i have for some time been aware of the powerful analytical frameworks for bio-psycho-social systems developed by the american psychologist dr clare graves and systematised for practical application by don beck and chris cowan in the excellent book “spiral dynamics” (i’m not affiliated with anyone concerned, incidentally). at the risk of sounding like somewhat of a “fanboy”, as i believe it is called on teh interwebs, i am convinced it constitutes an important piece of intellectual real estate for the understanding of complex socio-political systems, particularly in behavioural terms.

you can read more about the basics of spiral dynamics here and here - and i strongly encourage you to do so, but perhaps the easiest way to demonstrate its unique way of enabling insight into human nature is by a review of the various behaviours that have been exhibited during the riots. in the table below you will see a number of different types of responses and the messages associated with them, which you will have seen reflected by the proponents of these value systems in the various media channels. the vast majority of these types of response can present in either healthy or unhealthy forms – thus “C-P” (“red”) behaviours and messages were used both destructively (wanton destruction) and constructively (arresting looters) – in both cases, the behaviour was the demonstration of dominance and power, with corresponding public messages (a cartmanesque “RESPECT MY AUTHORITAAH!”) sent to the media.

you’ll see that whilst most of the operational trouble has functioned at C-P/red systems level, most of the discussion and analysis has been conducted by politicians and the media at blue (mostly “societal breakdown”, good-and-evil) orange (intellectual, opportunistic and tactical) and green (communitarian, progressive and inclusive) levels – and if the reactions are to be systematic, they will have to be a combination of green, blue and orange solutions appropriate to the situation, just as identifying looters using website photos (orange), communally organised clean-up squads (green) and attempts to strengthen traditional family structures (blue) have already been used. i note that ed miliband (who i usually have little time for) has supposedly come out against knee-jerk reactions and i think he’s correct in this at least; david cameron will not get very far if all his responses are couched in “blue” terms to appeal to the “respect for society must be restored” brigade and executed in “orange” technocratic action plans by community workers who are uncomfortable with anything which doesn’t take account of “green” inclusion. if he is serious about the “big society”, he will need to understand that the big society needs *all* these things, it is not a blue, orange or green concept, just as it needs “red” defences and alternative “purple” clan and kin affiliations than those of gang, patois and skin colour – and that includes the purple affiliations of the non-rioters, too! the “big society” could be second-order policy thinking and leadership, but that needs a shift in both our understanding of the situation and the strategies we use to manage it.

in all these cases i would say: if you want to find a constructive, insightful way of discussing the value systems that led to the events of the last couple of weeks, you would do worse than to look at how spiral dynamics sheds light on the tensions, relationships, structures and messages involved.

all comment and discussion welcome.

“Do Anglicans, even moderates, really think of G!D as a sexless being? I was under the impression that most moderate religious people still think of G!D as male. People could use the singular ‘they’ and refer to a ‘parent’ if they were really that bothered.”

i think she could with some justice aim this question at judaism, but it is, nonetheless, a bit of an old chestnut. the best way i can answer it is that in the same way that we deal with anthropomorphism in the text: G!D Isn’t male any more than G!D Has a “hand”, or a “back”, G!D Forbid. when the Text speaks in these terms, it is only to be understood as the way *we* understand the interaction, not the *actual reality* – hence, when we speak of G!D as “Father” or “King”, these are merely the interactions and relevant relationships that are being described, not the Ultimate Reality of the Divine. by the same token, a number of incredibly important Divine Names and interaction/relationships are *female*, such as “E-L ShaDaY”, which comes from the word ShaDaYiM (breasts) and “Ha-RaHaMaN”, which comes the word ReHeM (womb), not to mention the considerable symbology of the Divine Feminine in kabbalah around the SheKhiNaH (Divine Presence) and “Matronit” and the male-female interrelationships actually *within* the G!DHead. one might also mention the idea that the “community of israel” is synonymous with G!D’s “bride” on some level, so that would require one of us to be “male” and the other “female” in that particular situation.

“And then there’s Jesus – no-one could lead themselves to believe he was genderless. Judaism has Moses, Islam has Mohammed – all these prophets are male. How does a person get around that one?”

perhaps by mentioning the seven major jewish prophetesses, sarah, miriam, deborah, hannah, abigail, huldah and esther – (talmudic reference: BT megillah 14a)? according to the great authority rashi, rebecca, rachel and leah should also be included.

a more serious criticism, i believe, is the following:

“If one accepts and follows traditions without question purely on the basis that they are traditions, this leaves the door wide open for all kinds of nasty things. In general, it silences and disables those who disagree with the traditions and would like to do things differently. It’s those ‘harmless’ traditions which can make people feel stifled and like there’s only one right way to do things. At the very least, they discourage creativity, critical thinking and independence.”

this is certainly a position with which we at the spittoon can identify – certainly within judaism (and, i and others would argue, within islam as well) the idea that there is One True Way Of Doing Stuff is a corrosive and oppressive idea not borne out by a truly insightful examination of the texts involved. however, the accompanying analysis is flawed:

“One can usually assess how harmless a tradition is by examining what the penalties are, if any, of not following it. In your example, I would imagine that a Jewish/Muslim pork-eater would face many negative reactions from their community, plus residual religious guilt, and that this is probably the real reason why they ‘like following the tradition’.”

