in society is worse than their position in
family settings. They are considered either as the daughter of a male,
or a wife of a male. She would need that male's permission to travel,
to work, to rent a place and study; without that permission she is
denied all her rights as a human being. She is fully responsible to
honour her family by keeping her virginity or else she deserves death
by honour killing. She must be submissive and allow the male of the
family, father, brother, uncle or grandfather, to find her a husband.
In some cases when they can not find a husband for the oldest daughter
she will be forced to accept a temporary marriage contract (Sigheh),
as short as one hour. Formation of a Haramsara: keeping as many wives
as possible in one place, or what is now known as Polygamy which is
marriage of one man with more than one woman. Child bride as young as
9 years to men as old as her grandfather, are all proofs that Islam
is incompatible with the Western liberation.
Some might argue this is not Islam. These are done by way of culture.
This can be a moderate argument. But my question is who is going to
separate these? Where is the line? In reality the ones who are strong
believers of Islam practice this culture. Even in heart of England
under the name of freedom of religion, in so-called Muslim communities
women and girls are being physically abused, forced to marry, deprived
of their individual rights.
I wonder if the ones who believe Islam is compatible with modern
civilization can distinguish the difference between civil and criminal
matters when a so-called Islamic husband beats his wife or daughter.
Do you consider this act as a crime or a civil matter? How about
child-marriage? Do you consider it as a crime or religious obligation
of a religious father? How about forcing a child to have Hijab and
depriving girls of interacting freely with others and enjoying sports,
music and dance? Do you consider it as negligence and child abuse or
is it a family matter and freedom of practicing their minority rights,
their religion?
In Islam, freethinking is a sin deserving of punishment. In reality,
all religions are such, but most religions have been restrained by
freethinking and freedom-loving humanity over hundreds of years. Islam
was never restrained. Islam as a political movement can work as a
killing machine without any remorse and this is what humanity has
experienced throughout history and still suffers. Islam as a religion
cannot be compatible with modernism. Islam cannot tolerate any
criticism; and its critics will face death by Fatwa like Salman
Rushdie, or will be assassinated in public so that others will learn
their lesson like Van Gogh. Announcing Holly War against people who
oppose Islamic views is another reason for Islam to stay incompatible
to western values and liberation. Physical punishment is promoted
throughout all its verses of Koran. It applies to everyone: to the
people who convert to other religions, to the ones who criticize Allah
or Mohammed, to disobedient women, to women who are involved in
adultery. The list goes on and on.
I question the ones who believe Islam is compatible to the Western
civilization. Please for a moment picture women, children, gays and
lesbians being hung on cranes for just practicing their private
individual civil rights. Would you still say Islam is compatible with
Western values?
On the question of liberation or moderation of Islam, I must say in
reality no theology has ever been liberated. Theology is the
antithesis of liberation, regardless of whether it is Christianity,
Buddhism or Islamic. It is like saying librating slavery or librating
fascism. Slavery needed to be demolished so that universal rights of
all individuals could be gained. The influential leaders of the
Abolition Movement of slavery never demanded reform in slavery, never
attempted to moderate slavery! Instead they fought to demolish
slavery totally and indeed that was the only way to get liberated from
slavery.
Centuries ago Christianity was defeated in a great confrontation as
you all know; Europe was the centre of the struggle against it.
Intellectual giants stood up to the powerful church, they criticized
superstition scientifically and philosophically and managed to educate
all members of society. As the result Christianity was pushed back to
its right place but never liberated, in fact Religion became private
matter of individuals. Once religion was separated from state,
humanity slowly but surly became immune of religious aggression and
its dogmatism.
But Islam has never been challenged. There has not been a powerful
political and philosophical anti-Islamic movement that could be turned
into a historical achievement. Instead the Western governments lifted
it during the cold war in confrontation with the Soviet Union. Taliban
were armed to their teeth and unleashed to do all they can against
this so-call enemy of humanity, so Islam rose as a political movement
and had ambition for political power. It recruited its Man Power (army
of God) through Islamization and of course Koran has enough material
to serve this purpose. All religious dogma, and ceremonies, all forms
of religious activities that were incompatible with people's civil
rights and liberties once more under the flag of Sharia law were
raised.
