Skip to content or view mobile version

Home | Mobile | Editorial | Mission | Privacy | About | Contact | Help | Security | Support

A network of individuals, independent and alternative media activists and organisations, offering grassroots, non-corporate, non-commercial coverage of important social and political issues.

One Law For All Demonstration against Sharia in Britain

Supporter of the Campaign | 24.06.2010 12:38

It was a No to Racism, No to Sexism Demo against Sharia Law. It was attended by many left wing supporters, as well as muslims opposed to Islamism. For more info see www.onelawforall.org.uk

Several hundred people joined One Law for All on 20 June at Downing Street to show their opposition to Sharia and religious-based laws in Britain and elsewhere and to demand universal rights and secularism.

A new report “Sharia Law in Britain: A Threat to One Law for All and Equal Rights” ( http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/new-report-sharia-law-in-britain-a-threat-to-one-law-for-all-and-equal-rights/) was published on the day to coincide with the rally. Human rights activist Gita Sahgal said of the report: “I think it is highly significant that in Britain there has been silence where there should have been condemnation. There is active support for ‘Sharia laws’ precisely because it is limited to denying women rights in the family. No hands are being cut off, so there can’t be a problem. Unfortunately for us, senior law officers will find that human rights expert bodies often have a similar attitude. They have done little research on the impact of family laws and the denial of justice caused by parallel systems of justice. That is why the findings of this report are so important. It is such dedicated work that changes the thinking of the experts.”

She went on to say: “This campaign stands at the heart of a debate over the future of Britain. It also stands at the heart of global attempts to destroy the most basic rights, to invade liberty and to crush equality and to do this in the name of upholding and promoting human rights. We stand here today facing down forces of racism and fundamentalism as we struggle for secularism.”

The pro-Sharia Al-Muhajiroun organised a counter-demonstration to the One Law for All rally. One of their members said: “We find many of these people who call for human rights and one law. They come and they say that they want equality. But what equality do you get when one man legislates over another?” In response, One Law for All Spokesperson, Maryam Namazie, said: “The fight against Sharia law is a fight against Islamism not Muslims, immigrants and people living under Sharia here or elsewhere. So it is very apt for the Islamists to hold a counter-demonstration against our rally. This is where the real battleground lies. With a few members of the far Right English Defence League also there to showcase their bigotry, it became abundantly clear to everyone why our Campaign is fast becoming the banner carrier for universal rights, equality, and one secular law for all in this country and beyond.”

MC Fariborz Pooya of the Iranian Secular Society said: “The One Law for All Campaign has brought to centre stage an important debate about the kind of society we want to live in whilst defending the rights of everyone irrespective of religion, race, nationality…; this Campaign is truly the voice of the voiceless.”

Women’s rights campaigner Yasmin Rehman said: “We Muslims have been a part of the UK for many, many years but the generations before me did not feel the need for or call for segregation in the way that is being demanded now. At the beginning of my career as a women’s rights advocate there was no need to apply for a certificate of Khula in divorce cases. Muslim women are now being told that divorces under the English legal system are not valued or recognised without a certificate of Khula – and should they remarry without this they will be committing Zina – a ‘crime’ punishable by death in many Muslim countries. This is not a view shared by all Islamic scholars but a view that is being pushed through the Islamic councils and tribunals across the UK.”

Anna Waters of One Law for All’s Legal Team said: “Any reasonable interpretation of the Human Rights Act shows us that there are certain things that it doesn't allow - and one of the things it doesn't allow is for a woman to have an inferior or second class status when she stands before a judge in a court of law. This is exactly what is happening…”

Sue Robson of the Gay And Lesbian Humanist Association said: “This is a human rights issue. Here in the UK, it’s an egalitarian issue; it’s a feminist issue. Elsewhere in our world, the issue is life - and death.”

Gerard Phillips of the National Secular Society said that Sharia Law was “nothing less than an attack on human rights and on equality.” He went on to say: “It undermines our democracy. It must be opposed.”

The rally also heard from others including Naomi Phillips of the British Humanist Association, poets from the Anti-Injustice Movement and singer Adam Barnett.

Protestors then joined a march organised by Iran Solidarity to the embassy of the Islamic regime of Iran. Patty Debonitas of Iran Solidarity UK said: “By coming today you are showing your solidarity with the people here who are victimised under Sharia law and people in Iran who are being victimised under the state power of Sharia.” The rally was held on 20 June to mark the killing of Neda Agha-Soltan at a protest in Tehran last year and link the fight against Sharia here with that in Iran and elsewhere.

Supporter of the Campaign

Comments

Hide the following 57 comments

Rascists

24.06.2010 14:23

They're no better than the English Defence League. The UAF and others on the left should turn up to protest these fascists too before they grow in number.

All they're doing is targetting Muslims for discrimination just like the EDL do. I see they've got a token ethnic speaker, this time in an Iranian just like the EDL fascists parade their one sikh member about.

Londoner


obviously

24.06.2010 15:16


we dont want one law

that would mean totalitarian imperialist hegemony

whether islamic or liberal one law is theological montheistic bollox

we want free association (and disassociation) so that domination by one groups law over another is never enforced by the state.

fuck your hateful manipulative ambitions to demonise moslems, it is obvious you only seek war

we want freedom

there is no peace without it

*


good

24.06.2010 16:33

what I like about this news item is the obvious trolling from an EDL supporter as the first comment, and then someone actually backing him up underneath.

Nice try mate, it really doesn't take much to fool some of the thickos on here does it?!

Just to 'clarify' One Law For All is a grouping that campaigns against Sharia Law from within, and outside, the Muslim community - a very worthy grouping as well imo. Something alot of people currently shouting 'nartzis' at the EDL could do to emulate.

D'you know what Mr EDL, UAF are so massively messed up that I wouldn't be surprised if they did turn up to 'smash' them as well. Hopefully the end of the UAF for good - that would make alot of us 'lefties' very happy as welll.


PS do the moderators on this site know how many post on here are completely fabricated by the EDL and god knows who else. I know there isn't much you can do about it, but I think the days of an 'open' newswire are over myself. Too much at stake. There have also been some really nasty personal smears on here in the last week or so that could be really damaging to certain individuals. Alot of nasty bastards with ulterior motives, and shit stirrers out there at the moment.

god


men and women also are distinct groups

24.06.2010 16:42

I would not be happy with a situation where my femail neighbour is suffering legal sanctions and diminished rights after they were so hard won in this country. I have known a number of women who came here to escape these religeous laws

sister


re troll comments?

24.06.2010 16:56

they're not racists you moron. are you a state troll,just thick i.e the activist equivalent of a daily mail, or another left wing poverty pimp? Many friends with Asian or Arabic backgrounds never had to think of themselves as muslim in the same way many of us brought up as christsians reject christianity too and are not christians. Islam is just as invasive as Christianity. None of these countries were originally either. These major religions are still about building armies whether with the call to onward christain soldiers or the fascistic violence of Mohammed in Medina. Token ethnics? Speak to Galloway or Livingstone about that one. BTW. Religion is not a race though it has been used by major religions that you may have heard of in the name of ( fascist ) racial purity. oh and Stop using the race card you bigot.

'obviously' is deliberately misreading the post and spouts keywords in an almost random fashion. This suggests 'he' is actually some kind of some kind of automated bullshit writing machine.( totalitarian imperialist hegemony - cringworthy in its meaningless like the rest of the post )

oestre


I am against anything inhumane ... in this case, Sharia

24.06.2010 17:22

Sharia Law bases all of its rulings on the Koran and Hadiths (revered muslim Holy Books). It goes against literally every article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I do not believe that I am a racist if I state that I am against the Sharia. As a free human being, I am allowed to be against such inhumane laws and campaign against them if I choose and I urge any anarchists or left wingers to read up on Koranic/Hadith writings before deciding to side with Islamists on this. Thanks.

Supporter of the Campaign


fair play to you

24.06.2010 18:22

"one law for all" is a bit dodgy on left wing grounds (the rich make the laws via the state they run) but it is good to see mainstream and mixed opposition to sharia and islamism (NOT ISLAM, ISLAMISM) taking the ground away from the dodgepots in the EDL and the the far right proper (BNP/NF etc).

I may even attend your next demo, publicise it on indymedia please and do consider the left/anarchists as potential supporters when organising.

measured support from me :)


Good, fuck religion

24.06.2010 22:48

Good to see this happening. Fuck all religions, whether it is the Islam of the bigoted Muslim right or the Bible-bashing, crusading Christianity and Zionism of the EDL.

@theist


pure xenophobia

24.06.2010 23:42

This is pure xenophobia, stoked by racists to con the ignorant.

Facts on Sharia in UK

No one is forced to follow sharia, its an individuals chopice - every UK Muslim has the option to choose to either go for sharia court or state court for personal issues. Both sides in a dispute must agree to be judged by sharia court otherwise it cant happen. indications are that even non-Muslims in dispute with Muslims are choosing sharia courts in the UK because they are quicker, cheaper, and thought fairer than the drawn out process involved in state courts.

Jewish courts have been in daily use in the UK for centuries and no one bats an eyelid, when its Muslims its suddenly a problem - pure islamophobia.

