Sunday, February 17, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version

Archbishop's 8 March centennial message: Let Sharia Law govern women's lives, Amen!

by Azar Majedi

Azar Majedi was born in Iran, and is a leading opponent of the regime. She chairs 'OWL', the Organisation for Women's Liberation – Iran. She is the Editor of the feminist journal Medusa, and the author of Women's Rights vs Political Islam. www.azarmajedi.com

Azar

Perhaps Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury thought his statement about Sharia Law would be received enthusiastically as a well-intended effort to reduce racism and tension in society. However, his proposal got him into trouble. He was attacked from right and left. Those who saw their "white Christian culture" under threat asked for his resignation. Women's rights activists and secularists attacked him for the negative effects of Sharia Law on human rights, particularly the disastrous effects of such a practice on women in so-called Muslim communities. In response to harsh criticism he tried to qualify his proposal by stating that he did not mean the whole Sharia Law, but only family matters. He has just missed the point.

The status and rights of women in Islam is the Achilles heel of this religion, and I must add, ideology. Misogyny is the trade mark of Islam. The veil is its banner, and gender apartheid its main pillar. Moreover, today a very active reactionary political movement has based its ideology on Islam, namely political Islam. Anywhere they gain power the first thing they do is victimize women, strip them of all their rights, force them under the veil and segregate them in society. The same movement that laments lack of tolerance for Sharia law in western societies is terrorizing the population in societies under its rule to obey Sharia Law, observe the veil and gender apartheid and punishes the defiant by flogging, cutting their limbs and execution.

So, one main reason to oppose Sharia law is the way it treats women. Rowan Williams' promise that he only means the family code of Sharia law is no comfort to any woman living under the threat of losing her rights, nor to any girl who is frightened by "honor violence," forced marriage and veiling. In fact it only exposes his ignorance.

It may be argued that the Archbishop's intention is to combat racism. Let us examine whether his proposal is anti-racist. One might argue that he has taken Muslim's demands and culture into consideration, particularly when Muslims are increasingly being stigmatized. This assumption is false. Historically, the fight against racism has meant fighting for equality, not for differentiating; equality before the law and in social, economic and political sphere. Anti-racism has been about integration not segregation. The civil rights movement in America was not about creating a set of different laws for blacks, but treating blacks and whites equally. The essence of the long battle against racial apartheid in South Africa was to create one system and one law for all citizens, which treated them equally.

However, it is not only the Archbishop who espouses this upside-down approach to racial equality. This is a political trend. For this trend the meaning of anti-racism has changed from equality to differentiation, from integration to segregation. We owe this falsification to post modernism, which gave rise to cultural relativism and a high socio-political status to the concept of multi culturalism in this deformed interpretation of it.

Some misled section of the "intelligentsia," academia and political institutions have played a significant role in defending these concepts as progressive, libertarian, egalitarian and anti-racist. Reactionary political forces, such as political Islam have been the only beneficiaries of this trend. For decades gross violations of human rights in societies under Islam were neglected and even justified by these mal-formulated theories. Only when these brutal practices made an inroad into western societies in the form of terrorism, particularly after September 11, some outcries began to be heard.

Multiculturalism is racism; cultural relativism is racism; this should be recognized once and for all. By defining different laws for different citizens on the basis of such arbitrary concepts such as culture or religion, we leave the lot of the weakest sections of that so-called "cultural community" to the mercy of the self-imposed leaders of that community. We deprive these weakest sections of the protection of the law and society. Women under Islam are downtrodden and deprived of any rights. Leaving them under Sharia law will only victimize them further.

There are many fallacies involved in such an approach. One which is seemingly very liberal is the assumption that members of the "Muslim communities" will voluntarily resort to Sharia law. If Muslim women or children had any choice or voice, they would tell the Archbishop to keep these proposals to himself. The question of choice is non-existent in a hierarchical and deeply male chauvinist community. Allowing Sharia Law to be practiced will cut off the poor voiceless women from any protection and make life much more difficult for the young women who struggle with backward traditions at home.

