Good news, the Saudis are hosting a meeting of a human rights commission.

No really. They are. Why are you laughing?

It’s the OIC Independent Permanent Human Rights Commission, the OIC being the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. That’s the outfit that issued its own special “declaration of human rights” that added to every right the stipulation “as long as this complies with Islam” thus making nonsense of the whole idea. The meeting is in Jeddah, as is only right, because you can’t get much more Islamic than that, unless you hold it in Mecca, but then you might get trampled by people doing the haj.

The Fourth Session of the OIC Independent Permanent Human Rights Commission (IPHRC) will be held from 02 to 06 February 2014 in Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The inaugural session will be held in the afternoon of 02 February 2014, which will be addressed by the Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation H.E Mr. Iyad Ameen Madani and Chairman of the OIC IPHRC Ambassador Muhammad Kawu Ibrahim. The meeting will be attended by all OIC Member and Observer States as well as Senior officials of the OIC General Secretariat and media. 

In the week long Session, the Commission is expected to comprehensively discuss all issues on its agenda, including the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights in OIC Member States. During the Session, the four working groups on Palestine; Islamophobia and Muslim minorities; Right to development; and Rights of Women and Children will also have detailed discussions on related aspects of their mandates.

The meeting is also expected to dwell on how the OIC IPHRC can network with Member States, international and regional organizations, national human rights institutions, and civil society for collectively promoting the universal human rights framework.

The Commission is the principal organ of the OIC in the domain of human rights. It consists of 18 Members, who serve in their personal capacity in supporting Member States for the promotion and protection of human rights for all in an independent manner, in accordance with the OIC Charter and its Statute.

In Saudi Arabia. That pillar of human rights.

No, this is not from the Onion.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

From Gnu Atheism on Facebook:

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Via Muslim & Exmuslim Women for Secularism on Facebook

Hell yes, because women are exactly comparable to food that can be contaminated if it’s not wrapped. (But then why is that foodwoman in the photo letting her face and hands be contaminated? Gross!!)

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Originally a comment on Alex Aan is out of prison.

Christians are helping Alex Aan because Christians in Malaysia and Indonesia are increasingly aware that they are in the cross sights of Islam. Islam as defined by the majority of muslims who practise it, the laws which prop up its status as state religion affirming its supremacism over all other faiths and the political and civic figures who step out as the defenders of the religion of ”peace”. In Malaysia there is constant brainwashing and incitement of muslims at the Friday sermons (the official one delivered by a government department to all mosques in the country) and the results are frightening. Polls of ordinary malaysian muslims’ views on recent issues point to the overwhelming majority – 80% or more – taking a very hardline stance.

You want a taste of how Islam is practiced in this part of the world, you read this from the Malay Mail Online:

KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 31 — Christians and Jews are responsible for turning Muslims against each other and tricking them into losing their rights, the Malaysian Islamic Development Department (Jakim) said in its Friday sermon today.

Singling out Christians and Jews as the “enemies of Islam”, Jakim claimed that Muslims in Malaysia will always be under siege as long as this threat is not addressed.

According to the sermon, Muslims here were being tricked into destroying the “walls” that have long protected their “sovereignty”.

“Muslims will definitely face attacks and our enemies will want to destroy Islam in whatever way possible,” it said.

The sermon claimed that some Muslims were working together with the Christians and the Jews, and that this would serve to expedite the downfall of Islam in Malaysia.

“This extreme action only destroys the faith of Muslims in an effort to undermine the sovereignty of the Muslim community,” it said.

The sermon added that Muslims in the country should cast aside petty differences and unite as it was their only protection against a bigger common threat.

“Take a deep breath and look at what is going on. Isn’t Islam always being challenged? Aren’t the dignity of Muslims always being insulted? Aren’t our Muslim leaders being belittled by the enemies of Islam?

“Therefore what is our cause and what role have we played? Or are we just spectators?” Jakim added.

