Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

"It is the Shariah law of ALL Muslims and ALL Afghans" This is why Shariah law can stay out of the U.S.A.

Posted by   + Show Post

Afghan President Endorses Shocking ‘Code of Conduct' for Women That Allows Wife-Beating

 

Afghanistans President Punishes Women in Taliban OutreachKABUL, Afghanistan (AP) - Afghanistan's president on Tuesday endorsed a "code of conduct" issued by an influential council of clerics that activists say represents a giant step backward for women's rights in the country.

President Hamid Karzai‘s Tuesday remarks backing the Ulema Council's document, which allows husbands to beat wives under certain circumstances and encourages segregation of the sexes, is seen as part of his outreach to insurgents like the Taliban.

Both the U.S. and Karzai hope that the Taliban can be brought into negotiations to end the country's decade-long war. But activists say they're worried that gains made by women since 2001 may be lost in the process.

When the Taliban ruled Afghanistan prior to the 2001 U.S. invasion, girls were banned from going to school and women had to wear burqas that covered them from head to toe. Women were not allowed to leave their homes without a male relative as an escort.

The "code of conduct" issued Friday by the Ulema Council as part of a longer statement on national political issues is cast as a set of guidelines that religious women should obey voluntarily, but activists are concerned it will herald a reversal of the trend in Afghanistan since 2001 to pass laws aimed at expanding women's rights.

Among the rules: Women should not travel without a male guardian and women should not mingle with strange men in places like schools, markets or offices. Beating one's wife is prohibited only if there is no "Shariah-compliant reason," it said, referring to the principles of Islamic law. 

Asked about the code of conduct at a press conference in the capital, Karzai said it was in line with Islamic law and was written in consultation with Afghan women's groups. He did not name the groups that were consulted.

"The clerics' council of Afghanistan did not put any limitations on women," Karzai said, adding: "It is the Shariah law of all Muslims and all Afghans."

Karzai‘s public backing of the council's guidelines may be intended to make his own government more palatable to the Taliban, or he may simply be trying to keep on the good side of the Ulema Council, who could be valuable intermediaries in speaking to the insurgents.

But either way, women‘s activists say that Karzai's endorsement means that existing or planned laws aimed at protecting women's rights may be sacrificed for peace negotiations.

"It sends a really frightening message that women can expect to get sold out in this process," said Heather Barr, an Afghanistan researcher for New York-based Human Rights Watch.

Shukria Barikzai, a parliamentarian from the capital Kabul who has been active in women's issues, said she was worried that Karzai and the clerics‘ council appeared to be ignoring their country's own laws.

"When it comes to civil rights in Afghanistan, Karzai should respect the constitution," Barikzai said. The Afghan constitution provides equal rights for men and women.

The exception for certain types of beatings also appears to contradict Afghan law that prohibits spousal abuse. And the guidelines also promote rules on divorce that give women few rights, a real turnaround from pledges by Karzai to reform Afghan family law to make divorces more equitable, Barr said.

"This represents a significant change in his message on women's rights," she said.

Afghan women's rights activist Fatana Ishaq Gailani, founder of the Afghanistan Women's Council, said she feels like women's rights are being used as part of a political game.

"We want the correct Islam, not the Islam of politics," Gailani said. She said she supported negotiations with the Taliban, but that Afghanistan's women should not be sacrificed for that end.

Hadi Marifat of the Afghanistan Human Rights and Democracy Organization, which surveyed 5,000 Afghan women for a recent report on the state of women's rights in Afghanistan, argued that the statements show Karzai is shifting more toward the strictest interpretations of Shariah law.

"In the post-Taliban Afghanistan, the guiding principle of President Karzai regarding women's rights has been attracting funding from the international community on one hand, balanced against the need to get the support of the Ulema Council and other traditionalists on the other," Marifat said.

"The concerning thing is that now this balance is shifting toward the conservative element, and that was obvious in his statement."

by on Mar. 6, 2012 at 5:41 PM
Replies (131-134):
muslimahpj
by Ruby Member on Mar. 8, 2012 at 4:33 PM

FAQ

Does Shariah encourage killing apostates?

The Qur’an specifies no punishment for apostasy. Hadith, or the prophetic tradition, refers to only those cases that involve political treason, not apostasy. Also, these hadith are not mutawatir (hadith that have been narrated in exact words through many different chains so that any possibility of forgery or manipulation is precluded), and thus do not yield certainty of knowledge. In addition, there is no consensus on this penalty; on the contrary, even some classical jurists have rejected such punishment.

