The danger of an Islamized Gaza

The slim owner of Gaza City's Gallery cafe has sharp eyes and a sharp tongue. It's easy to imagine him conversing with artists and actors — he is also a theater director — far into the night. But he crossed a line. He allowed female patrons at his cafe to smoke hookah pipes and to talk with men. He ignored demands by plainclothes police to rein in "immoral" behavior. In early May, police interrogated and accused him of having extramarital affairs. To persuade him to confess, they beat him with a 2-inch-thick, leather-covered bamboo rod for 50 minutes, and later forced him to stand on one leg for two hours.

The blockade of the Gaza Strip — brought into focus by Israel's deadly interception of blockade-busting ships May 31 — is not the only problem faced by that territory's besieged and impoverished population. As Human Rights Watch documented during a trip to Gaza in May, severe violations of personal freedom and repression of civil society groups that defend that freedom appear to be sharply on the rise. The Hamas government, trying to shore up its image as an Islamic reform movement in the face of challenges from more radical Islamist groups, is consolidating its social control by upping its efforts to "Islamize" Gaza.

A notorious example is the expanded role of Gaza's "morality police." Last summer, these black-uniformed police began to patrol the beaches to ensure that men and women are dressed "appropriately" — there is no written rule but a woman was punished for swimming in a T-shirt and jeans — and that unrelated men and women are not mingling. They make sure clothing stores display only modestly dressed female mannequins in their windows. They have enforced bans on women riding motorcycles and on male hairdressers working in women's hair salons. Couples walking down the street are routinely stopped, separated and questioned by plainclothes officers asking whether they're married. "You basically have to carry a copy of your marriage license on you at all times, or risk being humiliated," one young couple told us. And parents say their daughters are under pressure to dress more conservatively for school.

But the problem goes beyond such invasions of privacy. In some cases, the security services use "morality offenses" to expand their authority, including punishing people for breaking rules that are not on the books. The cafe owner and several other residents, for instance, told Human Rights Watch that plainclothes detectives had targeted his cafe during the month before his arrest and torture. Waiters told us that business was down sharply after two detectives repeatedly questioned customers, particularly women, grabbed their cellphones and wrote down contact information, in an apparent effort to discourage them from patronizing the cafe. A police spokesman was unable to point to any legal authority for these actions. Detectives whom Human Rights Watch spoke to refused to give us even their names, or any other information.

more...
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-vanesveld-gaza-20100627,0,5317748.story

Israel aids and abets Hamas oppression in Gaza.

Maybe Hamas learned it's tactics from...Americans.

Msongs

Or in Syria, Libya, Sudan, Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan, Yemen, etc.?

This is a feature of fundamentalist religion, not specifically Islam.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7361060

A group of Israeli women are fighting back against what one called "Taliban-like" Jewish fundamentalists who order women to sit in the back of the bus and to abstain from wearing "immodest" clothing on public bus lines. The women have filed a lawsuit in Israel's high court aimed at reforming bus lines used primarily by ultra-Orthodox Jews. Some of the women see the bus dispute as part of a larger struggle against the growing influence and radicalization of the ultra-Orthodox in Israel.

Writer Naomi Ragen says she did not want to start a revolution from her bus seat or become the Jewish Rosa Parks. She just wanted to get home. An observant, Orthodox Jew, Ragen was on the No. 40 bus line, headed to her house near Jerusalem, when an ultra-Orthodox — or Haredi — man told her to move to the back.

"I was astonished," Ragen recalled. "And I said 'I'm not bothering anyone. You don't have to look at me, sit next to me — but as long as this is a public bus, I will sit where I please, thank you very much.'"

Ragen says the harassment grew worse at every stop. Soon an even more aggressive, bearded ultra-Orthodox man got on and commanded her to move. He weighed about 300 pounds and hovered over her like a sumo wrestler, she says, his long, black frock and wide hat in her face.

And the nuts are always pushing for more.

-- in the United States that are comparable to Sharia law in the Muslim world?

Here are some examples of Sharia law: Today, Shariah is the law of the land in Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, and parts of Nigeria and Indonesia. It is the ultimate authority among the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hizbullah.

There is NO freedom of religion, equal rights, children’s rights or freedom of speech under Shariah-Islamic Law.