Today’s Friday sermon echoes recent conspiracy claims made by Muslim groups such as Ikatan Muslimin Malaysia (Isma).

Isma recently alleged that Muslims in Malaysia face real conspiracies coming from Christians and “chauvinists”.

The group had slammed Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim for accusing political rivals Umno of falsely perpetuating the idea that Islam was under siege, saying the opposition leader is turning a blind eyes towards continued allegations of attempts to subvert Islam’s position in Malaysia.

“Muslims are facing threats from evangelist Christians and chauvinists who are becoming more aggressive and rude by insulting the faith, practices and tradition of Muslims,” Isma president Abdullah Zaik Abd Rahman had said.

“Nobody can deny that the agenda of liberalism, religious pluralism, total equality and Christianisation were brought to this country through various approaches through proxies and certain networks linked to international Jews, Freemasons and evangelist Christians.”

Isma also accused Anwar of using the ongoing tussle over “Allah” between Christians and Muslims to depict himself as a “true statesman”, and disregarding the concerns of the latter religious community by supporting opposing claims to the Arabic word for God.

Anwar has called for a bipartisan dialogue today between the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) and opposition Pakatan Rakyat (PR) coalitions to solve the “Allah” dispute he argued is derailing Malaysia from its economic goals.

Following that, Prime Minister Datuk Najib Razak said on Monday that he will bring Anwar’s idea of a “national consensus” to the Cabinet.

Malaysia is currently grappling with an intractable religious conflict between Muslims and Christians over “Allah”, the Arabic word for God, which culminated in two Molotov cocktails being thrown at a church in Penang on Monday, just as how houses of worship were attacked in 2010 over the same issue.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Turn the other cheek eh?

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Another good (meaning: reasonable) piece on The Veiling of Jesus and Mo, by Janice Turner in the Times. It’s paywalled, but it’s good to know it’s there anyway.

It’s about Newsnight’s terrible and ridiculous decision to hide the Mo of Jesus and Mo behind a black egg. Turner notes the absurdity of hiding the very subject of the segment. She acknowledges the risks involved in possibly pissing off “people who might kill us.” But.

Mr Nawaz’s frustration is understandable. In banning the image, the BBC cast him as the faux-Muslim, his opponents as the rational, majority voice that must be heeded.

And what, I would love to be able to ask a senior BBC executive, does that do to British Muslims in general? It casts them as unreasonable and authoritarian – not the angry few, but all of them. That’s the real “Islamophobia,” if you ask me.

How can moderate Muslims be expected to speak out, if they are cast as apostates by national TV? Those who have not yet made up their minds will see angry offence as the default position.

Right? Right? Wouldn’t it be nice if the BBC would grok that? Never mind us, never mind the pesky atheists and satirists and arguers; consider what you are doing to what you always call “the Muslim community,” BBC boffins. Think long-term. Think big picture. It may seem easiest or safest now to hide Mo behind a black egg, but think of the consequences over time. Use your loaf.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

More from the “danger to community cohesion” crowd at Plymouth University. They had their demonstration against Usama Hasan Wednesday evening, and the Facebook page for that demo is full of poisonous commentary. It does a good job of illustrating why people like Maajid Nawaz and Usama Hasan (and Tehmina Kazi and Yasmin Alibhai-Brown and Irshad Manji and Tarek Fatah and Taj Hargey etc etc) are so desperately needed.

Top item on the page at the moment:

         Hayley Kemp

This is the kind of thing I would expect to see on an EDL twitter account – disgusting & offensive. Dr Usama Hasan (QF speaker on 29th) retweets trivialisation of domestic violence:
https://twitter.com/drusamahasan/status/421834533580075008

Tehmina is commenting on that thread, trying to persuade Hayley Kemp to grasp that the cartoon is not in the least trivializing domestic violence, it’s protesting it via a bitter joke. It’s a pretty basic distinction. Also on that thread is…Yusuf Chambers of IERA. Some of his wisdom:

Yusuf Chambers Hayley and I have discussed QF and their team and come to the conclusion that they counter peaceful coexistance and community cohesion. Our dear Bro usama has moved his position from a moderate Muslim to a person that works against the middle ground and everyone in the Muslim community knows this very well. He has clearly left off following Normative Islam and we pray he will return to the correct path soon and join us in condemning violence against women and hate against Muslims that hold a different view to his. Thank you for your contribution Tehmina.