Giving the Archbishop's intention the benefit of the doubt is the best case scenario. The other, to my opinion most probable scenario is that he is cunningly trying to strengthen the grip of religion and religious institutions on the society as a whole. By assigning a stronger position to Islam in "Muslim Communities" he is trying to foster the position of the church and Christianity in the wider society. If one accepts the role of Islam and Islamic laws in one community, by the same token, they should accept the role of Christianity and the Church of England in the larger community. His defence of Sharia Law is a clever step towards revitalizing the role of Church in the wider society.

And finally, as a veteran women's rights activist and one who has suffered first hand under a brutal Islamic state; as an activist who has fought hard against Islam and political Islam for liberty and equality, I am very indignant by Rowan Williams' proposal. We do not need to establish Sharia law in any form or shape. We need a secular, free society, free from racism, misogynism and inequality. We need to rid the society from religion and religious establishment, be it Muslim, Christian, Judaism or anything else.

14 February, 2008

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Sunday, February 17, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 80 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #128564 by John Done on February 17, 2008 at 11:51 am

Great article. It's time we started to get serious about dealing with these pompous postmodernist pricks and their support for segregation under the banner of multiculturalism.

Other Comments by John Done

2. Comment #128578 by mdowe on February 17, 2008 at 12:17 pm

I'm still baffled how a tradition that treats half the human race as forced labour and sex-slaves has managed to endure so long. A testament to the power of childhood indoctrination backed up with terror and brutality I guess.

Other Comments by mdowe

3. Comment #128581 by DV82XL on February 17, 2008 at 12:19 pm

Rowan Williams only opens his mouth to change feet. But fortunately he seems to be doing our work for us.

Other Comments by DV82XL

4. Comment #128593 by phopas on February 17, 2008 at 12:34 pm

Bravo Azar !

"Multiculturalism is racism." - It is about time that someone stated that simple fact in no uncertain terms.

The root of the word "diversity" is "to divide". The exact opposite of the great motto of the US , which is - E pluribus unum, (out of many one).

Other Comments by phopas

5. Comment #128599 by octopus on February 17, 2008 at 12:36 pm

Multiculturalism is racism; cultural relativism is racism; this should be recognized once and for all. By defining different laws for different citizens on the basis of such arbitrary concepts such as culture or religion, we leave the lot of the weakest sections of that so-called "cultural community" to the mercy of the self-imposed leaders of that community.

Could not agree more.

Other Comments by octopus

6. Comment #128605 by Mitchell Gilks on February 17, 2008 at 12:43 pm

Here, here. Nothing angers me more than how women were treated as second class citizens for most of human history, and still are is such backward places. It just kills me to think of all the brilliant, philosophical, poetic, and artistic minds that were denies the basic rights to persue their dreams, and intellectual goals because of being born a certain gender. Undoubtable humanity has been impoverished by the segregation of women in all respects.

I couldn't agree with you more on all fronts. If there is anything that boils my blood it is the thought of how such human beings are still treated today, and how the people free from such oppression can stand on the outside, and apologize for it.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

7. Comment #128612 by jonjermey on February 17, 2008 at 12:50 pm

>I'm still baffled how a tradition that treats half the human race as forced labour and sex-slaves has managed to endure so long. A testament to the power of childhood indoctrination backed up with terror and brutality I guess.

Islam 'survives' as a national force because the West pays billions of dollars to Islamic countries for oil and occasionally intervenes in the inter-Islamic warfare that would otherwise keep these countries poor and insignificant. If the West hadn't stepped in to halt the Iraq-Iran war which was keeping both countries preoccupied, there's a good chance it would still be going today. If and when the oil runs out the global significance of Islam will end within a decade.

Other Comments by jonjermey

8. Comment #128613 by Neiman on February 17, 2008 at 12:51 pm

I still hold out hope that we can pull our collective head out of our ass and get these supposedly civilized cultures back on track. We were doing really well for quite awhile, but in recent years many steps were taken in the wrong direction. It brings me a great deal of joy to see the reaction to ideas like this and renews my confidence in the potential of the human race.

