Islam and Australian values

Conflicts

This is a list I am putting together of apparent conflicts between Islam and Australian values. It comes from this discussion:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243

Islam differs from what most Australians typically think of as religion in that it doubles as a system of government. Muslims are commanded to live by the local laws if they are living in a non-Muslim state, but the mechanism for turning a non-Muslim state into a Muslim one is ambiguous. Hostility towards Islam is considered justification for conquest. Such hostility seems inevitable if a large group of people try to undermine our values and system of government.

• Theocracy: Islam requires establishment of theocracy. Democracy is forbidden. Muslims may elect a representative to implement Islamic law, but that representative has no mandate to implement anything other than Islamic law. Candidates are limited to the most learned Islamic Scholars. Islam even forbids the 'Islamic' party of Australia and forbids people from voting for it. Islam also requires the resurrection of the Caliphate, which would mean a return to the bad old days of expansionist military empires trying to take over the world.

• Apostasy: The penalty for a Muslim who rejects Islam is death. Some Muslims think the death penalty is reserved for treasonous apostates only and that apostasy itself carries no penalty.

• Freedom of religion: Islam is tolerant of Christianity and Judaism, both in both practice and in theory. However it is not tolerant of polytheism, non-Abrahamic religions, atheism, or new Islamic 'cults' that are based on Islam but claim new prophets since Mohammed. Penalty?

• Adultery: The penalty for adultery (extramarital sex) is death by stoning. Only the married participants are stoned to death.

• Fornication: The penalty for fornication (premarital sex) is 100 lashes. The penalty may be waived if the fornicators were not given the opportunity to marry before sex (eg because they couldn't afford it).

• Homosexuality: The penalty is the same as for adultery or fornication, depending on whether you are married. This would only take place once Australia became a theocracy. Very few gays would actually be executed because 'apparently' homosexuality simply disappears under Islam. That is, it is not driven underground by the death penalty, rather men just stop having sex with each other because they are Muslims. Four witnesses are necessary to secure a conviction and punishment.

• Age of consent: If there's grass on the wicket, it's time to play cricket. The penalty for sex with a prepubescent child is death by stoning. Young girls may be married off before they reach puberty, but it is assumed the new husband will take appropriate care of them.

• Polygamy: A man may have up to four wives. A woman may have only one husband. She only needs one, as he provides whatever she needs. A Muslim man may take a Jewish or Christian wife, but not an atheist one or one from a 'non-Abrahamic' religion. A Muslim woman may only marry a Muslim man.

• Slavery: Slavery has traditionally been accepted in Islam. However the Koran was 'reinterpretted' around the end of the 19th century to outlaw it. Several African states still practice slavery and claim support for it under Islam. Not surprisingly, slavery of women was the last form to die out.

• Music: Musical instruments are generally forbidden, as they are 'pure evil'. Some Muslims consider singing to be illegal, while others will accept singing and possibly instruments provided the message of the song is acceptable, and also depending on the occasion (eg a wedding).

• Alcohol: All intoxicants are forbidden.

• Clothing: A woman must cover everything except her face and hands. Her clothes must not be too tight fitting, in case her figure can be made out. Penalty????

• Theft: Penalty is getting your hand cut off, unless your circumstances compelled you to steal (eg to provide food for your family). Cleptomaniacs would get their hand cut off.

• Discrimination: All Muslims must serve in the military. A tax will be imposed on non-Mulims, unless they also serve. There can be Islamic courts for Muslims, Christian courts for Christians, Jewish courts for Jews etc. Criminals will not 'forum shop' for the most lenient court because they will fear the wrath of God.

I am still not sure how 'hard' Islam requires it's followers to 'lobby' for these changes. There appears to be some confusion on this issue.

Can Islam Adapt?

It is important not to view Islam, or compare it with other religions, in a historical vaccuum. The rampant conservatism in the middle east is no doubt attributable to the longevity of the Ottoman empire and recent western 'progressive' influence which has been just as negative as positive. The 'closure of the gates of ijtihad' (cessation of religious enquiry) some time during or after the 10th century no doubt played a role. However this closure was more by consensus than by Koranic decree, so ultimately there is nothing ruling out a reopening. Western society took a long time to adopt separation of church and state as a core value. While Islam may appear to rule this out more directly, it also has an inbuilt mechanism for change - abrogation. Islam requires its followers to contribute productively to any new society they move to. While this may be reassuring for the short term outlook, in the long term it does nothing to rule out a return to military conquest.

On the upside, the abolition of slavery creates a valuable precedent for modern theologists to challenge what seem to be core tenets of Islam. Another factor in favour of change is that Islam has no generally accepted clerical hierarchy or bureaucratic organization. Thus, liberal movements can arise easily within Islam, as is currently happening. The same problem that allows extremists and terrorists to go relatively unchallenged also allows for progressive reform. Inevitably, Islam will undergo significant reform at some point in the future, or drag the rest of the world back into barbarism. It is crucial that the west allow this to happen, and not 'poison the well' by making the Muslim world associate western values with oppression and decadence.

European Court of Human Rights and Sharia Law

In 2001, nearly two months before the 9/11 attacks, the European Court of Human Rights determined that "the institution of Sharia law and a theocratic regime, were incompatible with the requirements of a democratic society."