“He has clearly left off following Normative Islam” – says it all, dunnit.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

The Jakarta Post reports:

Alexander Aan, who was sentenced to two-and-a-half years in prison on June 15, 2012 under the Blasphemy Law for publicly declaring himself an atheist on Facebook, was released from prison on Jan. 27.

Aan, a 30-year-old former civil servant, posted statements and pictures on the social networking site stating that he was a member of the Minang atheist Facebook group, which some considered insulting to Islam and Prophet Muhammad. 

On Jan. 20, 2012, Aan was charged under Article 28(2) of the Electronic Information and Transaction Law for disseminating information aimed at inciting religious hostility and Criminal Code articles 156a(a) and 156a(b) for blasphemy and for encouraging others to embrace atheism.

Besides being sentenced to prison, Aan was also fined Rp 100 million rupiah (US$8,190).

What’s there to say? It’s ridiculous. There shouldn’t be laws against “disseminating information aimed at inciting religious hostility” – at least not when mere atheism is interpreted as incitement to religious hostility – not when not being something is interpreted as incitement to hostility toward people who are the something that you are not.* Theism shouldn’t be helped to protect its monopoly by laws that criminalize the refusal to be religious.* Theism’s groundless beliefs shouldn’t be propped up by laws that forbid people to say those beliefs are groundless.*

There should be no articles in any criminal code that forbid encouraging others to embrace atheism.*

*Cf the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Mo and Mo – a spinoff of and tribute to the great and wise Jesus and Mo.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Doctors in Sweden and Denmark have recommended a ban on non-medical circumcision. Unfortunately they’re putting the age of consent at 12, which seems obviously too young, since minors are just that – they’re subject to their parents.

The recommendation is contained in a resolution approved by majority members of the Sweden Medical Association which covers about 85 per cent of doctors in Sweden.

Similarly, the Danish College of General Practitioners, which has 3,000 members, issued a statement that ritual circumcision of male children is equal to abuse and mutilation. About 87 per cent of Danish GPs favored the ban on non-medical circumcision.

…

Even prior to the recommendation of the two medical groups, the Child Rights International Network in a joint statement with the Nordic Ombudsmen for children and pediatric experts in September 2013 opined that circumcision without medical indication is in conflict with Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The article gives the child the right to express his or her views in all matters concerning him or her.

The statement also cited Article 24, point 3, which mandates protection of children against traditional practices that could be bad for their health.

It seems to be only a recommendation though, even though the headline says it’s a ban.

But there are those who view the recommendations as a mirror of anti-Semitism and anti-immigrant outlook in Nordic nations.

Quoting Erik Ullenhag, the Swedish minister for integration, who said that current regulations would not be altered despite the recommendation, pointed out, “I have never met any adult man who experienced circumcision as an assault … The procedure is not very intensive and parents have the right to raise their children according to their faith and tradition.”

I wish people wouldn’t say things like that. I don’t think parents do have the the right to cut bits of their children off because that’s “according to their faith and tradition.” I think such rights should be limited to “within reason” and that genital mutilation isn’t within reason.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Nick Clegg has said again that Maajid Nawaz will not be dropped as a candidate, which is good. But in saying that he also said a lot of “I would never do that” bullshit, in other words basically agreeing that Maajid was a naughty boy. Not so good.

…the Lib Dem leader said: “He is not going to be dropped as a Liberal Democrat candidate. He has the right – as any Muslim, non-Muslim or anyone of any faith or none in this country has – to say things even if that causes offence to other people.

