Bardot convicted of inciting racial hatred

The former actress Brigitte Bardot has been found guilty of inciting racial hatred against Muslims. The court in Paris where Bardot, 73, was convicted has fined her €15,000 (Canadian $23,531; US $23,157).

The conviction stems from a statement made in a letter to Nicolas Sarkozy (then the French Interior Minister) in December 2006, in which she called Muslims "this whole population that is destroying us, destroying our country...." The reason for her anger at Muslims was that they usually do not stun animals before slaughtering them (Белорусские новости; Le Point).

Fachrizal Halim on Ahmadis in Indonesia

Continuing the series of articles by invited authors, here's an article by my friend Fachrizal Halim, a PhD student at McGill University's Institute of Islamic Studies. Fachrizal was born in Indonesia's South Kalimantan province, and, apart from Indonesia and Canada, has lived in the United States. He has a BA in philosophy and an MA in religious studies from Gadjah Mada University in Yogyakarta. He got another MA, this time in Christian-Muslim relations, from the Hartford Seminary in Hartford, Connecticut.

Is There a Place for Ahmadiyya in Indonesia?

By Fachrizal Halim

The issue of Ahmadiyya in Indonesia could escalate into a chronic social-religious problem if the Indonesian government does not come to a decisive position regarding the demand to ban the religious community. Since the Indonesian Ulama Council issued a decree that Ahmadiyya is heretical, the members of the community throughout the country suffered from various attacks. The recent recommendation from the Coordinating Board for Monitoring Mystical Belief in Society (Bakor Pakem) to ban the community does not bring about a solution but only intensifies violence in the guise of legal punishment.

Considering the increase of violence and the demand to ban the existence of the Ahmadi community, one may wonder if there is a place for Ahmadiyya in Indonesia.

As a secular democratic country, the constitution of Indonesia guarantees religious freedom, and therefore there should definitely be a place for the existence of Ahmadiyya in the country. However, the constitutional guarantee must be followed by a strong commitment on the part of the Indonesian government to protect the right of the Ahmadi community to hold their belief. An ambiguous position by the government would be not only damaging to the Indonesian label as a moderate and tolerant Muslim country, but also ruining its home-grown construction of freedom and democracy. The ambiguity can be interpreted as a hesitation to protect the right of the Ahmadi community in defining their self-identification as Muslims.

Besides the commitment of the government, the Indonesian ulama must also have the courage to consider their role in the modern state. One of the triggers of recent violence against the Ahmadi community is undoubtedly the fatwa (legal decision) of the Indonesian Ulama Council which labeled Ahmadiyya as deviant of Islam. Indeed, as men of learning and guardians of the faith, the ulama have the authority to define Islamic orthodoxy in matter of belief and practice. However the ulama could become authoritarian if their basic function to guard the interest of the entire Muslim community has mingled with the interest of a certain group. This is exactly the case in Indonesia.

The Indonesian Ulama Council, which is supposed to mediate the difference in understanding of the idea of the Prophet Muhammad as 'the Seal of the Prophets' among Muslims in Indonesia has become a punitive apparatus of the hardliner and illiberal moderate Muslims. The Ahmadis hold a position that Ghulam Ahmad is the Promised Messiah. Some of the extreme Ahmadis believe that Ghulam Ahmad is a 'prophet' without a law or a holy book. Like the majority of Muslims, however, all Ahmadi communities believe in the finality of the revelation of the Prophet Muhammad. What made the Ahmadis differ from the majority of Muslims is their idea that the promised Messiah has the correct interpretation of Islam. The Ahmadis define their movement as a reform that would bring about the true Islam. By keeping this self-definition, the Ahmadis do not consider themselves to be deviant from Islam.

The Indonesian Ulama Council could not tolerate this position and issued a fatwa that Ahmadiyya is heretical and therefore should be regarded as non-Muslim. What matters in this article is not the content of the fatwa, because obviously one may have his own theological position about the issue. The matter is the impact of the fatwa that violated the freedom of expression of the Ahmadi community. The rights of the Ahmadis to pray in their own mosques, to educate their children in their own schools and to propagate their teaching have been put into question by the imposition of the label of heresy. In this case, the Indonesian Ulama Council has become the regime of truth that does not allow any definition of Islam that differs from their definition.

