RT On Air
Saturday, 11 March 2006
36 Ways to get fired thanks to John Howard
Watch the LHMU's hilarious award-winning short film, 36 Ways to Get Fired thanks to John Howard. You'll be unpleasantly surprised!
Thursday, 9 March 2006
Little America - Ten years with John Howard in power
In "Little America", the first of the March Monthly's bumper essays, leading intellectual Robert Manne provides the definitive word on John Howard's ten years in power.
Manne outlines how Australia now unthinkingly follows American foreign policy, just as in the 1930s it acquiesced to the British Empire on all international matters.
In a powerful analysis of the Iraq war, the growth of the "new militarism" and the failures of the Australia-US free trade deal, Manne finds Howard's attachment to American ideals has made Australia dangerously dependent - a dominion of the US. "Little America" is a groundbreaking, must-read essay.
"John Howard's decision to commit Australia to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is grounded far less in rational calculation and far more in sentimental dreaming than he or his supporters either understand or would be willing to admit."
Manne outlines how Australia now unthinkingly follows American foreign policy, just as in the 1930s it acquiesced to the British Empire on all international matters.
In a powerful analysis of the Iraq war, the growth of the "new militarism" and the failures of the Australia-US free trade deal, Manne finds Howard's attachment to American ideals has made Australia dangerously dependent - a dominion of the US. "Little America" is a groundbreaking, must-read essay.
"John Howard's decision to commit Australia to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is grounded far less in rational calculation and far more in sentimental dreaming than he or his supporters either understand or would be willing to admit."
US Backed Mid-East peace plan 'hopelessly out of date': UN envoy
A U.S.-backed "road map" for Middle East peace is "hopelessly out of date" and needs to be revamped, a United Nations human rights envoy said.
In a report to the U.N. Human Rights Commission, South African professor John Dugard said Israel and the Palestinians had failed to adhere to the plan drawn up three years ago by the United States, Russia, the United Nations and European Union.
It called for a deal on ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by the end of 2005, but no such agreement was even in sight, Dugard said.
Furthermore, the 2003 road map was drafted before Israel started building its controversial barrier in the West Bank "which has come to symbolize Israeli territorial expansion and oppression," Dugard said.
"There is a need for a new road map which takes account of present political realities and is anchored in respect for human rights and the rule of law in the resolution of the conflict," he said.
The report, to be discussed at the annual commission session starting next week in Geneva, said that despite Israel's withdrawal from Gaza settlements last summer, the territory was still effectively occupied.
Strict border restrictions, repeated sonic booms and targeted militant assassinations "serve as a constant reminder to the people of Gaza that they remain occupied".
Dugard, special envoy on the situation in the occupied territories, has been criticized by Israel for past reports critical of the Jewish state.
In the latest report, posted on the commission's Web site, Dugard reaffirmed his earlier charge that the West Bank wall, or barrier, aimed more at seizing land beyond the pre-1967 border, and not just at keeping out suicide bombers as Israel insists.
He said the wall also seemed intended to reduce the number of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, which the Palestinians want as the capital of an independent state.
"It seems that already 15,000 persons have been displaced as a result of the construction of the wall," Dugard said. "This new generation of displaced persons creates a new category of Palestinian refugees."
Spates of settler violence, pervasive unemployment, poor health and education services and restrictions on Palestinian movements were also cited as pressing human rights concerns.
In a report to the U.N. Human Rights Commission, South African professor John Dugard said Israel and the Palestinians had failed to adhere to the plan drawn up three years ago by the United States, Russia, the United Nations and European Union.
It called for a deal on ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by the end of 2005, but no such agreement was even in sight, Dugard said.
Furthermore, the 2003 road map was drafted before Israel started building its controversial barrier in the West Bank "which has come to symbolize Israeli territorial expansion and oppression," Dugard said.
"There is a need for a new road map which takes account of present political realities and is anchored in respect for human rights and the rule of law in the resolution of the conflict," he said.
The report, to be discussed at the annual commission session starting next week in Geneva, said that despite Israel's withdrawal from Gaza settlements last summer, the territory was still effectively occupied.
Strict border restrictions, repeated sonic booms and targeted militant assassinations "serve as a constant reminder to the people of Gaza that they remain occupied".
