Translate

Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Sikh. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Sikh. Sort by date Show all posts

Saturday, August 25, 2012

How Hate Gets Counted


By Simran Jeet Singh and Prabhjot Singh ("New York Times," August 24, 2012)

Extracted from http://wwrn.org/articles/37930/


The horrific shooting at a Sikh temple in suburban Milwaukee on Aug. 5, in which a white supremacist, Wade M. Page, killed six people before fatally shooting himself, elicited an outpouring of sympathy from American leaders and a greater understanding of the role Sikhs have played in American life.
But there are two disturbing aspects of the response to the shooting that deserve wider public attention.
First is the notion of “mistaken identity” — the assumption that Mr. Page, who had long-established ties to radical right-wing groups, mistook Sikhs for Muslims, his presumed target. The second is the government’s failure to accurately measure the extent of anti-Sikh violence in America — a gap that must be remedied.
Whatever the roots of Mr. Page’s hatred, it is wrong to assume that every attack against a Sikh is really meant for a Muslim. That assumption overlooks the long history of discrimination and hatred directed at Sikhs in America.
Indeed, the first documented race riot targeting American Sikhs occurred in 1907 in Bellingham, Wash. Their distinct religious identity (uncut hair, turban, beard) has historically marked Sikhs, particularly men, as targets for discrimination, both in their homeland in South Asia and in the various communities of the Sikh diaspora. And of course, 9/11 brought about a surge in fear and persecution directed at Sikhs, Muslims and other minorities with ties to the Middle East and South Asia.
There is also the question of whether white supremacist groups have specifically targeted American Sikhs. The authorities in Southern California, where Mr. Page was active in the white-power music scene, are investigating whether he was involved in the killings of two elderly Sikh men in Elk Grove, Calif., in March 2011. Just after the temple shooting, a Sikh man in Oak Creek, Wis., reported that a white man had pulled up next to him in a pickup truck, shaped his hands like a gun, and pretended to shoot him six times before stating, “We want to kill all of you.”
And on Aug. 15, 10 days after the Oak Creek shooting, another member of the Sikh community there, Dalbir Singh, 56, was killed in the armed robbery of a local convenience store. (While the police have not uncovered any evidence to treat the killing as a hate crime, many Sikhs have wondered if the violence was more than random.)
White supremacist Web sites clearly demonstrate intentional, targeted anti-Sikh sentiments. For example, the leading neo-Nazi figure Alex Linder was quoted as saying on a right-wing Web site: “Take your dead and go back to India and dump their ashes in the Ganges, Sikhs. You don’t belong here in the country my ancestors fought to found, and deeded to me and mine, their posterity. Even if you came here legally, and even if you haven’t done anything wrong personally. Go home, Sikhs. Go home to India where you belong. This is not your country, it belongs to white men.”
The “mistaken identity” assumption is directly associated with a second problem: a lack of data about the extent of anti-Sikh hatred.
The F.B.I. currently classifies nearly all hate violence against American Sikhs as instances of anti-Islamic or anti-Muslim hate crimes. As a result, we do not have official statistics on the extent of hate crimes in which Sikhs are targeted, despite a long history of such violence.
Why is this so? The F.B.I. tracks hate crimes on the basis of bias motivation, even if the victim is not part of the group that was targeted. The official Hate Crime Incident Report allows authorities to register a hate crime under one of five categories: race, ethnicity (including Hispanic identity), religion, sexual orientation or disability. Within those five categories are 22 subcategories, none of them designated “anti-Sikh.” Thus the F.B.I. classifies anti-Sikh crimes as “anti-Islamic (Muslim).”
We call on the F.B.I. to begin tracking anti-Sikh violence. This does not require legislation or executive order. Since the original enactment of the Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990, the F.B.I. has updated its reporting methods. For example, the bureau has revised its approach to tracking hate crimes based on sexual orientation, and now includes “anti-L.G.B.T.,” “anti-heterosexual” and “anti-bisexual” along with the “anti-gay” and “anti-lesbian” subcategories.
The legacy of anti-Sikh violence and its contemporary prevalence make it painfully obvious that anti-Sikh violence is often purposeful and targeted. The government must begin tracking and counting anti-Sikh hate crimes, just as it must continue to vigorously combat bias and discrimination against all Americans, including Muslims. We must do away with a flawed and incomplete assumption of “mistaken identity” regarding Sikhs; until we do, we will all be the ones who are mistaken.


Sunday, July 15, 2012

D.C. police to allow Sikh officers to wear beards, religious items on job


By Tara Bahrampour ("The Washington Post," May 16, 2012)


Extracted from http://wwrn.org/articles/37308/?&section=sikhism


Washington, USA - The D.C. police force on Wednesday became the first major metropolitan police department in the country to proactively allow Sikh officers to wear beards and religious items such as turbans while on the job.
The policy change was announced by Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier, who compared Sikhs to other groups that have struggled for parity in law enforcement.
“I have to remind myself sometimes that in my lifetime women were not allowed to ride in patrol cars along with men, and now I’m chief,” she said at a news conference that was attended by members of the local Sikh community.
Lanier said law enforcement works better when members of the public see themselves mirrored in their local police department, adding: “To me this is a common-sense decision. It is important that we have representation from all of our communities across Washington, D.C.”
The policy change, which requires that turbans match police uniforms and that beards be neatly tied back, also allows Sikhs to carry other “articles of faith” such as steel bracelets around their wrists and small decorative swords under their clothes.
It came about as a Sikh reserve officer prepares to graduate from the police academy. He declined to be interviewed. There are no active-duty Sikh officers working for the D.C. police.
The reserve officer, who was born in Vermont, had previously worked in the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, where he and another reserve officer lobbied unsuccessfully to change its dress code policy to allow Sikh articles of faith, said Jasjit Singh, executive director of the Washington-based Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund (SALDEF).
Singh hailed the policy change in the District and said he hoped other cities would follow.
“The beauty of this country is it really is founded on the idea of religious liberty,” he said, adding that, with the new rule, Sikhs will no longer have to make a “false choice” between their faith and their livelihood.
In 2004, two Sikh traffic officers in New York City were allowed to wear their articles of faith after filing lawsuits against the police department, according to the New York-based Sikh Coalition, which helped file one of the suits. Sikhs have also sued to serve in the U.S. military wearing their religious articles; three are currently serving, according to the coalition.
There are about 700,000 Sikhs in the United States, and about 25,000 live in the Washington metro area, according to SALDEF.
The Sikh religion originated in the Punjab region of India in the 15th century. Known for a long-standing tradition of military service, Sikhs historically made up a large percentage of the Indian army and have served in the British army and the Royal Canadian mounted police and as bodyguards for the Queen of England, Singh said.
In the United States, Sikhs have faced harassment since the September 2001 terrorist attacks, in part because some have mistaken them for Muslims. A Sikh gas station owner in Arizona was shot to death three days after the terrorist attacks.
In 2002, the Sikh community in Washington began doing cultural sensitivity training with the D.C. police.
The policy change is not the first dress code accommodation for religious reasons, Lanier said, adding that the department has made allowances for dreadlocks and beards. She said the public has supported such changes.
The department has also made accommodations for incarcerated people who wear religious head coverings, she said.


Sunday, August 19, 2012

Dalbir Singh Murdered: Another Sikh Killed in Milwaukee, Wisconsin


By Simran Jeet Singh ("Huffington Post," August 17, 2012)