If one agrees that the role of the ulama is to promote God's mercy on earth, one must also agree that the Indonesian Ulama Council should stop using their authority to punish the Ahmadis. The Council must realize that their fatwa, which expelled the Ahmadis from the mainstream of Islam, contributed to transgression upon the right of the Ahmadis to have their own interpretation of Islam. If the Council could change its role from representing one particular opinion to promoting a communal holiness that respects the diversity of opinions in Islam, Indonesia would continue to become a model of a home grown democracy among Muslim countries.

One of the good things of Indonesia being a secular democratic country is that the decree of the Indonesian Ulama Council has no legal binding in the Indonesian constitution. The demand of the hardliner and illiberal moderate Muslims to ban Ahmadiyya as represented by the Coordinating Board for Monitoring Mystical Belief in Society (Bakor Pakem) cannot have any effect without the final decision of the Indonesian government.

To guarantee the religious freedom and to protect the Ahmadi community from continued attacks, there is no doubt that the government should disregard the fatwa of the Indonesian Ulama Council which labelled the Ahmadis as heretical. Subsequently, the government should be more active in law enforcement towards anyone who disrupts freedom.

Editor's note: Notes on Religion does not necessarily agree with the views expressed by guest authors.

Deoband against eye donation

In an edict issued in April, Darul Uloom Deoband declared the donation or transplanting of eyes by Muslims undesirable. Their argument was based on the idea that humans are only temporary caretakers of their bodies, while ultimate ownership belongs to God. According to Deoband, a transplanted eye is impure. The edict added, however, that blood transfusion was permissible when it was needed to save lives (ExpressIndia).

What can I say? Using this logic, we could declare almost anything "undesirable". For example, how can we build a house of wood, when God is the ultimate owner of the forest? How can we wash anything using water, when God is its ultimate owner? The answer is simple: God gave us these things to use. According to the Qur'an, he appointed us His representative on earth. It is up to us to use our God-given conscience and intellect in order to utilise these resources in a responsible manner. And wasting an eye that could enable someone else to see is anything but responsible.

Deoband against eating beef when there's a ban in place

In an edict issued in April, Darul Uloom Deoband, an Islamic seminary in India, ruled that "Muslims must refrain from cow slaughter, beef eating or trading in cow hide" if they live in a place where a ban on cow slaughter is in effect. The Hindu-majority state of Uttar Pradesh, where Deoband is situated, banned the slaughter of cows in 2001.

According to Mufti Habibur Rahman of Deoband, "Meat eaters can opt for buffaloes, goats, chicken and fish. [The] Shariat doesn't allow for beef eating if it's prohibited under law."

Javed Anand, a Muslim community activist, commented that "Muslims should respect Hindu sentiments and avoid cow slaughter. [The] influential seminary's fatwa would go a long way in ensuring this" (Times of India).

A very sensible decision.

Wait until they find out Obama is a Christian, says "scholar"

In a piece of wacky logic and the worst example of Orientalism I've ever seen in the New York Times, Edward Luttwak, a fellow with the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS), has claimed that, if Muslims found out that Barack Obama "chose to become a Christian", they would try to kill him. According to Luttwak, the hope among many Americans that a victory by Obama in the general election would improve American relations with the Islamic world is "a mistake".

Luttwak disingenuously calls Obama "the son of the Muslim father" (sic), while Obama has written that his father had become an atheist before marrying Barack's mother. In Luttwak's words, this fact "makes no difference". But according to whom? Which Islamic scholar would say that a child born to an atheist father and an agnostic mother must practice Islam when he has grown up? Can Luttwack cite even one such scholar?

Further, Luttwak argues that "under Muslim law based on the Koran his mother's Christian background is irrelevant." This statement, I'm afraid, is a simple case of deception. There is nothing in the Qur'an about punishing apostates, so Luttwak strategically employs the words "based on". Secondly, I lived in Kuwait when a Kuwaiti Muslim converted to Christianity, changed his name to Robert Qambar, and was declared an apostate by conservative Kuwaiti Muslim groups. He fled to the US despite assurances of government protection, but eventually came back with his Christian wife and reconverted to Islam. During the discussion sparked by the case, it was said in the Kuwaiti media that the apostasy law does not apply to people born of at least one non-Muslim parent. In that case, how would they apply to someone born of one ex-Muslim and one non-Muslim parent?

