Islam in Europe

[eckadimmock]

I keep seeing references to the increasing influence of Islam in the UK, with some even claiming that it amounts to a process of conquest, with critics of Islam even being jailed. My question for those in Europe is whether there is any truth in articles like this or is it simply right-wing nutjobbery? I don't doubt there are rabid anti-Islamic nutjobs, but even relatively sane people like Roger Scruton seem concerned at the implications for free speech and human rights of current directions in Europe. I should perhaps note that not all of this comes at the behest of Muslims, but at authorities falling over themselves to prevent "offence," but going to far and effectively shutting down healthy discussion.

I was particularly interested in this statement, which if true seems appalling evidence of spineless government:

The problem of Muslim integration is so sensitive that 751 areas have been willingly ceded to Islamic residents by the French government. Called "no-go zones" by many, these areas are off-limits to non-Muslims who value their lives. The UK is home to an indistinguishable number of "no-go zones," with violence toward non-Muslims increasing in once peaceful areas.

Even Melanie Phillips is stating that Muslims get special consideration from the BBC, but antisemitic remarks are merely potentially sensitive.

[humphreyclarke]

Um, this can be a bit of a thorny issue with some predicting Eurabia and other saying that a simple 'mixing' is more likely. Well, at the end of the day, Muslims make up 3% of the population of England and Wales. That's still a significant number (1,536,015) and most large cities will have at least one area which is majority Muslim. On the continent Germany leads the list of Muslim-populated countries in the region, hosting 4 million Muslims, or 5 per cent of its total population. France, with 3.5 million Muslims, has a higher concentration, of about 6 per cent, and the Netherlands has about 5.7 per cent, with 946,000. I have trouble seeing it as some kind of demographic conquest, but it's undeniable that a minority of 5-10% is a significant one and is entitled to make it's voice felt.

Inevitably there are going to be clashes of values and we have seen this over the last decade. As for no-go zones, I think the suburbs of Paris fall into this category because of the rioting and car burning that has happened, although other areas with large Muslim populations like Bellville are fine. The East End of London used to be the Jewish area of London but they all moved into the leafy Northern Suburbs; now the East End is Bangladeshi. I wouldn't call it a no-go area (far from it) but there has been the odd clash (Jews on a tour of old Jewish sites were pelted with rocks and anti-Semitic attacks on the North London community do occur). In the northern mill towns the situation is a bit worse, mainly because of the riots which happened up there which has tended to separate the communities. I think the word I would use to describe the situation is 'complicated'. Eurabia is scaremongering but there is an element of truth. I do think the key going forward is dialogue and integration.

I guess I should add that with demographics, it's not so much interesting what is happening now, but what is projected to happen in 50 to a 100 years. At present rates, it could be very interesting.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/5994047/Muslim-Europe-the-demographic-time-bomb-transforming-our-continent.html

[eckadimmock]

It appears, from afar, that this is one of those situations where government attempts to avoid offence or the appearance of prejudice have inflamed tensions rather than avoided them. There has perhaps not been enough attention to integrating immigrants into the community and too much on stifling criticism. It is also noticeable, too, that many recent immigrants seem much more assertive about demanding changes in the legal system.

[humphreyclarke]

Well, the growth in the Islamic majority (and immigration in general) is driving the growth of far right groups like the BNP. The attention given to radical Islamic groups is causing people to demand something be done about it; so we have gone for that most British of responses, drawing up a law against it. Not surprisingly this is causing an erosion of civil liberties.

[sandwiches]

I work in area with a strong Muslim presence. I teach (and work with) Muslims. Most Muslims are fine. There are certainly problems within the Muslim community in the UK. Honour killings and forced marriages and extremism need to be dealt with and politicians need some spine to get round to doing it. The (modest) rise of the BNP is a symptom of the politicians' failure to come to grips with such matters and with immigration generally. There is an interesting blog by a Catholic lawyer about Sharia (among other things):

www.religionlaw.co.uk/

[unkleE]

The Telegraph article included this: "second and third generations of Muslims show signs of being harder to integrate than their parents".

Based on nothing more than impressions from personal experience, I would think that here in Australia, the opposite occurs.

