Bashir plans Islamic law if Sudan splits, defends flogging woman
Sudan will adopt an Islamic constitution if the south splits away in a referendum next month, President Omar Hassan al-Bashir said on Sunday. The vote on independence for south Sudan is scheduled to start in three weeks and was promised in a 2005 peace deal that ended a civil war between the mainly Muslim north and the south, where most follow traditional beliefs and Christianity.
“If south Sudan secedes, we will change the constitution and at that time there will be no time to speak of diversity of culture and ethnicity,” the president told supporters at a rally in the eastern city of Gedaref. “Sharia (Islamic law) and Islam will be the main source for the constitution, Islam the official religion and Arabic the official language,” he said.
An official from south Sudan’s main party criticised Bashir’s stance, saying it would encourage discrimination against minorities in the north and deepen the country’s international isolation.
The 2005 peace deal ending the civil war set up an interim constitution which limited sharia to the north and recognised “the cultural and social diversity of the Sudanese people.”
Analysts expect most southerners to choose independence in the poll, due to start on January 9 and last for a week. Read the full story by Khaled Abdel Aziz here.
Bashir also defended police shown lashing a woman in footage that appeared on the video-sharing website YouTube. “If she is lashed according to sharia law there is no investigation. Why are some people ashamed? This is sharia,” he said. Floggings carried out under Islamic law are almost a daily punishment in northern Sudan for crimes including drinking alcohol and adultery.
Factbox-U.S. cites repression of religious freedom around the world
The United States on Wednesday unveiled its annual survey of religious freedom, citing countries ranging from North Korea to Eritrea as repressing religious liberties.
Following are some of the conclusions from the State Department’s International Religious Freedom Report on eight countries previously named as areas of “special concern” over their limits on religious freedom.
MYANMAR (BURMA)
The report said Myanmar’s military rulers ignored constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and systematically restricted efforts by Buddhist clergy to promote human rights and political liberties.
The government actively promoted Theravada Buddhism, especially among minority groups, and pressured students and poor youth to convert, it said.
“Christian and Islamic groups continued to struggle to obtain permission to repair places of worship or build new ones,” the report said, adding that the Muslim Rohingya minority experienced severe legal and economic discrimination, resulting in many Rohingya refugees fleeing to neighboring countries.
CHINA
A review of Christian-Muslim conflict and a modest proposal to counter it
At a Christian-Muslim conference in Geneva this week, participants agreed to build a network for “peace teams” to intervene in crises where religious differences are invoked as the cause of the dispute. The idea is that religious differences may not be the real problem in a so-called religious conflict, but rather a means to mobilise the masses in a dispute that actually stems from political or economic rivalries.
If outside experts could help disentangle religion from the other issues, the argument goes, that could help neutralise religion’s capacity to mobilise and inflame, in the hope of leading to a de-escalation of the crisis.
Is this idealistic? Maybe. However, given the number of crises throughout the world that have religion factored into the equation, it certainly seems worth the effort. Many of these conflicts are not simply battles between religious fanatics, as they may be presented, but calculated agitation by one group against another, usually for political or economic advantage. Some smokescreens are easy to see through, others almost impenetrable.
In his speech to the conference, Jordanian Prince Ghazi bin Muhammad bin Talal sketched out the problem facing religious experts who undertake such peace missions. “Before considering what to do and how to do it, we are faced with a series of complex social, political and religious puzzles which we must fully understand in order not to make things worse,” he said.
He then offered a brief tour d’horizon of Christian-Muslim tension and conflict in the world. It’s not complete and readers may disagree on specific points (that’s what the Comments section below is for!), but it’s a useful overview worth posting verbatim to highlight the problems and invite debate on them.
Ghazi said there are:
- “places where Christians are clearly severely oppressed by Muslims (such as Pakistan, Iraq and Sudan), and places where Muslims are clearly severely oppressed by Christians (such as the Philippines);
Is this just another discussion or will the Jordanian Prince Ghazi speak to rulers of Burma, Thailand and India (heads of States)
Arvind Pereira
http://www.ArvindLeoPereira.co.nr
Sudanese woman in trouser case writes book, defies travel ban
A Sudanese woman who was punished for breaching (insert: what authorities say are) Islamic decency laws by wearing trousers has defied a travel ban by coming to France to publicise her new book.
