Recently in human rights Category

Fayzal Mahamad

I recently received this letter from the South African human rights activist Fayzal Mahamad:

To: Robert Spencer Jihad Watch

Dear Mr. Spencer,

I am a 56-year-old South African citizen, a secular humanist and an advocate of human rights.

On the 29th August, 2011 I filed a complaint with the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) and the Commission for Gender Equality (CGE) indicating that in my opinion Abdullah Yusuf Ali, author of the world-famous and renowned interpretation of the Quran entitled "An English Interpretation of the Holy Quran," advocates and propagates violence and unlawful conduct against women when he interprets / proposes a verse in the Quran, namely verse 4:34 as:

"As to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty and ill conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience seek not against them means of annoyance."

I requested the SAHRC and CGE to either stop the distributors located in Johannesburg from distributing Yusuf Ali's interpretation of the Quran or alternatively to censure the specific verse giving rise to my complaint.

I have requested the support of a number of religious organization (Muslims included) and secular organizations in my complaint to the SAHRC and CGE. None of the Muslim organizations have even bothered to reply to my request and a few Muslim organizations have even written to the SAHRC opposing my complaint.

My complaint if successful would be the first of its kind in the world where state institutions in a democracy are used to act against abuse of human rights.

Secularly yours
Fayzal Mahamed.
(Human Rights Activist)

Academic Qualifications:
Philosophy of Religion - University of Witwatersrand
Philosophy of Ethics - University of Witwatersrand
Islamic Studies - University of South Africa
Religious Studies - University of South Africa

This is reminiscent of The Calcutta Quran Petition. Fayzal Mahamad has a strong case, made even stronger by the fact that the word "lightly" was added in by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, and is not in the Arabic. And Abdullah Yusuf Ali is not the sole offender, as nearly all translations of the Qur'an into English render this verse in some way that denotes beating a woman. Of course, authorities are not likely to interpret the law objectively and fairly in this case. Here is the text of Fayzal Mahamad's complaint to the SAHRC:

Complaint to the Human Rights Commission – Violence & Discrimination against women.

On the 26^th August 2011 I purchased a book titled “An English Interpretation of the Holy Quran” by author Abdullah Yusuf Ali from Al Huda Publications CC, an Islamic media publisher, distributor and bookseller in Johannesburg. (see attached invoice labeled DOC 1)

Yusuf Ali’s “An English Interpretation of the Holy Quran” is not the only interpretation of the Quran but it is the most popular and renowned of all the English interpretations of the Quran. His interpretation is extensively used in Islamic religious schools throughout our country as well as in academia and universities. His interpretation is often quoted in Islamic Fatwas i.e. religious opinion concerning Islamic law issued by an Islamic scholar.

In the book “An English Interpretation of the Holy Quran” on page 118 and page 119 section 6 author Abdullah Yusuf Ali interprets / proposes verse 4:34 as follows: (DOC 2)

“As to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty and ill conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience seek not against them means of annoyance.”

Abdullah Yusuf Ali unambiguous interpretation of verse 4:34 proposes that in a domestic dispute women (wives) should, as a last resort, be beaten up in order to obey her husband.

The interpretation of Abdullah Yusuf Ali clearly advocates, sanctions, propagates and promotes violence or unlawful conduct against women in a domestic dispute and infringes the rights of women in a variety of ways, namely in respect of:

Equality.

Women (wives) are being unfairly discriminated upon when Yusuf Ali interprets / proposes that women be beaten up in a domestic dispute as men are not subjected to the same beating as women even though they (men) may be equally at fault in a domestic dispute.

Muslim women are being unfairly discriminated against when Yusuf Ali interprets / proposes that Muslim women be beaten since similar violent punishment against women are not interpreted or prescribed by the majority of other religious / cultural / secular beliefs.

Human Dignity

The interpretation / proposal by Yusuf Ali that women be beaten up in a domestic dispute or when they are “disloyal or display ill conduct” is an unlawful, inhumane act that is intended to bring fear and harm to women in order that they submit to the commands and the will of men (husbands). The act of beating women causes the dignity of women (wives) to be impaired, disrespected and disregarded in violation of the human dignity of women as proposed by our constitution.

Freedom and Security

The interpretation / proposal by Yusuf Ali that women be beaten up in a domestic dispute infringes /violates the freedom and security of women to all forms of violence from either public or private source.

Freedom of Expression

The interpretation / proposal by Yusuf Ali that women be beaten up in a domestic dispute violates / infringes the freedom of expression because Yusuf Ali advocates hatred that is based on gender and constitutes incitement to cause harm.

Intended Relief sought or expected outcome

For the SAHRC to demand / interdict Al Huda Publications CC stop distributing or supplying of Yusuf Ali’s “An English Interpretation of the Holy Quran”.

Or alternatively

For the SAHRC to demand / interdict Al Huda Publications CC to remove the offending interpretation by blocking or alternatively covering the offending interpretation that violates the rights of women.

Or alternatively

For the SAHRC to use any action within its mandate to prevent the distribution or supply of Yusuf Ali’s “An English Interpretation of the Holy Quran” and / or any Islamic religious interpretation / proposal that advocates the beating of women in a domestic dispute.

It is important to note that I am not asking the SAHRC to censure or stop the distribution of the Quran, the holy scripture of Muslims. From a religious perspective the Quran is a book written in Arabic in and around the year 632CE. As I understand it, the Quran in Arabic is a religious scripture protected by our constitution but the interpretations thereof are personal renditions offered by various authors and are not religious scriptures protected by our constitution but religious literature that fall within the ambit of our constitution and subjected to the rules of the constitution.

Attached (DOC 3) is a digest “Jihad Against Violence: Muslim Women’s Struggle for Peace” initiated by WISE (Women’s Islamic Initiative in Spirituality and Equality). On page 6, 7 and 8 WISE acknowledges that the offensive interpretation of verse 4:34 by many Muslim authors contribute towards the violence against women and suggest that non offensive interpretations by Muslim authors such as Laleh Bakhtiar be accepted in place of offending authors.

I am appealing to the SAHRC to accept and act on my complaint in the manner that will hear the cries of WISE (Muslim Women’s Struggle for Peace) and stop the distribution of a book that advocates violence, propagates violence, sanctions violence and promotes violence against women.

Mohamed Fayzal Mahamed

She had just given birth to twins, and her father shot her.

Yes, murders happen everywhere, and cases of parents killing their children exist across the world, but the crucial difference here is how the killings are rationalized and often praised, and how often they fail to be punished on a level that fits the crime. Under Sharia, a parent may face no penalty at all for killing a child.

After prior attempts at reform were quashed under protests that they violated "religious traditions," it is now more possible in Jordan for perpetrators of honor killings to receive longer sentences. But how much time this man is actually sentenced to, and actually serves, bears watching. "Jordan woman killed in hospital over pregnancy," from Agence France Presse, September 4:

A Jordanian man was charged on Sunday with killing his 24-year-old widowed daughter in hospital after she gave birth to twins, a judicial official said.

"Amman's criminal court prosecutor charged the man with premeditated murder after he confessed to shooting dead his daughter on Saturday," in Deir Alla in the Jordan Valley, the official told AFP.

The official quoted the suspect as saying "I was shocked that she was pregnant. I was enraged and shot her dead because she did something shameful."

The woman has been a widow for four years.

"The man claimed he wanted to check on the condition of his daughter ... then he shot her in the head," said Ahmad Hwarat, head of the hospital where the killing took place.

Murder is punishable by death in Jordan but in so-called "honour killings" courts can commute or reduce sentences, particularly if the victim's family asks for leniency.

Between 15 and 20 women died in such murders each year in the Arab kingdom, despite government efforts to curb such crimes.

Here is my debate last night on ABN with Sheikh Mohamed El-Hassan of the Texas Islamic Center on the question, "Does Islam respect human rights?"

The first half hour of the show is an interview with Walid Phares; the debate starts after that.

Tonight on ABN TV. Tune in here.

Some commentators on the Qur'an burning have said that Pastor Terry Jones was somehow unpatriotic, because his action endangered American soldiers in the field in Muslim countries. This is toxic nonsense. For one thing, the only person who endangered those troops was the man who sent them to hopeless missions in unfixable (i.e. Muslim) countries: The president and commander-in-chief.

Furthermore, these are not unarmed women and children, whose flights were somehow misdirected from Kalamazoo to Kabul. They are soldiers—and every one of them is a volunteer. They signed up to fight for our country, and pudgy, gunless civilians shouldn't insult their service by offering to “protect” these well-armed and courageous troops by quashing our freedoms at home. I'm sorry that American servicemen and women are in harm's way in Muslim countries, and I would like to see every single one of them brought home tomorrow. One criterion I will use in choosing a presidential candidate will be his willingness to bring home our troops, so they can stop getting blown up and shot at in defense of sharia.

Another argument out there asserts that the actions of Pastor Jones—and by definition, of all Islamo-realists—provoke Islamic violence against real innocent civilians, including unarmed men, women and children: namely, the millions of non-Muslims who live as hostages inside Islamic countries. The numbers of these people are shrinking, to be sure, as resurgent Islamic governments from Kosovo to Iraq find ways to ethnically cleanse their territories, repeating against the Christians the purges Arab states conducted of Jews in 1948. Tragic and criminal as that mass-expulsion was, it did have one advantage: there aren't millions of Jews living at the mercy of Muslim mobs, whom hostile governments can use as pawns or hold for ransom. Likewise, the flight of ancient Christian communities from Muslim-occupied countries is a painful assault on heritage and history. But in the long run it may save their lives, and give the rest of us more freedom of action in confronting global Islam while we still can.

