Shahla Khan Salter2013-05-20T09:27:08-04:00Shahla Khan Salterhttp://www.huffingtonpost.ca/author/index.php?author=shahla-khan-salterCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Shahla Khan SalterGood old fashioned elbow grease.Canada: Strong and Free or Scared and Silent?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.32305552013-05-07T17:25:48-04:002013-05-07T17:25:56-04:00Shahla Khan Salterhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/shahla-khan-salter/an old Trotskyite'."
In reply, Leon Alexander, the Parliamentary Secretary, did not deny making the statement and said, "There hasn't been any objection and you can probably see why."
Milewski was accused by the Harper government of getting the facts wrong on its arctic offshore patrol ship project, which according to Milewski, is costing more for Canada to design than other countries to build.
Is it odd that we have gone from being a nation that respects the impartiality of the press to one in which government has no qualms about personally bashing senior journalists when they deliver unfavorable news?
Or do the comments, on the part of Alexander, just illustrate a lack of respect not only for the press but for anyone else the government determines is in its way?
After all, this is the government whose House leader, Peter Van Loan, last December, stormed across the floor of the House of Commons to confront his opposition counterpart, Nathan Cullen (NDP), following the end of a debate, which was won by the government. Loan was described as "waving his finger and speaking in a heated manner." Loan's behavior was, to say the least, outside Canadian Parliamentary tradition.
Government leaders take note. You serve as an example.
The use of bullying and aggression by your words, your behavior in the House, your policies both here at home and on the world stage do not make Canada or the rest of the world a better place.
It will not help our youth battle the harmful effects of bullying online and at school. It will not bring back 17-year-old Rehtaeh Parsons, whose story, rightfully so, is said to sicken our Prime Minister.
It will not help us on the world stage and bring peace to the Middle East. Siding on the part of naked aggression, as the Harper government has done by acknowledging Canadian support of the very recent Israeli airstrikes on Syria while the country suffers a brutal civil war, will not make the region safer. Nor will it make Canada safer.
Is the Harper government so myopic that it can't see how respect and fairness, expressed in words, behavior and policies, can promote openness, engagement and a better society both here at home and abroad?
Perhaps.
After all, it, along with Justin Trudeaus' Liberals, recently passed The Act to Combat Terrorism (Bill S7), which "marked the return of controversial post-9/11 anti-terrorism legislation -- granting authorities "exceptional" abilities to detain Canadians, preemptively, for three days without charge, and imprisoning anyone for up to a year who refuses to testify before new "investigative hearings." The NDP Opposition, who fought the bill, calls the legislation a mandate for "guilt by association."
It is the same legislation which had been enacted in 2002, in response to 9/11.
The same climate of fear and disregard for human rights that enacted it, also threw innocent Canadians, like Abdullah Amalki and Maher Arar into a Syrian prison, in 2002, to be tortured.
Why are we going backwards?
The legislation until April 25th of this year had not been in effect for six years.
And in the meantime, Canadian law enforcement, through outreach programs, gained the trust of Canada's Muslim community leaders.
So when an Imam in Ontario was convinced that one of his congregants, Raed Jaser, sounded like an extremist and worried that Jaser could be plotting violence, he told RCMP. The Imam was right. The man and others were allegedly planning to derail a Via Rail train.
The tip by the Imam led to Jaser's arrest along with Montrealer, Chiheb Essaghaier.
Thousands of lives were probably saved.
(It is unfortunate that in the US, where anti-terror legislation has remained in effect since 9/11, that no such tips from mosques were reported to have been received by the FBI on Tamerlan Tsarnaev, whom only months before the Boston bombing, heckled an Imam at Friday prayers for praising Martin Luther King Jr.. Tsarnaev was thrown out of the congregation.)
So what kind of Canada do we want?
One where we stand strong and free? Or one where we lie scared and silent?
After all, remember the fate of Trotsky. Lenin sent him into exile for his opposition and he died with an ice pick in his head.
]]>Wise Words From an Eight-Year-Old: "No More Hurting People. Peace"tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.31237582013-04-22T08:38:19-04:002013-04-21T23:00:21-04:00Shahla Khan Salterhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/shahla-khan-salter/Boston Marathon, waiting at the finish line. Recently, his teacher, Lucia Brawley, released a photo of Martin holding up a sign he made in school. It said: "No more hurting people. Peace."
As a mother of three -- one of which is also a third grader -- Martin's senseless death fills me with emotion, expressed more aptly by tears than words.
Not only does Martin look like he could be my kid's classmate, I feel as though I have seen his sign before because it resembles so closely the signs made by my children and their classmates, for the purpose of student-led demonstrations held this past year to demand equal education for First Nations students, which took place on Parliament Hill here in Ottawa.
It is a cause brought to students by my children's teachers and other Canadian teachers -- folks who are sensitive, smart and brave enough to see that the future is in their hands and that the next generation can change the world through activism and compassion.
What we don't expect is to lose any member of that next generation so abruptly and violently the way we all have lost Martin. My heart goes out to his teacher, his classmates, his school, his community, his family and most of all, his parents.
Who would do such a thing?
Violent radicals, extremists, psychos, terrorists? Whatever we call the perpetrators of such acts in the end we all agree that society must be safe. Our children must be safe.
There is a photo of the surviving suspect. He is a young man with a handsome face, doe brown eyes and curly hair. He is 19, but to me, he doesn't look a day over 15. He was a medical student. He had a future. His name is Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. His 26-year-old brother, Tamerlan, who was also a suspect, with evidence against him, is now dead, following a police shootout. Dzhokhar is now severely injured. He was found hiding in a boat. It is reported he was not read his rights by police.
Dzhokhar's mother, Zubeidat said in reaction to her son's arrest: "It is really, really a hard thing to hear. And being a mother, what I can say is that I am really sure, I am, like, 100 per cent sure, that this is a set-up."
My sympathy is not lost on Zubeidat Tsarnaev, who, in essence, has lost much more than two children.
At the same time I have not lost faith in the law enforcement system here in North America, upon which we all depend.
Let us hope that it was not a set up.
Let us hope that all the answers are revealed in a fair trial and explain how two young American Muslim men of Chechen descent, with promising futures, lost their way and ended up creating such chaos and death.
Let us hope that what happened in Boston never happens again anywhere, and stops happening in countries far away, where explosions that cause the death of children are such a regular everyday occurrence that our mainstream media has lost interest.
Let us hope that the next generation grows up to change the world with the kind of activism and compassion envisioned by my children's teachers.
And finally let us hope that the wish expressed in Martin's sign reverberates far and wide and for eternity: "No more hurting people. Peace."
]]>This Woman Risked Death to Go Toplesstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.30214402013-04-05T17:32:44-04:002013-04-05T17:16:19-04:00Shahla Khan Salterhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/shahla-khan-salter/
In countries and states where public nudity is unacceptable a fine, at maximum, should suffice.
But a fine, we worried, was not what a 19-year-old woman, named Amina Tyler, who lives in Tunisia, would receive after she exposed her breasts in a photo she posted online, scribbling the words on her torso -- "my body belongs to me, and is not the source of anyone's honour," in Arabic.
Tyler's photo spread like a virus on the Internet, particularly after a Tunisian cleric demanded that she should be stoned. Petitions circulated demanding leniency on the part of the Tunisian government after Tyler was charged with public nudity.
One group stood out in demanding the right for Tyler to bare her breasts.
Known as Femen, the group states that "feminism and religion cannot co-exist," and posts photos of its topless activists holding demonstrations.
BLOG CONTINUES AFTER SLIDESHOW
Femen spoke out against the cleric who demanded Tyler be stoned and raged against Islamism for what the group regards as anti-feminist rules of modesty. To support Amina Tyler it made yesterday Topless Jihad Day in several cities, including Montreal.
Tyler is now safe. But Femen leader Inna Shevchenko, as of March 26, 2013, stated she did not know of any lawyer assisting Tyler and so it is unclear as to whether Femen helped Tyler in the legal charges that ensued or helped pay the legal fees of her lawyer, Bouchra Bel Haj Hmida, a well-known woman's rights activist in Tunisia.
Here in Canada, naked activism is nothing new.
Female protesters have exposed their bodies in demonstrations either topless, like the Raelians in Toronto last summer, or naked, in a calendar, promoted in 2001 by Salt Spring Island activists in British Columbia, (who demanded the protection of the region from logging companies).
Can women challenge notions of patriarchy by exposing their bodies?
That depends.
Canadian activists who exposed their bodies in Toronto and B.C. came in a variety of shapes, sizes and ages.
Though personally I would never follow suit, what may be acknowledged is that as a result of their physical diversity, the activism in Toronto and B.C. was as much about freedom on the part of women to expose their bodies as it was to have a body, whose shape and age lies outside the unrealistic ideal promoted by the western fashion industry.
In Muslim countries patriarchy is disguised as modesty. Patriarchy there demands that we cover ourselves to take on the burden of ensuring our own protection, and it removes the responsibility of men to govern themselves respectfully. It creates gender apartheid and all the injustice that follows it.
On the other hand, in the western world, the permissibility of exposure does not always challenge patriarchy because where sex sells, female bodies that do not comply with the fashion industry ideal undergo brutal criticism which women and girls receive readily.