Other Comments by Neiman

9. Comment #128627 by D'Arcy on February 17, 2008 at 1:23 pm

If one accepts the role of Islam and Islamic laws in one community, by the same token, they should accept the role of Christianity and the Church of England in the larger community. His defence of Sharia Law is a clever step towards revitalizing the role of Church in the wider society.

A plague on all their houses!

These people have nothing to contribute to humanity except ignorance, fear and distress.

Other Comments by D'Arcy

10. Comment #128629 by Nails on February 17, 2008 at 1:27 pm

Equality, that is the key point mentioned in this article.

In the west, as uncivilised as we are, we try to treat everyone equally - by law at least.

Any intergration has to follow the same, otherwise there will always be tension.

So it follows that any move to reduce equality, which many have fought and died for, is being done by the backdoor to appease a bunch of immigrants who refuse to follow the laws of their new home, yet refuse to return to their old rules in their old country.

And I think that stinks.

Other Comments by Nails

11. Comment #128632 by Ian Bamlett on February 17, 2008 at 1:29 pm

Misogyny is the trade mark of Islam

Of almost all religion in fact. But certainly the big three monotheistic religions. Islam gets first prize for style and application of course.

Other Comments by Ian Bamlett

12. Comment #128634 by Shadow Boxer on February 17, 2008 at 1:33 pm

he is cunningly trying to strengthen the grip of religion and religious institutions on the society as a whole

When I first read the Archbishop's statements about Sharia law, this is what I thought too. A sneaky way to allow religion to regain a toe-hold in matters of the law.

Other Comments by Shadow Boxer

13. Comment #128636 by Szymanowski on February 17, 2008 at 1:36 pm

I don't understand the title of this article - it wasn't mentioned in the main text. Can anyone explain it?!

Other Comments by Szymanowski

14. Comment #128637 by GBile on February 17, 2008 at 1:38 pm

This is a great article. Azar Majedi demolishes the Archbishops reasoning in a devastating manner.

One which is seemingly very liberal is the assumption that members of the "Muslim communities" will voluntarily resort to Sharia law. If Muslim women or children had any choice or voice, they would tell the Archbishop to keep these proposals to himself.

This points to the fatal flaw in the Archbishops proposal, namely that many muslims, especially the women and children, will be at the mercy of ruthless muslim-leaders and they will be forced to lead an ugly, religion dominated life without the possibility of an escape from that misery.
The failure of the Archbishop to understand this makes him unfit lead anything, let alone a church.
The only path to an worthwhile society is to give women and men equal rights, no exceptions. Under anything Islamic this will never be achieved.

Other Comments by GBile

15. Comment #128641 by hao on February 17, 2008 at 1:44 pm

Amen!!

Other Comments by hao

16. Comment #128669 by seals on February 17, 2008 at 2:38 pm

I don't understand the title of this article - it wasn't mentioned in the main text. Can anyone explain it?!

I think it's a summary, it's what the AB of C is in effect saying with his statement about sharia law, whether he realised it or not. 8 March is International Women's Day. At least, that's what I make of it.

Other Comments by seals

17. Comment #128670 by Logicel on February 17, 2008 at 2:38 pm

In fact it only exposes his ignorance.

It seems that Williams' state of shock was triggered by his disbelief that his words were so 'misunderstood.' Sigh. Are Christians so focused on imaginary sin that they are impervious to when they truly commit egregious acts like this pathetic man stating his pathetic words? Do they feel no shame for their lack of knowledge, sensitivity, and fairness?

Other Comments by Logicel

18. Comment #128672 by mjwemdee on February 17, 2008 at 2:42 pm

The ABC (as he is now increasingly known) is a buffoon. I don't believe he was making a tactical move at all with his remarks. He just displayed breathtaking naivety about the true nature of Islam.

Other Comments by mjwemdee

19. Comment #128674 by alan baylis on February 17, 2008 at 2:49 pm

brilliant article.I too am wondering about the title.does it mean the fool is going to make another speech along the same lines? if so he should be stopped by better informed colleages.