"Protesters then joined a march organised by Iran Solidarity to the embassy of the Islamic regime of Iran" - what the hell has Iran got to do with sharia courts in the uk? Nothing. This reveals the real agenda of the organisers - giving the Iranian boggy man a UK dimension to help drum up support for an attack on Iran. Why dont the protesters march to the Israeli embassy after all Israel has jewish courts like Iran has sharia courts..

observer


Dear Observer

25.06.2010 04:50

I am no expert on Sharia or Jewish law maybe some of the Muslims can clarify what Sharia law would entail. I certainly want to abolish loads of laws not get loads more on the statute book! I am sure if a couple of people want to sort something out between themselves using a religious bloke that could be said to be their call. But a system in which a man's testimony is regarded as better than a woman's? The stoning of "adulterers", The complete isolation of a community away from the rest of society? An abused woman may feel obliged to only go to one of these courts rather than seek help from UK courts, she will be judged as less than a man. Women and men died, often horribly for the few rights we have now. Absolutely no way should anything be done to diminish the liberty of anyone who is not harming another. Do women sit in Sharia courts? If not why not?
I am not prepared to live in a society whereby a young Muslim man is persecuted by his community in some paralell legal system. He has as much right to live his life as anyone else and if his family don't agree well tough he should be protected.

Lynn Sawyer


Some reasons why I am against Sharia...

25.06.2010 11:20

Sharia Law is based on Koranic and muslim Hadith teachings. It states that a woman's word is worth half that of a man. A man has automatic rights to his children from 7 years upwards in case of divorce, which obviously puts pressure on women to stay in the marriage, even if they are unhappy. Even if the man is abusive, under Sharia he gets the children as he is the head of the household. From what I understand, in Islamic countries, if the Sharia judge decides that a woman has no grounds for divorce, she has to stay married to her husband, whether she likes it or not. A man can divorce without going to court - islamic courts deal only with women seeking divorce, and the emphasize the need to keep families together in many instances, usually on religious grounds. Because the Koran states that men are allowed to beat their wives in a marriage, domestic abuse in itself is unfortunately often not a strong enough ground for divorce. Rape is also not recognised in the Koran or Hadiths. In the case of rape outside the marriage, it is classed as "adultery" under Sharia, often punishable by lashings and/or death (in many instances by stoning) depending on which Islamic country you are in. Rape within the marriage is simply not classed as rape, so as far as I know, not a ground for divorce in many muslim countries. Under Sharia law, women also inherit only half of what a man inherits, because the Koran states this. In my opinion, these laws are discrimatory and inhumane so we should not be allowing muslim women to be forced into such situations in this country. Actually, the One Law For All campaign is actually campaigning against all faith-based laws, not only Sharia, so not strictly anti-muslim as someone stated above.

Supporter of the Campaign


For more info on Sharia Law in Britain...see report from CIVITAS

25.06.2010 12:45

I am not a Sharia expert.
To get a better idea of what is at stake regarding Sharia in Britain see the CIVITAS report entitled: 'Sharia Law or "One Law For All"'
CIVITAS are an Institute for the study of Civil Society.

www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/ShariaLawOrOneLawForAll.pdf

PS. One Law For All joined the Demonstration outside the Iranian Embassy because it is against Sharia and Islamism in all countries, not just against it in the UK. A parallel legal system is being set up in the UK which is just the thin edge of the wedge of what exists in Iran for example.

Supporter of the Campaign


total misunderstanding what a sharia court in the UK is

25.06.2010 13:24

So much ignorance about what sharia courts are, a few points

1. Sharia courts operate under Britiah law

"In 1996, Parliament passed the Arbitration Act setting out rules under which parties in a dispute have the right to go to an impartial tribunal to get justice without expensive litigation. Muslims lawyers interpreted this as meaning that sharia courts could act as arbitration panels under the Act, they began in 2007, and their decisions are legally binding."

Its not about adding extra laws to the statute books but about respecting two people right to sort out a problem in a manner of their own choosing.

2. Similar Jewish Beth Din courts have been running for centuries without any xenophobic backlash, and its only since 1996 that they 'became legal' under the same Arbitration Act.

"Jewish Beth Din courts have operated in this country for centuries, used mainly by Orthodox Jews, and are recognised under the 1996 Act. Both parties in a case have to be Jews, and have to agree to have their cases heard by the Beth Din court. "

3. Sharia courts in the UK actually help women because without them their fate is left to laymen interpreting Islamic law. Please read the following article which explains this :

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7238890.stm


The view from inside a Sharia court
Dan Bell
BBC News


For many people Sharia courts are seen as brutal institutions where zealots in hardline Muslim states pass down draconian punishments.

But there are already Sharia courts operating throughout Britain in ways that have very little to do with the stereotype.

One of them is the Islamic Sharia Council, which is run from a threadbare converted corner shop on a backstreet in Leyton, east London.

Its backroom is piled from floor to ceiling with brown cardboard boxes and shelves packed with richly-decorated tomes of Islamic law.

The room, which looks like a hard-up solicitor's office, serves as the council's courtroom and mediation centre.

An unshaven young man reaches across the desk and holds the hand of his cleric as he pleads for a second chance with his wife. The young man's eyes are red and swollen from crying.

Forced to divorce

The cleric, Sheikh Maulana Abu Sayeed, quietly tells him he has no power to force his wife to reconsider.

"He has come to us to ask for help, but if the woman is adamant and she doesn't want to reunite, what can we do?" says Mushtaq Bux, until recently general manager at the council.

It is a scene as dramatic as it is indicative of how far this Sharia court is from the common stereotype.

Since opening in 1982, the Islamic Sharia Council has given advice on everything from inheritance settlements to whether or not Muslim women are allowed to wear wigs.

But the vast majority of their cases are to do with divorce, and in particular with releasing women from bad or forced Islamic marriages.

The divorce applications stem from the misuse of Islamic laws on marriage and divorce by husbands.

Under some interpretations of Sharia law, men can have up to four wives and are given the primary right of divorce, or talaq.

This means he can leave one wife and remarry, but refuse to give the first wife a divorce, and yet still feel he is living in accordance with his faith.

In the eyes of the community his wife is still married, and because women are only allowed one husband at a time, she is left unable to remarry and move on with her life.

These women in so-called "limping marriages" come to the Islamic Sharia Council who write to her husband and try to convince him to give her a divorce. If he refuses, after about three months they annul the marriage.

Sheikh Sayeed, president of the council, is adamant these interpretations have nothing to do with the true message of Islam.

He says they are a "tribal or traditional interpretation of Islam. Not incorrect interpretation of sharia - no interpretation of sharia.

"In every situation our motto is: reconciliation first. So we try to reconcile, but in cases where a marriage was enforced on a girl against her wishes, against her own opinion, we don't want to negotiate.

"What we do is, we try to make their guardians, their parents, understand the Islamic position, and also we tell them what is the position of British law on marriage."

Najma Ebrahim, a former coordinator with the Muslim Women's Helpline, which received 2,000 calls a year, 70%-80% of which are from women with marital problems, says the council is providing a vital service.

'Outcast in society'

She says: "It's very important for [the wife's] self, for her healing. Her faith - her fate - is important to her, so when she goes to the council and gets that decision, at least for her she knows she is not doing something wrong."

Suhaib Hasan, the secretary of the council, says: "If she remarries without taking the divorce, she would be an outcast in society.

"This is why she has to have an authority where she can get the solution of her problems."

No-one knows how many Sharia courts there are in the country, and not all will follow such liberal interpretations of Sharia.

There is no regulation of the councils and no formal qualifications are needed to preside over a Sharia court. Some imams are highly educated scholars like Sheikh Sayeed, others less so.

For Sheikh Sayeed, his work at the Islamic Sharia Council provides for a deep need in the community.

In the back room of the council, he explains with pride what it means to him.

He says: "I feel I could at last do some real good thing in the practical life of people.

"I am not doing it for any financial gain in this world; I am doing it for immense reward from the Lord Almighty in the hereafter, so it fills my heart with all these riches".



3. People have had enough of expensive litigation and are turning to alternatives - even non-Muslims are turning to Sharia courts to resolve civil disputes:

 http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article6721158.ece

The Times
July 21, 2009
Non-Muslims turning to Sharia courts to resolve civil disputes
Fiona Hamilton, London Correspondent

Increasing numbers of non-Muslims are turning to Sharia courts to resolve commercial disputes and other civil matters, The Times has learnt.

The Muslim Arbitration Tribunal (MAT) said that 5 per cent of its cases involved non-Muslims who were using the courts because they were less cumbersome and more informal than the English legal system.

Freed Chedie, a spokesman for Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siqqiqi, a barrister who set up the tribunal, said: “We put weight on oral agreements, whereas the British courts do not.”

In a case last month a non-Muslim Briton took his Muslim business partner to the tribunal to sort out a dispute over the profits in their car fleet company. “The non-Muslim claimed that there had been an oral agreement between the pair,” said Mr Chedie. “The tribunal found that because of certain things the Muslim man did, that agreement had existed. The non-Muslim was awarded £48,000.”

He said that the tribunal had adjudicated on at least 20 cases involving non-Muslims so far this year. The rulings of the tribunal are legally binding, provided that both parties agree to that condition at the beginning of any hearing.

Anti-Sharia campaigners, who claim that the Islamic system is radical and biased against women, expressed alarm at the news. Denis MacEoin, who wrote a recent report for the think-tank Civitas examining the spread of Sharia in Britain, said that MAT’s claims about non-Muslim clients “raises all sorts of questions”.

He added: “You really need to ask why. What advantages could that possibly have for them going to an Islamic court? Any [Sharia] court is going to be implementing aspects of a law that runs contrary to British law, because of the way it treats women for example.”

Inayat Bunglawala, a spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain, said that organisations should be free to conduct arbitration under Sharia, provided that it did not infringe British law and was a voluntary process.

Baroness Warsi, the Shadow Minister for Community Cohesion and Social Action, who is Muslim, said that there were many forums for arbitration and alternative dispute resolution in Britain. “There is no problem with that, as long as it is always subject to English law,” she said.

