freedom of religion in Qatar

The very first church in Qatar is to open soon:

St Mary's Roman Catholic church was inaugurated in the capital, Doha.

Tens of thousands of Christians, most of them Catholic, live in the emirate, which has a mainly Sunni Muslim population.

Previously, Christians were not permitted to worship openly. Saudi Arabia is now the only country in the region to prohibit church building.
[...]
The church is expected to cater for the country's large community of foreign workers, mainly from the Philippines and other Asian countries.

The building is estimated to have cost $15m and seats 2,700 people.

Tomasito Veneracion, the priest of the new parish, expressed gratitude to the Qatari authorities for allowing the project to go ahead.

"The opening of the church is an important event for the entire community," he said.

There are plans for further churches in Qatar, which correspondents describe as part of a strategy of opening up to the West.

Saudi Arabia remains an outlier as usual. Recently, the top Wahhabi cleric there issued a death fatwa against two writers, for their "heresy" of arguing that believers in other religions might not be hell-bound. And let's not even bother mentioning the state of the Shi'a community there. However, in the rest of the middle east, the trend is indeed towards increasing religious freedom. There's a long way to go, but the trend is there, and opposite to the trend in Europe (Spain being just one example...).

They hate us for our freedoms

via thabet, comes indications that the bugging of UK MP Sadiq Khan was just the tip of the proverbial iceberg:

The covert eavesdropping of the MP Sadiq Khan is alleged to be just the first case in a far wider operation to bug terrorist suspects and other serious criminals introduced after the September 11 attacks.

Lawyers, including the human rights solicitors Gareth Peirce and Mudassar Arani, were allegedly "routinely bugged" by police during visits to see clients at Woodhill prison. Listening devices were said to have been concealed in tables at the jail.

Nationally it is thought that many more people may have been covertly recorded.
[...]
The scandal came to light after Mr Khan, a Muslim Labour MP, was covertly recorded during two visits to a terrorist suspect held at Wood­hill prison in Milton Keynes in 2005 and 2006.

It led to a political outcry as the bugging of MPs has been prohibited since the 1960s. Mr Straw was forced to set up an inquiry. He insisted he had known nothing of the operation before last weekend, although it later emerged that officials in his department had learnt of the allegations two months ago.

Now someone with detailed knowledge of the operation claims that Mr Khan's visits were allegedly among "hundreds of conversations" bugged by Det Sgt Mark Kearney during his time with a four-man intelligence team based at the prison since early 2002.

The recordings are deemed so sensitive that copies are stored at a secret facility protected by armed guards.

Initially, only a handful of prisons implemented the alleged bugging policy - including Woodhill and Belmarsh - but over the past 18 months the secret policy is alleged to have been rolled out across Britain.

it's not just the UK, of course - here in the US we also have the fight over FISA. On one side we have the Constitution and our rule of law, and on the other we have those who would tear those thing asunder for the sake of "security". They hate our freedoms, indeed.

four principles

I affirm the right of all people to live in freedom and dignity, and the freedom of the individual conscience: to change religions or have no religion at all. In doing so, I invoke the Qur'an:

"To you, your religion and to me, mine" (109:6)

"if they turn away from you, your only duty is a clear delivery of the Message." (16:82)

"There is no compulsion in religion" (2:256)

as well as numerous other verses that emphasize that the Prophet is not a "keeper", his only duty was to preach and deliver the Message, but whether the Message is accepted is solely between the individual and Allah (see: 6:107, 4:79-80, 11:28, 17:53-54, 24:54, 88:21-22, 39:41, 64:12, 67:25-26 for starters).

I also affirm the equality of dignity of women and men, again invoking the Quran:

"O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female." (49:13)

"O Mankind! Reverence your Guardian-Lord, Who created you from a single person, created of like nature his mate, from them scattered countless men and women. Fear Allah, through whom you demand your mutual rights and reverence the wombs (that bore you), for Allah ever watches over you." (4:1)

"Never will I waste the work of a worker among you, whether male or female, the one of you being from the other." (3:195)

and finally, I affirm the right of all people to live free from violence, intimidation, and coercion, with the Qur'an:

"Fight in the path of God those who fight you, but do not aggress. Surely God does not love the aggressors. And fight them where you come upon them, and send them out from where they have sent you out, for persecution is a worse thing than fighting. And do not fight them at the Sacred Mosque (in Mecca) unless they fight you there, but if they fight you, then fight them back. That is the reward of the rejectors. Then if they cease, so God is All-Forgiving, Gentle. And fight them until there is no more persecution and the religion is for God. But if they cease, so let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers." (2:190-193)

"Whosoever kills an innocent human being, it shall be as if he has killed all mankind, and whosoever saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind." (5:32)

I imagine that my affirmations above won't meet with these folks' endorsement, however, since I am amd will always be utterly and implacably opposed to the suggestion that Islam needs to be "reformed" or the Qur'an needs to be edited. To those who believe that the solution to islamic extremism is less Islam, rather than less extremism, I only say, good luck with that. To your way, yours, to me, mine.