Lubna Hussein was arrested in July and convicted of indecency charges in a case that made headlines worldwide. She was ordered to pay a fine or face a month in jail, but was spared an initial penalty of 40 whip lashes.
Her book, “Forty lashes for a pair of trousers”, has come out in French and will be translated into English, Arabic, Swahili and other languages.
Thousands of women have been convicted of offences similar to Hussein’s and sentenced to beatings in recent years under Sudan’s Islamic decency regulations.
“This law and practice deform the image of Islam. No one has been able to find a text in the Koran which justifies flogging a woman for the way she is dressed,” Hussein, wearing mauve trousers and jacket, told Reuters in an interview in Paris.
Read the whole interview here.
I looked all over google for this story!! Thanks for the info..pfff! 
U.S. sees “mixed picture” on world religious freedom
The United States sees a mixed picture on world religious freedom, with progress in interfaith dialogue weighed against government repression and sectarian strife in many countries. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Monday unveiled the latest State Department report on global religious freedom, which particularly criticized Iran and North Korea among other countries for harsh limits on religious expression.
“It is our hope that the … report will encourage existing religious freedom movements around the world,” Clinton said, adding that all people should have the right to believe or not as they see fit.
The report tagged North Korea, Iran, Myanmar, China, Sudan, Eritrea, Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan among the worst offenders, placing them on a watch list put out earlier this year.
Michael Posner, the State Department’s top official for democracy and human rights, said President Barack Obama’s call this year for a new beginning between the United States and Muslims did not mean sidelining religious liberty. “Religious freedom is a fundamental right, a social good, a source of stability, and a key to international security,” Posner said in the introduction to the report.
Posner praised interfaith dialogue efforts promoted by Jordan, Spain and other countries. But religious repression and discrimination remained huge problems worldwide.
Clinton said she opposed efforts promoted by some Islamic countries to establish a global benchmark for what constitutes “defamation of a religion,” saying it could be an unacceptable intrusion on free speech rights. “The protection of speech about religion is particularly important since persons of different faith will inevitably hold divergent views on religious questions,” she said.
In a recent article by Professor Kavakci of George Washington University, it was concluded that the best place for Muslims to live is America. Indeed, other nations could learn a great deal from America’s stance on religious freedom. Muslim countries in general could learn a lot from their own faith – namely, that there is no compulsion in religion.Human rights violations sadly continue in Pakistan due to religious intolerance as highlighted in theInternational Religious Freedom Report here: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2009/ 127370.htmThe Ahmadiyya Muslim Community believes in the motto, “Love for All, Hatred for None.” Despite facing bitter persecution in countries like Pakistan, we are peaceful and law-abiding citizens.As Secretary Clinton points out, religious freedom is not just an American value – but a universal one. Hopefully, countries like Pakistan will wake up and realize this.Dania AhmedBrooklyn, NY
from Africa News blog:
A tussle over trousers in Sudan
One moment everything was quiet on the streets outside the Khartoum courtroom where Lubna Hussein was on trial this morning, charged with indecency for wearing trousers.
The next, a three-way fight had exploded between riot police armed with crackling electric batons, women's rights protesters waving banners and posters, and Islamists fuelled with righteous indignation and pious chants.
You couldn't have asked for a better illustration of the opposing forces that have come piling down on Sudan's government since the start of the case -- opposing forces that also compete for influence at the heart of the Khartoum regime.
Women's rights campaigners and other activists were the first to get involved after Sudan's public order police barged into a party in the capital in July and found Lubna and 12 other female guests wearing trousers.
The activists saw it as a test case for the hundreds of women who get picked up every year in Khartoum, and face flogging for a range of for public order offences, mostly related to dress. Punishments aside, may women also complain about the sporadic way the law is applied and the lack of a clear definition of indecent dress.
The human rights protesters had a powerful case to make to a Sudanese government that is currently keen to cosy up to the West, in the hope of getting some of Washington's crippling trade sanctions lifted. A highly publicised flogging would have been particularly bad news for Khartoum on Monday, two days ahead of an expected visit from the U.S. Sudan envoy Scott Gration.
I have nothing but admiration for Lubna Hussein. These repressive Laws have nothing to do with the Koran but everything to do with Bigots and Misogynists who have captured the religion and use Islam to subjugate their womenfolk. From Lubna to the 300 Women in Kabul, we have the stirrings of a reaction and given the landscape in these countries, these Women are extremely bold. And they need to be supported. I remain a little bamboozled as to how slow we have all been in the West to support what is an inalienable right.