The Times has also learnt that the MAT is planning to triple the number of its courts by setting up in ten new British cities by the end of the year. It will expand its network further by acting as an advisory body to dozens of other Islamic courts, with the intention of achieving national consensus over rulings and procedures.

Although Sharia courts have been operating in the civil jurisdiction since the early 1980s, they have been doing so only in the shadows and in an ad-hoc fashion. The Civitas report estimated that there were 85 Sharia councils in Britain.

As such, if the MAT was successful in bringing a number of the existing councils into line with its own courts, it would in effect create Britain’s largest national co-operative of tribunals.

Mr Chedie said that the plan would legitimise Sharia because all the courts under its umbrella would be “consistent in their rulings”. The MAT, which has legal legitimacy under the Arbitration Act 1996, already operates in London, Birmingham, Bradford, Manchester and Nuneaton, Warwickshire. At its annual conference in October it will decide its ten new locations, which are likely to include Leeds, Luton, Blackburn, Stoke and Glasgow.

The tribunal is inviting 24 Sharia councils to attend the conference so that it can train them on procedures and rulings in an attempt to achieve national consistency. Most Sharia courts deal only with divorce and family disputes but the MAT also rules on commercial matters and mediates over forced marriages and domestic violence.

Mr Chedie said: “We would train most of the imams so that a lady in Glasgow would receive the same form of service as a lady in London. Sharia councils are already falling into line under us. There is hysterial and inherent prejudice against Sharia, but the overwhelming opinion of the judiciary is that English law and Sharia are compatible. It is only people at the right end of the political spectrum who are scaremongering.” Mr Chedie argued that the legitimacy of the MAT was further enhanced because non-Muslims had started to use it for arbitration.

Mr MacEoin said he was sceptical that the MAT could achieve unity because there were several different schools of thought when it came to Islamic law. He added that the Muslim community was already deeply divided over ideology.

observer


why was the demo help on the day marking the killing of Neda Agha-Soltan?

25.06.2010 13:46

The fact that 'One Law For All' chose to hold their demo on the day marking the killing of Neda Agha-Soltan in the post-election unrest in Iran and marched to protest outside the Iranian embassy says it all.

Why not hold it on March 16, the day Rachel Corrie was murdered by the army of the 'Jewish' state whose religious leader Chief Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu passed a religious edict stating that there was "no moral prohibition against the indiscriminate killing of non-Jewish civilians" by the Israeli army. Will the next demo be outside the Israeli embassy.. I thought not - racist bigots!

observer


From the One Law For All website

25.06.2010 13:47

New Report – Sharia Law in Britain – A Threat to One Law for All and Equal Rights
17 June 2010


New Report by One Law for All


“Sharia Law in Britain: A Threat to One Law for All and Equal Rights”

A new report by One Law for All has found Sharia Councils and Muslim Arbitration Tribunals to be in violation of UK law, public policy and human rights (see report here).

The report is being launched to coincide with a 20 June 2010 rally on the issue of Sharia law.

Based on an 8 March 2010 Seminar on Sharia Law, research, interviews, and One Law for All case files, the report has identified a number of problem areas:

- Sharia law’s civil code is arbitrary and discriminatory against women and children in particular. With the rise in the acceptance of Sharia courts, discrimination is being further institutionalised with some UK law firms additionally offering clients advice on Sharia law and the use of collaborative law.

- Sharia law is practiced in Britain primarily by Sharia Councils and Muslims Arbitration Tribunals. Both operate on religious principles and are harmful to women although Muslim Arbitration Tribunals are wrongly regarded as being of more concern because they operate as tribunals under the Arbitration Act 1996, making their rulings binding in law.

- Sharia Councils, on the other hand, claim to mediate on family issues but in practice often this differs little from arbitration: they frequently ask those appearing before them to sign an agreement to abide by their decisions; they call themselves courts, and the presiding imams, judges. Their decisions are then imposed and regarded as having the weight of legal judgements.

- There is neither control over the appointment of “judges” in Sharia Councils or Tribunals nor an independent mechanism for monitoring them. Clients often do not have access to legal advice and representation. The proceedings are not recorded, nor are there any searchable legal judgements, nor any real right of appeal.

- Sharia law cannot be compared to secular legal systems because it is considered sacred law that cannot be challenged. There is no scope to look at the interests of the individuals involved, as required by UK family law.

- These legal processes ignore both common law and due process, far less Human Rights, and provide little protection and safety for women in violent situations.

- There is a general assumption that those who attend Sharia courts do so voluntarily and that unfair decisions can be challenged in a British court. Many of the principles of Sharia law are contrary to British law and public policy, and would in theory therefore be unlikely to be upheld in a British court. In reality, however, women are often pressured by their families into going to these courts and adhering to unfair decisions, and may lack knowledge of English and their rights under British law. Moreover, refusal to settle a dispute in a Sharia court can give rise to threats and intimidation, or at best being ostracised.

According to Maryam Namazie, spokesperson of the One Law for All Campaign and an author of the report, “The existence of a parallel legal system that is denying a large section of the British population their fundamental human rights is scandalous. Our findings show that it is essential to abolish all religious courts in the UK. Their very existence and legitimisation puts pressure on vulnerable women not to assert their civil rights in a British court. As long as Sharia Councils and Tribunals are allowed to continue to make rulings on issues of family law, women will be pressured into accepting decisions which are prejudicial to them and their children.”

Supporter of the Campaign


This is pure racism...

25.06.2010 14:03

Stirring up more hatred against Muslims yet with a more respectable face. One Law For All can be compared to UKIP whilst the EDL is BNP.

One may look more respectable than the other but at the core they are just as hateful and racist as the EDL are. Same as the more respectable looking UKIP are just as racist and hateful as the BNP.

I can't believe people on here are falling for OLFA's lies and actually even thinking of supporting this group of fascists.

I hope somebody organises a counter demo against them...

Manchester Activist


Does being against Islamist ideology make me a racist??

25.06.2010 14:31

I do not believe that asking that all human beings be treated equally and humanely makes me a racist. Do you therefore believe that anyone who is against "Islamist ideology" is automatically a racist? Funny, because in that case, all the muslims that support Secularism are also racist.

Actually, One Law For All has had demonstrations against other Faith based Laws, not just Sharia. It is secularist in outlook, that's all. It wants separation between church and state. I don't believe that wanting that qualifies me as a racist. But I leave you the choice to have your own opinion on this.

Supporter of the Campaign


Give me Strength...

25.06.2010 14:55

''this group of fascists''

Think about what you have written, and then think about why it might be wrong.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with One Law For All. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a pop at Iran either - I wouldn't want to live there would you?! Your comments about the demo being on the date of a specific death could be sheer coincidence. Who knows, who cares. Take your head out of all the conspiracy theories for a minute will you!?

Stop seeing things as so straight forward - It isn't a fight between 'good' and 'evil', it is a fight against injustice wherever, and however, it manifests itself.

You are on a long road to oblivion thinking the way that you do, please do me a favour and don't drag the rest of us down with you.

Just calm down ffs.

Yours,

'John the Hat'



jhg


What is islamist?

25.06.2010 15:07

If you oppose Muslims then just say so, I find those calling for the cleansing of Muslims from Europe, like we saw in Bosnia, far more honest then you.

islamist, islamism, fundamentalism, etc are all artificial terms created for people like you to hide behind when what you really mean is Muslims.

Muslim


I am against Islamism as stated in Wikipedia...

25.06.2010 15:56

I was not brought up muslim so I do not believe the Koran is a holy book. I believe I have the right to state this. I am not however against muslims living here...many of my friends are muslim. I am against Islamism and against literal interpretations of the Koran. Many Islamists are young people who know little about what living under sharia really is like. They think an ideal Islamic state can be formed and that it will be fair and just. But I do not believe that this will ever be possible because there is no way that every person alive will ever want to submit to Sharia voluntarily. So it will require repression as already happens in all Sharia-based states around the world.

I'll quote you Maryam Namazie:
“Rights are for individuals, not for religions or beliefs. ‘Every human is equal' does not mean that every belief is equal.”
I believe in this also.
When I say I believe in Human Rights, I mean for all...and that includes Islamists. Hope that clears things up :-)

Supporter of the Campaign


is this site full of muslims or what!?

25.06.2010 21:29

are there actual any white people on this site given that this is the UK?

sorry but there you go


imperialism?

25.06.2010 22:20

So you are not against Muslims living 'here' provided they follow your interpretation of their faith!

Muslims understand what living under Islam is like by studying the life of their Prophet and the Islamic system he created and implemented in Medina. How Sharia is implemented in Saudi today is no more a reflection on Islam as is Stalism on Socialism or Bush on Democracy.

You say "there is no way that every person alive will ever want to submit to Sharia voluntarily. So it will require repression" - replace Sharia with 'the law' or 'democracy', etc to see how silly this statement is even if your absurd assumption on Sharia were true.

I can understand Namazie's presence outside the embassy, she runs a dozen paper organisations all aimed at either overthrowing the government of Iran and/or opposed to Islam, just google her..

Council of Ex-Muslims: ridiculous identity, ever heard of a council of ex-buddhists or council of ex-Arsenal fans?
Equal Rights Now: Organisation against Sharia in Iran
One Law for All: Organisation against Sharia Law in Britain
Worker-communist Party of Iran: Stalinist roots, advocates the overthrow of Iranian government
Iran Solidarity: media friendly of same, but still advocate the overthrow of Iranian government
..

She even stood with the BNP and the SIOE fascists (who want minaret bans in UK) in a counter-demo against a pro-Palestine rally because the rally was organised by Muslims..