Dugard, special envoy on the situation in the occupied territories, has been criticized by Israel for past reports critical of the Jewish state.
In the latest report, posted on the commission's Web site, Dugard reaffirmed his earlier charge that the West Bank wall, or barrier, aimed more at seizing land beyond the pre-1967 border, and not just at keeping out suicide bombers as Israel insists.
He said the wall also seemed intended to reduce the number of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, which the Palestinians want as the capital of an independent state.
"It seems that already 15,000 persons have been displaced as a result of the construction of the wall," Dugard said. "This new generation of displaced persons creates a new category of Palestinian refugees."
Spates of settler violence, pervasive unemployment, poor health and education services and restrictions on Palestinian movements were also cited as pressing human rights concerns.
Andrew Bacevich on the New American Militarism
We are now in an America where it's a commonplace for our President, wearing a "jacket with ARMY printed over his heart and 'Commander in Chief' printed on his right front," to address vast assemblages of American troops on the virtues of bringing democracy to foreign lands at the point of a missile. As Jim VandeHei of the Washington Post puts it: "Increasingly, the president uses speeches to troops to praise American ideals and send a signal to other nations the administration is targeting for democratic change."
As it happens, the Bush administration has other, no less militarized ways of signaling "change" that are even blunter. We already have, for instance, hundreds and hundreds of military bases, large and small, spread around the world, but never enough, never deeply enough embedded in the former borderlands of the Soviet Union and the energy heartlands of our planet. The military budget soars; planning for high-tech weaponry for the near (and distant) future -- like the Common Aero Vehicle, a suborbital space capsule capable of delivering "conventional" munitions anywhere on the planet within 2 hours and due to come on line by 2010 -- is the normal order of business in Pentagonized Washington. War, in fact, is increasingly the American way of life and, to a certain extent, it's almost as if no one notices.
Well, not quite no one. Andrew J. Bacevich has written a book on militarism, American-style, of surpassing interest. Just published, The New American Militarism, How Americans Are Seduced by War would be critical reading no matter who wrote it. But coming from Bacevich, a West Point graduate, Vietnam veteran, former contributor to such magazines as the Weekly Standard and the National Review, and former Bush Fellow at the American Academy in Berlin, it has special resonance.
Bacevich, a self-professed conservative, has clearly been a man on a journey. He writes that he still situates himself "culturally on the right. And I continue to view the remedies proferred by mainstream liberalism with skepticism. But my disenchantment with what passes for mainstream conservatism, embodied in the present Bush administration and its groupies, is just about absolute. Fiscal irresponsibility, a buccaneering foreign policy, a disregard for the Constitution, the barest lip service as a response to profound moral controversies: these do not qualify as authentically conservative values. On this score my views have come to coincide with the critique long offered by the radical left: it is the mainstream itself, the professional liberals as well as the professional conservatives who define the problem."
I've long recommended Chalmers Johnson's book on American militarism and military-basing policy, The Sorrows of Empire. Bacevich's The New American Militarism, which focuses on the ways Americans have become enthralled by -- and found themselves in thrall to -- military power and the idea of global military supremacy, should be placed right beside it in any library. Below, you'll find the first of two long excerpts (slightly adapated) from the book, and posted with the kind permission of the author and of his publisher, Oxford University Press. This one offers Bacevitch's thoughts on the ways in which, since the Vietnam War, our country has been militarized, a process to which, as he writes, the events of September 11 only added momentum.
Bacevich's book carefully lays out and analyzes the various influences that have fed into the creation and sustenance of the new American militarism over the last decades. Bacevich is, for instance, fascinating on evangelical Christianity (and its less than war-like earlier history) as well as on the ways in which the military, after the Vietnam debacle, rebuilt itself as a genuine imperial force, separated from the American people and with an ethos "more akin to that of the French Foreign Legion" -- a force prepared for war without end. But for that, and much else, you'll have to turn to the book itself.
