An appeal to ban Sharia Law
Dear Secretary-General of the UN
We the undersigned, as Arab Atheists and agnostics, and the supporters of their basic human rights, based on article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, have the right to declare our positions publicly without being subject to terrorism and calls for murder, issued by Islamic law (Sharia) against all former Muslims, and all critics of Islam.
This video is a passage from a conference that was aired on Aljazeera, where a Muslim cleric affirms that the punishment for apostasy in Islam is death and mutilation, and so we demand that the United Nations bans any application or support of Islamic law and all the elements in Islam that go against the basic rights mentioned in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Sincerely
Monsieur le Secrétaire Général,
Nous, signataires de cette lettre, en se basant sur l’article 19 de la Déclaration Universelle des droits de l’Homme, insistons sur notre droit, en tant qu’athées et agnostiques arabes, à exprimer nos positions publiquement et à être reconnus. Ceci sans aucune menace sur nos vies, de celles que stipule la religion islamique, en toute intolérance, contre tous ceux qui ont quitté l’Islam ou ceux qui le critiquent.
Nous vous présentons cet extrait d’une conférence qui a été diffusée par la chaîne télévisée AlJazeera, où l’intervenant déclare que le châtiment de l’apostasie en Islam est la mort. Ainsi, nous demandons à ce que l’Organisation des Nations Unies émette une décision interdisant toute application ou support de la loi islamique, et tout élément de l’Islam qui va à l’encontre des droits de l’Homme comme stipulé dans la Déclaration Universelle des droits de l’Homme.
Sign the petition http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/an-appeal-to-ban-sharia-law.html
The UAE arrests a secular activist for disrespecting religion
One should not start the day by browsing the Internet -especially if one is in contact with non religious and secular activists from the Middle East, who express their views and positions regarding the epidemic of religion, namely Islam, particularly when they do it publicly and openly on the Internet-, for one may receive painful news that would mar one’s clarity of mind, and drown it in a whirlpool of grief and sorrow for the rest of the day. This is what happened to me today when I woke up to the bad news of the arrest of one of my facebook atheist friends, who was accused of a weird crime: “disrespecting religion”. My friend Mahmoud Elsayed, holding the Egyptian nationality, was arrested three weeks earlier in Abu Dhabi, the capital city of the United Arab Emirates, where he lived and worked..
And according to reliable information from one of his family members, Mahmoud, known on facebook as Tony, may face up to five years of imprisonment in the UAE justice system. We still don’t have enough information about the whereabouts of his arrest, whether it was a complaint from someone, or that the police have been spying on his activities on the Internet, and then ordered the arrest. Would the legal and social situation in the Emirates allow him to defend himself and contact a lawyer who would take his case, where Islam is the claimant? Or do we have to ask for international lawyers from outside the Islamic world?
The Islamic world nowadays lives in a situation which is very much similar to the times of the inquisition when the opponents of the Church were beheaded. I consider the arrest of Tony as an abusive and unjust act that goes against the principles of human rights, and I beseech the international community, the UN, and non governmental organizations to intervene and protect secular activists in the Islamic world, and to put severe sanctions on any country that does not protect the right to freedom of belief, of opinion, and conscience.
I am very worried about the situation of Mahmoud Khaled, who was arrested for his opinions and beliefs, and I consider the authorities of the UAE fully responsible for anything that could happen to him or to his family or friends.
Debate about Freedom and Religion.
From 20:48 you can watch my appearance on TV Alhurra 
The debate was about Freedom and Religion.
“Very Close”
Very Close highlights cultural figures and topics from throughout the Middle East. Host Joseph Issawi’s provocative questions provide viewers unique insights into the topics discussed. Al Hayat wrote of Issawi and Very Close, “His show became one of the most attractive shows to intellectuals, elites and ordinary viewers. Through this show, Issaoui knew how to trigger his audience’s curiosity without sacrificing objectivity.”