now, this might be a perfectly adequate summary of how the uneducated “feel” about the law in question, in fact, the penalty in halakhah is the indication of exactly how important the principle incurring the penalty is in the first place. in fact, halakhically, the penalty is thirty-nine lashes, a comparatively light penalty compared to breaking shabbat, which is a stoning offence. now, before you get all bent out of shape on how unpleasant it is to get lashed, you’d have to also consider the standard of evidence, which required five further tests before the lashes could be administered:

1. the pork-eating in question would have to be done in front of two kosher witnesses (many, many difficulties in establishing what one of these looks like)
2. the two witnesses would need to have absolutely no discrepancy in their statements.
3. the pork-eater would have to receive a warning from the witnesses that by so doing, he would incur a penalty of lashes.
4. the pork-eater would have to respond that he had understood the warning and the penalty, reiterating precisely what they both were.
5. the eating would then have to occur within 3 seconds of this response.

incidentally, to be binding, the verdict would also have to be handed down by a properly constituted and duly authorised religious court – and there hasn’t been such a court for approximately 1500 years, but considering the re-establishment of such courts is a religious duty, i personally would prefer to rely on the other safeguards. even so, i hope you can see from the standard required that anyone who actually meets it is clearly out to make a point. oh, and, incidentally, if you ran away before the verdict was carried out, you couldn’t be re-arrested. in such a case, the negative feeling from your community is likely to be the only sanction.

another interesting challenge is made here:

“To what extent, for a religious person, is their holy book really their holy book, if they disregard most of its teachings (or haven’t even read it all the way through)?”

for jews, as we were born into a covenantal relationship, we are as subject to it as to the laws of the country we were born into. the same obtains with UK law. presumably amy’s not suggesting that i’m not obliged to follow the regulations of her majesty’s revenue collectors despite the fact that i may never have read them or heard of their provisions? by the same token:

“To align oneself with a movement, an organisation, that one disagrees with at least in part, knowing that in doing so you are giving it power – numbers at least, and in many cases, money too?”

i am not sure how this is different from being a citizen of a country whose policies you may or may not agree with – you’ve still got to pay your taxes.

as part of this discussion, i analysed deuteronomy 22:29 in its context. this provoked a number of further responses including:

“Regarding the Deuteronomy verse (22:29), it says that ’she shall be his wife, because he hath humbled her’ – humbled? That’s rather chilling, no? Is that a mistranslation too?”

not only that, but it is also misrepresenting what the text says, which is ‘AiNah” – “forced”, but not in a *physically* violent way, as in verse 25, more in such a way as to give her no choice but to marry him. i would say that this represents bringing about a marriage by “putting the woman in a compromising position”; if you know pride and prejudice, it’s what wickham does to lydia bennet to get money out of the family; he has to be bribed to marry her. the Torah is trying here to prevent the woman becoming unmarriageable; there is nothing to say that she can’t *then* divorce *him* (after betrothal and before final marriage), thus retaining her autonomy and a hefty divorce payout; it is just that *he* is forever prevented from divorcing *her*, not the other way around. i would understand this verse as a face-saving exercise.

amy then goes on to say:

“Regardless of whether rape occurred or it was ‘just sex’, isn’t it a bit sexist to generally suggest that it’s okay to buy a woman in this way?”

now, i’m not sure you can really project your attitude back to the bronze age as if human values and relationships have always been the same; i mean, that is the same sort of point of view that would reduce shakespeare’s “merchant of venice” to simple antisemitism. the initial audience of the Torah (as opposed to G!D) wouldn’t really understand what you’re getting at here. the thing is, you aren’t “buying a woman”; you’re contracting for procreative services, as it were, which can only be done by ensuring exclusivity on the woman’s part. the woman must enter into the contract without coercion and of her own free will and can exit it at her discretion on virtually any grounds (including bad breath) and is, for the duration of the contracted marriage, entitled to a statutory level of maintenance (and alimony), clothing, housing and sexual satisfaction, breach of which by the husband is, needless to say, grounds for divorce. this quite simply was revolutionary within the context in which the Torah was given; not only in that the woman had to agree, but that she maintained her rights, her property and right of cancellation. in fact, it compares positively to modern civil law in most respects – most people agree that merely falling in love is a rather worse basis for marriage than shared values and clear responsibilities on both sides! both sides contribute assets – the wife’s contribution is *not* a dowry, but her reproductive capabilities, hence:

“(Following your interpretation, it’s a bit like having to pay for something you broke in a shop – fair enough if it’s a vase, but a person? Why does having sex make you a broken person?)”

well, it doesn’t, nor is this implied, although permit me to observe, tongue-in-cheek, that most of us would pay more for new underpants than for second-hand. the statutory levels, in any case, are nominal – in reality, these would in the past have been negotiated, in the case of a woman who had emancipated herself from her father (or previous husband by divorce or widowhood) possibly by the woman herself. and there’s more:

“If God is a supremely knowledgeable being, with ultimate powers, and is perfectly good and moral, why couldn’t he send a clear message – even in the bronze age – that women are people, not property?”

the same reason that G!D also didn’t send the clear message “don’t drive on the wrong side of the road” – it wouldn’t have made sense at the time, only now. the clarity would in fact have been precisely the opposite.

