Egyptian authority will issue an edict banning ‘full veils’:
Sheikh Mohamed Tantawi, dean of al-Azhar university, called full-face veiling a custom that has nothing to do with the Islamic faith.
Egyptian authority will issue an edict banning ‘full veils’:
Sheikh Mohamed Tantawi, dean of al-Azhar university, called full-face veiling a custom that has nothing to do with the Islamic faith.
Safiya has a comment on her post about the abuse suffered by women in religious groups (linked below by Willow):
The sort of consensus Safiya mentions would ultimately require political patronage and regulation of some sort. In Muslim-majority states, of course, the political and legal clout exists to simply ban or regulate religion (I am not saying if this is good or bad, simply that it exists). This happened in the past and happens today in many Muslim countries, even secular ones, where the teaching of religion is controlled, vetted and authorised by the state.
In ‘minority’ contexts, I know Yahya and Sh. Daoud Rosser-Owen have talked about similar needs for Muslims, at least those in the UK:
At about the same time, the Caliph, conscious of the vast Muslim population of the British Empire, appointed the Queen-Empress a beylerbeyi: in essence a tributary ruler over Muslims under the Caliphate.
The authority to make Islamic religious appointments, and to regulate the administrations of mosques and tribunals, including the appointment of the Office of the Shaykhu-l Islam, in the United Kingdom and Crown Dependencies rests with Queen Elizabeth II as the great-great-granddaughter of Queen Victoria. And, by residuary sovereignty, in the Republic of Ireland with the President.
Perhaps it is time to petition [Her Majesty] to revive this august Office of State? It is, of course, predominantly administrative, and would bring in expert advisors as needed. It could even commission fatwas from such authoritative sources as the University of Al-Azhar, when needed. But the trouble is who has the stature to fill it?
But I cannot see how such an office will ever prevent a group of people who dislike a particular shaykh, institution, or a set of teachings they will create their own group, given the legal and political freedoms in the UK. This is apart from the problem of which Muslim political authority will grant the patronage necessary for the new office to gain widespread acceptance. The Ottomans were regarded, by and large, the rulers of (Sunni) Islam, de jure or de facto. No such political power exists today; Saudi Arabia, despite its control over the Hijaz, cannot command the same loyalty and respect. (Numerous factors have also changed considerably since the late 19th-century.)
Perhaps the emphasis would be on the symbolism of such an office (Muslims being people who are interested in symbolism), and the inevitable community pressure it would generate (the creation and acceptance of authorities is a two-way street) in speaking out against (but which will have both positive and negative consequences)?
Midwinterspring has a post on Islam, the Ottomans and the Turkish republic:
What would have been the impact of Turkey’s modernisation efforts, but with the office of sultan in place as a kind of figurehead? Would that even have been possible?
In Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots, you have to navigate Solid Snake through a world where private military contractors outnumber government armies.
Life (slowly) imitating art, which in turn is imitating life, and so on.
Shorter Ed Husain: Give Quilliam all the money.
I am not surprised to read that our own neocon cleric Michael Nazir-Ali is off to the US to give a speech to a group of neocons:
Michael Nazir-Ali is an example of Christians in Europe who use ‘Islam’ as a vehicle to express their frustration and anxiety at the loss of standing their respective traditions and institutions have suffered.
If the Anglican Right does want to take the Church into a more aggressively evangelical direction, then they should seek to break the link between church and state.
(Via Andrew Brown.)
There’s a discussion at Pickled Politics across a handful of posts on government’s CONTEST strategy. It relates well to another thread on the report about young Muslims feeling alienated.
Sunny also links to a report by Yahya on the Prevent strand of CONTEST, and its failings, which has also come under scrutiny from a parliamentary committee. Yahya’s report criticises the unfocused approach of current initiatives, which mix supporting communities with tackling terrorism.
I think it is always worth putting so-called ‘Muslim problems’ should always be placed in wider context, because when we look closer we may find poverty, a sense of alienation, political apathy, distrust of our ruling classes, etc are not really ‘Muslim problems’ at all (i.e. Muslims are human, and are not immune to social currents, trends, fashions, problems, etc).
Tajikistan becomes the first Central Asian state to introduce religious teaching into schools (i.e. it will have to define religion and then teach it):
Students in Tajikistan will soon encounter something never before seen in their schools — religion.
The Education Ministry’s introduction of “Knowledge of Islam” as compulsory coursework can be seen as a baby step; eighth graders will be schooled in the subject just one hour a week.
But it marks a first for Central Asia, a region made up of Muslim-majority states that have maintained secular education since the fall of the Soviet Union. The change in Tajikistan has led some observers to speculate whether others in the region might break with tradition.
And inside Tajikistan itself, opinions are sharply divided between officials and Islamic clerics over who should teach the new subject and what, exactly, should be taught.