Of greater importance is the fact that the Qur’an is explicit and insistent about the freedom of faith for all. Islam upholds the freedom of choice in faith and the Qur’an says: “Let there be no compulsion in religion.” There is no ambiguity about it. And most assuredly there is no provision for compulsion of faith in Islam – before embracing the faith or after.

How does Islam treat minorities?

Muslims are taught to treat minorities with honor and respect. Places of worship (churches, synagogues) for example, are not only to be preserved, but to be maintained with funds from the state.

How do Muslims view Christians and Jews? How are Muslims taught to relate?

Muslims, as followers of the Abrahamic tradition, are taught to respect people of all faiths (or no faith at all). Further, Jews and Christians enjoy a special status in Islam as ‘People of the Book’ because they received divine revelation such as the Torah, the Psalms and the Gospel. Muslims specifically are taught to believe in all the prophets beginning with Adam all the way through Moses, David and Jesus (who Muslims believe was a prophet). “Those who believe (in the Qur’an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians – any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve” (2:62). Mary, the mother of Jesus is mentioned in the Quran (3:42). Islam believes in the virgin birth of Jesus and the Quran recognizes the miracles of Jesus. An entire chapter in the Quran is dedicated to Mary.

Prophet Muhammad hosted about 60 Christian clergy in his mosque for three days and had a mutual dialogue with them in faith related topics. He personally looked after their accommodation.

Does Islam suppress other religions and beliefs?

Allah Almighty mentions in the Qur’an that if He so wished He would have made all of mankind into one nation, but it is His Wisdom that people have different beliefs and that there is no compulsion in religion. Evidence is presented in the Qur’an: “And say, “The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills – let him believe; and whoever wills – let him disbelieve…” (18:29).

Every human, the Qur’an affirms, is responsible for his or her own personal deeds. On the Day of Judgment, Allah Almighty shall produce openly the record of everyone and he/she will be given a fair trial.

muslimahpj
by Ruby Member on Mar. 8, 2012 at 4:38 PM

Islamophobia Still Rising—With the Right’s Help

By Steve Rendall

When the Center for American Progress (CAP) released the report Fear, Inc. in September (8/26/11), alleging that U.S. anti-Muslim propaganda is largely driven by a well-funded network of groups and individuals, confirmation of its claims came quickly. Just four days after publication, the Fox Business Network aired a wildly inaccurate two-part feature on Follow the Money (8/30/11) smearing the report, its authors and Muslim Americans. Rupert Murdoch–owned media outlets like FBN are among the country’s leading Islamophobic media organizations, according to Fear, Inc.

The first segment featured self-styled terrorism expert Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism—named by CAP as one of the anti-Muslim network’s five key formulators of propaganda, or “misinformation experts”—telling FBN host Eric Bolling that “most of the Islamic organizations in the United States…are run by the Muslim Brotherhood or created in the Muslim Brotherhood, a group that believes in imposing Islam and Sharia around the world.” The suggestion that the Muslim Brotherhood, whose connections to U.S. Muslim groups range from historical to tenuous to nonexistent, is secretly connecting and controlling “most of the Islamic organizations in the United States” is a classic conspiratorial trope.

Emerson also told Bolling that Fear, Inc., “reminds me of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” referring to the historic hoax alleging Jews were plotting world domination—missing the irony that the report debunks conspiracy theories about Muslims that bear a remarkable resemblance to classic anti-Semitism.

But the suggestion that Fear, Inc. was itself anti-Semitic was key to Fox’s attack. In the next segment, Bolling gave what he presented as a quotation from the report:

I need to point this out—I’m reading directly from this report: “The Obama-allied Center for American Progress has released a report that blames Islamophobia in America on a small group of Jews and Israel supporters in America, whose views are being backed by millions of dollars.”

As should have been obvious, the quote was not from Fear, Inc., but rather from an article smearing CAP, from the far-right American Thinker website (8/27/11). That didn’t stop the rest of the segment—Bolling’s questions and his guests’ answers—from focusing on CAP’s supposed anti-Semitic conspiracy-theorizing. “For the Center of American Progress to say there is a grand conspiracy undermines their credibility and is laughable,” said lobbyist David Rehr, who likened CAP to a “left John Birch Society” (not to be confused with the regular John Birch Society–the ultra-right, conspiracy-mongering group prominently featured on Glenn Beck’s now defunct Fox News show).

