Slavery Never Ends

****I don`t know where you are getting your information from.****
Look at your site`s first page.

****Islam, more than any other system has a very strong social justice component.****
Kaalchakra has done justice to your comment.

****I am analyzing society scientifically and based on that analysis, solutions are hinted at. ****
That is what Marx-Lenin-Stalin said too.

****``house`` slaves are better fed than the ``field`` slaves****
Are you a wise ``house slave`` or are you in Pakistan sitting, theoretically, analyzing the world? If the former then you should realize that your vision is unreaslitic, self-deprecating and you are trying to avoid understanding the eternal and just reality of the world; if the latter then obviously you want the ``elites`` to have the US policies approvable to you.

****Aapparently are fond of trying to dismiss sound arguments by applying labels- ``soviet union``, ``islam`` etc.****
Theoretical arguments are valueless - no matter how beautiful, cogent and based on scriptures or other tomes - unless they are related to the happenings of the observed world. Your own philosophizations unconnected to the results in the world are of interest to you only.

One fact will forever remain true there will be suuceesful people, unsuccessful people and those in between.

Inspite of all of the above I enjoy discussion with you because of the mutual, I believe, desire to exchange thoughts. Even if we may not converge on much. This is in stark contrast to flippant discussions going on, for example, Nadeem Paracha`s ``Here we go again.`` At any rate tomorrow I will fly to India for five weeks and will talk to you later if the column is still active or you want.

I think Farzana need to work on this story on the Shariat Courts in India.......the moderates have to bring some order to preserve faith in the civilian law which is the only way to marginalize the Islamists..................

Maryam Namazie



The following a speech prepared for the International Women’s Day panel on a Sharia Court in Canada in Toronto.

Islamic [In]Justice

On the establishment of an Islamic Court in Canada



8 March 2004

Toronto, Canada



The ‘Islamic Institute of Civil Justice’ or what has become known as the Sharia Court has been heralded by proponents as a multicultural way of determining personal and family disputes for those who ‘choose’ to abide by Sharia law in Ontario, Canada. We are told it will promote ‘minority rights’ and that it is equitable, tolerant, and fair. We are told that if it is not established, the ‘Muslim minority’ will be marginalized and discriminated against. That anything less is racism pure and simple.



This is not the case.



Deceptively sugar-coating an Islamic Court in civil rights terms cannot and will not conceal the stark realities of Sharia law and its regressive implications for human beings and Canadian society.



* To begin with, Sharia law is inherently unjust and unfair even if it’s only being implemented in the area of what some call mundane civil disputes.



In fact, discriminatory family and personal status codes are important pillars in the oppression of women in Islamist societies. Much of the struggle for women’s rights has taken shape in countries like Iran vis-à-vis these very aspects of Sharia law. Discrimination and gender-based persecution in areas of marriage, divorce, child custody and so on are in fact reasons why many women flee Islamist societies and seek refuge in Canada and the west. These so called ‘mundane’ disputes have cost many a woman and girl her rights and life in the Middle East and North Africa. Now, it aims to do the same in Canada.



Yes we know. Those who avail of the court will ‘choose’ to do so; it will be completely voluntary. It is interesting how pro-women’s choices the political Islamic movement becomes when it is vying for power in the west. Where are the choices for women in Iran and Afghanistan under Sharia law and Islamic states? Where is it for women of Iraq or Saudi Arabia? The political Islamic movement is renowned for threatening, intimidating, mutilating, maiming and killing all those who refuse and transgress. Women and girls are always its first victims.



The very sham concept of its voluntary nature becomes clearer when you hear Mumtaz Ali who spearheaded the initiative say: ‘Once the parties have agreed …they will be committed to it by their prior consent. As a consequence, on religious grounds, a Muslim who would choose to opt out at this stage, for reasons of convenience would be guilty of a far greater crime than a mere breach of contract--and this could be tantamount to blasphemy-apostasy.’ The penalty of which by the way is execution under Islamic law in places like Iran. Clearly, then, even a limited Sharia Court in Canada will increase intimidation and threats against innumerable women. It will open the way for further conquests by this reactionary movement.



* Some say that the Islamic Court will promote ‘minority rights’ and ensure the fair and equitable treatment of ‘minorities’.



In fact, it is just the opposite.



It is discriminatory and unfair to have different and separate systems, standards and norms for ‘different’ people. The concept of an Islamic Court adheres to a principle of separate but equal similar to that promoted by the former Apartheid regime of South Africa. It was clear then as it is clear now that separate is not equal. In fact it is a prescription for inequality and discrimination. It is the Canadian state’s justification for shrugging its shoulders and excusing itself from its responsibility towards all citizens living in Canada. It maintains fragmented ‘minority communities’ leaving members of the so-called community, particularly women and children, at the mercy of reactionary and parasitical elders and imams. It increases marginalisation and the further ghetto-isation of immigrant communities. It makes immigrants and new arrivals forever minorities and never Canadian citizens equal before and under the law.



* And that is exactly the problem with the racist concepts of multi-culturalism and cultural relativism. It promotes tolerance and respect for so-called minority opinions and beliefs, rather than and often times instead of respect for human beings.



Human beings are worthy of the highest respect but not all opinions and beliefs are worthy of respect and tolerance. There are some who believe in fascism, white supremacy, the inferiority of women. Must those beliefs be respected?



There is a big difference between the two.



Multi-culturalism always gives precedence to cultural and religious norms, however reactionary, over the human being and her rights. And it always sees communities as having one homogeneous belief and opinion – often times taking the most reactionary segment of that community – the imams and elders’ beliefs - as the belief and culture of the whole.