Tom Engelhardt
Excerpt 1 - The Normalization of War
Exceprt 2 - The Neocon Revolution and American Militarism
CarnegieCouncil.org interview with Andrew Bacevich
As it happens, the Bush administration has other, no less militarized ways of signaling "change" that are even blunter. We already have, for instance, hundreds and hundreds of military bases, large and small, spread around the world, but never enough, never deeply enough embedded in the former borderlands of the Soviet Union and the energy heartlands of our planet. The military budget soars; planning for high-tech weaponry for the near (and distant) future -- like the Common Aero Vehicle, a suborbital space capsule capable of delivering "conventional" munitions anywhere on the planet within 2 hours and due to come on line by 2010 -- is the normal order of business in Pentagonized Washington. War, in fact, is increasingly the American way of life and, to a certain extent, it's almost as if no one notices.
Well, not quite no one. Andrew J. Bacevich has written a book on militarism, American-style, of surpassing interest. Just published, The New American Militarism, How Americans Are Seduced by War would be critical reading no matter who wrote it. But coming from Bacevich, a West Point graduate, Vietnam veteran, former contributor to such magazines as the Weekly Standard and the National Review, and former Bush Fellow at the American Academy in Berlin, it has special resonance.
Bacevich, a self-professed conservative, has clearly been a man on a journey. He writes that he still situates himself "culturally on the right. And I continue to view the remedies proferred by mainstream liberalism with skepticism. But my disenchantment with what passes for mainstream conservatism, embodied in the present Bush administration and its groupies, is just about absolute. Fiscal irresponsibility, a buccaneering foreign policy, a disregard for the Constitution, the barest lip service as a response to profound moral controversies: these do not qualify as authentically conservative values. On this score my views have come to coincide with the critique long offered by the radical left: it is the mainstream itself, the professional liberals as well as the professional conservatives who define the problem."
I've long recommended Chalmers Johnson's book on American militarism and military-basing policy, The Sorrows of Empire. Bacevich's The New American Militarism, which focuses on the ways Americans have become enthralled by -- and found themselves in thrall to -- military power and the idea of global military supremacy, should be placed right beside it in any library. Below, you'll find the first of two long excerpts (slightly adapated) from the book, and posted with the kind permission of the author and of his publisher, Oxford University Press. This one offers Bacevitch's thoughts on the ways in which, since the Vietnam War, our country has been militarized, a process to which, as he writes, the events of September 11 only added momentum.
Bacevich's book carefully lays out and analyzes the various influences that have fed into the creation and sustenance of the new American militarism over the last decades. Bacevich is, for instance, fascinating on evangelical Christianity (and its less than war-like earlier history) as well as on the ways in which the military, after the Vietnam debacle, rebuilt itself as a genuine imperial force, separated from the American people and with an ethos "more akin to that of the French Foreign Legion" -- a force prepared for war without end. But for that, and much else, you'll have to turn to the book itself.
Tom Engelhardt
Excerpt 1 - The Normalization of War
Exceprt 2 - The Neocon Revolution and American Militarism
CarnegieCouncil.org interview with Andrew Bacevich
Wednesday, 8 March 2006
Chavez: US wants secession of oil-rich region
President Hugo Chavez accused the United States on Sunday of attempting to encourage the secession of an oil-rich region in western Venezuela and demanded independence for the Caribbean island of Puerto Rico.
Chavez said US officials were working behind the scenes with the governor of Zulia state, which is home to much of Venezuela's all-important oil industry, to create a secession movement loyal to US interests.
"The imperialists are there trying to give strength ... trying to give form to a secessionist movement, of course, to take control of the great oil wealth there," said Chavez, speaking during his weekly television and radio program "Hello President."
Not so difficult to understand why USA chose Zulianos to divide Venezuela!
VHeadline.com guest commentarist Jesus Nery Barrios writes: Billboards in the western Venezuela Zulia state capital, Maracaibo, displaying secessionist messages are causing alarm, arousing old aspirations in some Zulianos ... the billboard signs have a logo with the map of the state of Zulia (in yellow) and a white arrow (meaning that Zulia must take its own path) with the slogan (in red): "An Own Course for Zulia!"
There are different sub-messages in each of them ... one of which says: "Family, Market and Private Property: Pillars of a Free Society."
Another says: "Yes to the Statute of Autonomy, No to Socialism and enough with the Lefts.
"Yet another says: "Liberal Capitalism, Hope for the Poor," with all giving two phone numbers and an email address to contact the campaign sponsors.
Even though the messages are very obvious in themselves, some notes are necessary, within the context of Venezuelan and world today, to fully understand why they appear now and why, specifically. in Zulia.
read on...