It leads to self-hatred. It encourages a distorted body image, called body dysmorphic disorder. It can result in excessive dieting, plastic surgery and at worst anorexia, drug abuse and suicide.
It sends a message to society that the way a woman looks is more important that her intellect, her achievements, her character and her well-being. It excludes women from the notion that with age comes wisdom, since it mourns so darkly the loss of a woman's youth.
It is patriarchy wrapped in capitalism with a pink bow.
Nor do they encompass the generous, physical diversity of the topless Canadian activists of Toronto or B.C.
No -- the vast majority of online photos of Femen appear largely similar to the beauty industry ideal.
What's more, can we eliminate patriarchy with bigotry?
For Femen bigotry appears to be part of the platform. For Femen there seems to be only one way to be a feminist and that is to discard modesty and expose oneself.
Femen does not appear to acknowledge the work of feminists in Muslim communities, for example, who do not expose their bodies but still fight for equality and could face harm from extremists as a result.
Femen did not help us at MPV oppose the male guardianship system of Saudi Arabia in 2010 or speak out to help us release Canadian Nazia Quazi from that country.
Femen did not speak out against domestic violence after the murder of the Shafia women in Kingston alongside a number of Muslim community groups, including CAIR .
In fact, I didn't know Femen existed in Canada or even cared about the rights of women in the Muslim world until recently when photos of Femen in Montreal were released showing young, topless, fit, white women with strategically painted bodies, walking down a busy street.
Femen is right that patriarchy must end.
And Tyler definitely should not be stoned to death.
But that doesn't mean that she and Femen are feminists.
Because upholding someone else's vision of patriarchy and claiming superiority to the rest of us already fighting it on the ground is definitely not going to get rid of it.]]>Violence Against Women Does Not Discriminatetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.29200102013-03-21T12:26:19-04:002013-03-21T12:26:38-04:00Shahla Khan Salterhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/shahla-khan-salter/
They included the attempted murder of 15-year-old, Malalai Yousafzai, last October, shot in the head, on her way home from school in Pakistan; the gang rape and torture, last December, that led to the death of a 23 year old female physiotherapy intern in Delhi, India; the gang rape of a female Swiss tourist, three days ago also in that country; numerous complaints of sexual assaults against female protesters, in Egypt last month; statistics, released last summer, estimating the sexual assault of one in three female members of the US military; and the repeated, recorded sexual assault of a barely conscious 16-year-old Steubenville girl that took place last summer.
Here in Canada 74 per cent of women are likely to have known a woman or girl who has suffered physical or sexual abuse.
Violence against women and girls does not discriminate.
It exists in places not only where the laws oppress us but also where they are supposed to protect us. It exists in the richest communities of the world and the poorest. And though women in poverty and war zones are most vulnerable (aboriginal women in Canada are five to seven times more likely to suffer from violence than their non-indigenous sisters), women are not inherently safe anywhere, regardless of race, faith, education, class or location.
Though often, everywhere, we are warned to "stay safe."
In societies the world over, where victims are often blamed, precautions are numerous.
It is a backward prescription out of touch with reality. Can we all avoid travel after dark? Is it safer to be covered than to reveal skin? Must women be forced to travel in packs?
No.
And because we are not the source of the problem, staying home and shutting up is not the solution.
In fact, the people who need to be locked up are not women.
Quite the contrary, the people who need to be removed from public spaces are those men, found throughout the world, who for whatever reason are unable to stop asserting what they believe is their God-given right to dominate and subjugate women.
It is not.
Women have the right to be safe at all times -- even and particularly if they are unable to defend themselves and happen to be unconscious. (Should a 16-year-old girl who is unconscious, due to alcohol intake, have fewer rights than if she was unconscious for any other reason? No.)
The issue is not "safety" and the burden is not upon women to avoid assault.
The issue is "violence" and the burden is on society to eliminate it so women and girls are safe and free.
How do we do this?
Firstly we pass laws and policies to end violence against women such as the recent UN Accord on Women and encourage others to do so at all levels of government and internationally.
This means we must not regard an assault as a minor incident.
A man must know that by assaulting a woman, he is not only altering her life, but also his own and damaging the community.
A woman must know that the assault will be taken seriously and that if she speaks up, justice will be served and her community will stand by her, as it would if she were a man.
Secondly we eliminate misogyny from all our cultures.
We must raise awareness so people as individuals make a conscious effort to work to omit it from their languages, faiths, practices, institutions and to abandon the patriarchal notions that allow it to flourish.
Patriarchy doesn't simply tell us to stay home and shut up -- patriarchy lets us know our status well in advance of this. And patriarchy cuts across cultures.
Patriarchy creates not only cultures which dictate whether a woman may work or attend school, it also manufactures cultures in which the beauty of youth is respected more than the wisdom of age and in which violence in politics, media and sport is glorified.
Patriarchy creates not only cultures which ban a woman's voice, but also cultures in which misogyny is humorous, in which the language that describes a woman's genitals doubles for the most offensive slurs and in which women who are open about their sexuality are called "sluts" while those who rise to positions of authority are referred to as "bitches."
Patriarchy creates not only cultures that make honor killings legal, but also cultures in which the loss of a young man's future (while he faces the legal penalty for an awful crime he committed after a fair trial) is mourned more woefully than the plight of his victim.
Patriarchy creates cultures in which qualities considered feminine are inferior and regarded as having no place inside the mind and soul of a "normal" man. It is the reason that homophobia exists and makes the world unsafe not only for women but also for gay men.
As a global society, all our cultures must change. We must make a conscious collective effort to remind ourselves of the inherent dignity of all women.
Or what kind of world are we creating for our daughters?
And our sons?
]]>Muslim Sermons That Offend Instead of Inspiretag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.28276022013-03-07T08:35:05-05:002013-03-08T11:35:57-05:00Shahla Khan Salterhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/shahla-khan-salter/
Traditionally, the form of the Khutbah is set. Content, on the other hand, may vary.
Having heard many Khutbahs during my lifetime, the quality also varies.
Some Khutbahs have been beautiful. They have made my heart sing or brought tears to my eyes.
Some have been interesting in parts and made me chuckle.
Others have been simply adequate.
There were a few, in response to which, I worked hard to refrain from open heckling.
And one in particular, during my university days, over 20 years ago, was so offensive, it filled me with rage. More than two decades later I still remember I was startled by the sound of the doors I slammed myself when I ran out of the room.
Some things don't change -- not at the speed we demand.
On February 15, 2013, Muslim students at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, attended a Friday prayer service, seeking enlightenment and spiritual comfort. Instead they were delivered a Khutbah filled with offensive comments against sexual minorities and women.
In response, Muslim students at Cornell wrote an open letter to the Cornell Community asking that they be allowed to deliver the sermons themselves, not be excluded from services and provided a reminder that the views of one Khateeb did not reflect the view of all Muslims.
Unfortunately, the Cornell incident is not an isolated one.
Though not all Khutbahs are regularly filled with homophobia and misogyny, a common complaint among mosque-goers and mosque-quitters is about the quality of the Khutbah at some mosques.
And those complaints are becoming more commonplace as the times they are a-changing.
The views and values of the Ummah -- as we Muslims call our community -- are no longer always in line with conservative mosque leadership.
Examples?
While the Khateeb at Cornell littered his sermon with homophobia and misogyny, many American Muslims hold an unwavering solidarity behind American Muslim congressman, Keith Ellison, also a supporter of same sex marriage.
And while our media here in Canada is busy searching for but rarely finding "moderate" Muslims (please report on Bill S-7 before Harper Conservatives make it legal for police to detain someone for three days without charge), Ontario Minister of Labour, Yasir Naqvi, a Canadian Muslim, has marched at Pride, staunchly supported anti-bullying provisions to help queer youth and led the way for an amendment to the Ontario Human Rights Act that now includes transgendered persons.
So to the Khateebs who haven't gotten it yet -- wake up! Khutbahs should be enlightening and informative or at the very least un-offensive to a broad audience and aligned with the values of the Ummah.
Without change, it appears, according to the American documentary film, "Unmosqued", (to be released) the mosque will soon be empty.
Please check out and share our (broad) Recommended Guidelines for Khateebs in Canada here. Recommended Guidelines for Khateebs in America are here.
]]>How to Fight Hate Without Becoming Hatefultag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.26234212013-02-06T07:56:18-05:002013-02-06T08:38:14-05:00Shahla Khan Salterhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/shahla-khan-salter/
At Muslims for Progressive Values (MPV) Ummah Canada we are open about our interpretation of Islam and we are not afraid to say who we are. We uphold freedom of expression and human rights for all, including freedom of conscience. We acknowledge that only in a secular society are these rights fully enjoyed by individuals and believe the only truly Islamic society is a secular one.
We believe women have the God-given right to self-determination and leadership in all facets of society including at the mosque and at prayer. We oppose gender segregation. We believe that Allah loves us all -- queer and straight and that our queer brothers and sisters make the world a better, richer place.
And we at MPV fight peacefully against those who call themselves Muslim and inflict crimes against humanity, through rigid and intolerant versions of Islam, using inauthentic hadith (sayings of Muhammad) and literal interpretations of the Quran to incite and spread hatred and misogyny.