“What stopped him from telling these citizens in no uncertain terms that it’s okay for women to have sex, they don’t have to be virgins until they’re married, and it’s not right to buy and sell them?”

the fact that this wasn’t a student dorm at berkeley, it was bronze age canaan – and if you hopped behind a bush with someone, you’d be liable to end up with your throat slit, or sold into slavery, thus precipitating a blood feud; it wasn’t like there was a police force and cctv; this was the wild fecking west! people took what they could get and, like it or not, if a woman didn’t have protection from a father, guardian or husband, she might be fair game, unless she stayed within the protection of the law. to be honest, this feels somewhat anachronistic reasoning, based on a very different axiomatic substructure, as the following statement identifies:

“I find it quite convenient that you’re explaining away misogyny as mistranslation, and contradictions as just not knowing the ‘right’ context of the verses in question. You seem to be taking it as your a priori assumption that there can’t possibly be any real inconsistency in the texts, there can’t possibly be any real misogyny. Why not? Why can’t there be?”

the answer to this is that if, axiomatically, one believes, as i do, that the Torah is a Divine document, any inconsistency in the texts is there to teach us something and the basis of traditional methodologies is the ability to identify the root cause of the inconsistency in order to illustrate the teaching point concerned. this has certainly been our approach as long as we can remember -and, more to the point, this is documented quite a long way back. secondly, in the conception we have of G!D it would make no more sense for G!D to Be a “misogynist” than it would for G!D to have a “hand”, or to “be angry”; these things are simply expressions of how we experience what we interpret out of the text. we believe that G!D Expects us to behave with respect and compassion to each other, not to systematically disadvantage half the human race. now, obviously, if you have different assumptions, then these might include a priori that any statement in the Torah reflects bronze age sensibility and capability in terms of gender relations, science and critical reasoning and therefore there can’t possibly be any real lessons to be learned from it. on this i suspect i might have to differ from you, seeing as how our culture is based almost entirely on this document and in most respects is generally considered to have produced major leaders in each field who are also committed to some of the same assumptions about the document. this is not to say that they are all going to agree with each other all the time:

“Why is your ‘methodology’ necessarily going to result in a clear, unequivocal message?”

because it is based on a clear set of assumptions and underpinned by a unified philosophical structure – i’m not saying that this necessitates clarity and unequivocable messaging in all cases, because it doesn’t, but in the case of this particular verse, it clearly precludes certain interpretations such as “G!D Is a misogynist” as nonsensical. there are some other pertinent questions that obtain:

“On what do you base your faith in it?”

on the fact that this way of doing things has preserved the sole remaining diaspora culture of the ancient world through several millennia of unremitting and occasionally genocidal hostility. in other words, it works.

“How do you know that the eventual interpretation is right, in any case?”

the principle we test it against is “after the majority shall you incline” (exodus 23:2) but we *also* preserve minority opinions (BT bava metzia 59b) in case eventually they become majority.

“What do you check it against?”

it’s peer-reviewed. all jewish law has been aggressively picked apart, analysed, defended or amended on this basis. that is what the talmud documents.

“Then you say that two contradictory positions can both be the word of the ‘living god’? How is that even possible – how can a creator of the universe not make his mind up?”

of course – but “it is not in heaven” (deuteronomy 30:10), so we are told we have to work it out for ourselves, on the authority of the Torah itself, so the majority opinion came down on one side at that time. G!D may well Have an opinion, but in the famous talmudic debate of the “oven of achnai” (the reference given above) the majority decision was to say “bugger off, G!D, this is a human decision now, You Said so in the Torah”.

“Not be 100% clear about his message? Do you not find it slightly odd that all this interpretation is necessary?”

no, we find it incredibly empowering that we are being treated like grown-ups responsible for our own actions, not children with no sense of right or wrong.

“Why doesn’t God reiterate his message and clear things up? Hasn’t he got the power to do this?”

well, yes, obviously, but during the “oven of achnai” debate, the position of the majority was “we do not make legal decisions on the basis of Divine Voices from Heaven”.

we still haven’t quite got to the bottom of the equality debate here, however:

“When I talk about a sense of equality, I am talking about equality between men and women – e.g. what is it that leads you to know that stoning a woman to death for not being a virgin is wrong? Would you only know that it’s wrong if you’d read all the scriptures? Or would you know that it’s wrong based on your own empathy and reasoning? I would argue the latter, seeing as I know it’s wrong, and I haven’t read all the scriptures or engaged in textual interpretation.”

i would argue that the case that you are basing it on your own “empathy and reasoning” alone is not a strong argument. nobody grows up in a vacuum. you have these attitudes because you developed them, based on your upbringing. i would argue that you *have* been influenced indirectly by them because they have influenced the society you grew up in. i can even point to the bit of Torah that it comes from: “you shall love the stranger [person who is different from yourself] for you were strangers in egypt” (leviticus 19:34) nor am i saying that my own reasoning is inoperative – obviously, i needed to use it to apply the verse to this situation, similarly the sages needed to apply it in order to get the relevant safeguards in place to prevent it happening unless it really, really, really, REALLY applied. if you’re going to do something as drastic as stoning a woman to death for not being a virgin, you’d better be really sure that’s what the text says – and that what the text says applies to this EXACT situation.

