Archbishop’s Message: Let Sharia Law Govern Women’s Lives, Amen!

by Azar Majedi

17 Feb, 2008

Perhaps Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury thought his statement about Sharia Law will be received enthusiastically as well-intended and an effort to reduce racial tensions in the 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 rights activists, secularists and such like 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 in family matters. He has just missed the point.

The status and rights of women in Islam is the Achilles hill of this religion, and I must add, ideology. Misogynism 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 they first and foremost 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.

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 the Archbishop’s 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 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 eventually giving such 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 the protection of the law and society. Women under Islam are down trodden 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 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 the like.

• Name: ZuK
• Date: Saturday February 16, 2008
• Time: 18:22:23 -0700

Comment

May be Mr. Williams should address some of his own issues with women, family and sex first?

• Name:
• Date: Saturday February 16, 2008
• Time: 20:55:28 -0700

Comment

Rowan Williams is trying to "be Mr.Bean of the Church of England" - al Rowan Atkiens,but truly looking silly rathert than comic!

• Name: Igor
• Date: Saturday February 16, 2008
• Time: 21:21:12 -0700

Comment

What did the Archbishop actually say? http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1581....Excerpt "He explained that his core aim was to: "to tease out some of the broader issues around the rights of religious groups within a secular state" and was using sharia as an example. These include: - How when the law does not take seriously religious motivation, it fails to engage with the community in question and opens up real issues of power by the majority over the minority, with potentially harmful effects for community cohesion. - How the distinction between cultural practices and those arising from genuine religious belief might be managed. - How to deal with the possibility that a 'supplementary jurisdiction "could have the effect of reinforcing in minority communities some of the most repressive or retrograde elements in them, with particularly serious consequences for the role and liberties of women".

• Name: Igor
• Date: Saturday February 16, 2008
• Time: 21:22:01 -0700

Comment

Correction: http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1581

• Name:
• Date: Sunday February 17, 2008
• Time: 03:01:38 -0700

Comment

In this very good and isightful article the most original words were these:..."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 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." I believe the author hit the nail right on. it shows that the argument that christianity always is a bulwark towards islam is not true. In order to stop the growing irrelevance of the earlier main churches in Europe, some of their priests now play a dangerous game by strengthening islam. They think that in the end that will lead to a revitalization of their own church. This dangerous activity must be disclosed and must stop. Regards, No Sharia

• Name: Allat
• Date: Sunday February 17, 2008
• Time: 07:23:48 -0700

Comment

Well, I say, that the "idjut" is very happy to make stupid comments, as long as sharia law doesn't pertain to men. His comment shows the typical cleric's attitude toward women - including xtians (popiola meeting ayrab ruler) and jews (no female rabbis, eh).---------------What did you expect? Anything different from them? Luther was down on women, also. So were the Puritans------------As long as they are men, the sharia laws will NEVER effect them adversely-------if ever islam took full root in the UK, these men would simply change their spots and ber very happy to parley with the islamics - at the same table, have couscous and pigeon pie and mint tea, laugh and joke, you know, the "Little boy's club"- as in "we're all in this together," "let's shake hands and make up" - "let by-gone's be by gones" - kiss and hug like bush did with the ayrab creature, and the final "piece-de-resistance"- the little women will be THE ONES SERVING THE TEA! ---Not only that, but we, women will be in the kitchen waiting with the meal ready, for that clap for our masters to serve it!-------------So you see, the "cleric" - and the rest of them -the rest of the men who are Apologists for islam and Devil's Advocates, will never be effected, they really DON"T give a rat's ass, who's on top! Allat- Wild Amazon Polytheist

• Name: Allat
• Date: Sunday February 17, 2008
• Time: 11:01:03 -0700

Comment

"Islam is not a new religion, but the same truth that God has revealed to all His prophets throughout history." I don't read books online. And above all, I reject "revealed" religion" nonsense. And I reject RELIGIONS.------------------- To me, The God, is a personal Being to be found, individually, within. God is NOT out there - there, out there. GOD is within. -------------------- THE GOD is within EVERYTHING - in every particle and wave....wave of energy! -----GOD is EVERYTHING....MY God is ALL THINGS!......... You've heard of the expression: "Mind over Matter"? Well, in truth, "Mind IS Matter!______________There is Nothing else, BUT - GOD! --That is the meaning of Polytheism.___________Allat- Amazon Polytheist