Regarding her quote, if individuals have any rights then they have the right to decide between themselves how to resolve a dispute. If two people wish to arbitrate using Sharia, who are you to say no they cant and impose your solution on them? Then you say you believe in Human Rights..

All sounds very like imperialism, dictating to black and brown people how they should live..


Muslim


@sorry but there you go

25.06.2010 22:31

This is Indymedia, it serves those who the mainstream media fails, naturally is full of Muslims :)

But why do you assume Muslims are alien to the UK, and that there are no 'white' Muslims? Tapping in to islamophobic attitudes likes these is what 'One Law For All' is all about.

Muslim


Why Sharia courts& not beth din? Here's why according to CIVITAS

25.06.2010 22:44

According to CIVITAS, it is inacurate to compare the operation of sharia courts to the Jewish beth din, which also operate as arbitration tribunals under UK law. According to CIVITAS, these courts are not operating as the beth din. The beth din recognize that the law of the land is the law and a rabbi cannot perform a synagogue marriage ceremony unless a registrar is present to simultaneously register the marriage under English law. However, CIVITAS states that Imams and mosques are performing marriage ceremonies that are not registered under English law. They are the only religion that are doing it. Hindus and Sikhs have registered their temples under the Marriages Act.

Supporter of the Campaign


@John the Hat

25.06.2010 22:46

"the demo being on the date of a specific death could be sheer coincidence" - you are very naive, the whole point was to have a demo against Iran on that date.. but how to gather support for it.. lets tap in to the islamophobia prevalent today, lets make it about this country - foreigners wanting to impose their medieval laws on us.. hey presto you got yourself a mob outside the IRANIAN embassy complaining about Muslims in THIS country.. thats step one accomplished, next how to gather support to bomb Iran.. how pathetic!

Muslim


@Supporter of the Campaign - Marriages

25.06.2010 22:58

Speaking from personal experience, this is nonsense. Its the other way round, it took our mosque many years struggle before the council finally allowed it to be registered for marriage under UK law. Before that we had to go through two marriage ceremonies, the religious one in the mosque and a civil one in the town hall for the paper work - a bloody pain! Again it was one law for other communities, like the Jewish community who faced no objections to registering their synagogues as marriage centres, and another for Muslims who were denied this right, and in many cases are still being denied this right.

'Supporter of the Campaign' it looks like you are scraping the barrel trying to pull out justifications for this islamophobia..

Muslim


There will never....

25.06.2010 23:28

...be anyway of getting through to you 'anti imperialist' conspiracy people.

where will you be when Clegg and Cameron are fucking you and everyone (and thing) you hold dear up the Jacksy...

Quivering, no doubt, under your 'intifada' blankets looking for Mossad.


Grow up! The way the Middle East is being treated is absolutely awful, but what about the struggles at home.

Why can't you see past these conspiracies and realise that if we put our own house in order first nobody would get away with this shit.

D


Democracy and freedom of speech

25.06.2010 23:33

Personally, I do not agree with you that Mohammed in Medina led a model state that was not repressive, but let's agree to disagree on that one. You are a muslim because your parents told you this is the truth about life. My parents did not teach me the same, therefore we have different views on things, obviously.

Nobody calls me a racist if I choose to criticize evangelical christians for example, so why am I labelled racist if I choose to criticize koranic/hadith teachings? Should I not be allowed to state I do not believe in Mohammed, the prophet? It is my right in a democracy to state what I believe in under freedom of speech. You have the right to state the opposite freely and openly if you choose. This is what democracy is all about. It is natural to have disagreements about ideas on life! You can hold a demonstration to make your point and so can I. In a Sharia state however, I would be put in prison if not worse for stating opposition to Theocratic rule. This is the difference.


Supporter of the Campaign


About CIVITAS

26.06.2010 00:18

CIVITAS is hardly an impartial party in this.

This so called Institute for the Study of Civil Society in 2007 sponsored Ibn Warraq to give a seminar on 'Why I am not a Muslim'. Ibn warraq (an alias) has long been exposed as a sharleton, his so called scholarly works exposed by secular academics as just plagiarised rehashed anti-Islamic polemics, one professor at Chicago Uni describing Ibn warraq's publication as "a most unfortunate event". So why would any reputable organisation sponsor this guy? Where were the follow up seminars on why i am not a Christian or Jew, etc..?

This current report if also full of islamophobic sentiment. For example as evidence of extremism on the rise in the Muslim community it sights a poll showing that young Muslims believe that their religion does not discriminatory against women! If you ask that question, does your religion discriminate.. to a person of any religion you would get the same answer..

i wouldn't trust any thing this think tank comes up with.

Muslim


@Supporter of the Campaign - Democracy and freedom of speech

26.06.2010 01:03

Why do you assume I am Muslim "because your parents told you this is the truth about life"? You deny me my free will, that I could have chosen to be Muslim?

I have never denied peoples right to criticise Islam. Islam is an idea, and as with any idea, if it is the truth it will gain strength from critical examination, otherwise if it is false, it will fall, deservedly so. This is the problem with 'one law for all': nice sounding name but upon closer examination it says everyone can choose arbitration as allowed under English law accept Muslims who shouldn't be allowed. Its pure xenophobia against Muslims.

What I worry about is people being conned by people like Namazie, who have their own agenda, in to this. Thats why I said I prefer people to be honest and say up front that they oppose Muslim presence in the UK and be done with it, rather than this pussy footing pretending to care for the human rights of Muslims while in reality denying them.

PS what we live in might be called democracy, but its not. Che's daughter Aldeida Guevara gave a great speech on it when the european social forum came to London a few years ago (the mp3 must be somewhere online..)

Muslim


@Supporter of the Campaign - Democracy and freedom of speech

26.06.2010 01:32

Why do you assume I am Muslim "because your parents told you this is the truth about life"? You deny me my free will, that I could have chosen to be Muslim?

I have never denied peoples right to criticise Islam. Islam is an idea, and as with any idea, if it is the truth it will gain strength from critical examination, otherwise if it is false, it will fall, deservedly so. This is the problem with 'one law for all': nice sounding name but upon closer examination it says everyone can choose arbitration as allowed under English law accept Muslims who shouldn't be allowed. Its pure xenophobia against Muslims.

What I worry about is people being conned by people like Namazie, who have their own agenda, in to this. Thats why I said I prefer people to be honest and say up front that they oppose Muslim presence in the UK and be done with it, rather than this pussy footing pretending to care for the human rights of Muslims while in reality denying them.

PS what we live in might be called democracy, but its not. Che's daughter Aldeida Guevara gave a great speech on it when the european social forum came to London a few years ago (the mp3 must be somewhere online..)

Muslim


Being muslim is different to being an Islamist...

26.06.2010 09:15

Hi Muslim,

I made the assumption that you are muslim because your parents are muslim, because this is the case with the majority of muslims in this country. I also wanted to point out that people usually follow the religion of their parents because this is what they are taught to believe. If it wasn't for their parents (or people they meet) convincing them that this and that religion is the true one, they would not believe in it. If the Koran was not taught to people by their parents or associates, no-one would assume it was anything but gibberish if they happen to come across it. The truth is that no-one can know for sure what happens to us when we die. We can be convinced by our parents, or friends, or culture but it doesn't mean that it is so. Look at how many religions there are in the world...

I am glad you are suggesting that muslims should have a right to believe or not believe in Islam. Unfortunately Islamists do not give such rights to people. They do not allow people to leave the faith. In Muslim countries, being an ex-muslim or apostate is punishable by death. Even criticising the faith can get you killed or in a lot of trouble at least. For this reason, no-one speaks against the faith, or utters any questions in case they may be judged blasphemous. Muslim countries are not open societies as we have here. Even here, if you state things against Islam, you can face threats and intimidation and ex-muslims are often ostracized by their families and community. This is why they have set up an ex-muslim Council of Britain. They want to offer support to others who have left their faith and are struggling with the loss of their muslim friends or families. It is their right to set up such an organisation.

As far as Maryam Namazie is concerned, I disagree with you that she is against muslims being in this country. She wants asylum for muslims persecuted by Islamists. She is an Iranian herself so wants muslims suffering at the hand of Islamist regimes to be given refuge here. I suggest people go to the One For All website, before passing judgement on the organisation. Thanks. Take care for now.

Supporter of the Campaign


my viewpoint

26.06.2010 09:19

>> Thats why I said I prefer people to be honest and say up front that they oppose Muslim presence in the UK and be done with it, rather than this pussy footing pretending to care for the human rights of Muslims while in reality denying them.

Thats a lot easier said than done. In reality, you say one thing out of place about muslims or Islam and you instantly get branded a Racist (not that it bothers me - water off a ducks back). Criticism is always met with "You're a racist", therefore you can't (supposedly) criticise any aspect of it.

I don't particularlly want Muslims in the country - and I believe that doesn't make me a racist. I lived in some fairly high density areas and hated it. A basic example:: My car constantly blocked in private property because you just got people dumping their cars around the place at prayer time. You have a go at them about it, and they threaten you with assault from them and their buddies. My g/f didn't particularly like walking around on her own as there would be groups of asian lads leering at her and shouting derogatory things. People have the right to walk to the shops without that shit happening.

But i'm still not racist (even though its difficult not to be). I'm against the 'culture' not the skin-colour. I know/work/socialise with people of the sterotypical Muslim skin colour.. But I do hate the cultural backage that comes along with Islam which clearly causes a huge amount of friction with many existing customs and ideas in the UK. And I'm not particularly keen on these hate-preachers calling for jihad and saying 7/7 was a good thing.

whitey


@whitey

26.06.2010 11:12

I don't particularly want Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists or FSM-worshippers in this country, either. All religions promote belief in falsehoods, lack of critical thinking, dogma, bigotry, sexism, homophobia, hierarchy, etc. to some degree.