In the 64 years since the end of World War 2 (which happens to coincide with my lifetime) Australia's population has risen from about 8M to 22M, with almost 7M immigrants. Most immigrants have been from English speaking backgrounds, but other backgrounds have become prominent including southern European, Asian and recently Middle Eastern. Almost a quarter of Aussies were born overseas. About 90% of Aussies have European descent, 8% Asian, 1% Middle Eastern and 0.5% indigenous. Muslims make up only 1.7% of the population.

Thus we have had massive immigration and a generally successful integration into mainstream Australian life, but the Muslim percentage is far lower than in Europe. Overall, it seems to me that European migrants integrate in the next generation, whereas Asian and Middle eastern tend to take another generation to feel at home. But perhaps the Muslim immigrants have not been here long enough to know for sure how they will respond to their new home.

I'm inclined to think that modern (and postmodern) western materialism will suck in most immigrants just as it has sucked in most of us christians - in many cases, economic improvement is a major reason for immigration in the first place. If this is true, then personal peace and affluence (in Francis Shaeffer's phrase) is likely to become the major goal of most immigrant's lives, just like the rest of us sorry lot. It will be interesting (if I live long enough!) to see whether the stronger cohesive forces of Muslim religious belief, family life and culture will be able to withstand the materialistic pressure.

All this is just a bunch of random reflections, for what they're worth.

[codewordconduit]

No problems with immigrants of any stripe who respect the laws and culture of the country they chose to move to. Because of the less than equal footing of women in all but the most Westernized/Liberal Muslim families; I am more than a little wary about the push here in the UK for independent Sharia civil law.

[zameel]

Nov 9, 2009 16:53:40 GMT codewordconduit said:

No problems with immigrants of any stripe who respect the laws and culture of the country they chose to move to. Because of the less than equal footing of women in all but the most Westernized/Liberal Muslim families; I am more than a little wary about the push here in the UK for independent Sharia civil law.

Are you ok with the London Beth Din (Jewish Court) - www.theus.org.uk/the_united_synagogue/the_london_beth_din/about_us/

The rabbinical court, the London Beth Din, has been providing Britain's Jewish community with even more extensive family and community law services than the Shariah Councile of Britain (which has operated for over two decades) since 1934.

Last year, David Green of the right-wing thinktank Civitas was invited onto BBC Radio 4's TODAY programme to argue that, unlike the Jewish law practiced by the Beth Din, shariah will be unjust to women, to which the BBC nodded with approval. The truth, however, happens to be the complete opposite. When a Jewish man refuses to grant his wife a divorce (the "get"), the Beth Din does not assume the power, as the shariah courts do (e.g. khul'a faskh), to dissolve the marriage.

Mr Green thinks the world will not remember the famous case a few years ago when Nick Lowenstein kept his wife waiting to be divorced for 15 years and all the Beth Din in London could do was to issue some statements about the case to the media (http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/textonly/story.aspx?brand=NorthLondon24&category=Newshamhigh&tBrand=textonly&tCategory=hnhtext&itemid=WeED07%20Apr%202005%2014%3A56%3A33%3A193). We also remember the campaigners who protested outside the Golders Green home of Errol Israel Elias who had denied his wife a religious divorce for more than 40 years.

No matter what you think about shariah courts, shouldn't it be the women's choice for which court they prefer? In the Islamic (dhimma/milla) model, the Jewish and Christian minorities always had their own courts and civil issues were dealt with internally (although they had the option of going to Islamic shariah courts and as Richard Bulliet shows from extensive court documentations from the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, Jews often favoured Muslim courts over their own), until post-colonial times. In a sense, therefore, the premodern Islamic system in fact provided more (religious) rights than do modern so-called democratic states. If you're basing your views on modern liberalism, why is consensual polygamy illegal in the UK, why cannot women choose to wear the niqab/hijab in France, and is it not discriminatory that men can walk topless on the streets and women can't? "For most of its history, Islamic law offered the most liberal and humane legal principles available anywhere in the world" - Noah Feldman, Harvard University www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/magazine/16Shariah-t.html

[sandwiches]

No matter what you think about shariah courts, shouldn't it be the women's choice for which court they prefer?

If it were her choice.

Interesting article here:
archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2009/11/equality-under-law-is-abrogated-by.html

Friday, November 06, 2009
Equality under the law is abrogated by shari'a councils
Islamic shari’a councils are now recognised as arbitration tribunals under the 1996 Arbitration Act, and are part of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedure available to UK citizens. So far, at least five councils have been recognised as tribunals and moves are afoot to have scores more throughout the country.

