Log in

View Full Version : "It's time to take a stand against Islam and Sharia"



Unicorn
13th July 2008, 16:48
Maryam Namazie, head of the Council of Ex-Muslims in Britain, says that rights are for individuals, not religions or beliefs

Juliet Rix

Picture this, says Maryam Namazie: “A child is swathed in cloth from head to toe every day. Everything but her face and hands are covered for fear that a man might find her attractive. At school she learns that she is worth less than a boy. She is not allowed to dance or swim or feel the sun on her skin or the wind in her hair. This is clearly unacceptable, yet it is accepted when it is done in the name of religion.”

Namazie is the founder of the Council of Ex-Muslims in Britain (CEMB) which started life in the middle of last year. On Monday - in celebration of the centenary of International Women's Day - she spoke at a conference on Political Islam and Women's Rights, and launched a campaign against Sharia.

Iranian Muslim by birth, Namazie, 41, is friendly and softly spoken. But she does not mince her words. It takes nerve to start an organisation for people who have rejected Islam. In Islamic law, apostasy is punishable by death. Namazie receives periodic threats, usually on her mobile phone: “One said, 'You are going to be decapitated'...I went to the police. They were very attentive at first because they thought it might be linked to the attempted bombings in Glasgow . But when they realised it wasn't, they never bothered contacting me again.” Doesn't she worry about her safety? “Yes, I do, frequently. I worry about whether I will live, especially now I am a mother. If I see someone looking at me strangely, I wonder.” Why doesn't she use a pseudonym? “They can find out who you are anyway. And the point of the Council of Ex-Muslims is to stand up and be counted.” She doesn't really like the label ex-Muslim and would prefer not to frame her identity in religious terms but, she says, it is like gays “coming out” 30 years ago: something has to become public if you are to break taboos. The CEMB has more than 100 members with inquiries from people who do not dare to join. “Some have horrendous stories but do not put them on the website because they are afraid.”

Namazie's grandfather was a mullah and her father was brought up a strict Muslim. Both of her parents (now living in America) remain Muslim. When Namazie told her father about the launch of the CEMB, she remembers that he said: “Oh no, Grandpa is going to be turning in his grave.” “So I told him that what I am doing benefits Muslims, too, because if you live in a secular society, you can be a Muslim, a Sikh, a Christian or an atheist and be treated equally.” Namazie's opposition to state religion is informed by her own experience. She was 12 when the Iranian revolution “was hijacked by the Ayatollahs” and her country became the Islamic Republic of Iran.

“I had never worn the veil and was at a mixed school. Suddenly a strange man appeared in the playground. He was bearded and had been sent to separate the sexes - but we ran circles round him.” She can still picture, too, the face of “the Hezbollah” who stopped her in the street because her head was uncovered. “I was 12 or 13. It was really scary.” Worse happened to others: “There were beatings and acid was thrown in women's faces, and there were executions on television every day,” she says. Then her school was closed “for Islamicisation”.

Namazie and her mother left for India. They lived in a B&B in Delhi and Namazie attended the British School while her father and three-year-old sister remained in Tehran. This was meant to be a temporary measure, but soon her father - a journalist - decided that they all had to leave. The family spent a year in Bournemouth before travelling to the US where, when Namazie was 17, they were granted residency.

At university, she joined the United Nations Development Programme and went to work with Ethiopian refugees in Sudan. “Six months after I arrived Sudan became an Islamic state. I was, like, this is following me around!” Along with others, Namazie started an unofficial human rights organisation, gathering information on the government. The Sudanese security service called her in for questioning. “I wasn't very respectful and the UN guy who came with me said, ‘No wonder your parents took you out of Iran'. The Sudanese guy threatened me, saying, ‘you don't know what will happen to you. You might have a motorbike accident or something'.” The UN quietly put her on a plane home.

This was a turning point, shifting her from non-practising Muslim to atheist. Two decades on, she is devoting her life to opposing religious power. She is in the midst of organising the first international conference of Ex-Muslims, to be held in London on October 10. And she is about to launch a “no Sharia” campaign.