When we first founded MPV in Canada in 2010, we asked ourselves: how would our Muslim brethren, the ones who not only disagreed with our principles, but despised them, react to our public statements, if not our very existence?
Though it has been shown that almost 70 per cent of Muslims in America do not align themselves with conservative Muslim organizations and traditional mosques, we know there are Muslims in our own backyard who oppose us.
But we were not afraid -- not in 2010 and not now. We have held mixed congregational prayers, led by strong Muslim women. We marched at Pride with our queer Muslim members . We publicly demonstrated at embassies of countries who commit atrocities in the name of Islam.
We have taken calls from Muslim women who left abusive marriages and queer Muslim youth who are coming out to their conservative Muslim parents. We have reassured them that Allah is on their side.
And we are safe. We owe our safety to a secular society with laws to protect us and allow us to exist.
But we have also received criticism. It has come from all sides.
It has come from young Muslim men, seated in the audience when I have delivered talks who have questioned my ability to understand Islam because I do not speak Arabic.
It has come from moderate Muslim feminists who have told me that there is no place for queer Muslims in Islam.
It is has come from atheists, who have said they are not bigots while standing firm in their belief we are a monolith.
It has come from fundamentalist Christians who have told us that our version of Muhammad as the social justice warrior is wrong and that we should love Jesus.
We love Jesus but we are not wrong about Muhammad.
We are not wrong about Muhammad who appointed the first female Imam -- Umm Waraqa, who married Ayesha at the age of 19 , who fought for the poor, who never beat his wives , who never ordered the death of homosexuals, nor the massacre of Jews and who said, "feed the poor, free the captive, heal the sick" and "there are as many paths to God as there are souls on earth."
But the incitement of hatred, examples of which proliferate our society, does not help our cause, nor humanity as a whole.
It does the opposite. Hatred begets hatred. It causes confusion, isolation, injury, death and destruction.
It causes bullying in schools and vandalism of places of worship. It incites laws that remove rights from innocent people and threatens all our rights. It incites war and terrorism on all sides.
The incitement of hatred caused Anders Breivik to massacre seventy-seven people in Norway, Wade Michael Page to kill seven people, including a police officer at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin and the murder of a man, named Sunando Sen, age 46, who was pushed off the platform at a subway station in front of an oncoming train in December 2012 by a woman named Erika Menendez, who "hated Muslims."
Sunando Sen, was a Hindu American. The subway station where he was murdered displays ads that implicitly call Muslim "savages."
Some say hatred should be banned. Perhaps.
But if hateful expression is banned will we then simply become the victims of laws that violate our safety and our security that we cannot then oppose?
Because without freedom of expression, people espousing bigotry have little opposition.
What about questioning the reason hatred and bigotry thrive in western societies now more than ever?
Why must we worry about the safety of queer youth in high school in a society where there is no law against being queer?
Why must women be worried about their safety on city streets when there is no law that says we must stay home?
Why must racial, sexual and religious minorities worry about harassment, vandalism and profiling when there is no law against being different?
Our culture must change.
It must reflect the society that generations before us built, who made our laws.
It must reflect compassion, tolerance, freedom and love .
It must place individual rights before mob rule.
If it does not, is there much difference between our society and societies where homosexuality, immodesty and apostasy are crimes?
Perhaps, foremost we must remember the words of Friedrich Nietzsche -- "Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster."
]]>Are Your Human Rights Safe in Canada?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.22687022012-12-10T15:36:50-05:002012-12-10T17:51:14-05:00Shahla Khan Salterhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/shahla-khan-salter/three Canadians remain in prison in Iran. All three have been charged with computer-related crimes. The reason? Measures against "illegal" computer use are ruthlessly enforced by the Iranian government in an effort to wipe out online information against that government.
Our Canadian government has not been able to secure the release of these three Canadians. Talk of war against Iran makes their release ever more improbable. Will they languish there forever?
Or will a bomb, manufactured in the Western world, simply drop, one day, on Evin Prison and kill all the innocent people inside, including our three Canadians.
People say, "Well -- it's too bad they went there. They should have known better." Are we safer here in Canada?
Legally, yes. Canadian law is clear. Section 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to "everyone" and grants us the rights to be informed of the charge against us; tried within a reasonable period of time; not to be compelled to testify against ourselves; to be presumed innocent until proven guilty; and not to be found guilty unless the action is a crime. (These are only a portion of our Charter rights.)
The result? A vast body of Canadian law has been developed that upholds the rights of individuals even in the face of the most heinous crimes.
It means, here in Canada if the evidence is tainted by a denial of individual rights, the case can be dismissed. The protection of the individual in some cases is known to cause outrage.
But what happens if society offers no protection to the individual? Here is what would happen if you were arrested and you had no section 11 rights:
You would not know the reason the police have arrested you.
You would not have the right to stay silent. As a result, torture or aggressive police tactics could more likely be used to extract a confession from you, causing you to admit to a crime you did not commit.
You would not have the right to hear the evidence against you and challenge it. So if someone said you did it, it would be regarded as true.
You would not even have the right to challenge whether the activity that led to the arrest -- such as associating with certain people, and/or living a particular lifestyle -- constituted a crime.
In other words there would be no fair trial.
It means if your neighbours thought you were a witch, capable of causing death and destruction, you would be a witch. And if your neighbours thought you should be exiled because they didn't want witches in the community causing trouble, you would be sent away or worse.
In Canada have we moved past this notion? Not entirely.
Because in Canada, today, in light of the cases of Mohamed Harkat, Mohammad Mahjoub and Mahmoud Jaballah, if someone thinks you are a terrorist -- and someone said you are a terrorist even under torture (as in the case of Mahjoub), notwithstanding that you may have committed no terrorist act -- you may be arrested, thrown in prison, or placed under house arrest, tried without knowing the evidence against you and then deported to a country where you may be tortured and killed.
Are we a nation where the rights of criminals including pedophiles such as Graham James, Christopher Neil and others are protected -- (they were innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and remain innocent of any other crimes that potentially may have taken place) -- while men like Harkat, Mahjoub and Jaballah are locked up and labelled as "terrorists" because they "might" be guilty?
According to Amnesty International and the United Nations Commission on Human Rights we are. And we must change.
We must uphold the Canadian ideals found in our Charter. We must do it to protect ourselves both as individuals and a society, to ensure freedom and justice. We must remember the words of the late, great Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: ''Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.''
Or the terrorists -- the real ones -- will win. And if our justice system resembles theirs in any way shape or form, they already have.
Don't be an ayatollah Mr. Toews. Prove they are guilty against the same standards you use to prove all those pedophiles are guilty. Or set them free.]]>Religious Rights Don't Trump Human Ones in Canadatag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.22244492012-12-03T08:29:19-05:002012-12-02T23:38:42-05:00Shahla Khan Salterhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/shahla-khan-salter/Faith McGregor, walked into the Terminal Barber shop owned by Omar Mahrouk and asked for a haircut. Mahrouk said his barber shop did not serve women.
McGregor filed a complaint against Mahrouk with the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. Marhouk's defense? To touch a woman outside his immediate family is against his religion.
McGregor's decision to file a complaint against Mahrouk was the right one. She did not just end up with a bad hair day because he insisted on upholding a narrow interpretation of his faith.
No, McGregor was denied services because she is a woman -- something that should not happen here in Canada. It is no different than if she walked into a coffee shop and was denied a table because it was "men only." It is no different than if she walked into a job interview and was told the position was not available to women.
Mahrouk, is a business owner, and all businesses and institutions across Canada must not deny access to services to anyone because of gender.
That is the law.
Mahrouk as a business owner should have known this. He should have been able to immediately book an appointment at his barber shop for her, having another individual do the job.
Mahrouk infringed on McGregor's rights by failing to accommodate her and should now face the consequences. If Mahrouk wants to run a business catering strictly to men, he is in the wrong country.
That said, there is no reason that the laws that uphold equality of the sexes should ever infringe on individual religious values. Mahrouk need not touch McGregor to ensure that the law is upheld in his barber shop. The services just must be provided -- not necessarily by him. This means the law does not impinge on his religious freedoms.
The notion extends outside the realm of business. If a woman wants to be examined only by a female physician, that should be her right. If a woman is at the border and subjected to a search, she should be allowed to insist that only a female officer conduct it. The same principle applies to men in such circumstances.
In fact it is because we live in a society that promotes equality of the sexes that this is an option. In Canada, it is because there exist female physicians and female police and border guards this is possible.
So long as there is no shortage of hairstylists to cut a woman's hair, McGregor cannot insist that Mahrouk himself must do it, but Mahrouk should be able to find someone at his shop who will.
If we respect one another, we accommodate one another. It's called pluralism and it is allowed in all religions.]]>A Muslim Canadian and a Muslim American Talk Politicstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.20741202012-11-05T08:08:36-05:002012-11-04T23:14:32-05:00Shahla Khan Salterhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/shahla-khan-salter/
As a Muslim Canadian woman, I wonder, what is on the mind of a Muslim American woman right now?
So I emailed my friend, Kelly Wentworth Ismail Khan, of Duluth, Georgia, President of Muslims for Progressive Values Atlanta, whom I met at the MPV Retreat this past summer in New York City. Here are my questions and her answers:
Tell readers a bit about yourself Kelly,
I am a training and development manager for a software company. I am also the President of Muslims for Progressive Values (MPV) -- Atlanta. I am in my mid-30s, married and would like to have children one day if possible.