The tribunals cover all disputes that come under civil law or family law but exclude criminal matters.

(2) Unequal treatment of men and women

Under shari’a, men and women are not treated equally. In matters of inheritance, property division, divorce and the custody of children, shari’a law disadvantages women and they are considered inferior as witnesses: a man may easily divorce his wife whereas a woman must argue her case and undergo a lengthy legal process.

A Muslim woman seeking a divorce is subjected to an interview process aimed at keeping her married and she risks financial ruin by the obligation to return her dower.

Shari’a rules on child custody can be rigid and were described by judges in the House of Lords as ‘arbitrary and discriminatory’. In general, child custody reverts to the father at a preset age (seven for boys) no matter the circumstances or the behaviour of the father, and if a woman remarries she loses custody of her children.

If a wife refuses to agree to give the husband access to their children, even in cases of possible child abuse, the divorce is stalled until that issue is resolved.

A Family Court judge may find himself presented with an ‘agreement’ produced at a shari’a tribunal that gives custody of the children to the father which in normal circumstances the court would register and enforce. But how is he to tell if this is a truly mediated agreement or simply the woman’s resigned acquiescence in shari’a law which does not explicitly consider the interests of children?

Women inherit half what a man inherits. And, of course, a Muslim man can have up to four wives.

Under shari’a, a Muslim woman will get a decision from a tribunal far less favourable than she would get from a British court under the Crown.

Shari’a councils are entirely male: there are no female shari’a judges. Nearly a quarter of judges in UK courts are female and in magistrate courts it is half. The Islamic Shari’a Council is listed as a charity and people who seek a divorce pay a fee. For a man, it is £100; for women, it is £250 because (they say) it is more work to process a woman's application as her word has to be corroborated.

(3) Community pressures and exploitation of ignorance

Muslim women will be under enormous pressure to use shari’a tribunals rather than civil courts. If they don’t use a shari’a tribunal, they run the risk of being ostracised by their family and their community as bad Muslims or even as apostates.

This pressure already exists but giving any shari’a council recognition as a tribunal under the Arbitration Act massively increases it.

Many women may simply be ignorant of their rights, due to language or cultural barriers. Many of those dealt with by shari’a councils are from the most marginalised segments of society with little or no knowledge of their rights under English law.

This will be true of male and female workers, especially the poorly-educated and low-paid, who find themselves unfairly treated by a Muslim business owner, or of tenants in disagreement with a Muslim landlord.

The appearance of ‘officialness’ will give the uneducated and the vulnerable the impression that there is a parallel Muslim system of law in England which is the one that Muslims should use.

This is already being exploited. The home page of the website of the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal (MAT) goes out of its way to look official. It has a photograph of Lord Phillips when he was Lord Chief Justice in his wig and finery. A bold heading declares: ‘Lord Chief Justice endorses ADR (alternative dispute resolution) under Shariah Law’.

Underneath it has a picture of Lord Hunt, a government minister. The website emphasises that MAT rulings are binding under English law.

The full article is well worth reading.

[codewordconduit]

Nov 9, 2009 17:35:27 GMT zameel said:

Are you ok with the London Beth Din (Jewish Court) - www.theus.org.uk/the_united_synagogue/the_london_beth_din/about_us/

No, not on a personal philosophical level; but pragmatically? Modern Judaism, like modern Christianity, isn't nearly as vocally subjugating of women as mainstream Islam appears to be; and if there are regular, religiously motivated "honour killings" from either Judaism or Christianity then they're kept extraordinarily quiet in the press.

Last year, David Green of the right-wing thinktank Civitas was invited onto BBC Radio 4's TODAY programme to argue that, unlike the Jewish law practiced by the Beth Din, shariah will be unjust to women, to which the BBC nodded with approval. The truth, however, happens to be the complete opposite. When a Jewish man refuses to grant his wife a divorce (the "get"), the Beth Din does not assume the power, as the shariah courts do (e.g. khul'a faskh), to dissolve the marriage.

Obviously the Beth Din also treats women as second class citizens. This isn't stregthening any argument for special religious courts in secular democratic society.