Though Bolling later corrected his misattribution (9/2/11), it was a good night for Muslim-bashing: There were no corrections issued for the the oft-repeated charges that Muslim American institutions are extremist or that Islamic law threatens the U.S.

Islamophobia is on the rise in the United States. Yearly polls taken by ABC News show a 10-point increase in unfavorable views of Muslims since 2001, and a doubling of those who say Islam “encourages violence” since 2002. As the horrors of the September 11 attacks recede into history, anti-Muslim sentiment continues to increase.

Meanwhile, American Muslims and their institutions are under assault from many official quarters. The FBI has been accused by the American Civil Liberties Union of “industrial scale” ethnic and religious profiling (Christian Science Monitor, 10/21/11). The New York City police department has reportedly partnered with the CIA in a massive spying campaign, ethnically profiling mosques and Muslims in cities far from New York (AP, 8/25/11), and Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) has held three congressional hearings on terrorism focusing solely on American Muslims, despite the fact that a tiny percent of “homegrown” terrorist acts involve Muslim suspects—three of 83 between 9/11 and the end of 2009, according to a recent RAND report (Extra!, 5/11).

Anti-Muslim bigotry has been around in the U.S. for decades, but why the rise now? In addition to Fear, Inc., several recent reports suggest at least part of the answer resides in the emergence of a more highly organized national Islamophobic propaganda network (Southern Poverty Law Center Intelligence Report, Summer/11; Political Research Associates, Manufacturing the Muslim Menace, 2011; People for the American Way, The Right-Wing Playbook on Anti-Muslim Extremism, 2011; UC Berkeley’s Center for Race & Gender/Council on American-Islamic Relations, Same Hate, New Target, 2011). FAIR’s 2008 report, Smearcasting: How Islamophobes Spread Fear, Bigotry and Misinformation (10/8/08), documented the prevalence of Islamophobia in right-wing and centrist U.S. corporate media.

“A small group of conservative foundations and wealthy donors are the lifeblood of the Islamophobia network in America,” reports Fear, Inc., which identifies five key organizations and chief spokespersons, or “misinformation experts”: Along with Emerson, they are Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy, David Yerushalmi of the Society of Americans for National Existence, Daniel Pipes of Middle East Forum and Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch.

These groups and their representatives are the “central nervous system” of the network, supported and amplified by friendly media assets, grassroots and Web-based groups, as well as political figures at local and national levels. Together they fuel Islamophobia in the U.S. through campaigns that attempt to demonize Islamic-American institutions as extremist and portray Muslims as secretly plotting to impose Islamic law on the U.S.

Popular expression of this bigotry underpins campaigns against mosque construction (Extra!, 10/10) as well as against the imagined threat of Islamic law, known as Shariah. Anti-Shariah laws have passed in four states and are under consideration in more than 20 others (New York Times, 7/30/11; Forward, 7/22/11). The main force behind these campaigns is Yerushalmi, an attorney who has said Muslims “are our enemies” Anchorage>Daily News4/1/11), calls for “war against Islam and all Muslim faithful” (American Muslim, 10/28/09) and, according to Mother Jones (3/1/11), has “tried to criminalize adherence to the Muslim faith.” (Not limiting his bigotry to Islamophobia, Yerushalmi has referred to blacks as “the most murderous of peoples,” called unauthorized immigrants “undeserving of rights” and applauded the decision of America’s founders to deny women and blacks the right to vote—McAdam Report, 5/12/06.)

According to a New York Times profile (7/30/11), Yerushalmi writes reports, files lawsuits and drafts model legislation, “all with the effect of casting Shariah as one of the greatest threats to American freedom since the cold war.”

While the First Amendment prevents U.S. law from being based on any religious tradition, Shariah does occasionally emerge in U.S. domestic law proceedings, typically when a will specifies that an estate is to be divided in accordance with Muslim tradition (just as a will may stipulate dispositions in accordance with other religious traditions). Putting today’s anti-Shariah campaign in historical context, Eliyahu Stern, a professor of religious studies and history at Yale wrote in a New York Times op-ed (9/2/11), “The suggestion that Shariah threatens American security is disturbingly reminiscent of the accusation, in 19th-century Europe, that Jewish religious law was seditious.”