The Muslim World is going nowhere in the c21st if they continue to quarantine their Women. They are not even in the game. Human Capital is King and and you need to empower Your Women wherever you maybe.
Lubna was highly effective at making the case and making Fools of the establishment and that is what is required. Its no different from Emily Pankhurst and that time.
Aly-Khan Satchu
http://www.rich.co.ke
Twitter alykhansatchu
Trouser-wearing Sudan woman to be fined or jailed, not whipped
Lubna Hussein, a Sudanese woman arrested in Khartoum for wearing trousers despite the country’s Islamic decency regulations, was found guilty of indecency on Monday and ordered to pay a fine or go to jail for a month. She was spared the possibility of 40 lashes for wearing trousers at a party in July with 12 other women. Ten of the other women arrested with her have pleaded guilty and have been whipped.
Read the whole story here.
Hussein’s case was seen as a test of Sudan’s Islamic decency regulations, which many women activists say are vague and give individual police officers undue latitute to determine what is acceptable clothing for women.
After the verdict, Hussein said: “I will not pay the money, and I will go to prison.”
Scuffles erupted at a protest before the court session even began between women supporters and Islamists, who shouted religious slogans and denounced Hussein and her supporters as prostitutes and demanded a harsh punishment for Hussein.
The photo above, by Mohamed Nureldin Abdallah, shows Hussein leaving the court wearing her trousers. Do these seem indecent to you?
UPDATE: Sudan’s conviction of Hussein for indecency violates international law and is emblematic of wider gender discrimination there, the United Nations human rights office says.
I read this story in the world news section in a local newspaper in Trinidad and Tobago. The level of ancient madness that women are subjected to in Sudan is tremendously unsettling. The 21st Century cannot accommodate this uncivilised behaviour of wanting to senselessly punish women for such trivial incidents. There was clearly nothing indecent with the Sudanese woman’s attire. The role of law enforcement in any cultured society is expected to be one of protecting and serving its citizens rather than frustrating, terrorising and harassing them. A society of men who cannot empathise with their female population and subordinate their mothers, daughters and wives is indeed barbaric and underdeveloped. This requires immediate and significant social reform.
GUESTVIEW: Out of our hair and away from our pants!
The following is a guest contribution. Reuters is not responsible for the content and the views expressed are the author’s alone. Sarah Sayeed is a Program Associate at the Interfaith Center of New York and a board member of Women In Islam, Inc.By Sarah SayeedAs an American Muslim woman who adheres to religious guidelines on modest dress, I find it ironic that such remarkably different nations as Sudan and France seem similarly preoccupied with legislating Muslim women’s dress. The Sudanese government recently arrested and whipped women, including Christian women, for wearing trousers. The French banned a woman wearing a head-to-toe Muslim bathing suit (a “burkini”) from entering a town pool. (Photo: Australian lifeguard Mecca Laalaa in her burkini, 13 Jan 2007/Tim Wimborne)
Even if we were to give credence to an argument that pants are immodest for women, there is no injunction in the Quran or any example from Prophet Muhammad which demands corporeal punishment for “inappropriate” dress. Such a harsh practice completely contradicts the justice and compassion that Islam mandates.Likewise, the French ban on burkinis is outrageous. Wearing the burkini has given me the freedom to enjoy water sports with my son; it has not limited me, but rather enhanced the quality of my life. But now, I worry that other public pools will follow suit. In recent years, France banned religious symbols in public schools, including the headscarf, and denied citizenship to a Muslim woman who wears a face veil. Will this disturbing trend spread across other democratic nations?France and Sudan are miles apart geographically, politically, and culturally. Yet both countries have imposed on the personal freedom of Muslim women to dress as they choose, and ultimately, to participate in the public sphere. Sudan’s choice to impose corporeal punishment is far more egregious, relative to banning a woman from entering a pool. For the average person, Sudan’s actions seem barbaric, but in a way, unsurprising because they conform to a prevailing stereotype about Islamic law as harsh and oppressive to women.But because French laws are enacted in a context which purports more openness, plurality and freedom, they could be more harmful to the cause of global freedom and democracy. France perceives itself as a free country that allows its citizens to practice the religion of their choice. France, like other Western European countries or the United States, would want Muslim nations to “look up to it,” to learn from its example how to separate religion and state. However, the French ban on head covers, face covers, and now on pool attire suggests that religious freedom is bounded, even within a democratic context.It is true that the ban on headscarves emerged out of a debate among