Mr Green thinks the world will not remember the famous case a few years ago when Nick Lowenstein kept his wife waiting to be divorced for 15 years and all the Beth Din in London could do was to issue some statements about the case to the media (http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/textonly/story.aspx?brand=NorthLondon24&category=Newshamhigh&tBrand=textonly&tCategory=hnhtext&itemid=WeED07%20Apr%202005%2014%3A56%3A33%3A193). We also remember the campaigners who protested outside the Golders Green home of Errol Israel Elias who had denied his wife a religious divorce for more than 40 years.

Terrible, and only further provides ammunition for those against special religious courts in secular democratic society.

No matter what you think about shariah courts, shouldn't it be the women's choice for which court they prefer?

Ah, Islam, the religion renowned for its strong independent women, always free to choose what they want to do in life. Come on! There are moderate Muslim families for sure, who allow their wives and daughters to make their own choices - but are you suggesting that a strict Muslim father will say "Hey family! Make your own choices, with absolutely no repercussions,"?

In the Islamic (dhimma/milla) model, the Jewish and Christian minorities always had their own courts and civil issues were dealt with internally (although they had the option of going to Islamic shariah courts and as Richard Bulliet shows from extensive court documentations from the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, Jews often favoured Muslim courts over their own), until post-colonial times. In a sense, therefore, the premodern Islamic system in fact provided more (religious) rights than do modern so-called democratic states.

Well modern Islamic theocracies aren't exactly setting stellar human rights examples; or flying the flag for equal rights. And I would look to them for examples of what to expect from modern day Muslims who don't dig the whole Western "thing".

If you're basing your views on modern liberalism, why is consensual polygamy illegal in the UK, why cannot women choose to wear the niqab/hijab in France, and is it not discriminatory that men can walk topless on the streets and women can't?

Firstly, I disagree with the marriage system as we have it so your question does not apply; secondly if a law is passed that requires people's faces to be visible for security reasons then it applies to everyone, sorry, but that's how it goes. Thirdly, yes, I do think that women should be able to go topless in public if they want to. Naked breasts don't concern me in the slightest. I would worry for the safety of women who chose to do so, however, as there would probably be a significant section of men who would believe they were entitled to rape them.

"For most of its history, Islamic law offered the most liberal and humane legal principles available anywhere in the world" - Noah Feldman, Harvard University www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/magazine/16Shariah-t.html

Do you think the person who wrote this is saying that historical Islamic societies were more humane than modern secular western societies? If not, I fail to see your point.

Cheers

- Sarah

[zameel]

Nov 9, 2009 22:06:26 GMT codewordconduit said:

and if there are regular, religiously motivated "honour killings" from either Judaism or Christianity then they're kept extraordinarily quiet in the press.

Unfortunately it's the media's habit to connect crimes committed by Muslims to their religion but crimes committed by members of any other religion to any number of sociological explanations. Take for example, parents murdering their children. In the UK alone about 50 children (below the age of 16) are murdered by their parents every year - a large proportion of these are certainly "Muslim" "honour" killings (about a fifth) which indicates a particular cultural predisposition to over-possessiveness that is in fact common to all families [Fathers who Kill their Children, www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/nov/05/ukcrime.lornamartin]. But for the remainder eighty percent none of them are associated with their religious backgrounds (which are presumably mostly Christian or atheist).

In the UK a sikh "honour killing" has occured (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3683577.stm) but nobody blamed the sikh community or sikhism. Only Islamic institutions in the UK are forced to say the obvious: Islam does not condone honour killings (the Muslim Council of Britain has produced a long statement on honour killings), UK Muslims Condemn Honour Killings news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3150142.stm . Islam does not condone vigilante violence

Honour killings are known to have occured in Christian families (e.g. in Palestine: www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jun/23/israel ), in Jewish families (e.g. 209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1399287/posts ) and in Hindu families, but most of the time when they do occur they are not related to the person's religion. These killings result from a sense of over-protectiveness. In many Muslim communities the balance needs to be redressed - the respect and chivalry shown to women that is lost in many decadent western societies can lead to this overbearing protectiveness that is harmful. Also harmful, however, I think is the flip side of this: the exploitation and objectification of women - this also leads to murder as it increases the risk of rape and murder as a result (thus, with all its faults, Saudi Arabia has one of the lowest rates of rape while the USA has one of the highest rates in the world).