This fact was pointed up for me by the comments of Archbishop Lawrence Saldanha of Lahore, Pakistan—the head of the Pakistani conference of Catholic bishops. Now before I quote what Abp. Saldanha had to say about the present controversy, I want to point out that this man is no snivelling dhimmi (unlike certain Eastern rite clerics I could think of). Abp. Saldanha does not cover up the crimes of his country's Islamic government, or blame them on America or Israel. Indeed, in the recent report on the persecution of Christians around the world, Saldanha's voice was one of the loudest and most forthright. As we have reported before, Saldanha echoed the call of Scottish Cardinal Keith O'Brien that the British government withhold foreign aid from countries—such as Pakistan—that flout minority rights. The bishops conference Saldanha leads on March 26 asked the Vatican to consider declaring Shahbaz Bhatti a martyr. Besides the regular arrest and persecution of Christians under Pakistan's ludicrous “blasphemy” laws, Saldanha is threatened by less organized forces of repression. As Fides News reports:

the Catholic church of St Thomas, in the town of Wah Canntt, about 50 km from Rawalpindi, was attacked by a groups armed men last night, Monday 28 March, which resulted in damages. According to the account sent to Fides by the local parish priest, Fr Yusaf Amanat, about 6.30 pm a group of six armed men broke in to the Church's courtyard, throwing rocks at the lamps and windows, trying to force open the church door.

An attendant, alarmed by the noise, warned the parish priest and the police. The attackers, who were not able to force the door, instead, tried to set him on fire, then fled.

The priest told Fides about his concern about these acts of intimidation, which are perhaps related to the recent episode of the burning of the Koran by Pastor Terry Jones in the U.S.

LAHORE, Pakistan, APRIL 5, 2011 (Zenit.org).- The archbishop of Lahore is calling for the arrest of two U.S. pastors whose Qur'an burning ceremony sparked violent attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan, resulting in multiple deaths. ...

Archbishop Lawrence Saldanha of Lahore condemned the desecration of the Qur'an, and told Aid to the Church in Need: "The U.S. government should detain the pastor for some time."

He added, "In view of the effects his actions have had all over the world, he should be controlled and understand the harm that has been done."

The prelate noted that "the U.S. government talks about religious freedom, but we call upon the U.S. government to prevent such actions by extremists and other fundamentalist Christians."

He acknowledged that the situation "could become ugly" due to growing anger over the desecration.

The aid agency reported that Pakistani churches are implementing extra security measures including armed guards, cameras and concrete blocks.
...
On Friday, Jones released a statement in response to the attacks, asserting that "Muslim dominated countries can no longer be allowed to spread their hate against Christians and minorities."

He added, "They must alter the laws that govern their countries to allow for individual freedoms and rights, such as the right to worship, free speech, and to move freely without fear of being attacked or killed."

My first reaction to reading this news story was probably yours as well: Immediate indignation that some foreigner is trying to get my government to suspend our Constitution, and subject Americans to cringing, fawning “respect” for Muslim sensibilities. I respect Islam exactly as I do Scientology, Christian Identity, and the theory that alien lizard men have controlled human history since the caves were painted at Lascaux. My hackles went up, and it took them a while to go back down. Certainly, we must reject such calls by clerics of any stripe to restrict our freedom of expression—which would only ever protect Islam, and amount to imposing a sharia blasphemy law, not just on Pakistan but across the planet. As someone who is clearly devoted to Shahbaz Bhatti and his cause, Abp. Saldanha should realize the implications of his statement.

But second thoughts are also important. Abp. Saldanha isn't only responsible for himself, but for millions of innocent unarmed Christians—who are already being persecuted by the Islamic government that is propped up by U.S. and Western foreign aid. The Muslim gun is at their heads, and we paid for the bullets. Now, as Saldanha must see it, the same country that shovels money into the hands of his evil government is tolerating provocations by its citizens that put more Pakistani Christians at risk. So I understand his frustration, and it is much more in sorrow than anger that I must tell Abp. Saldanha, respectfully, to leave our Constitution alone. His efforts would be much better spent impressing on U.S. congressmen the need for imposing religious toleration conditions on U.S. aid to any and every Muslim country, telling the world the stories of Pakistan's Christian martyrs, and preparing his threatened flock to cling to their faith all along the Way of the Cross that they are treading. I regret if the occasional American zealot inadvertently makes their walk a little harder—but Abp. Saldanha should not blame Barabbas for the crime of Pontius Pilate.

They must be putting something in the water over in Britain; maybe a factory producing anabolic steroids has secretly spilled massive doses of testosterone into the reservoirs. First the P.M. David Cameron renounced multiculturalism, all its works, and all its pomps. (We await concrete results.) Then the Church of England announced it would stop serving food sacrificed to idols—Allah, to be precise—and banned halal food in church-run schools. Now a Roman Catholic prelate has taken a stance that is at once morally principled, and based in the defense of his community's legitimate self-interest. Any evidence that Christian leaders are rejecting the servility that has characterized so many churches in recent decades is welcome news for those of us who wage the civilizational war against Islamic supremacism. Catholic News Agency and EWTN news reported on March 15:

The leader of the Catholic Church in Scotland has accused the U.K. of adopting an “anti-Christian foreign policy,” after the government announced it would double foreign aid to Pakistan without setting any conditions to help the Islamic country's endangered religious minorities.

Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the Archbishop of Edinburgh, said on March 15 that U.K. Foreign Secretary William Hague should “obtain guarantees from foreign governments before they are given aid,” ensuring that Christians and other religious minorities in countries like Pakistan would not be deprived of their basic religious rights.

The cardinal made his remarks at the Glasgow launch of a new report on religious persecution, compiled by the Catholic charity Aid to the Church in Need. Their report “Persecuted and Forgotten?” shows that 75 percent of all worldwide anti-religious activity is now directed against Christians.

I have witnessed – indeed I have experienced for myself – the humiliation, the anguish and the physical agony people have gone through for their beliefs. Not long after the overthrow of Saddam, I was kidnapped while visiting families in my diocese. During my confinement, my captors kept demanding answers about my faith. It was difficult but I remained calm.

Thank God, the next day I was released. But in the years since, others have not been so lucky. Another bishop from Mosul, Paulos Faraj Rahho, priests and lay people have paid the ultimate price. People of all faiths have suffered, but especially Christians. This is true in so many countries.

The persecution of Christians in our world today amounts to a human rights disaster. It is a catastrophe that has been ignored by the media, almost as if a news black-out has been enforced. This book, Persecuted and Forgotten? 2007/2008, which looks at those countries where Christians suffer for their faith, helps to redress the balance, putting on record the trials and tribulations people face for remaining true to their beliefs.

But among the nations listed, Pakistan really stands out for its mistreatment of religious minorities, so it's fitting that Cardinal O'Brien singled it out—in light of the scandal that Pakistan remains a major recipient of Western funds (some 445 million pounds—over $700 million in just one year, just from the U.K.) The “shocking and saddening” facts in the human rights report,

the cardinal said, should prompt a reconsideration of how the U.K. distributes foreign aid.... “To increase aid to the Pakistan government when religious freedom is not upheld and those who speak up for religious freedom are gunned down is tantamount to an anti-Christian foreign policy,” said Cardinal O'Brien, in an evident reference to the March 2 murder of Pakistani religious minorities minister Shahbaz Bhatti.

Bhatti, a Catholic who could be declared a martyr, predicted his own death after dedicating his life to opposing Pakistan's “blasphemy law.” A branch of the Pakistani Taliban said they killed him for criticizing Islam and supporting the law's repeal.

“Here in Scotland,” Cardinal O'Brien noted, “we value our freedoms, particularly the freedom of religion and the right to practice our faith free of persecution.”

But this freedom, he said, is far from universal. “In countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq, Christians face violence, intolerance and even death because of their beliefs,” Cardinal O'Brien stated. “This issue is perhaps the biggest human rights scandal of our generation.”

Iraqi Archbishop Bashar Warda of Erbil, who is visiting the U.K. this month, welcomed the “Persecuted and Forgotten?” report. He said it would contribute to building “international support and solidarity” for Christians in countries “where our human rights and our religious freedom have been stripped away.”

“In many countries, like Iraq, the situation for Christians seems to be worsening, sometimes to the point were we wonder if we will survive as a people in our own country,” said Archbishop Warda. “There is no doubt that the political turmoil and growing nationalist struggles in Iraq are contributing to the loss of our religious freedoms.”

Archbishop Lawrence Saldanha of Lahore, head of the Pakistan bishops' conference, has previously stated that foreign governments should demand protection of religious minorities and respect for their rights as a precondition of foreign aid. He told CNA on Jan. 6 that it would be a “very effective” means of getting Pakistan's government to take human rights concerns seriously.

In the last few years, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of attacks against religious minorities across the country. Often these attacks have taken the form of fatwas (rulings by Islamic courts, sometimes calling for a person’s death). They have also included attacks against churches and the abduction and attempted conversion of Christians.

The worst instrument of religious repression is the blasphemy law, which continues to claim many victims. This refers to sections B and C of Article 295 of Pakistan’s Penal Code, whereby offences against the Qur’an are punishable by life imprisonment, and acts “defiling the sacred name of the Prophet Mohammed” are punishable with life imprisonment or death. There are also the hudud ordinances – Qur’an-inspired legal punishments that include flogging and stoning for activities such as adultery, gambling, and drinking alcohol.

