Muslims Offer themselves as Human Shields in solidarity with Christians

Here is a gratifying and heart-warming story of human solidarity to start the new year.

In the wake of the recent bombings by Islamic extremists targeted at Coptic Christian Churches in Egypt, a group of Egyptian Muslims offered themselves as human shields, risking life and limb, in solidarity with their beleaguered Coptic Christian countrymen and women. It is a reminder that the things that bind us together in common humanity are stronger and more enduring than the things that tear us apart.

Here is the story as reported by several media outlets:

Egypt’s majority Muslim population stuck to its word Thursday night. What had been a promise of solidarity to the weary Coptic community, was honoured, when thousands of Muslims showed up at Coptic Christmas eve mass services in churches around the country and at candlelight vigils held outside.

From the well-known to the unknown, Muslims had offered their bodies as “human shields” for last night’s mass, making a pledge to collectively fight the threat of Islamic militants and towards an Egypt free from sectarian strife.

“We either live together, or we die together,” was the sloganeering genius of Mohamed El-Sawy, a Muslim arts tycoon whose cultural centre distributed flyers at churches in Cairo Thursday night, and who has been credited with first floating the “human shield” idea.

Among those shields were movie stars Adel Imam and Yousra, popular preacher Amr Khaled, the two sons of President Hosni Mubarak, and thousands of citizens who have said they consider the attack one on Egypt as a whole.

“This is not about us and them,” said Dalia Mustafa, a student who attended mass at Virgin Mary Church on Maraashly. “We are one. This was an attack on Egypt as a whole, and I am standing with the Copts because the only way things will change in this country is if we come together.”

In the days following the brutal attack on Saints Church in Alexandria, which left 21 dead on New Year’ eve, solidarity between Muslims and Copts has seen an unprecedented peak. Millions of Egyptians changed their Facebook profile pictures to the image of a cross within a crescent – the symbol of an “Egypt for All”. Around the city, banners went up calling for unity, and depicting mosques and churches, crosses and crescents, together as one.

Muslims Offer themselves as Human Shields in solidarity with Christians

1/09/2011 05:38:00 PM religion, war and peace, world

Religion, War and Human Rights

Religion has historically been a key source of human rights violations. From the medieval battles of the Christian Crusades to contemporary Islamic fundamentalism, religion has often been invoked in ways that cause pain and suffering to others. However, religion can also be an effective means of promoting human rights and peace in our world. Think about it! Every region I know has something positive to say about human rights. We just have chosen not to pay attention.

Hinduism: Hindu tradition teaches non-harm of the self, others and the earth and offers passive constraints on recourse to violence. Idea of Ahmisa “non injury” or the absence of a desire to harm is a central tenet of Hindu ethics.

Confucianism: One of the five Confucian virtues is “Jen” (human-heartedness) which is described by Confucius as the principle “to love all men.”

ca. 475 - 221 B.C.E. The disciples of Confucius compile The Analects - a Collection of Confucius’ discussions with his disciples. The Analects has heavily influenced the philosophy and moral values of China and other East Asian societies.

“Fan Ch’ih asked about benevolence. The Master said, “Love your fellow men. He asked about wisdom. The Master said “Know your fellow men.” Fan Ch’ih failed to grasp his meaning. The Master said, “Raise the straight and set them over the crooked. This can make the crooked straight.”--- Confucius, “On Rightful Conduct of Rulers and Subjects” (The Analects, Book XVIII)

Even though it was patriarchal and hierarchical, classical Confucianism did hold the view that all people have the capacity to become flourishing moral persons in the community, if not exemplary sages. This view comes close to maintaining a position of moral equality even within social hierarchy, at least with respect to people’s moral potential.

§ Judaism: Judaism teaches tolerance, accountability, justice and the infinite value of human life.

“Do not hate your brother in your heart. Rebuke your neighbour frankly so you will not share in his guilt. Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbour as yourself.” -- Leviticus 19:17-18

“Thou shalt not curse the deaf.” -- Leviticus 19:14. (Disability rights)

“Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favouritism to the great, but judge your neighbour fairly.” --Leviticus 19:15.

Judaism teaches that the individual has the right not only to life, but to security from harm, to health, dignity and making a living - all specific factors involved in assessing costs in cases of damages (Bava Kama, Mishnah 2:6).

§ Christianity: Jesus of Nazareth, the central figure in Christianity, preached virtues of love, compassion and justice.

Love your neighbour as yourself. -- The Bible, Mathew 22:37.