Criticism of Islam or leaving the faith of Islam is a crime punishable by death. Forced child marriages, the beating of disobedient wives, public hanging of gays, and persecution of those who do not believe in Islam (Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, others) are tenets of Shariah law.

Tenets of Shariah-Islamic Law
(From Reliance of The Traveler: The Classic Manual of Sacred Law, the authoritative Sha'afi school compendium of Sharia jurisprudence.)

Sharia on family law:

- Women are eligible for only half of the inheritance of men
- Virgins may be married against their will by a father or grandfather
- Women may not leave the house without a husband’s permission
- Men may beat insubordinate wives

Sharia on religion:

- Apostasy from Islam is punishable by death without trial
- Non-Muslims ruled by Islam must follow sharia, including discriminatory “dhimmi” taxes and laws.
- Non-Muslims may not receive Muslim charity (“zakat”) but may be bribed to convert to Islam

Sharia on human rights:

- Homosexuals and lesbians must be killed
- Adultery is punished with death by stoning
- Women's testimony in court is worth half that of men (and is permitted only in property cases)
- Non-Muslims may not testify in sharia courts.

You know, Fume, I could certainly imagine some racist, brain-dead Republican (like my older brother!) trying to defend this nonsense, but how any person calling themselves a liberal could do so is beyond me. And yes, Fume, taking the view that the oppression of gays and women in the Muslim world is in any way comparable to how they're being treated in the West is to be guilty of outright intellectual dishonesty. Indeed, doing so amounts to a de facto defense of tyrany.

I wouldn't expect our tea bagging Republican brethren to care a whit about the suffering of gays and women in the Middle East or anywhere else (after all, since when do Republicans care about human rights?), but my fellow liberals should.

Restrictions on abortion that end up being an effective ban for the poor are based almost entirely on religion.

Yes, Sharia is worse, that does not mean our system is free of religious based laws.

The government not funding abortions...THAT'S your big example of how the U.S. is a Christian-based theocracy?

Is there a punchline here? Women living in Sharia-run countries can be MURDERED for having abortions. They can be murdered for being RAPED. And while I'm glad to see you acknowledging that Sharia is in fact worse than our own system of government, "worse" doesn't begin to express its savagery, and committed feminists and gay rights activists alike need to start condemning it every chance we get. We have to begin treating the nations that practice Sharia the same way we treated South Africa back in the late 1980s.

After all, if apartheid was inhumane -- and it was -- and worth demonstrating against and boycotting -- and it was -- then why not Sharia?

Indeed, the larger question that must be asked is... based purely on our actions, why are liberals so much less concerned with Sharia than we were with apartheid?

And welcome to DU!

:)

There are states that basically force a rape victim to bear the child of their rapist, perhaps not directly but certainly indirectly, and the weaker and poorer the victim the more likely they are to be forced de facto into bearing a child they do not want.

I'm all in favor of boycotting Sharia, what on Earth made you think I was in favor of Sharia?

ETA: You *are* aware, I hope, that the USA has the highest incarceration rate in the world, bar none?

We did not get to that exalted status by having sane, moderate and equitable laws.

Do you really wish to argue that the unique position of US justice is not at all due to the religious character of our citizenry and lawmakers?

The causes most worthy of demonstrations and boycotts are *not* the worst abuses, they're the abuses where demonstrating and boycotting is most likely to bring about improvement. The difference isn't in the severity of the malady, it's the susceptibility to treatment.

I fully agree with you that sharia law is as bad or worse - in many ways far, far worse - than apartheid was. But the difference is that a campaign of pressure from the West was able to bring down apartheid, whereas I think demonstrations and boycotts in the West won't have any effect whatsoever on most sharia countries, and state pressure would probably actually make things worse.