Extracted from http://wwrn.org/articles/37884/


Another Sikh has been murdered in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Fifty-six-year-old Dalbir Singh regularly attended the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, the same gurdwara where white supremacist Wade Michael Page opened fire and killed six members of the congregation.
According to a press release issued by the Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund (SALDEF), the Milwaukee Police Department has been treating the case as a robbery, has not yet determined a motive, and has taken people of interest in custody. Furthermore, U.S. Attorney James Santelle "has assured the community that his office and law enforcement will look at this case critically and ensure that the motive of this crime is thoroughly investigated."
This latest murder comes in the wake of the largest tragedy in Sikh American history, and community members are openly wondering whether the murder of Dalbir Singh is connected to the massacre that took place in the same town just ten days prior. While the Sikhs of Milwaukee publicly expressed their gratitude for the outpouring of support from around the world, the community does not seem entirely surprised. In fact, some individuals had privately reported that they had received additional threats.
For example, less than a week after the temple shootings, a member of the Oak Creek Sikh community stopped his car at an intersection next to a pickup truck. The driver of the truck looked at the Sikh American, manipulated his thumb and pointer-finger to make the shape of a gun, and pulled the trigger while mouthing the words "This isn't over yet."
This sort of anecdote raises questions about the toxicity of our society.
It also shows how much work we still have to do.
One of our key failures is our inability to identify the source of these problems. By framing the Oak Creek massacre as an isolated incident, we delude ourselves into thinking of it as a randomized event carried out by a troubled individual. However, if we place the gurdwara shooting within its broader context, we can clearly see that it fits a troubling pattern of hate and bigotry within this country.
But Sikh Americans are not the only targets. The anti-Muslim vitriol in this country has reached an all-time high. Hateful Americans have attacked seven mosques over the past 11 days -- some razed a mosque in Joplin, others threw pig's feet at a mosque site in California, some shot paintballs at a mosque in Oklahoma City, and still others hurled a homemade chemical bomb at a mosque outside of Chicago.
Given the Islamophobic sentiment raging throughout modern America, we cannot afford to view the pattern of bigotry in this country as disparate, random acts. While the assailant's intent in murdering Dalbir Singh remains to be determined, the very fact that we are considering hate as a possible motive speaks volumes about the condition of our nation. We're in trouble. The nationwide desecration of mosques and the terrorizing of Sikhs in Milwaukee are symptoms of a larger problem. Determining the source of these symptoms has become an urgent and pressing need.
We can no longer just hope for improvement.
The questions hovering over Dalbir Singh's death point to a deep societal problem, and while we celebrate his life and begin to move forward, let us ask ourselves a difficult but necessary question: what are we doing to identify the source of these symptoms so that we can address the underlying problem?


Friday, January 17, 2014

Margaret Thatcher gave full support over Golden Temple raid, letter shows

Phil Miller ("The Guardian," January 15, 2014)

Margaret Thatcher gave her Indian counterpart Indira Gandhi Britain's full support in the immediate aftermath of the 1984 Golden Temple raid, according to private correspondence seen by the Guardian.
The then British prime minister sent a personal note saying that Britain supported India's unity in the face of demands for a separate Sikh homeland and disclosed that police were investigating threats against the safety of Indian diplomats.
The letter will cause further debate about Britain's role in the raid among the worldwide Sikh community and senior MPs across the political spectrum after it was disclosed on Monday that the Indian government had made an apparent request for advice from the SAS in the months leading up to the raid.
It will form part of an investigation launched by the cabinet secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood, on the orders of David Cameron to determine the British government's actions over the raid on Sikhism's holiest site in Amritsar.
The Indian government says about 400 people were killed when Gandhi sent troops into the temple complex in June 1984 in the six-day Operation Blue Star. Sikh groups, which have called for an inquiry into the British role in "one of the darkest episodes in Sikh history", put the death toll in the thousands, including many pilgrims.
In what appears to be the first letter to Gandhi after the raid, sent on 30 June 1984, Thatcher wrote: "These have been anxious weeks for you, involving difficult decisions. I have followed closely your efforts to restore calm there, and I very much hope that the 'healing touch' for which you have called will open the way to a peaceful and prosperous future in that troubled region."
The letter, which is in response to two sent by Gandhi on 9 and 14 June, appears to show that the Indian prime minister had expressed worries that Sikh "extremists" could use Britain as a base. Thatcher wrote: "I well appreciate your concern about the potential security threat posed by extremists outside India. We are determined not to allow our traditional freedoms to be abused by those who seek to use violence for political ends."
In an apparent reference to death threats against Gandhi which had been reported in the British media, the UK prime minister who died last year wrote: "We have made sure the police are aware of these statements and they are investigating them."
Thatcher also reassured Gandhi that British police were "devoting considerable resources" to safeguarding Indian government personnel in Britain.
A few months after the letter was sent, Gandhi was gunned down by her own Sikh bodyguards in a claimed act of revenge. This triggered communal violence which led to the deaths of thousands of Sikhs across India.
Other documents in the file make clear Whitehall's interest in lucrative arms sales to India at this time. A secret Foreign Office briefing dated 22 June 1984, which was sent to Downing Street, stressed that British "commercial interests" in India were "very substantial. It it a large and growing market for both commercial and defence sales. British exports in 1983 exceeded £800m and since 1975 India has bought British defence equipment worth over £1.25bn," the document claims.
Cameron on Wednesday appeared to downplay the likelihood of an inquiry finding evidence that Britain was to blame for the raid. Labour's former deputy chairman Tom Watson suggested the British might have played a part in the assault on the temple in exchange for the Indians agreeing to purchase a fleet of helicopters in a £65m deal.
Watson said to Cameron: "On your Amritsar inquiry, instead of ordering the civil servants to investigate, why don't you just ask lords Geoffrey Howe and Leon Brittan what they agreed with Margaret Thatcher, and whether it had anything to do with the Westland Helicopter deal at the time?" Cameron dismissed any suggestions of a conspiracy.

Saturday, November 10, 2012

Buddhist, Hindu Make History With Elections To Congress


By Jaweed Kaleem ("Huffington Post," November 7, 2012)

Extracted from http://wwrn.org/articles/38540/


Tuesday's elections brought two historic firsts for religion in American politics: A Buddhist senator and a Hindu representative -- both from Hawaii -- will join Congress.
Democrat Mazie Hirono beat former Gov. Linda Lingle (R), making Hirono the first Buddhist in the Senate. In Hawaii's 2nd Congressional District, Democrat Tulsi Gabbard defeated Republican opponent Kawika Crowley, making Gabbard the first Hindu in Congress.
Both elections were cheered by Hindu and Buddhist Americans, members of two faiths that share a common history that traces back to ancient India.
"These are all signs of dharmic communities being accepted in the country," said Anju Bhargava, founder of Hindu American Seva Charities. "It's all about inclusion and acceptance. The feeling that my faith and my people are accepted. Ultimately, politics comes down to 'how does it impact me?' or 'how am I included?' It will mean so much for the upcoming generations of Hindus and Buddhists."
Hirono, who was born in Japan, practices the Jodo Shinshu tradition of Buddhism. She was first elected to Congress in 2007 to represent Hawaii's 2nd District, the seat that Gabbard won Tuesday. Prior to that, Hirono served 14 years in the Hawaii state legislature and was the state’s lieutenant governor for eight years. She is also the first Asian-American woman senator and the first senator born in Japan.
“I certainly believe in the precepts of Buddhism and that of tolerance of other religions and integrity and honesty," she said when she first joined Congress.
Buddhism, which includes a widely diverse set of spiritual practices, is one of the largest religions in the U.S., but statistics vary on how many Buddhists live in the nation. Surveys have estimated the population between 1.5 and 3 million.
Gabbard, 31, was born in American Samoa, and raised by a Catholic father and a Hindu mother. She moved to Hawaii when she was 2 and in 2002, joined the Hawaii state legislature at age 21. She served in the Hawaii National Guard the next year and, in 2004, went to Baghdad to be a medical operations specialist. In 2008, she was deployed to Kuwait to work with the nation's counterterrorism trainees.
Gabbard chose to embrace the faith after her mother started practicing it when Gabbard was a teen. The congresswoman-elect, whose first name refers to a tree that's sacred to Hindus, follows the Vaishnava branch of Hinduism, which focuses on the Supreme Lord Vishnu and his 10 main incarnations. She relies upon the Bhagavad Gita as her main source of scripture.
In an interview with Religion News Service prior to her election, Gabbard said she hopes to be a bridge between cultures and nations. “Hopefully the presence in Congress of an American who happens to be Hindu will increase America's understanding of India as well as India's understanding of America," she said.
Like Buddhists, estimates of the Hindu-American community in the U.S. also vary. Largely made up of Indian-Americans, the Hindu population is between 600,000 to 2.3 million. Unlike most Hindus, Gabbard is not of Indian heritage. Her father is Samoan and her mother is a convert to Hinduism.
The two best-known Indian-Americans to be elected to office are Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who was raised Hindu but converted to Catholicism, and South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, who was raised Sikh but converted to Methodism. Haley had both Christian and Sikh wedding ceremonies, and has said she attends Sikh services on occasion out of respect to her family's culture.
Hirono and Gabbard will join an increasingly diverse Congress. The first Muslim to join the House or Senate, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), was first elected in 2006 and reelected for a fourth term on Tuesday. In 2008, Rep. Andre Carson (D-Ind.) was the second Muslim elected to Congress. In 2008, Rep. Hark Johnson (D-Ga.), another Buddhist, also joined Congress, making history with him and Hirono the first Buddhists to be elected to Congress.
More than a century prior, smaller religious groups also made headway into congressional seats for the first time. Lewis Charles Levin of the American Party was the first Jew elected to Congress in 1845, and represented Pennsylvania in the House. The first Mormon was John Milton Bernhisel, who joined Congress in 1851 to represent Utah. The only Sikh congressman, California Democrat Dalip Singh Saund, was elected for three terms beginning in 1957.