What is your family background?
I am a genealogy enthusiast, so I am fascinated by family history. My genetic ethnicity is mostly Scandinavian, but family heritage is English/Irish. The majority of my family has been in North America since the 1600s, including relatives of the Mayflower. I am a member of the Daughters of the American Revolution, which is a heritage society that traces ancestral lineage to people who assisted in the American Revolution (although I had relatives on both sides).
In what faith were you brought up?
I was brought up in a spiritual household with a strong Christian background. My mom is Baptist and my dad is spiritual. I grew up in Southern Baptist, Episcopal and Cooperative Baptist Churches.
How do you describe yourself in terms of religion now?
I am a Progressive Muslim with Baptist heritage. My mom calls me a Baptist Muslim.
How long have you been married? What is your husband's background?
I have been married almost nine years and together with my husband almost 10 years. My husband is originally from Yemen. He is "just Muslim" and was brought up in a liberal Sunni tradition. He is a wireless engineer.
How long have you led the American Islamic Fellowship, now known as MPV Atlanta?
I have been a leader for MPV-Atlanta for five years -- since the organization was founded in 2007.
The election is upcoming -- what four issues concern you most?
I know that I am told I should be most concerned about the economy, but I see so many other important issues that get overlooked and can have an impact on the economy, such as:
Health Issues
Foreign Policy Issues
Civil Rights Issues and
Immigration Reform
Why do those issues concern you most?
Health is one of the most important issues of the election. If a group cannot get access to basic healthcare or are denied healthcare services based on the whim of the elected, then the health of the economy will not matter because the country will not be able to effectively function.
I want to make sure that the people I vote for are concerned about putting in programs and/or regulations in place that will ensure people can get access to preventative healthcare and ongoing healthcare for existing conditions without the worry of personal economy.
I do not believe the government should base health care decisions on religious beliefs and that the government should allow individuals to decide, with access to medical services, what healthcare path is best, including end of life and abortion-related decisions.
I see pros and cons to complete government healthcare or complete privatization of healthcare, but I do not believe The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act should be overturned.
What have your experiences been in relation to access to affordable health care? As an employer are you finding premiums expensive? Has anyone you know ever been left bankrupt by health care bills? Are there any tragedies that have taken place that have affected you personally that should not have happened in a nation as rich as yours?
I was blessed with access to affordable healthcare through county-sponsored clinics in my hometown and through Planned Parenthood when I moved closer to Atlanta. I have found that premiums are expensive for employees and our company has had to help ensure the insurance plans are affordable for most employees. The healthcare for an employee is free, but the employee must pay for family, which can be expensive.
I know there have been people who have struggled to pay for family, so we have tried as an employer to help balance through plan benefits, company subsidies and salary adjustments.
I have known quite a few people who have been left bankrupt by health care bills, particularly older people who had to use life savings to pay for health issues and then had to go back to work in order to continue to live.
I believe people in the United States would be shocked to find out that there are people here who still die from starvation, exposure and preventable diseases.
I have seen cases of this through charitable work I have done throughout my life and through experiences in my hometown, which is a part of Appalachia. I have personally experienced issues most directly related to the misunderstanding the United States has in regards to mental health. There are so many families that tragically struggle as a result.
On other issues, I believe the United States should focus more on internal security and focus less on external security matters. I do not believe Iran is the biggest threat to the United States, particularly with security-based issues happening continually throughout our country (i.e. mass shootings).
I believe the greatest foreign security threat right now is on the border between Mexico and the United States. I do not mean immigration-related security, but rather the drug-related issues happening there.
I do not understand why the issues there are less of a concern than Iran. I do not believe security issues should trump civil rights issues. I am very concerned over civil rights-based issues. There are so many issues to consider including women's rights, LGBT rights, privacy, personal liberties, prisons, etc.
I believe the government should make no laws in relation to marriage, child custody, adoption if they are based on gender, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation or sexual preference in regards to consenting adults.
In other words, you believe that government should not, for example, ban same sex marriage, or stop gay Americans from adopting children because of conservative religious views?
Yes. I do not understand why this is a continuing point of contention. I really worry about the potential for a Constitutional Amendment that defines marriage relationships based on a religious document. (Note: I prefer the term civil unions to marriage, but in this society marriage is the outward sign of legal adult commitment.)
And the American law gives couples who are married more rights -- does it not?
Yes. There are around 300 state-based and 1,100 federal-based benefits only reserved for married couples. An increasing number of states are granting the state-based rights, but the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) blocks this for federal benefits. I worry about laws, again based on religion, that would define what legal practices are acceptable in the United States.
Are you now talking about what practices some base on their religious interpretations for religious accommodation?
No. I am worried more about things like abortion, contraceptives, what can be sold in stores and when, and divorce laws.
I am not as worried about religious freedoms because those are protected under the Constitution and would be harder to suppress. I am also concerned about laws that are created or overridden in relation to "security", which ignore Constitutional provisions such as due process.
Like The U.S. Patriot Act, which allows for removal of judicial rights for Muslim Americans?
Yes. I could go on forever here. Immigration Reform is another concern because it is very close to me both from a personal and historical perspective. I had the privilege of being born in a family that has very deep roots in the United States. But I went through the immigration process with my husband. I believe the ability to immigrate to the United States is a very difficult, corrupt and expensive process that needs to be revisited.
I also believe the ability to become and to participate as a citizen in the United States should not be hindered by language, personal economy, origin, religion, politics, and a numerous list of issues.
So what should happen to make it easier for people to immigrate to the U.S.?
Reduce the cost. The application fees are ridiculous, especially when coupled with the expenses for the required medical examinations. It is cost prohibitive for many families, particularly in less economically advantaged areas.
Have one place that processes the applications. Embassies can conduct and schedule interviews, but the processing of the paperwork should be done electronically through a central system.
Have one set of rules. There are different rules for people who file inside the United States and for people who file at Embassies. Embassies are allowed to make up their own guidelines. This allows for too much corruption to be introduced.
Make it easier for families to immigrate and file stateside.
Regularly audit processing centers, including Embassies, on a random basis. This will, hopefully, keep down the instances of very rampant corruption in the process.
I also support alternate paths to citizenship, such as the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act, which provides people, who were brought to the United States illegally as minors, a way to become citizens.
How do you feel your faith impacts on what issues are significant to you and how you may vote?
I am a Progressive Muslim, so I am very concerned with issues that are focused on human rights, women's rights and LGBT rights. I am also concerned about issues regarding freedom of speech and expression and separation of church and state. I am very keyed into candidates and how they treat people who do not hold the same religious or philosophical beliefs. I do not like to vote for candidates that flaunt personal religious belief above civil principles, but unfortunately this is socially acceptable in my area.
And your area is specifically?
Particularly the South -- so I often have to look beyond this flaw.
Up here, as a Canadian, I am appalled by references to conservative religious beliefs some make in order to prevent progress on the part of our government, such as the anti-bullying initiatives put forward by our Ontario government for schools -- like the ones my kids attend. Are you finding this rhetoric is taking place more now in Georgia and other parts of the U.S. than a decade ago? And if yes, in what way? Any examples?
In North Georgia, for example, it used to be far more common for people to run as Independents. This was so the political parties would not control how local governments were run. This has now changed. It was also very rare for politicians to run with mention of religious beliefs. People knew candidates had religious beliefs, but it was separate. Now it is a litmus test for "good" candidates. If someone is not particularly religious, this is seen as a negative.
It is very common now, for example, to advertise what church a candidate attends on political flyers and websites. I agree with Professor Omid Safi, an American progressive Muslim scholar, who recently said:
"We live in a nation where just about half of our citizens experience poverty at some point in their life. We live in a world where over a billion of human beings live on a dollar a day. We live in a world where environmental catastrophe is around the corner. If these two men (Romney and Obama) profess the Christian faith, I want to know how they plan to embody Christ's teachings to care for 'the least of these.'"
How may this election impact Muslim Americans?
There are so many ways the election may impact Muslim Americans. From a specific religious point of view, I believe the outcome of the election will determine who makes decisions in regards to personal liberties that affect Muslim Americans.
What liberties exactly?
Healthcare-based and security-based liberties. I also believe the elected leadership will be key in the continuing help (or hindrance) towards greater understanding and acceptance of Muslims as Americans.
Do you think bigotry against Muslim Americans is getting worse? And what should faith and community leaders like you and government leaders do to promote greater understanding and protect minority groups?
I feel like the rhetoric against Muslim Americans is getting worse on conservative media. I have heard people who formerly were much more accepting of Muslims get less and less so and be more apt to invite people like Pamela Geller on their shows.
Sean Hannity is a great example of that. I worry that with the popularity of people like Sean Hannity who allow hateful people like Geller on their shows will make suspicion of Muslim Americans more acceptable than it already is. I do have people who are very nice to me, but I must say the level of trust some people have in me once they find out I am Muslim palpably drops, even if it is not intentional. There is always that pretext that I might, at any time, break off to become the extremist that they have heard all Muslims have the "potential" of being.