Chavez said US officials were working behind the scenes with the governor of Zulia state, which is home to much of Venezuela's all-important oil industry, to create a secession movement loyal to US interests.
"The imperialists are there trying to give strength ... trying to give form to a secessionist movement, of course, to take control of the great oil wealth there," said Chavez, speaking during his weekly television and radio program "Hello President."
Not so difficult to understand why USA chose Zulianos to divide Venezuela!
VHeadline.com guest commentarist Jesus Nery Barrios writes: Billboards in the western Venezuela Zulia state capital, Maracaibo, displaying secessionist messages are causing alarm, arousing old aspirations in some Zulianos ... the billboard signs have a logo with the map of the state of Zulia (in yellow) and a white arrow (meaning that Zulia must take its own path) with the slogan (in red): "An Own Course for Zulia!"
There are different sub-messages in each of them ... one of which says: "Family, Market and Private Property: Pillars of a Free Society."
Another says: "Yes to the Statute of Autonomy, No to Socialism and enough with the Lefts.
"Yet another says: "Liberal Capitalism, Hope for the Poor," with all giving two phone numbers and an email address to contact the campaign sponsors.
Even though the messages are very obvious in themselves, some notes are necessary, within the context of Venezuelan and world today, to fully understand why they appear now and why, specifically. in Zulia.
read on...
Tuesday, 7 March 2006
The myths and realities of Islam's Sharia law
Reports in the Australian media relating to Islamic law almost invariably focus on issues such as "honour" killings, female circumcision (female genital mutilation), amputations for theft and the stoning of women to death for adultery in places such as Nigeria and Iran.
To many Australians, these things represent the Shariah. However, the media needs to sell. Therefore, reports of anything sensational, absurd, exotic or exceptionally cruel are more likely to attract readers than reports of everyday legal matters in other countries. Based only on the information available in the media, it is not surprising that the ordinary Australian believes that the Shariah is cruel and barbaric and has no place in Australia.
The Shariah is one of the world's great legal systems, an alternative to Australia's British derived Common Law in much the same way as the civil law system or the socialist legal systems are alternatives chosen by some countries as their law. Shariah is the sole living survivor in the modern world of a legal system based on religion. This itself is enough to condemn it in the eyes of those who regard any convergence of religion and law as anathema. But in Muslim countries, where religion is generally held in higher regard than it is in Australia, the religious basis of the law is accepted and, indeed, regarded by many as essential.
The Shariah is as complex as the Common Law. As in other legal systems, there are differences of interpretation and emphasis resulting in different laws and traditions in different places. There is sometimes felt to be a need for re-evaluation of old rules in the light of modern conditions, provided that this can be done without abandoning the sacred principles laid down in the Koran and the Sunnah (sayings and rulings of the Prophet Mohammed). In progressive Muslim countries attempts are being made to reinterpret old rulings, although often, conservative people get the upper hand and progress is slow. However, it must be remembered that the law in any jurisdiction is slow to evolve and often lags behind social change.
In the modern world, the Shariah is the complete legal system of only a very few countries. The majority of Muslim countries as a legacy of colonialism, or through deliberate westernisation as in Turkey, have mixed legal systems. They almost always retain the Shariah in matters such as family law and inheritance, and have adopted aspects of the civil law or Common Law systems in areas of public law. Only Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan and some states in Nigeria retain Shariah as their criminal law while Pakistan has re-introduced it in an unfortunately ultra-conservative interpretation.
Criminal law is one of the two areas which attracts the most criticism in the West. The other is the position of women. Few people understand that the Hudud penalties - those that involve amputation, stoning and other drastic penalties - are only a very small part of Islamic criminal law and are invoked only rarely, and then often in circumstances which give rise to a suspicion that the courts involved - usually lower courts - may not have been properly guided in their application of the law. Often these verdicts are overturned on review by a higher court. There is also now an emerging body of Muslim thought which believes that the Hudud penalties should not be regarded as requiring implementation except in a just, truly Islamic society - which today does not exist anywhere in the world.