More importantly, the entire premise of Luttwak's article is based on what may be charitably called a false assumption, and less charitably called a lie. He says "that most citizens of the Islamic world would be horrified by the fact of Senator Obama’s conversion to Christianity once it became widely known". As my wife, an American Muslim, said when she heard this, "it's not like Muslims live in a hole". I think most Muslims already know that Obama is a Christian. Hundreds of millions of Muslims speak English, and can follow the debates and discussions surrounding the race for the American presidency in the original language. Non-English-language media worldwide are also discussing Obama. All the fellow-Muslims I've spoken to about Obama support him and wish him well, without exception. Each one knows that he is a Christian.

Luttwak attempts to paint "most citizens of the Islamic world" as ignorant, irrational bigots. I am encouraged by the dozens of comments his article has generated on the New York Times website, almost all of which say that his argument is ridiculous. The amount of goodwill that has already been generated for Obama in the Muslim world is very considerable. Islam stands for justice, fairness, dignity, truth and peace. These are values that Obama espouses as well. It is these values that Muslims, like anyone else, want to see in a presidential candidate, especially one who is running for the leadership of the most powerful country in the world. So if Obama wins the election and then acts on these values of his, I think the United States will find millions of new Muslim friends around the world.

Deoband declares birthdays un-Islamic

Darul Uloom Deoband, possibly the most prominent Islamic seminary in South Asia, has issued an edict saying "It is unlawful to celebrate birthdays. It is a tradition of the West and has no importance in Islam. It is wrong to attend such... celebrations". A separate Deoband edict says that Muslims should not utter the phrase "Happy birthday".

In response to the edicts, Begum Naseem, a member of the executive committee of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, said that

Birthday celebrations are wasteful expenditure especially in a poor country like India. Islam lays great stress on social reform... it strives to counsel people to avoid wasteful expenditure.

Another member of the Board, Maulana Khalid Rashid Firangimahali, was in agreement with Begum Naseem. In his view, “Instead of spending money on celebrating birthdays, a man should offer food to the poor people."

Meanwhile, Yasoob Abbas, spokesman of the All India Shia Personal Law Board, remarked that “Such fatwas carry no weight... in fact Darul Uloom has made of a mockery of the fatwas" (Deccan Herald).

While being a Sunni, I tend to agree with Abbas. Islam certainly lays a great deal of emphasis on moderation in all spheres of life. However, to say that birthdays are "unlawful" simply based on the fact that they are "a tradition of the West" is slightly silly. Which "tradition of the West" is next? Jeans? Pizza? Living in Britain?

I think what the scholars of Deoband ignored in issuing these edicts is the role of 'urf (custom) in the Shari'ah. As long as a custom does not contradict Islamic principles, there is nothing un-Islamic about it, whatever part of the world it comes from.

Changing your gender in Iran

In Iran, homosexual acts are a crime punishable by death. However, there is a way out for homosexuals who want to live with members of the same sex: getting a sex change operation. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini issued an edict allowing sex change operations after coming to power in 1979. Since then, Iran's Islamist government has recognised sex change as legal upon recommendation by a doctor. The government covers upto half the cost, and the change is marked on one's birth certificate. Iran now has the second-highest annual number of sex change operations in the world.

According to Hojjatol Islam Muhammad Mehdi Kariminia, the cleric in charge of sex change in Iran, the procedure is as permissible by Islam as "changing wheat to flour to bread". However, according to Kariminia,

The discussion is fundamentally separate from a discussion regarding homosexuals. Absolutely not related. Homosexuals are doing something unnatural and against religion. It is clearly stated in our Islamic law that such behaviour is not allowed because it disrupts the social order.

Nevertheless, it is often homosexuals who resort to sex change in Iran. They often do so after facing taunts from colleagues and passers-by, and also from a wish to have an open relationship with their same-sex partner, who is no longer same-sex after the surgery.