Saturday, September 1, 2012

For faith and much more, women choose to keep covered


By Lornet Turnbull ("The Seattle Times," August 31, 2012)

Extracted from http://wwrn.org/articles/37983/


Tziviah Goldberg eases into the stylist's chair at Essence Salon in Seattle's Maple Leaf neighborhood, the mirror before her reflecting the image of a woman conservatively dressed: long, flowing skirt, sleeves to her wrist.
The stylist adjusts the wig on Goldberg's head and passes a curling iron through the blonde hair to give it lift.
The wig, too, is part of Goldberg's conservative look.
Orthodox Jewish laws obligate married women, for the sake of modesty, to cover their hair — considered part of a woman's sensual beauty to be shared only with her husband.
An Hasidic Jew and mother of 10, Goldberg wears only wigs when in public, although some Orthodox Jewish women also wear hats and scarves — part of a sisterhood that, while rooted in religion, transcends the boundaries of religion.
Though of different faiths, Seattle-area women who wear scarves, wigs, hats or turbans over their hair say the practice makes them feel connected to their faith, yes, but also protected and valued.
"Jewish or Muslim or Christian, this is all about respecting women, no matter what religion it comes through," Goldberg says. "It shows respect for women if they aren't just out there hanging out for everyone to see ... and I think it's great that Muslim women cover as they do."
For many it's also a practice steeped in their culture or part of long-standing traditions they are proud of.
Deshraelle Diallo, a 16-year-old Ballard High School student who is Christian and wrestling with whether to convert to Islam, says she covers her hair out of deference to her mother, who is Muslim.
And 21-year-old Inderpal Kaur of Burien, a student at Highline Community College, wears a turban over hers because it identifies her as Sikh.
But in American society, where women don't traditionally cover their hair, those who do often stand out, whether in the workplace, at school, at the grocery store or on the street.
In the years since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, brought Islam more overtly to the attention of the Western world, head covering has become more polarizing — especially for Muslims.
In some European countries, religious head and face coverings have been banned in public schools and government buildings.
Locally, some Muslim women speak of awkward stares or outright insults from strangers: References to Osama bin Laden are common, as are refrains of "go back where you came from."
Immigrant or native born, they say there appears to be an assumption that women who cover are perpetual foreigners, unable to speak or understand English.
One young kindergarten teacher who wears the niqab, a face veil that leaves only the eyes exposed, said a bus driver once refused to allow her to board, telling her to "remove that thing from your face," and asking repeatedly, "Who are you hiding from?"
Others say they are often accused of being controlled — persecuted, even — by male-dominated societies intent on keeping women in their place.
In some Middle Eastern countries, and in some Western communities, women are beaten — some have been killed — for not covering their hair in public.
But around here, where women typically make the choice, they prefer to focus on what a good thing it is for them. It's why many say they don't mind the hassles and questions — that as insensitive as they can sometimes be, they open far more doors than they close in dispelling myths around their cultures and religions.
"I have far more interactions with people because I'm covered," says Aliah Haji, 23, the teacher who wasn't allowed to board the bus.
"People approach me wanting to know. I have an opportunity to tell them about Islam."
VEILING HAS ROOTS much deeper than the three Abrahamic faiths — Christianity, Judaism and Islam — back to the Ancient Near East, thousands of years before the Christian era, when only women of privilege were permitted to cover their hair.
"It signified a division of women based on being respectable, that these were not women available to others," says Nayereh Tohidi, a professor of gender and women's studies at California State University in Northridge.
"From there, it expanded across the world."
Referenced in one form or another in religious texts, the practice was later adopted by the Abrahamic faiths — and over the centuries, it evolved.
Within Christianity, head covering has been mostly lost. By the turn of the 20th century, at least in the U.S., scarves had given way to stylish and more fashionable hats worn in church, until eventually that practice also mostly disappeared.
Even many nuns who used to wear veils no longer do, Tohidi says. Some Catholics and other Christians may choose to put something over their hair when they go to church, she says. And Catholic girls receiving First Communion still wear veils, as do many brides, no matter their religious affiliation.
In a few ultraconservative Christian sects, such as Mennonites and Amish, as well as among some Orthodox churches, women regularly cover in public.
But even among scholars and religious leaders who share a faith — and within all three major religions — the ways and reasons for covering remain in debate.
Within Orthodox Judaism, for example, some question the wig as appropriate head covering because, to the naked eye, it appears no different from real hair.
Goldberg sees it differently: "If you wore a super fancy wig that wouldn't be modest, because it's like saying, 'Look at me, look at me.' "
When she married 28 years ago, she chose a wig — close in color to her own hair — because it allows her to cover her hair more completely than she can with a scarf. She also recognized that it requires far less explanation in public than a scarf or hat would.
Goldberg explains that "the idea is not to look ugly, frumpy or unattractive. You can look very stylish as long as it's not, 'Wow look at me. I'm wearing everything completely covered, but it's skin tight.' "
Raised mostly Christian, the 54-year-old Goldberg converted to Judaism while in law school. Her Jewish husband, who was not overly observant when they met, was not fully onboard with her covering her hair with a wig, she recalls. So they traveled together to New York where she tried on several before settling on one he felt comfortable with.
"The bottom line is if you're an observant Jew, you do things because God said that's what a Jew does," Goldberg says.
"But it doesn't mean you have to do it in a way that makes you miserable. You do it with joy and acceptance, and because you want a relationship with God."
ON A MILD day this summer, before rushing out the door of her Burien home to get to her job at UPS, Inderpal Kaur checks to make sure the black turban wrapped on her head is firmly in place.
Some baptized Sikh women, like men, wrap their hair in turbans when in public, while others like Kaur's mother, Satvir, wear a headscarf, called a chuni.
While people can be born Sikh (pronounced like "sick"), it is only through baptism that they truly become observant followers of the religion. An only child, Kaur says, "my parents encouraged but never forced me. All they said is 'pray once in a while.' This was my decision. I made this choice."
A computer-science student at Highline, Kaur was baptized five years ago after attending a faith camp in California and just before starting high school.
"I was very nervous; not sure if my friends would accept me this way," she says. "But my dad told me, 'You stepped into this path and you have to put your trust in God. He won't let you down. Don't worry about it.' "
Strict adherence to Sikhism requires steadfast commitment to five principles — the requirements for women generally the same as for men.
Observant Sikhs may not cut their hair and must wear a wooden comb in it at all times. They are required to wear special underwear, a metal bracelet on their wrist as a reminder always to do good and a 6-to-9-inch-long curved dagger they must carry at all times to come to the aid of someone in trouble.
Kaur says she sometimes wears the sword in her hip-length hair as opposed to on her body, in part to avoid "freaking people out."
For Sikh women who choose to cover — Sikhism doesn't strictly require them to — the purpose is not modesty but rather to identify them as Sikh, to keep their hair clean and as a constant reminder to do good.
"I get up, get dressed, and put on my turban and I feel good. This is who I am," Kaur says.
Many baptized women of her faith don't cover their hair because "I guess it's not considered fashionable," she says.
"Most women just want to fit in; they want to look pretty so they put their hair down, they wear fancy little clips. But I feel I have to stand out for my religion. I don't think there's any shame in it. Wearing a turban does not make you less of a woman."
PERHAPS NO religion is as intuitively associated with head covering as Islam. While not all Muslim women cover their hair, veiling is more prolific among them than among any other religious group of women these days.
Still, inside and outside the religion, there's debate about the political implications of headcovering and whether the Quran specifically requires it.
The sole reference is to a passage that urges a woman to draw her veil over her bosom. Most Islamic scholars say the presumption is that the veil is already covering the hair.
But Tohidi, the California professor, doesn't see it the same way, saying that something so important in the lives of Muslims would surely have been specifically cited — the way violations such as alcohol use and the taking or granting of credit are.
Also, she says, there's no specific punishment in the Quran for not covering like there is for other acts considered to be transgressions.
But any discrepancy in interpretation is lost on those women who do wear the hijab, and who say they do so because they believe, as pious, religious women, it is what is required of them.
For Heba Bakhach, 25, the daughter of a Lebanese father and a Nicaraguan mother, it was never a question.
Born in Saudi Arabia, Bakhach and her family moved to Toronto when she was 9, and after high school returned to the Middle East, where she attended college in Lebanon.
She began covering her hair in Saudi Arabia, the way most females there do once they reach puberty. Comfortable clothing has always been part of her natural style, but in Toronto, she was shocked by her father's sudden demand that she begin wearing the jilbab — a loosefitting garment that covers a Muslim woman from neck to ankles.
Bakhach was 16 at the time, and on the girls soccer team, wearing long pants and long-sleeve jerseys to maintain modesty.
"My father was of the opinion I had to wear that dress."
"I was pretty upset for a few years," she says.
A teacher later explained the garment's religious significance to her, and she now wears it all the time.
Except on this June afternoon after a horseback-riding session in Redmond when Bakhach is wearing her riding breeches, a white head scarf framing her pretty face.
Co-workers at the pharmacy where she works in Mount Vernon never ask about her conservative dress, but customers sometimes do: "What's that thing on your head?" some have asked her.
"For many of them I guess it's the first time in their lives seeing a Muslim," she says. "They'd say: 'I saw people like you on TV. Eeeeslam?' "
She also acknowledges that in some cultures a female who fails to cover "could bring shame on the family," which might even disown her. She remembers the Mutaween, Saudi Arabia's religious police, patrolling the streets, looking for violators of Islam's rules. But it's not something she thinks of all the time. "It's just a fact of life," she says.
For her, covering is about a commitment to her faith.
"I know I'm pleasing God when I do it; that's the core reason."
EVEN AMONG women who cover their hair, the niqab, a cloth that cloaks the lower part of the face to leave only the eyes exposed, is controversial — at least in this country.
The cloth, worn by the wives of the Prophet Muhammad, is rarely used among Muslims in the U.S. The Quran does not specifically mention it.
But a local group of young Muslim women and friends, all in their 20s, wear it as part of their all-black, conservative attire, what they call their uniform.
They say they first began wearing the niqab to see if they could — and now remove it in public only to take their driver's-license photos and lift it when they eat out.
The women share a special bond; they play tennis together and jokingly question each other about how they will find a husband with their faces concealed.
One of them, Aisha Sharif, 22, says her parents flatly refused to let her wear the niqab when she was still in high school. None of her six older sisters do.
She had researched the niqab carefully and wanted to wear it as a way to emulate the righteous women of the Quran.
But her concerned parents had questions: They said, "How are you going to get a job when you graduate? What if someone physically assaults you?"
Originally from Somalia, Sharif says she couldn't wait to graduate from high school.
"For me, it was embracing my religion, my identity: how I am to be as a Muslim woman," she says. "I had to be comfortable with myself."
In Western society, she says, "everything now is about a woman's beauty — you know, her hips, her curves, her face, her hair."
Sharif says she believes beauty lies within, and she dismisses the idea that she needs "to sway her hips to get a man's attention." She wants to gain people's respect — including men's — for the kind of person she is, not what she looks like.
"I don't have to worry about what society will think about my appearance," she says. "All I worry about is what God will think about me, my heart and my actions. When I dress and walk out, I'm a Muslim. That's the image that people see."