It gave every right to its true practitioners to impose the
oppressive rules of Islam on people in a brutal manner: be it throwing
acid on unveiling women, or beheading sex workers after raping them,
to call for Fatwa against people who challenge Islamic views.
Execution, dismembering (chopping hands and taking eyes out), death by
stoning, bloodshed and even assault on children were ruled as a
punishment of a crime in relation to blasphemy and rubbery.
With the rise of political Islam the general outlook of society has
shifteddrastically not only in the regions run by Islamic state but
also onthe global scale.
Just because the leaders of this political move want
their share, they want recognition. They want more power not only in
Iran, Palestine and Afghanistan. They want their share in the heart of
the West too. Islamists would not hesitate to do anything in order to
push back its oppositions and gain recognition by the governments in
the West. To them recognition from the Western governments can be
achieved through terrorizing people by implanting bombs in the busiest
streets, cinemas, subway stations, hospitals and schools and also by
creating a parallel power structure "Sharia Court" within the
surrounding societies. No doubt humanity suffered a great deal and
will feel the pain for many years to come but one can not say what is
happening today is a 'Clash of Civilization'.
The courses of political events in various countries during and after
the Cold War from Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Rwanda, Somalia and the
Soviet states can only be evaluated as a power struggle between two
forces. One being the force for secularism, and the other the force of
political Islam, not the clash of civilization as Huntington suggests.
In regards to the question about the battle against Islam and
religion, that is being raised, in Iran and its comparison with the
European struggle against religion.
I must emphasize, what has happened in Iran under the Sharia law, from
enforcing sexual apartheid to mass execution, has built a constant
confrontation between Islam and people. What we are witnessing in Iran
today is a growing movement against Islam, in particular political
Islam.
People witness the direct implementation of Islam on their
lives. People are well aware that what really happened in Iran,
Afghanistan, Algeria, and Nigeria was the rule of true Islam. People
in Iran do not believe in moderating Islam. They are uprising against
the roles of Allah. In various cities and provinces of Iran, veils
which are the symbol and flag of Islam and its holly books, were put
to fire. People have been resisting the compulsory Hijab and some
faced harsh punishments as the result, 100 slashes in public and long
term imprisonment, some lost their lives.
All these daily struggles of enlightenment against Islam show the
significant struggle for De-Islamisation. I strongly believe people
in Iran soon will liberate themselves from Islam. And of course some
are rushing to save Islam
from falling, the notion of moderating or Librating Islam rose when
people put the veils on fire, when people were resisting God's rules
and regulation.
Khatemi and Refsanjani are both well known as leaders of political
Islam, both became presidents of the Islamic state in Iran. During
their presidency they became the cause of all inhuman attacks against
humanity. When they saw veils on fire at demonstrations and riots,
they too rushed to save Islam, and over one night they became
reformists and defenders of the moderation of Islam.
The advocator of these notions claim: what takes place under the name
of Islam has nothing to do with Islam but is the result of
mis-interpretations of the Koran. I believe the Advocators of
Moderating Islam are trying to pave the way for oppressive and
historically backward slavery culture, to continue its existence.
People are well aware that Islam has no place in modern society.
The ones who insist that Islam can be modernized are the ones who
want to
maintain their religion and its survival. Slavery could never become
modernized. One can argue that if Islam allows a woman to go to school
with a knee-length skirt or to become a judge or a member of
parliament as long as she does not speak of her sexuality then Islam
is modern. This, of course is their view of liberation, which is a
century away of what I call liberation. To make my point clear Islam
or any other religion cannot be forced upon people. The society, just
like any other form of life is ever evolving and changing in order to
survive. Any ideology that is put forth to restrict that evolution
cannot work as it goes against the very nature of existence.