“This is what I’m talking about. A religious person reads such a horrendous verse, thinks ‘That can’t be right’ and proceeds to delve more deeply into the scriptures to find some way of justifying it.”

i don’t really understand why this should be so wrong – it is the way the Torah does thought experiments; under what circumstances might such a penalty apply? what might justify it in *practice*? are you sure? are you really, really sure? what principle is being upheld? that’s not the same as “justifying” it – you can’t be “justifying” it if you end up effectively prohibiting it, which was the actual effect – but then again, you wouldn’t know that if you didn’t know the proper context for Torah, which is as the written component of jewish law, not as a copy of “gender relations for dummies”, which is how it is so often abused by literalist protestants and bible-bashers in particular.

“I doubt that a person starts reading scriptures and then concludes ‘Well whaddaya know? Stoning women is immoral!’”

i agree – and so do the sages! although there are more morally complex issues in the Torah than this one.

amy is also good enough to address a criticism i make of her that she is generalising about religious people:

“Sure, not all religious people follow their religion in exactly the same way, but they do believe in a god/gods, and their holy texts do mean something to them. These are the two aspects of religion that I critique in my piece, and they appear to me to be pretty universal among the faithful. The rest is a critique of the arguments used by religious feminists to defend the misogyny in their holy texts, and examples of religiously-inspired misogyny. What is it that I’m generalising about? What is it exactly that you object to?”

well, i suppose what i object to is the implication that religious feminists are “defending misogyny”, because as i have attempted to show, i don’t think the misogyny is there either in intent or in application – except by people who really don’t understand either the text concerned, or who don’t follow an acceptable standard of textual interpretation. i accept that it *could* result in misogyny, because it *has* – but human beings do get things wrong from time to time and Torah is not easy.

anyway, i hope this is not too irrelevant and that there are enough interesting nuggets here for the conversation to continue here; certainly i would encourage people to take a look at the original piece.

in such an environment, it’s extremely helpful to be able to point to people who can stand up and say in no uncertain terms: this isn’t right. excusing it is even worse. as it says in the Mishnah: where there are no men, at least you should try and act like a man. i am encouraged to see at least some orthodox rabbis swimming against the tide of denial although, of course, not that surprised to see the perennial awkward squad-nik and contrarian (and my own much revered teacher) rabbi jeremy rosen, writing in haaretz:

“I am tired of making excuses. Once I would argue that 2,000 years of oppression, hatred and exclusion had taught the Jews to do whatever they needed to survive. Or, I would note that much of Orthodox Jewry nowadays is barely a generation removed from life in an Eastern Europe where the state was an enemy and everyone had to break the rules in order to evade the discriminatory regimes. In Israel, one could put the blame on David Ben-Gurion, for not having separated religion and state, which in effect encouraged the Orthodox to indulge in all the temptations that accompany political power.
 
But as with attempts to rationalize terrorism, you go through the obvious list of justifications – poverty, alienation, discrimination – and then you find perpetrators who have suffered none of the above. Daily, we Orthodox repeat mantras about justice, charity and kindness in our prayers, and the more we seem to spout them, the less many of us seem to pay any attention to translating the words into actions.”

you can read the rest of the article here, but i think it’s worth pointing at this particular point:

“Wherever you have a self-perpetuating oligarchy, its members come to see themselves as above the law. Just as a regime of men usually discriminates against women. This is why the unfair laws of divorce in Judaism have still not been modified to remove the disgrace of male chauvinists who can blackmail their wives over a get. When a majority of rabbis turn a blind eye, claiming they can do nothing, they are really encouraging the process of coercion, providing easy outs to the men while refusing to budge for the women. Add to that the superstition factor – and a tendency to attribute superhuman powers to certain rabbis, so that many then fear crossing them – and you have additional opportunities for corruption.”

i think there’s probably a lesson there that the catholic church has been learning – hard – recently. with that said, i was astounded to see this article in this week’s jc (now it’s been retrieved from pro-palestinian hackers) written by two of the most forward-thinking of the rabbis of the united synagogue in connection with the jfs admissions fiasco:

“What is required, therefore, is work for a change in the law that will put the determination of Jewish identity back where it belongs — in the hands of the Jewish community. Since there is no prospect of a change in the law without broad consensus across the Jewish community in favour of change, this involves all the denominations working together. This, in turn, requires realism and a willingness to compromise on the part of the Orthodox community.”

yes, you heard right: orthodox rabbis realising they have to be realistic, compromise and work with non-orthodox rabbis and proposing détente.

good G!D. i sincerely hope this is the thin end of the wedge – it is genuinely astounding to see something so overtly challenging to the “NO SORRENDOR!!” paisleyist orthodox establishment stated so clearly, succinctly and without ambiguity.

the two rabbis concerned, naftali brawer and michael harris, have long been known as pragmatic, open-minded, individuals. let’s hope it doesn’t stand in the way of their further advancement.

hat/tip: Sam

WASHINGTON–President Barack Obama on Saturday pledged to end a 16-year-old policy banning gay people from serving openly in the nation’s military, in a gesture to a group that provided a major source of support during his campaign.

But the president didn’t set out a timetable for reversing the policy. As a result, his pledge might not be enough to appease some in the gay community who feel that Mr. Obama hasn’t moved quickly enough to address their issues — even as his message could spark criticism from some conservatives and members of the military.

Speaking at a human-rights dinner in the capital, Mr. Obama vowed to end the Clinton-era “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which allows homosexuals to serve in the military, as long as they don’t disclose their sexual orientation or act on it.

The law has long been criticized by gay-rights advocates as a half-measure that doesn’t fully recognize the rights and contributions of gay service-men and women. Mr. Obama has in the past said he would work to overturn the policy.