Muslim Migrants Want to Hide Behind a Veil !
Skin color, gender or belief cannot be a barrier to achieving integration within European or Western societies which are secular, democratic, multicultural and allow for a richness and diversity of races and backgrounds. Most of migrant communities within these societies have been able to melt into their host nations completely, adapt and grow without having to abandon their beliefs, languages, food or drink habits. Therefore they have been able to establish themselves within those societies and make important achievements. They were not barred from participating in politics and are involved in the decision-making processes. They have been allowed to assume high and sensitive responsibilities, something they probably wouldn’t have dreamed of in their countries of origin. They are athletes, artists, ministers and heads of parliaments, businessmen and academics.
Concerning the Moroccan and Muslim communities and the issue of integration, I think it is better to look at the arguments that irritate most European public opinions and that constantly try to depict Muslims as being persecuted and oppressed victims; -as a communist that does not enjoy individual freedoms, like the freedom to wear the burqa and other fashionable cloaks (probably to hide the bruises and wounds left by the husbands or brothers on the body of Muslim women). As long as they (Muslims) are the owners of the “absolute truth,” any encroachment that is susceptible to anger their one and only God may tomorrow lead to new demands asking for the closure of bars for example or for making kissing in public or making love unlawful, under the pretext that their beliefs, religious and moral senses have been hurt.
Despite all this, hostility directed against Muslim migrants is explained by things such as racism or xenophobia. We often forget (perhaps voluntarily) that the behavior and actions of these migrants are absolutely in opposition with the values of the host countries who paid heavy prices and long bloody years of struggle to consecrate human values and universal human rights and to ensure the continuity of the democratic system of governance.
One of these behaviors that are backward and the product of the Muslim migrant’s mindset are the activities of Islamist groups operating in many European countries such as France, Belgium and others. They are mostly active during election campaigns directing messages at all Muslims, urging them to boycott elections and ask for the Sharia Law to be implemented, considering that Europe’s democracy, which allows for the common citizen to run for the highest office for example, is blasphemous and contrary to the law of their Beautiful God.
Most of the Moroccan immigrants now settled abroad, did not migrate there initially for educational purposes and did not enroll directly into particular jobs. Most of them instead went there looking to sell hard labor for money and with little knowledge about the host countries’ language, belief, customs and traditions. They at best ended up cramped in huge neighborhoods with other migrants. They clung to a rigid lifestyle for years without integrating. They just kept answering their bodily desires while selling their labor. Their children do not seek to enter schools or if they do, drop out early, constituting a backlog for the work force. Some of them practice prostitution, theft and rioting. This serves as an incentive for parents to push their children towards religion, and therefore extremism and the rejection of the host country’s culture!
The Islamization of Europe is one of the problems that increases the size of hostility toward Moroccan and Muslim immigrants at large. It is such that we now hear and read on some websites belonging to the Arab community living in Europe terms like the “Islamic Republic of Europe,” and comments that announce the near death of the European civilization, citing the low birth rate among European families as opposed to the massive amount of Islamic migration into European nations! A number of ancient churches were transformed into mosques… How far will the patience of secular European citizens go?
Radical Islamic movements represent the true nature of Islam, given that they do not take into account the interests of any parties and rely instead on the interpretation of unambiguous religious texts from the Koran and the Sunna (the Prophet’s tradition). These movements do not act in the open and spread most of their messages through blogs and social networks, calling for a confrontation against other religions and beliefs and demanding the application of Sharia Law.
The demands of Muslims are incompatible with the European culture. These demands are based on an “absolute truth”. All those who differ shall be calledkaafir (infidels) upon which the divine retribution and the contempt of the whole community shall fall. God bestowed knowledge and light upon Muslims, therefore their religious specificity is supposed to be respected, even if it contradicts the most basic human right principles, such as the right to life and to difference, otherwise the Islamic sword is ready to answer the call of Allah!