• Name: Allat
• Date: Sunday February 17, 2008
• Time: 11:33:30 -0700

Comment

Revealed religions are those that people lied about or had deliriums about and then presented in order to get power over others. I despise Paulist xtianity ( vision on the road to Damascus- only 1 witness Barnabas-a weak man which Paul browbeat ) - u-turned (Back to Phariseic)xtinaity, Cpnstantine (Sign above the Malvian Bridge- i.e. UFO), moha-MAD (Gabriel the Malevolent ET) AND Joseph Smith -Mormons (Maroni - the lying, scum Malevoent ET). I love American Indian beliefs and pratices. I just LOVE Atheists - underdogs- for their courage and strength, in standing up to the Fundamentalists. I say, Live AND Let Live.( Vivir y dejar vivir = L.Viver sinere vivir) Mind yor business, and I'll mind mine..........I stand on this sentiment!______Amazon Polytheist

• Name: to Allat
• Date: Sunday February 17, 2008
• Time: 16:50:07 -0700

Comment

I'm with you most of the way. Live and let live. Jesus and I parted ways many years ago. I would never force anyone to accept my interpretation of the Bible and I respect (almost envy) those who still possess faith. "Understanding Islam" only understands tyranny. He is so hung up on the propaganda of Mohammad he can't think straight. The quran says this stuff. So what? That doesn't make it any truer than anything else. If Islam is the same religion that was handed down to Abraham and all the rest then who needed Mohammed or his stupid quran? It was already out there. God gave us free will. We may choose to submit ourselves to His will, but it has to be our choice. There is no choice in Islam. Allat, you say live and let live. But what do we do with people like "understanding Islam" who have no concept of what that means and who would take that choice away from us? "Understanding Islam", the more I understand that putrid faith, the farther away from it I run. I will accept God's (or allah's - just for you UI) judgment of my life choices but I won't accept yours or ahmadinejad's or anyone else's. You have no right to decide what MY place in the next world will be, or whether I even have the right to live in this world. That's what your religion does. Can't you just take it back to Arabia and let the rest of the world live in peace? By the way, how come we always hear that Islam is the religion of peace? A lot of people have it wrong since you say it's the religion of submission and you understand it.

• Name: nigar khan
• Date: Monday February 18, 2008
• Time: 08:34:00 -0700

Comment

TO KNOW THE DANGERS OF ISLAM READ: http://akram.rediffiland.com/blogs/2007/10/06/Read-It-Translate-It-Forward.html http://iranpoliticsclub.net/library/english-library/islam-sex01/index.htm AKRAM & NIGARKHAN

• Name: Allat
• Date: Tuesday February 19, 2008
• Time: 06:22:15 -0700

Comment

"I'm with you most of the way."_________________Ok, baby.

• Name: Godot
• Date: Tuesday February 19, 2008
• Time: 07:57:54 -0700

Comment

Rowan Williams tried to qualify his proposal by stating that he did not mean the whole Sharia Law, but in family matters. Did he know that under Sharia "family" Law a daughter inherits 1/2 the amount compared to her brother just because he is male and she is female. Is Mr. William ok with that or he would start generating amendments to Sharia Law to satisfy his "vision" of that law?

• Name:
• Date: Saturday February 23, 2008
• Time: 16:05:27 -0700

Comment

Who Cares About Women? By Robert Spencer.