In response of the question of 'would Islamic teaching and Sharia law
be tolerated in a liberal society?' I would like to draw your
attention to the recent victory in Canada against Sharia Court and
faith based arbitration. The movement of secularism under the banner
of "One Law for All", rose in confrontation against Sharia Court and
managed to gain separation of religion from the justice system, no
more faith based arbitration. I am certain Sharia law or any religious
laws and regulations will not be tolerated any more, not in our modern
society.
The movement of secularism has over 100 years of history.
This is a movement for separation of religion from state. This
movement is for the universal rights of women and children. It is for
"One Law for all" and that is progressive and modern law. It is for
one system of education, one system of court. This movement aims to
bring about the civil rights and equality of all. The fact that people
demonstrated before the Canadian embassies in England, France,
Germany, Netherlands, Holland and Sweden, and chanted "no to Sharia
Court , no to faith based arbitration", proves that Sharia law and
regulation will not be tolerated. This Victory in Canada can only be
described as a conscious voice of people who do not want the
interference of religion in state, simply because they are well aware
of religious aggression, people would not allow history to repeat
itself. No, they are not going back
"Man in his arrogance thinks himself a great work, worthy the
interposition of a deity...it is more humble and I believe truer to
consider him created from animals" (Charles Darwin)
This speech was given by Homa, who was very active in the fight to
keep Sharia law out of Canada. Due to that victory, Jewish and
Catholic family arbitration in Ontario is now also under the civil
domain.
Please ignore the typos and misspellings as this was her own rough
draft of the speech.
Wish more 'Muslims' would open their eyes and their minds.
homawpi@nosharia .com
http://www.nosharia.com
416-737-9500
Feb 5,09
Speech delivered at panel discussion entitled: "Islam is incompatible
with Western Liberalism", hosted by Oxford Union, England, Feb 5th,
09.
I will start with practical aspect of Islam to prove Islam is
incompatible with the norm and values of the liberal democracy and
leave out the theory part. Since there are countless scholars sitting
on benches of universities, in on-going meetings, and conferences
globally working on that part. For this purpose I will focus on
reactionary rules of Islam on individuals, in particular children and
women .I will then discuss the limitation and restrains that this
religion put on freethinkers and seekers of freedom of expression to
prove that liberation or moderation in Islam is nothing but a utopia.
In Islam individuals have no rights or dignity, Islam identifies
people and individuals by their religion: Non-Muslim and Muslim. This
is a concept that cannot fit to any of modern definitions of
citizenship. No civil society can function based on such defining
identity. Dividing the society based on such clear-cut identity
ultimately creates a society based on discrimination or ghettos. The
legal aspect of such a division is beyond comprehension. Identifying
groups of people or a country by their religion by default would mean
denial of individual's right and dignity, to place collective
"minority rights" above individual rights".
Women in Islam are degraded totally as individuals, and are treated as
slaves. Their position in society is worse than their position in
family settings. They are considered either as the daughter of a male,
or a wife of a male. She would need that male's permission to travel,
to work, to rent a place and study; without that permission she is
denied all her rights as a human being. She is fully responsible to
honour her family by keeping her virginity or else she deserves death
by honour killing. She must be submissive and allow the male of the
family, father, brother, uncle or grandfather, to find her a husband.
In some cases when they can not find a husband for the oldest daughter
she will be forced to accept a temporary marriage contract (Sigheh),
as short as one hour. Formation of a Haramsara: keeping as many wives
as possible in one place, or what is now known as Polygamy which is
marriage of one man with more than one woman. Child bride as young as
9 years to men as old as her grandfather, are all proofs that Islam
is incompatible with the Western liberation.
Some might argue this is not Islam. These are done by way of culture.
This can be a moderate argument. But my question is who is going to
separate these? Where is the line? In reality the ones who are strong
believers of Islam practice this culture. Even in heart of England
under the name of freedom of religion, in so-called Muslim communities
women and girls are being physically abused, forced to marry, deprived
of their individual rights.
I wonder if the ones who believe Islam is compatible with modern
civilization can distinguish the difference between civil and criminal
matters when a so-called Islamic husband beats his wife or daughter.