According to the country’s Catholic Justice and Peace Commission, the blasphemy law is “like the sword of Damocles hanging over Pakistani minorities, in addition to being a clear violation of their religious and human rights as guaranteed by the constitution.” Khalil Tahir, head of the Adal Trust, which helps the Christian community to defend itself against false accusations, told AsiaNews that most of “those accused under the blasphemy law are from the social and religious minorities”. Muslims have increasingly taken the law into their own hands in cases of alleged blasphemy. As a result, Christian churches, homes, hospitals and schools have been destroyed.

In May 2007, Archbishop Lawrence Saldanha of Lahore warned that extremist Muslims across the country were now trying to force Christians to convert by threatening violence. He spoke of growing calls for Shari'a Islamic law to be implemented. He said 500 Christians in north-west Pakistan had recently received anonymous letters warning them that they would be killed and their churches closed if they failed to become Muslims within 10 days. Archbishop Saldanha said: “It distresses us that Christians are threatened in an attempt to force them to convert to Islam. This is something that has never happened before.”167 The archbishop’s comments come at a time of increasing anxiety over the future of Christianity in the country.

January 2007: Martha Bibi, a Christian woman from the village of Kot Nanak Singh (Kasur district), was charged under the blasphemy law and was held in custody for five months even though no evidence against her was given in court. Martha’s problems began when she demanded payment for tools she rented to help build a mosque. When she visited the mosque construction site, she was refused payment. Undaunted, she began collecting up her tools and as she did so was beaten severely. She only escaped thanks to help from passers-by. That night the mosque’s imam accused her of insulting the Qur’an and the prophet Mohammed and police charged her under the blasphemy law.

February 2007: Bishop Joseph Coutts of Faisalabad and two Muslims, a journalist and an academic, received death threats for taking part in an inter-faith meeting a few months earlier. An Islamist group called the Islamic Soldiers’ Front claimed responsibility for the threatening letters and telephone calls in which all three men were branded as “infidels”.

March 2007: In the Punjab province a Christian man was attacked by a mob of 150 Muslims who beat and tortured him for hours, accusing him of desecrating a copy of the Qur’an. The attack ended when the police moved in, but instead of arresting the aggressors they arrested the victim for allegedly violating the blasphemy law.

July 2007: Sadiq Masih, a 45-year-old Protestant, was mortally wounded in his own home by members of the Chaudri family, his former employers. He had quit his job at the family farm, tired of the endless abuse he received for being Christian.

August 2007: Arif Khan, 50, a Baptist bishop in Rawalpindi, and his wife Kathleen, 45, both US nationals, were murdered in nearby Islamabad. Two Christians from the city of Wana were arrested for the crime. However, according to local Christian sources, the actual perpetrator of the crime was a Muslim named Said Alam.

September 2007: Bo Brekke, 50, a Norwegian Christian heading a Salvation Army delegation, was murdered in his Lahore office. He had been in the country for a year.

October 2007: Three Christian children were refused entry into shelters in Rawalpindi. The children were then moved to a government shelter for women in Islamabad. The managers of the shelters were heavily criticised by NGO representatives.

October 2007: Masked men kidnapped two Christians, Naeem Masih and Shahbaz Masih, in front of a hospital in North Waziristan. Nobody claimed responsibility for the kidnappings.

December 2007: Hundreds of Christians staged a demonstration outside the Governor’s House in Lahore to protest against the demolition of a church in Garden Town, Lahore. They begged for it to be rebuilt. Earlier, armed men forced their way into the church and ordered the minister and his family to leave and remove their belongings. Outside was a large deployment of police who held back a crowd of Christians who were determined to stop the destruction of the church.

December 2007: A Christian doctor, Rejinald Humayun Zaheeruddin, medical superintendent at Pennell Memorial Christian Hospital, and his driver, were kidnapped by masked men in Bannu, North West Frontier Province. The doctor had served there for the past 25 years and treated patients of all religions, mainly Muslims.

January 2008: Five Christians, Altaf Masih, Babar Masih, Emmanuel, Sakhawat Masih and Imran Masih were kidnapped at gunpoint near the Afghan border, and beaten on suspicion of selling alcohol. They were told to stop selling alcohol and were released a few days later.

February 2008: Haroon, a young Catholic father of four, was kidnapped near Narang, 30 miles north of Lahore. He was ordered to telephone his wife and tell her that he would be killed if she dared to inform the police. He escaped after his captors left him unguarded one morning. By this stage, he had been moved to a number of different locations, finally ending up in a farmhouse 300 miles from Lahore.

June 2008: Visiting Rome for their five-yearly Ad Limina meeting, Pakistan’s Catholic bishops told Pope Benedict XVI that attitudes towards the Church had changed almost beyond recognition. Archbishop Lawrence Saldanha of Lahore, president of the Pakistan’s Bishops’ Conference, informed the Pontiff that while in the past the Church had been respected for its work in education and medicine, “today we carry out our mission in a hostile and conservative Islamic milieu that is increasingly extremist, intolerant and militant.”

June 2008: Two Christian girls – aged 13 and 10 – were kidnapped and were forced to convert to Islam and marry Muslim men. The Catholic Church’s National Council for Justice and Peace said three men abducted Saba, 13 and 10-year-old Auila Younis in Muzaffargarh, Punjab Province. The NCJP has appealed to the Punjab’s Chief Minister for the girls to be returned to their family. The local courts refused to intervene.

July 2008: Bishop Max Rodrigues of Hyderabad said that despite a widespread shift towards a “theocratic” form of Islam, Christian communities had developed significant out-reach initiatives to non- Muslims. In an interview with ACN, the bishop said that he was using ACN’s Child’s Bible in evangelisation work among tribal peoples in the Sindh province of south-east Pakistan. He said there were now 17 catechists among the tribal community. He added: “The task of evangelisation in a theocratic country, strongly Islamicised… is a difficult thing but in my diocese there is a large tribal apostolate.” The bishop said the pastoral work was revolutionising attitudes to women. He said: “The pastoral teams have changed the way that people think, and uplifted the status of women – women were seen as chattels, they had never sent girls to school as they didn’t see the value in educating them, but now they send them to school as well.”

It's almost as if the UN has a secret agenda of seeing how far it can go into dhimmitude and idiocy before the U.S. pulls the plug. And no, this won't be the limit, either. "UN set to adopt report that praises Libya's human-rights record," by Steven Edwards for Postmedia News, February 28 (thanks to all who sent this in):

UNITED NATIONS — The UN Human Rights Council is set to adopt a major report hailing Libya’s human rights record — despite moving to suspend the Arab country’s council membership amid an international outcry over attacks on civilians.

The report shows countries applauding and commending Libya as they note “with appreciation the country’s commitment to upholding human rights on the ground.”

Even Canada “welcomed improvements” Libya made “in its respect for human rights,” according to the report, which is scheduled for a vote before the Geneva-based 47-member council March 18.

But the Canadian government also made a number of critically framed recommendations to the Gaddafi regime, including one calling for reinforced measures aimed at fully investigating torture claims.

The 23-page report was compiled as part of the council’s “Universal Periodic Review” — a process the UN bills as a rigorous scrutiny of the human rights records of each UN member state every four years.

Highlighting what it called the council’s “hypocrisy,” UN Watch, a Geneva-based monitoring group, on Monday called on the body’s president to withdraw the report.

“It’s now clear that the session on Libya was largely a fraud,” said Hillel Neuer of Montreal, UN Watch executive director....

No kidding, really?

One consistent hallmark of abusive laws is how often they lend themselves to being used to settle scores, to frighten a subjugated class into continued submission, or to pile on additional punishments out of sheer contempt. Sharia is replete with such examples.

Pakistan's blasphemy law is one such law, and here is another illustration of the cavernous gap between Sharia as advertised for Western consumption (where, for example, the hijab is always portrayed as a personal choice) and Sharia as implemented in Islamic societies. Funny how the same human rights abuses keep turning up, from Aceh to Tehran, to Chechnya, and beyond. "Iran: Leading human rights lawyer 'jailed for 11 years'," from AdnKronos International, January 10:

Tehran, 10 Jan. (AKI) - Prominent Iranian human rights lawyer Nasrin Sotoudeh has been sentenced to 11 years in jail, according to her family. She was also banned from practising law and travelling abroad for 20 years, her family said.

The New-York based International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran deplored Sotoudeh's sentence as a "gross miscarriage of justice" and said that it should be overturned by an appeals court.

The judge sentenced her to five years in prison on charge of "acting against national security," another five years for "not wearing hijab (the face-covering Islamic veil) during a videotaped message," and one year for "propaganda against the regime," The International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran said.

Reza Khandan, Sotoudeh's husband, said she was also found guilty of membership of the Human Rights Defenders' Centre, a group headed by Iranian Nobel peace prize winner Shirin Ebadi.

Reza Khandan, Sotoudeh's husband, in an interview with the Campaign described the ruling as "highly strange and unjust."

The accusations were levelled against Sotoudeh, mainly over interviews with foreign-based media about her clients jailed after Iran's disputed June 2009 presidential election, Khandan said.

Sotoudeh has defended Iranian opposition activists and politicians and has defended many of those arrested during and after the 2009 presidential polls. The Iranian opposition alleges the polls were rigged to ensure hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's re-election.

Ebadi, is one of Sotoudeh's clients and has campaigned strenuously for due process to be observed in her case. Ebadi is reported to have organised a sit-in at the UN Human Rights Council to raise awareness about the case and to plead for more international support.

Sotoudeh, a 45-year-old mother of two, was arrested on 4 September 2010, accused of acting against national security. Detained for long periods in solitary confinement, and denied contact with her family and lawyer, she nearly died after three dry hunger strikes to protest her prison conditions and violations of due process, according to the Campaign for Human Rights in Iran.