“It so happens that what he did does cause real offence to many, many Muslims in this country. All I would say is that we have to make sure that that debate, sensitive though it is, is conducted in a respectful way in moderate terms.

“I would not have tweeted that thing, clearly. I will defend anyone’s right to deploy the freedom of expression in this country. I’m not going to start censoring people in a free society.”

But you are going to start reproaching and tut tutting them, over something there should be zero qualms about from anyone. Don’t.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

And guess who’s on it, proudly modeling their Jesus and Mo T shirts?

Also Gita, and Nick. An excellent shortlist!

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Originally a comment by Gordon Willis on A right for all children, as mentioned in Islam.

It’s the problem with ideologists, whether they’re religious or secular, and it’s the same problem with rigid moralists, because they too are ideologists. They really believe that everyone has to be identical, that there is only one correct pattern for a human being, and everyone is required conform to it, by god, social realism or proper principles. Diversity is sin: that is, the existence of sin is proved by the fact that not everyone is the same, and some are so different as to be frighteningly incomprehensible to the simplistic mind.

Of course, they talk blissfully about individuality as a marvellous gift of god or a wonderful fact of nature, but when outside their fuzzy imaginations they really don’t like the actuality, oh, not at all! It is then that they talk disapprovingly about mere facts of nature, like the moralists they ultimately are. They point to wicked things done by others, and are unable to see that their own acts are also wicked, because what is condemned as badness in them by others is true adherence to sacred or politically correct or moral precepts in their own minds. And when I say “wicked”, I really do mean it, for all wickedness is at root the belief that I am absolutely justified or that what I want takes precedence over any consideration of others, or simply that others (women)* do not really matter. I am convinced that wickedness is about such things: it is simply me rather than you, my (conception of) god rather than you or yours, my ownership or security rather than yours. It is ultimately selfishness, even when it appears as political or religious expediency.

Morally stupid, narrow, bigoted, arrogant, self-preferential and cowardly, all in one miserable bunch of powerful and power-seeking fools. And they are all men! It’s all a man’s imposition of his will upon the rest of the world, and especially upon women, who most of all have to be kept in their places (otherwise hell would break loose, wouldn’t it?) After all, we know what happened in the Garden of Eden, don’t we? Man is shamefully tempted by vile Woman who listens to dirt-eating talking snakes instead of doing what she is told by the gardener whose enjoyment of the cool of the day is totally ruined for ever and ever and becomes eternally most cross.

Perhaps imposing the fear of hell has been too successful: even the moralists secretly believe it — they just don’t know they do (there are countless very fiery demonic Wedges which have fine but exceedingly sharp ends). Perhaps it is time to consider the conservative mind as a real cause of compassionate concern. These people need to be helped. They must certainly be stopped from trying to run everything, seeing as their incompetence is killing everyone else. But they can’t help themselves — it’s how they are, or how they were brought up (or it’s how we all are, beyond a certain point which is closer to some than to others). I don’t want them to lose their rights and be sectioned, but why are they allowed to go on destroying our lives? Why shouldn’t they learn to be reasonable? How many hangings from cranes, stonings, suicide bombers, kamikaze pilots, concentration camps and lampshades do we need?

* or women, Jews, muslims, christians, women, slaves, women, children, the working class; or competitors, women, heretics, other men, philosophers, scientists, women…

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

The Federal National Council in Abu Dhabi passed a law last week that mothers have to breastfeed their babies up to the age of two. Yes a law, that they have to.

Salem Al Ameri (Abu Dhabi) insisted that breastfeeding was a right for all children, as mentioned in Islam.

Dr Amal Al Qubaisi (Abu Dhabi) said that because labour laws already allow working women to take time to breastfeed, adding the requirement to the legislation showed consistency.

The clause was added to the law once it was passed to the council’s health, labour and social affairs committee for review.

Sultan Al Sammahi (Fujairah), a member of the committee, said it was the right of all children to be breast fed up to the age of 2.

But what about the rights of the woman to decide for herself?

The what? The who?

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)