“We cannot afford to discharge people from our ranks with critical skills,” he told a cheering crowd of about 3,000 at the black-tie event sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign, a gay civil-rights group.

Mr. Obama also appealed to Congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which limits how state and federal bodies can recognize domestic partnerships in providing government benefits. He also vowed to press for legislation that would extend health and other employment benefits to domestic partners of workers. But he again didn’t provide a timetable.

Mr. Obama’s statements are likely to be welcomed by many liberal Democrats, although some activists criticized his failure to provide more concrete details.

Kevin Nix, spokesman for Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which represents gay and lesbian members of the military, said the president did little more than repeat his campaign pledge on the issue.  “He missed an opportunity tonight” to set a timetable, Mr. Nix said. “We’d like a bill in Congress in 2010.”

Mr. Obama’s comments could also spark criticism from conservatives and some supporters who say the administration must set priorities, as the nation grapples with continued high unemployment, a recession, and two wars.

Any attempt to change government policy concerning gay people could further divide an already polarized Congress. The administration needs lawmakers’ cooperation to pass legislation to overhaul the nation’s health-care system, a top priority for Mr. Obama. The administration is also trying to secure passage of new financial-industry regulations and could turn to Congress to request more troops in Afghanistan.

Congress passed the law popularly known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in 1993. Subsequent efforts by then-President Bill Clinton to repeal it ran into opposition from the military and Congress, which after 1994, was controlled by Republicans.

It’s far from clear when, or if, Mr. Obama’s pledge would have any practical impact on the armed forces. Besides that the president didn’t give a timeline for his pledge, eliminating the “don’t ask, don’t tell” rule would also require congressional action. Lawmakers may be unwilling to take up such a politically contentious issue while they tackle health-care legislation and other matters.

Advocates of repealing the rule point to polling data showing that service personnel have become far more accepting of homosexuality, suggesting that such a move could be less disruptive today than it would have been in the 1990s. At least 13,500 personnel have been discharged since 1994 over their sexual orientation, according to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a nonprofit group working to repeal the ban.

A 2006 Zogby poll found that three-quarters of the military personnel surveyed said they were comfortable around gays and lesbians, while 78% said they would join the military even if gays were allowed to serve openly. Just under 25% of the respondents said they knew someone in their own unit who was gay.

Supporters of maintaining the regulation point to other polls which show more discomfort towards homosexuality within military ranks. A Military Times poll late last year found that 58% of the respondents opposed repealing the ban. Even within the Military Times poll, however, 71% of the respondents said they would continue to serve if the policy were repealed.

Mr. Obama, who spokes for about 25 minutes, told the crowd that he came to the gay community with a simple message: “I’m here with you in that fight….My commitment to you is unwavering.”

Introducing Mr. Obama, Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese told the crowd, “We have never had a stronger ally in the White House. Never.”

Richard Socarides, who had advised the Clinton administration on gay and lesbian policy, told the Associated Press that Mr. Obama delivered “a strong speech in tone, although only vaguely reassuring in content.”

“The president and Nobel winner came and paid his respects, but tomorrow many will ask: What’s his plan, what’s his timetable,” Mr. Socarides said.

Other special interest groups that contributed to, and campaigned for, Mr. Obama, such as unions and Latino voters, have begun to question when he will address issues important to their members, such as legislation to facilitate union organizing at the workplace and an overhaul of immigration law.

Mr. Obama acknowledged some in the crowd believe that he hasn’t done enough so far to address issues facing the gay community. But he said, “Do not doubt the direction we are headed and the destination we will reach.”

“We have made progress and we will make more,” Mr. Obama said.

The president also referenced the House’s move this week to widen hate-crimes legislation and make it a federal crime to assault people based on their sexual orientation.

He offered a tribute to Matthew Shepard, a gay man who was tortured and killed 11 years ago in Wyoming because of his sexual orientation, igniting a nation-wide drive for expanded hate-crimes legislation. Mr. Shepard’s parents, Judy and Dennis, were on hand to accept the first Edward M. Kennedy National Leadership Award, presented by Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D., R.I.).

Mr. Obama said the administration was also addressing the continuing problem of HIV/AIDS. Guests at the $250-a-plate dinner included musical actor Gavin Creel, singer Lady Gaga and cast members of the television show Glee.

The first is Wajeha al-Huwaider from Dhahran, Saudi Arabia:

The single mother of two rails against a system she says treats women as emotionally and intellectually handicapped.

“If I wanted to get married, I would have to get the permission of my son,” she says.

She is 45; her son, 17.

Saudi women like her are pushing back their confinement — entering schools, getting jobs, starting businesses, speaking out.

Yet laws and social norms make it extremely difficult. Women still require a mehram — a male guardian’s permission — to travel, rent an apartment or attend college, to list a few of the restrictions.

In August, Al-Huwaider held a one-woman demonstration, walking on the Saudi side of the causeway with a placard proclaiming, “Give Women Their Rights!”

She was arrested within 20 minutes.

Detained for seven hours, she had to wait for a mutawa — a religious police officer from the state Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice. Then she had to answer in writing why she protested and who was behind it. She was freed only after a male guardian signed for her.

The second is Lubna Ahmed al-Hussein, from Khartoum in Sudan:

Lubna Ahmed al-Hussein, who says she is facing 40 lashes, said she and 12 other women wearing trousers were arrested in a restaurant in the capital, Khartoum.