French Muslims. Specifically, one group of Muslims felt that their freedom of choice and conscience were imposed upon when other Muslims insulted and physically harassed girls who were not wearing a scarf. The former turned to the government for assistance. Out of its sense of responsibility to maintain public order, the government banned all religious symbols in public schools. But preserving the freedom of conscience of one party need not come at the expense of freedom of religious practice of another. There are other methods of resolving such conflicts, including prosecuting harassment and attacks as hate crimes, imposing strict penalties on perpetrators, and even community mediation. (Photo: Palestinian girls play beach volleyball at Khan Younis in the Gaza Strip, 20 \june 2009/Ibraheem Abu Mustafa)
French authorities also voiced a concern that loose fitting swim gear that “can be worn in public may carry molecules and viruses that can be transmitted to other bathers.” Even though most Muslim women are unlikely to wear the burkini anywhere else, surely a shower before entering the water and the chlorine of a public pool can be counted upon to take care of these dangerous “molecules and viruses!” A deeper mistrust of Muslims emerges in Mayor Kelyor’s statement that to permit the burkini is to “go back in civilization.” Muslim women’s practice of modesty poses a threat to French notions of progress just as Sudanese Muslim women’s choice to wear pants was also deemed threatening.Ultimately, authorities in Sudan and France conveyed a parallel message. To democracy’s nay-sayers in the Muslim world, France communicated that those who practice Islam will be marginalized. To Islam’s nay-sayers Sudan confirmed the interpretation that Islamic law is an oppressive and restrictive. Both have infringed upon the rights of minority groups within their respective contexts.Governments and political movements worldwide, from Turkey to Afghanistan, from France to the U.K, from Sudan to Saudi Arabia, all are inappropriately focused on controlling Muslim women’s dress. It is surprising that even within nations that uphold individual freedom, democracy and the separation of religion and state, governments seem to be anxious about Muslim women’s attire. Would governments ever legislate that men who wear beards may not become citizens and those who wear fitted pants should be whipped? I say to these governments: get out of our hair, and stay away from our pants! Instead, what government must do is to protect the freedom of Muslim women to choose our dress. Protecting choice guarantees human dignity and maintains fairness. Ultimately, the preservation of democracy as well as the practice of Islam depends on it.———————The burkini (aka “burqini”), which first appeared in Australia, has also been banned in at least one Dutch swimming pool.Following is a Reuters video report on the recent “burkini ban” in France –
Sarah, thanks for your thoughtful answers. A few ideas in response:– You write that “it is important to reconcile the disconnect between what the intention is and what the recipients’ perceptions and experiences are of those rules/laws.” I agree 100% and don’t have to tell you that this is one of the things that interfaith and intercultural dialogue is there for. We have to be optimistic enough to believe that rational people can find a solution.– You ask “who gets to define the nature of freedom and boundaries” in society. Not to be flip, but society itself does. That is, the people and groups in a society roughly agree on what has to be done to promote the common good. When people and groups in the society change, the society has to be open to change along with them. But there is no formula for how to change and how much change is needed. This can only be worked out in the public sphere.– on hygiene, I don’t have any scientific info on germs vs. showers and chlorine, but I can say the French don’t fully share the American enthusiasm for technical solutions (“better living through chemistry”) when they think a simpler one like a dress code can suffice. They do use chlorine in their pools, but not as much as in the U.S., and they don’t want to dump more in because it can be harmful to swimmers and the environment. I’m no expert on the details of public pool hygiene but French friends who swim regularly in public pools tell me this makes sense to them and using more chemicals does not.
Gillian… the teddy… shouts and lashes in the courthouse
Khartoum correspondent Opheera McDoom looks back at the “teddy bear saga”
The “teddy bear saga” broke on a Monday with the news that Gillian Gibbons had been arrested by authorities. We’re used to stories of people being taken from their homes at night by armed security forces in Khartoum, so I was caught a little by surprise at the immense interest this case attracted. But as the story grew, the world’s press descended on Khartoum and the adrenalin of covering one of the world’s top stories kicked in.
The court case was an agonising and panicked rush in the morning as no one — not even Gibbons’ defence lawyers — was quite sure where the case was going to be heard. Unusually, she was in court the day after charges were pressed . The judge decided to keep going long into the night, and after the busy courthouse had emptied of its usual crowd, before reaching a verdict.