Russia turns to Muslim scholars to combat ‘radicalism’ in the Caucasus:
The integration of Muslim ulama into Russian state to combat resistance and violence to its control over its Muslim-populated areas is not new. Catherine II did something similar:
“The regime sought religious support for its policies,” Crews says. “In other words, it tried to co-opt local Muslim authorities who might be in a position to confer some kind of religious legitimacy upon state policies in order to reduce the chance of resistance.”
Having studied the Ottoman Empire, Catherine and her advisers wanted to create a hierarchical Muslim structure that would work in tandem with the Russian state.
Ziaul Haq’s ‘decade of darkness’.
This looks like an interesting read:
Carré’s insight is based not on the discovery of any new historical evidence, but on a novel way of perceiving the dialectics of Islamic existence; that is, not as the dichotomy of text and history, the antinomy of ideals and realities, but as the interplay of ‘governance’ and ‘law’ in the arena of laïcité, in the worldly domain where the political is not under the tutelage of the clergy. Traditional Islam, accordingly, has been ’secular’ without being ’secularist’; it has affirmed the this-worldly logic of politics and history but never accepted the state as sovereign or reduced faith to governance. Carré’s thesis, then, fiercely rejects Orientalist prejudices about Islam’s inherent incapacity to separate governance from sacred law and hence become modern, just as it boldly challenges all other Islamophobic claims that have been advanced in contemporary France in the name of sociology or secularism. Carré’s argument that is based on the lessons of Muslim history and actual praxis, thus, forcefully repudiates all those glib assertions about Islam’s (essential!) incompatibility with individualism, secularism, democracy and the rule of law!
Unfortunately, I can’t find an English translation.
Food fascism in Silvio Berlusconi’s Superior Civilisation:
[...]
In a nutshell, a council ordinance tabled by the Northern League bans all ‘ethnic’ shops and businesses from Capriate town centre. Most stunning is the motivation offered by the Chair of Trade and Safety at the local council: “This is not a racist decision [of course, ed.]. The town centre is short of parking space and those businesses would worsen traffic congestion”.
A US Congressional body which monitors religious freedom says India fails to protect its minorities:
The US Commission on International Religious Freedom says India was added to the list because of a “disturbing increase” in religious violence.
Indian officials aren’t pleased.
Normal in Russia, not normal in Abu Dhabi:
IK, the woman involved in the kiss, pleaded guilty at the Criminal Court of First Instance to consensual dishonour, while ZV, the Russian man involved, is facing the more serious charge of adultery.
IK was asked by Judge Syed Abdul Baseer whether they had kissed.
She replied through the court translator: “It’s a normal greeting.”
“Maybe it’s normal in Russia,” Judge Abdul Baseer said.
Bahrain ends its sponsorship law:
The government now takes over responsibility for the sponsorship of hundreds of thousands of expatriates in the Gulf island kingdom previously held by foreign workers’ employers.
Defining ‘religion’ and ‘race’:
More violence in Nigeria:
A new sharia index will measure and rank a country’s “Islamicity”:
Will this index rank a state’s performance on whether it protects people from arbitrary arrest and indefinite detention; protects its citizens from torture; and has open accountable government?
The state’s need to define the boundaries of ‘religion’ and ‘race’:
A London school, the [Jewish Free School], rejected a boy whose mother’s conversion to Judaism it did not recognise.
Faith schools may discriminate on religious grounds but the Court of Appeal held that this involved a test of ethnicity – which is unlawful.
More commentary from Simon Rocker and Ruth Gledhill.
I don’t suppose news that knowledge of the Bible has declined in Britain coupled with the Church of England’s financial woes had anything to do with this report?
It argued that the determination of ministers to tackle Islamic extremism in the wake of the London bombings on July 7, 2005, had led to a preoccupation with Muslim communities at the expense of Christian groups.
Subsequently, the report said, churches are facing a challenge to maintain their presence in poor parts of the country.
The report’s co-author, the Rt Rev Stephen Lowe, Bishop for Urban Life and Faith, said that the Church of England had applied to the Department of Communities and Local Government for money to “enable us to support parishes”.
“It seems as if political correctness by Government may defeat us,” he said, adding that the Church was ideally placed to help improve social cohesion.
The Church joins Ungod-botherer Richard Dawkins in claiming Muslims receive preferential treatment from the government.
A book review of Alatair Crooke’s Resistance: The Essence of the Islamist Revolution at A Fistful of Euros.
Dina Al Jnidi, the wife of Mahmoud Abu Rideh who has been under a control order for the last four years, writes about her experience:
Do you think Theo Hobson understands the problem of tying your religious faith to the state?
Looks like Ali Eteraz started a trend: here’s another article which seeks to link Pakistan’s problems with Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s time as Prime Minister:
The problem of sharia arbitration in Britain:
I don’t know about the other details the writer highlights. It seems like a complaint about the ’social pressure’, something which is hard to define. Trying to use the blunt instrument of the law against something like being shunned from your community’s peers would be disastrous.