She has reportedly been tortured in prison in order to force her to confess to crimes. Her physical condition had deteriorated to the point that her children cried in shock when they were finally allowed to see her, the group said....

A letter from David G. Littman, representative to the UN-Geneva for the World Union for Progressive Judaism, to the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay:

WORLD UNION FOR PROGRESSIVE JUDAISM

* * * * *

THE MARTYRED CHRISTIANS OF IRAQ
RENEWED APPEAL (2008, 2009, 2010)... for the New Year 2011

To the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay
31 December 2010
Your Excellency,

Having suffered a serious brain haemorrhage on 27 November - and now being treated for acute leukaemia - it seems highly unlikely that I shall be allowed by my doctors to return to the Palais des Nations - without a mask, if at all - to defend universal human rights as I have endeavoured to do for the past 25 years. Hopefully, I shall remain in shape to prepare an 'Appeal' now and again - and perhaps more, if providence should allow.

Our 1st intervention on 3 February 1986 was a written Appeal - on behalf of the WUPJ - to the Chairman of the CHR's 42nd session, condemning the nomination of ex-Nazi Byelorussian, Dr. Hermann Klenner, as one of three vice-chairmen. Our 1st oral statement (12 February) condemned the ongoing Orwellian UN General Assembly Resolution 3377, voted on 10 November 1975 (37 years after the evil 1938 Kristallnacht), equating Zionism with Racism. Our 2rd oral statement (3 March) dealt with the question of "fanatical fundamentalists preaching jihad actions of international terrorism against their sworn enemies: either Muslims, referred to as 'heretics'; or non-Muslims, referred to as 'infidels'." Our 3rd oral statement (7 March), inter alia, dealt with the situation of dhimmis (Jews and Christians in Arab-Muslim lands), providing full details on this historical phenomenon, which slowly emptied 'Arab lands' of their ancient Jewish populations - from time immemorial - numbering over 900,000 in 1948 - under 20,000 by 1986; today they are less than 5,000 (barely ½ of 1%).

Madam High Commissioner, we are providing these 'details' (*), in order to stress that for 25 years we have reminded the CHR (and since 2006 the HRC), to no avail, of that commonplace saying: "after Saturday comes Sunday": i.e. after the dhimmi Jews will have been expelled from Arab lands, it will be the time of the dhimmi Christians. Alas, the 'international community' has shown no interest in "Jewish refugees" from Arab-Muslim lands (representing about ½ of Israel's Jewish population of 5.5 million) - only in "Arab-Palestinian refugees" from UN mandated Palestine, whose tragic plight resulted from the Arab League's 1947 "no!" to international legality and its military attack to destroy Israel. This refusal then to recognise a Jewish State continues today.

The grave human tragedy of the Christians in the Middle East, particularly in Iraq, has worsened dramatically since our joint 2008 and 2009 Christmas Day Appeals to you, UNSRs, and at UN bodies. We are enclosing again our last year's joint Appeal and a recent article by a Qatari liberal, Abd Al-Hamid Al-Ansari: "The Perpetrators of the Massacre at the Baghdad Church are 'the Children of the Culture of Hate." [Al-Jarida-Kuwait, 15 Nov. 2010, tr. by MEMRI, Special Dispatch 3473, 27 Dec. 2010].

This 'writing on the wall' has been evident for decades to all with eyes to see and ears to hear. On the eve of the New Year, we call on you as HCHR, on concerned SRs, and UN bodies to strongly condemn this atrocious martyrdom of a religious-ethnic community, dating from the birth of Christianity in the Middle East. There are less than 10 Jews in Iraq from over 140,000 in 1948. If the UN does not act decisively, the 1¼ million or so Iraqi Christians a decade ago (now under ¼ million) will be reduced to mere thousands or hundreds and all their possessions confiscated, as happened to the dhimmi Jews. The plight of Egypt's Copts for decades is another neglected tragedy, totally ignored by the OIC, itself. The HRC is following the CHR - and the UN is suffering irreparable damage to its reputation in all fields: "for yielding pacifies great offences." NOW is the "time to speak" - and not "a time to keep silence."

Respectfully,
David G. Littman - Representative to the UNO-Geneva (Case Postale 205, 1196 Gland - Suisse)
----------
* WUPJ, Human Rights and Human Wrongs, No 1 (1986), pp.1-17 (UN Public Library, NY/Geneva). For historical documentation, see Paul B. Fenton & David G. Littman, L'Exile au Maghreb: La condition juive sous l'Islam : 1148 - 1912 (800 p.), Paris-Sorbonne, Nov. 2010
----------
cc. Ms. Asma Jahangir, SR : Freedom of Religion & belief ; Mr. Githu Muigai, SR: Racism...; Mr James Anava, SR: HR and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples; Ms. Gay J. Mc Dougall, Independent Expert on minority issues; Pr. Walter Kälin, Rep. of S-G- HR of IDP.

Video courtesy Voice of the Copts.

Video courtesy Voice of the Copts.

Timmerman, Geller, Stern, Ramelah, Spencer, Alyami

Last Thursday I spoke in Washington for the human rights group Voice of the Copts, along with Pamela Geller, Kenneth Timmerman, and others. The talks were filmed, so if video becomes available online I will post it.

Here is a message from Dottore Architetto Ashraf Ramelah, the founder and president of Voice of the Copts:

Human Rights Conference: Thank you for Participating

Voice of the Copts thanks all who participated in the December 16, 2010 Human Rights Conference in Washington, DC:

Pamela Geller,

Faith McDonnell,

Sara N. Stern

Robert Spencer,

Ali Alyami,

Jordan Sekulow

Nazir Bahatti,

Kenneth Timmerman

We extend special thanks to Senator Robert Casey and his staff for providing a room on very short notice.

We deeply appreciate and thank our friend, Bernice Lipkin, for her help and advice.

Last, but not least, we thank Mr. Mark Tenelley for his generosity in photographing the event.

No kidding, really?

"Indonesia's Islamic laws are 'abusive', report says," from the BBC, November 30 (thanks to Glynn):

Two Islamic laws applied in the Indonesian province of Aceh violate people's rights and are implemented abusively, a new report has concluded.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) says two of five local laws based on the Sharia legal code discriminate against women.

It says the laws against "seclusion" - association by unmarried individuals of the opposite sex - and dress codes are also not applied to wealthy people.

Islamic law applies only in Aceh in the secular state of Indonesia.

The report by New York-based HRW, Policing Morality: Abuses in the Application of Sharia in Aceh, Indonesia, notes that the rights group takes no position on Sharia law as a whole - a system its supporters say provides a comprehensive guide to behaviour.

However, it says the "seclusion" law, which makes association by unmarried individuals of the opposite sex a criminal offence in some circumstances, and laws on dress requirements, are discriminatory.

"These two laws deny people's right to make their own decisions about who they meet and what they wear," said Elaine Pearson, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch.

"The laws, and their selective enforcement, are an invitation to abuse," she said.
Abuse

The prohibition of men and women who are not blood relatives or married to one another from being together in an isolated place has been used to bar people simply meeting and talking in a quiet place, the report says.

Abuses include aggressive interrogations and attempts to force people to marry.

At least one case of rape of a woman in detention by Sharia police officers has occurred, the report says.

HRW says Sharia police officers have told investigators that they sometimes force women and girls to submit to virginity exams as part of the investigation....

He said it. And Khomeini would add: no fun. "No place for democracy and human rights in Islam, says Qom theologian," from AsiaNews, September 8:

Tehran (AsiaNews) - As the world mobilises against the stoning of Sakineh, a 43-year-old woman convicted for adultery and killing her husband, Iranian police continue to threaten and arrest journalists and human rights lawyers. Dozens of university professors are fired and pro-reform students are beaten. The reason is simple. "Democracy, freedom, and human rights have no place" in Islam, said Mesbah Yazdi, who heads Shia Taliban, in a speech reprinted in Rooz, an online Iranian news website.

Speaking before members of paramilitary groups, soldiers and his followers, the cleric said that Iran "is not a place to back down for cultural reasons against people who promote corruption."

In a veiled reference to Sakineh and others, he added, "sexual or moral deviants or promoters of any other kind of corruption must be suppressed."

Mesbah Yadzi is a member of the Association of Teachers of Qom Theological Centre (Jame Modaresin Hoze Elmie Qom) and a great supporter of Ahmadinejad. In fact, "When the president received the supreme leader's confirmation, obeying him is like obeying God," he said.

A similar extremist vision explains recent events in Iran, where dozens of students, followers of pro-reform Ayatollah Dastgheib, who was against to Ahmadinejad's re-election, were beaten in Shiraz's Qoba Mosque.

Pro-democracy activists are also concerned about the firing of 40 professors from Tehran University since March. The activists have slammed the professors' removal, calling it a case of "political cleansing" of the faculties that led the Green Wave movement that came out against the results in last year's presidential election. Indeed, Science Minister Kamran Daneshjoo said repeatedly that the universities would not tolerate professors who are not "in tune with the Islamic Republic regime."

For Mesbah Yazdi, anyone who opposes the Islamic Republic of Iran and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is in fact an "enemy of God" (Mohareb).

Human rights activist Shiva Nazar Ahari (pictured), who is the editor of the Committee of Human Rights Reporters website, has recently found out what that means. Arrested on 14 July 2009, a month after Ahmadinejad's re-election, she was released on bail on 23 September of the same year. Re-arrested on 20 December and charged with a "mohareb", a very serious crime in Iran, she is still waiting to go to a trial, expected very soon.