If anything, I think that the reverse of the South african approach is what is needed - engagement rather than isolation. The basic message of opposition to apartheid was "we hate what you are doing; if you want to be in our club you have to stop"; the approach to undermine sharia is "we know you don't want to be in our club, but look how much better your lives could be if you stop what you are doing".

http://www.stopshariahnow.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=328&Itemid=149

it seems to be

the site promotes the writings of Robert Spence amongst others and is not entirely accurate it intermixes the truth with out right lies or distortions such as here

Sharia and non-Muslims
Main article: Dhimmi

Based on Quranic verses, classic Sharia distinguishes between Muslims, pagans, and the followers of other monotheistic religions, often referred to as "people of The Book." Jews, Christians and Hindus have traditionally been considered "people of The Book," and have been afforded a special status in Islam derived from a contract - "dhimma" or "residence in return for taxes". There are parallels for this in Roman and Jewish law. <30>

According to law professor H. Patrick Glenn of McGill University, "Today it is said that the dhimmi are 'excluded from the specifically Muslim privileges, but on the other hand they are excluded from the specifically Muslim duties' while (and here there are clear parallels with western public and private law treatment of aliens - Fremdenrecht, la condition de estrangers), or the rest, the Muslim and the dhimmi are equal in practically the whole of the law of property and of contracts and obligations."

Pagans are not afforded the rights and protections of the dhimmi. According to classic Sharia, no person can be compelled to convert to Islam - regardless of their religion or lack of religion.

Sharia attributes different legal rights to different groups. In practice, this consists of less rights for non-Muslims.<191> Sharia distinguishes between men and women, as well as between Muslims and "people of the Book" - Jews and Christians (some scholars have included the religions of Zoroastrianism and Hinduism).

One hundred years from its beginnings, the Islamic Arabian empire had expanded to include the lands of the Sassanians and the eastern half of Byzantine Rome. Sharia law was still in its infancy, and tribal law was more influential. The Arab conquerers included Christian as well as Muslim tribes. The Christian Arabs were regarded as fellow Arabs rather than dhimmis. The Arabs generally established garrisons outside towns in the conquered territories, and had little interaction with the local dhimmi populations for purposes other than the collection of taxes. The conquered Christian, Jewish, Mazdean and Buddhist communities were otherwise left to lead their lives as before. <192>

Under Arab rule, the privileged classes and city dwellers of the subject peoples lost exemptions from taxation they had accumulated under their former rulers. Some conversions to Islam occurred among more prominent dhimmi families in order to regain status and privilege. Over time, the Caliphate consolidated its power, and the Arab conquerors intermingled with local populations. <193> Muslims and Jews were sometimes partners in trade, with the Muslim taking days off on Fridays and the Jew taking off on the sabbath.<194> Gradually, as the empire continued to expand, Arabic became the language of trade and governance in the conquered lands. Conversion to Islam was encouraged, and many did convert for religious and economic reasons. The population of the empire became more Muslim, especially in the cities; some areas became majority Muslim. <195>

This page was last modified on 1 July 2010 at 12:37.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia


btw welcome to DU

-- but the essay that you posted sounds interesting.

And thank you for the welcome, btw. DU, so far, is a wonderful place to be!

And finally, for my own edification, could you provide a few clear, specific examples of "distortions and outright lies" about Dhimmitude?

yet claim not to know vs the ones in my post you can read right?

Didn't quite follow.

Try reading the two articles if you have adequate comprehension, your snippet claims that religions other than Islam are not allowed to practice under sharia law which is quite untrue

Address you in what manner exactly...? You are probably conflating MY post with that of another DU member (and I've done the same thing myself on two or three other boards, and a lot more than once -- in fact, I did it less than 15 mins. ago, LOL!!!)

But on to the matter of Sharia and religion: The following is excerpted from this website here -- http://www.fact-index.com/d/dh/dhimmi.html...

-----------------
The attitude towards dhimmis varies from Muslim to Muslim. Muslims living in comparatively secular nations typically present the dhimmi as bei equal to Muslims. For example, one book published in Pakistan claims:

"Islam does not permit discrimination in the treatment of other human beings on the basis of religion or any other criteria... it emphasizes neighborliness and respect for the ties of relationship with non-Muslims ...within this human family, Jews and Christians, who share many beliefs and values with Muslims, constitute what Islam terms Ahl al-Kitab, that is, People of the Scripture, and hence Muslim have a special relationship to them as fellow 'Scriptuaries'". (Suzanne Haneef, What everyone should know about Islam and Muslims, Kazi Publications, Lahore, 1979, p. 173.