Yes. And faith and community leaders must continually engage each other and continually engage the public to override stereotypes. They must also communicate to people in the media how hurtful stereotypes are not acceptable. It is important to continually write articles, be on shows and be the person the media will call if someone has a question about Islam.
I am not always available to be that person, so it helps to have an organization like MPV who can assist. It also helps to be a constant presence online and to have resources there to refer people to when there are questions. When people write or call our group, I continue to have a growing group of resources to refer people to in order to show them a wider spectrum of Islam than just the narrow view presented by conservative media or conservative Islamic groups.
Our national MPV website at www.mpvusa.org also has many of those resources.
How may this election impact American women?
Women in the United States still earn less than men, still have to be concerned whether they can fully control what healthcare decisions they make about their own bodies, still have to struggle to have firm representation.
What does "firm representation" mean to you?
Consistently have women as a larger and larger part of Congress, in state and local leadership positions, in state and federal cabinet positions, as viable Presidential/VP candidates, and in other representative positions. And the list can go on forever. I believe the election can determine whether women continue to progress towards goals of true equality or whether those goals stagnate or are stalled.
Can you see the wrong choice for President actually taking America back 50 years to an era where women were not hired frequently, encouraged to stay home and have babies, were unable to plan their pregnancies (and therefore their lives), did not have a strong voice in government and where they were unsafe because the "powers that be" determined it was up to women themselves to ensure they did not "lure" rapists to them when they went out at night or wore short skirts -- the latter being not just unfair but ludicrous?
More specifically, what do you think of what our friend, and MPV USA chair, Ani Zonneveld has said about Christian Shariah in her latest blog?
I do not believe one president will propel the country back 50 years, but I believe consistently voting for more and more conservative presidents and congressional members can undo a lot of the strides made in the past 50 years. The country has already moved back with a more conservative Congressional majority, so I do not believe it would be a good move for the country to also see this happen with the Presidency.
I do believe there are political movements that are willing to erase the lines between religion and politics to institute more Christian-based religious laws in this country that are based on the Bible rather than the secular approach provided by the Constitution. The country is still not removed from the Blue Laws instituted specifically to enforce Christian religious standards. I know there are people who would like to see those laws expanded. I believe Ani is right that if given the ability there are people in the United States who would have no problem instituting a national religion, as long as it was Christianity.
Without telling the Muslim American community how to vote -- what advice do you have for the Muslim community in the upcoming election in making their decision?
Take the time to learn about who is on the ballot and what issues are on the ballot. Each area has a sample ballot available prior to the election. Talk to your neighbours, participate in candidate forums or use the Internet. There are many neutral websites that put up facts about issues and candidates. Even if I have been extremely busy, I will take the time the night before I vote or even 15 minutes before I vote, to remind myself who and what I am choosing before I make a selection.
Do you have a link Kelly we can share with American voters who may need it?
My favorite is: http://votesmart.org -- you can put in your address and see all elections, candidates and ballot measures. It has links to information about candidates and the full text of any ballot measures. I love it!
I also like http://www.procon.org/ for a broader perspective on many issues, which can help a person understand how to better analyze and understand what candidates discuss.
Do you think Muslim Americans are going to head to the polls in large numbers and vote? Or do you think the majority of Muslim Americans stay out of politics too often?
I still believe many Muslim Americans stay at home.
Is there a study or is this your experience in talking to community members and why do you think they don't vote more?
This is only my personal experience. I believe, which is purely from personal experience, this behaviour is more prevalent in immigrant Muslim individuals. I continually promote the idea of voting among all groups (Muslim and non-Muslim) in which I come in contact. I want you to vote regardless of your opinion.
Because?
It is your right as a citizen of the United States and does more than elect a President. It decides what programs get funded, what roads get built, who gets access to healthcare and in what form, who can and cannot immigrate to the United States, whether you can control what decisions you make about your body, who you get to marry, what taxes you pay, how the United States will participate in world politics and the list goes on.
How do you think this election may impact the world -- particularly in the areas of human rights and women's rights?
I really worry that regardless of who is elected the focus of the country currently is still too much on the business of other countries rather than our own business. I am not an isolationist and I do believe we have to make decisions with regard to other countries, but I believe we often make decisions that are self-focused, but destructive both internally and externally.
I see potential for diplomatic solutions being promoted if certain people are in power, but I do not see any particular combination of candidates as a panacea for world-related issues. I believe there are people who are more apt to lead the United States towards better awareness of our impact on human rights, but I believe the opportunity to be a leader in this area still has much work, particularly in our military leadership.
I believe a country can be strong militarily without carelessly disregarding human lives and justice. I seriously worry about the direction of women's rights and LGBT rights if certain people are in power.
I believe the United States is still very young in its approach to women's and LGBT rights. I do not believe certain people really get the concept of equality nor understand how to implement equality. I believe there are too many people who are too concerned with holding power rather than standing on principles
For example?
For example, my congressman, Rob Woodall, claims to be pro-individual freedom, but is anti-abortion and against same-sex marriage. I do not understand how one can claim to be for individual freedom, but then vote on items that are for taking away freedoms.
In the not so distant past, Republican politicians in my state may have been anti-abortion or anti-same-sex marriage personally, but did not believe the state or federal government should legislate such things.
[side note: I was Republican not so long ago (no seriously!), but I can no longer claim to be because the idea of "small government" only applies when it is convenient. Separation of church and state is no longer the goal of the Republican party. I now find myself voting more and more for Libertarian and, gasp! Democratic candidates because they represent the values I have kept.]
As a result, people have been sold on the idea that it is okay to give up personal liberty in the name of "security" or "economic stability" when that is not what is delivered. It is so important to understand what a candidate really is going to do while in office.
It is also important to remember that even if a particular candidate is not elected, the struggle continues in the form of talking to those in power, writing letters and articles, vetting alternative candidates and encouraging legislation that moves towards "a more perfect union."
Thanks Kelly.
Hope this all comes together.
You are awesome.
Much peace.]]>No, Banning "Innocence of Muslims" Is Not the Solutiontag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.18901072012-09-17T00:00:40-04:002012-09-17T12:06:54-04:00Shahla Khan Salterhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/shahla-khan-salter/
As a Muslim, resident of North America my entire life, I have never heard the word "innocence" placed next to "Muslims" so many times by the media. So to the "Innocence of Muslims" creators, on this point alone -- thank you.
Today's blog post is dedicated to my fellow Muslims, with one exception.
The exception consists of the less than one per cent of Muslims who are engaging in violent anti-American demonstrations in a number of countries.
Why? Because that part of the community, that less than one percent of Muslims, does not have the time nor the heart for this message.
No, that less than one percent of the community, is working hard to destroy whatever efforts their fellow (mostly Muslim) citizens have made towards democracy in the Muslim world in an effort to replace it with another dictatorship, made up of salafi extremists. (Please note it appears there are no violent demonstrations taking place in the Gulf States likely because the would-be demonstrators there already compose the governments.)
To my fellow Muslims -- the 99 per cent who are peaceful -- here is my message. Online articles, information and resources, including amateur video productions, are everywhere.
On the topic of Islam, extreme interpretations of our scriptures backed up by sources many of us regard as inauthentic or out of date, receive millions of hits. Some of the information is posted by non-Muslims, but much is posted by those who call themselves Muslim, as well.
And amateur video productions on sites like YouTube and others are a thriving industry all over the world. From the diversity of amateur video production we see that people all over the world have a range of opinions on what is right and wrong, indecent and acceptable, not only in relation to religion, but regarding other matters as well.
And we cannot always "police" all of what is "out there" online. We cannot "police" it in North America. We cannot "police" it abroad. In fact, law enforcement all over the world seems to have difficulty literally policing truly offensive, criminal material, such as child pornography.
"Policing" opinions on religious matters is unrealistic in most instances. But some of you say "Innocence of Muslims" is a special case and should be banned. Personally, I disagree. "Innocence of Muslims" should not be banned, nor should any video that one finds disturbing because of its anti-Islamic, anti-Semitic, anti-Christian or anti-religious content.
Why? For a number of reasons.
First of all, in relation to "Innocence of Muslims" we must take into account the following factors:
1. Merely because the depiction is suggested doesn't make it true;
2. Because there is no coercion allowed in Islam according to the Holy Quran, human beings are free to believe as they choose; and
3. Our Prophet Muhammad practiced a virtually super-human degree of patience, which we are supposed to emulate.
Second, in respect to anti-religious material in general, history and current policies show that when governments police the opinions of citizens the result is a dictatorship or at the very least a country that upholds injustice by censoring the criticism against it.
And when people are prohibited from making poor quality amateur YouTube videos, also at stake is the freedom of expression to speak out against the injustice of governments and others in a peaceful, constructive manner.
It means religious minority rights, women's rights, queer rights -- human rights -- become endangered further. It means any opposition to those rights may more easily result in violence against minorities. It means that violence against minority groups may be then condoned by governments who do not have the constitution, the resources, and/or the expertise to enforce protections for their minority inhabitants.
It means humanity suffers more not less. What else can be done?
My fellow Muslims -- our community has been under a magnifying glass for some time now. But in the past decade, great changes have taken place.
Though there remain many issues we must resolve among ourselves we are no longer afraid to discuss them today in the open.