This happens in Europe Nowdays:
English translation:
Allah make their children orphans … Amen! Allah, disperse their wives and make children being orphans Amen! Allah, let the glory of Islam everywhere! Allah, give glory to our oppressed brothers in Palestine!. … Allah Akbar … Allah Wo Akbar … there is no god but Allah. … and the Zionist is the enemy of Allah. There is no God but Allah and Shaheed (martyr) is the beloved of Allah.
Welcome to the Crazy World of the Internet
If you are unsuccessful in making friends in real life, if you try to escape the contradictions and problems of your own society, if you consider yourself different and no one understands you or accepts your ideas, if you are an opponent of your government’s policies or if you are one of the so many appalled by the state of freedoms in your country, then you don’t have to close on yourself or hide in the dark anymore. If you have some time to spare, just enter the internet. Yes you heard me right, the internet! There you’ll find people who share the same concerns and interests as you. They will welcome and respect you as you are because they are pretty much like you. Now, don’t be afraid, this will not cost you more than a computer and some Internet subscription fees. Choose your internet service provider carefully if you don’t want to suffer from the greed of some companies who only worry about profit!
Here, I will take a look at the experience of some people I know who never thought they will become addicted before they joined the internet:
Meriem
l’ll start with Meriem, a girl from an isolated village in northern Morocco. She was forced to leave school at an early age, but was lucky to learn some math and some French. She comes from those villages in Morocco still dominated by a male mentality whereby women are only allowed to leave their homes twice in their lives, first to enter their husband’s home and second to be laid to rest. As any other teenager of her age, Meriem hears about sex and explores her own body. She doesn’t have any companion to talk to, not even an educated mother that would understand and help her learn more about the unknown part of her sexuality. Her father offered Meriem’s brother, who’s studying in high school, a computer with an internet connection. Meriem has now access to the internet and her brother seems willing to educate her on the basics of how to use a computer. Her brother succeeds in school and moves to the nearby city to pursue undergraduate studies leaving Meriem alone with the computer. She now uses it more than once a day and starts to discover its secrets. One day she starts talking sex with strangers over the internet. She slowly becomes addicted to it, answering other young people’s sexual desires over the webcam. Meriem gets married and goes to live in her husband’s house, but she can’t rid of her secret Internet addiction. She goes through an interminable cycle of suffering and pain caused by the internet!
Kamal
Kamal is a young man living in Saudi Arabia, an atheist, but he obviously hides his atheism for fear of exposing himself to unimaginable consequences. If he would come out, he would be arrested by the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice police, and would probably be sentenced to death and hanged. This is what the Islamic law says non believers should face after all!
He logs into Facebook using a pseudonym and meets a community of like-minded atheists from Morocco, the USA, Israel and many other countries. people worry about persecutions faced by atheists all over the world regardless of their appearances or nationalities. Kamal feels safe among them. For a while he thought he was the only atheist in the world but now thanks to the internet, Kamal and others have formed a unique group. Now he feels he can’t live without connecting with his online friends. Although Facebook has deleted his account many times Kamal still considers the internet a necessity that can not be given up.
Moroccan young people
Here I want talk about how the people in my country behave over the internet and why. Morocco ranks high amongst countries where most visits to pornographic websites come from. This is due to religious, social and moral contraints that inhibit sexual emancipation. Sex is presented as a taboo and something that angers God. In such circumstances young people look desperately for other ways to live their sexual freedom, and often Internet is the only space available. That is why so many young people end up addicted to online pornography.
Jillian
Jillian is a young American activist. Each time I log into my email account I find her connected and remains so for hours. I first came to know Jillian when she sent me an email from Boston seeking information about the arrest of Moroccan blogger Bashir Hazzam. We both worked on the campaign of support for Bashir and since that time we became friends. Jillian is an internet addict par excellence. She’s an online activist, a blogger and Twitterer with an impressive number of followers. She’s dedicated to a number of issues but she’s mostly interested in questions related to Morocco and the Middle East. However Jillian is a special kind of internet addict: her addiction is positive and productive and she too, I guess, can’t imagine a life without the internet. The same goes for Hisham Almiraat and Naoufel Chaara and all other online activists.