Nov 9, 2009 22:06:26 GMT codewordconduit said:

This isn't stregthening any argument for special religious courts in secular democratic society.

I was merely showing Islam is consistently singled out for marginalisation and criticism even when such faults are common to a number of different religions.

Nov 9, 2009 22:06:26 GMT codewordconduit said:

Ah, Islam, the religion renowned for its strong independent women, always free to choose what they want to do in life. Come on! There are moderate Muslim families for sure, who allow their wives and daughters to make their own choices - but are you suggesting that a strict Muslim father will say "Hey family! Make your own choices, with absolutely no repercussions,"?

Most Muslim women that I know in the UK are strong and independent. In Iran, one of those evil "Islamic theocracies", women are in fact overrerpresented (more than 50%) in education and work. In Malaysia, following its matriarchal tradition, women have traditionally been the breadwinners despite the influence and spread of Islamic culture. You are clearly basing your judgement on your prejudice of what a "strict Muslim father" is, but I think families as a whole and women as individuals should have the right to choose which court they go to for civil law cases; there should of course be measures in place to ensure nobody is forced against their will.

Nov 9, 2009 22:06:26 GMT codewordconduit said:

Well modern Islamic theocracies aren't exactly setting stellar human rights examples; or flying the flag for equal rights. And I would look to them for examples of what to expect from modern day Muslims who don't dig the whole Western "thing".

Modern day Muslim countries cannot be described as Islamic model states, as they lost their uniquely Islamic character with the introduction of Western legal norms and the systematic breakdown of traditional Islamic institutions during the colonial period. Daniel Price shows in an illuminating article if Muslim countries are controlled for the same factors that affect human rights practicies in other developing countries, Islam itself plays an insignificant role in improving or decreasing human rights. [Islam and Human Rights: A Case of Deceptive First Appearances, Daniel Price, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 41, No. 2 (Jun., 2002), pp. 213-225]

Nov 9, 2009 22:06:26 GMT codewordconduit said:

secondly if a law is passed that requires people's faces to be visible for security reasons then it applies to everyone, sorry, but that's how it goes

And Islamic law says the exact same thing. In classical texts dating back to hundreds of years a woman cannot cover her face in court and even in holy areas like the Sacred Mosque in Mecca. But that is not what Sarkozy and others were proposing; they believe that the niqab is a cultural threat to the West (not for security reasons) and should therefore be banned. Shouldn't it be the woman's choice?

[codewordconduit]

Nov 10, 2009 2:27:23 GMT zameel said:

Unfortunately it's the media's habit to connect crimes committed by Muslims to their religion but crimes committed by members of any other religion to any number of sociological explanations.

The difference I guess is that in Islam, killings are sanctioned by religious ruling bodies (such as those that issue fatwas); wheras in modern day Judaism and Christianity it is much more unusual for a religious leader to call for the deaths of others by appealing to his holy writ.

Take for example, parents murdering their children. In the UK alone about 50 children (below the age of 16) are murdered by their parents every year - a large proportion of these are certainly "Muslim" "honour" killings (about a fifth) which indicates a particular cultural predisposition to over-possessiveness that is in fact common to all families [Fathers who Kill their Children, www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/nov/05/ukcrime.lornamartin]. But for the remainder eighty percent none of them are associated with their religious backgrounds (which are presumably mostly Christian or atheist).

This is because very few modern day Christians would actually say that the murder they commited was done in the name of Christianity - and if they do (such as in the case of Paul Hill who murdered an abortion doctor in the name of his faith), they are usually part of a fringe group and are renounced by mainstream Christians. Let's not forget that Sharia law in its entirety, as practiced in Muslim theocracies, advocates cruel and unusual punishment for say, gays and lesbians, and draws its justification from the pages of the Koran. I'm not sure whether you are a practicing Muslim or merely defending the faith position; but do you believe that the interpretations of Sharia given here:

www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503545556

that seem to all point towards harsh corporal punishment, full life imprisonment or the death penalty for homosexuals are justified or not?

Islam does not condone vigilante violence

All this means is that it does not condone heinous acts that have not first been legalized by the state. If a man in Saudi Arabia wishes to kill his daughter for perceived adultery he isn't supposed to do it himself, she is meant to be tried under Sharia Law and then killed. Islam does condone state-sanctioned violence. Where are the mainstream practicing British Muslims denouncing the penalties given out in Muslim theocracies?