Our Muslim community leaders -- who now hail from a variety of backgrounds and ethnicities, young, old, queer, straight, male, female, single, and married, are more confident now to express a variety of views, than previous generations, despite opposition and conflict, which at times originates from both inside and outside the mosque.
And unlike the previous generation, our reaction to the insanity of salafist and wahabi extremists, is swift and just -- as shown by the statements issued last week by a host of Muslim organizations in North America, condemning the violence at the American embassies and conveying condolences upon the death of Chris Stevens, the U.S. Ambassador to Libya and members of his staff.
It is in stark contrast to what we watched, particularly, those of us growing up in North America, decades ago, when the reaction to the fatwa pronounced against British Muslim author Salman Rushdie, endangering his life and stifling free expression among Muslims, was relatively muted, or worse. (And we must speak out now to ensure Rushdie is safe, considering the fatwa's recent renewal).
We know now, as Muslims, we cannot remain silent in the face of injustice, particularly when the perpetrator claims to be Muslim and acts out in the name of our faith. But though we, as a community, may have matured, the media and public perception has not necessarily caught up with us at every turn.
Though there are plenty of pundits acknowledging we differ from the violent extremists who are taking advantage of the Arab Spring, there are others who continue to paint us all with the same monolithic, bigoted brush.
The words "Muslim Fury," "Rage in the Muslim World," are used without regard to the scant number of the demonstrators in relation to the entire global Muslim population.
And there are others hoping to screen "Innocence of Muslims" to a theatre audience -- perhaps to bring some of the extremists in our midst, out into the open and create a perception that their numbers are greater.
My fellow Muslims, we live in difficult times. My fellow Muslims what is the solution? Must the problems of the entire Muslim world be a burden that constantly rests upon our shoulders?
Perhaps the answer is yes. Perhaps our generation must rise to the challenge of our era, remembering the words of the great late Martin Luther King Jr who said:
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that."
And perhaps we must examine our community at home and abroad, with extreme Islamic love. Perhaps we must react not only to deflect the negative light others throw on our faith but consistently, together shine one on those injustices regularly taking place in the Muslim world.
Perhaps we must ask ourselves, not only why American (and other western) embassies are being attacked but why there are places in the Muslim world where there is poverty, illiteracy, unemployment, forced marriage, child marriage, female genital mutilation, honour killings, gender apartheid, persecution of religious minorities, homophobia, torture and murder of citizens by governments and war.
And perhaps we must ask ourselves what we must do, from where we stand, to peacefully, create a world of difference. And again remind ourselves of the words of the Holy Quran that now resonate so forcefully in the collective soul of our generation that -- "Allah will not change a nation unless it changes what is in their hearts."]]>Saving Rimsha: Religious Intolerance is the Real Blasphemytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.18346672012-08-29T00:00:48-04:002012-08-29T07:51:12-04:00Shahla Khan Salterhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/shahla-khan-salter/Rimsha Masih, from Mehraabad, a poor neighbourhood near Pakistan's capital Islamabad, was beaten by her neighbours.
Police attended the scene upon receiving a call from the local Imam who reportedly said the neighbours had beat Rimsha after they accused her of blasphemy.
The Imam claimed that he called police, concerned that the girl, already hurt, would soon be killed by a mob on its way.
Word was out that Rimsha was seen disposing of burned pages of the Quran in the trash. In Pakistan, such an act is illegal, particularly if you are a member of a religious minority. And Rimsha is one of Pakistan's Christians, composing only 4 per cent of the population. In Pakistan, Christians and other religious minorities, including Hindus and Muslims with dissenting views, are easily accused of blasphemy, a crime that carries the penalty of life in prison and death.
Blasphemy laws were introduced to Pakistan decades ago, transferred from India, for the purpose of protecting Muslims from hate speech. The laws have, in fact, had the opposite effect by endangering the lives of religious minorities, making them an easy target for blasphemy accusations and penalties.
Rimsha is now being held at the police station in Rawalpindi, traumatized and in solitary confinement. One report provides that she is there with her mother. Religious extremists in Pakistan -- who are not a minority and are led by hundreds of clerics, are calling for Rimsha's death.
In fear, many of Rimsha's fellow Christian neighbours have fled the area, concerned for their own safety.
According to Pakistan's Ambassador to the U.S., Sherry Rehman, who, for a time led a campaign to amend the blasphemy laws there, "President Asif Ali Zardari is taking serious note of the reports of the arrest of a minor Christian girl on the charges of blasphemy and called for a report."
Amnesty International and other human rights groups are demanding Zardari obtain Rimsha's immediate release and provide her protection.
But does President Zardari have the power?
Blasphemy laws reveal who is in power in Pakistan. And it is not President Zardari and his government. No. It is Pakistan's religious clerics, whose interpretation of Muslim scriptures is violent and intolerant -- some say Talibanized.
This was glaringly apparent last year when the leading casualties of Pakistan's blasphemy laws were two prominent government leaders, former federal Minister of Minorities, Shahbaz Bhatti, a Christian and former Governor of the Interior of Punjab and Salman Taseer, a Muslim.
Both Taseer and Bhatti were assassinated in early, 2011, after expressing outrage when a poor Christian mother of five, named Aasia Bibi was convicted of blasphemy in late 2010 and sentenced to death.
Taseer had sought a pardon for Bibi. Both leaders had demanded the law be amended. While some mourned their deaths, hundreds of Pakistani clerics celebrated them. Bibi now remains in prison, hoping for a pardon. But clerics have made it clear that if the government fails to enforce the law, the citizens will carry out her execution.
And these are only a few of the victims of Pakistan's blasphemy laws.
In 2009, 40 homes and a church were burned down by a mob of a thousand in the town of Gojra, in the province of Punjab. At least seven Christians were burned to death. The attacks were triggered by reports that a Quran was desecrated.
In 2010, two Christian brothers, were shot outside a court in the city of Faisalabad, accused of writing a blasphemous letter.
And this past weekend, the body of a young Christian boy, missing since spring, named Samuel Yaqoob, was found mutilated and burned to death. Though no one has claimed responsibility and no accusations of blasphemy have been made, the truth is obvious.
In Pakistan, Christian children are not safe.
But Christians are not the only ones in danger because of Pakistan's blasphemy laws. According to local NGO's and the U.S. State Department's International Religious Freedom Report, 2006:
"The number of people accused of blasphemy in Pakistan between 1986 and April 2006 (was) at 695. (Of those, 362 were Muslims, 239 were Ahmadis (also Muslim), 86 were Christians, and 10 were Hindus)."
Killing people for expressing negative and/or dissenting views on religion, for burning Qurans, for writing letters -- is this Islam? No. In Islam, a law that penalizes a person for challenging or disparaging the religion -- is blasphemy itself.
It blatantly ignores the Islamic demand for patience and love towards members of other faiths, even in the event of disagreements, as found in this verse of the Quran:
"29:46 Do not argue with the people of the scripture (Jews, Christians, Sabians and Muslims) except in the kindest manner -- unless they transgress -- and say, 'We believe in what was revealed to us and in what was revealed to you, and our God and your God is one and the same; to Him we are submitters.'"
And in the event of insult, Muslims are advised:
"25:63 The worshippers of the Most Gracious are those who tread the earth gently, and when the ignorant speak to them, they only utter peace."
The crucial question is, why is Pakistan filled with such intolerance? And what is the solution?
Some, like the leader of Pakistan's political party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI),Imran Khan, blame it on Pakistan's support for the war on terror, stating it has created a perception by ordinary Pakistanis that the government is a "puppet of the U.S." Armed Forces.
U.S.-led drone attacks have assisted in this perception, in which, reportedly a few thousand people have been killed, not all of them terrorists, some of them children. A crumbling education system and severe economic crisis serve as a backdrop.
Out of a population of 160 million, three quarters of Pakistanis live in poverty. Many feel disheartened by the inaction of their government to improve their lives.
And Pakistan spends less than 2.5 per cent of its gross domestic product on education. Half of Pakistan's population is illiterate. A third of all Pakistanis have spent less than two years at school. In many areas no government-funded schools exist and only the rich can afford an education.
In others areas, madrassas (schools operated by religious extremists) though no longer officially linked to terrorism, still serve as the only source of a free education.
Reportedly many Pakistani parents now keep their children at home in place of sending them to madrassas.
But no education means no hope and a young person without hope is an easy recruit for the Taliban and its wahabist ideologies, which regard religious minorities as the enemy.
It means if President Zardari and his government seek to elicit compassion from the Pakistani masses and maintain law and order, they must make a far greater investment in building schools and creating jobs. And if the Zardari government is unable to invest in its own people in this way, perhaps foreign aid must be provided directly to the communities who need it.
Would western money be better spent on education in Pakistan than on a war on terror that can never be won?
After all, what is worse than a 11-year-old girl being executed for blasphemy? That she may not be the last.]]>Canada's No Safe Haven From Breivik-Style Hate Crimetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.17775072012-08-15T11:26:36-04:002012-08-15T12:28:14-04:00Shahla Khan Salterhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/shahla-khan-salter/report and found that the attack that left 77 people dead and 240 wounded last summer, could have been avoided if police and other authorities had not been so slow to react.