Just face it, gods don't exist. They just don't. They are just fairy tales made up a long time ago as myths to explain things people didn't understand. They aren't to be taken literally.

The sooner all religions are dumped, the better. I'm not saying this will make things miraculously better; atheists can be scumbags too. But it will be a big step forwards.

Every religious believer in the world makes it a slightly less pleasant place for me.

@theist


Ibn Warraq and CIVITAS

26.06.2010 12:12

Hi muslim,
CIVITAS are interested in promoting a "Civil Society". They are interested in working with secular minded muslims who share their belief in a free, open and Civil society. That they invited Ibn Warraq to speak at a gathering of theirs is their business. If they want to promote the right to free speech, which includes the rights of ex-muslims to speak at their meetings, it is their choice.

You call Ibn Warraq a Charlatan. It is your opinion of him. I believe his book on Islam is well researched and he is a brave man indeed to put it out there. Yes, he is using a Alias, because his life is in danger, not because he is not prepared to stand by what he writes. If his book was rubbish, his arguments would be torn to shreads within minutes, which has not happened. The fact that all muslim countries have banned his book, is because they do not want people reading his book, because he quotes many Hadiths (holy writings) that many ordinary muslims have not come across before. The fact that he calls his book "Why I am not a muslim" is his prerogative. You should be pleased at least that he did not call it "Why you should not be a muslim", which would worse, don't you think?


Also, earlier you stated that Saudi Arabia is not representative of a proper Sharia state. Please explain to me which part of Saudi Law is not following the Sharia. I would be interested to hear it.

Supporter of the Campaign


@Supporter of the Campaign - A Muslim is a Muslim full stop.

26.06.2010 13:13

As I said earlier terms like Islamist are artificial terms created to demonise Muslims without saying so. According to wiki, Islamism is '“the belief that Islam should guide social and political as well as personal life'. Well if you truly believe that you have found the truth why would you deny that from part of your life? Its like having found a torch in darkness and then choosing not to shine it in one room of your house, leaving it in darkness. It makes no sense. So in the same way Muslims will naturally wish the light of Islam to shine on all aspects of their life, be it personal, social or political. Of course what that means practically will differ wildly depending on their understanding, their circumstances and the environment they live in. In a Muslim country it is their right to choose an Islamic system of governance over communism or capitalist democracy, similarly as a minority living in the UK they have every right to choose to arbitrate between themselves using Islamic principles as allowed under UK law. You still have not made any case as to why they should be denied this right which the law in the UK provides, and which other minority communities have enjoyed for centuries.

I dont want this to turn in to a religious debate as I see the issue purely as a human rights one, with 'one law for all' attempting to deny Muslims right of arbitration which the law had given all communities, but as reply to your first paragraph.. Muslims believe that human being are created inherently good and that they have within them a compass (naafs) that guides them to do good and to seek out the truth, which essentially defines what a Muslim should be. There is no concept of original sin for example, they do not need saving, that is why there is no history of missionaries in Islam. One comes to Islam when one is ready and ones heart is open to receiving the message, not before. So yes the Qur'an may seen gibberish to some, but that is a reflection of where they are, not of the Qur'an.

CIVITAS
With regards to CIVITAS, if you cant see anything wrong with "Institute for the Study of Civil Society" sponsoring a hate monger who academia has exposed as a sharleton then I will leave it at that, clearly I will not persuade you. Other readers can make up their own minds.

SAUDI
As I stated I want to keep focused on the issue at hand which is a human rights one, but just briefly I would say that the Prophet of Islam always led by example, he never lived a life of privilege and never asked anyone to do something he himself was not willing to do, he answered to the same law as the rest of society, he was not a king and did not live in a palace. The Saudi monarchy falls way short of this basic requirement of Sharia.

Muslim


@theist

26.06.2010 14:09

"Just face it, gods don't exist" - that is also espousing a religious belief, to say God doesn't exist takes just as much faith as to say God exists.

Muslim


Islamism or Secularism ... that is what is at stake here.

26.06.2010 14:47

Hi muslim,

There is a distinction between mediation and arbitration. To answer your question it is best for people to read the CIVITAS report to get an idea of what is at stake here and what the One Law For All is campaigning for.

www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/ShariaLawOrOneLawForAll.pdf

You claim that all Muslims are the same, and all want Sharia. I disagree.
Until a few years ago, secular islam was everywhere. No women wore headscarves except in very conservative parts of the world. Now Islamists in the UK are telling women that not wearing a scarf is against islamic teachings, some even claiming they will go to eternal hellfire if they don't comply. They are saying you are not a "true muslim" unless you are an islamist, and abide by Sharia rules. Maybe some years ago, Sharia Law was not a big issue in this country but I believe it is becoming one. One Law For All are against different laws existing for different groups of people: they want muslim women and children to get the same protection under the law as other people living here. If Islamists want Sharia, they have many countries to go to which already run systems on this basis. Saudi Arabia is one such country. Afghanistan and Iran are other examples of it. Unlike what you write, I believe they are perfect examples of what Sharia is about.

You write there is no history of missionaries in Islam. Yes, it's true. Islam was not spread by missionaries, but by the sword as is evident on the Saudi Flag. But let's not get into that discussion...

Personally I believe that people should look up Ibn Warraq and read what he writes before labelling him anything. I think he is also on youtube.

In regards to Mohammed. I disagree that he did not live a life of weath. In the Koran it clearly states that one fifth of all booty captured through muslim raids should go directly to Mohammed himself. That's 20% of the total. Quite a large sum in my opinion.

The reason why Saudi rulers are so wealthy is because under Sharia they are only required to give 2.5% of their wealth to the poor and orphans (including those who administer the Zakat tax). Not much chance for a welfare state to ever exist then! That can only happen if one opts for non-Sharia progressive taxation, which according to you all muslims are naturally against.

Supporter of the Campaign


@ Muslim

26.06.2010 14:50

methinks the EDL have been spreading their bigotry on here again. Comments like
"are there actually any white people on this site given that this is the UK?", are dead giveaways, and not something I saw on Indymedia much until people started posting anti-EDL related stuff on here, which the xenophobic dimwits found through their forums. Is anyone actually moderating this?

I agree with another commenter though, the fewer laws the better...

anti fascist


bollox

26.06.2010 15:37

>> "Just face it, gods don't exist" - that is also espousing a religious belief, to say God doesn't exist takes just as much faith as to say God exists.

No it isn't. There is no evidence that god exists. Science and rational thinking works on evidence and proof. Saying I dont believe in unicorns is logical because there is no evidence that they exist. This is a valid argument.

Saying that God exists without any evidence is completely irrational and doesn't even form a hypothesis - its just random dribble from the imagination. Like a fictional story. You might as well be saying "prove that harry potter doesn't exist".

The only reason these people arn't sectioned is there is so many of the nutters that it wouldn't be practical.

claptrap


@claptrap

26.06.2010 16:22

Then prove to me that God doesn't exist. Prove to me that whilst everything else in the universe is governed by causality - ie every effect has a cause, the universe, or the big bang has no cause, no creator.

Muslim


I want to correct an inaccuracy of mine...

26.06.2010 17:16

Hi Muslim,

I do not like to write something that is inaccurate. I stated that I believed Mohammed was a wealthy man because it says in the Koran that a fifth of his raid went to himself (and I thought the rest of the booty was divided between his followers).
I have however checked it in a Koran and it states the following:
"And know that whatever ye take as spoils of war, lo! a fifth of thereof is for Allah, and for his messenger and for the kinsman (who has need) and orphans and needy and the wayfarer, if ye believe in Allah and that which We revealed unto Our slave on the Day of Discrimination, the day when the two armies met ". 8:41 - Picktall translation

So no, it was not accurate for me to claim that a fifth went to Mohammed alone. However, since all muslims have to pay the Zakat, were the needy, the orphans and the wayfarers mentioned in the text given only the due 2.5% of that sum, or more than that? This is not clear. It does not state how the proportions were divided between these groups, whether equally or not.

It does however state the following in 8:1 of the Picktall Koran translation that: "They ask thee (o Muhammad) of the spoils of war. Say: The spoils of war belong to Allah and the messenger, so keep your duty to Allah, and adjust the matter of your difference, and obey Allah and His messenger, if ye are true believers".

This seems to suggest, at least to me, that a fair amount of money was to be given to Mohammed when he became ruler.





Supporter of the Campaign


God

26.06.2010 17:37

>>Then prove to me that God doesn't exist. Prove to me that whilst everything else in the universe is governed by causality - ie every effect has a cause, the universe, or the big bang has no cause, no creator.

Your whole argument is based on the tired "I don't understand it, therefore it must be God".

The danger will that argument is the same as what happened to people 10,000s years ago - they thought the Sun and the Moon were Gods and that lightning was the God's anger.

One group of people gave up and said "We don't understand it, therefore it must be God".
Another group said "We don't understand it, so lets try work out the rational reason for it". Time passed and eventually they did.

The same happens over and over and over again. Everything that is caused by God, is eventually explained through rational thinking once we learn more. So,.... i believe its a bit early to bring the big bang into it since its just a "Theory" that we hardly know anything about. Unless of course, you think we know everything there is to know about the creation of the universe, which would be a bit arrogant.


claptrap


@Supporter of the Campaign - that is what is at stake.. scaremongering

26.06.2010 19:09

Stop scaremongering and explain exactly why its okay for Jews to use the 1996 Arbitration Act to settle disputes but not okay for Muslims to do the same? That's called bigotry.

