Miscellany

A few stories making the news:

Five return from Guantanamo UK 'terror' suspects are to be released and sent home, Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, has announced, though then men will only be told later today. This follows the release a couple of days ago of a Danish man. The men are: the so-called 'Tipton Three' of Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal, and Ruhal Ahmed; Jamal Udeen, of Manchester; and Tarek Dergoul, from east London. The Home Secretary, David Blunkett, has anounced that anti-terrorist police will launch an investigation into the men, and Jack Straw said that the men may still face charges in UK courts. Though one would have thought the investigation would yield if the men are to be tried, and not the political interests of Straw? The families of the men have, as one would expect, expressed joy and relief. This now leaves four British 'suspects' as well over 600 men from other parts of the world, including children. I may have little sympathy for those people who like to join the current culture of so-called 'jihad' (beyond a human concern for a fellow man and a brotherly concern for another Muslim); but, the incarceration of these men is a travestry, and an abuse of the very word 'justice'. Guilt by association is not merely a matter for the law courts; it is a moral crime. We should not forget the other 660 men being held who do not have the fortune of having British or Danish passports, but belong to countries run by less than savory regimes. Whatever the 'legal' issues of the prisoners, from a moral perspective this is a truely woeful state of affairs; and coming from a country which - ignoring the usual diatribes - many Muslims probably do agree with, in its core values of 'justice' and 'freedom', makes it all the worse.

Kill the heathen! (Or at least make their faith illegal) No, this isn't a story from pre-2001 Afghanistan, or Saudi, or any Muslim country. It comes from Downunder:

"Islam was an illegal religion because the Koran preached violence against Christians and Jews, a Christian group told a judge yesterday.

"The group's barrister, David Perkins, said that Christianity was established under Australia's constitution and had special protection, especially through the blasphemy law.

""The Koran contradicts Christian doctrine in a number of places and, under the blasphemy law, is therefore illegal," he said.

"[The Judge, Michael Higgins, said] that the seminar was not limited to academic study of what the Koran says about jihad."

I don't know too much about law in Christendom (maybe someone could help), but from I understand about classical Muslim law I cannot recall reading of a religion being made "illegal"; at least not one of the 'accepted' religions of 'the Book' (India being a different case altogether). Though, certainly, public displays of religion and religious worship were severely restricted (even barred in some cases).

What interests me, however, is the approach of the Christian group to the Muslim scripture. Though I certainly reject the apologetics of modern Muslims with respect to warfare being only "defensive" (this is a false view), I doubt any verse of the Qur'an becomes 'law' without an interpretation. That's why classical Islam developed 'schools' or 'guilds' of jurisprudence, adhered to quite strictly. And it is obvious that this 'law' is under guardianship of the `ulema, but only executable by the 'state' authorities. I doubt the average Muslim is about to climb the pulpit and decalre 'jihad' - though modern Islam has its band of extremists who will, no doubt, try.

Also, their approach reminds me of Friday preachers who spew hatred against Jews and Christians. One of them, I recall, launched into Christianity, and was less than honest with a citation from the Qur'an, conviniently leaving out passages which would have contradicted his "true Islamic message". Maybe the two extremes share something common afterall (shallow, vapid, unintelligent and crude approach to faith)? Personally, I am hoping no Australian Muslim happens to be a descendent of the Amalekites...

Politics over principles for French government There's something disingenuous with this article, though a month old, I only saw yesterday.

"Meet Tokia Saifi, of Algerian origin [and a Muslim], minister of state for sustainable development in the French government.

""I strongly support the ban," she says emphatically. "Insistence on a dress code is one more way in which Islamic people are manipulated by the fundamentalists, and must be nipped in the bud. People must be able to choose what to wear, the mullahs should not force them."

Though, she seems perfectly happy for her own government to impose what people may or may not wear (albeit in the 'public' sphere).

Wheeling out a Muslim who says this or that, and hoping that her identity as a Muslim will help the government's case, seems a tad hypocrtical for a 'lay state', where religion is to be a 'private' affair. This seems less than principled. It ought not to be seen endorsing any religious opinion, surely? For if France is a 'lay' republic, which recognises no religion (and thus no religious interpretation), then in enforcing its ban it must rely solely on 'secular imperatives'. For it to weigh in on a 'religious debate', and try to influence what is and isn't 'obligatory' for a Muslim, would mean that the state encoraching upon religion, and thus the idea of religion being a 'private' affair (which is how French laicisme attempts to resolve the religion-state issue) is violated.

France, as a secular republic, is perfectly entitled to demand that its citizens leave their religious affiliation aside when engaged in public service. We may or may not agree with what the law says, based on secular imperatives or religious obligations we adhere to, but must respect that this is the law and that it ought to be obeyed. If a Muslim finds this difficult they either bare with patience, or leave, for God's earth is a vast place (though that is indeed easier said than done). On the other side, the hostilties towards those Muslims who do feel their rights are being restricted should be rejected, because as French citizens the Muslims have the right to make representations to the government, in whatever means are available and legal.

What would be an interesting test for the law is if a non-Muslim girl were to wear a scarf to school. How will the French courts establish whether or not the scarf worn by the girl is not out of fashion, but of a religious convictions? We shall see, I suppose.

(Lastly, and this has nothinig to do with the hijab issue, but The Times of India article begins with what seems like quite a naked attempt to stoke the religious embers, or have a dig at a religious culture she dislikes: "It is always refreshing to meet a Muslim woman who wields power in government and does not hesitate to speak her mind." Obviously, this reporter was asleep when Bhutto was ripping off Pakistan next door!)

[Update:] On a related note, this comes via al-Muhajabah:

"The western German state of Saarland today became the fifth in the country to propose legislation that would ban Muslim teachers from wearing headscarves in public schools, AP adds from Frankfurt. The proposal states that neutrality in public schools must not be endangered “through political, religious or ideological displays” and specifically names wearing headscarves as an example.

"Displaying Christian and Jewish symbols, however, would be allowed under the law because the teaching of Western religions is part of the public school curriculum in Saarland, a conservative-governed state on the border with France."

Perhaps 'secularism' is actually 'dead' in Europe? Afterall, from a certain perspective it was only a 'theological' position. Or maybe we're witnessing a new Kulturkampf?

'Saudi gays flaunt new freedoms' On a more, shall we say lighter, note, this morning's Independent reports on gays and lesbians in Saudi Arabia.

Yes, you did read that correctly.

Says one Saudi:

"I don't feel oppressed at all... We have more freedom here than straight couples. After all, they can't kiss in public like we can, or stroll down the street holding one another's hand."

What I find interesting, from a 'sociological' perspective, is that the identity of "gay" is rejected. "Gay" is probably a political identity which was developed in the gay and lesbian rights movements in Western nations during the 20th century, and so probably has limitations on how it can be applied to social bonds between same-sex couples in other parts of the world.