Saturday, November 10, 2012

Sikhs allowed to carry daggers at Calif. school


By (AP, November 5, 2012)

Extracted from http://wwrn.org/articles/38513/


Jurupa Valley, Calif. — A Southern California school district is allowing some Sikh students to carry an article of their faith — a dagger-like blade called a kirpan.
At least three high school students in the Jurupa Unified School District will be allowed to wear the approximately 2-inch knives at school after their parents agreed to solder them or sew them into the sheaths so they cannot be used as weapons, Superintendent Elliott Duchon said.
The kirpan is one of five sacred articles that baptized Sikhs must wear.
"This is an issue of religious freedom and of faith," said Mary Burns, the district's longest-serving school board member. "Who am I to deny what is an article of faith of a 600-year-old religion?"
However, board member Brian Schafer argued that edged kirpans should be banned and only kirpan-shaped pendants should be permitted in school. Schafer said he planned to ask for a public school board vote on the issue.
"If I were a parent and I knew someone was wearing one of these daggers, I would worry about my child's safety and the Sikh students' safety," Schafer said.
"This is not a dagger," Duchon told the Riverside Press-Enterprise (http://bit.ly/UqB0Ml). "It's less than two and a half inches long, the blade can't be used and it cannot be removed from the sheath."
Duchon said there have been no complaints or violence involving kirpans at local schools.
Wearing a kirpan is required for Sikhs who make the religious commitment of being baptized, said Kirtan Singh Khalsa, a priest at a Sikh temple in Los Angeles.
Khalsa said he would approve of limiting the size of the kirpan's blade or securing it in a sheath.
"It's understandable that schools are a vulnerable environment and safety is an important issue," he said. "Those are reasonable concessions."
But Khalsa said he would not consider soldering kirpans to their sheaths or using kirpan-shaped pendants.
"It's not a symbol," Khalsa said. "It's an article of faith."
It is constitutional for schools to ban knives as long as such rules don't target Sikhs or those of other faiths, said Aaron Caplan, an associate professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.
Other school districts have required students to wear a kirpan-shaped charm or a sheath containing a paper dagger, said Tina Jung, a spokeswoman for the California Department of Education.
"It's a very delicate balance" between school safety and freedom-of-religion concerns, Jung said. "But student safety is always paramount."



Saturday, October 6, 2012

Non-Christian Prison Chaplains Chopped By Federal Government


By ("CBC," October 5, 2012)

Extracted from http://wwrn.org/articles/38244/


The federal government is cancelling the contracts of all non-Christian chaplains at federal prisons, CBC News has learned.
Inmates of other faiths, such as Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists and Jews, will be expected to turn to Christian prison chaplains for religious counsel and guidance, according to the office of Public Safety Minister Vic Toews, who is also responsible for Canada’s penitentiaries.
Toews made headlines in September when he ordered the cancellation of a tender issued for a Wiccan priest for federal prisons in B.C.
Toews said he wasn't convinced part-time chaplains from other religions were an appropriate use of taxpayer money and that he would review the policy.
In an email to CBC News, Toews' office says that as a result of the review, the part-time non-Christian chaplains will be let go and the remaining full-time Christian chaplains in prisons will now provide interfaith services and counselling to all inmates.
"The minister strongly supports the freedom of religion for all Canadians, including prisoners,” the email states. “However, the government … is not in the business of picking and choosing which religions will be given preferential status through government funding. The minister has concluded … [Christian] chaplains employed by Corrections Canada must provide services to inmates of all faiths."
88% of inmates Christian
There are nearly 15,000 inmates in federal custody and a large majority of them identify themselves as Christian:
- 58% are Catholic.
- 30% are Protestant.
- 7% are Muslim.
- 3% are Buddhist.
- 1% are Jewish.
- 1% are Sikh.
Figures obtained by CBC News show that before the contract cancellations — which will take effect by the end of March 2013 — there were about 80 full-time chaplains across the country and all but one are Christian. There are about 100 part-time chaplains, 20 of them non-Christian.
The total cost of the chaplain program is about $6.4 million a year and it's not clear what amount will be saved by the cancellations.
Chaplains concerned
The decision has raised concern among representatives of non-Christian faiths, such as B.C. Sikh chaplain Hark rat Singh.
“I believe this is discrimination,” Singh said. "How can a Christian chaplain provide spirituality to the Sikh faith, because they don't have that expertise."
Rabbi Dina-Hasida Mercy called the cancellations “un-Canadian” and said she was concerned about the inmates she counsels.
“My first reaction is, ‘What am I going to tell the guys that I see,’” Mercy said. "These people are all going to be out on the street someday, and unless we do some work while they're in prison to help them become good citizens when they're on the outside, it's not going to happen."
Surrey Muslim Imam Aasim Rashid said he doubted that Christians could properly minister to Muslims.
“It’s not very practical and frankly I don’t even think it’s possible,” Rashid said. "I don't think it's been done yet anywhere where you have a person of one faith who is catering to the spiritual or religious needs of all the other faiths."