Internet is a very complex world. To go to the bottom of it one needs to look at it from a sociological and psychological point of view in order to understand why so many people now consider the internet an inseparable part of their lives.
Switzerland: here are my views on Burqa
A few weeks ago, I was invited to a reunion of the association of freethinkers in Switzerland, and was accompanied there by Daniel Stricker the blogger and youtuber, who happens to be also the president of freethought association in St. Gallen.
During our journey by train, we discussed a document prepared by his association concerning a bill presented by the Swiss People’s Party, which demanded a legal ban on burqa in Switzerland. My friend Daniel was hesitant, particularly because this topic is closely related to human rights issues, like individual freedoms, and women’s right to dress as they see fit, but he completely agreed with the local freethinkers’ point of view: ” I am against the burqa but also against the banning of the burqa.. because in Switzerland it is simply not a problem yet. And right-wing parties (members of these parties who are christians) want to make that an issue in order to gain votes. I cannot support that.
As a person with an Islamic background, who understands the implicit significance of burqa, I replied:
To me burqa enforces gender inequality and contempt for women. I may even say that it’s a denial of her existence, and her right to share the public space. It’s as if Islam, with its hijab and burqa, wants to tell us that the normal place for a woman is between the walls of her home, away from the prying eyes of society, in an attempt to isolate her and deprive her of her right to share experience in society, to communicate and make friendships.
So how can we accept such a grave infringement on women’s rights in Western societies without any attempt to fight such a backward and sick culture, where women are reduced to a hole for sex, and a machine to procreate and cook, when their counterparts in the West compete with men in all intellectual and artistic fields? We may accept with much pain and grievance to see women wearing burqa on TV or on the Internet, in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan or Iran… but allowing such slavery creep into Western countries like Switzerland under the guise of respecting alternative cultures, would be unacceptable. How can I respect a culture that degrades the value of women and infringes on their basic rights? It’s like being asked to respect Nazism or stoning in Iran! Frankly, it’s an attempt to spoil European sophisticated taste, by exporting the culture of hijab and burqa to the West, where forward steps had already been taken in such matters since the beginning of the Renaissance and the Enlightenments, thanks to the great sacrifices of feminist movements.
Burqa, as a form of disguise, is a big threat to security in the social milieu, because the face is the best way we can recognize a person, and the means through which we can communicate with the people with whom we share the public space, thus sharing emotions implicitly, like the feeling of security or fear. How can I feel secure in a bus for example, when the person next to me is hiding their face, and I can’t know whether they’re a man or a woman, a friend or a foe?
Hijab and burqa convey dangerous religious and racist messages as well: a girl dressed thus conveys the idea that she would only marry a Muslim or someone who converts to Islam (after they had undergone a circumcision), which would severely hinder their ability to integrate into Western society. Every Muslim expects that his sister (in the religious or literal sense alike) would only give birth to a Muslim, and that’s why such mode of dressing, like burqa and such, should be prohibited in educational institutions, and other social and economic sectors. Hijab, despite giving off a similar connotation, remains a moderate form of Islamic dressing, and though I’m not in favor of that practice (why wouldn’t Muslim men, for the sake of equality, cover their hair as well?), I don’t think a legal solution regarding it should be sought at this point. I have to say that a legal ban would not suffice by itself to solve this issue: Islam has to be reformed, so that Muslim women can have the right to marry non-Muslims… and so that the old teachings are renewed, because they belong to the past, whereas the future is for freedom, equality, and human rights. But, because there seems to be no will to renovation and intellectualization within the body of Islam, the legal solution is the only one available.