Anders Behring Breivik is now on trial for the attack, which included a bombing in central Oslo that left eight people dead, and a shooting spree at a youth camp on nearby Utoya Island, where 69 people died. Many of the dead were young people.
The Breivik trial and the surrounding media have focused on one question: Was Breivik insane when he ensued the attack? Insanity assumes that the criminal behaviour consisted of random, senseless acts, by someone who did not understand the consequences.
It means the shooting spree and bombing did not occur as a result of belief in any particular ideology or membership in any group.
It means it was not case of "terrorism" -- for which there is less societal tolerance and fewer judicial rights. After all, it is more difficult to obtain a fair trial, for example, in many places, if you are a terrorist as opposed to, simply, a nutcase.
Breivik, it is reported, insists he was not insane and that he carefully calculated every move. He points to a 1,500-page manifesto, filled with hatred and intolerance towards minorities, particularly Muslim European immigrants. He is reported as saying his actions were motivated, not in a vacuum of delusion, but in self-defence of a climate, created by left-wing political parties, who allowed Islam upon his land.
Breivik continues, reportedly, to refuse to express remorse for his actions and insists his hatred is not madness but logic.
And if Breivik can be believed to be telling the truth it means Breivik is a terrorist. And it means the terrorism he committed took place alongside his sincere and destructive belief that it would reform his society, by frightening his fellow citizens enough to stop them from aligning themselves with the liberal left-wing of Norway.
Is domestic terrorism, instigated by white supremacists, such as Breivik, on the rise?
It is in America, where 10 days ago, Wade Michael Page, a former U.S. army soldier killed seven people, including himself and critically injured many more, including a police officer, when he attacked a congregation of 500 at an American Sikh Gurdwara in Wisconsin.
Years before, it's reported that Page had been discharged from the army after failing a psych assessment. Notwithstanding, reportedly, he appears to have his wits about him in an interview he did for a publication, in which he talks about his efforts to gather support for white supremacist beliefs.
Page is now dead. So as we continue to extend our sympathy and condolences to our Sikh neighbours and friends, are we secure in the knowledge that another such terrorist attack is unlikely? Not necessarily.
Recently, more incidents of hate crimes -- though not resulting in such carnage -- are reported to be taking place, with alarming frequency. There have been at least seven reports of hate crimes targeting Muslims and mosques in the last 10 days in the United States.
In fact, the day after the Wisconsin Sikh gurdwarah shooting, a mosque in Joplin, Missouri was burned to the ground by arson. It had been targeted twice before -- once shortly after it opened in 2007 when arsonists set its sign on fire and then, on July 4 this year, when the building was set on fire by a torch thrown into the air. To date, no one has been charged. Fortunately, no one was injured.
In Morton Grove, Illinois, on Friday, a man named David Conrad shot a pellet gun at a mosque wall, next door to his home, while several hundred congregants prayed inside. No one was hurt. In Lombard, Illinois, on Sunday, a homemade bomb was thrown at an Islamic school while worshippers prayed inside. Because the container holding the explosives failed to break the window and explode inside the school, no one was injured.
In North Smithfield, a mosque was recently vandalized by a man who "head-butted" and pulled down signage. In Hayward, California, on Saturday, four teens were arrested on hate crime charges for taunting worshippers by throwing eggs and oranges and shooting BB-pellets at a mosque. In Oklahoma City, on Sunday, vandals defaced the Grand Mosque with paintballs, and, in Ontario, California last Tuesday, a group threw pig legs at a mosque site while worshippers left temporary prayer space there.
Here in Canada we look down at the United States and say, "well, everything is worse down there, more guns, more violence, more racism."
Not so fast.
Here at home in Canada, the Gatineau Mosque, in our nation's capital of Ottawa/Hull, was vandalized three times this past January, forcing Prime Minister Stephen Harper to issue a statement of condemnation against the vandal.
A few weeks ago, on July 27 in Winnipeg, a car was damaged as it sat in a parking lot at a mosque there. And only weeks before that, vandals spray painted "KKK" and a swastika on the gym wall of a Sikh school in Brampton, Ontario. (Since 9/11 Sikh citizens have reported greater numbers of hate crimes, being mistaken for Muslims by criminals.)
According to Statistics Canada figures from 2009, the frequency of hate crimes are up. The largest increase was among those hate crimes motivated by religion, which rose 55 per cent in 2009.
The reason? Some say it is due to the increased rhetoric of right wing political parties and their statements to media, which since 9/11, have focused on describing immigrants and visible minorities, particularly Muslims, as "the other."
Others say right wing conservative ideology alone does not necessarily lead to crime or domestic terrorism.
The solution? If we wish to protect our society as a whole from being overrun by thugs of any faith, ideology or colour, the answer is clear -- law enforcement in western nations must have a plan to protect the security of all its citizens against terrorists of all ideologies. Even the white ones.
"The police and security services could and should have done more to avert the crisis," said Alexandra Bech Gjor, head of the commission for the public enquiry into the Norway attack.
Breivik was open about his views before the attack. The late, Wade Michael Page was in a band, singing about his radical beliefs, to his compatriots.
Where were the police? And are we safe now?]]>Wisconsin Temple Shooting Proves that Hate has no Place in Religiontag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.17473602012-08-06T14:16:12-04:002012-08-06T15:45:06-04:00Shahla Khan Salterhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/shahla-khan-salter/seven people were killed and a number injured, including a police officer, when a gunman, named Wade Michael Page stormed a congregation of five hundred people at an American Sikh gurdwara. He was aged 40, and a former U.S. army soldier.
Shortly after the news broke, at Muslims for Progressive Values Canada, we were reflecting on words for an appropriate statement -- words that would somehow convey our sorrow, disgust, empathy and hope for the Sikh community in North America.
While we and other faith groups dug into our hearts in this manner, the Westboro Baptist Church representative Fred Phelps tweeted: "Beautiful work of an angry God who told Wisconsin to keep their filthy hands off his people."
Really?
No.
That God would want a gunman to enter into a house of worship, any house of worship, and kill and injure innocent people -- including a police officer, community leaders and mothers in a kitchen preparing food, sending terrified children to a basement and grownups into closets, fearing for their lives and the lives of their families and friends -- is nonsense.
No -- it is heresy.
Before we are Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, B'hai, Jain, Zoroastrian, Aboriginal, Wiccan, Humanist and Sikh -- we are human.
We call God by many different names. Some of us call God Allah, some Jesus, some Jehovah.
Some of us worship Buddha, Brahma, Vishnu, and/or Ganesh. We also have Al-Abha, Buddha, Ahura Mazda, the Earth Mother. Our Sikh brothers and sisters call God Sat Nam and Waheguru.
Some of us do not have a name for God, because we believe God lives inside every soul. Some of us do not believe in God, because we believe only in humanity.
And notwithstanding all our various ideologies and classifications we are not different at all. Our bodies, in their various colours and shapes, are the same. We all feel love and sorrow, heat and cold, pain and comfort.
And many of us believe, that in creating all of humanity God placed upon us responsibilities to our fellow human beings regardless of faith -- a duty to love and look after our neighbours and not just our neighbours of the same faith, a duty to speak out for justice and not only to help those of our own faith, a duty to work towards peace for all of humanity and put an end to war, famine and oppression, without regard to faith.
God doesn't care if you are Muslim or Christian, Jewish or Hindu, Jain or Buddhist, B'hai or Sikh -- or any of the other classifications by which we categorize ourselves to better understand our journey here on earth.
God only cares about the way in which we treat one another.
"Do you know what is better than prayer, fasting and charity? It is keeping peace and good relations between people." -Prophet Muhammad
So to our Sikh brothers and sisters in North America and beyond we say this: The shooting of members of the American Sikh community at gurdwara in Milwaukee, Wisconsin yesterday was a tragedy that has shocked us all. We offer our condolences to you at this time and hope and pray that your communities -- your loved ones, families, friends, priests, and places of prayer and reflection -- remain safe now and in the future.
Sat Sri Akal. God is the Ultimate Truth. Yes. Salaam. Peace.]]>Have Islamicists Gone (Lady) Gaga?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.15545612012-05-31T08:27:23-04:002012-05-31T11:30:26-04:00Shahla Khan Salterhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/shahla-khan-salter/cancelled in Indonesia on Sunday when extremists threatened a bomb blast if it took place.
It came as a shock to some -- but not to all.
Indonesia's reputation as a pillar of human rights and free expression in the Muslim world seems to be vanishing amidst protests from groups who call themselves Islamic and wish to see change in Indonesia.
Such change, if it takes place, will mean the end of Indonesian culture, the end of human rights in that country, and the end of life as moderate Indonesian Muslims and non-Muslims, know it.
Right now, Indonesia is a country with a high Muslim majority population but a secular constitution.
Measures to incorporate shariah law have always been a concern, but now neither the police nor the Indonesian government seem to wish to counteract them.
One state in Indonesia, Aceh, already imposed shariah law in 2001, amidst threats of separation and civil war. In Aceh, last December, hundreds of punk rock fans came from around the country to the capital of Bandeh Aceh to raise money for Indonesian orphans. In response, shariah police arrested 59 young people at the concert, determining them a threat to their way of life and subjected them to measures to "rehabilitate" them. One young man worried about an arrest record ruining his career at the bank where he worked.
Is this Islam?