There is a difference between saying:

"This girl does not deserve to die."

and

"This girls' father should not have taken it upon himself to kill her."

Honour killings are known to have occured in Christian families (e.g. in Palestine: www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jun/23/israel ), in Jewish families (e.g. 209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1399287/posts ) and in Hindu families, but most of the time when they do occur they are not related to the person's religion.

Right, because the religions you mentioned (generally) no longer advocate killing or maiming people who stray from their holy books. Muslims in Muslim states do.

These killings result from a sense of over-protectiveness.

A murderer is not protecting his victim. I do believe that you are trying to ascribe noble intent to these families who murder their errant children. They were just so nice and caring they ended up getting together as a group and slashing up the child or woman in question?

No, sir, "protecting" is preventing harm to the best of your ability; not causing the most grievous damage of all.

In many Muslim communities the balance needs to be redressed - the respect and chivalry shown to women that is lost in many decadent western societies can lead to this overbearing protectiveness that is harmful.

If a person truly respects an adult woman, her mental ability and good character; he is content to speak respectfully to her and allow her the freedom to make her own decisions.

Also harmful, however, I think is the flip side of this: the exploitation and objectification of women - this also leads to murder as it increases the risk of rape and murder as a result (thus, with all its faults, Saudi Arabia has one of the lowest rates of rape while the USA has one of the highest rates in the world).

If all the young female children who were forcibly penatrated by adult men on their "wedding nights" in Saudi Arabia were worked into this equation (this would constitue "rape" if performed on US or UK soil) then the stats would be much higher. Also, forgive me, but the draconian penalties for fornication and adultery in Saudi Arabia would be enough to stop me from reporting a rape if it happened. Torn hymen and not enough witnesses to back up your rape claim....? What happens next in good ol' Saudi Arabia, sir?

...but I think families as a whole and women as individuals should have the right to choose which court they go to for civil law cases; there should of course be measures in place to ensure nobody is forced against their will.

Okay, so a girl is disinherited in her father's will, and everything goes to her uncle. (Let's pretend she married a Christian and her dad fell out with her.) Sharia court is being very lenient and grants the uncle 2/3 of his dead brother's estate; with the remaining 1/3 going to the daughter. She wishes to push this further through the UK courts. Is the uncle obliged to go through the UK court system, or can he rest on the Sharia court decison without being held in contempt of court?

If any Sharia decision can be overturned in the UK court, what is the point of a separate court for Muslims? On the flipside, if Sharia decisions are final for Muslims, then how is the girl in this situation being granted a choice?

Modern day Muslim countries cannot be described as Islamic model states, as they lost their uniquely Islamic character with the introduction of Western legal norms and the systematic breakdown of traditional Islamic institutions during the colonial period. Daniel Price shows in an illuminating article if Muslim countries are controlled for the same factors that affect human rights practicies in other developing countries, Islam itself plays an insignificant role in improving or decreasing human rights. [Islam and Human Rights: A Case of Deceptive First Appearances, Daniel Price, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 41, No. 2 (Jun., 2002), pp. 213-225]

Do you agree of disagree with the Sharia law, and punishments decided upon after indepth study of the Koran, that these ruling states uphold?

And Islamic law says the exact same thing. In classical texts dating back to hundreds of years a woman cannot cover her face in court and even in holy areas like the Sacred Mosque in Mecca. But that is not what Sarkozy and others were proposing; they believe that the niqab is a cultural threat to the West (not for security reasons) and should therefore be banned. Shouldn't it be the woman's choice?

Well I dunno, I'm not even allowed to wear my hoodie up in the supermarket, even on bad hair days!

If Sarkozy merely believes it to be a cultural threat then he is impeding freedom of expression; and yes I disagree with that wholeheartedly.

Cheers

- Sarah

[zameel]

Nov 10, 2009 3:45:21 GMT codewordconduit said:

The difference I guess is that in Islam, killings are sanctioned by religious ruling bodies (such as those that issue fatwas); wheras in modern day Judaism and Christianity it is much more unusual for a religious leader to call for the deaths of others by appealing to his holy writ.

Can you point me to a single Islamic ruling body that allows honour killings? If you cannot, then do you agree the qualifier "Muslim" should not be added? And can you identify for me where in the Qur'an it says adulterers/fornicators must be killed (you'll find it doesn't exist in the Qur'an, but it does in the Bible)?