Saturday, September 1, 2012

Rising anti-Islamic sentiment in America troubles Muslims


By Moni Basu ("CNN," September 5, 2012)

Extracted from http://wwrn.org/articles/38013/


When the nation pauses to remember 9/11 next week, a group of Tennesseans will gather at the Embassy Suites Hotel in Franklin for a commemoration. But it will be more than that.
On the program, called "The Threat in Our Backyard," is a lecture on Islam in public schools and a short film on Sharia finance.
It's a program organized by people who feel the American way of life is threatened by Islam - in particular, Sharia, or Islamic law.
Sharia would bring ruin to America, says Greg Johnson, vice president of the 9/12 Project Tennessee, a sponsor of the event that advocates for shifting government back to the intent of the Constitution's authors.
He says he has nothing against Muslims, but he takes issue with the tenets of Islam.
Sharia, he believes, would mean that practicing homosexuals would be put to death, women would not be educated and would be married off to men chosen by their fathers, and non-Muslims would become kafirs - nonbelievers - relegated to second-class citizenship.
"And I don't want that coming to America," Johnson says.
He's not alone in his fears.
A tide of anti-Islam sentiment has been swelling across America in recent months, strong enough to prompt one imam to wish for the days immediately after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks when President George W. Bush declared that Muslims were not our enemies; that the war on terror was against a select few who acted upon their hate for America.
"In the 11 years since, we have retreated," says Abdullah Antepli, the Muslim chaplain at Duke University who likes to call himself the Blue Devil Imam.
Muslims make up less than 1% of the U.S. population. Yet, say Muslim advocates, they are a community besieged.
Hate crimes against Muslims spiked 50% in 2010, the last year for which FBI statistics are available. That was in a year marked by Muslim-bashing speech over the Islamic center near ground zero in Manhattan and Florida Pastor Terry Jones' threats to burn Qurans.
Antepli likens the current climate to McCarthyism. Left unchecked, he says, anti-Muslim fervor, like racism and anti-Semitism, has the potential to evolve into something dangerous.
This year's holy month of Ramadan, which ended August 19, was marred by a spate of violence at U.S. Islamic centers that included a fire, a homemade bomb and pig parts. The incidents were unprecedented in scale and scope, says the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
At least seven mosques and one cemetery were attacked in the United States during Ramadan, according to the council and other groups that track such incidents.
Particularly visible on the anti-Muslim radar has been the state of Tennessee, where a mosque opened during Ramadan after two years of controversy. The new Islamic center in Murfreesboro opened a few weeks ago after delays caused by legal wrangling, community protests and vandalism.
Also in Tennessee, incumbent congresswoman Diane Black found herself publicly opposing Sharia after her opponent Lou Ann Zelenik made it a campaign issue.
State senatorial candidate Woody Degan's website also mentions Sharia:
"VOTE CONSERVATIVE! VOTE Anti-Sharia, VOTE Against Internet Taxes, Vote FOR Gun Carry Rights! VOTE for your PERSONAL RIGHTS!"
And Gov. Bill Haslam recently came under fire for hiring lawyer Samar Ali, a Muslim woman from Tennessee, to work in the international division of the state's economic development department.
Ali's critics called her Sharia-compliant and a website called Bill H(Islam) attacked the governor for pursuing "a policy that promotes the interest of Islamist (sic) and their radical ideology."
The website links to another that discusses, among other things, Islamic infiltration of public schools.
"I cannot stress enough the seriousness of their push to spread their religion to all non-Muslims throughout our country," says website author Cathy Hinners, another speaker at next Tuesday's 9/11 event in Franklin.
"Why? Why are Muslims so adamant that we accept their religion? The answer is simple. The answer is in black and white. The answer is in the Muslim brotherhoods "Strategic Goal for North America." It's called a global caliphate. One religion, one government, one law... called Sharia."
In November 2010, more than 70% of voters in Oklahoma approved a ballot initiative to amend the state's constitution that banned courts from looking at "legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia law."
The amendment died after a federal court ruled it discriminatory.
"That was very explicitly anti-Islamic," says Glenn Hendrix, an Atlanta lawyer who specializes in international law. "It specifically referenced Sharia."
This year, 33 anti-Sharia or international law bills were introduced in 20 states, making it a key issue. Six states - Louisiana, South Dakota, Kansas, Arizona, Louisiana and Tennessee - adopted such laws prior to 2012.
Two Tennessee lawmakers attempted to pass a bill this year that would have made it a felony to practice Sharia, but it failed.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations says the anti-Sharia bills are based on draft legislation promoted by David Yerushalmi, an anti-Islamic lawyer from New York.
Yerushalmi founded the Society of Americans for National Existence, an organization devoted to promoting his theory that Islam is inherently seditious and Sharia is a "criminal conspiracy to overthrow the U.S. government," according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups.
"Ideally," says the center, "he would outlaw Islam and deport its adherents altogether."
Hendrix says anti-Sharia legislation is not necessary since U.S. courts ultimately are beholden to U.S. law.
But it sends a strong message to the Muslim community.
The American Bar Association, which opposes federal or state laws that impose blanket prohibitions on foreign laws, says such legislative initiatives stigmatize an entire religious community and "are inconsistent with some of the core principles and ideals of American jurisprudence."
Valarie Kaur, a legal advocate and hate crimes specialist, says proponents of anti-Sharia bills are battling an imaginary threat.
"There is no push to install Sharia law in the U.S.," she says. "Anti-Sharia bills target the religious principles of Muslim Americans and fuel anti-Muslim rhetoric and bias. As a Sikh American whose community has too often become the target of hate, I believe it's time to stand against all forms of racism and religious bigotry."
An attack at a Wisconsin Sikh temple last month killed six people. Many believe the shooter mistook Sikhs for Muslims. A Sikh gas station attendant in Arizona was the first victim of reprisal after the 9/11 attacks.
Kaur blames tough economic times and an amplification of hateful speech for incidents like the temple shooting and the momentum behind the anti-Sharia campaign.
For Muslims, Sharia - which means "path to the watering hole" in Arabic - is the divine law revealed centuries ago in the Quran that governs all aspects of life. More often than not, it's the most sensational parts of Sharia - like cutting off a thief's hand - that garner the most publicity.
U.S. courts bump up against it in cases of divorces, inheritance, child custody, enforcement of money judgments and commercial disputes or tort actions.
A trial court in New Jersey, for instance, ruled that a husband, who was Muslim, lacked the criminal intent to commit sexual assault on his wife because Sharia permits a man to have sex with his wife whenever he wants.
That's the kind of ruling that fuels anti-Sharia activists.
Nashville health-care investor Andrew Miller says there's no room for democracy within Islamic ideology. All you have to do is look to any Islamic state, he says.
"If you wanted to pray to a large rock and that was your God, I could care less," he says. "But the minute you want to put a gun to my head and say you will pray to this large rock and your family will or you will pay the price, that's when I see a bully. I see an overbearing ideology that wants to force and coerce people.
Miller describes himself as a tolerant person but not when it comes to people dictating how others will live.
"That's antithetical to the freedoms that we value, the liberty we value," he says.
The message that Islam is evil has been repeated so many times - sometimes directly, sometimes in a more subtle fashion - that it has sunk in as reality in the hearts and minds of many Americans, says Antepli, the Duke chaplain.
Part of it is fear of the unknown, he says.
"I, too, would have a monstrous image of Islam if I did not know any better."
But another part of it is orchestrated, he says, referring to "well-organized and polished" anti-Islam websites that have sprouted in recent years. Marry that with ignorance and the end result is lethal, Antepli says.
The Center for American Progress, a liberal research and advocacy organization, published a report last year that attributed the rise of Islamophobia to a "small, tightly-networked group of misinformation experts."
The report called "Fear, Inc." lists seven foundations that gave $42.6 million to think tanks to promote anti-Islamic thought.
It describes "deeply intertwined individuals and organizations" that "manufacture and exaggerate threats of 'creeping Sharia,' Islamic domination of the West, and purported obligatory calls to violence against all non-Muslims by the Quran."
The issue of Sharia, say some Muslims, has become a political hot potato in an election year.
GOP candidates Newt Gingrich and Michele Bachmann mentioned Sharia in their campaign speeches. This year's Republican Party platform makes mention of foreign laws:
"Subjecting American citizens to foreign laws is inimical to the spirit of the Constitution. It is one reason we oppose U.S. participation in the International Criminal Court. There must be no use of foreign law by U.S. courts in interpreting our Constitution and laws. Nor should foreign sources of law be used in State courts' adjudication of criminal or civil matters."
That's the message Miller hopes people will take away from next week's 9/11 meeting; that the tenets of Islam go against the constitution of the United States.
It's diametrically opposed to what people like Antepli and Kaur will be saying as America remembers the horror of terrorism. Hateful sentiment, they say, is not the answer.