A Muslim girl has been murdered, and the Left, which claims to care about women and their oppression, is silent. Aqsa Parvez, a sixteen-year-old Muslim girl living in Canada, was, according to police, strangled to death by her father because she refused to wear the hijab. Muhammad Parvez, Aqsa’s father, has been charged with murder, and her brother, Waqas Parvez, with obstructing police. A friend of Aqsa explained: “She wanted to live her life the way she wanted to, not the way her parents wanted her to. She just wanted to be herself, honestly she just wanted to show her beauty, and not be pushed around by her parents telling her what she has to be like, what she has to do. Nobody would want to do that.” One might have assumed that the Left would be leading the charge against a culture that victimizes those who want to live their lives the way they want to, but that has not been the case. Leftist publications had little to say about her death. Feminist writer Katha Pollitt, as of this writing, still hasn’t written a word about it. Nor has anyone else at The Nation. CounterPunch? Not a word. The National Organization for Women? Nothing. Even Human Rights Watch has shown no interest in the case of Aqsa Parvez. By contrast, on December 14, Horowitz’s FrontPage Magazine published an article about the incident called “Horror Under the Hijab,” by Stephen Brown. Then followed my article, “Canadian DisHonor Murder,” on December 19. Of course, Katha Pollitt and others on the Left would take issue with both of those articles, since Brown wrote about an “unbelievable attempt to detract people’s attention from the real issue of Muslim intolerance, even hatred, towards females’ desire for freedom,” and I suggested that “an examination of some elements of Islamic theology and culture was necessary in order to try to prevent more young Muslim girls from being similarly victimized in the future.” The Daily Kos was not moved. It devoted one of its two posts on the killing of Aqsa Parvez to asking, “Why, why, WHY is it that whenever someone who is Muslim, or has a Muslim-sounding name, does something... it’s automatically blamed on Islam?” Of course, the answer to this is that Muslims who commit acts of violence so often explain those actions by reference to Islam, but that possibility isn’t part of the Left’s worldview. It is noteworthy also that the Daily Kos has not hesitated to blame Christianity for the decline of public education, for instance, or to claim on the basis of the actions of a few individuals that “Apocalyptic Premillennial Dispensationalist Christianity is the de-facto state endorsed religion in the US armed forces.” Only when it comes to Islam are such large conclusions, no matter how well supported by the evidence, never acceptable. Rather than making the hijab murder a cause celebre the way it did, for instance, with the Matthew Shepherd murder, the Left has, moreover, attacked Horowitz and Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week for raising concerns about Muslim women in the first place. “The Islamofascist Awareness people aren’t interested in what’s actually going on in the Muslim world. They just use the woman question as an easy way to target Muslims.” So said Columbia University anthropologist Lila Abu-Lughod over the phone to Pollitt, who highlighted the quote in an attack on Horowitz in The Nation. Pollitt airily dismissed the central charge of Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week organizers--that the academic Left was ignoring the plight of women in the Muslim world—with a flick of the wrist: “And how likely is it that women’s studies professors think female genital mutilation is great and honor killing is ‘just their culture’?” Abu-Lughod also told her that Columbia’s women’s studies department was offering three courses on women in the Islamic world, “none of which paints a rosy picture.” But if this is the case, why is every Islamic crime of violence against Muslim women--and the Parvez case is just the most recent in a long line—met with silence? Why hasn’t Katha Pollit been using her bully pulpit to make this murder a major story? Because she is more interested in protecting “the Muslim world” than its victims. The silence extends also to Noorjehan Barmania, who took up Pollitt’s criticism of Horowitz in The Guardian. “It was Katha Pollitt,” she declared, “who made me see it….She speculated that by focusing on the oppression of women, Horowitz had found an easy way to target the Muslim world.” Well, then, why doesn’t Barmania offer an alternative from the Left? Why doesn’t she outdo Horowitz in championing the rights of women in the Islamic world? Why doesn’t she demand justice in the Aqsa Parvez case and eloquently, more eloquently than David Horowitz, decry this barbaric murder? Because to do so would be to break ranks with the Left’s vision of an America that is inauthentic in everything except its Islamophobia. Barmania and Pollitt seem impervious to the irony: although they attack Horowitz for allegedly being a faux feminist, his FrontPage magazine is one of the few places that is actually standing up for this poor girl, and calling for an end to the conditions that led to her murder in the first place. Pollitt concluded her attack on Horowitz in The Nation by recounting Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s “rightward trajectory,” and suggesting: “Maybe we leftists and feminists need to think a bit more self-critically about how the AEI -- to say nothing of the clownish Horowitz -- managed to win over this bold and complex crusader for women’s rights.” This is a calumny against Hirsi Ali, who accomplished more in one book, Infidel, than Katha Pollit has in an entire career, and who is forced to move through her public life with five bodyguards because of the cowardly ambivalence of people like Pollit who see her merely as a prize won by the vast right wing conspiracy. If such people will not unambiguously defend Aayan Hirsi Ali, perhaps the most knowledgeable and outspoken critic of violence against Muslim women in the world, it is little wonder that they won’t defend a 16 year old girl in Canada whose life was taken by that violence.