Jewish and Christian religious leaders do not call for the deaths of others? Churches were actively involved in the Rwanda genocide of nearly a million Tutsis in 1994 (when some attempted to take shelter in churches and a Benedictine convent they were turned over to the murderers for which several clergymen and nuns responsible for the murder of thousands are now being indicted), whereas Muslims not only avoided the killing as loyalty to religion exceeded the loyalty to race, but saved thousands of Tutsis from the brutal massacres in the mosques (the supposed face of global terroristic violence) in what the Grand Mufti of Rwanda called a "jihad to heal racial conflict" - as a result many Rwandans are turning to Islam with the Muslim population having doubled since the genocide - see the Washington Post article: Islam Attracting Many Survivors of Rwanda Genocide www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53018-2002Sep22.html

In Nigeria churches and clergymen are actively involved in the murder and torture of thousands of children because they believe them to be witches (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/nigeria/3407882/Child-witches-of-Nigeria-seek-refuge.html also see: Churches involved in torture, murder of thousands of African children denounced as witches in the LA times). Right wing churches in America actively supported the war in Iraq which was illegal by international law, because they believed Saddam's Iraq represented the evil babylon that needed to be annhialated (and as a result introduced savage suicide terrorism in Iraq, which never existed before Bush's invasion, and killed a hundred thousands civilians during the war; further, churches not only encouraged the war Evangelicals built many churches in Baghdad and Kyle Fisk an Evangelical leader said Iraq "will become the center for spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ to Iran, Libya and throughout the Middle East"). And you say churches are not involved in murder? And when have the above been denouced? If the media spent the same amount of time on the churches crimes as it did on individual Muslims' crimes it would turn out many more people have perished at the hands of people in churches than they have at the hands of people in mosques.

As for Jews, Rabbis actively promoted the murder of civilians specifically women and children during the crazed Gaza massacre of nearly a thousand civilians at the beginning of this year (http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=79947§ionid=351020202). See also this recent report where a respected West Bank Rabbi (a Rabbi living on occupied territory according to International Law) said killing babies is permitted in the defence of Israel which explains why so many thousands of babies and children die in Palestinian territories without a care in the world from Israeli authorities: www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1126890.html . Rabbinic militarism is also on the rise (The Rise of Israel's Military Rabbis: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8232340.stm )

Nov 10, 2009 3:45:21 GMT codewordconduit said:

Let's not forget that Sharia law in its entirety, as practiced in Muslim theocracies, advocates cruel and unusual punishment for say, gays and lesbians, and draws its justification from the pages of the Koran

Please show me where in the Qur'an punishments are prescribed for gays and lesbians? I can show you where they are in the Bible - Leviticus 20:13 "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads". As the article you linked shows there is no agreement on how gays and lesbians are punished in an Islamic system - the Hanafis which is the jurispudential school followed by most Muslims believe gays should be given a discretionary punishment but not killed. The Bible on the other hand is very clear. As a religious person, I believe homosexuality is a sin; I don't believe (and nor do I think the classical Islamic opinions held the view) that a person's private affairs are of anybody's concern, but when made public and institutionalised that I think can be legitimately opposed. By secular values, the argument against homosexuality is I think weak, so I do not think it will be outlawed here any time soon. But although persecution of gays, say in Iran, is often mentioned, have you ever heard of the persecution of half a million gays by Christians in Uganda? Have you heard that churches in Uganda wish to criminalise homosexuality and use the death penalty against them? news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8308912.stm

Nov 10, 2009 3:45:21 GMT codewordconduit said:

Where are the mainstream practicing British Muslims denouncing the penalties given out in Muslim theocracies?

There are mainstream Muslim voices denouncing some of the unjust methods practiced in some so-called Muslim countries. The Nigerian and Pakistani law against women who have been raped for example is based on a bad reading of traditional views of the shariah, and this has been noticed and denounced by many Muslim scholars throughout the world. The problem with modern shariah states is that they were born not out of the classical Islamic model of state but out of an attempt to integrate the codified statuary system of law in the West with traditional laws of shariah - and the result is generally unpleasant; as Feldman shows in his book and the article linked above, the ulama have lost their authority as keepers of the law who transferred public opinions and functioned as a counterbalance to the state authority.