Saturday, August 18, 2012

A Quiet Campaign of Violence Against American Muslims


By Peter Beinart ("Newsweek," August 20, 2012)

Extracted from http://wwrn.org/articles/37912/


When muslim extremists attacked their third American church in three days, the cable networks cut away from regular programming to cover the news. When militants vandalized a Christian school in Illinois two days later, both presidential candidates issued statements denouncing the wave of jihadist violence. When terrorists shot up another church the day after that, President Obama flew to comfort the parishioners. By the sixth attack, Rush Limbaugh was demanding that the Obama administration ditch its politically correct pussyfooting and acknowledge the Muslim fifth column in our midst. After the seventh attack, lawmakers introduced legislation giving the feds additional powers to detain American citizens suspected of extremist views. After the attack, a group of congressmen suggested that the U.S. halt immigration from Muslim countries.
None of this happened. But in recent weeks, here’s what has. On Aug. 4, teenagers pelted a mosque in Hayward, Calif., with fruit. On Aug. 5, Wade Michael Page murdered six congregants and wounded a police officer at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, quite possibly because he thought the Sikhs were Muslim. That same day, a man vandalized a mosque in North Smithfield, R.I. On Aug. 6, a mosque in Joplin, Mo., was burned to the ground. On Aug. 7, two women threw pieces of pork at the site of a proposed Islamic center in Ontario, Calif. On Aug. 10, a man allegedly shot a pellet rifle at a mosque near Chicago while people prayed inside. On Aug. 12, attackers fired paintball guns at a mosque in Oklahoma City, and a homemade bomb filled with acid was thrown at an Islamic school in Lombard, Ill. On Aug. 15, assailants threw a Molotov cocktail at the home of a Muslim family in Panama City, Fla.
Except for the Sikh temple attack, little of this has made the national press (other than Salon.com, which has chronicled it well), in part because it doesn’t fit the prevailing media narrative. At least since 9/11, “terror” and “homeland security” have been terms that connote the danger that Muslims pose to non-Muslims, not the other way around. But this very fear of Muslim violence may be sparking anti-Muslim violence, and hysteria-peddling politicians bear some of the blame.
During the Republican presidential primaries, Herman Cain said he would not appoint a Muslim to his cabinet. Newt Gingrich warned incessantly about Sharia being imposed upon the United States. In July, Michele Bachmann and several other members of Congress insinuated that Huma Abedin, one of the few American Muslims in a high-level government job, was an agent of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood. John McCain, Marco Rubio, and John Boehner criticized Bachmann’s smear campaign, but Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Eric Cantor, and Romney adviser John Bolton defended it. Romney, predictably, tried to have it both ways, saying that Bachmann’s attacks “are not things that are part of my campaign,” but that “I’m not going to tell other people what things to talk about.” In other words, I won’t defame American Muslims myself, but if other prominent Republicans want to, go ahead. After receiving threats, Abedin now receives FBI security protection.
Obviously, jihadist terrorism still exists. (As does anti-Christian violence by the secular left, as evidenced by last week’s shooting at the offices of the Family Research Council.) But more than a decade after 9/11, the overwhelming evidence suggests that the jihadist threat has diminished dramatically. Yes, Islamists are gaining power in parts of the Middle East, but “Islamism” has become the same kind of catchall phrase that “communism” was in the 1950s, which means it ranges from people who want to kill Americans to people who just hold a different vision of society. The Muslim Brotherhood may be bad news for Egypt, and perhaps Israel, but it’s hardly planning attacks on U.S. soil.
In the 1950s, Joseph McCarthy—believing that it was too difficult to fight communism abroad—declared that the real threat came from communists at home. In so doing, he fueled a hysteria that ruined the lives of countless Americans who had dabbled in leftist politics but never remotely posed a threat to their fellow citizens. Today, with the Bush era’s epic “war on terror” ending with a whimper, a new generation of anti--Muslim -McCarthyites is doing something similar. The more American politicians insist that Islam is inherently hateful and violent, the more hate and violence they foment against Muslims in the U.S. Maybe if the media covered the attacks American Muslims endure as vigorously as they cover the attacks American Muslims commit, more people would realize that.


Saturday, April 14, 2012

Religion may be taken out of marriage registration


By Mahendra Kumar Singh ("The Times of India," April 11, 2012)

Extracted from http://wwrn.org/articles/37094/


New Delhi, India - The Union Cabinet is likely to consider a proposal that seeks to do away with the requirement to disclose one's religious affiliation for registration of marriages as well as the demand of Sikh bodies that their marriages be registered under a separate law.
The move has been prompted by the consideration to help those opting for inter-faith marriages, along with the need to make registration of marriages a simpler affair.
It is recognized that those who marry outside their religion face harassment, including from the conservative sections of the bureaucracy.
Administrative convenience is the other consideration, with the law ministry suggesting that registration of marriages will become easier if a clause on marriage registration is added to the Births and Deaths Registration Act, 1969.
In its note to the Cabinet, the ministry has argued that since infrastructure to register births and deaths is already in place in civic authorities, it can easily handle registration of marriages once the law has been suitably amended.
As for the demand of Sikh bodies, they have argued that their marriages should be, as is the case with other minority communities - Muslims, Christians, Jews, Parsis - registered under a separate law. Marriages of Sikhs along with those of Buddhists and Jains are currently registered under the Hindu Marriage Act: an arrangement which is being opposed by many Sikhs as part of their pursuit for a distinct identity. These groups argue that their demand can be accepted by amending the Anand Marriage Act, 1909.
The Cabinet will be required to factor in view that meeting the demand will spark similar pitches from Jains and Buddhists: two other communities that have so far been comfortable with the practice, where their marriages are registered under the Hindu Marriage Act.


Monday, January 30, 2012

Islam doesn't justify 'honor murders,' experts insist


By Richard Allen Greene ("CNN," January 30, 2012)