During my visit to Zurich, I was surprised to see women sitting near the river that runs through the city, with their children, wearing burqa. The scene seemed exotic to me despite the fact that I was used to seeing women with hijab and burqa in my own country Morocco, because I was not expecting that such a sick mentality has gone beyond its borders, infecting everything like a cancer.
It is not a necessary practice of the religion as many extremist scholars try to depict it, but a mere recent invention in its present form by the salafist current. Similar forms of dressing existed long before Islam as well in nearby civilizations, but when they started to spread among the Muslim population, they were not stopped; instead, the then new dress was encouraged by many as a means to enslave women and restrict their movements even more.
Some people may say that burqa cannot be considered as a “phenomenon” in Switzerland, to justify a legal ban; but why not? Why do we have to wait until the problem becomes a phenomenon, with a large base of supporters, and then the challenge would be greater, and it would be quite difficult to ban burqa legally? It would be wiser to ban burqa and any cultural practice that degrades the value of women and diminishes their freedom.
I beseech human rights activists to discuss phenomena socially and historically before making any positive or negative judgment, instead of using the method of a sports critique, which is weak and unacceptable. Burqa wearing may seem like a right that should be protected, but in fact it’s no more than the manifestation of negative and inhumane culture.
Atheism: an attempt at self-criticism
Atheism is a common word that carries more negative connotations than its etymological significance implies. I personally prefer to use the term “non religious” because it approaches the intended meaning much better.
Atheism and non religiosity do not entail a complete rejection of the religious hypothesis regarding the origin of existence; it’s a state of free-thought wherein the idea of the existence of a willing force, that meant to bring the universe as it is today into being, is put into question.
Richard Dawkins, in his book “The God Delusion”, shed some light on the categories of atheism and gave the term its true meaning, amidst unfair depictions by the religious, and many atheists picked it in a form of defiance until the new meaning became so common that it overshadowed the other ones.
Atheism is, before all, a skeptic, logical, free, and independent vocation, which cancels the authority of the sacred, and finds its basis in deductive and comparative reasoning which has proven its efficiency to produce knowledge in modern scientific methodology. However, in its most famous conception, atheism became more focused on the rejection of the idea of God, in some sort of an “intellectual neurosis” which starts with the refusal of the concept of deity and confines itself to it forever.
Logically speaking, we can say that believing in the non existence of deities (as an atheist stance) is simply a basic deductive mistake, because a skeptic methodology must necessarily produce a skeptic stance. This is how the idea of the existence of god becomes legitimate within atheist thought, god being understood here as the first cause without regard to anthropomorphic traits and forms attributed to it by religions; and the feeling of spiritual belonging to that cause is logically acceptable, as an evolutionary link between the final state of existence and its origin, again without any regard to rituals of worship that religions appended to the deep desire to know the origin of all that exists.
Scientific objectivity requires that we transcend the idea of god, to inquire about the reasons behind the resilience and longevity of religious representation of the universe, and such an act requires that we accept that representation within atheistic thought not as contradictory but as logically comprehended.
The God delusion does not mean a complete rejection of religion, and that is what Dawkins meant by religion being a “symptom of a human need”; a symptom hints to an illness, but it’s not the illness itself.
Our colossal efforts to fathom the Islamic phenomenon should be directed to studying the double sanctity, i.e. the sacredness of the original text (the Koran) and that of the application texts (Sunnah, or Tradition). The fact that Muhammad prevented his followers from scribing Sunnah, is an explicit affirmation of its non-sacredness for political reasons, because he was aware of the dangers of having the sacred text contradict its applications: the text of the Koran, in its final establishment, became authoritative even on Muhammad himself, which implied that its applications should not have been written down in any way. Understanding the essence of human need to religion leads us to a primary observation, which is that religion is a personal and individualistic need, which then later becomes a collective phenomenon; Muhammad’s personal need for a religion became a collective entity with a leadership, followers, ambitions, and constraints, and this appears clearly in the contrast between the revelations in Mecca and Medina in shape and content, and the contradiction in the implementation of Islam, which did not differ much from the practices of any political leader; thus the transition from a personal to a collective belief was not necessarily intended.