The anti-Muslim network’s echo chamber was demonstrated in June, by the publication of “Shariah and Violence in American Mosques” in the Middle East Quarterly (Summer/11), the journal of Islamophobe Daniel Pipes. The study, coauthored by Yerushalmi, portrayed American mosques as teachers of violence and Islamic supremacy. As Spencer reported on the study for his site Jihad Watch (6/7/11),

51 percent of mosques had texts that either advocated the use of violence in the pursuit of a Shariah-based political order or advocated violent jihad as a duty that should be of paramount importance to a Muslim; 30 percent had only texts that were moderately supportive of violence like the Tafsir Ibn Kathir and Fiqh as-Sunna; 19 percent had no violent texts at all.

The study also stated that in 85 percent of American mosques, the imam recommended studying “violence-positive texts,” a vague charge that prompted SPLC’s Robert Steinback to ask (Intelligence Report, (6/13/11), “If a priest or rabbi had a Bible on hand and ‘recommended’ the reading of the Book of Leviticus, would that establish that he favors killing adulterers, idolaters and incorrigible children?”

Spencer’s piece ran in Human Events (6/14/11), and Jihad Watch’s sister publication FrontPageMag.com (6/10/11) ran an interview with Yerushalmi on the study. Fox & Friends (6/13/11) hosted a discussion of it with the Center for Security Policy’s Gaffney, who thanked the hosts for taking on this “mortal threat.” In a Washington Times column (6/7/11), Gaffney said the study “describes an ominous jihadist footprint being put into place across the nation,” adding, “most mosques in the United States are actually engaged in—or at least supportive of—a totalitarian, seditious agenda they call Shariah.”

The study was reported in many other Islamophobic outlets, including National Review Online ( 6/7/11), Atlas Shrugs (6/7/11) and Gates of Vienna (6/3/11).

The claim that more than 80 percent of mosques teach violence and Islamic supremacy, and another dramatic but unsupported figure from years earlier alleging that 80 percent of American mosques are run by radical imams, are regularly parroted by national media figures and politicians.

Appearing on Laura Ingraham’s nationally syndicated radio show (1/13/11) in advance of his hearings on domestic terrorism, Rep. King repeated a number of Islamophobic smears, calling Muslims “an enemy living among us.” According to the Center for American Progress blog Think Progress (1/25/11), when King was asked by substitute host Raymond Arroyo how many mosques he thought were “infected” by “radical jihad sentiment,” King said that “over 80 percent of mosques in this country are controlled by radical Imams.”

Actually, a 2004 study of Detroit-area mosques by the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding found that “the vast majority of American-Muslims eschew extremist views.” A joint study of Muslims and mosques carried out by scholars at the University of North Carolina and Duke, Anti-Terror Lessons of Muslim-Americans (1/6/10), found that American mosques encourage political participation and reduce social alienation and thus “contemporary mosques are actually a deterrent to the spread of militant Islam and terrorism,” as a New York Times (8/7/10) summary of the study put it.

“Rarely has the United States seen a more reckless and bare-knuckled campaign,” wrote the SPLC’s Steinback wrote (Intelligence Report, Summer/11), “to vilify a distinct class of people and compromise their fundamental civil and human rights than the recent rhetoric against Muslims.” As noted, the New York Times, among other outlets, has done occasional reports debunking anti-Muslim smears. But such a large-scale campaign of hatred and scapegoating requires a forceful and sustained effort by journalists to challenge and refute the bigotry.

Source: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4499

muslimahpj
by Ruby Member on Mar. 8, 2012 at 4:40 PM


Ryanne444
by on Mar. 13, 2012 at 5:59 PM

I've read awful things about him. I am still very disappointed and shocked that the western world endorced this man as a president. As a woman he is a horrible disgrace in my eyes. He almost made it a law that if wives refused their husbands for something like 4 days for sex that the husbands would legally be able to force them into sex. AKA rape them. Luckily it was not passed due to international outcry, but wow the women of that country suffered so much and deserved much better than this man. I have a pbs documentery about him and it is just awful. He spoke in front of the new Afghan government which included women and they tried to talk and he literally refused to let them speak or even listen to them. It was sickening to me. I felt sick that he is a president and he refused on video to listen to or even address women. Ugh... anyone can watch this and he still does not care. Very sad that women are literally treated like nothing more than dogs in that country and that the president treats them badly too.

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)