Other Comments by alan baylis

20. Comment #128677 by mikhailkill on February 17, 2008 at 3:07 pm

The most important point made in the article by Ms. Majedi is that the post-modern concepts of multiculturalism and cultural relativism do not lead to greater equality before the law in terms of gender or race. Unfortunately, as Ms. Majedi notes, such concepts have quite a stronghold on current trends in political thought. In all the hoopla in regard to the remarks by Rowan Williams pertaining to Sharia Law, this point is sometimes lost. Cheers to Ms. Majedi for bringing the issue to light.

Other Comments by mikhailkill

21. Comment #128678 by rod-the-farmer on February 17, 2008 at 3:13 pm

What can the ordinary citizen of a western country do, to help expose & eliminate the misogyny inherent in Islam ? Hand out cards to veiled women, offering to help them escape via a sort of Underground Railroad ? How would you do that without their guards seeing ? Put up billboards in suitable locations ? Build a web site offering the same service ? Refuse to deal with (Islamic) countries that do not offer absolute equality of the sexes ? My own idea is that some one should establish an investment group, something like the "green" ones, where the fund managers only invest your money in countries & companies where women have equal rights. Since in the west, an increasing number of women control either the family investments, or have their own, I think this would be rather popular. That of course ignores men like myself, who would immediately direct our own investments to such an "equal rights" fund. I can imagine those islamic countries seeing their investments start to dry up, asking why this is happening ? The answer is that those in the west (and elsewhere) feel that a country/company who almost completely restricts the contributions of 50 % of their population, is obviously not as good an investment as one who does allow full participation by women. No one is forced to invest their money in such countries, so we have a choice where that money goes.

Then we start the secondary campaign, a boycott. Contact those companies that still deal with the women-haters, and tell them we will no longer buy their products & services, until and unless they too stop dealing with the misogynists. Ask some pointed questions at their Annual General Meeting of shareholders. I'll bet there are a few dedicated individuals out there who would happily set up and maintain a web site listing those companies who would be targets for this kind of campaign. We shall overcome, to coin a phrase.

I wonder how much it would cost to have a billboard show a woman in a burka, with the simple caption, "Help eliminate slavery". Sure would get some attention. I think I will call and ask, Monday.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

22. Comment #128679 by BarryTrask on February 17, 2008 at 3:13 pm

I'm still baffled how a tradition that treats half the human race as forced labour and sex-slaves has managed to endure so long. A testament to the power of childhood indoctrination backed up with terror and brutality I guess.

Yes, Anglicanism is pretty bad.

Oh, wait...did you mean Islam? That, too.

Other Comments by BarryTrask

23. Comment #128680 by IanG on February 17, 2008 at 3:14 pm

Good article.

I wholly agree with her penultimate paragraph.

Despite the smokescreen of weasel words that were used afterwards, Rowan Williams' main theme was a clear dislike of the dominance of secularism and of the principle of one rule of law for all.

He quoted Sharia because he didn't want to be seen as indulging in special pleading on behalf of Christianity and hoped that he could hide behind, "I'm not talking about Christianity, of course. I'm just so worried about all those poor Muslims who are feeling so alienated."

Nonsense. His speech was an amateurishly disguised condemnation of the secular state and its central proposal was that we roll back time and the barriers between the secular and the religious and let religion back in to having an increased role in the running of the State.

Other Comments by IanG

24. Comment #128681 by prettygoodformonkeys on February 17, 2008 at 3:18 pm

Great exposition of Williams' muddy thinking and strategy to further religion of all kinds. Even if he is naive about Islam, there is no reason I can see for Protestantarianism (sic) or Cathoholics (double sic) to promote sharia (sharia, for crap's sake!) other than for the kick-back benefit (for the religious) of multiculturalism overpowering human rights and Common Law. Tough, I suppose, for him to pay proper attention to the way that has been working out so well over the last 50 years (never mind centuries) when his head is so full of that sky-daddy mush. I live on the west coast of Canada, and multiculturalism here is breeding a politically-correct stew of ancient grudges.

alan baylis: I disagree; I think he should be encouraged to speak as much as possible. It's perfect. I only wish I could watch him as he explains it, with his noble brow shining and his nose lifted with constant theatricality towards what the primitive used to call "the heavens", to better sniff the afterlife. Or whatever.

Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys

25. Comment #128685 by MaxD on February 17, 2008 at 3:31 pm

Well done!
You can almost hear the slap across the Archbishop of Cant's face. This must sting.

Other Comments by MaxD

26. Comment #128709 by Lucas on February 17, 2008 at 6:10 pm

Hmm. Y'know, too often I get the feeling that people around here are a little naive about third world nations and the way things work outside of rich western countries. Islam has no special claim on misogyny or maltreatment of women and children. Anybody ever lived in a village in Africa or South America? I have, and let me tell you, some Catholics like to have sex with their nine year old daughters too. Barbarism is everywhere, folks. Yes, Sharia institutionalizes this kind of culturally based abuse, but many non-Muslim cultures do this too. The particular religion matters little. Only secularism and the rule of common law stops any of this.

Other Comments by Lucas

27. Comment #128710 by Enlightenme.. on February 17, 2008 at 6:14 pm

rod-the-farmer,
I think somehow it's gonna need women, and artists to try and get things moving on this - or does that sound terribly MCP of me?
I feel like doing something myself at times to challenge blasphemy/religious hatred laws, I just can't quite think what yet! but I do feel it's time for Activism.
I did see a good defaced billboard recently, which had a burka painted onto the face of an otherwise semi-clad model, but most of the proto-banksys at the moment still seem obsessed with anti-globalism & stuff.

Off-thread a little - I think the teddy-bear thing last year has had a very good slow-burning effect in the west of taming/shaming sympathies for Islamic radicalism.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

28. Comment #128713 by Gymnopedie on February 17, 2008 at 6:23 pm

What a great article!

Have I been living under a rock or something...? How have I not read more of this author's material before?

Other Comments by Gymnopedie

29. Comment #128714 by Goldy on February 17, 2008 at 6:24 pm

Have to agree with you, Lucas. It's not religion per se that people follow, it's tradition. And even if it is religion/tradition that they follow, there generally is a reason for it - poverty of one form or another.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/world/middleeast/17youth.html?ref=world - an article on the increasing observance of Islam in Egypt. What drives this? Not Saudi money, not God speaking to people - poverty.
Which is why I can't see sharia happening too quickly in Europe. Of course, persecution, either directly or indirectly (which in a way leads to poverty) will drive those in Europe to seek this sharia.
Now, should the economy go down to grinding levels, maybe we'll see a change.

Other Comments by Goldy

30. Comment #128715 by Ian H Spedding FCD on February 17, 2008 at 6:33 pm

An ICM poll found that 40 percent of British Muslims favoured the introduction of Sharia law in the UK. I wonder how many of those respondents were women?

Other Comments by Ian H Spedding FCD

31. Comment #128721 by Enlightenme.. on February 17, 2008 at 7:10 pm

^That would be interesting to know - might it be few, because most of the people polled were coming out of mosques where I don't think women would feel comfortable voicing a dissenting view - or conversely might it be quite a lot, because of a sort of 'sisterhood' effect?

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

32. Comment #128726 by Gems on February 17, 2008 at 7:50 pm

Bravo Azar! One of the best responses on this subject that I've read. I hope someone's forwarded this to Rowan Williams...

Other Comments by Gems

33. Comment #128728 by dragonfirematrix on February 17, 2008 at 8:24 pm

I think the quoted segment below from the article, by Azar Majedi, hits the bulls-eye of what society today faces from religion.