§ Islam: Prophet Muhammad, the central figure in Islam preached the virtues of tolerance, charity and equality.

“Oh mankind, we have created you from a single pair of male and female and made you into nations and tribes that ye may know each other, not that you may despise each other.” -- Koran, Surah 49:13.

Religion, War and Human Rights

12/03/2010 12:15:00 PM human rights, religion

Pondering Thomas Pain on Religion

While I do not agree with all his ideas, I share some of Thomas Pains' skepticism about organized religion. Pain is not my favourite enlightenment philosopher but there is something appealing about his defiant, skeptical, even cynical approach to what he calls the “tyranny of religion.” It is estimated that eighty percent of all human conflicts throughout history have some links (direct or indirect) with religion. Whether religious beliefs are the roots of war or simply a contributory factor, you’ve got to admit that much pain and suffering have resulted from religious dogma. Unlike Karl Marx who dismisses religion as the “opium of the people,” Thomas Pain's approach to religion is more nuanced and engaged. His keen questioning deserves attention if not agreement.

Is it not a species of blasphemy to call the New Testament revealed religion, when we see in it such contradictions and absurdities? -- Thomas Paine

Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst. -- Thomas Paine

That God cannot lie, is no advantage to your argument, because it is no proof that priests cannot, or that the Bible does not. -- Thomas Paine

Pondering Thomas Pain on Religion

8/28/2010 03:49:00 PM religion, war and peace

As you would have them do to you: Christianity and Human Rights

Talk delivered by Dr. Bonny Ibhawoh at the First Unitarian Church of Hamilton, March 7, 2010

Theme: Matthew 7:12 -- So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

Besides the parable of the Good Samaritan, one of my favorite bible stories comes from the book of Matthew - Matthew 22:33. Jesus was teaching in the temple in Jerusalem before a crowd, when the skeptical Sadducees and Pharisees sought to trap him into saying something for which they could accuse and condemn him. One of the Pharisees, an expert in religious law, asked him: “Teacher, which is the most important commandment in the Law of Moses?" Jesus replied, “You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. A second is equally important: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the other commandments and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments.”

It is interesting and noteworthy that Jesus stated that loving one’s neighbor as oneself is just as important as loving God. Our relationship with one another is as central to the Christian faith as the relationship with God. Christianity can therefore provide a moral foundation for protecting and promoting human rights even in an increasingly secular world.

We think of human rights today in very secular and legalistic terms. The defining document of international human rights is the Universal Declaration of Human rights. Adopted by the United Nations general assembly in 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was the world’s response to the atrocities of the Holocaust and the Second World War. The global community was appalled and horrified by the sheer brutality and inhumanity of that war. The Universal Declaration was intended to provide a framework in which the basic human rights of all peoples around the world would be protected based on certain agreed universal standards. Although not everyone in our world today presently enjoy these rights, we have as a human community at least agreed on certain basic rights that we should ideally all have.

Apart from International human rights laws, we also have national and provincial human rights laws and institutions such as the Canadian Human Rights Act which ensures equal opportunity to individuals who may be victims of discriminatory practices based on gender, disability, or religion. These laws promote and protect the basic human rights we should all enjoy as citizens of Canada and citizens of the World. They regulate how countries deal with their citizens and how we deal with each other within our communities. Take a few examples. All human rights laws whether domestic or international emphasize certain common principles – Everyone has the rights to life; No one has the prerogative to take another person’s life. Everyone has the right to property, the right to dignity and no one should be subjected to torture. Everyone accused of a crime should be given fair hearing and the opportunity to defend him or herself. Everyone has a right to practice his religion, express himself and associate with others.

Although we may think of all these human rights are secular laws, they are in fact deeply rooted in the Christian humanist call that we “love our neighbors as ourselves.” The connections between today’s secular human rights regimes and Christian teachings are not simply philosophical. They are concrete and practical. In the process of drafting the Universal Declaration of human rights, the drafters recognized that the different world religions had something to contribute to developing a modern and universal human rights document. The Human Rights Commission and UNESCO – The United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization -- therefore set out to get input from the representatives of world’s religions by interviewing them. Jews, Christian, Buddhists, Hindus and Moslems were all consulted. So although the UDHR is a secular document it has benefited from religious notions of rights.