The Iranians who undergo sex change operations often face opposition from their parents; Iranian society is not nearly as accepting of the procedure as the government is. Negar, a 27-year-old woman who was once a man named Ali Askar, says that her father tried to kill her to keep her from going through with the surgery. She subsequently left home and had to work as a prostitute to make ends meet.

On the other hand, Shahin, the mother of 21-year-old Anahita (formerly a man named Anoosh) is happy with her decision to become female. According to Shahin,

A boy will always just get married and leave his mum, but a girl stays, a girl is always yours and will never leave, and now I will never experience the sadness that occurs when a boy leaves. I always wanted a daughter and I think it's a gift from God that I finally got one.

Anahita's brother Ali Reza is not so sure, though. "I have had a brother for many years. I can't just suddenly accept him as my sister. If I refer to him as my brother he gets upset. But it's hard for me to believe this," he complains. Nevertheless, Anahita is engaged to her boyfriend, and has found that the sex change has enabled her to live in peace. "Now when someone is attracted to me, it is as a girl," she says (BBC).

UK Shari'a row exposes limits of tolerance

Last week, Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, sparked a major row in Britain when he suggested that "aspects" of the Shari'a would eventually be incorporated into British law, and said that British Muslims should not be faced with "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty". Archbishop Williams faced a barrage of criticism after his comments, both from within and without the Anglican Church.

Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, said that it would be "disastrous" to incorporate any Shari'a-based laws into the British legal system. Col Edward Armitstead, a member of the General Synod of the Church, said he didn't think Williams was "the man for the job". Alison Ruoff, another member of the Synod, said that "in terms of being a leader of the Christian community I think he's actually at the moment a disaster." Brig William Dobbie, a former member of the Synod, said that Williams's words on the Shari'a were "a tragic mistake." Ordinary Muslims a BBC correspondent talked to in Bradford also seemed opposed to the idea.

However, in many ways Williams was greatly misunderstood. According to Muhammad Abdul Bari, the Secretary-General of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB),

The archbishop is not advocating implementation of the Islamic penal system in Britain. His recommendation is confined to the civil system of Sharia law, and only in accordance with English law and agreeable to established notions of human rights.

The MCB thanked Williams for his "thoughful intervention".

The Rt Rev Stephen Lowe, the Bishop of Hulme, criticised the "knee-jerk" response to Williams's suggestions, and added,

We have probably one of the greatest and the brightest Archbishops of Canterbury we have had for many a long day. He is undoubtedly one of the finest minds of this nation. The way he has been ridiculed, lampooned and treated by some people and indeed some of the media within this process, is quite disgraceful.

The highest-ranked female priest in the Church of England, the Very Rev June Osborne, cautiously backed Williams, saying, "Our society needs to be provoked into talking about these things." Alun Michael, a former minister in the Home Office, condemned the "absurd media feeding frenzy" surrounding the issue. Cormac Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor, the Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, condemned the outburst against Williams, saying that such a response created a "fear that people with a Christian conscience will be put to the sidelines and not allowed to say what they believe to be true for the common good."

What Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor is saying may be true, since Williams has been shocked by the response into a near-silence on the issue. His website said, however, that some Shari'a-based rules were "already recognised in our society and under our law. The statement added that the Archbishop had been looking for ways in which "reasonable accommodation might be made within existing arrangements for religious conscience", and was trying to "tease out some of the broader issues around the rights of religious groups within a secular state".

The best part in all this is that, of course, as Williams says, some aspects of the Shari'a already operate in daily lilfe within British law (for example, halal slaughter and the certification of halal meat), and that Orthodox Jews have had their own religious courts in Britian for a long time.

Quite unfortunately, Williams's words were used by some quarters in British society and the media to once again jump on Muslims and decry anything Islamic. It's quite heartening, though, to see voices of calm and moderation not just among British Muslims, but among Christians as well.

Rape victim faces 200 lashes in Saudi Arabia

A Shi'ite Saudi woman who was raped 14 times by a group of seven Sunni Saudi men has been herself sentenced to six months in prison and 200 lashes. The rapists, meanwhile, were given prison sentences ranging from two to ten years.

The woman's crime, according to the appeals court that doubled the number of lashes she was originally sentenced to receive, was that she had ridden in a car with an unrelated man. The reason the court doubled her sentence and added a jail term is that, according to them, she had tried to manipulate the judicial system through the media. The appeals court also doubled the rapists' jail sentences. Originally, the perpetrators were supposed to serve between a year and five years in prison.