THE QUOTED TEXT FROM Azar Majedi's ARTICLE

â€œGiving the Archbishop's intention the benefit of the doubt is the best case scenario. The other, to my opinion most probable scenario is that he is cunningly trying to strengthen the grip of religion and religious institutions on the society as a whole. By assigning a stronger position to Islam in "Muslim Communities" he is trying to foster the position of the church and Christianity in the wider society. If one accepts the role of Islam and Islamic laws in one community, by the same token, they should accept the role of Christianity and the Church of England in the larger community. His defence of Sharia Law is a clever step towards revitalizing the role of Church in the wider society.â€

MY OPINION

In America, we seem faced daily with new ways on the part of the Christians to force their beliefs into (and onto) our lives, our schools, and our government. Intelligent design is but one example how the religious are trying to force their way into (and onto) American society. There are other examples of religion attempting takeovers, like voluntary prayer in schools, or a moment of silence required for everyone, and of course we have Kansas and Pennsylvania. Is all this INCREMENTALISM?

Andâ€¦

How about Huckabee and his blunt statement about rewriting The Constitution of The United States of America according the Christian bible. Huckabee should take a bit closer look at America. He might just find that Christians are not the only people who live here.

The Christians in America are constantly trying to merge church and state, as if they think the results will be good. I think the religious/political battle we have going on here in America is quite the same as Rowan Williams use of his remarks.

To me, the religious are searching everyday everyway they can to enforce their beliefs on everyone. The quoted segment of Azar Majedi article above makes a perfect point of this methodology.

The Secular must be ever vigilant.

Other Comments by dragonfirematrix

34. Comment #128758 by Teratornis on February 17, 2008 at 10:32 pm

In reply to comment #128578 by mdowe:

Actually religious women tend to be at least as culpable as religious men when it comes to indoctrinating their children and enforcing religious compliance. It's not the Muslim men who hold down their daughters and hack off their clits.

When you review the history of Western Thought leading up to the Englightenment, there were certainly no guarantees along the way. We're actually pretty lucky that any culture managed to break out of ancient superstition.

In fact it was mostly just a tiny learned subculture within a larger culture. This disparate pattern remains starkly clear in the United States, where the average person's beliefs are sharply at odds with the beliefs of most of the elite scientists.

Once upon a time the Muslims were on the path toward enlightenment, but after they gave Arabic numerals and algorithms to the West, they sunk into a Dark Age and still haven't emerged.

Other Comments by Teratornis

35. Comment #128761 by LorienRyan on February 17, 2008 at 10:43 pm

Sharia law violates basic human rights, is cruel to women and based on mythology.

Rowan Williams what the fuck is wrong with you?

Other Comments by LorienRyan

36. Comment #128762 by JemyM on February 17, 2008 at 10:44 pm

Multiculturalism is indeed racism and a kind of apartheid. To think you can define cultures and see them as a separate runs the same line of thinking as nationalism.

Other Comments by JemyM

37. Comment #128763 by JD Cherry on February 17, 2008 at 10:44 pm

When you review the history of Western Thought leading up to the Englightenment, there were certainly no guarantees along the way. We're actually pretty lucky that any culture managed to break out of ancient superstition.

In fact it was mostly just a tiny learned subculture within a larger culture. This disparate pattern remains starkly clear in the United States, where the average person's beliefs are sharply at odds with the beliefs of most of the elite scientists.

I would challenge this, actually. Firstly, very few of the natural philosophers were out and out skeptics during the scientific revolution in England in the 1660s. And secondly, the main reason that the scientific culture was allowed to flourish was because of the economic needs of an increasingly literate, mercantile society. Literacy itself was a result of the Protestant Reformation. Science has never operated in a vaccuum.

As far as the muslims are concerned, we must remember that their decline was helped along by constant invasions by crusaders and mongol hordes, not to mention the ravages of plague. The Europeans had arabic numerals and algorithms for hundreds of years before Descartes came around with his mechanistic philosophy.

Other Comments by JD Cherry

38. Comment #128771 by Steve Zara on February 17, 2008 at 11:11 pm

Multiculturalism is indeed racism and a kind of apartheid. To think you can define cultures and see them as a separate runs the same line of thinking as nationalism.

I mostly agree. There is an aspect of multiculturalism that seems to me to be rarely discussed but I think it is important. This is: who gets to define the culture?

