OK ... those of us who opposed the Iraq war are used to having mud thrown at us: pro-Saddam, unholy alliance, SWP front group, and so on. Now, look which party proposes security laws which have no precedent, at least not in living memory, and to increase holding-without-trial times (the sort of treatment which led to the wrongful imprisonment of the Guildford Four and others). The same party, however, is not much more tolerant when it comes to internal politics either.
For example, in recent months we've heard of people having their memberships revoked, after years or decades of loyal service in some cases, for suggesting in a letter to a paper that people might not vote for whoever wears the red ribbon locally. In two separate incidents today, Labour activists have faced the attention of security and police for posing so-called security risks.
First up was Walter Wolfgang, an 82-year-old member of 57 years standing, who came to this country as a refugee from Nazi Germany in 1937, shouted "nonsense" as Jack Straw, foreign secretary, defended the government's Iraq policy. The police used Terrorism Act powers to refuse him re-entry (reminds me of a Muslim lady being kicked off a train under Patriot Act powers during the Democratic convention). The man said later that "two toughies" came over to him and wanted to manhandle him from the conference.
The other victim was the MP for Grimsby, Austin Mitchell, whose photos of the event were deleted from his digital camera by a policeman who claimed that he did not know how to use the device. There's more on this page about the Wolfgang incident and other complaints about heavy-handed security. An attempt to have Iraq even discussed at the conference was blocked - a fairly common phenomenon these days is party "conferences" not really being conferences, but mere shows in which critical motions are not discussed. Now, hecklers are treated as security risks. And this is the party the New Statesman told us, before this year's election, not to give up on (by voting Respect or whoever) as it still had people like Robin Cook (!) and was still "our party". People won't think so for much longer if its leaders surround themselves with this kind of security.
And what is all this about Gordon Brown yet again "staking his claim" to be party leader - and, given that Blair is said not to intend to run for another term after the present one - Prime Minister? Again, it seems that he's smarting over Blair reneging over the "deal" they struck back in 1994 or whenever, that Blair would be leader first and hand over to Brown after a couple of years. The problem is, where do the rest of us stand in all of this?
None of us were in on the deal Blair and Brown made; yet, it appears Brown thinks he has some God-given right to be leader of not only the Labour party, but also of this country. And there's the obvious fact that someone who reeks of thwarted ambition is not best placed to be leader; our Prophet (sall' Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam) told us expicitly that someone who desires such positions is unfit for them (someone remind me of the exact hadeeth, please). Perhaps the party will come to their senses and give this man with his ego, his resentment and his ambition a good slap-down, and let him go off to a sinecure in some UN subsidiary.
Allah Almighty says, "That Abode of the Next World: We grant it to those who do not seek to exalt themselves in the earth or to cause corruption in it. The successful outcome is for the godfearing." (28:83)
Abu Sa'id 'Abdu'r-Rahman ibn Samura said, "The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said to me, 'O 'Abdu'r-Rahman ibn Samura. Do not ask for leadership. If you are given it without asking for it, you will be helped in it. If you are given it through asking for it, it will be up to you. If you make a vow and then see something other than it which is better than it, then do that which is better and expiate your oath.'" [Agreed upon]
Abu Hurayra reported that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "You will covet leadership, but it will be a source of regret on the Day of Rising." [al-Bukhari]
Abu Dharr said, "The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said to me, 'O Abu Dharr! I see that you are weak and I want for you what I want for myself. You will never be put in charge of even two men nor be put in charge of the property of an orphan.'" [Muslim]
Abu Dharr said, "I said, 'Messenger of Allah, why do you not appoint me?' He clapped me on the shoulder with his hand and then said, 'Abu Dharr, you are weak. It is a trust, and on the Day of Rising it will be disgrace and regret except for the man who takes it as it should be taken and fulfils what is demanded of him in respect of it.'" [Muslim]
Personal aside: Just wanted to say, Atticus, how much I like your nick. And how is dear Cicero these days? ;)
Salams Atticus,
Thanks for posting those.
Subhanallah
Just wanted to say, Atticus, how much I like your nick.
Cheers, it's taken from the character in Harper Lee's novel, To Kill a Mockingbird.
And how is dear Cicero these days? ;)
errr... dead? :)
W'alaikum Assalaam anonymous, you're welcome.
As-salamu alaykum all,
Atticus,shukran for your posts.
May Allah (SWT) increase you further in knowledge and allow us to continue to benefit from you.
And, I love "To Kill a Mockingbird".
Wasalam,
Bikhair here...
THanks Attitcus.
Oh. That Atticus. I thought you might have meant this one.
I know this doesn't fit here, but I can't just suppress how happy I am to see Turkey being denied entry into the European Union.
For years that government have oppressed its people, banning hijab, etc just to be accepted into the Union. haha!
Is that all it takes to be accepted. How naive.
Just wanted to comment on that last post by anonymous. I am also glad to see Turkey refused, but not for the same reason. Being Turkish myself, I don't want to see my country being told what to do by the EU. But at the same time I hate the way the regime is treating our religion.
For years that government have oppressed its people, banning hijab, etc just to be accepted into the Union. haha!
I think itâs too simplistic to blame the European Union, this sort of suppression is intrinsic to Turkeyâs post-Ottoman history. Donât forget that much of it has been overseen by the Turkish military; as the self-appointed defenders of Kemalism, they are the real powerbrokers in the country. One of the positives of joining the EU would be to limit the role of the military in politics. This would mean greater freedom to the Islamic parties who are regularly voted in. So you wouldnât get situations such as when Merve Kavakci was prevented from taking her seat in parliament for wearing hijaab. Of course there are downsides â one of the conditions for membership was the de-criminalisation of adultery.