Badrolssadat Mofidi, secretary general of the Iranian Journalists Association, is another prominent figure accused of being a "mohareb". He was recently sentenced to six years in prison and five years without the right to work as a journalist.

The penalties for "waging war against Allah" and "striving after corruption in the land" are, per Qur'an 5:33: "execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land."

Both, of course, are awfully flexible accusations to level, made-to-order for a reign of terror through Sharia.

In Human Events today, I discuss the denial and obfuscation of Islamic spokesmen regarding human rights abuses within their own communities:

As Muslims around the world continue to deny basic human rights to women and non-Muslims, Muslim spokesmen maintain a pattern of denial and deception.

Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, a 43-year-old Iranian woman, is facing death by stoning this week for adultery, a capital crime in Iran. Yet when the redoubtable human rights activist David G. Littman, asserted at the United Nations Human Rights Council in 2008 that "the stoning of women for alleged adultery still occurs regularly in Iran," Iran's spokesman declared that this was "not true, it is completely false and is out of the question."

Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani would beg to differ, and she's not the only one: according to another human rights activist, Mina Ahadi, "at least 40 to 50 other women are waiting for the same destiny in Iran right now."

Meanwhile, in Indonesia this week, Christians in the city of Bekasi are facing an escalating persecution from Muslims. On Saturday, members of a group called the Islamic Defender Front hung outside a mosque a picture of Christian leader Andreas Sanau with a noose around his neck and the inscription, "This man deserves the death penalty!" Sanau's crime? He is falsely accused of organizing mass baptism of Muslims in Christianity, in violation of Islam's prohibition against conversion to another religion (another capital crime in Islamic law).

"In the first months of 2010," according to Asia News, "radical Islamic groups have interrupted Christian religious services, prevented Christians from entering their churches and blocked the building of new churches."

This is in accord with traditional Islamic law for non-Muslims in an Islamic state, which forbids these subject peoples to build new houses of worship or repair old ones. One of the Muslims involved in this persecution explained: "We are doing this because we want to strike fear in the hearts of Christians." This echoes the Koran, which commands Muslims to "strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah and your enemies" (8:60).

Yet it was with a straight face in 2009 that the Imam Hassan Qazwini of the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn, Mich., restated a very common assertion of Muslim spokesmen in the West: "Most Americans do not know that Islam respects Christians and Jews." All too many Muslims, in Indonesia and elsewhere, don't seem to know it either....

Read it all.

David Littman, whose writings and heroic battles against Islamic supremacists at the UN in Geneva we have featured here many times, is interviewed Sunday by Pamela Geller.

After speaking at the Vienna Forum in Austria on May 8, I traveled to Geneva, where through the kind offices of the Association for World Education and human rights activist David G. Littman, I was able to get into the Belly of the Beast and witness some of the proceedings.

It was the same day that Kuwait delivered its national report to the UN General Assembly Human Rights Council's Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review. This amounted to a report delivered by the country in question (Belarus was also up for this examination on that day), followed by comments by various other national representatives on the human rights situation in the country up for review.

This created some ghastly ironies, with Sudan, for example, commenting and making recommendations about the human rights situation in Belarus, but what I found most interesting was Kuwait's initial report, which contains a number of statements indicating that Sharia is supreme in Kuwait -- resulting in a precarious human rights situation for women and non-Muslims. But the wording was subtle, and of course none of the other state representatives picked up on any of this.

Here is a key example of that, from Kuwait's report:

Freedom of religion and belief

Article 2 of the Constitution of Kuwait states: "The State religion is Islam and the sharia is the main source of legislation. Laws are enacted in conformity with the sharia." Article 35 of the Constitution stipulates: "Freedom of belief is absolute. The State protects the freedom to practise religion in accordance with established customs and without prejudice to public order and public morals."

Based on this premise, the State grants the followers of all denominations of the revealed religions the freedom to practise their religion and to establish their own places of worship without any interference or restrictions, subject only to the maintenance of public order.

Subject only to the maintenance of public order is the key phrase here, for under that rubric enter in all of Sharia's restrictions on non-Muslim religious expression. Consequently we read in the 2009 International Religious Freedom Report for Kuwait that "religious minorities experienced some discrimination as a result of governmental policies and non-Sunni Muslims continued to find it difficult or impossible to obtain legal permission to establish new places of worship." Prohibiting non-Muslims to establish new places of worship is entirely in accord with Sharia.

And so it was just another day at the UN in Geneva, where unreality generally prevails:

Dhimmitude, cowardice, craven opportunism, and blind Leftist America-hatred. An update on this story. "Embattled Gender Analyst Leaves Post at Amnesty," from Women's eNews, n.d. (thanks to Morgaan Sinclair):

Gita Sahgal calls her entry into the world of journalism "sort of accidental," but her most recent news appearances have been entirely on purpose.

On Feb. 7, the Sunday Times of London published her sharp critique of Amnesty International's support for former Guantanamo prisoner Moazzam Begg. She went public, the article says, because her internal warnings had been ignored.

Amnesty, the nearly 50-year-old rights group founded to speak on behalf of prisoners of conscience, has hailed Begg as a human rights defender, hosted him on speaking tours and included him in a meeting with politicians at Downing Street.

Sahgal has called him "Britain's most famous supporter of the Taliban." She points to passages in his 2006 autobiography, Enemy Combatant, where he describes moving to Taliban-ruled Afghanistan to "live in an Islamic state--one that was free from the corruption and despotism of the rest of the Muslim world." He also ran a bookstore in Birmingham, England, that sold works by known al-Qaida mentor Abdullah Azzam.

Hours later she was suspended, with pay but without explanation, from her job.

On April 9, she and the organization parted ways. In a statement released that day, the organization cited "irreconcilable differences."

Sahgal served as Amnesty International's top gender specialist since 2002. Two days before her suspension, the organization had promoted her to the newly-created position of interim head of the Gender, Sexuality and Identity division.

"It tells you a lot about where women's rights stand at Amnesty International," Sahgal said in a phone interview in March. "When they had to make the choice between Begg and their most senior discrimination expert who also has researched fundamentalism, they chose Begg."...

Why is it that the most avowedly Islamic parties seem to be made up of Misunderstanders of the Religion of Peace and Tolerance?

"Study finds Islamist parties least concerned with human rights," by Hani Hazaimeh for the Jordan Times, December 21 (thanks to Twostellas):

AMMAN - The Kingdom's Islamist parties are the least concerned with human rights among other political parties in the country, according to a study revealed on Sunday.

The study, which was conducted by the National Centre for Human Rights (NCHR), categorised the country's 15 political parties into four groups - Islamists, nationalists, leftists and moderates....

Barakat said the study classified human rights into four sub-categories: equality; civil and political rights; economic, social and cultural rights; and any relevant articles in the parties' charters concerned with human rights in general.

The 102-page study showed that Islamic parties' charters made the least mention of equality, accounting for only 13.64 per cent of all references to equality in party charters. In comparison, moderate parties accounted for 33.64 per cent of such references.

According to the study, which was compiled through direct questionnaires and interviews with the founders of each party, Islamic parties' charters focus more heavily on socio-economic, cultural, civil and political rights, as well as on power sharing.

All parties' charters call for freedom of expression, the study noted, while 13 out of 15, or all except one Islamist and one nationalist party, mention the right to a fair trial.

Barakat explained that the founding documents of leftist and Islamic parties do not include any references to the right to life, freedom of movement or freedom from torture and cruel treatment, whereas moderate and nationalist parties stress these rights in their agendas....

The Saudi scholar Muhammad Abu Omar al-Seif confirms the incompatibility of Islam with democracy. From the SITE Institute:

[S]overeignty is reserved for Allah alone, replacing shari’a with democratic elections is considered “an appeal to the devil and destruction of Allah’s rule,” democracy considers all people equal, “knowledgeable and the ignorant and Muslim and “infidel” alike, which is deemed anathema. Further, according to the speech, jihad is the solution, justified in its course because it means to defend Islam, “which the enemies are aiming to remove from the hearts of the Muslims and from their lives.”

Mr. al-Seif issued this statement on September 26th of 2005 and allegations of his affiliation with "al-Qaeda leadership in Chechnya" are well known.

What isn't common knowledge is this November, 2003 Jihad Watch posting which was prophetic in its confirmation that Saudia Arabia doesn't deserve the certification which President Bush so generously granted.

Further proof shows that Saudi Arabia is still the same country she was prior to 9/11.

From the Guardian:

Liberal Democrats yesterday warned that the government's counter-terrorism proposals would inflame community tensions and alienate young Muslims, as they unanimously passed a motion urging the party to defend civil liberties and oppose any move to water down human rights legislation. The emergency motion warned that many of the measures included in last week's draft anti-terrorism bill, or suggested by ministers elsewhere, would "undermine traditional civil liberties, risk alienating minority communities and [would be] open to abuse".

Speakers expressed particular concern about extradition to countries where torture and other human rights abuses occurred, and about proposals to allow police up to three months to detain suspects before charging them. The proscribing of political parties which had not been linked to violence was also a worry. They warned that the new powers were likely to be invoked disproportionately on ethnic and religious minorities.

Very few people want to mistreat ethnic or religious minorities, but many wonder what causes Muslims, in particular, to feel alienated. The onus of integrating into British society begins with the Muslims themselves. A task they seem to take lightly considering the fact that as many as 150 independent Muslim schools "offer a religion-dominated education little different to the madrassas of Pakistan, and do little to encourage integration." It appears that a disconnect with British society is what they really desire. Have liberal democrats considered Sura [5.51] - "O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends" - as a possible factor behind self-imposed Muslim alienation?