The appeals court has also withdrawn the licence of the victim's lawyer, which means he that he is now barred from practising his profession (BBC).

The only word that occurs to me is "disgusting". On second thought, there are many choice words you could describe the actions of the Saudi court with, including "deranged", "apalling" and "highly, exceptionally un-Islamic".

According to the Qur'an, someone who has been found guilty of adultery should be flogged a hundred times. Now, the person who is to be flogged has to be found guilty of actually having engaged in extra-marital sex, not of merely being in the same enclosed space as an unrelated member of the opposite sex. So to sentence the victim of rape to twice the punishment prescribed by God for a confirmed adulterer or adulteress simply defies belief. On the other hand, this is Saudi Arabia we're talking about.

US court orders Sudan to pay Cole victim families

A US federal court in Virginia has found Sudan guilty of involvement with the bombing of USS Cole by al-Qaeda in 2000, and has ordered the Sudanese government to pay US $8 million (Canadian $8.4 million) in compensation to the families of 17 US Marines who died in the attack.

According to Judge Robert Doumar, who presided over the trial, "It is depressing to realise that a country organised on a religious basis with religious rule of law could and would execute its power for purposes which most countries would find intolerable and loathsome."

The ruling was based on the Death on the High Seas Act. The families can collect the sum from Sudanese assets frozen in the US.

Sudan denies any ties with al-Qaeda, and the US government seems to agree (BBC).

I wonder if Doumar took the US government's position into account in making his judgement.

HIV children's families protest medics' release

The Libyan Association for the Families of HIV-Infected Children has protested against the pardon granted by Bulgarian President Georgi Parvanov to the six Bulgarian medics convicted in Libya of deliberately infecting the 438 children with HIV. The association has released a statement saying the pardon shows disrespect towards Muslims, and calling for Libya to break off relations with Bulgaria.

Each of the victims' families have received compensation of US $1 million (Canadian $1,054,000) from an international fund (BBC).

It's strange to see this accusation coming from the victims' families, given that, under Islamic law, a murderer is released following the payment of compensation. So, even if the five Bulgarian nurses and the Palestinian-Bulgarian doctor accused of infecting the children were guilty, the compensation should have settled the case under the Shari'a. Now, I know Libya is not run by Shari'a rules, but the family's self-identification as disrespected Muslims calls their protest into question.

Further, if anyone should be blamed for this sordid mess, it's obviously Muammar al-Gaddafi and the rest of the Libyan leadership, who tried to make scapegoats out of the six medics for domestic consumption, and then traded them to Bulgaria in exchange for better ties with the EU.

Iran encourages temporary marriages

The Interior Minister of Iran, Mustafa Pour-Mohammadi, who is a Shi'ite cleric, is encouraging Iranians to contract temporary marriages, which are seen as a legitimate form of marriage in Shi'ite Islam. Pour-Mohammadi has called for greater social acceptance of termporary marriages, which many Iranians (about 90% of whom are Shi'ites) see as being little better than prostitution. The minister is also urging Iranians to get married at an earlier age.

Pour-Mohammadi was challenged by a female MP, who asked the minister if he would reveal the number of temporary marriages his daughter had been in to a man seeking to become her permanent husband.

There are currently tens of thousands of children born of such unions in Iran who are stuck in a legal limbo: as products of a marriage recognised by Shi'ite fiqh (understanding of the Shari'a), they are legitimate in law, but their fathers often tend to deny ever having married their mothers, which makes them illegitimate de facto (BBC).

Paper accuses Ahmadinejad of indecent behaviour

A conservative Iranian newspaper has accused President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of indecency and a violation of the Shari'a after he kissed the hand of his former schoolteacher. At the moment the controversial gesture took place, the teacher was wearing gloves (BBC).

This just goes to show the extent to which Iran's conservative establishment is willing to go to intrude into the everyday lives of Iranians, despite the fact that this sort of behaviour exposes them -- and Iran -- to international ridicule. So the man showed respect and affection towards his childhood teacher. It is the newspaper that is being indecent.