There was an alteration in the finality of the sacred text with political pressure and the necessity to defend the ideology, which is why we need to make a double effort, first, to understand the constraints and the way through which the religious message mutated, at the time of the prophet, and later his followers; and second, to overcome ideological temptations as a researcher when dealing with the sacred text, by recognizing the genius of Muhammad and the genuineness of his existential quest, regardless of the conclusions he ultimately came to.
A call to break the fast publicly in Ramadan
Update: this video made more than 183,860 views.
A call to break the fast publicly in Ramadan
The month of Ramadan is considered as one of the most important and most sacred religious occasions for Muslims. During that month, Muslims refrain from eating, drinking, and having sex everyday from sunrise to sunset. Unfortunately, as many people know, Muslim society absolutely refuses to respect alternative voices and opinions, especially if it comes from people who were forced to be Muslim by tradition, meaning that they were unlucky enough to be born in an Islamic country, where they would either die as Muslims or have a death sentence over their head for apostasy.
In these societies with a Muslim majority, there’s a large faction, though a peaceful minority, that chose to free itself from the ties of religion, and obviously they do not observe the fast because they have no moral obligation to do so from close or afar. But all too often they are obliged to for their own safety, pushed into some sort of a compulsory hunger strike, a fact that should be considered an infringement on individual liberties, guaranteed by international conventions on human rights, which state that no person is to be forced to do something they do not wish to partake in, especially when it’s related to their freedom of belief.
There are many who consider Ramadan a catastrophe, as they are coerced to pretend to be fasting in a society that forces its religion and traditions on everyone without any regard to freedom of individuals with their different religious beliefs and world views. Some call it a “nightmare” which they have to endure for 30 days every year: a month of disputes, nutrition problems, or a month of sleeping, eating in toilets and dark places, far from the prying eyes of society, like a thief or a criminal.
It’s a psychological battle led by every individual who is forced to fast in the presence of their family, their friends, and society at large, in order not to provoke Muslims, as they say, yet they do not seem to be provoked by the sight of a woman in her menstruation period eating, or when parents prepare the food for their kids, or when a woman fasts a number of days in compensation for the period during which she had to break the fast, when everyone around her eats normally, and she may even be the one who prepares the food.
Unfortunately the price of breaking the fast publicly during Ramadan in Islamic countries is high because, despite differences due to legal variations, its common trait remains ostracization, humiliation, hatred, and verbal and physical attacks. In Morocco for example there’s a law article which considers public eating during Ramadan a crime punishable by imprisonment. In Saudi Arabia and Iran death penalty awaits those who break the fast publicly.
We are a group of non Muslim Arabs who decided to call for an event centered on the theme of public eating during Ramadan, in several countries including Morocco, Egypt, Tunisia, and Lebanon. Our objective is to break the wall of silence, to defend religious freedom, and make it a wide scale discussion in which everyone would participate.
By no means do we demand from believers in Islam not to observe their fast, or to abandon their religious practices, but it’s a humanistic call from the heart of dictatorship and suffering to respect the right of non Muslims to break the fast, and to protect that right with a legal support that would eliminate any punishment for public fast breaking and replace it with an article that would condemn any act of social segregation or attack on a citizen or a foreign resident who refuses to fast and eats publicly.
Achieving that goal would require a lot of courage and sacrifice, and the revolutions of the Arab spring may suffice to realize it provided they are protected from those who want to divert them from their path and exploit them to advocate a caliphate or a theocracy, instead of freedom and human rights.
You can support us by joining the page of the event on facebook.
http://www.facebook.com/Breakthefast
——– traduction française par Michel D. que je remercie ———-
“Un appel à la rupture publique du jeûne durant le Ramadan.