What 'One Law For All' is really saying is one law for everyone except Muslims who should be discriminated against and excluded from the 1996 Arbitration Act.

The rest of your comment is so full of standard anti-Islam ignorance/misunderstanding I really dont know where to begin..

I never said Muslims are the same, in my experience every time two Muslims meet there are at least three opinions voiced..

What is this 'secular Islam' that requires Muslim women to remove their headscarf?

Your use of the term 'Sharia' suggests you have little idea of what it is. Sharia is the code of life that a person chooses to follow when they become a Muslim. Most of it deals with their personal life, like prayers, fasting, giving charity, food, hygiene, etc. I've never met a Muslim who didn't believe in Sharia - its an oxymoron. And as Islam extends to the community, so the Sharia extends to protecting the community.

'but by the sword as is evident on the Saudi Flag' - this doesn't deserve a reply, so I wont!

Regarding spoil of war, thank you for the correction, also see Holy Qur'an 59:7 :
"That which Allah giveth as spoil unto His messenger from the people of the townships, it is for Allah and His messenger and for the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer, that it become not a commodity between the rich among you."

If you look at any account of the Prophets life, you will see he lived a very simple, modest life with no trapping of wealth. What he had he used in the way of Islam. Islam has always advocated a strong welfare state. The Prophet said 'Never does he believe in me who goes to bed full while his neighbour is hungry. Never shall Allah on the Day of Judgement look with favour at the people of a place who pass their night satisfied but among them is a hungry one.'

Imam Ali, the Prophets cousin and son-in-law who grew up in Muhammads house and was the first male to believe in Muhammads prophethood, was one of the early leaders of the Islamic state. In a now famous letter to his governor of Egypt he wrote:

"I want to caution you about the poor. Fear Allah about their condition and your attitude towards them. They have no support, no resources and no opportunities. They are poor, they are destitute and many of them are crippled and unfit for work Some of them, come out begging and some (who maintain self-respect) do not beg, but their condition screams about their distress, poverty, destitution and wants. So, protect them and their rights. Allah has laid the responsibility of this on your shoulders. You must fix a share for them from the government treasury. Beside this reservation in cash, you must also reserve a share in kind of crops...etc. from government grain stores in cities, in which such grain are collected and cultivated on state-owned lands. Because in this collection, the share of those living far away from any particular city is equal to the share of those living nearby".

To give this perspective, it was witten around 660 AD - when England was under invasion from the Angles and Saxons, some 150 before the Vikings arrived.

The reason the Saudi rulers are wealthy is because they are stealing the oil resources of the country, puppets put there and kept there by western powers to secure their oil interests.


Muslim


@claptrap

26.06.2010 19:26

"Everything that is caused by God, is eventually explained through rational thinking once we learn more. So,.... i believe its a bit early to bring the big bang into it since its just a "Theory" that we hardly know anything about"

So basically what you are saying is that you cant explain the big bang without a Creator at the moment but have faith that one day you will. Thats exatly what I said, you have to have faith to say God doesn't exist because you cant prove it!

Muslim


Issues as explained in the Guardian

26.06.2010 20:25

No to sharia law in Britain

Sharia has no place in a civilised society. Ban Islamic tribunals and let everyone in this country abide by a single code of laws


Denis MacEoin guardian.co.uk,
Monday 29 June 2009

There are many reasons to find problems with sharia law. In its full form, it contains numerous provisions that are barbaric and irreconcilable with any advanced society: stoning married adulterers, flogging the unmarried, throwing homosexuals from roofs or steep hills, amputating limbs for theft, and much more.

But sharia is much wider than that. It moves seamlessly from the public to the private realm, and it is in the latter that we find demands that a measure of sharia be introduced to this country. Such demands have been made, not just by Muslims, but even by an astonishingly naïve Archbishop of Canterbury. Sharia is only marginally about how a believer prays, fasts, pays the alms tax, or performs the pilgrimage. For the individual it carries obligations and penalties that cut deep into personal life. Here is a very simple example. If a Muslim man in a fit of temper uses the triple divorce formula, even if his wife is not present, the law considers the couple divorced. But if he comes to his senses, he cannot simply resume relations with his wife. In order to remarry, she must wait three months to determine that she is not pregnant. Thereupon, she is obliged to marry another man and to have sex with him, and this man must then divorce her (or not, if he decides to keep her). She must then wait another three months, after which her first husband may remarry her – see also Ask Imam). This revolting practice, known as halala, demeans the woman. In British law, it would be considered a form of coercion into unwanted sexual relations. Is this what the archbishop wants?

But sharia has already entered the UK through a back door. In October 2008 Bridget Prentice, parliamentary under-secretary of state in the Ministry of Justice, stated that the government does not "accommodate" any religious legal systems, but confirmed two developments. First that sharia courts are operating under the 1996 Arbitration Act, which allows private disputes to be settled by an independent arbitrator. And second that sharia rulings on family matters (that are not covered by arbitration) could be given the authority of a British court by seeking "a consent order embodying the terms" of the sharia court ruling. There is now a Muslim Arbitration Tribunal which claims that the lord chief justice endorses alternative dispute resolution under sharia law.

The idea that Muslim tribunals arbitrating in matters of family law can take place without introducing contradictions to UK law, mainly through severe discrimination against Muslim women, is not well thought through. We have already seen one way that sharia law may have repercussions for wives in certain instances of divorce. Giving tribunals semi-official status will, assuming they work according to sharia, introduce similar anomalies.

I have not been able to get reports of live rulings from tribunals, but there are a large number of online sites which offer fatwas in answer to questions posed by believers and these seem likely to represent the kind of answers which tribunals in Britain must produce.

If couples do not marry according to UK civil law (and I have seen a fatwa ruling that they need not register their marriage with the British authorities), there may be serious consequences in the event of divorce; in the custody of children (which always goes against the woman); with respect to alimony (a man does not have to pay any, except for the children) and with regard to rights to a share in the family home (which a woman does not have). During the marriage, a man may coerce his wife to have sex, (though wives do not have that right); a husband may confine his wife to their home; if one or the other partner abandons Islam, (the marriage is declared null and void). It is considered wrong to reject polygamy. If a woman wishes to divorce her husband, it is made dependent on obtaining her husband's permission and the agreement of a sharia court. A woman may not marry a non-Muslim and a man may marry only a Jewish or Christian woman. Legal adoption is prohibited, but if a child has been adopted, he or she may not inherit from the adoptive parents. The Leyton-based Islamic Shariah Council has issued rulings including one that forbids a woman of any age to marry without a male "guardian"; another that says a man only has to intend to divorce for it to be valid; one that insists that a polygamous marriage must be maintained even in the UK (Islamic Shariah Council); and another that excuses a man from making alimony payments after divorce.

If Islamic tribunals are to arbitrate according to such antiquated and discriminatory rulings, they condemn British Muslim women to a life as second-class citizens with barely any rights. And if they claim to advise only within the framework of British law, then what are they doing in the first place? The only solution to this scandalous situation is to ban such tribunals entirely and let Muslims, like everybody else in this country, abide by a single code of laws. Sharia courts must be excluded from recognition under the 1996 Arbitration Act if justice for all does not become a farce.

Denis MacEoin's report into sharia law in the UK was published by Civitas on Monday 29 June

Supporter of the Campaign


In regards to Mohammed...

26.06.2010 20:37

I do not want a religious debate but to get a true understanding of Islam, I suggest people read Original Sources like:

Ibn Ishaq
Sahih Al-Bukhari
and Sahih Muslim
to get a true insight into the life of Mohammed

as well as the Koran of course!

Not 20/21st Century fabrications about his life.
Thanks.

Supporter of the Campaign


issues as commented in the Guardian: Comment is Free...

26.06.2010 21:33

Hi Muslim,

I posted the above article from the Guardian.co.uk Comment is Free Section. I don't know how to put a link to it (I'm not fab with computers really), so just cut and pasted it.

I cannot keep posting. I am not a legal expert on all these matters, so cannot answer your questions any further on this, unfortunately.
I am simply a person who believes in human rights and am opposed to Sharia in all its forms. I'm sorry that in your opinion that makes me a racist, but I do not believe that this is so. We'll have to agree to disagree on this.
Best wishes to you, in any case.

Supporter of the Campaign


Delusions

26.06.2010 21:46

>> So basically what you are saying is that you cant explain the big bang without a Creator at the moment but have faith that one day you will. Thats exatly what I said, you have to have faith to say God doesn't exist because you cant prove it!

If you mean that I have faith in my own ability to work out things rationally based on observable evidence then Yes. I have a faith in my self to make rational decisions. Its called self-belief. If we didn't have it we wouldn't be able to feed ourselves, go to the toilet or manage anything based on cause and effect.

You've also blatantly done a strawman argument and accused me of saying that "God doesn't exist". That is a complete lie - read my comments, I have said no such thing. All i've said is there is no evidence that God exists and therefore it is irrational to think that he does.

It is impossible to prove that something doesn't exist, if it indeed doesn't exist.
You might as well be asking me to "prove that a fictional character from a book doesn't exist."
Impossible, pointless and therefore it is irrational.

You may think that you've "Won the argument" at this point........

However, someone who is persistantly irrational is Delusional. I would like to quote from the recent Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders which defines a delusion as:
"A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everybody else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture. "

Your argument for God is basically: "prove the impossible..... you can't? ok then that proves that God exists beyond doubt." Thats completely irrational and incorrigible. My way is much more better thats yours. You are just "assuming" that God exists because someone has told you he does. Thats no different to buying a car without bothering to open the bonnet because the seller has told you its ok. If you can't be bothered checking things out and are too lazy to think for yourself then its your own fault.

