Muslim Heretics Conference

Jonathan Oliver, Political Editor

Gordon Brown’s new minister for race relations has attacked sharia courts, insisting that the Muslim community in Britain is not “advanced” enough to have its own legal system.

Sadiq Khan, whose comments will have added impact because he is a Muslim himself, has also warned that the growing number of tribunals based on Islamic codes could entrench discrimination against women.

Khan, who became minister for community cohesion in the government reshuffle this month, said: “The burden is on those who want to open up these courts to persuade us why they should do it.”

His comments contrast with those of figures such as Lord Phillips, the lord chief justice, who said in July that Islamic law could be used to settle marital and financial disputes.

Related Links

• Sharia courts are extending their reach

• UK’s first official sharia courts

Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, has said the establishment of sharia courts in the future “seems unavoidable” in Britain.

In a wide-ranging interview on race and immigration, Khan, 38, the Labour MP for Tooting, south London, also: Warned that an economic downturn could fuel ethnic tensions. Demanded an increase in benefits for immigrants with larger families. Admitted that government anti-terror laws had caused “problems” in race relations. Called on public bodies to cut translation services to encourage immigrants to learn English.

Khan’s outspoken remarks on sharia courts are likely to cause the most controversy.

The Sunday Times last month revealed that the government had quietly sanctioned a network of sharia judges, empowering them to issue legally binding rulings on disputes including finance, divorce, inheritance and domestic violence.

Supporters of sharia courts point to the “beth din” courts long used by the Jewish community to resolve family disputes. However, Khan said sharia courts could not be compared with the beth din.

“I have seen good examples of Jewish courts,” he said. “I would be very concerned about sharia courts applying in the UK. I don’t think there is that level of sophistication that there is in Jewish law.

“Jewish law has a long history. There are not the same areas of concern that there are with sharia law. At some stage in the future I do not rule out the possibility that the Muslim diaspora in this country may be advanced enough. But now is not the right time.”

Khan said he was aware such blunt criticism of his own community would lead to controversy, but he insisted: “Mass migration [among Asian Muslims] started 30 years ago. Jewish migration started 500 years ago.

“It sends the wrong message at a time when I am trying to say to all citizens, ‘learn English, get involved in your community’.

“You should practise your faith, eat halal food, fast, have planning permission for a mosque, be buried in the Islamic way, you can have your son circumcised. What is the purpose – what is the loophole that sharia courts are closing?”

Khan said he believed the tribunals would only exacerbate the unfair treatment of Muslim women.

“There is unequal bargaining power between men and women in this country,” he said. “Women can be abused and persuaded to do things that they shouldn’t have to do.”

Until now, Khan, formerly a human rights lawyer, has perhaps been best known as the MP who was bugged by the police when he visited a constituent in prison.

He told how the incident, first reported by The Sunday Times in February, led to arguments with Muslim friends. “People said: ‘You have been lecturing us and even you are being bugged. What chance have we got?’”

Muslims rebuffed over sharia courts - Times Online

By Constance L. Rice
October 15, 2008

» Discuss Article (37 Comments)

Excuse me, but when did the words “Muslim” and “Arab” become acceptable epithets?
I’m not a Muslim, and perhaps I was slow to see this coming. Four months ago, I blithely advised a group at a local mosque not to obsess over the anti-Muslim undertones of the presidential campaign. At that point, Barack Obama was defending his Christian bona fides against “accusations” of “being a Muslim” (as if it had suddenly become a Class-D felony), but was doing so without condemning the implicit slurs against Islam, Muslims and Arabs.

In a “don’t worry, be happy” tone, I breezily noted that although the stoking of racial fear and xenophobia was a cherished tradition of American politics, I really didn’t think that this time around the candidates would permit the wholesale slander of Islam or Muslims.
Apparently, I was wrong. The undertones have become screaming overtones. And it is past time to object.
If it wasn’t clear before, it became crystal clear last week in the aftermath of Republican rallies. Fomenting fear to shore up drooping support, Republicans sadly used heated demagoguery about “palling around with terrorists,” about “Barack Hussein Obama” and about how Obama doesn’t “see America like you and I,” words that mixed subliminally to conflate “terror” with “Muslim” and to whip crowds into xenophobic anger. After his enraged supporters were recorded uttering death threats and racial slurs, McCain was forced on several occasions to try to tamp down the anger in the audience and to defend his opponent.

That was a good step one — until McCain blew it. A woman stood up in the audience and said that she just couldn’t trust Obama because, as she put it, “he’s an Arab.” McCain shook his head, took the microphone and said: “No, ma’am. He’s a decent family man, citizen, that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues.”
So, what is he saying? Arabs aren’t decent family men? They can’t be citizens?
The fact is, neither McCain nor Obama — who continues to combat absurd attacks on his Americanness — has been willing to speak out against the implicit slurs against Arabs and Islam.
Is it really too difficult for Obama to respond: “For the hundredth time, I am a Christian, and if you are suggesting that there is something wrong with Islam or being a Muslim, you are wrong”?
Would it be so hard for McCain to say: “There is no room in my campaign or in America for religious or ethnic intolerance — that’s what we’re fighting against”?
Maybe I missed the denunciations amid all the hoopla over field-dressing moose, but it looks like the next ice age will arrive before the NAACP, the National Conference of Christians and Jews or the Anti-Defamation League loudly objects to the implicit defamation of Muslims and Arabs that has seeped into this presidential campaign.
Women rightly protested gender bias during Hillary Clinton’s run, but we failed to strongly challenge the earlier bias against Mormons during Mitt Romney’s bid, and we are currently failing to refute the anti-Muslim bias embedded in the assaults on Obama.
It is a failure we need to correct now.
Constance L. Rice is a civil rights attorney in Los Angeles.