I am gay, and I often hear talk of "gay culture". I find this somewhat amusing, as I believe I am fully integrated into the society where I live. I have a good job, a mortgage, a husband and a dog, and in my spare time I enjoy going to garden centres and I would rather sit at home watching the West Wing than go out and look for this "gay culture", whatever it is. I would also be interested to know who defines the culture. I sometimes hear of "leaders of gay culture", but I don't remember getting a chance to vote for anyone!

I think similar arguments apply to Muslim cultures - who defines it? There is an organisation called the Muslim Council of Britain. This seems to be the point of contact for Muslims used by the government. But, I have heard arguments that many Muslims feel alienated, and consider that the Council does not represent them.

So, I think multiculturalism is a lazy way of grouping people, and can be exploited by those within such "cultures" to gain influence.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

39. Comment #128774 by nastler on February 17, 2008 at 11:18 pm

Azar Majedi is a new name for me. She sounds like someone worth listening to.

And, good post Rod-the-farmer, thanks.

"The status and rights of women in Islam is the Achilles heel of this religion" - Azar Majedi

Other Comments by nastler

40. Comment #128778 by MaxD on February 17, 2008 at 11:22 pm

Lucas,
I think you have missed the point. It isn't that Islam is the only force for inhuman treatment of people (though clearly it is one of the larger and more insidious forces). No one is trying to get the backwards non-ideologically driven evil into English common law. Or give such communities a forum in which to practice their ancient bigotries in our countries. This is what the article was about.

While poverty may have something to do with flare-ups of ethnic strife I am afraid to say the treatment of people within tribes is very much driven by the beliefs they hold. Beliefs are levers that drive people to act in certain ways. You want to say that poverty drives men to beat women, perform honor killings, mangle their genitalia, and make folk walk around in dark bed clothes but I think that is quite wrong.

I do agree with you that secular government and rule of law are the ways to combat it. Education, and free expression must be part of the equation too.

Other Comments by MaxD

41. Comment #128781 by sarah95 on February 17, 2008 at 11:28 pm

phopas said:

The root of the word "diversity" is "to divide". The exact opposite of the great motto of the US , which is - E pluribus unum, (out of many one).

John Done said:

It's time we started to get serious about dealing with these pompous postmodernist pricks and their support for segregation under the banner of multiculturalism.

I heartily agree. The way my university(and most others in the US) just simply espouses cultural relativism, multiculturalism and postmodernism as fact, calls any other approach racist or ethnocentric "hate speech" that students don't have the right to utter(speech codes!) just boils my bottom! I don't think that the postmodernist relativist pricks here in the US really understand how dangerous their policies are. They could take a good look at the situation in the UK and if they weren't already so thick-headed and irrational, they'd see that the way they're trying to "foster diversity" will only make society worse for all of us.

This article has inspired me to promise myself that the next time I hear a professor make some pompous unfair comparison between postmodernist concepts and rationalist/scientific concepts, I will be prepared to verbally rebutt. It's high time!

Other Comments by sarah95

42. Comment #128784 by MaxD on February 17, 2008 at 11:37 pm

Sarah,
I had this fight myself at my college. It was in a sociology class, Identities and Social Movements. It was a lot of vapid headed, wooly non-sense. And the post-modernist perspective was like a notochord of evil running through the whole thing.

My advice is, relax when you oppose. Our arguments are better than the postmodernist's. They say alot of stupid frustrating things, and have a pesky tendency to ignore logic, facts and common sense. And you need to know that you won't win over, or even cause your prof to question a bit of the Foucalt name dropping nonsense they spew. But maybe you will get your class mates to think a little more about multiculturalism, post-modernism etc. Even if you don't succeed in that, at least you will know you didn't just let it slide.

Other Comments by MaxD

43. Comment #128789 by JD Cherry on February 17, 2008 at 11:49 pm

A "Critical Issues in Canadian Society" course that I took actually made me switch my major away from sociology.