In contrast, Muslims living in Islamic nations, particular those that practice Sharia, usually present the dhimmi as being a second to Muslims. For example, one book published in Saudi Arabia argues:

"In a country ruled by Muslim authorities, a non-Muslim is guaranteed his freedom of faith.... Muslims are forbidden from obliging a non-Muslim to embrace Islam, but he should pay the tribute to Muslims readily and submissively, surrender to Islamic laws, and should not practice his polytheistic rituals openly." (Abdul Rahman Ben Hammad Al-Omar, The Religion of Truth, Riyadh, General Presidency of Islamic Researches, 1991, p. 86.)
-------------------

I find it confusing when any self-professed Liberal decides to rally to the defense of the most draconian system of laws on this planet, namely Sharia. Indeed, nothing in the West comes CLOSE to Sharia in the magnitude of its evil toward women and toward gays.

This system institutionalizes gender apartheid and stoning of gays while banning freedom of speech and religion, and how any true Liberal (which I assume you profess yourself to be) could turn a blind eye in the name of multiculturalism and relativism to laws mandating the stoning of women who bear children out-of-wedlock (even in cases of rape) or to similar laws that give women half the legal credibility of men (such as in Pakistan) is beyond me.

This misplaced "tolerance" is frankly condescending to Muslims as it assumes they are incapable of knowing right from wrong, and I might expect this sort of thinking from the Republitards (who might have trouble understanding that stoning women and gays for their sexual behavior is, empirically, evil) but not from Liberals.

a true liberal should ignore-enforced malnutrition, crop burning, bombing, denial of travel for medical care, regular arrests and detentions, almost daily raids on homes, house demolitions, land being "sequestered", water rights refused, because sharia law is being practiced by some of people who are victims of what I have just described? And if one does not ignore these things one obviously supports sharia law?
I see how interesting also interesting is your admission that your on other boards spreading this too.

since you are a "newbie" here I'll give a couple of suggestions
you'll have to do better than the simple Hasbara 101.2 tailored for a liberal audience and read down thread where I address the OP's subject on sharia law
ansd being addressed as Az irritates me greatly no matter who does it friend or other and both have

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and if memory serves you condemned a Holocaust survivor for protesting Egypts blockade didn't you?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=296705

and really what does the tragedy of the Sri Lankan civil war have to do with I/P situation except t provide a simplistic distraction

The post about Sri Lanka also contained info. about the UN denying refugees in Gaza the right to leave their camps for homes of their own.

the conversion ended here

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=291246&mesg_id=291666

please repost the part about UNRWA holding Palestinians prisoner as you claim

If the "enforced malnutrition, crop burning, bombing, denial of travel for medical care, regular arrests and detentions, almost daily raids on homes, house demolitions, land being 'sequestered' and water rights refused" all ended tomorrow and Sharia blew into Gaza like a bad wind and became the Law of the Land (as it exists right now in Saudi Arabia, Iran and elsewhere) would you vocally condemn it?

And if the answer to my queston is "yes" (as it should be) then am I to assume that you vocally, strenuously condemn Sharia for the evil that it is in the rest of the world?

P.S. Sorry about the "Az" thing, pal. It was purely unintentional, and now I know.

look, I know there are still some so-called blue laws on the books but where are they enforced?

it's a civil rights issue.

it still fits as a law based on religious nuttery oh and in my state liquor stores have to close on Sunday and only 3.2 beer can be sold in other stores but not until noon

one must note also how you self-servingly brought the question down to just blue laws which really does not apply here to attempt to make your point

In the US, homosexuals aren't allowed to marry in most states; in Iran they're executed. In the US the government won't pay for a rape victim to have an abortion; in many sharia states rape victims are regularly flogged or even executed.

males filed suit against female cyclists who rode through their neighborhood wearing Spandex cycling gear? As I recall, the situation got pretty nasty for a while until the suit was thrown out of court.

the closure and subsequent isolation of Gaza has only served to allow such thing to grow and fester unchecked

but watching my children hungry, digging through filth for years would probably turn me towards something others not in the same situation would not understand.

Besides, wasn't the election of hamas before the siege of Gaza?

I could suggest that Israel pulling out of gaza and giving them autonomy there is probably what precipitated their support of hamas, but that would be equally incorrect.

they (not you, or anyone else not in their situation) see as a glimmer of hope? It just seems logical to me. Force people into unbearable situations and they will do all sorts of things you may not agree with. It's life.

what was the unbearable situation that caused Gazans to elect Hamas?

Removing the settlers?