Multi-culturalism’s promotion of respect for beliefs and opinions is so strong that even when rights are violated, women mutilated and killed, girls victimised, respect for those beliefs and norms take precedence over individual and universal rights.



There is a real contradiction between cultural relativism and multi-culturalism on the one hand and individual rights on the other.



The Canadian state is duty-bound to defend the rights of all human beings living in Canada equally often times despite differing opinions and beliefs.



Even if it is the individual’s belief. Just as it intervenes when a woman refuses to press charges against an abusive spouse. Just as it intervenes when parents abuse their children.

Everyday, the state intervenes to protect people. Not necessarily because it likes to but because civil society and established norms force it to. It must do so here as well.



* And there are some who say opposing the Sharia Court and Islamic laws is racist.



It is not.



Opposition to or critiques of or even `phobias` of ideologies, religions, cultures, laws or political movements are not racism. Islamophobia is not racism. Only phobias against people because of their race are racism. It is only under the New World Order`s multi-culturalism that Islamophobia has been increasingly and deceptively given legitimacy as a form of racism.



The political Islamic movement labels it such only to silence those who critique it or stand up to it.



In fact it is racist to create a Sharia Court. It is racist to discriminate against so-called minorities and deny them universal and equal rights and standards and the secularism fought for and established by progressive movements over centuries. It is racist to justify and ignore violations of civil rights and misogyny under the pretext of multi-culturalism. It is racist to deny equality of all citizens before the law. It is racist to create separate legal, social, cultural, religious systems for people deemed different.



Enough is enough!



The Sharia Court in Canada is an extension of that movement that stones women on streets and hangs apostates from cranes on city squares in Iran. It is an extension of the same movement that has threatened to kill Yanar Mohammad of the Organisation of Women’s Freedom in Iraq for defending women’s rights there. It is an extension of the same movement that imprisons women in burqas in Afghanistan.



It has no right to speak of civil rights and justice. It is itself a pillar of injustice and rightless-ness in the world today.



A Sharia Court in Canada? No way! No How!



We will not allow it.



Enough is enough!



Maryam Namazie is a spokesperson for the International Federation of Iranian Refugees, representative of the Organisation of Women’s Liberation and Director of the Worker-communist Party of Iran’s International Relations Committee. Contact information: BM Box 8927, London WC1N 3XX, England. Tel: +44 (0)77 191 66 731. Fax: +44 (0) 870 1351338. E-mail: m.namazie@ukonline.co.uk



... Back

Welcome Ballukhan!

Re: # 35 We just differ!

1. Apparently, stereotypes are blinding you from accepting the facts. My article has a lot of empirical evidence to back up sound theory construction, you seem to ignore those.
2. When I mention the ``higher terrorism`` of the U.S. elites you ignore that as BS even though the facts are clear. Read ``Killing Hope`` by William Blum for documentation.
3. The front page of my site, gives two quotations from the Quran, and dozens of quotations by C.Wright Mills. I am not recommending adopting Islam on the site. That is a person`s own choice. The fact that the Quran has a strong social justice component is indisputable. Once again you dismiss without evidence and deliberately distract from the subject at hand. The subject was not Islam or the Quran.
4. Stating that there will always be inequality shows that you have surrendered to the current status quo, that is defeatism. The current U.S. dominated way is not the only way, neiter was the soviet style system the only way.
5. The facts I present represent U.S. society as it is, not only is it based on my own observation, it is based on the work or several social scientists that have carefully documented their work.
6. You can read more of my articles at http://asadi.org, apparently the Chowk administrators are not publishing them, even though I submitted a couple.
7. For all the rest who would like to understand the U.S. and its inhumane domination over the world, I recommend a classic, ``The Power Elite`` by C. Wright Mills
8. You happy image of the U.S. is based upon media propaganda. The media is controlled by 5 large profit maximizing corporations in the U.S. Their image of the U.S. is not based on reality, it is based on platitudes, baseless distrations and deception.

Have a nice day. Anyone who wants to write, my email is at the site http://asadi.org

In this discussion two prominent points that point at fallacies in thinking that are widespread among the public at large became apparent:

1. The tendency to apply ``labels`` to dismiss arguments. This is a fallacy in thinking commonly referred to as appeal to emotion. Since ``soviet union`` and ``islam`` evoke negative emotions in many people, the person will use this label to discredit the argument, not by the argument`s own premises but by association with an unrelated label, so that people dismiss it off hand.

2. Lack of critical thinking skills: Science is often touted but seldom understood, even by so called scientists like Hoodbuoy- whose generalizations about society even though he has no clue about social structure are extremely unscientific. For an argument to be scientific it must present facts within a logically formulated theoretical framework. The media and members of the mass society at large often think that throwing out numbers or a few unrelated facts prove something. They don`t, unless they are connected within a logical framework and theory- exactly the procedure I follow in my article on slavery.

The FACTS are that the American power elite are killing the world, directly through wars (http://war.asadi.org) and indirectly through perpetuating underdevelopment upon the world by implicit control of the state and military institutions of developing countries. It is no secret that the profits of the American corporations depend upon access to cheap resources, cheap labor and the inability of the poor countries to manufacture what they buy at “monopoly price” from these industrialized countries. Their practice, as objective fact, of relocation and domination of global trade empirically reveals this relationship. If the poor countries developed and started manufacturing products that would compete with the products of these corporations, they would go out of business and the economies of the over-developed countries, as centers of power, would collapse.

If educated people in the South (``Third World``) don`t even recognize the source and reality of their oppression, the extent of their slavery and the inhumanity of the ``masters``, emancipation and liberation is impossible. Their very existance depends on liberating themselves from this world system of oppression, where the vast majority live lives of misery and deprivation in a world of plenty.