I'm also taking a wild punt on the fact that over thousands of years, things that have been attributed to 1 or more Gods, have been proven to be incorrect. There are countless instances of this. I think we can be pretty sure that Ra, the Sun god is actually a big ball of Hydrogen now. Thats not me having Faith. Thats working something out logically. If there was evidence that Buddha existed then I would know he existed. But there isn't, along with the billions of other figments of people's imaginations.

Claptrap


@Supporter of the Campaign - whats explained?

26.06.2010 22:18

The piece you sight is not an article but a comment piece, the difference being that comments do not adhere to any journalistic integrity, and this one certainly doesn't. Its purposely full of scaremongering, stoking prejudice against Muslims and their beliefs. Take for example his centre piece of evidence:

"Here is a very simple example. If a Muslim man in a fit of temper uses the triple divorce formula, even if his wife is not present, the law considers the couple divorced. But if he comes to his senses, he cannot simply resume relations with his wife. In order to remarry, she must wait three months to determine that she is not pregnant. Thereupon, she is obliged to marry another man and to have sex with him, and this man must then divorce her (or not, if he decides to keep her). She must then wait another three months, after which her first husband may remarry her – see also Ask Imam). This revolting practice, known as halala, demeans the woman. In British law, it would be considered a form of coercion into unwanted sexual relations."

On the original Guardian comment page there is a link of where he got this from - a dodgy on-line fatwa from South Africa dating back to 2008. Since the article is about Sharia in the UK so I wonder why he didn't google the the UK Sharia Council which actually runs the Sharia court he is attacking to see what fatwas they offer on divorce?

Well here is theirs (below), it essentially says that after utterance of the divorce formula (whether once or 3 times) the couple have 3 months waiting time to decide if they wish to get back together or not, if not then at the end of the 3 months the woman is free to marry elsewhere. If during or at the end of the 3 months the couple wish to stay together they can do so without any impediment. This can happen three times (with three sets of 3 month waiting periods), after which they are not allowed to remarry again. Her next marriage has to be real, like her first was. But if this then breaks down and ends in divorce (after its 3 months cooling down period), only then can she remarry her first husband.

----------------------------------------------------------------
 http://www.islamic-sharia.org/divorce-talaq/what-is-the-proper-way-of-giving-divorce-in-islam-13.html


As far as pronouncing three divorces, the Qur’an has laid down the process of Talaq very clearly. See verse No. 1 of Surah Al-Talaq where it clearly says that you should give a divorce, followed by an Iddat; So that by the end of this Iddat you can either take back your wife, or separate. And also see Verse No. 229 of Surah Al-Baqara, which states that a man got the right of Ruju (taking back his wife till after two Talaqs). But after third Talaq he loses his right.

Quranic word (At-Talaqu marratan i.e. Talaq is two times), doesn’t mean saying the word Talaq twice in one go but in means two Talaqs which are done at two separate occasions. For example when a doctor prescribes a medicine twice a day, he does not mean to take two tablets at one time but each tablet at a different time from the other. Similarly if someone says that I have prayed two or three Juma during this month, he does not mean that he prayed them altogether in one day but he means that he had prayed Juma on three different Fridays. Accordingly the two divorces mentioned in the Qur’an are to be executed in the following manner.

A man divorces his wife once only, which is followed by her Iddat. He is allowed to take her back within the Iddat period. If he does not take her back, she is divorced and separated from him. But with mutual consent, they can marry each other once again. Suppose he takes her back once again either saying it verbally (i.e. I take you back) or physically (i.e. by having marital relation with her) they can live as husband and wife again. But the husband has exhausted his right of one Talaq.

Suppose after sometime, the husband happens to divorce her secondly, the same process as that mentioned above would be repeated.

In case he takes her back once again, they would resume the marital life. Now if he happens to divorce her a third time, her Iddat would follow but the man has no right to either take her back or marry her once again after the expiry of Iddat. She becomes totally forbidden to him. According to Verse 230 of Surah Al-Baqarah, if this woman marries another person, just for the sake of real marriage ( and not a marriage of convenience) and then this marriage doesn’t work and she is divorced by the second husband as well, then she is allowed to marry the first husband provided that:

A) The second marriage was consummated.

B) The marriage was not done for the purpose of Halala (i.e to allow the first husband to marry her). Any person, who commits Halala deliberately, is cursed by Allah according to the Hadith of the prophet (Salalaho Alai Wassalam). Allah curses the one who commits Halala (i.e. the second husband) and the one for whom Halala is done (i.e. the first husband).

4- What about if a person pronounces three words of Talaq in one go? The answer is clear in light of the above explanation. They are to be considered as ONE Talaq only.

----------------------------------------------------------------

So using these selective scaremongering fatwas he is basically saying there should NOT be one law for all, but instead Muslims must be discriminated against and specifically excluded from the 1996 Arbitration Act.

This still leave my question to you unanswered unless you consider xenophobia a justification to discriminate?

With regards to suggesting people look at original sources - especially the Holy Qur'an to understand Islam, I totally agree - go for it!

Muslim


@Claptrap

27.06.2010 03:47

A few points,

1. I didn't accused you of saying that "God doesn't exist", when I wrote "Thats exactly what I said, you have to have faith to say God doesn't exist because you cant prove it! " I wasn't referring to you saying God doesn't exist but to my original reply to @theist when I wrote 'to say God doesn't exist takes just as much faith as to say God exists'.

2. Surely if its "impossible to prove that something doesn't exist" then logically, it leave open the possibility that it does indeed exist?

3. I like your definition of delusional
"A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everybody else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture. "

but I wonder who it fits..

I think I am correct in saying that most of the worlds population believes in a Creator (quick google suggests only 16% belong to no religion and of these only half do not believe that God exists) so back to the definition the bit about 'despite what almost everybody else believes'..

Also you have stated that its impossible to prove that God doesn't exist so the bit about 'obvious proof or evidence to the contrary' is clearly lacking if you are suggesting believers in God are delusional..

4. Why do you say I assume God exists because someone told me so. Could it not be that my intellect rationally deduced that if everything around me, everything in the universe, has a cause, a creator, than the universe too must also have a creator?

5.Going with the car analogy, is it not the athiest the one who sees the car driving past but because he cannot see inside the bonnet he denies there is anything powering the car?


Muslim


@Supporter of the Campaign

27.06.2010 03:56

Yes, we've digressed away from the original topic, it a good time to stop. Agree to disagree.

btw to put links just type the full url starting with http and indy does the rest for you.

Muslim


@Muslim

27.06.2010 09:28

Muslim: "Surely if its "impossible to prove that something doesn't exist" then logically, it leave open the possibility that it does indeed exist?"

I think absence of a god is what you might call the "null hypothesis". Basically, if you assert something exists, the onus is on you to show it does, not on others to show it doesn't. Otherwise we have to believe in every bizarre idea that anyone comes up with.

It's impossible to prove that the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster don't exist as well, and there is just as much proof of their existence as of any of the gods. So why don't you believe in these too?

@theist


@theist

27.06.2010 13:40

I was using logic for my argument, where to disprove a hypothesis X is true you have to prove X is false. And yes using logic, if you cant prove 'flying spaghetti monsters' don't exists then it leaves the possibility open that one might actually exist! Of course this is not a proof of Gods existence, which was never my intention, but rather pointing out a chink in the argument that God doesn't exist.

I think 'null hypothesis' is not from logic but from statistics where in order to prove something you look at the statistical likelihood of its opposite (the null hypothesis) being true. The outcome is always a statistically probability, never a certainty.


Muslim


@Muslim

27.06.2010 22:18

It's true the "null hypothesis" is most commonly associated with statistics. But more generally in science it's the "default position".

In this case we have numerous groups each claiming their god or gods are the true ones, and that the others aren't real. So at most one of them can be correct.

It's clear to me that the default position here is to assume none of them are correct; that no gods exist; and it is up to each of the religions to prove their particular god(s) is/are real. Obviously they can't do this, so there is no way to prefer any one religion over any of the others. Therefore it makes sense to reject them all.

Are you sure you are being genuine and not just trolling me? I mean, the idea that some invisible person in the sky is controlling every aspect of our lives is so far-fetched it makes 9/11 conspiracy theorists seem sane by comparison!

I think most religious people are so caught up in the minutiae of their religion that they fail to step back and look at the bigger picture, and realise that what they are doing is pretty ludicrous really.

@theist


@theist

28.06.2010 01:54

The concept that the universe has a Creator is independent of any religion, religions are to do with the nature of the Creator, so you cannot negate the idea of a Creator by finding fault in any religion, or contradictions between religions.

I was not discussing religion at that this stage, if I were I would be tempted to classify atheism as a religion. After all its central tenet is a belief which cannot be proven - ie this universe has no Creator, hence it presumably relies on the faith of its adherents to accept that that belief is true.

"it is up to each of the religions to prove their particular god(s) is/are real. Obviously they can't do this, so there is no way to prefer any one religion over any of the others" - The suggestion that a religion is preferred over another if it can prove 'its god' is real is, in my opinion, incorrect. In my view, mankind by definition, cannot prove the existence of the Creator because in order to do so would entail measuring Him in some way, thus limiting Him, reducing him to something other than God. If a religion came up with a proof that their god is real I don't think I could follow that god because clearly there is something beyond him that cannot be measured.