The Ten Commandments which is at the foundation of the Judeo-Christian religious tradition is made of laws regulating both our relationship with God and our relationship with our fellow men and women. In fact, it is interesting that out of the 10 commandments, 4 deal with our relationship with God while 6 deal with our relationship with our fellow men and women.
- Laws relating to God - You shall have no other gods before me; You shall not make for yourself an idol; You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God; Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy;
- Laws relating to man - Honor your father and mother; You shall not kill; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor; You shall not covet what belongs to your neighbor

There are direct similarities between the Ten Commandments and our secular human rights laws today. "Thou shall not kill" protects the right to life. "Thou shalt not covert thy neighbor’s goods" protects the right to property. "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" affirms the right to justice and fair hearing.

The other link between secular Universal human rights today and Christian teaching is the aspiration towards universality. Jesus Christ, we are told, came to take the good news to the gentiles and uncircumcised, not only to the Jews. This was a message carried on by the apostles in their missionary journeys around the world after the death of Jesus. In the book of Galatians, Apostle Paul states: “There is no such thing as Jew or Greek, slave and freemen, male and female for all of you are one person in Christ” (Galatians 3:28-29). Paul in his letter to the Romans states that God created all mankind and all races are equal before God (Acts 17-19).

Although human rights have increasingly become secular and legalistic, they are in fact also rooted in fundamental humanist Christian values. The underlying premise of universal human rights is that we should love our neighbors as ourselves; that we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us. International human rights laws are really only an affirmation of what the good Christian already knows – that his relationship with his neighbor is just as important as his relationship with God. Christian teaching can continue to play an important role in how we as individual and citizens promote the human rights of others within our communities.

As you would have them do to you: Christianity and Human Rights

4/17/2010 11:24:00 PM human rights, religion

Somali Islamists ban music

Here we go again...
Taliban style fundamentalist Islamists have banned music in the failed state that is Somalia. The long suffering people of Somalia already have to face the insecurity and uncertainty that comes with living a society overun by thugs and warlords. A decade of war and banditry has taken its toll on the civilian population. Now, even the simplest pleasure of music is being denied them. More disheartening, this irrationality is being decreed in the name of God and religion… When does the madness stop?

The Washington Post has the story... Somali Islamists ban music

Somali Islamists ban music

4/17/2010 10:18:00 PM africa, human rights, religion, war and peace

One-Eye Veil: Cultural/religious expression or human rights violation?

Saudi Cleric Favours One-Eye Veil

A Muslim cleric in Saudi Arabia has called on women to wear a full veil, or niqab, that reveals only one eye. Sheikh Muhammad al-Habadan said showing both eyes encouraged women to use eye make-up to look seductive. The question of how much of her face a woman should cover is a controversial topic in many Muslim societies.

The niqab is more common in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf, but women in much of the Muslim Middle East wear a headscarf which covers only their hair. Sheikh Habadan, an ultra-conservative cleric who is said to have wide influence among religious Saudis, was answering questions on the Muslim satellite channel al-Majd.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7651231.stm

-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an interesting story that raises several human rights questions. I posed some of these questions before my Human Rights class and it generated extensive debates among students. The comments posted on the course discussion forum were as always engaging and insightful.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Posted by BONNY IBHAWOH (HISTORY_3XX3_X_T1_08) on Friday, October 3, 2008 10:03pm
Subject: Saudi cleric favours one-eye veil

This is another example of the “Universalism vs. Cultural relativism” debate we have been having in class. A Saudi cleric wants women to wear veils that show only one of their eyes. Cultural/religious expression or human rights violation?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7651231.stm

-----------------------------------------------------------

Posted by xxxxxxx on Saturday, October 4, 2008 10:25am
Subject: Re: Saudi cleric favours one-eye veil
After I read this article, I went to other related articles posted and only after reading more I have come to the decision that this "one-eye veil" is both a religious expression but at the same time a human rights violation.

The niqab is very normal for people in the Middle East, along with the hijab. I believe that it is a religious expression because it is told to them in the Koran. What I don't understand is why they are deciding to change things now? It is at this changing point that I think this whole issue is a human right violation due to the fact that the Koran hasn't changed therefore implementing the "one-eye veil" and deeming it a religious expression just doesn't make sense to me.

So that's what I think...for now. thoughts anyone??

-----------------------------------------------------------

Posted by xxxxxxxxxx on Saturday, October 4, 2008 12:12pm
Subject: Re: Saudi cleric favours one-eye veil
I also read one of the related articles on the site and it gave a lot more background information. I think it's hard to say whether this is a human rights violation mostly because it is difficult to make myself completely unbiased by the fact that I have grown up in Canada and have no idea what it would be like to live in an Islamic nation. In putting my own views aside, the one eyed veil seems to be a srtict adherance to the Koran, but does that make it something that EVERYONE must follow? in the related article I read it stated that many women choose a more contemorary view on covering up, and feel that the full veil is an old cutsom.