She must have been shocked, I suggest, when the Archbishop of Canterbury said the introduction of some Sharia in Britain was unavoidable. No, she says; she wasn't even surprised. “It was quite apt, although he didn't expect the reaction he got. It was an attack on secularism really. It is, in a sense, to his benefit if there are Muslim schools and Sharia. It makes it less likely that anyone will oppose Christian schools and the privileged place of religion in society.”

She is adamant, though, that no form of Sharia should be allowed here. “It is fundamentally discriminatory and misogynist,” she says and is dismissive of the idea that people would be able to choose between Sharia and civil jurisdiction. Women could be railroaded into a Sharia court, she says. “This would hit people who need the protection of British law more than anyone else.”

She believes that we are confused about the meaning of human rights. “Rights are for individuals, not for religions or beliefs. ‘Every human is equal' does not mean that every belief is equal.” Islamists portray themselves as victims, she says, and policymakers have bought into this. Namazie says that the Muslim Council of Britain should not be seen as representative of British Muslims - but would nonetheless welcome any opportunities to debate with it. “Ex-Muslims are in a good position to challenge political Islam,” she says. “We must not let little girls or anyone else lose their human rights. We can't tolerate the intolerable for any reason - including religion.”

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article3530256.ece

Unicorn
13th July 2008, 16:48
Maryam Namazie is currently the secretary of the International Relations committee of the Worker-Communist Party of Iran and a current member of the politburo and coordinating council of the party. While she makes some valid points I wish that a communist wouldn't let herself to be interviewed by bourgeois newpaper. The anti-immigration movement uses leftist or non-white opponents of political Islam as tools to give credence to the far-right ideology.

spartan
13th July 2008, 22:15
Allowing aspects of Sharia law will just ghettoise muslims and give ammunition to the far-right.

We cant make any sort of allowances to specific religious groups as this undermines the delicate fabric of our secular society.

They have to understand that their beliefs are private and should'nt be allowed to effect others in wider society.

What gets me mad is when the trendy leftists accuse people of racism if you are against stuff like allowing Sharia law and the teaching that women are inferior to men!

Whats most funny is that if it was a Christian group asking for special treatment like this all these trendy leftists would be attacking them with all their fury.

Talk about double standards.

It's the majority of muslims who have no problem living in a secular western society who i feel sorry for the most as they are the ones who will undoubtedly have to suffer because of this minority of extremist dinosaurs.

However i dont agree that it's "time to take a stand against Islam" the people we should be making a stand against is the extremists who use Islam to push their sexist, homophobic and intolerant agendas into a society that is moving on from all of this.

Of course some leftists out there (George Galloway and his Respect group spring to mind) are more than happy to accommodate these people as the enemies of their enemies are apparently also their friends even though they stand against everything we believe in.

comrade stalin guevara
13th July 2008, 23:59
FIGHT THE ISLAMIC FACIST FREE THE ISLAMIC WORKING CLASS FROM THE CHAINS OF RELIGION:hammersickle:

Saorsa
14th July 2008, 07:55
I think the point is that we should oppose all reactionary ideologies on a political and social level, whether they be Islamic, Christian, atheist or whatever, while opposing religion in all it's forms on a philosophical level. We certainly shouldn't be endorsing conservative Islam in it's treatment of women, gays etc like Galloway and his creed do.

Module
14th July 2008, 08:43
I think the point is that we should oppose all reactionary ideologies on a political and social level, whether they be Islamic, Christian, atheist or whatever, while opposing religion in all it's forms on a philosophical level. We certainly shouldn't be endorsing conservative Islam in it's treatment of women, gays etc like Galloway and his creed do.
This.
There was a discussion similar to this in the HPG here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/islamophobia-t75177/index.html).

I would openly oppose Islam as a religion - as the article says it is a deeply reactionary religion which advocates the abuse of women, gays and as mentioned, dissidents.
However, as with all reactionary ideologies we should make sure our opposition is not directed at Muslims, specifically. It is the ideas we should be fighting against, not necessarily those who hold such ideas; I think making sure that we, as leftists, do that is imperative, given the cultural environment for such people in Western societies such as my own, as to not further alienate these individuals who are currently the target of state discrimination, their demonisation serving to justify US imperialism and tightened 'security' laws in the name of combating terrorism etc.
As a whole this group of people are those who deserve our support at the moment.
It's important not to apologise for the religious views that they hold, but it's also important as I said, not to worsen the alienation that they already experience.
(And let's not forget, it's that sort of societal alienation which is more likely to cause extremism ;))

Buster Flynn
14th July 2008, 08:52
Um.... there is a progressive Islam, ya know. Isn't it funny how hard one has to look for it, though? Wonder why that is...