The St. Petersburg Declaration: text and analysis

Here is the full text of the St. Petersburg declaration from the Secular Islam Summit.

We are secular Muslims, and secular persons of Muslim societies. We are believers, doubters, and unbelievers, brought together by a great struggle, not between the West and Islam, but between the free and the unfree.

We affirm the inviolable freedom of the individual conscience. We believe in the equality of all human persons.

We insist upon the separation of religion from state and the observance of universal human rights.

We find traditions of liberty, rationality, and tolerance in the rich histories of pre-Islamic and Islamic societies. These values do not belong to the West or the East; they are the common moral heritage of humankind.

We see no colonialism, racism, or so-called “Islamaphobia” in submitting Islamic practices to criticism or condemnation when they violate human reason or rights.

We call on the governments of the world to

reject Sharia law, fatwa courts, clerical rule, and state-sanctioned religion in all their forms; oppose all penalties for blasphemy and apostacy, in accordance with Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights;

eliminate practices, such as female circumcision, honor killing, forced veiling, and forced marriage, that further the oppression of women;

protect sexual and gender minorities from persecution and violence;

reform sectarian education that teaches intolerance and bigotry towards non-Muslims;

and foster an open public sphere in which all matters may be discussed without coercion or intimidation.

We demand the release of Islam from its captivity to the totalitarian ambitions of power-hungry men and the rigid strictures of orthodoxy.

We enjoin academics and thinkers everywhere to embark on a fearless examination of the origins and sources of Islam, and to promulgate the ideals of free scientific and spiritual inquiry through cross-cultural translation, publishing, and the mass media.

We say to Muslim believers: there is a noble future for Islam as a personal faith, not a political doctrine;

to Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Baha’is, and all members of non-Muslim faith communities: we stand with you as free and equal citizens;

and to nonbelievers: we defend your unqualified liberty to question and dissent.

Before any of us is a member of the Umma, the Body of Christ, or the Chosen People, we are all members of the community of conscience, the people who must chose for themselves.

It won't surprise regular readers of mine to learn that I largely agree with the declaration as written. Note that I am taking the Declaration at its word; I have emphasized some words above upon which my agreement is contingent.

Agreement aside, however, I simply cannot sign or endorse the St. Petersburg Declaration. The reason is not for what it does say, but rather for what it does not. The signatories explicitly reject Shari'a as Law; that's fine, but they do not acknowledge it as a valid source of law, which is not fine. Shari'a is a complex tradition with many schools of thought and as such is as perfectly valid as the Judeo-Christian jurisprudential tradition for deriving inspiration and guidance for Law. As matoko puts it, they suck at bricolage.

By excluding Islam and excluding muslims of faith from the conversation about how to achieve these noble goals, they have marginalized themselves.

To be taken seriusly, the declaration must live up to its assertion of freedom of religion, by validating the choice of Islam as faith as compatible with the freedoms they enunciate. Instead, they have created a document that explicitly separates Islam from freedom, and in so doing becomes an attack on Islam and muslims themselves. The skeptical muslim might well conclude that - noble lofty rhetoric about rich Islamic traditions and no war between West and Islam aside, the real purpose of this Summit was to erode the legitimacy of Islam itself in the eyes of the West. Having wild-eyed reactionaries like Wafa Sultan aboard certainly doesn't help their credibility in this regard, either. I also note that Irshad Manji refused to sign the declaration and protested vigorously when her name was added to it without her consent. Based on an insider report from a practicing muslim at the Summit, I have revised my opinion of Manji and in fact am unashamed to admit that I misjudged her. She has my authentic respect.

How could the signatories of the Secular Islam Summit obtained my support? I am after all a signatory to the Euston Manifesto; I am pro-freedom (though I think democracy is putting cart before horse); I am pro-Israel (I support the Wall and was pleased at Arafat's demise). Simply put, they could have made an attempt to acknowledge that being a pious muslim is perfectly compatible with these universal principles. That could have been achieved by including something like this addendum via eteraz:

1. We believe that faithful, practicing Muslims are an integral part of the global community and that there is nothing inherently irreconcilable between the practice of Islam and affirmation of universal human rights. 2. In democracies the world over practicing Muslims routinely affirm the principles of separation of religion from the state by participation in such civic systems. 3. We believe that practicing Muslims, as holds true for every person in every faith tradition, should be free to rely upon their faith tradition to inform their social and political decisions as long as they are consistent with the principles of pluralism. 4. We stand by those who practice the religion of Islam and draw from it empathy, justice, peace, and humanity and oppose violence of any kind including violence in the name of Islam.

In addition, they could make some effort at outreach to those who have already done much yeoman's work in explaining liberty and freedom from within the Islamic context. That includes the blogsphere as well as noted thinkers like Khaled Abou el Fadl and Syed Hussein Nasr.

Ultimately, for any kind of true progress towards the goals that the St. Petersburg signatories desire, they must talk to muslims themselves and rely on Islam itself for the solution. Or be irrelevant; as they choose.