According to the narrow view of some powerful Muslim groups, such as the Salafist sect of Islam, there should be no culture outside of the culture that existed at the time of Prophet Muhammad for Muslims. This means additional prohibitions are added to the usual ones followed already by the ultra-conservatives. Music made with instruments that did not exist and were not available to the Prophet's community in the sixth century is prohibited. Because the Prophet was forced to live meagrely, trendy, colourful clothes are prohibited, as well as art, with the exception of patterns and calligraphy.
This ideology takes ultra-conservative Muslim society to a new level of austerity, wiping out diversity and individuality by destroying culture. It is cultural genocide.
Does authentic Islam impose cultural genocide upon its adherents?
Are we Muslims meant, as our Salafist brethren seem to say, to be one Ummah (or community) with no diversity in culture?
Is culture un-Islamic?
No. Culture is inherent to our humanity. There is no natural separation of human beings from culture without a loss of humanity. Culture is depicted by our fashion, our cuisine, our music, our photographs, our paintings, our poetry, our stories. It influences our identity. It enhances our uniqueness and celebrates both our commonalities and our differences.
Culture is art -- in every sense of the word. And art is beauty expressed by humanity.
As the Holy Prophet Muhammad said: "Allah is beautiful and He loves beauty."
As well, as stated in the Holy Quran:
"O Humankind! We have created you male and female, and have made you nations and tribes so that you might (affectionately) come to know one another..." 49:13
The creation of nations and tribes, their diversity inherent, is divine.
It leads us to the question: Why? Why impose the notion that culture must be uniform and void of diversity?
It is not just Muslims. Cultural genocide does not discriminate. It takes place whenever and wherever one nation wishes to conquer another or regards it as a threat. It has taken place against aboriginal peoples all over North America. It has been evidenced by laws and policies such as the ban of the niqab and/or headscarf in Quebec and France. It creates cohesion among a mainstream majority such as in Nazi Germany. It is encompassed in the statement: "Ban their culture as it is inferior to our own and they are inferior to us."
And when we ban culture -- dress, art, music -- we ban freedom of expression. Then, we ban books, ideas, ideology, knowledge, thoughts and finally, conscience.
Does it make sense for anyone, particularly a Muslim group to promote a ban on freedom of conscience? Without freedom of conscience true faith exists only in fiction. After all, any faith, including Islam is about choice.
According to the Holy Quran:
"There shall be no coercion in matters of faith." 2:256
Why impose a ban? Answer: because without such freedom, there is no opposition.
It means in the Muslim world, dictators who punish people for apostasy by penalty of death (apostasy is the so-called crime of leaving the faith of Islam and almost anyone can be charged with this for a number of reasons), will also certainly ban music.
In Iran, where performing an act that shows you are not Muslim is punishable by death, Grand Ayatollah Lotfollah Safi Golpaygani put a fatwa on Shahin Najafi's head, a 31-year-old political activist and rapper (the ayatollah accused Najafi of insulting a Shiite leader in his song "Imam Naghi". Najafi has defied the fatwa and though he has been forced to cancel a European concert tour, he continues to compose his songs). The fatwa is no shocker because the Iranian government regularly uses its rigid and skewed principles of what it calls Islam to shut down anyone who it deems a threat.
Our moderate Muslim brethren, the ones who believe in human rights but also somehow believe in shariah law hear this and say: "Oh, but that's just Iran."
Really? Given what is happening in Indonesia, Iran does not appear to simply be an isolated example anymore, and we know there are more countries suffering from a similar problem.
So what is the solution? Who will save Indonesia?
Well, a few weeks ago I came across a new name when news broke that Muslim Canadian author and speaker, Irshad Manji was physically attacked by extremists in Indonesia, for promoting her book, Allah, Liberty & Love. One voice came forward in the Indonesian press and bravely stood up for Manji. He said "freedom of speech not only belongs to conservative groups." His name is Ulil Abshar Abdalla.
Abdalla is fighting for freedom of expression in Indonesia along with pluralism and inclusivity. He is an Islamic scholar and leads an organization called the Liberal Islamic Network (also known in Indonesian as Jaringan Islam Liberal or JIL). With the assistance of agencies such as the Asia Foundation, it is reported that JIL is able to voice liberal and tolerant interpretations of Islam in Indonesia.
It was Abdalla, not the Indonesian government, who not only spoke out against the attack on Manji, but is also working to set up neighbourhood watch groups to protect people from extremists (likely because police are doing little). Abdalla is also demanding the government and police to take steps to curb the unlawful activities of these groups. It seems his demands have been ignored, I could not find any online report of police charges against any individual or group for making threats against Lady Gaga's concert or for the attack on Manji.
Still, despite opposition, including death threats, Abdullah and JIL are making their voice heard to the masses in Indonesia via talk radio, newspapers, books and online.
Ulil Abshar Abdalla and JIL represent hope and courage in Indonesia.
Where there is hope and courage, there is possibility.
And so it is possible that in Indonesia the extremists will not win.
It is possible that people like Ulil Abshar Abdalla and JIL, who love beauty, like Allah loves beauty, will.]]>Muslims Must Rally to Save Hamza Kashgari's Lifetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.12722222012-02-13T13:12:06-05:002012-04-14T05:12:01-04:00Shahla Khan Salterhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/shahla-khan-salter/
I defaced the posters wherever I found them on campus.
If I had been caught, would I have been beheaded?
Such may be the fate of 23-year-old Hamza Kashgari, a Saudi writer who messaged via Twitter an imaginary conversation with the Prophet Muhammad a week ago, around the time of Prophet Muhammad's birthday.
Hamza said of the Prophet, "I admire some qualities you have but not all" and "I will not pray for you."
In reference to a Hadith (or so-called saying of the Prophet Muhammad), circulated widely by the rigid Wahabist sect in Saudi Arabia that states that "the fires of hell shall be filled with women" (the authenticity of which is disputed by many Muslims), Hamza said, "Why should Saudi women go to hell twice?"
Implicit in the statement was his condemnation of gender apartheid propagated by the male guardianship system under which Saudi women are forced to live.
Thirteen-thousand tweets later, made by so-called Muslims in the Kingdom upset by what they claimed to be an insult upon the Prophet, an order for Hamza's arrest was pronounced by none other than King Abdullah himself.
The crime? Apostasy.
The possible sentence? Death.
Hamza messaged via Twitter his repentance, apologized, and then fled to Malaysia.
He was promptly arrested there and a Malaysian judge -- in a place obviously not as moderate as some Muslims like to imagine -- ordered him extradited back home to Saudi Arabia, where he now is in custody awaiting trial and awaiting death.
Is this Islam?
What about the Islam where Prophet Muhammad's patience is a cornerstone of his strength, as told in this story:
Every morning for several months, a woman in Mecca who hated the Prophet Muhammad threw feces at his door. She never suffered any penalty or backlash for doing so. One day after several months, the Prophet opened his door to find it was clean. No feces had been thrown at it that morning.
The Prophet remarked, "Where is the woman that throws feces on my door every morning? I hope she is not sick."
Such was the Prophet's capacity for patience and mercy. It is the example we Muslims must follow.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has obviously not circulated this story in its Wahhabist teachings.
No -- the Islam of Saudi Arabia appears to be a completely different faith, one where no churches, synagogues, or temples are allowed, where women are crushed through the oppression of gender apartheid, and where people who express dissent are in jail or dead.
Founded by Saudi ruler al-Wahhab in the early 18th century, surviving with the demise of the Ottoman Empire, thriving amidst neo-colonialism and its disdain for anything western (including human rights), spread by petro dollars and fed by Western allies who turn a blind eye at the crimes of their rich Saudi friends, Wahhabism has become so predominant in the Muslim world -- notwithstanding its links to terrorism -- that some progressives and activists there now only know enough about Islam to call themselves agnostics or atheists.
But when it is dark God lights a path for us.
While Wahhabism continues its plague, the mystical treasure of Sufi Islam, its antithesis, has begun to make a modern day revival and take on progressive values.
Impoverished for decades, teachings of the Islamic traditions of kindness and love, handed down from grandparent to grandchild, documented in archives that were all but forgotten, are now springing up in the universities of the west, where freedom of expression is allowed.
And it is this freedom of expression -- so precious -- which allows our scholars to rediscover our faith and find hidden translations of our scriptures where women are equal, religious minorities are respected, dissent is welcome, and where the greatest jihad is -- according to the Prophet Muhammad -- to speak the truth to a tyrant.
And in comparing this version of Islam, with Wahhabism, we find that the greatest tyrant facing Islam today is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
So to the King of Saudi Arabia I say this: Our Holy Prophet Muhammad, if alive today, would surely be sobbing tears of despair if he witnessed the tyranny you impose on your people falsely in the name of what you call Islam.
The corporate shares your Prince has bought in Twitter, along with the arms used by your military and police to silence your citizens, has been bought with the blood of those you have beheaded falsely in the name of Allah.
And the Holy Quran appears to mention you where it says: "Blame attaches but to those who oppress other people and behave outrageously on earth, offending against all right: for them there is grievous suffering in store" (42:42).
Are you going to arrest me King Abdullah?
May God save 23-year-old Hamza Kashgari.
Please read our statement and take action to save Hamza Kashgari.