Extracted from http://wwrn.org/articles/36852/


Canada - Zainab Shafia's crime was to run off to marry a man her parents hated. Middle sister Sahar's crime was to wear revealing clothes and have secret boyfriends. Youngest sister Geeti's crime was to do badly in school and call social workers for help dealing with a family home in turmoil.
The punishment for all three teenage Canadian sisters was the same: death.
Their executioner: their brother, acting on instructions from the father to run their car off the road.
Another family member, their father's first wife in a polygamous marriage, was also killed.
Hamed Shafia, his father, Mohammed, and his mother, Tooba Mohammed Yahya, were sentenced to life in prison for murder, with Judge Robert Maranger excoriating their "twisted notion of honor, a notion of honor that is founded upon the domination and control of women, a sick notion of honor that has absolutely no place in any civilized society."
Leading Muslim thinkers wholeheartedly endorsed the Canadian judge's verdict, insisting that "honor murders" had no place and no support in Islam.
"There is nothing in the Quran that justifies honor killings. There is nothing that says you should kill for the honor of the family," said Taj Hargey, director of the Muslim Educational Centre of Oxford in England.
"This idea that 'somehow a girl has besmirched our honor and therefore the thing to do is kill her' is bizarre, and Muslims should stop using this defense," he said, arguing that the practice is cultural, not religious in origin.
"You cannot say this is what Islam approves of. You can say this is what their culture approves of," he said.
The Shafia family is originally from Afghanistan.
Experts say honor murders take place in many parts of the world.
"It's definitely a problem that happens in many different places: the Middle East, Pakistan, Bangladesh and among immigrant communities in North America," said Nadya Khalife, a researcher on women's rights in the Arab world for Human Rights Watch.
Several Arab countries and territories, including Iraq, Kuwait, Syria, Yemen and the Palestinian territories, have laws providing lesser sentences for honor murders than for other murders, Human Rights Watch says.
Egypt and Jordan also have laws that have been interpreted to allow reduced sentences for honor crimes, the group says.
Reliable figures of the number of honor murders are hard to come by, Khalife said, but she pointed to a United Nations Population Fund estimate of 5,000 per year.
Khalife agreed that the practice should not be blamed on Islam.
"It's not linked to religion; it's more cultural," she said. "There have been several Islamic scholars who have issued fatwas against honor killing."
Mohammed Shafia, who denied murder, said himself in court that Islam did not justify honor murders.
"In our religion, a person who kills his wife or daughter, there is nothing more dishonorable," he testified.
But Shafia was heard condemning his dead children in wiretapped conversations played in court.
"May the devil defecate on their graves! This is what a daughter should be? Would a daughter be such a whore?" he said.
Hargey, the director of the Muslim Educational Centre, said violence was sometimes the result of painful transition.
"Muslims are in a state of flux," he said.
"They are between two worlds: the ancient world and the new technological age," he said. "Women are getting rights and the ability to choose their own spouses. The family in Canada didn't know how to respond to this: the conflict between the discipline of children and the new reality."
Irshad Manji, the author of "Allah, Liberty and Love: Courage to Reconcile Faith and Freedom," said there was another conflict at work in honor murders, a term CNN uses in preference to "honor killings" because the latter phrase does not properly describe the crime.
It is "a tribal tradition that emphasizes the family or the tribe or the community over the individual," she said.
Although the practice may not be Islamic, she said, not all Muslims understand the distinction.
"It is a problem within Islam because of how Muslims often confuse culture and religion," she said. "It's Muslims who have to learn to separate culture and religion. If we don't, Islam will continue to get the bad name that it gets."
But one vocal British campaigner against honor violence points out that not all the crimes are perpetrated by Muslims.
Jasvinder Sanghera, who was the victim of a forced marriage, is not Muslim; she is Sikh.
"Significant cases are happening within South Asian communities, be it Pakistani, Indian, Sikh, Muslim, Kurdish, Iranian, Middle Eastern communities," she said.
"And we have to recognize that because the statistics don't lie. I am not standing here trying to embarrass those communities. But equally, those communities should be ashamed because this is happening in their community and they are not taking a stand," she said.
On the other hand, honor murders are not a problem in Indonesia, which has the world's largest Muslim population.
"No such a practice can be found among Indonesian Muslims," said Azyumardi Azra, the director of the graduate school at the State Islamic University in Jakarta, Indonesia.
" 'Honor killing' is, I believe, a cultural problem among Arab and South Asian Muslims. I don't think that kind of practice has an Islamic basis," he said.
Although women and girls make up the overwhelming number of victims, there have been at least some male victims, including Ahmet Yildiz, a gay Turkish man whose fugitive father is the main suspect in his 2008 shooting death.
Britain has had about a dozen honor murders per year for the past several years, said Ghayasuddin Siddiqui of the Muslim Parliament of Great Britain.
He, too, said the crimes were not justified by Islam.
"This comes from tribal customs where the father - not both parents - see children as their property. A girl decides to marry somebody of whom their parents do not approve, and they conspire and find some way to kill and dispose of this body," he said. "This is a kind of misplaced shame that parents feel that their daughter has decided to marry somebody of her choosing, not theirs."
Britain's Crown Prosecution Service has an expert devoted to prosecuting honor-based violence, Nazir Afzal.
Convicting perpetrators can be difficult, he said.
"There is a wall of silence around this, and people are not prepared to talk," he said.
But Afzal insisted that it was "absolutely important that you bring every single person to justice because you want to deter other people from doing it."
And along with the Islamic scholars and human rights advocates, he rejected out of hand the idea that religion justified it.
"At the end of the day, murder is murder. There is no faith on Earth, no community on Earth that justifies this," he said.
"Abrahamic faiths say 'Thou shalt not kill,' " he pointed out. "At the end of the day, nobody should die for this."


Thursday, August 22, 2013

Quebec Ponders Turban, Kippa, Hijab Restrictions

Andy Blatchford ("The Canadian Press," August 20, 2013)

Montreal - Quebec has launched its next debate on minority accommodation — and this one could make the erstwhile soccer-turban ban look like a leisurely stroll down the pitch.
The government is preparing to introduce long-awaited, controversial legislation that would restrict religious symbols in numerous places.
A media report Tuesday with leaked details of the Parti Quebecois government's "Charter of Quebec Values" said the proposed policy will prohibit public employees from donning Sikh, Jewish and Muslim headwear or visible crucifixes in the workplace.
The particulars drew swift condemnation from political adversaries and from a well-known philosopher, who likened the plan to the human-rights abuses of Vladimir Putin's Russia.
The Parti Quebecois minority government hopes to cash in at the ballot box by championing a "secularism" plan that polls have suggested has considerable support in the province.
So the fiery debate that erupted over a recent ban on wearing turbans on Quebec soccer fields offered a sneak-peek of what could be in the political pipeline for the national assembly's fall session.
The turban ban was lifted by the Quebec Soccer Federation due to external pressure that included unflattering headlines abroad. Inside Quebec, however, Premier Pauline Marois rushed to the defence of the soccer federation and accused its detractors of Quebec-bashing.
Political opponents quickly cast Tuesday's leak as a PQ "trial balloon."
The newspaper report said the PQ government is set to restrict public-sector workers in places like daycares, schools and hospitals from wearing religious symbols such as turbans, niqabs, kippas, hijabs and highly visible crucifixes. Some institutions, however, will be free to request exemptions from the government, according to the report.
The PQ's approach was roundly condemned Tuesday by civil-rights experts, including an outraged Charles Taylor, the internationally renowned philosopher who co-presided over Quebec's 2007 commission on the accommodation of minorities.
Taylor told The Canadian Press such measures would have a devastating impact on Quebec's reputation in the world and he feared it would keep entire communities out of public-sector jobs because of their religious convictions.
He said to find a comparable level of systemic exclusion, one would have to look to Russia.
"In Russia, if you believe that homosexuals should have the same rights as others you cannot be open about it. It would be considered propaganda, it's a type of crime of conscience," Taylor said.
"If we look at what is proposed here, for sure it does not go as far, but it says that if you have certain convictions you are a second-class citizen because those who have such convictions cannot apply for (a job) in the public sector."
The province, he added, would isolate itself if the PQ government digs in and moves forward with the policy.
"I challenge you to find another country in the hemisphere where we have this kind of exclusion," Taylor said. "There are countries much more diverse than ours, like Brazil, that will find this appalling."
He argued that it's one thing to ban a teacher from wearing a burka, because an impediment to clear face-to-face communication could have an impact on other people — namely, the students.
But he condemned a wall-to-wall, draconian approach.
If the Marois government drives forward with the legislation, it would likely face court challenges under the Charter of Rights, said Montreal human-rights lawyer Julius Grey.
"The type of secularism that is being promoted goes beyond what is acceptable," he said in an interview, expressing hope that the plan would be struck down.
The PQ has already said it wouldn't hesitate to fight the courts on the matter, including using the Constitution's notwithstanding clause to override any verdict.
It has, in fact, stated rather bluntly that it would gladly wage a legal battle up to the Supreme Court over the issue — and would hope to use the clash with Canadian institutions to stir up support for its main cause of independence.
Past opinion polls have suggested such policies enjoy broad public support with voters in Quebec. A majority have told pollsters they supported the turban ban and also viewed hijabs and kippas as a cultural threat.
What's less clear is how the policy will hold up in the long term, in two key arenas: the court system, and the ballot box.
There's no guarantee the minority government could get the policy through the legislature or win an election on it.
In the legislature, the policy would need the support of one major opposition party and both the Liberals and Coalition Avenir Quebec have reacted coolly — especially the Liberals.
There's no evidence yet that the issue is an election-winner, either.
Even if the PQ's approach proves popular, other polls suggest that only a minuscule sliver of Quebec voters actually care about this as an election issue — and that what really drives the Quebec electorate are bread-and-butter issues like health care, education and the economy.
A Leger Marketing poll during last year's election campaign listed immigrant integration as a top electoral priority for a paltry one per cent of respondents — at No. 15 on voters' list of issues.
Other identity issues hardly fared better in that poll. Sovereignty was the 10th most-commonly cited issue, and the protection of French was at No. 12.
Health care, by comparison, was the No. 1 issue, cited by 35 per cent of respondents when asked to choose their top two most-important issues.
Lowering taxes, fighting corruption, school fees, creating jobs, trimming down the civil service and protecting the environment — all were among the issues ranked higher by the 1,648 respondents to the online poll.
The PQ had already campaigned last year on a promise to introduce what was originally dubbed the "Charter of Secularism."
The Marois government has since rebranded the plan as a charter of "Quebec values" — with those values including gender equality and secularism.
Liberal leader Philippe Couillard has dismissed the idea in the past and shrugged it off Tuesday as a "trial balloon."
He called it the PQ's attempt to divert the public's attention away from economic issues.
The province has seen its economic, political and demographic clout plummet within Canada as it bleeds people to other provinces, year after year, and fails to attract and retain immigrants at the same rate as faster-growing provinces.
The fate of the values charter will likely be decided by the Coalition party.
Coalition Leader Francois Legault criticized the Marois government for going too far, saying he would try to propose a middle-ground solution that falls between the approaches of the PQ and Liberals.
Grey, meanwhile, said he doesn't agree with the inevitable conclusion drawn by those who will paint Quebec as an intolerant place.
"In fact, it's one of the most open and tolerant societies," he said.
He does believe, however, that the proposal swerves the PQ away from the party's tradition as a defender of human rights. He recalled the PQ's battles for gay rights in the '70s and '80s under the leadership of Rene Levesque.
"I hope this (policy) doesn't get passed, I hope people realize that that isn't either what Quebec is about, or what the PQ is about."