It was a chaotic scene. I bumped into many of my Sudanese journalist colleagues. I had assumed they were there to cover the case, but instead I found that many journalists from the independent press were there for another reason — they had court cases against them for libel or defamation. The editor of Sudan’s leading independent daily and his deputy — two colleagues I really respect in the profession — were being escorted through the courthouse. They were being released after nearly two weeks in jail for defaming the government. And then a dazed and confused Gibbons was led through a crowd of onlookers to the courtroom, escorted by police.
The judge decided on a closed court, usually reserved for military trials, and the police formed a locked line. Shouting loudly, they gradually pushed the crowd, including defence lawyers, journalists and British embassy officials, back away from the court room. After a screaming match, the head defence lawyer was allowed in and, a few hours later, the British consul too. But journalists were edged further and further away as the long day went on.
Gibbons could have been sentenced to 40 lashes, up to a year in prison or a fine if found guilty of insulting Islam. But on more than one occasion, I was asked in the courthouse by ordinary Sudanese “Is it over yet? What a silly case!” Clearly not all the population were flag and sword-waving fanatics calling for her death (an image most media used of up to 1,000 demonstrators the following day after Friday prayers). Considering that most Sudanese go to mosque on that day, I was surprised at how small the protest was.
The United States and Other European Countries have a history of Religious Extreamism. The Inquisition and the Salem Witch Trials are prime examples.
The States of Maine and Pennslyvania were founded by Quakers who were banned from Puritan Communities. Nevertheless, this situation makes me grateful for the gifts the Quakers gave this country. The comcept of Seperation of Church and STate. Religious Radicals are dangerous
Is “phobia” the right term for religious intolerance?
Parliament in Britain has scheduled a debate on Christianophobia for Wednesday and interest in it seems to be almost zero. It’s on the parliamentary agenda and the BBC has done a story on it. But the usual Google searches find no other articles about it and few blog entries (for example here, here, here or here).
OK, it’s not the hottest topic right now and there’s a much bigger religion story out there today — the return of “teddy row teacher” Gillian Gibbons from Sudan. But that’s not all.
Christianophobia doesn’t seem to be catching on as a useful term denoting a clear injustice to Christians. There was disagreement about it among Christians when the Vatican led a successful drive about three years ago to have it recognised as a social evil equivalent to the hatred of Jews or Muslims. The United Nations adopted the term and reports regularly on cases of Christianophobia, but these reports have little impact.
Human rights groups regularly document clear cases of persecution of Christians in countries such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, to mention only the most frequently cited offenders. Christians such as British MP Mark Pritchard, who initiatied the parliamentary debate, express concern about the way Christian traditions such as Nativity plays are being sidelined in western societies. This recalls the criticism of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI that Europe is forgetting its Christian roots .
All this is happening, but is a word ending in “-phobia” the right way to describe it? A phobia is an irrational fear. Fear can certainly be one of several motivating factors in anti-Christian views. But aren’t we really talking about prejudice, discrimination and persecution here? Aren’t those who persecute Christians or try to keep Christianity out of the public sphere doing this out of their cold calculation of their own interests?
In Pakistan, for example, cases of blasphemy against Christians — charges that they cursed the name of the Prophet Mohammad or tore pages out of a Koran — are often brought by Muslims who have quite practical reasons to want to discriminate against them. Sometimes there are disputes over water rights or use of a parcel of land, for example. Sometimes it’s something personal, like a dispute with a Christian. Accusing the Christian of blasphemy gets him thrown into jail and out of the accuser’s hair. This is not a phobia, it is a calculated act of discrimination by a member of the majority against a member of a minority.
Speaking of Islam, is Islamophobia the best term to describe prejudice, discrimination and persecution when Muslims are the targets? It’s taken hold more successfully than Christianophobia, but I’m not sure it’s the best word to use. Any suggestions?
Phobia is a political word. It makes the person who has the fear,prejudice, hatred, etc. sound like a mentally ill person and thereby makes the loathed behaivor/religion/ideology appear as though it is acceptable to all but the mentally ill. Its quite a sneaky tactic.
-
Resident FaithWorld Expert
-
wakerupper,
foolishness – there is nothing just with sharia law. It’s just if you are a man – slavery if you are a woman and discrimination (or worse) to all who believe in anything other than islam.
go build a country of ‘peace’ – ha, good luck with that crazy