She told the BBC several of the women had pleaded guilty to the charges and had 10 lashes immediately.

As I’ve said before, whenever Islamists champion the religious compulsion of women to wear the burqa on the principles of liberalism (the right to choose what you want to wear), I wonder whether their intention is to only argue for the right to wear the burqa but not the right to elect not to wear it. In other words, do they intend to uphold the principle universally?

It is not enough to fend off any criticism of the enforcement of the burqa, as Bunglawala does, with these weasel words:

No Muslim, male or female, could justify the ‘imposing’ of purdah on any other. The form of veiling adopted by a Muslim woman, or not, should always be result of a decision entered into without coercion or sanction. ‘There is no compulsion in religion’, the Qur’an says as Muslims well know.

Wearing the burqa or the niqab and the general purdah of women as a social norm is imposed by constitutional law in Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Afghanistan. This is to say nothing of muslim communities where the burqa is informally imposed such as Pakistan, Malaysia and, increasingly, Bangladesh. When was the last time we saw Bunglawala and friends challenge the enforcement of the burqa with the use the maxim of “no compulsion” to campaign for the rights of the millions of women like Wajeha al-Huwaider and Lubna Ahmed al-Hussein?

in a Western media effort to promote irresponsible reporting in Iran.

The whole thing started after Maziar gave Channel 4 News footage of Basiji members opening fire on a crowd of protestors. The Basiji responded by arresting Maziar who has been detaind since June 21. Then, as if right on cue, we have this from Iran’s state sponsored broadcaster Press TV:

…Bahari explained the nature of some of his activities in Iran over the past years and the role that Western media had played in the events, which unfolded in the country.

[...]

“Western media are an inseparable part of the capitalist machine of Western liberal democracies. A Western journalist who comes to Iran… is mainly concerned with the interests of the West, which are defined in relation to each issue at every period of time,” he said.

The Newsweek reporter said international press set the scenes for velvet revolutions in various countries, adding that the gentle overthrow of a government could not be achieved without their critical role.

Bahari specifically highlighted the role of the BBC, CNN, Euronews, The New York Times and Newsweek.

“On the brink of every velvet revolution Western media try to portray the ruling administration as the traditional, bigoted, inefficient and undemocratic side while introducing the Western-inclined trend as a modern, efficient, democratic, and reformist movement that has support among the people,” he said.

Bahar said that in such cases, several months prior to the vote foreign news outlets begin efforts to persuade the public that the election will be rigged and that a coup is just around the corner.

He added that these media outlets give full coverage to illegal protests with the belief that broadcasting such events will help enlarge their scale.

How can anyone continue doubting the bias of Press TV which spews this rubbish at the behest of its clerical-fascist backers? What’s worse is that they now broadcast to UK residents on Sky from their offices in West London.

Of course, we all knew long before the rigged elections that Press TV was little more than an organ for the Iranian regime but its slavish regurgitation of Tehran’s nonsense in recent weeks has reached new heights.

Stand up, Nick Ferrari. Until recently he presented a show on Press TV but resigned earlier this week in protest at its coverage of events in Iran. Press TV needs big-name presenters to give it an aura of respectability, making what Nick Ferrari did hugely courageous. This will damage Press TV – but only if other big names follow too. Rumour has it that Andrew Gilligan will shortly be resigning. But I wonder if those other defenders of ‘truth, justice and the oppressed’ like Yvonne Ridley and George Galloway will also resign? I’m not holding my breath.

Similarly, Iain Dale has announced he won’t be going back on Press TV as a pundit, and neither will the staff from his ‘Total Politics’ publication. For what is worth, I’ve been a guest on Press TV in the past too – and I won’t be returning either.

Newsnight covered this last night and invited the head of Press TV to defend himself. He was up against Martin Bright, the former political editor of the New Statesman:

Like a pathetic, loyalist apparatchik, Mathew Richardson just sits there coldly spouting the party line. Here’s an example of what Richardson calls his station’s “impartial” reporting of events. After the courageous Dr Arash Hejazi revealed what happened when Basiji members shot Neda Sultan, Press TV came out with this gem:

Esmaeil Ahmadi-Moqadam, commander of the Iranian Police, said Wednesday that the unfortunate incident –which has been hyped and dramatized by Western media outlets [my emphasis]–, was in fact a ‘premeditated act of murder’.

The Iranian police chief said Arash Hejazi, a doctor who claims [my emphasis] he tried to save Neda’s life in her final moments, has fanned the flames of the western media hype.

Ahmadi-Moqadam said the Iranian Intelligence Ministry is making every effort to discover the whereabouts of Hejazi. “He has fled the country and is working against the Iranian government abroad.”

Media outlets in the West have blamed Neda’s death on Iranian security forces, but new revelations have found that she was murdered by a small caliber pistol–a weapon that is not used by Iranian security forces.

We could spend weeks dissecting that report above. We could dedicate a whole new blog to it, but I think it speaks for itself and you get my drift.

The fact that Press TV is not under investigation by Ofcom baffles me. How can such a blatant propaganda organ, funded by a regime that is deeply hostile to the United Kingdom, be allowed to broadcast here?

But while it does remain on the airwaves we can all follow in Nick Ferrari’s footsteps and boycott Propaganda TV.