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/European-Court-of-Human-Rights-RefahPartisi2001jude.html

On 16 January 1998 the Constitutional Court made an order dissolving the RP on the ground that it had become a "centre of activities against the principle of secularism". It also declared that the RP’s assets were to be transferred by operation of law to the Treasury. The Constitutional Court further held that the public declarations of the RP’s leaders, and in particular Necmettin Erbakan, Şevket Kazan and Ahmet Tekdal, had a direct bearing on the constitutionality of the RP’s activities. Consequently, it imposed a further sanction in the form of a ban on their sitting in Parliament or holding certain other forms of political office for a period of five years.

The Court considered that, when campaigning for changes in legislation or to the legal or constitutional structures of the State, political parties continued to enjoy the protection of the provisions of the Convention and of Article 11 in particular provided they complied with two conditions: (1) the means used to those ends had to be lawful and democratic from all standpoints and (2) the proposed changes had to be compatible with fundamental democratic principles. It necessarily followed that political parties whose leaders incited others to use violence and/or supported political aims that were inconsistent with one or more rules of democracy or sought the destruction of democracy and the suppression of the rights and freedoms it recognised could not rely on the Convention to protect them from sanctions imposed as a result.

The Court held that the sanctions imposed on the applicants could reasonably be considered to meet a pressing social need for the protection of democratic society, since, on the pretext of giving a different meaning to the principle of secularism, the leaders of the Refah Partisi had declared their intention to establish a plurality of legal systems based on differences in religious belief, to institute Islamic law (the Sharia), a system of law that was in marked contrast to the values embodied in the Convention. They had also left in doubt their position regarding recourse to force in order to come to power and, more particularly, to retain power.

OIC vs Freedom of Speech

In March, the 57 Muslim-state Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) prevailed upon the United Nations Human Rights Council to adopt a resolution requiring the effective evisceration of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Henceforth, the guaranteed right of free expression will not extend to any criticism of Islam, on the grounds that it amounts to an abusive act of religious discrimination.

A UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression has been charged with documenting instances in which individuals and media organizations engage in what the Islamists call “Islamophobia.”

Not to be outdone, the OIC has its own “ten-year program of action” which will monitor closely all Islamophobic incidents and defamatory statements around the world.

• Monitoring is just the first step. Jordan’s Prosecutor General has recently brought charges against Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders. According to a lawsuit, “Fitna” — Wilders’ short documentary film that ties certain Koranic passages to Islamist terrorism —

is said to have slandered and insulted the Prophet Mohammed, demeaned Islam and offended the feelings of Muslims in violation of the Jordanian penal code.

Mr. Wilders has been summoned to Amman to stand trial and, if he fails to appear voluntarily, international warrants for his arrest will be issued.

Zakaria Al-Sheikh, head of the “Messenger of Allah Unites Us Campaign” which is the plaintiff in the Jordanian suit, reportedly has “confirmed that the [prosecutor's action] is the first step towards setting in place an international law criminalizing anyone who insults Islam and the Prophet Mohammed.”

In the meantime, his campaign is trying to penalize the nations that have spawned “Islamophobes” like Wilders and the Danish cartoonists by boycotting their exports — unless the producers publicly denounce the perpetrators both in Jordan and in their home media.

• Unfortunately, it is not just some companies that are submitting to this sort of coercion — a status known in Islam as “dhimmitude.”

Western officials and governmental entities appear increasingly disposed to go along with such efforts to mutate warnings about Shariah law and its adherents from “politically incorrect” to “criminally punishable” activity.

For example, in Britain, Canada and even the United States, the authorities are declining to describe the true threat posed by Shariah Law and are using various techniques to discourage — and in some cases, prosecute — those who do.

We are witnessing the spectacle of authors’ books being burned, ministers prosecuted, documentary film-makers investigated and journalists hauled before so-called “Human Rights Councils” on charges of offending Muslims, slandering Islam or other “Islamophobic” conduct.

Jurists on both sides of the Atlantic are acceding to the insinuation of Shariah law in their courts. And Wall Street is increasingly joining other Western capital markets in succumbing to the seductive Trojan Horse of “Shariah-Compliant Finance.”

Let’s be clear: The Islamists are trying to establish a kind of Catch-22:

If you point out that they seek to impose a barbaric, repressive and seditious Shariah Law, you are insulting their faith and engaging in unwarranted, racist and bigoted fear-mongering.

On the other hand, pursuant to Shariah, you must submit to that theo-political-legal program. If you don’t, you can legitimately be killed.

It is not an irrational fear to find that prospect unappealing. And it is not racist or bigoted to decry and oppose Islamist efforts to bring it about — ask the anti-Islamist Muslims who are frequently accused of being Islamophobes!

If we go along with our enemies’ demands to criminalize Islamophobia, we will mutate Western laws, traditions, values and societies beyond recognition. Ultimately, today’s totalitarian ideologues will triumph where their predecessors were defeated.

To avoid such a fate, those who love freedom must oppose the seditious program the Islamists call Shariah —

and all efforts to impose its 1st Amendment-violating blasphemy, slander and libel laws on us in the guise of preventing Western Islamophobia.

www.rashmanly.wordpress.com/2008/07/09/7616/