Saorsa
14th July 2008, 09:07
Um.... there is a progressive Islam, ya know. Isn't it funny how hard one has to look for it, though? Wonder why that is...

I doubt you had to look all that hard for it. Being a member of the CP USA, it's not like you spend you're time looking at anything remotely resembling revolutionary Marxism.

RedAnarchist
14th July 2008, 09:10
Um.... there is a progressive Islam, ya know. Isn't it funny how hard one has to look for it, though? Wonder why that is...

So? Theres progressive elements in all religions.

Saorsa
14th July 2008, 09:31
So? Theres progressive elements in all religions.

Do you mean in the religions themselves, or amongst the believers of the religion in question? I would disagree with the former. I would agree with the latter, however - religious people have played a role in many revolutions, from Russia to Cuba to China to the Philippines today... the list goes on.

RedAnarchist
14th July 2008, 09:41
Do you mean in the religions themselves, or amongst the believers of the religion in question? I would disagree with the former. I would agree with the latter, however - religious people have played a role in many revolutions, from Russia to Cuba to China to the Philippines today... the list goes on.

Amongst the believers. The religions themselves are nowhere near progressive.

Malakangga
14th July 2008, 13:20
FIGHT THE ISLAMIC FACIST FREE THE ISLAMIC WORKING CLASS FROM THE CHAINS OF RELIGION:hammersickle:



Yes,i agree with this statement.

Hiero
14th July 2008, 13:37
Yes,i agree with this statement.
Why?

It is ignorant and paternalistic towards muslim workers.

"We" aren't going to free anyone from anything. "We" are not knights of a atheistic crusade that is going to free the poor Muslims from their religion. This attitude is on par with colonialist racism and is idealistic.

YKTMX
14th July 2008, 14:26
I'd like to take a stand against idealists, athiests and moral grandstanders.

Namazie doesn't speak for anyone. She probably doesn't even speak for herself.

RedAnarchist
14th July 2008, 14:32
I'd like to take a stand against idealists, athiests and moral grandstanders.

Namazie doesn't speak for anyone. She probably doesn't even speak for herself.

Is it so wrong that some people leave their religion, or should they be forced to be unwilling participants for the rest of their lives, simply because it was the religion of their parents/culture?

Wanted Man
14th July 2008, 14:57
I'd like to take a stand against idealists, athiests and moral grandstanders.

Namazie doesn't speak for anyone. She probably doesn't even speak for herself.

I think this is correct. Here, we also had an attempt to start a "Central Committee for ex-Muslims", led by one Eshan Jami. Jami is a 23-year-old former Labour (social-democratic, like the UK Labour) politician who comes from Iran. But in fact, his father was a liberal doctor and his mother was a Christian, so he wasn't much of a practicing muslim. It was his own choice to be happy about the 9/11 attacks initially, just like it was his own choice to later revise those views to go for a political career in the Netherlands. Yet now he claims to speak for apostate muslims. It's all a big joke. His committee never came off the ground due to lack of interest.

I think other such 'committees' have similar backgrounds. What's more, they are often led by the liberal elite of fully assimilated (ex-)muslims, and they have nothing to do with the hundreds of thousands of immigrants from muslim countries. From this background, they are, in fact, often mouthpieces for the far right. Jami, for example, is mostly influenced by Afshin Ellian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afshin_Ellian) and Ayaan Hirsi Ali (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali). And here's the kicker: he also wrote an article together with far-right leader Geert Wilders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geert_Wilders) with the usual guff: Mohammed was worse than Hitler, the Koran is a fascist book, islam (as a whole) oppresses homosexuals, women, etc. Oh, and christians never got violent when they were insulted, so all violence involving muslims is caused by the islamic ideology of violence and hatred. And all leftists are "cowards" for not "fighting islam".