We have had the normal reaction on the left to condemn him, the reaction from the right in the UK to call for a ban and even claim Muslims support them and this has caused a little stir amongst Islamists.

iEngage for example originally followed the 1st electronic print of the Express article stating that Ghaffar Hussain from the Quilliam Foundation had stated that the Burka/Burqa was a cultural practice and not sanctioned in the Quran, but then went further and mistakenly claimed that he supported a ban. This has subsequently been “corrected”, by both the Express and iEngage.

A number of ancilliary discussions have persisted some of which are quite interesting, hypocritical and opportunistic.

When speaking of the “Burqa” or Jilbab or veil or in fact niqab (face-mask) we should be clear that there is no explicit injunction requesting Muslim women to wear a veil but rather there are verses which are interpreted as such.

The verse which states: “Those who harass believing men and believing women undeservedly, bear (on themselves) a calumny and a grievous sin. O Prophet! Enjoin your wives, your daughters, and the wives of true believers that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad) That is most convenient, that they may be distinguished and not be harassed. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” is interpreted traditionally to mean cover everything except, well for some everything!

Commentators though have explained that this does not include the face and hands and Imam Tabari (the first ever author of an exegesis of the Quran) in his commentary of the verse: “they show not their charms except that which is apparent” states that there is almost consensus on the fact that covering the face and hands is not a part of a woman’s Awra or parts of the body that must be covered. He states in his commentary, that what is correct is “that there is a consensus that women should uncover their face and hands in the prayer and therefore they are not obliged to cover the face and the hands, and this is the correct meaning of the words ‘except what is apparent from her” (in the verse from Surah al-Nur, Tafsir al-Tabari volume 5 page 419 Muass’sas al-Rayan edition).

In fact before poor Ghaffar Hussain made now infamous statement about the cultural nature of the Burqa/Jilbab, scholars had done so. Many have explained that the usage of the word ‘veil’ was more to do with Arab custom, and not a Quranic injunction nor any kind of prescription from God that they must be veiled.

Imam Muhammad Tahir ibn Ashur in his book Maqasid al-Sharia al-Islamiya in the chapter about the universal nature of the Shariah, states: “This is a legislation that took into consideration an Arab tradition, and therefore does not apply to women who do not wear that stykle of dress” (page 140 of Ibn Ashur: Treatise on Maqasid al-Shari’ah translated by M T el-Mesawi). [Ibn Ashur also states that there is a view which does not oblige the hijab at all i.e. covering the hair and feet and hands are not religious duties etc in his Quran exegesis al-Tahrir wal-Tanwir, volume 8 page 207).

But hold on! All this is pointless, why am I speaking about Quranic injunctions and so forth when according to iEngage this is nothing to do with a religious edict but a “liberal edict”(?!?).

Surely they are defending the right to practice what they see as their religion but within the framework of liberal democracy? Which would mean that if France decided according to their legislature to ban the face-veil/burqa/burka in public life by a democratic mandate they would of course agree with this? As then there would a be a liberal democratic mandate?

Or is it that they feel that the best way to argue their case in a liberal democracy is to seek to protect the veil through appealing to a common value of individual freedom and right to religious expression and personal liberty?

Well I guess they would have to, as traditionally Muslim scholars who have held that women should cover their face have always made the exception of social transactions i.e. if they are involved with say, speaking to their local MP, teaching or even learning, or just engaging in a financial transaction they should remove the face veil! (See writings of scholars like Zamakhshari and Suyuti for this).

So it is not so un-Islamic to prevent the veil in public life, as it is moreso contradicting liberal principles which allow individuals to dress as they please (a point of view I agree with) whilst maintaining that they should whenever public inquiry requires, remove it for purposes of identification, security, financial and other social transactions that require communication e.g. teaching etc.(Remember the case with the veiled school teacher?)

In fact, as a part of respecting the culture in the West those that have obliged the face covering state that it does not have to be covered from two of the main schools of religious rite, hanafi and shafi schools (it is well known the maliki schools don’t oblige it, and hanbali, Albani and Tuwayjuri have had quite some differences on it)

But hold on, when Jack Straw even suggested this, there was outcry! How unreasonable he was being!

Hizb ut-Tahrir (along with others) put out a statement saying that this was:

1. Divisive – the group has a chapter entitled why Hijab is not obligatory in one of its books!

2. They understand that it is a barrier to communication, but a minor one! In the book Social System in Islam which is a Party Policy book they explain that it is a barrier to social interaction and backward!

3. They say they recognize the differences,but in their policy book they state that it is not based on the Quran or any Islamic evidence!

4. They quote from scholars stating that the veil should be removed in public life in front of judges, when trading or to be recognized etc. So why capitalize on this debate? The irony is that they state not to capitalize on this discussion now (to whom and how?).

So if they agreed with Jack Straw’s point of view, and would not advocate it, neither fo they believe there is anything Islamic about it nor that it is healthy for society? Why the campaign?

Blatant Islamist politicization of social and religious issues for their own ideological Islamist anti-Western agenda!

The debate I am sure will continue but hopefully without wild accusations of Islamophobia and meaningful discussion about where we draw the lines to religious. But always expect the rants from the likes of Islamist political groups hijacking the discussion for political ends, and shallow “Think-Tanks” such as iEngage, for their petty squabbles…

1. There is such a thing as The Sharia!

This is simply not true. Muslim scholars do not have a single detailed rule of Sharia that they agree upon. They agree on broad principles which most humans do, but in general they do not agree on a single body of law which they call Sharia. They have loads of different interpretations on most aspects of their religious code – if not all. To give an example let’s take the rulings of alcohol and wine. Is wine or alcohol forbidden? If it is both or either, is there a punishment? If so, what is the punishment? If not then it is up to the authorities to criminalize or not – a process called Tazir. The fact is there is no consensus on such issues.