Saturday, July 14, 2012

Caste First, Christ Second, for Some Indian Christians


By Megan Sweas ("Religion Dispatches," July 9, 2012)

Extracted from http://wwrn.org/articles/37689/


John Yesunatha Das describes himself as buffalo color. His dark skin makes him recognizable as a Dalit, or untouchable, in India, and it’s caused the Pentecostal pastor trouble over the years.
His seminary, for instance, didn’t consider him for positions upon graduation, even though, as he says, “I was one of the brilliant students” and would be in leadership right now if it weren’t for his caste.
The lights shut off intermittently in Das’ rented home in Fatehpur Beri, a village that has been overtaken by Delhi. Upper-caste pastors in the city could expect a “good church... enough funds, and… their own houses,” he says. His Hindu neighbors, meanwhile, look down upon him and other Christians, 70 percent of whom come from the untouchable caste—a social group traditionally considered so low that its denizens actually fell outside the four central categories of Indian society: priest, warrior, merchant, laborer.
Particularly disconcerting to Das, the people he thought were his friends turned their backs on him when he married a poor girl from the Brahmin caste 25 years ago. He and his wife, Grace, have five children today. The fact that Indian Christians, even those who are sympathetic to the plight of poor Dalits, won’t have an intimate relationship across caste lines is telling, he says.
Religion-Based Discrimination?
Many Westerners assume that in a modern, economically powerful India, caste is no longer an issue—and the 2.8 million Indians living in the United States often dismiss it as a relic of the past.
And yes, untouchability was outlawed in the Indian constitution in 1950. But the constitution also set up a reservation system that holds spots for “scheduled castes” (the legal term for Dalits) in government posts, schools, and political bodies. It’s like a constitutionalized form of affirmative action, aimed at correcting thousands of years of discrimination. Like affirmative action, it has its critics, but the reservation system has been credited with raising the status of Dalits so that they are now a strong political force.
What Das and other Christian leaders want is for the government of India to admit that caste is an issue in Christian churches. In 1950, a presidential order determined that only Hindus could be members of the scheduled caste and qualify for the reservation system. Buddhist and Sikh Dalits were later added, even though both traditions reject caste. Many Christian and Muslim Indians (2.3 and 13.4 percent of the population respectively) hope the Supreme Court will rule that the presidential order is unconstitutional, thereby giving access to scheduled caste benefits to all Dalits, regardless of religion.
“To my mind [it’s] a very, very clear issue of discrimination on the basis of religion,” says Prashant Bhushan, the high-profile public interest litigation lawyer who took on the Supreme Court case pro bono on behalf of Christian Dalits. He had no idea that caste existed within Christianity before preparing for the case.
“It may affect the way people look at religion,” he says.
“Caste is First, Christ is Second”
Franklin Caesar Thomas of the National Council of Dalit Christians doesn’t need the reservation system. A fourth-generation Catholic and son of a teacher, he was educated as an engineer and lawyer.
But when he was working in recruiting at Indian Railways, he noticed a pattern. “With my own eyes, I saw how Dalit Christian applications were rejected, whereas our Hindu Dalit brothers, their sons and daughters, they came through the reservation,” he says.
Thomas gathered the evidence necessary for the Supreme Court case and convinced Bhushan to argue it. His strategy intentionally skipped over the church. “The church will not … fulfill our needs. They don’t have the mindset,” he says. “We are not in the power structure, so it’s wise to get the privilege from the government.”
But both the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India and the National Council of Churches in India, a Protestant organizing body, have backed Thomas. In doing so, church leaders have had to admit that Christianity in India is tainted by caste—a strange argument for American Christians, especially evangelicals, who pour millions of dollars into missionary work in India.
Is religion, and Christianity in particular, as Das and Bhushan view it, linked to social structures? Or is it simply a matter of personal belief. “The operating definition of religion that Americans often have, which is in terms of individual belief, is a pretty inadequate definition,” says Leora Batnitzky, a Princeton University religion professor studying the case. “That’s a largely Protestant view of what religion is.”
“For Indian Christians, caste is first, Christ is second,” says Father G. Cosmon Arokiaraj, a rare Dalit priest and executive secretary for the CBCI Office of Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes. Attitudes in the church won’t change until the government helps raise Dalit Christians’ social standing through reservation, he says. “Mere preaching won’t do.”
But other Dalit Christians disagree with Arokiaraj. “He is the Church,” Ram Bharati says of the priest. “Church has a lot of power, resources. Why is he demanding from the government?”
Bharati, an Anglican Dalit, and R.L. Francis, a Catholic Dalit, lead the Poor Christian Liberation Movement (PCLM), which wants Indian churches to serve Dalits rather than pass the buck to the government.
The PCLM shares with Hindu nationalists concerns about conversion of the poor to Christianity. The message that all are equal as children of God appeals to Dalits who convert, but many doubt the sincerity of upper-caste Christians and their American partners. “It’s a total money-making program of the church from U.S., European countries,” Francis says. The more people they convert, the more money they raise—and little of that reaches those who need it, critics say. Opening scheduled caste benefits to Christian Dalits would further incentivize conversion.
Caste as a Way of Life
But fundamentally, the difference between those supporting the Supreme Court case—which would allow Christian Dalits the same civic benefits as Hindu, Muslim, or Buddhist Dalits—and a group like PCLM is in how they see the relationship between religion and caste. Francis, president of PCLM, uses “poor Christian” instead of “Dalit Christian” in his organization’s name because he truly believes caste is not a part of Christianity.
“We converted to Christianity in the hopes that we would get self-respect, dignity, and equality,” Francis says. “Why are they calling us Dalit, Dalit, Dalit? We are Christian only.”
Becoming part of the scheduled caste may earn the community benefits, but it also would codify the communal designation of Christian Dalit. “They want to fix the stigma of Dalit on our forehead,” Francis says.
Like Francis, most Hindus judge Christianity on its ideals, not its practices. “Since there was no socially sanctioned discrimination in Christianity or Islam, therefore, it was felt that there was no need to make this special provision for those who opted out of the system to begin with,” says Chandan Mitra, a minister of parliament for the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). “I think that remains the case today.”
Arguing in favor of the religious distinction also requires acknowledging that “caste is a reality of Hindu life,” Mitra says, though he adds that reform movements have made efforts to decrease discrimination based on caste. “There’s no way we can run away from it.”
In an effort to appeal to Christian and Muslim voters, the BJP’s minority wing has found a way around the idea that caste is Hindu only. The group passed a resolution in November 2011 supporting the Supreme Court case, giving Thomas and Arokiaraj hope that it will be resolved soon. These Hindus also look at religion as practice, rather than belief, distancing Hinduism from religion in the Western sense of the word. “Hindutva is a way of life, which does not exclude religious minorities like Muslims and Christians,” the resolution reads. Caste is a part of that way of life.
Pastor Das sways between blaming Indian Christianity for carrying “the old baggage of Hindu caste-ism” and lauding the “social liberation” of the Christian message. One of his heroes is Martin Luther King Jr. He would like The King Center to open a Research and Development Center in Delhi to explore the problem of Christian Dalits.
It’s a valid connection, Batnitzky says. King railed not only against discrimination in society but also in the church. “For most of the world’s religious people, religion is…fundamentally social and political in nature,” Batnitzky says. “We tend to separate the belief and the individual from the social structure… Nobody says, at least in public, that racism is part of the c=Church.”
It may seem foreign, but the case of the Christian Dalits challenges Americans to reevaluate the relationship between individual belief and society. As Batnitsky says, it gets to a fundamental question about who we are as Americans: “Are we only individualists?” she asks. “Or are we also part of some kind of larger community?”