I don't normally agree with YKTMX, but I think he's right in this case. That ignorant leftists from outside of Europe declare their 'solidarity' with this kind of thing is ridiculous. Declaring that "we need to take a stand against Islam" is even sillier. It's also meaningless grandstanding, as anarchist, maoist and hoxhaist cliques have no ability to "stand up against Islam", but that's not even the point.

Devrim
14th July 2008, 18:18
I'd like to take a stand against idealists, athiests and moral grandstanders.

Namazie doesn't speak for anyone. She probably doesn't even speak for herself.

Mayram Hanim, I believe, speaks for the central committee of the Worker Communist Party of Iran, of which she is a member.

Who do you speak for YKTMX?

I don't agree with the positions of the WCPI, or their orientation towards religion.

However, it is a bit shocking when so called socialists are criticising people for abandoning their religion.

Devrim

YKTMX
14th July 2008, 19:36
Is it so wrong that some people leave their religion, or should they be forced to be unwilling participants for the rest of their lives, simply because it was the religion of their parents/culture?


The answer to both those questions is no.

YKTMX
14th July 2008, 19:38
Who do you speak for YKTMX?


Me.


However, it is a bit shocking when so called socialists are criticising people for abandoning their religion.


Name ONE socialist who's done this. Miss Namazie is not just abandoning her religion, she's "taking a stand against Islam and Sharia", to the delight of racists and neo-cons everywhere, no doubt.

ÑóẊîöʼn
14th July 2008, 20:21
I'd like to take a stand against idealists, athiests and moral grandstanders.

Namazie doesn't speak for anyone. She probably doesn't even speak for herself.

Haven't you got some mullah's toes to kiss or something?


Miss Namazie is not just abandoning her religion, she's "taking a stand against Islam and Sharia", to the delight of racists and neo-cons everywhere, no doubt.Islam is not a race you stupid fucking prick.:rolleyes:

RaiseYourVoice
14th July 2008, 20:31
Haven't you got some mullah's toes to kiss or something?

Islam is not a race you stupid fucking prick.:rolleyes:
He said to the delight of racists. To the delight of parts of the European anti-islamic far right to be exact. What comes in better than a council of ex-muslims calling to attack Islam. Anti-Islamism in a christian-dominate society is nothing more than good old racism, the civilised religions like Christianity against the uncivilised like Islam. Calling for Christian preacher and European politicians to fight Islam is nothing but a score for racism and imperialism.

ÑóẊîöʼn
14th July 2008, 20:38
He said to the delight of racists. To the delight of parts of the European anti-islamic far right to be exact. What comes in better than a council of ex-muslims calling to attack Islam. Anti-Islamism in a christian-dominate society is nothing more than good old racism, the civilised religions like Christianity against the uncivilised like Islam. Calling for Christian preacher and European politicians to fight Islam is nothing but a score for racism and imperialism.

The motivations behind making such criticisms may be racist, but that does not mean the criticisms are invalid. That's the essential mistake that YKHSOW makes. He thinks that being criticised by racists gives Muslims a "get of jail free" card, protecting them from all criticism.

YKTMX
14th July 2008, 21:28
He said to the delight of racists. To the delight of parts of the European anti-islamic far right to be exact. What comes in better than a council of ex-muslims calling to attack Islam. Anti-Islamism in a christian-dominate society is nothing more than good old racism, the civilised religions like Christianity against the uncivilised like Islam. Calling for Christian preacher and European politicians to fight Islam is nothing but a score for racism and imperialism.

I wouldn't respond to this user, comrade. He's a troll.

But your response to his comment is correct. I did indeed say that the attacks on "Islam" form part of a wider discourse on the right and sections of the Left (see this thread) that either are racist in intent or in effect.

Committed racists like the user you responded to would no doubt revel in the application of the political programmes of the European far-right and that's why we're clear, on the Left, what Islamophobic attacks mean not only for Muslims, but for the wider working class movement. Preventing infiltration by racist doctrines and their surrogates (like the troll you responded to) is absolutely imperative.