So Islamists are not imposing Sharia in as much as calling for a sectarian state such as Shia Islamist Iran, or Wahabist Saudi Arabia or Taliban-twisted interpretations of Deobandism in Afghanistan, etc.

2. Are differences tolerated? What kind of differences should be tolerated in “Islamic” interpretation/s of Sharia? Well according to Ibn Taymia a medieval theologian, and a favourite of Jihadists and Islamists, as long as the person is sincere in his ijtihad (efforts to find the “truth” or Gods judgment), whether it is to do with fundamentals (Usul) or detailed questions about secondary issues (furoo – branches) or matters which are to do with beliefs or rituals,  it is all tolerated. This is the case  as the companions of the Prophet and the first generation of Muslims all differed with each other on all issues including basic beliefs. He answers the question: what if some consider certain things definitive/clear cut or speculative? He says this is a matter of opinion which people differed over! Ibn Taymiya in his book al-Fatawa al-Kubra, Vol. 20, p.256. (See Shawkani‘s Irshad ul-Fuhul Dar ul-Kutub ul-Ilmiya 1995 edition Beirut-Lebanon page 385).

3. The ruler should not impose his opinion of the Sharia – in fact according to Ibn Taymia this is HARAM! Forbidden! Ibn Taymia, like John Locke, says that authorities are not allowed to enforce one religious opinion tradition i.e. Sharia rules over the another. Rather they should be free to follow their own religious conviction, and rulers rule in the temporal i.e. secular sphere. (See this Islamist blog, for the details and an example of Ibn Taymia’s fatwa stating this!)

The main argument against imposing the Sharia normally came from the propounders of Fiqh (interpretations of Sharia) who believed that imposing it on society by a political authority would cause trouble and sectarian strife (this is way before they tried it in Iran and Sudan!).

When Imam Malik the founder of the second sunni school of Islamic Fiqh was given an opportunity to impose his interpretations across the Muslim empire, he replied:

“Do not do so! For people have already heard different positions, heard ahadith and related narrations. Every group have taken whatever came to them and put it into practice, conforming to it though others differed. To take them away from what they have been professing will cause a disaster! Therefore, leave people with whatever school they follow and whatever the people of each country choose for themselves”. (See here for full reference.)

I  guess imposing Sharia is not quite what medieval Sharia expounders quite had in mind.

Many Islamic theologians/scholars do in fact consider interest an aspect of usury, though many don’t (see here for a full discussion of all of the Islamic scholars who permitted interest and did not see it as Riba). Assuming many did forbid interest as Riba, it does not necessarilly mean that is the complete picture.

Traditionally theologians have developed elaborate means of ensuring that effective financial transactions are not prevented through the blanket application of Islamic rules of Fiqh (human interpretations of Sharia divine law) to situations without recourse to strategies where necessary.

These strategies are known as Hiyal which are means of avoiding unintended consequnces to prohibitions. For example, one which is given in medieval writings, is losing investors when they are afraid to invest funds with people who have ideas and business sense but no capital, when they fear losing their monies. Sound familiar? Well there have been ways of doing so since the early development of Islamic Fiqh.

Below is one found in the writings of Imam Muhammad bin Hasan al-Shaybani, a leading scholar and student of Imam Abu Hanifah (the founder of the 1st Sunni school of Fiqh) as the view of the three Hanafi Imams, Abu Hanifa, Abu Yusuf and Muhammad bin Hasan:

“What if someone wishes to give his capital to another as a form of capital investment where the other is the active partner (and he silent) but he wants the active partner to be liable for it – what is the Heela (permitted strategy) for this?”

He (Shayabani) replied: “The capitalist should give his monies with the exception of one dirham (let’s say a pound!) to the active partner as a loan. He should then form a partnership with him with the dirham (pound) along with the loaned money on condition that they work with the entire capital sum, and share whatever they are gifted by God equally or whatever ratio he so wishes. This is permitted.” Kitab al-Makharij fi al-Hiyal  [Edited by J Schacht. Leipzig edition 1930] pp76-78

(He also gives a more elaborate version to secure all monies if required involving three stages of contracts of loans, partnerships and not for profit agencies.)

It would appear then that though there are scholars that forbid interest and venture capitalism and returns on “loans”, they also provide ways around this. The problem with “Capitalism” and interest based banking seems more ideologically and politically driven, than based upon interpretations of Islamic rules and principles (as traditionally Muslims would tolerate differences of practice and opinion amongst themselves and not get revolutionary about it). It is not just the early companions  of the prophet like Ibn Abbas, later scholars and also recent Muftis like the famous Maliki Illi’yish (he did not consider Fiat money as being subject to rules of Riba), present day jurists and traditional authorities have explained this also. Those that did forbid interest and so forth have developed means of allowing most financial transactions within sharia frames. (It seems capitalism and interest based banking is not so un-Islamic after all)

There are certainly excesses and exploitation that have and do take place within existing financial institutions, in the developed and the “3rd world” dealings with it which people of conscience should unite against, but these should be separated from Islamist ideological rantings. If only the left new…