Do you consider this act as a crime or a civil matter? How about
child-marriage? Do you consider it as a crime or religious obligation
of a religious father? How about forcing a child to have Hijab and
depriving girls of interacting freely with others and enjoying sports,
music and dance? Do you consider it as negligence and child abuse or
is it a family matter and freedom of practicing their minority rights,
their religion?
In Islam, freethinking is a sin deserving of punishment. In reality,
all religions are such, but most religions have been restrained by
freethinking and freedom-loving humanity over hundreds of years. Islam
was never restrained. Islam as a political movement can work as a
killing machine without any remorse and this is what humanity has
experienced throughout history and still suffers. Islam as a religion
cannot be compatible with modernism. Islam cannot tolerate any
criticism; and its critics will face death by Fatwa like Salman
Rushdie, or will be assassinated in public so that others will learn
their lesson like Van Gogh. Announcing Holly War against people who
oppose Islamic views is another reason for Islam to stay incompatible
to western values and liberation. Physical punishment is promoted
throughout all its verses of Koran. It applies to everyone: to the
people who convert to other religions, to the ones who criticize Allah
or Mohammed, to disobedient women, to women who are involved in
adultery. The list goes on and on.
I question the ones who believe Islam is compatible to the Western
civilization. Please for a moment picture women, children, gays and
lesbians being hung on cranes for just practicing their private
individual civil rights. Would you still say Islam is compatible with
Western values?
On the question of liberation or moderation of Islam, I must say in
reality no theology has ever been liberated. Theology is the
antithesis of liberation, regardless of whether it is Christianity,
Buddhism or Islamic. It is like saying librating slavery or librating
fascism. Slavery needed to be demolished so that universal rights of
all individuals could be gained. The influential leaders of the
Abolition Movement of slavery never demanded reform in slavery, never
attempted to moderate slavery! Instead they fought to demolish
slavery totally and indeed that was the only way to get liberated from
slavery.
Centuries ago Christianity was defeated in a great confrontation as
you all know; Europe was the centre of the struggle against it.
Intellectual giants stood up to the powerful church, they criticized
superstition scientifically and philosophically and managed to educate
all members of society. As the result Christianity was pushed back to
its right place but never liberated, in fact Religion became private
matter of individuals. Once religion was separated from state,
humanity slowly but surly became immune of religious aggression and
its dogmatism.
But Islam has never been challenged. There has not been a powerful
political and philosophical anti-Islamic movement that could be turned
into a historical achievement. Instead the Western governments lifted
it during the cold war in confrontation with the Soviet Union. Taliban
were armed to their teeth and unleashed to do all they can against
this so-call enemy of humanity, so Islam rose as a political movement
and had ambition for political power. It recruited its Man Power (army
of God) through Islamization and of course Koran has enough material
to serve this purpose. All religious dogma, and ceremonies, all forms
of religious activities that were incompatible with people's civil
rights and liberties once more under the flag of Sharia law were
raised.
It gave every right to its true practitioners to impose the
oppressive rules of Islam on people in a brutal manner: be it throwing
acid on unveiling women, or beheading sex workers after raping them,
to call for Fatwa against people who challenge Islamic views.
Execution, dismembering (chopping hands and taking eyes out), death by
stoning, bloodshed and even assault on children were ruled as a
punishment of a crime in relation to blasphemy and rubbery.
With the rise of political Islam the general outlook of society has
shifteddrastically not only in the regions run by Islamic state but
also onthe global scale.
Just because the leaders of this political move want
their share, they want recognition. They want more power not only in
Iran, Palestine and Afghanistan. They want their share in the heart of
the West too. Islamists would not hesitate to do anything in order to
push back its oppositions and gain recognition by the governments in
the West. To them recognition from the Western governments can be
achieved through terrorizing people by implanting bombs in the busiest
streets, cinemas, subway stations, hospitals and schools and also by
creating a parallel power structure "Sharia Court" within the
surrounding societies. No doubt humanity suffered a great deal and
will feel the pain for many years to come but one can not say what is
happening today is a 'Clash of Civilization'.