Sam_b
14th July 2008, 21:39
I did indeed say that the attacks on "Islam" form part of a wider discourse on the right and sections of the Left (see this thread) that either are racist in intent or in effect.

I couldn't agree more. It saddens me that some so-called 'comrades' don't understand the political implications of Islamophoniba as not only downright racist, but a deliberate tactic by the ruling class to divide workers.

"First they came for the Muslims, and then the came for me"

Wanted Man
14th July 2008, 22:02
It's not inherently wrong to criticize Islam, the same goes for Christianity and Judaism. But of course, it's ludicrous to think that Christians and atheists need to 'liberate' muslims by drawing cartoons about their 'paedophile prophet', 'backwards religion' and 'rip off the oppressive veil' by banning women from wearing it in public places. And it's even more ridiculous to line up behind the right-wing critics of Islam, who range from neo-conservative to openly fascist.

Zurdito
14th July 2008, 22:19
It's not inherently wrong to criticize Islam, the same goes for Christianity and Judaism. But of course, it's ludicrous to think that Christians and atheists need to 'liberate' muslims by drawing cartoons about their 'paedophile prophet', 'backwards religion' and 'rip off the oppressive veil' by banning women from wearing it in public places. And it's even more ridiculous to line up behind the right-wing critics of Islam, who range from neo-conservative to openly fascist.

yes exactly. I fully support and understand the desperate need for revolutionary secular movements in the Middle East to overhaul the existing social order . But the language that "it´s time to take a stand against Islam" is very sinister sounding, and revealignly the people sayingit never sayexactly what concrete measures they propose. Who is going to take a stand against "Islam"? How? What do they mean by "Islam"...the House of Saud (an oild racket covering its back with religious ideology)? Hizbollah (a nationalist group representing an oppressed minority without even democratic rights)? The Taleban? The Egyptian and Pakistani governments (I hardly think these are motivated buy Islam)? All Muslims? Or simply the "Islamic world" in general...and how is this "stand" going to be taken? How are you going to take a united stand against a religion which spans class and nationality and which is manipulated by different interests at different times in different ways in different places? Isn´t it enough just to say you re a revolutionary marxist and stand for working class power, and all that htis entails (the breaking up of all barriers between workers and special interests etc.) without declaring some kind of war against "Islam" in particular...

This kind of laguage sounds like angry western macho posturing, just because an Iranian said it doesn´t make it ok the way lots of "leftists" jump on the phrase joyfully. Tell us exactly what problems you want to take a stand against, and exactly what you want to do about them, and then we can talk...

Wanted Man
14th July 2008, 22:35
In this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/france-denies-woman-t84030/index.html), we see a great practical example of lining up behind blatant racist practice:


Initial reaction in France has been muted ahead of the Monday's Bastille Day holiday, though activist group Ni Putes Ni Soumises (Neither Whores Nor Submissive) that champions secular and feminist causes said it was "relieved" by the ruling. "The Republic can in no manner validate this kind of tool of oppression and submission of women," a communique by the group said-referring to what it has called the "green fascism" of misogyny practiced in many of France's blighted suburban housing projects under the cover of Islamic fundamentalism or Arab cultural machismo.

I don't see what's 'secular' or 'feminist' about cheering for tighter standards on immigration for religious reasons. But within the right-wing logic of anti-Islam crusaders, it all makes sense: Islam is hostile to the free west, therefore practicing muslims (or at least Salafists) must be barred from the nation...

Hiero
15th July 2008, 06:02
Islam is not a race you stupid fucking prick.

We have gone over this.

Really any race is not a race, because race is a social construct. If it is a social construct it can be extend at the will of racist.

Buster Flynn
15th July 2008, 20:07
Is it so wrong that some people leave their religion, or should they be forced to be unwilling participants for the rest of their lives, simply because it was the religion of their parents/culture?

Perhaps the real question is whether it's so wrong for some people NOT to abandon the religion of their ancestors, even in a revolutionary (or post-revolutionary) context? And what is the difference between objecting to the persistence of religion after the revolution, and an ideological intolerance that points towards "totalitarianism"? A reputation-- deserved or not-- for which several flavors of leftist revolution have yet quite to live down, among an awful lot of people, worldwide.