Moving the motion, an activist, Tim Nichols, said: "Three months' detention without charge is internment. We know that internment in Ireland contributed to the recruitment of terrorists, the worsening of conflict, more lives lost and more lives damaged. If the government wants to radicalise a generation of young British Muslims, it is going about it the right way."

Greg Mulholland, MP for Leeds North West, added: "These measures will inflame tension and increase the same resentment which led to four young men from West Yorkshire bombing their own capital city."

Nasser Butt, a Mole Valley councillor and chair of the Liberal Democrats' Muslim Forum, urged activists: "Let's not forget that the terrorism brought to this country is also related to Iraq. To deal with it by coming up with authoritarian laws restricting civil liberties [Tony Blair] is getting away from his responsibility for what he's done to this country."

Alienated by society, inflamed by anti-terrorism legislation and outraged by Britain's involvement in Iraq are explanations liberal democrats have given as motivating factors behind Islamic terrorism. The desire amongst the Muslim faithful to "fight for the sake of Allah" and to die for his cause is virtually ignored. This underestimation has proven to be fatal, as the London bombings have shown.

Update on this story from the ASSIST News Service, with thanks to LA:

JAKARTA (ANS) -- The three women charged with violating Indonesia's 2002 Child Protection Act by Christianizing Muslim children were found guilty today of all charges in an Indonesian court charged with anti-Christian radicals.

Jeff Hammond, director of Bless Indonesia Today, told ANS Dr. Rebecca Laonita, Mrs. Ratna Mala Bangun, and Mrs. Ety Pangesti, who conducted a “Happy Week” (or “Happy Sunday”) program in their homes in early May, were found “guilty of all charges” and given a sentence of three years.

Hammond pointed out that the guilty verdict was pronounced, even though the children had their parents’ permission to attend, and none of them had changed their religion.

He said the verdict may actually have spared the three a worse fate, as the witnesses and judges were “constantly under the threats of violence from hundreds of Islamic radicals, who threatened to kill the three ladies, witnesses, pastors, missionaries--and even the judges--if the women were acquitted.”

World body's blueprint for reform will address the terrorism issue, from AP, with thanks to Skeet Street.

UNITED NATIONS - U.N. diplomats have revised their blueprint for reforming the world body to include a definition of terrorism, indicating nations are moving toward consensus on a contentious global issue.

World leaders are to consider the plan at their summit in September and, if approved, the definition could break the impasse over a comprehensive treaty against terrorism.

The United States strongly supports such a treaty, which has been stalled for years over the question of what constitutes a terrorist. The debate has focused on the Arab-Israeli conflict and the argument that one nation’s terrorists are another’s freedom fighters.

Jean Ping, president of the U.N. General Assembly avoided the topic of terrorism in a reform plan he drew up in early June, calling on governments to do more to alleviate poverty and ensure human rights.

His revised plan issued Friday would commit world leaders to adopting a comprehensive convention against terrorism by September 2006.

Ping’s new blueprint not only gives a political definition of terrorism but spells out how two new U.N. bodies would be established; the Peacebuilding Commission to ensure countries emerging from conflict don’t start fighting again and a Human Rights Council to replace the discredited Commission on Human Rights.

The Geneva-based commission has been criticized for allowing the worst-offending countries to use their membership to protect each other from condemnation for human rights abuses. The latest draft said members of the new council should be elected on the basis of regional balance and their contribution “to the promotion and protection of human rights.”

The document also outlines a series of U.N. management reforms — a key U.S. demand — and elaborates on what to do to stop genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity...

From the BBC, with thanks to M.A.

The government has survived a backbench revolt over its plans for a new law to ban the incitement to religious hatred.

An amendment from a coalition of Tory and Lib Dem MPs to block the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill failed by 303 votes to 246, giving a majority of 57.

Critics, including comic actor Rowan Atkinson, say the measure will limit freedom of expression and stop them from telling religious jokes.

But Home Secretary Charles Clarke says the bill protects "people not faiths".

The bill received a second reading by 303 votes to 247 - a government majority of 56 - and will now go on to its committee stage...

The chief problem is that religious hatred is in the eye of the beholder -- and that Muslim advocacy groups have been quite canny in appropriating the language of civil rights movements in tarring their adversaries as hatemongers. Underscoring this is the fact that British pols openly courted Muslim votes in the last election by declaring their support for the religious hatred bill. Its adoption would be a cornerstone of the Islamization of Britain. "Religious hatred bill is unveiled," from the BBC, with thanks to all who sent this in:

Controversial plans to make incitement to religious hatred illegal are being unveiled by the government.

Critics say the re-introduced bill - which bans insulting words or behaviour intended or likely to stir up religious hatred - will stifle free speech.

But ministers have pledged the new law will not affect "criticism, commentary or ridicule of faiths".

If it mirrors racial hatred laws, the maximum sentence for those found guilty will be seven years in prison.

The bill will apply to comments made in public or in the media, as well as through written material.

Freedom of speech

The government says the legislation is a response to the concerns of faith groups, particularly Muslims.

The Muslim Council of Britain has welcomed the move, arguing that the courts have already extended such protection to Sikh and Jewish people.

Elizabeth Kendal of World Evangelical Alliance Religious Liberty Commission writes in AssistNews, with thanks to LH.

AUSTRALIA -- In an astonishing move on 12 April 2005, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) moved from promoting respect for human rights (the rights of humans) to promoting "respect for all religions and their value systems".

On Tuesday 12 April 2005, the UN Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR), meeting for its 61st session in Geneva, Switzerland, passed Human Rights Resolution 2005/3 entitled, "Combating Defamation of Religions". The text can be found at:
http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/E/CHR/resolutions/E-CN_4-RES-2005-3.doc

Islam On Line (IOL) reported it this way: "The United Nations Commission on Human Rights adopted on Tuesday, April 12, a resolution calling for combating defamation campaigns against Islam and Muslims in the West."

IOL quotes Cuba's delegate, Rodolfo Reyes Rodriguez, who claimed that Islam has been the subject of a "very deep campaign of defamation". According to IOL, it is this defamation that breeds disharmony, hatred and discrimination.

Ehtasham Khan reports from Geneva for Rediff.com (India), "The resolution was pushed forward by Pakistan on behalf of the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC). It was put under Agenda Item 6 that deals with racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and all forms of discrimination."

It took a month of diplomatic lobbying, but the OIC nations managed to gain majority support and the resolution, which failed last year, was passed this year with 31 countries for, 16 against, five abstentions and one delegation absent.

Khan reports that the United States, United Kingdom and Israel were amongst those nations that voted against the resolution on the grounds that it was unbalanced and biased. Russia and China voted in favour while India was among those who abstained.

UNCHR Resolution 2005/3 is flawed and dangerous. It completely fails to address the issue of human rights violations that are legitimised by discriminatory and barbaric religious mandates. Thus it protects the religious mandate above humans' rights...

Read it all.

Will democracy take root in the Islamic world? Not if these students have anything to say about it. From Pakistan's Daily Times, with thanks to Nicolei:

LAHORE: Talaba-e-Jamatud Dawa will organise a series of seminars from May 17 to June 4 against liberalism, secularism and the establishment of the Aga Khan Education Board, said the organisation's president Hameeedul Hassan on Sunday.

Talabe-e-Jamatul Dawa is the student wing of Jamatud Dawa,a religious
organistion headed by Hafiz Saeed. Hassan and Asif Khurshid, the
organisation's information secretary, said in a press conference that the Aga Khan Board followed America's agendas and it should not be allowed to make decisions about academic syllabi. They said that seminars would raise awareness about Islam, fundamentalism and anti-liberalism. A seminar will be held in Lahore on June 2.

From Israel's Haaretz.com, "In Cairo, Friday is military day" with thanks to Smokem.

CAIRO - The sidewalk near the Al-Azher mosque is too narrow. On one side is the mosque fence, which also encompasses the huge university campus, and on the other, a safety railing made of thick metal pipes. On a normal day, these two obstacles leave a passage of about 1.5 meters; on Fridays, it shrinks to a few dozen centimeters. The rest of the space is taken up by a squad of security guards dressed in black carrying thin, painful-looking nightsticks and equipped with safety shields against demonstrators and stone throwers.

Squad after squad, these security forces are stationed along the sidewalks, in double rows, standing close together in the oppressive Cairo heat waiting for the prayers to end and the danger to pass. Anyone trying to enter the Al-Azher mosque during the prayer services has no choice but to pass through dozens of police officers and soldiers, who will scrutinize his face and walk, and will not hesitate to use force if he arouses suspicion and shove him into one of dozens of military trucks that have been converted into improvised paddy wagons for demonstrators. The vans are fitted with small barred windows, handcuffs wait on the seats, sandwiches and water for the soldiers lie next to them, until they have to be cleared to make room for the detainees, should there be any. This is the situation near the Al-Azher mosque, as well as near the school for gifted children next to another mosque in the city, and next to the Al-Fateh mosque, and near the Al-Nur mosque. Friday has turned into military day.

Friday prayers, and not only in Egypt, have become a political signpost. Like the security forces in Jerusalem, who count the days from one Friday to the next, the same is true in Egypt, Iran, Iraq and other parts of the Middle East, a region in which religious organizations, Muslim or Jewish, grit their teeth because a government that is not sufficiently devout, in their view, is running the country that God gave his subjects. In Jewish Jerusalem, it is a traitorous prime minister, who is handing over sacred land to the enemy, and in Cairo, it the president, who is accused of kowtowing to the Americans - the modern Huns - who seek to destroy Islam...