As regards the position of women - there is no argument against the proposition that Islam gave women rights which were unprecedented in the world at the time of its revelation. Muslim women have always been entitled to a separate legal personality and may retain their own names on marriage. They are not considered as one entity with the husband as was the rule in Christian countries until the 19th century. Muslim women have been entitled to inherit and to acquire and control their own property since the seventh century and have been entitled to earn an income for themselves and keep it. They are entitled to an education and may be appointed to public office - as was illustrated by Shifa bint Abdullah who was appointed to the important position of Inspector of Markets by the Caliph Omar.
However, just as initial liberating ideas in other world religions such as Christianity and Judaism succumbed in time to the influence of patriarchy, so in Islam. The status of women became diminished over the ages as men reserved for themselves the right to interpret the scriptures and adopted interpretations which favoured men and kept women in their "place". In time, for a variety of reasons, the status of women in Muslim societies declined so that today, in some Muslim countries, they are among the most oppressed in the world. Today many of the conservative interpretations are being challenged by progressive Muslim thinkers but change on the ground remains slow.
At the same time, local customs continued to assert themselves. The practices of "honour" killing and female circumcision are in no way endorsed by Islam and are directly contrary to Islamic laws that prohibit mutilation of the body and the killing of human beings except through process of law. Nevertheless these practices have continued in some Muslim (and some non-Muslim) countries as part of local custom. To attribute them to Islam is similar to attributing the burning of witches in past times to the teachings of Christianity.
In Australia, Muslim migrants bring the Shariah with them as their personal law, and in only a very few instances does it come into conflict with Australian law. In the area of family law, the Marriage Act permits Muslims to marry in compliance with both Australian and Islamic law at the same time. Divorce is more problematic because quite different rules apply. Only fairly recently has Australian law adopted the Islamic practice of requiring mediation in family disputes. Islamic law does not recognise adoption but endorses fostering, which is similar to the newer ways of thinking about this subject in Australia.
Islamic banking is now well established in Australia through local Islamic financial institutions. Local Muslims can now invest and borrow in interest free transactions according to Shariah rules. In July 2003 The Weekend Australian reported that Prime Minister Howard had endorsed a shared partnership scheme between home buyers and banks which was very similar to schemes already being used by Islamic financial institutions.
There are certainly aspects of law which are quite opposite between Australian law and the Shariah. The Shariah prohibits drinking alcohol, gambling, sex outside marriage and the taking of interest in financial transactions. Australian law permits all these things but no one is obliged to take them up, so sincere Muslims can comply with both sets of laws. On the other hand, the Shariah permits limited polygamy. Australian law prohibits polygamy but permits de facto relationships regardless of whether one party is already legally married. Second marriages contracted under religious law are regarded as de facto relationships under Australian law and so the two can co-exist in practice. There are, in any case, few polygamous marriages among Australian Muslims.
Recent media reports have concentrated much on the issue of terrorism and the possibility of local Muslims becoming terrorists. Islam does not endorse terrorism either by or against Muslims or anyone else. There are very specific rules of war which prohibit the killing of civilians and the destruction of the environment in the course of war. There are no doubt a certain number of radicals in any community, particularly in one which has been repeatedly told by politicians and the media that it cannot integrate and is not wanted in Australia. Nevertheless, the great majority of Australian Muslims are good citizens, interested in educating their children, furthering their careers and looking after their families in the same way as any other Australian.
There is little demand among Australian Muslims for the Shariah to be introduced in Australia although some would appreciate the right to legal recognition of divorce in accordance with Shariah. Too often, criticism of Australian Muslims for not "integrating" is really criticism for them not assimilating. In a truly multicultural Australia, the Shariah as a system of personal law can co-exist with the Australian legal system.
A soulless distortion of Islamic law
The true spirit of sharia is closer to our values than its harsh image suggests, writes Irfan Yusef.
Media outlets have bombarded us with statements from people claiming to represent Australia's diverse Muslim groups, expressing dismay and disgust at last week's comments by the Federal Treasurer, Peter Costello. I initially agreed with them, until I read Costello's speech. The first four pages were fairly innocuous. But what sent the scribes, pundits and some Muslim leaders scurrying were the final two pages of comments on sharia and citizenship.
Costello said that anyone who believes sharia can co-exist with Australian law and Australian values should leave the country. The Prime Minister, John Howard, described his comments as fundamentally accurate. What both fail to see is that if Costello's formulation of Australian values is correct, it might mean all of us have to find a new homeland.