"Are you sure you are being genuine and not just trolling me? I mean, the idea that some invisible person in the sky.." - Yes I am being genuine, but invisible person in the sky? The concept of God in Islam was eloquently expressed by Imam Ali, who I have mentioned in a previous post was an early successor of the Prophet of Islam (around 650AD).

When one of his subjects, Dhi'lib, a man from Yemen, asked him "Have you seen your Lord?' Imam Ali replied "Would I worship that which I do not see?" So Dhi'lib asked "How do you see Him?"

Imam Ali replied:

"Eyes do not see Him with a direct witnessing.
But hearts perceive Him through the realities of authentic belief.
He is known through the evidence that points to Him.
He is described by indications.
He cannot be compared to human beings.
And He cannot be perceived by the senses.
My Lord is near to all things without physically touching them.
He is distant from them without being separate.
He speaks, but without the need for reflection.
He is manifest but not physically.
He has made Himself evident but without allowing direct vision.
He is separated but not through distance.
He is close but without sacrificing His exaltedness.
He wills, but without aspiration.
He moulds but without the assistance of limbs.
He attains, but not through deceit.
He is subtle, but cannot be said to be concealed.
he is great, but cannot be said to be arrogant.
He is grand in His grandeur.
He cannot be described as having sizeable magnitude.
He is majestical in His splendour.
He cannot be described as massive.
He hears, but cannot be said to use the organ of hearing.
He sees, but cannot be attributed with the sense of sight.
He is merciful, but cannot be said to have weakness of heart.
He was before all things
So that nothing can be said to be before Him.
And he is after all things
So "after" is not said of anything after Him.
He is within all things.
Without being merged with them..
And also without being separated from them.
He exists, but without the need to come into existence.
He acts without compulsion.
He determines, but without the need for movement.
Places do not contain Him.
He is not contained within time.
Attributes do not define Him with due respect.
The need for slumber never affects Him.
His existence precedes time itself.
His being precedes non-existence.
His eternalness precedes all beginnings.
He was Lord before there was anything to be lord of.
And He was God before there was anything to be god of.
He was knowing before there was anything to be known.
He was hearing before there was anything to be heard.
Faces surrender before His grandeur.
Hearts tremble exceedingly out of fear of Him.
Souls strive desperately to attain His full satisfaction."


Muslim


@muslim

28.06.2010 19:16

>> 1. I didn't accused you of saying that "God doesn't exist", when I wrote "Thats exactly what I said, you have to have faith to say God doesn't exist because you cant prove it! " I wasn't referring to you saying God doesn't exist but to my original reply to @theist when I wrote 'to say God doesn't exist takes just as much faith as to say God exists'.

What you wrote was in reply to my comment on big bang i believe. And it does say "to say God doesn't exist." Anyway,


>> 2. Surely if its "impossible to prove that something doesn't exist" then logically, it leave open the possibility that it does indeed exist?

Yes, but that is a bit silly. You could say there is a possiblity of anything existing. Its one of those daft questions like "Does a falling tree make a sound if no one is there to listen."
Such questions are completely pointless. An example: "If God is all powerful, can he build a wall that he can't jump over?".

Impossible to answer. So, you can't prove that God doesn't exist. But, lets not forget: you can't prove he exists either!!! Its a pointless question. You have to go beyond daft questions and start asking sensible, rational questions to get the answers.

Could i be wrong? Of course. But by the same token so could you. Therefore those two things cancel each other out.


>> 3. I think I am correct in saying that most of the worlds population believes in a Creator (quick google suggests only 16% belong to no religion and of these only half do not believe that God exists) so back to the definition the bit about 'despite what almost everybody else believes'..

A lot of people "say" they "believe" in God. But do they REALLY believe?? I think not.
Most people believe that if a speeding truck hits them then they will die. Most people will do anything to get out of the way of that truck. However, people who say they "believe" in God, do things that prove otherwise. They hoard money, thieve etc. How many people fiddle their tax return or work expenses and yet they say they "believe" in God? If so many Christians really, really believed in God, then they would give all their wealth to the poor and spend their whole life helping the needy as Jesus has taught them. Otherwise they would go to Hell as they supposely believe.
People say they believe lots of things. But the proof is in looking at peoples actions.

Does Tony Blair "believe" in God? If he does, surely starting a load of wars would send him to hell.
I actually think very, very few people truely believe in God. They just say they do.


>> 4. Why do you say I assume God exists because someone told me so. Could it not be that my intellect rationally deduced that if everything around me, everything in the universe, has a cause, a creator, than the universe too must also have a creator?

Sorry my mistake. I'm guessing you believe in a God that is described in a book somewhere. Someone has written that book, so i'm interpreting that as someone telling you (albiet using writing rather than vocal communication).

>> 5.Going with the car analogy, is it not the athiest the one who sees the car driving past but because he cannot see inside the bonnet he denies there is anything powering the car?

I think the atheist is the one looking in the bonnet. Its called Science! Opening things up and working them out logically, rather than just kicking the tires and getting a "feeling" for it.

claptrap


Upcoming Coverage
View and post events
Upcoming Events UK
24th October, London: 2015 London Anarchist Bookfair
2nd - 8th November: Wrexham, Wales, UK & Everywhere: Week of Action Against the North Wales Prison & the Prison Industrial Complex. Cymraeg: Wythnos o Weithredu yn Erbyn Carchar Gogledd Cymru

Ongoing UK
Every Tuesday 6pm-8pm, Yorkshire: Demo/vigil at NSA/NRO Menwith Hill US Spy Base More info: CAAB.

Every Tuesday, UK & worldwide: Counter Terror Tuesdays. Call the US Embassy nearest to you to protest Obama's Terror Tuesdays. More info here

Every day, London: Vigil for Julian Assange outside Ecuadorian Embassy

Parliament Sq Protest: see topic page
Ongoing Global
Rossport, Ireland: see topic page
Israel-Palestine: Israel Indymedia | Palestine Indymedia
Oaxaca: Chiapas Indymedia
Regions
All Regions
Birmingham
Cambridge
Liverpool
London
Oxford
Sheffield
South Coast
Wales
World
Other Local IMCs
Bristol/South West
Nottingham
Scotland
Social Media
You can follow @ukindymedia on indy.im and Twitter. We are working on a Twitter policy. We do not use Facebook, and advise you not to either.
Support Us
We need help paying the bills for hosting this site, please consider supporting us financially.
Other Media Projects
Schnews
Dissident Island Radio
Corporate Watch
Media Lens
VisionOnTV
Earth First! Action Update
Earth First! Action Reports
Topics
All Topics
Afghanistan
Analysis
Animal Liberation
Anti-Nuclear
Anti-militarism
Anti-racism
Bio-technology
Climate Chaos
Culture
Ecology
Education
Energy Crisis
Fracking
Free Spaces
Gender
Globalisation
Health
History
Indymedia
Iraq
Migration
Ocean Defence
Other Press
Palestine
Policing
Public sector cuts
Repression
Social Struggles
Technology
Terror War
Workers' Movements
Zapatista
Major Reports
NATO 2014
G8 2013
Workfare
2011 Census Resistance
Occupy Everywhere
August Riots
Dale Farm
J30 Strike
Flotilla to Gaza
Mayday 2010
Tar Sands
G20 London Summit
University Occupations for Gaza
Guantanamo
Indymedia Server Seizure
COP15 Climate Summit 2009
Carmel Agrexco
G8 Japan 2008
SHAC
Stop Sequani
Stop RWB
Climate Camp 2008
Oaxaca Uprising
Rossport Solidarity
Smash EDO
SOCPA
Past Major Reports
Encrypted Page
You are viewing this page using an encrypted connection. If you bookmark this page or send its address in an email you might want to use the un-encrypted address of this page.
If you recieved a warning about an untrusted root certificate please install the CAcert root certificate, for more information see the security page.

Global IMC Network


www.indymedia.org

Projects
print
radio
satellite tv
video

Africa

Europe
antwerpen
armenia
athens
austria
barcelona
belarus
belgium
belgrade
brussels
bulgaria
calabria
croatia
cyprus
emilia-romagna
estrecho / madiaq
galiza
germany
grenoble
hungary
ireland
istanbul
italy
la plana
liege
liguria
lille
linksunten
lombardia
madrid
malta
marseille
nantes
napoli
netherlands
northern england
nottingham imc
paris/île-de-france
patras
piemonte
poland
portugal
roma
romania
russia
sardegna
scotland
sverige
switzerland
torun
toscana
ukraine
united kingdom
valencia

Latin America
argentina
bolivia
chiapas
chile
chile sur
cmi brasil
cmi sucre
colombia
ecuador
mexico
peru
puerto rico
qollasuyu
rosario
santiago
tijuana
uruguay
valparaiso
venezuela

Oceania
aotearoa
brisbane
burma
darwin
jakarta
manila
melbourne
perth
qc
sydney

South Asia
india


United States
arizona
arkansas
asheville
atlanta
Austin
binghamton
boston
buffalo
chicago
cleveland
colorado
columbus
dc
hawaii
houston
hudson mohawk
kansas city
la
madison
maine
miami
michigan
milwaukee
minneapolis/st. paul
new hampshire
new jersey
new mexico
new orleans
north carolina
north texas
nyc
oklahoma
philadelphia
pittsburgh
portland
richmond
rochester
rogue valley
saint louis
san diego
san francisco
san francisco bay area
santa barbara
santa cruz, ca
sarasota
seattle
tampa bay
united states
urbana-champaign
vermont
western mass
worcester

West Asia
Armenia
Beirut
Israel
Palestine

Topics
biotech

Process
fbi/legal updates
mailing lists
process & imc docs
tech