"In Kuwait, too many women are scorned": Souheila Al-Jaada writes in the Daily Star, with thanks to LA Hutton:

Written on huge banners canvassing hundreds of town hall meetings organized by Islamists all across Kuwait is the following statement: "According to Islamic Sharia, women do not have political rights." This is part of a concerted effort by Muslim conservatives to stem a potential wave of reform in the country after Parliament, in a first round of voting, passed a bill granting women the right to vote and run in municipal elections.

The Islamists' plan worked. In the second round of voting in the middle of last week, the reform-minded government, which wrote the legislation, could not muster the majority votes needed to pass the bill. So, the Kuwaiti Parliament decided to delay consideration of the law and the government has now agreed to submit a new elections bill without a clause allowing women to vote.

This budding democratic process in Kuwait should be applauded, despite the fact that women's suffrage was rejected as result of Islamist political maneuvering. But what is disturbing about what happened is that Islamic conservatives are now sacrificing their own religion in order to win political battles and maintain traditions unrelated to Islam.

By holding their town hall meetings, conservative groups manipulated Islamic law, or Sharia, to persuade the public and legislators that giving women political rights was anti-Islamic. This came in response to the Kuwaiti government's launch of a major public relations campaign in support of the draft law. The government has come under greater pressure from Western countries to implement democratic reforms.

Ironically, in an interview with MBC television, the chairman of the Kuwaiti Parliament's human rights committee, Walid Tubtabi, came out against giving women their full political rights. "Islamic Sharia only allows men to govern a state. Despite this, we believe that women have the right to vote for candidates, and choose representatives," Tubtabi said. "She has the right to criticize, to oppose and to give her opinion, according to the Sharia. But we are against them running in the Parliament."

However, more moderate officials hold a different view. Energy Minister Sheikh Ahmed Fahd has spoken in favor of the law. "It's time for citizenship to be uniform and for Kuwait to play its role in providing democracy and freedom to women." he said.

Hundreds of Kuwaiti women stormed the Parliament last month to attend the debate on the bill. Outside the building, others held demonstrations demanding their rights and holding banners that read, "Women's Rights Now" and "Women are Kuwaiti too." Yet as the polemics continued, it seemed that the women who would be most affected by this law had, until recently, remained on the sidelines of the political debate, according to political activist, Nada al-Matwaa. "We are trying to influence some people," Matwaa told Abu Dhabi TV. "Some members of Kuwaiti craft and women's associations are working, but they should be doing more."...

Yes. Women's organizations around the world should be doing more about Sharia.

An in-depth story from the BBC, "Killed for the family's honour"

There is growing concern among Palestinian human rights workers after the killings of at least six young women in recent months. The murders are described in some quarters as "honour killings". The victims are usually accused of behaving improperly and bringing shame upon their families. Orla Guerin has been piecing together some of the victims' stories.

She was last seen at half past two on a Saturday afternoon looking down from a window in her family's apartment.

They live on a main road, in a building that houses an ice-cream shop. Outside a religious procession was making its way through the streets...

Less than two hours later, she was dead - her skull crushed - reportedly by blows from an iron bar.

Her name was Faten. She was 22-years-old, a Palestinian Christian from the West Bank city of Ramallah.

After her lifeless body was found, her father and an aunt were taken into custody...

Forty-eight hours later, and a half an hour's drive away, two sisters were killed - this time in a Muslim home.

Police believe this was another so-called honour killing. The victims were a 20-year-old called Amani and her older sister Rodina, who was 27.

Both were married and both had apparently been strangled. A third sister was attacked but survived, and she is now in hospital...

Read it all.

Islamic religious "tolerance" in action. From the Pakistan Times, "Qadiyanis carrying out anti-Islam acts freely," with thanks to Skeetstreet:

SAMBRIAL - Aalmi Tehreek-e-Khatme Nabuwat Pakistan has alleged Qadiyanis have been preaching their faith more freely and vigorously during the tenure of incumbent government and warned if their anti-Islam activities are not checked immediately, they will cause an irreparable loss to interests of Muslims in Pakistan and the world.

Speaking to a press conference here on Saturday, Tehreek Amir Maulana Muhammad Yahya Gondalvi accused the current rulers of criminal carelessness for not checking increasing anti-Islam activities of Qadiyanis.

He said Pakistan was created in the name of Islam and Muslims could not tolerate any activity here aimed at harming their faith.

He said, "Current rulers are constitutionally bound not to spare Qadiyanis spreading their faith in an Islamic state."

He said the Tehreek with a support of Muslim majority would thwart any attempt to make Pakistan a 'Qadiyani state' and would go for every possible sacrifice in this regard.

He demanded the Qadiyanis currently holding key government positions be removed immediately before it was too late, saying they have strong links with Jews and are opposed to the interests of nation and Islam...

An update on this story from MEMRI: "40 Christians Arrested in Saudi Arabia for Religious Activity By Saudi Religious Police: 'For Trying to Spread the Poison and their Beliefs'"

On April 23, 2005, Saudi newspapers reported that 40 Pakistanis were arrested by the Saudi religious police in a Riyadh apartment for conducting Christian religious activity. The following are excerpts from the reports:

The Saudi daily Al-Jazirah reported that 40 men, women, and children with Pakistani citizenship were arrested on April 21, 2005 after performing Christian religious rites in an apartment in the Thaharat Al-Badi'a neighborhood in western Riyadh. The arrest was part of a sweeping police operation by the Riyadh District Police, at the order of Riyadh Governor Prince Salman bin Abd Al-'Aziz.

The paper reported that the operation came after Saudi religious police - known as the Authority for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice - followed and collected information on the activity of the 40, who listened to a proselytizing lecture by a Pakistani minister.

The paper also noted that during the police operation, which lasted nearly 10 hours, a cross and a large number of proselytizing books and cassettes were found [in the apartment]. The detainees themselves stated that they had come to listen to lectures by the minister. One of the detainees was a Muslim Pakistani, who acknowledged that he had been influenced by the Christian ideology.

The Saudi daily Al-Riyadh said that the detainees had set up a church in the apartment, equipped with crosses, pictures, and statues. Likewise, it was said that during their religious activity, one of them was found praying, as the others present repeated their words, and one of the women arrested was listing the people's confessions and distributing writs of absolution. The Al-Riyadh report included a photo of the detainees and of a large cross and the group which was arrested.

A Saudi religious police source explained the reason for the arrest: "These people tried to spread the poison and their beliefs to others, by means of distributing pamphlets and [missionary] publications." He said that all the detainees "had been transferred to the relevant bodies for investigation."...

"Saudi Arabia bans forced marriage," from the BBC, with thanks to Elvendell:

Saudi Arabia's top religious authority has banned the practice of forcing women to marry against their will.

Grand mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz al-Sheikh said forced marriage was against Islamic law and those responsible for it should be jailed....

The ban is a significant victory for women's rights in Saudi Arabia, where females face a range of restrictions.

Sheikh Abdul Aziz, who heads the Council of Senior Ulema (Scholars) said: "Forcing a woman to marry someone she does not want and preventing her from wedding that whom she chooses... is not permissible" under Islamic law.

He said fathers who coerce daughters into in marriage should be jailed and not released "until they change their minds".

According to Saudi media, about half of marriages in the country end in divorce, the Associated Press news agency reported.

Women are subject to number of restrictions in the kingdom - an absolute monarchy, governed according to a highly conservative interpretation of Islamic Sharia law.

They are obliged to wear a veil and are not permitted to travel alone or mix with men other than relatives.

Women were not able to obtain separate identity cards until 2001, and even then only with the permission of a male relative.

They do not have the right to vote or run for public office and, until June this [last] year, were forbidden from working in most jobs.

Sharia alert: James Arlandson writes in The American Thinker (thanks to Alyssa A. Lappen) about the Islamic punishment for theft.

Ever since 9/11, we have been careful not be overly critical of Islam because we do not want to insult the religion or to paint it with a broad brush, lumping together the bad Muslims with the good ones.

We have all heard of rumors that some Muslims, perhaps in the obscure corners of the Islamic world, practice extreme punishments, such as chopping off the hands of thieves. Is this rumor or fact? Where does this gruesome practice come from, originally?

Sad to report, the policy of chopping off the hands of thieves comes directly from the Quran itself, in Sura or Chapter 5:38. As we will see, Muhammad incorporated a seventh-century Arab pagan custom into his Quran, claiming that God revealed to him that Islam, the perfected religion for all humankind (Sura 5:3), should uphold this atrocity.

Now that our emotions have died down after 9/11, we must analyze Islam critically and unflinchingly, since many Muslims in their websites argue that Islam is the religion of peace and that it has perfected the earlier religions of Judaism and Christianity....

Arlandson presents hard facts and explains how they're relevant to us today. Read it all.

Tolerant, liberal Jordan is not so tolerant and liberal when it comes to those who convert from Islam to Christianity. This is yet more evidence of the fact that non-Muslims do not enjoy full and equal rights with Muslims in any Muslim country in the world today. "Apostasy rules," from World Magazine, with thanks to JS and Natasha Tynes:

In Jordan's King Abdullah, Washington saw the kinder, gentler face of the Arab world.

Arriving last month to accept an honorary doctorate from Georgetown University, the 43-year-old monarch told American reporters he supports democracy movements spreading from Iraq to Lebanon.