Costello says most migrants become Australian citizens because they want to embrace the things this country stands for. He lists six core Australian values, including economic opportunity, security, democracy and personal freedom.
In 2002, a visiting Indonesian academic lawyer delivered a series of lectures under the auspices of the Centre for Independent Studies. Professor Mohammad Fajrul Falaakh is a vice-dean of the Gadjah Mada University, among the top 100 universities in the world. Falaakh is also a senior figure in the Council of Theologians, or Nahdatul Ulama, the world's largest Islamic organisation.
In the annual CIS Acton Lecture, on the topic of sharia and pluralism in Indonesia, Falaakh listed five basic values of sharia, agreed on by sharia scholars from all schools of Islamic law. If one compares the five principles of sharia to the six values espoused by Costello, one finds they are virtually identical. Perhaps this is what Australian imams mean when they state in their sermons that Australia is a more Islamic country than most Muslim-majority states.
But this should be of no surprise. After all, sharia is not the name of a draconian system of legal punishments. It is not a synonym for amputations and beheadings. Rather, sharia is a legal tradition, a set of legal principles based on certain values. And those values are identical to those expressed in the Old and New Testaments.
Further, legal scholars in the East and West agree that the traditions of sharia, English common law (from which our legal systems are derived) and European civil law have borrowed from, and influenced, each other.
Some commentators present sharia as a system of medieval criminal punishments. But for Australian Muslims, sharia represents little more than ethics (honesty, enterprise) and liturgy (how to perform prayers, weddings, funerals). Costello's comments on sharia are, in effect, an attack on liturgy that should concern followers of all faiths.
Indeed, Costello's comments about those seeking to establish sharia in Australia do not go far enough. What he should have said was that those seeking to establish only sharia (outward liturgy) without its spirit (inner liturgy or the spirit of the law) should find another country and another religion.
Christ castigated rabbis who followed the letter, but ignored the spirit, of sacred law. Muslims believe the sharia to be an updated version of the same law, the outer manifestation of the same Abrahamic values. However, this must exist in tandem with an inner manifestation - given a variety of labels by Muslims and commonly known in the West as sufism.
A minority of Muslims seek to establish sharia without sufism across the world. They are the source of virtually all terrorist groups in the Muslim world. Their theology is regarded by mainstream Muslims as isolationist and fringe. They distort sharia by imposing it on people without the inner discipline of sufism. They are openly hostile to sufi tradition.
These people seek to destroy Islam from within. They are arguably more of a threat to Muslims than non-Muslims. Hence, the majority of their victims are Muslims. Costello would like to see such people leave Australia. Most Muslims, on the other hand, would prefer to see these people leave our planet.
These people distort our perceptions about sharia. Most Australians regard sharia as purely consisting of draconian medieval punishments. Costello's own inaccurate comments about sharia are a manifestation of distorted perceptions.
Irfan Yusef is a lawyer.
To many Australians, these things represent the Shariah. However, the media needs to sell. Therefore, reports of anything sensational, absurd, exotic or exceptionally cruel are more likely to attract readers than reports of everyday legal matters in other countries. Based only on the information available in the media, it is not surprising that the ordinary Australian believes that the Shariah is cruel and barbaric and has no place in Australia.
The Shariah is one of the world's great legal systems, an alternative to Australia's British derived Common Law in much the same way as the civil law system or the socialist legal systems are alternatives chosen by some countries as their law. Shariah is the sole living survivor in the modern world of a legal system based on religion. This itself is enough to condemn it in the eyes of those who regard any convergence of religion and law as anathema. But in Muslim countries, where religion is generally held in higher regard than it is in Australia, the religious basis of the law is accepted and, indeed, regarded by many as essential.
The Shariah is as complex as the Common Law. As in other legal systems, there are differences of interpretation and emphasis resulting in different laws and traditions in different places. There is sometimes felt to be a need for re-evaluation of old rules in the light of modern conditions, provided that this can be done without abandoning the sacred principles laid down in the Koran and the Sunnah (sayings and rulings of the Prophet Mohammed). In progressive Muslim countries attempts are being made to reinterpret old rulings, although often, conservative people get the upper hand and progress is slow. However, it must be remembered that the law in any jurisdiction is slow to evolve and often lags behind social change.