‘Muslim’ shouldn’t be a slur - Los Angeles Times

DENVER, Colorado (CNN) — On a Sunday morning just weeks before the presidential election, Priscilla Linsley opened her local Denver newspaper and discovered a DVD inside.

Clarion Fund released “Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West,” in 70 newspapers in key swing states.

“I was shocked at the content and horrified that this had been in my Sunday paper,” said Linsley, a 74-year-old Democrat, who watched about half of the video before throwing it in the trash.

“I have Muslim friends and respect Islam as a religion and felt that this was really hateful,” said Linsley.

The hourlong film on DVD, “Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West,” was made by Israeli filmmaker Raphael Shore and shows disturbing, sometimes violent images.

Rima Barakat Sinclair, who is Muslim and a Republican, was so angry she called her local lawmakers in Denver. Watch voters reaction to the DVD »

“It is riddled not only with misleading facts but outright fabrication,” said Barakat Sinclair.

In September, some 28 million of the “Obsession” DVD’s were distributed as advertising inserts in 70 newspapers, primarily in critical swing states such as Colorado, Florida and Ohio.

It was paid for by the Clarion Fund, a nonprofit group established by the film’s Israeli producer with the goal of exposing what it calls the threat of radical Islam. The Clarion Fund was created in 2006, the same year “Obsession” was released.

“Our focus is to educate with our movies and raise awareness, not influence elections,” said Gregory Ross, a Clarion spokesman.

But Larry Sabato, a political observer and director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, said it’s naïve to think such a video won’t influence undecided voters.

“It’s pretty obvious that the group sponsoring it wants people to think more about terrorism, about national security, about Middle East politics and maybe less about the economy,” said Sabato. “Well, that obviously favors one side — the Republicans.”

Because a number of Americans still believe, incorrectly, that Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama is a Muslim, political observers said they believe the DVD plays directly into that misperception.

Clarion said neither the campaign of GOP candidate Sen. John McCain or of Obama had anything to do with the DVD that has outraged some Muslim groups. Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American Islamic Relations, called the film anti-Muslim and politically motivated. Holding up promotional material that came with the video, Awad pointed out, “It says clearly that, ‘It’s our responsibility to ensure that we can all make an informed vote in November.’ ”

Don’t Miss

• Commentary: So what if Obama were Muslim?
• Election Center 2008
• CNN’s ‘American Morning’

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, a group that includes some Democratic donors, has filed complaints with the Internal Revenue Service and Federal Elections Commission, saying Clarion has violated its tax-exempt status.

“A nonprofit organization getting involved in political campaigning, promoting candidates and scaring people and influencing voters for the election in November is something that needs to be looked into seriously,” said Awad.

The Clarion Fund would not say who its donors are or how much they are giving. A records search comes up empty.

Muslim advocates from the Islamic relations council said the money is coming from the prominent Jewish educational group Aish Hatorah, which has headquarters in Israel.

“It seems that this campaign is well funded and directed by a foreign entity to influence the U.S. presidential elections,” Awad said.

Clarion’s spokesman called it “totally ludicrous.”

“We do not accept donations from foreign entities. The accusations by CAIR are totally unfounded,” said Ross. “We are responding to the FEC complaint. However, there is no substance to that whatsoever.”

Aish Hatorah denied donating money to Clarion for its DVD campaign, though a spokesman said the filmmaker and other Clarion staffers worked for Aish Hatorah. The filmmaker, Raphael Shore, is employed by Aish Hatorah. His brother, Rabbi Ephraim Shore, is listed as an executive with the organization.

Clarion will soon release its latest film, “The Third Jihad,” narrated by M. Zuhdi Jasser, who is president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy. He describes himself as a devoted, peace-loving Muslim.

“It’s always interesting how the Islamist organizations that have a certain political agenda claim ‘victim’ and yet they always want to attack the messenger, rather than dealing with the message,” said Jasser.

He said groups such as the Islamic council should “condemn not only terrorism as an action, but the goals of the Islamic state and what Islamists would do if they were a majority and name Hezbollah, Hamas, and other terrorist organizations by name.”

As for people like Barakat Sinclair who received the DVD, she said newspapers should have known better.

“If this DVD was produced and mass distributed by the KKK or an anti-Semitic organization, would it be included? Or rejected, rightfully so?” she said.

Linsley agreed and said newspapers should have made it clear the DVD was part of an ad campaign and not an editorial decision.

The FEC and IRS would not comment on the specifics of the case, but said they investigate all complaints.

Muslim DVD rattles voters in key battleground states - CNN.com