The courses of political events in various countries during and after
the Cold War from Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Rwanda, Somalia and the
Soviet states can only be evaluated as a power struggle between two
forces. One being the force for secularism, and the other the force of
political Islam, not the clash of civilization as Huntington suggests.
In regards to the question about the battle against Islam and
religion, that is being raised, in Iran and its comparison with the
European struggle against religion.
I must emphasize, what has happened in Iran under the Sharia law, from
enforcing sexual apartheid to mass execution, has built a constant
confrontation between Islam and people. What we are witnessing in Iran
today is a growing movement against Islam, in particular political
Islam.
People witness the direct implementation of Islam on their
lives. People are well aware that what really happened in Iran,
Afghanistan, Algeria, and Nigeria was the rule of true Islam. People
in Iran do not believe in moderating Islam. They are uprising against
the roles of Allah. In various cities and provinces of Iran, veils
which are the symbol and flag of Islam and its holly books, were put
to fire. People have been resisting the compulsory Hijab and some
faced harsh punishments as the result, 100 slashes in public and long
term imprisonment, some lost their lives.
All these daily struggles of enlightenment against Islam show the
significant struggle for De-Islamisation. I strongly believe people
in Iran soon will liberate themselves from Islam. And of course some
are rushing to save Islam
from falling, the notion of moderating or Librating Islam rose when
people put the veils on fire, when people were resisting God's rules
and regulation.
Khatemi and Refsanjani are both well known as leaders of political
Islam, both became presidents of the Islamic state in Iran. During
their presidency they became the cause of all inhuman attacks against
humanity. When they saw veils on fire at demonstrations and riots,
they too rushed to save Islam, and over one night they became
reformists and defenders of the moderation of Islam.
The advocator of these notions claim: what takes place under the name
of Islam has nothing to do with Islam but is the result of
mis-interpretations of the Koran. I believe the Advocators of
Moderating Islam are trying to pave the way for oppressive and
historically backward slavery culture, to continue its existence.
People are well aware that Islam has no place in modern society.
The ones who insist that Islam can be modernized are the ones who
want to
maintain their religion and its survival. Slavery could never become
modernized. One can argue that if Islam allows a woman to go to school
with a knee-length skirt or to become a judge or a member of
parliament as long as she does not speak of her sexuality then Islam
is modern. This, of course is their view of liberation, which is a
century away of what I call liberation. To make my point clear Islam
or any other religion cannot be forced upon people. The society, just
like any other form of life is ever evolving and changing in order to
survive. Any ideology that is put forth to restrict that evolution
cannot work as it goes against the very nature of existence.
In response of the question of 'would Islamic teaching and Sharia law
be tolerated in a liberal society?' I would like to draw your
attention to the recent victory in Canada against Sharia Court and
faith based arbitration. The movement of secularism under the banner
of "One Law for All", rose in confrontation against Sharia Court and
managed to gain separation of religion from the justice system, no
more faith based arbitration. I am certain Sharia law or any religious
laws and regulations will not be tolerated any more, not in our modern
society.
The movement of secularism has over 100 years of history.
This is a movement for separation of religion from state. This
movement is for the universal rights of women and children. It is for
"One Law for all" and that is progressive and modern law. It is for
one system of education, one system of court. This movement aims to
bring about the civil rights and equality of all. The fact that people
demonstrated before the Canadian embassies in England, France,
Germany, Netherlands, Holland and Sweden, and chanted "no to Sharia
Court , no to faith based arbitration", proves that Sharia law and
regulation will not be tolerated. This Victory in Canada can only be
described as a conscious voice of people who do not want the
interference of religion in state, simply because they are well aware
of religious aggression, people would not allow history to repeat
itself. No, they are not going back
"Man in his arrogance thinks himself a great work, worthy the
interposition of a deity...it is more humble and I believe truer to
consider him created from animals" (Charles Darwin)