In the modern world, the Shariah is the complete legal system of only a very few countries. The majority of Muslim countries as a legacy of colonialism, or through deliberate westernisation as in Turkey, have mixed legal systems. They almost always retain the Shariah in matters such as family law and inheritance, and have adopted aspects of the civil law or Common Law systems in areas of public law. Only Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan and some states in Nigeria retain Shariah as their criminal law while Pakistan has re-introduced it in an unfortunately ultra-conservative interpretation.
Criminal law is one of the two areas which attracts the most criticism in the West. The other is the position of women. Few people understand that the Hudud penalties - those that involve amputation, stoning and other drastic penalties - are only a very small part of Islamic criminal law and are invoked only rarely, and then often in circumstances which give rise to a suspicion that the courts involved - usually lower courts - may not have been properly guided in their application of the law. Often these verdicts are overturned on review by a higher court. There is also now an emerging body of Muslim thought which believes that the Hudud penalties should not be regarded as requiring implementation except in a just, truly Islamic society - which today does not exist anywhere in the world.
As regards the position of women - there is no argument against the proposition that Islam gave women rights which were unprecedented in the world at the time of its revelation. Muslim women have always been entitled to a separate legal personality and may retain their own names on marriage. They are not considered as one entity with the husband as was the rule in Christian countries until the 19th century. Muslim women have been entitled to inherit and to acquire and control their own property since the seventh century and have been entitled to earn an income for themselves and keep it. They are entitled to an education and may be appointed to public office - as was illustrated by Shifa bint Abdullah who was appointed to the important position of Inspector of Markets by the Caliph Omar.
However, just as initial liberating ideas in other world religions such as Christianity and Judaism succumbed in time to the influence of patriarchy, so in Islam. The status of women became diminished over the ages as men reserved for themselves the right to interpret the scriptures and adopted interpretations which favoured men and kept women in their "place". In time, for a variety of reasons, the status of women in Muslim societies declined so that today, in some Muslim countries, they are among the most oppressed in the world. Today many of the conservative interpretations are being challenged by progressive Muslim thinkers but change on the ground remains slow.
At the same time, local customs continued to assert themselves. The practices of "honour" killing and female circumcision are in no way endorsed by Islam and are directly contrary to Islamic laws that prohibit mutilation of the body and the killing of human beings except through process of law. Nevertheless these practices have continued in some Muslim (and some non-Muslim) countries as part of local custom. To attribute them to Islam is similar to attributing the burning of witches in past times to the teachings of Christianity.
In Australia, Muslim migrants bring the Shariah with them as their personal law, and in only a very few instances does it come into conflict with Australian law. In the area of family law, the Marriage Act permits Muslims to marry in compliance with both Australian and Islamic law at the same time. Divorce is more problematic because quite different rules apply. Only fairly recently has Australian law adopted the Islamic practice of requiring mediation in family disputes. Islamic law does not recognise adoption but endorses fostering, which is similar to the newer ways of thinking about this subject in Australia.
Islamic banking is now well established in Australia through local Islamic financial institutions. Local Muslims can now invest and borrow in interest free transactions according to Shariah rules. In July 2003 The Weekend Australian reported that Prime Minister Howard had endorsed a shared partnership scheme between home buyers and banks which was very similar to schemes already being used by Islamic financial institutions.
There are certainly aspects of law which are quite opposite between Australian law and the Shariah. The Shariah prohibits drinking alcohol, gambling, sex outside marriage and the taking of interest in financial transactions. Australian law permits all these things but no one is obliged to take them up, so sincere Muslims can comply with both sets of laws. On the other hand, the Shariah permits limited polygamy. Australian law prohibits polygamy but permits de facto relationships regardless of whether one party is already legally married. Second marriages contracted under religious law are regarded as de facto relationships under Australian law and so the two can co-exist in practice. There are, in any case, few polygamous marriages among Australian Muslims.
Recent media reports have concentrated much on the issue of terrorism and the possibility of local Muslims becoming terrorists. Islam does not endorse terrorism either by or against Muslims or anyone else. There are very specific rules of war which prohibit the killing of civilians and the destruction of the environment in the course of war. There are no doubt a certain number of radicals in any community, particularly in one which has been repeatedly told by politicians and the media that it cannot integrate and is not wanted in Australia. Nevertheless, the great majority of Australian Muslims are good citizens, interested in educating their children, furthering their careers and looking after their families in the same way as any other Australian.