I think that it should be the woman's choice whether or not she wants to commit to the full veil or not. for example, here in Canada it is now legal for a woman to go topless. This just gives a woman the freedom to choose whether or not she wants to wear a shirt in ublic or not. I know that both of these situations are on completely opposite ends of the spectrum, but they are related in a way that human rights should be about a person's right to choose.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Posted by xxxxxxxx on Monday, October 13, 2008 8:11pm
Subject: Re: Saudi cleric favours one-eye veil
The issue is not that woman are choosing a specific form of attire. It is essentially a personal choice that harms no one. The only problem I have is that woman are being made to think that it is their religious obligation. Their decisions are not based on an understanding that whatever this cleric is representing is essentially his personal extreme interpretation of the Qur’an and Hadith, but rather its being portrayed as what Allah wants women to do. Whereas the reality is that women during the Prophet Mohammed’s time; peace be upon him, we doctors, warriors, teachers…etc. all roles that could have been impossible to be done with one eye! In fact, the prophets wife were recognized by their faces, so even the veil with both eyes showing is not seem as an obligation by the majority of the Muslim clerics.

The problem is not what women are choosing to wear; it is the fact that they are being misled. So, if a woman knows that it is not a divine order from God that asks her to wear the veil and still chooses to wear it, then I would not consider the veil a violation of human rights. However, if she wears the veil because she thinks she “has” to, then that is a violation of human rights. Because if she was not made to think that this is the will of God she would not be wearing it.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Posted by xxxxxxxxxx on Tuesday, October 14, 2008 11:03am
Subject: Re: Saudi cleric favours one-eye veil
I think this issue is about the woman's right to choose how she is to be submissive to Allah - whether it be modest dress, an hijab, a burka, or a one-eyed veil - and the infrastructure and support to hold sacred that right to choose. Now there will always be complications, a husband's family that is more conservative or extreme than the woman's upbringing - which would put pressure on her to decide their way - this will always happen..

However, in a society that endorses the right to choose and not be legally beholden to a certain interpretation, seems a step in the right direction - or separation of religion and state, and the freedom to choose the particular sect of Islam that expresses it's submission to Allah in ways that aligns with one own's thinking. This would protect women from the wims and re-interpretations of various imams and provide more stability.

But even the right to choose and the separation of religion and state is not a universally upheld idea...though, as Dr. Ibhowah says, if these things align with texts and scriptures that, in this case, Islam holds as truth, then this can be pointed out to this particular sect of Islam - using their own revered and upheld truths against their interpretation.

And if that fails...it is up to the muslim community, in particular those who uphold the basic rights of women to choose, to put pressure on them. The pressure must come from the greater muslim community...

-----------------------------------------------------------

Posted by xxxxxxxx on Saturday, October 18, 2008 12:48pm
Subject: Re: Saudi cleric favours one-eye veil
I think that the wearing of a one-eye veil, or whatever else a Muslim woman wishes to wear in order to promote her piety and religious faith, is a culturally relative option and decision that does not infringe on said woman's human rights. However, I think that it ought to be her analysis of the Quran and Islam that brings her to that decision. Rather, the response that she gets from her religious and societal community in regards to her decision is where a human rights violation is possible and unacceptable.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Posted by xxxxxxxxxx on Wednesday, October 29, 2008 6:01pm
Subject: Re: Saudi cleric favours one-eye veil

I agree completely with xxxxxx... if a woman feels that she "has" to wear the veil (esp. a one eyed one), then it is a human rights violation because she is in a way, being coerced to wear such attire, which would be very restricting. Taking into account the historical background of where these veils and such came from, and looking at the issue during the Prophet's time, we see that the religious call for the one-eyed veil is extreme and not necessarily needed to fulfill the demands of modesty required for Islam. Therefore, under no circumstances should any woman be forced to wear this type of covering (by force or subtle manipulation). If she understands that she does not "have" to wear it, but chooses to wear it, in a completely free decision, then that is her choice and she has a right to that. The problem is... how can we assure that this choice is her own, and not influenced by others?

One-Eye Veil: Cultural/religious expression or human rights violation?

12/16/2008 09:11:00 PM arts and culture, education, human rights, religion, world