Critical issues facing our fine nation included the fact that the brave prostitutes who reject the prison of marriage and childrearing are proletarian class warriors from a marxist-feminist third wave perspective. Science is a tool of female oppression according to this lot. Even worse, to pass the test I had to regurgitate all the prof's nonsense.

That being said, I don't have a huge problem with multiculturalism. As long as people follow the law of the land as laid out in our charters, don't deprive their children in any way and respect individual rights, they can live as they please for all I care. There is no one Canadian culture, beer and hockey aside.

Canada's already got built-in indigenous cultures nation wide. I've worked in the far north where the people don't speak English. We've also got French-Canadians desperately trying to preserve their language and culture in Quebec.

Other Comments by JD Cherry

44. Comment #128799 by PJG on February 18, 2008 at 1:10 am

The other, to my opinion most probable scenario is that he is cunningly trying to strengthen the grip of religion and religious institutions on the society as a whole. By assigning a stronger position to Islam in "Muslim Communities" he is trying to foster the position of the church and Christianity in the wider society.

I read the entire transcript of the ABofC's speech. To me, the above was the ENTIRE point. It wasn't subtle or cunning, it was blatant! Maybe the ABofC THOUGHT he was being clever!

I still think he did us a favour. By making such an error of judgment which can be interpreted either as ignorance (of Sharia law - "family" or otherwise), stupidity or deviousness, he has single-handedly emphasised that the wisdom of having 26 Bishops in the House of Lords should be questioned. I thank him for helping us towards a completely (and constitutionally) secular state.

Other Comments by PJG

45. Comment #128801 by Enlightenme.. on February 18, 2008 at 1:35 am

^ "By assigning a stronger position to Islam in "Muslim Communities" he is trying to foster the position of the church and Christianity in the wider society."
---
"I thank him for helping us towards a completely (and constitutionally) secular state"

Trouble is I think the 'peoples front of Judeas' are taking a short-term expediant of uniting against their common enemy - Secularism.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

46. Comment #128803 by AdrianB on February 18, 2008 at 1:59 am

2. Comment #128578 by mdowe on February 17, 2008 at 12:17 pm

I'm still baffled how a tradition that treats half the human race as forced labour and sex-slaves has managed to endure so long. A testament to the power of childhood indoctrination backed up with terror and brutality I guess.

Have you not seen the birth rates of women that are "sex-slaves" compared to that of women that have freedoms?

This alone is enough to explain how it endures so long.

Even here in the UK, where you would imagine Muslim women to have significantly more freedoms, official statistics indicate that Muslim women have 4.7 children compared with an average (including Muslim women) of 1.8.

Great article by the way.

Other Comments by AdrianB

47. Comment #128804 by PJG on February 18, 2008 at 2:00 am

Trouble is I think the 'peoples front of Judeas' are taking a short-term expediant of uniting against their common enemy - Secularism.

I fear you are right but he HAS sparked a lot of debate that might otherwise never have happened and he isn't coming out of it very well. A short-term "uniting against the common enemy" is likely to be just that, short-term, as they will soon get back to admitting that they each think the others will go to hell (along with the atheists) and then we can wait for another massive gaffe to aid the cause of secularism!

I live in hope. :o)

Other Comments by PJG

48. Comment #128805 by HughCaldwell on February 18, 2008 at 2:06 am

"I think similar arguments apply to Muslim cultures - who defines it?40. Comment #128771 by Steve Zara on February 17, 2008 at 11:11 pm "

Allah has defined it. Praying five times a day, fasting by daylight and feasting by night during the month of Ramadan, wearing fancy dress. That's enough to be going on with.

Other Comments by HughCaldwell

49. Comment #128811 by Ygern on February 18, 2008 at 2:38 am

This is a very well written article. Is it getting any exposure in the so-called mainstream media?

If not, is there any way of getting it into the mainstream? It makes so much valuable sense that it would be tragic if it goes by largely ignored.

Other Comments by Ygern

50. Comment #128830 by seqenenre on February 18, 2008 at 3:31 am

The article is great but I am afraid the last two paragraphs (will give the archbishop) give the opportunity to divert from the main message of the article.

Other Comments by seqenenre