There is little demand among Australian Muslims for the Shariah to be introduced in Australia although some would appreciate the right to legal recognition of divorce in accordance with Shariah. Too often, criticism of Australian Muslims for not "integrating" is really criticism for them not assimilating. In a truly multicultural Australia, the Shariah as a system of personal law can co-exist with the Australian legal system.
A soulless distortion of Islamic law
The true spirit of sharia is closer to our values than its harsh image suggests, writes Irfan Yusef.
Media outlets have bombarded us with statements from people claiming to represent Australia's diverse Muslim groups, expressing dismay and disgust at last week's comments by the Federal Treasurer, Peter Costello. I initially agreed with them, until I read Costello's speech. The first four pages were fairly innocuous. But what sent the scribes, pundits and some Muslim leaders scurrying were the final two pages of comments on sharia and citizenship.
Costello said that anyone who believes sharia can co-exist with Australian law and Australian values should leave the country. The Prime Minister, John Howard, described his comments as fundamentally accurate. What both fail to see is that if Costello's formulation of Australian values is correct, it might mean all of us have to find a new homeland.
Costello says most migrants become Australian citizens because they want to embrace the things this country stands for. He lists six core Australian values, including economic opportunity, security, democracy and personal freedom.
In 2002, a visiting Indonesian academic lawyer delivered a series of lectures under the auspices of the Centre for Independent Studies. Professor Mohammad Fajrul Falaakh is a vice-dean of the Gadjah Mada University, among the top 100 universities in the world. Falaakh is also a senior figure in the Council of Theologians, or Nahdatul Ulama, the world's largest Islamic organisation.
In the annual CIS Acton Lecture, on the topic of sharia and pluralism in Indonesia, Falaakh listed five basic values of sharia, agreed on by sharia scholars from all schools of Islamic law. If one compares the five principles of sharia to the six values espoused by Costello, one finds they are virtually identical. Perhaps this is what Australian imams mean when they state in their sermons that Australia is a more Islamic country than most Muslim-majority states.
But this should be of no surprise. After all, sharia is not the name of a draconian system of legal punishments. It is not a synonym for amputations and beheadings. Rather, sharia is a legal tradition, a set of legal principles based on certain values. And those values are identical to those expressed in the Old and New Testaments.
Further, legal scholars in the East and West agree that the traditions of sharia, English common law (from which our legal systems are derived) and European civil law have borrowed from, and influenced, each other.
Some commentators present sharia as a system of medieval criminal punishments. But for Australian Muslims, sharia represents little more than ethics (honesty, enterprise) and liturgy (how to perform prayers, weddings, funerals). Costello's comments on sharia are, in effect, an attack on liturgy that should concern followers of all faiths.
Indeed, Costello's comments about those seeking to establish sharia in Australia do not go far enough. What he should have said was that those seeking to establish only sharia (outward liturgy) without its spirit (inner liturgy or the spirit of the law) should find another country and another religion.
Christ castigated rabbis who followed the letter, but ignored the spirit, of sacred law. Muslims believe the sharia to be an updated version of the same law, the outer manifestation of the same Abrahamic values. However, this must exist in tandem with an inner manifestation - given a variety of labels by Muslims and commonly known in the West as sufism.
A minority of Muslims seek to establish sharia without sufism across the world. They are the source of virtually all terrorist groups in the Muslim world. Their theology is regarded by mainstream Muslims as isolationist and fringe. They distort sharia by imposing it on people without the inner discipline of sufism. They are openly hostile to sufi tradition.
These people seek to destroy Islam from within. They are arguably more of a threat to Muslims than non-Muslims. Hence, the majority of their victims are Muslims. Costello would like to see such people leave Australia. Most Muslims, on the other hand, would prefer to see these people leave our planet.
These people distort our perceptions about sharia. Most Australians regard sharia as purely consisting of draconian medieval punishments. Costello's own inaccurate comments about sharia are a manifestation of distorted perceptions.
Irfan Yusef is a lawyer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)