There is a chance that the Europeans will take a pragmatic decision and allow Turkey to join; apart from anything else they could do with the workforce. But outside of Britain and Spain, there is little or no appetite for offering full membership anytime soon. May Allah (SWT) bring what is best.
Did anyone expect any different of Austria? The country that produced Hitler?
It would appear that to them (Austria) human rights abuses are fine -so long as the victims are Muslim. How else would one explain Austria's staunch support for Croatia's entry into the the EU? A country sheltering war criminals wanted by the international court?
Turkey oppresses its people? Turkey's a democratic paradise compared to other Muslim countries. It's the only Muslim country that gives women full rights.
Yusuf: Democratic means that whoever the people vote for wins the election. If they can be removed because the military are averse, that's not democracy.
Still it falls far short of EU standards on human rights, and it will never be admitted to the EU. (Leaving aside the denial of the Armenian genocide and the question of Cyprus.)
The only reason the EU did not entertain membership talks with Turkey before is that they were always able to get and do whatever they wanted with Turkey, so from their point of view, membership talks were not necessary.
The situation changed when the Islamic parties came to power and refused to dance to outsiders' tune. For once, Turkey was a confident country deserving of respect and the EU of course recognised this. Turkey has a plan B. If the goal of the talks is for anything less than full membership, Turkey will walk away and pursue her plan B with no care for the EU. Both sides will then lose out but perhaps the EU more so. Anyway, if Turkey were to join it would only be to prop up a very expensive pension scheme for Western Europe.
But if joining the EU will bring more social justice, liberty and freedom for the Turks, and especially for professional women who are not allowed to wear their hijab to work at the moment, then I think it'd have been worth it and it is for this reason that I wholehearteldy support Turkey's bid for membership.
I said Turkey was more democratic than other Muslim countries, not that it was perfect.
Besides, democracy is about more than majority rule; it is about minority rights too. If an Islamic party were given free rein, how would the equal rights of women and non-Muslims be guaranteed?
The Turkish government can't actually do what the people want, because it's got the Army looking over its shoulder, waiting to get rid of any government that doesn't go along with its plan. Criticizing "secularism" is enough to be thrown out.
As for women's rights and minority rights, what do you think of all the women who were kicked out of their universities, and who can't work for the government, because they want to wear headscarves? Even the wife of the Prime Minister can't attend official functions because she wears hijab.
Criticizing "secularism" is enough to be thrown out.
Quite right too. Secularism guarantees full rights to women and non-Muslims.
Muslims are in favour of secularism, ie neutrality between religions in the West, where it guarantees them equal rights. If the US abandoned secularism and allowed discrimination on grounds of religion, Muslims would suffer as the majority is Christian.
On the hijab issue, a woman who chooses not to go to university because she insists on wearing the hijab, is not being deprived of her rights, but exercising them. I would not like a job which reqired a formal dress code. This excludes me from a number of jobs, but that's my choice and those are the rules.
Old Pickler wrote: "On the hijab issue, a woman who chooses not to go to university because she insists on wearing the hijab, is not being deprived of her rights, but exercising them."
It's the other way around. Women choose to wear hijab, but are denied entry to classes. She's being deprived of her right to an education. What's to be afraid of? A woman wearing a scarf? Oooh, scary. Schools and universities will never be the same if we allow women who cover themselves for the sake of Allah into the classrooms. < /sarcasm >
She's being deprived of her right to an education
Nonsense. She can get an education if she wants; just take the hijab off while she's at university. It isn't like under the Taliban, where women really were deprived of an education.
This 'deprivation' is entirely self-inflicted, and I have no sympathy with such women. They're obviously pretty thick anyway if they think like that, so probably wouldn't benefit from university anyway.
Got to agree with JD. Old Pickler's argument about hijabis having the right not to go to university doesn't quite make sense. It would mean a muslim woman would have to choose between being pious or being educated. Why can't she have both? Especially in a muslim country!
Old pickler said:
"They're obviously pretty thick anyway if they think like that, so probably wouldn't benefit from university anyway."
So you're saying that two-thirds of turkish women are "thick".
These types of comments are immature at best, let's just ignore them. After all, Imam Shafii himself admits that he could never win a debate against such people.
H- it is hardly surprising that two thirds of a population, male or female, Muslim or not, are not clever enough to go to university. Someone stupid enough to deprive themselves of this opportunity is by definition unsuitable.
As I said in my previous post, I wouldn't like a job where I had to get dressed up every day. I might earn more money in that job, but I wouldn't like it. My choice, not some kind of 'oppression'.
Why do Muslims have to see themselves as victims, when a lot of their problems are self inflicted?
Old Pickler, one of the universities that I saw photos of was a prestigious medical university in Istanbul. When they started enforcing this ban, they had riot police behind shields, physically barring the women from coming in and taking their exams. Some of them were just months away from getting their degrees. You can't really be accusing all of these women of being stupid.
Don't you think it's a good thing to have women doctors?
I think you probably know this by now, but for a practicing Muslims woman, the hijab is not simply a symbol. We're covering a part of the body that we believe needs to be covered. Would you go to university if they said you had to go topless?
The "secularism" in Turkey isn't like the "secularism" in the US or UK; it's very much anti-religion (or anti-Islam, anyway).
How depraved is Ol' Prickler.
So it's ok for ol' Prick when women are forced by society to wear skimpy, bikini-like outfits, showing all their assets, but when assertive, vocal Muslim women decide to cover themselves from men's gaze they are thick! How backward and how thick are you? There's no point in reasoning with innately ignorant people like you!
So it's ok for ol' Prick when women are forced by society to wear skimpy, bikini-like outfits, showing all their assets
Could you give me an example of a society that 'forces' women to wear skimpy outfits? Thought not. In the West, women choose what they want to wear. It's about treating adults like adults and not like children.