His visit to Washington came just as Arab leaders gathered in Algiers without him. The king skipped a regional summit of the Arab League, even though the most talked-about item on the agenda was a Jordanian peace proposal that for the first time dropped Arab demands that Israel cede all lands it acquired in the 1967 war. Rather than tussle with contentious Arab comrades, he met with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and gave interviews with American reporters. His message: "Islam honors every human being, without distinction of color, race, or religion." Terrorists who struck the United States and elsewhere, he said, "have nothing to do with Islam."

But even as the king projects a more tolerant Islamic face, his record at home does not yet reflect the progressive image.

Ask Samer and Abeer. Last September Jordanian security police connected to the country's Mukhabarat, or intelligence agency, showed up at the couple's home unannounced. They arrested Samer and detained him overnight. Samer's crime: coming to faith in Jesus Christ 14 years ago. Originally a Muslim, Samer over the years since his conversion has been questioned several times by security police but never detained. This time, the police turned him over to the Islamic courts.

Jordan is a constitutional monarchy in name only, with an elected parliament whose decisions are subject to royal fiat and a judicial system that continues to impose strict penalties under Islamic, or Shariah, law. Apostasy, or religious conversion, is rarely punished but remains illegal. Church leaders in Amman say they know of two Muslim-background Christians now in prison because they became Christians, both non-Jordanians and one in solitary confinement.

At his October hearing, Samer was asked to "alter his confession," or recant his Christian faith. He refused. Officials set another court date. In the meantime, Samer made precautionary arrangements for Abeer, his wife, and their 18-month-old son to leave Jordan. (Samer's wife once spent six years in prison for an out-of-wedlock pregnancy before she was taken in by a Christian family and came to faith in Jesus Christ.) At a November hearing before the Islamic court, an exasperated judge told Samer, "We don't know what to do with you." He implored him, saying, "You cannot be a Christian, you must come back to Islam." Samer again refused.

Read it all.

Read about the sorry history of this law here. From CNSNews, with thanks to Skeetstreet:

(CNSNews.com) - A campaign to dump a religious hatred law in Australia is winning growing support from churches -- including some whose opinion on the law has shifted since two Christians were found guilty of vilifying Muslims.

Mainstream church leaders are adding their voices to other Christians asking the State of Victoria's Labor government to rescind the legislation, saying it poses a danger to freedom of speech.

Victoria's Racial and Religious Tolerance Act made headlines around the world after Muslims took two pastors before a tribunal, complaining about a post-9/11 seminar designed to explain Islam to a Christian audience.

The case made waves in Britain, where the government has been trying to enact a similar proposal....

For the Presbyterian Church the outcome of the Catch the Fire case raised two important issues.

"First, are judges now required to make theological judgments under the Act and just how well qualified are they to do so?" moderator Allan Harman said in a statement.

"Secondly, and more specifically, are we to assume that Christians quoting and commenting on Islamic texts in ways the Muslims object to, will be penalized? This ability to critique another person's position is integral to a free and democratic society."

Both the Presbyterian and Anglican (Episcopalian) churches argue that the legislation has mixed up questions of religious and racial hatred.

"It was a great mistake for the government to lump religious vilification in with racial vilification," Harman said. "Apart from a very few small groupings such as Jews and Sikhs, race and religion in the modern world are not the same thing. Race for any person is a given, not so religion."

He said both Islam and Christianity were missionary religions, and Muslims and Christians alike should have the liberty to make disciples in Australia.

Anglican Archbishop of Melbourne Peter Watson said in an article in the diocesan newspaper that his denomination had not examined the free speech issue closely enough when the law was being drafted.

While race was an identifying factor, "religion is a matter for discussion, debate and choice."

"Not everything that is offensive or upsetting to us should be outlawed," Watson said....

During the Catch the Fire hearings, two other denominations, the Catholic and Uniting Churches, supported the Muslim complainants, although the tribunal rejected submissions made by the two. An Anglican priest also appeared as an expert witness on behalf of the Muslims.

In response to "many queries" by Catholics and others about the intervention, the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne's Ecumenical and Interfaith Commission released a statement last week saying it had become involved because it believed Muslims in Victoria had indeed been vilified by Catch the Fire.

"The intention of the Catholic intervention into the case was to show the respect the Catholic Church has towards Islam," it added.

The commission said it had not taken a position regarding the legislation itself.

"However, we do believe that the objectives of the law are worthy, and that the sort of activities and speech that is barred by the law are not the sort of activity or speech in which Christians should be involved."

Nonetheless, Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne Denis Hart is now also reported to have come out against the law.

Hart is "one of a number of church leaders to join forces to urge the state government to fix the law," according to a report Thursday by Cathnews, an Australian Catholic news service....

"By its very nature, a religious truth claim will always seem offensive to one who does not accept it," Bill Muehlenberg of the AFA wrote in a recent article on the subject.

"No matter how hard I may try not to offend, an atheist will take offence at my claims that he is wrong and that God exists," he said. "A Muslim will take offence when I claim that Christ died on the cross and rose again."

Picnic jihad update, from the Washington Post Foreign Service in Uruknet, with thanks to Nicolei:

BASRA, Iraq, Celia Garabet thought students were roughhousing. Sinan Saeed was sure a fight had erupted. Within a few minutes, on a sunny day at a riverside park, they realized something different was afoot. A group of Shiite Muslim militiamen with rifles, pistols, thick wire cables and sticks had charged into crowds of hundreds at a college picnic. They fired shots, beat students and hauled some of them away in pickup trucks. The transgressions: men dancing and singing, music playing and couples mixing.

That melee on March 15 and its fallout have redrawn the debate that has shadowed Iraq's second-largest city since the U.S. invasion in 2003: What is the role of Islam in daily life? In once-libertine Basra, a battered port in southern Iraq near the Persian Gulf, the question dominates everything these days, from the political parties in power to the style of dress in the streets.

In the days that followed the melee, hundreds of students, angry about the injuries and arrests, marched on the school administration building and then the governor's office, demanding an apology and, more important, the dissolution of the dreaded campus morality police. The militiamen who attacked the picnickers at first boasted of stamping out debauchery, even distributing videos of the event. But, gauging the popular revulsion, they later admitted to what they termed mistakes. The governor, himself an Islamic activist, urged dialogue to calm a roiled city and deemed the case closed, even as students insisted they remained unsatisfied.

To many in Basra the students managed what no local party or politician had yet done: They interrupted, if briefly, a tide of religious conservatism that has shuttered liquor stores in a city that once had dozens, meted out arbitrary justice and encouraged women to wear a veil and dress in a way considered modest.

"The students broke through the barriers of fear," said Ali Abbas Khafif, a 55-year-old writer and union organizer jailed for 23 years under former president Saddam Hussein. "This was the first mass response to religious power."

The victory may be fleeting in a city where Islamic activism and guns often go hand in hand. Even in their moment of triumph, many secular students acknowledge they are fighting a losing battle; some suggest it is already lost.

"We have felt both our weakness and our strength," said Saif Emad,
24....

Read it all.

A few days ago I posted the full decision of Judge Michael Higgins in the Australian religious vilification case.

Now here are full transcripts of the actual seminar for which the pastors were convicted. You can judge for yourself whether or not they are guilty of vilifying Muslims.

Session One

Session Two

Session Three

From Reuters, with thanks to all those who sent this in:

COPENHAGEN (Reuters) - Unknown perpetrators have dressed Denmark's best-known tourist attraction, the "Little Mermaid" statue, in a traditional Muslim robe in a protest over possible Turkish EU membership.

"Turkey in the EU?" read a sign hung around the statue, covered from head to foot in the black "burka" worn by many devout Muslim women, Danish broadcaster DR News reported on Thursday....

In Denmark, 49 percent are against opening talks with the mainly Muslim state, according to a Gallup opinion poll.

The bronze statue of a naked mermaid sitting on a rock on the seafront in downtown Copenhagen is based on a Hans Christian Andersen fairytale.

From Amnesty International, with thanks to Twostellas:

A 19-year old girl, "Leyla M", who has a mental age of eight, reportedly faces imminent execution for "morality-related" offences after being forced into prostitution by her mother as a child. According to a Tehran newspaper report of 28 November, she was sentenced to death by a court in the central Iranian city of Arak and the sentence has now been passed to the Supreme Court for confirmation.

Leyla M was reportedly sentenced to death on charges of "acts contrary to chastity" by controlling a brothel, having intercourse with blood relatives and giving birth to an illegitimate child. She is to be flogged before she is executed. She had apparently "confessed" to the charges. Earlier reports stated that there would be an appeal, and the 28 November report indicates that this process is now at an end.

Social workers have reportedly tested her mental capacities repeatedly and each time have found Leyla to have a mental age of eight. However, she has apparently never been examined by the court-appointed doctors, and was sentenced to death solely on the basis of her explicit confessions, without consideration of her background or mental health.

Leyla was forced into prostitution by her mother when she was eight years old, according to the 28 November report, and was raped repeatedly thereafter. She gave birth to her first child when she was nine, and was sentenced to 100 lashes for prostitution at around the same time. At the age of 12, her family sold her to an Afghan man to become his "temporary wife". His mother became her new pimp, "selling her body without her consent".

At the age of 14 she became pregnant again, and received a further 100 lashes, after which she was moved to a maternity ward to give birth to twins. After this "temporary marriage", her family sold her again, to a 55-year-old man, married with two children, who had Leyla's customers come to his house.

The newspaper report makes no mention of her family or the men to whom she was married. In Iranian law, in a case of "intercourse with a blood relative" both parties are considered culpable, but only Leyla M has been referred to in the reports of which Amnesty International is aware.