Le mois de Ramadan est considéré comme l’un des moments les plus importants et sacrés pour les musulmans. Pendant ce mois, les musulmans s’abstiennent de manger, de boire, et d’avoir des relations sexuelles, tous les jours, du lever au coucher du soleil. Malheureusement, comme beaucoup de gens le savent, la société musulmane refuse absolument de respecter les voix et les opinions alternatives, surtout si elles viennent de personnes qui sont contraintes d’être musulmanes par la tradition, c’est à dire qu’elles ont la malchance d’être nées dans un pays islamique où elles risquent, en tant que personnes musulmanes, la mort ou une sentence de mort pour apostasie.
Dans ces sociétés à majorité musulmane, il y a une fraction importante, même s’il s’agit d’une minorité pacifique, qui a choisi de se libérer des liens de la religion, et évidemment qui n’observe pas le jeûne, car ne se sentant aucune obligation morale de le faire, de près ou de loin . Mais trop souvent, ces personnes sont obligées, pour leur propre sécurité, à se contraindre une sorte de grève de la faim obligatoire, un fait qui devrait être considéré comme une atteinte aux libertés individuelles, garantis par les conventions internationales des Droits de l’Homme, qui stipulent que nul ne peut être forcé de faire ce à quoi il ne souhaite pas prendre part, surtout quand cela est relatif à leur liberté de croyance.
Nombreux sont ceux qui considèrent le Ramadan comme une catastrophe, car ils sont contraints de faire semblant d’être à jeun, dans une société dont la religion et les traditions s’imposent à tout le monde sans aucun égard pour la liberté des individus dans leurs différentes croyances religieuses et leurs visions du monde. Certains appellent cela un «cauchemar» qu’ils ont à supporter pendant 30 jours, chaque année: un mois de conflits personnel, de problèmes de nutrition, ou un mois à dormir, à manger dans les toilettes et des endroits sombres, loin des yeux indiscrets de la société, comme un voleur ou un. criminel.
C’est une bataille psychologique mené par chaque individu qui est obligé de jeûner en présence de leur famille, leurs amis, et de la société au sens large, afin de ne pas provoquer les musulmans, comme ces derniers disent, lesquels ne semblent pas être provoqués par la vue d’une femme mangeant pendante sa période de menstruation, ou lorsque les parents préparent la nourriture pour leurs enfants, ou quand une femme jeûne un nombre de jours de compensation pour la période pendant laquelle elle a dû rompre le jeûne, quand tout le monde autour d’elle mange normalement, et elle peut même être celle qui prépare la nourriture.
Malheureusement le prix de la rupture du jeûne, faite publiquement pendant le ramadan dans les pays islamiques, est élevé parce que, malgré des différences dans l’application des cadres juridiques nationaux, le trait commun reste l’ostracisme, l’humiliation, la haine et les attaques verbales et physiques. Au Maroc par exemple existe un article de loi qui considère que manger en public pendant le Ramadan un crime passible d’emprisonnement. En Arabie Saoudite et l’Iran la peine de mort attend ceux qui rompent le jeûne en public.
Nous sommes un groupe d’arabes non musulmans qui ont décidé d’appeler à une manifestation centrée sur le thème “manger en public pendant le Ramadan”, dans plusieurs pays dont le Maroc, l’Egypte, la Tunisie et le Liban. Notre objectif est de briser le mur du silence, pour défendre la liberté religieuse, et provoquer un débat à grande échelle auquel chacun participerait.
En aucun cas, nous n’exigeons que les croyants de l’islam cessent d’observer le jeûne, ou renoncent à leurs pratiques religieuses ; c’est un appel humaniste qui vient du cœur de la dictature et de la souffrance, visant à ce que le droit des non-musulmans à rompre le jeûne soit respecté, et à promouvoir la protection juridique et légale qui permettrait d’éliminer toute sanction en cas de rupture publique du jeûne et à remplacer l’arsenal juridique actuel par un article qui condamne tout acte de ségrégation sociale ou le fait d’attenter à un citoyen ou un résident étranger qui refuse publiquement de jeûner.
Atteindre cet objectif exigerait beaucoup de courage et de sacrifices, et les révolutions du printemps arabe pourraient y parvenir si elles se préservaient de ceux qui veulent les détourner de leur chemin et les exploiter afin d’imposer un califat ou une théocratie, en lieu et place de la Liberté et des Droits humains”.
Vous pouvez nous soutenir en vous joignant à la page de cet événement dans facebook:http://www.facebook.com/Breakthefast
I See No Freedom of Religion In Islam
Freedom of Religion In Islam:
Islam does not accommodate for freedom of thought, and although there have been some aspects of tolerance in Islamic history it has not evolved to a level of religious freedom. The kind of freedom that accompanied the Islamic early stages was selective and relative. It was strategic and tactical in nature. It was imposed by the political, military and economic situation prevailing at the time.
Religious freedom in Islamic thought has also been a periodic phase, developed to serve totalitarian goals. That is why, once the Islamic state reached its full might, infringement on freedom of religion has become a usual occurrence. The apparent tolerance did not therefore come from a strong belief in freedom values. It was rather a political maneuver imposed by the specific conditions of the Islamic society at different stages of its history.
At the beginning, Muslims were very vulnerable hence their initial peaceful rhetoric. In order to avoid the wrath of Quraish, win over supporters and give the new religion a peaceful appearance, conversion to Islam was not initially forced on anyone. Quranic verses, which refer to the idea that there should be no compulsion in religion, or that anyone shall be entitled to his or her own religion, all appeared during the first period of Islam: i.e. the very early founding stage. But once Muslims acquired a bit more power, after the migration to Yathrib, they adopted the idea that the faith should be spread by the sword. That led them to their first military victory. They entered Mecca and started forcing people to convert to Islam and destroy their idols. This is contrary of course to the principle of freedom of religion.
Throughout Islamic history, we find that Muslims have blatantly violated religious freedoms. Many churches have been converted into mosques, among which the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus. Most of the religious symbols like crosses and statues were destroyed. One of the most serious violations is the fact that Jews and Christians were systematically categorized as Dhimmis; in other words as second-class citizens, who had to pay extra taxes. This is the treatment reserved for Jews and Christians, the People of the Book. As for those with other beliefs, they lived in a very difficult position and had either to accept the religion of Islam or be killed.
“Moroccan” but not a Muslim:
Moroccan law assumes that all Moroccans are Muslims, with the only exception of Moroccan Jews. All are subjects of King Mohammed VI, Commander of the Faithful. It doesn’t recognize other religions though such as Christianity or Buddhism -not even different Islamic doctrines such as Shiism. And the authorities are relentlessly fighting conversions to Shiism or Christianity.
For many, Moroccan is a term synonymous with Muslim, as if Islam were the sole basis for the Moroccan identity. This is misleading because there are also Atheist, Christian and Baha’i Moroccans, who are proud of their nationality and heritage. Those, unfortunately, have no legal or social protection to be able to safely practice their freedom of thought in public. Even if there were legal guarantees for religious minorities, it will be difficult to adapt the Muslim mind with the culture of coexistence and tolerance, regardless of belief. Perhaps the most important justification Muslims use to reject that kind of tolerance is the claim that non-Muslims do not respect their holy places and religious symbols. They should know that no one should confiscate other’s right for creativity, thought and expression. No one should have the right to censure criticism unless persons are targeted beyond their beliefs, convictions or opinions.
All religious minorities in the Moroccan society do not criticize or discuss the Islamic faith, and all are not even engaged in the effort of enlightening their countrymen, yet they are often mistreated by their families, friends and employers…
So I wonder what kind of religious freedom Muslims talk about exactly?