Nov 10, 2009 3:45:21 GMT codewordconduit said:

There is a difference between saying:

"This girl does not deserve to die."

and

"This girls' father should not have taken it upon himself to kill her."

In all cases of so-called "honour killings" by shariah standards the girl/woman/man/boy actually do not deserve to die. "Westernisation" and not wearing a hijab are not capital crimes. A girl who dates a boy cannot be killed by any interpretation of the shariah. And even if adulterers (who are married) are to be killed in a funtional Islamic government the criteria for proof are very stringent (just as in Judaism) and therefore rarely occured in premodern Islamic states.

Christian reconstructionists also wish to see the death penalty reintroduced for the crimes of adultery, homosexuality, murder. In fact quite recently jurors in America used the Bible to prove that a man deserved the death penalty www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/15/texas-bible-jury-death-sentence . If that were a Muslim court, the world would be in hysteria.

Nov 10, 2009 3:45:21 GMT codewordconduit said:

If all the young female children who were forcibly penatrated by adult men on their "wedding nights" in Saudi Arabia were worked into this equation (this would constitue "rape" if performed on US or UK soil) then the stats would be much higher

Islam explicitly forbids forcefully penetrating one's wife. Do you have statistics to prove your accusations?

Nov 10, 2009 3:45:21 GMT codewordconduit said:

Okay, so a girl is disinherited in her father's will, and everything goes to her uncle. (Let's pretend she married a Christian and her dad fell out with her.)

That's not up to the dad. This is precisely the sort of thing the shariah law prevents: it demands a portion of the wealth must be left for the daughter as determined in the Qur'an; only a third of the man's wealth is dependent on the father's will, the rest (according to the Islamic view) must be distributed according to the rules of inheritance prescribed in the Qur'an (Islam granted women inheritance rights from the very beginning, albeit half that of a man, whereas Judaism and Christianity did not grant women this right until the twentieth century, as the Bible clearly says women do not inherit at all if a single male relative lives).

[himself]

What we notice is that any horrific action by a muslim is based on a misreading of the Qur'an; but every horrific action by a Jew or Christian is a direct consequence of his religion. Let a rabbi say something horrible, it is a crime of Judaism; but let Anwar al Awlaki say something horrible and he is misreading the Qur'an.

Why don't we agree that if someone who is A says or does X, it is not necessarily the case that he did X because of A. But at the same time, if X really is motivated and informed by A, then there really is a connection.

The Christians benefit here by having, for the most part, a normative body that can rule on matters. There are creeds and councils, popes and patriarchs. The Catholic and Orthodox churches comprise the overwhelming majority of Christians world wide, and they have authoritative teachings regarding their principles. So, to some extent, have the Old Protestant Churches. This does not mean that every communicant, or even every priest, always follows the principles. The Christians also acknowledge that human beings are sinners in need of salvation. You don't build a church for saints any more than you build a hospital for the healthy.

Thus, it does no good to point to a sinful Rwandan priest. He may have been "more Hutu than Catholic" and fell into the horrible payback for centuries of Tutsi domination and oppression.(*) This is not much different than beheading an Iraqi nun because a Danish newspaper printed some cartoons. The main difference is that in the first case, the motivation was racial and that the religion had an authoritative body that could tell him he was wrong.

(*) Some 20 or 30 years ago, I read of a terrible massacre of Hutus by the Tutsis, but this did not then attract world attention.

In Islam, there is no normative body. There is no priesthood. You find an imam whose preaching you like, as Nidal Hassan found Anwar al Awlaki. If a muslim wishes to live peacefully with his non-muslim neighbors, he can find fiqh and verses in the Qur'an that say so. But if he wishes to wage violent jihad, he can do the same. Zameel may say, "But that's not true Islam" but imam al Awlaki will say, "no, you're wrong! It is true Islam." In this, Islam is very much like 19th century fundamentalist Christianity, which falls outside the Traditions.

It does no good to point to passages in the OT that advocate shari'a practices. Islam is a "protestant" version of orthodox Judaism, so we would expect similarities between them. But to Christians the sacred texts are not a list of rules to be rigorously followed, or exemplars to be imitated. To a Christian, prohibitions on pork, lighting fires, commandments to stone adulteresses, and so on, are not moral commandments. The adultery is wrong, of course; but so is the stoning. ("Hate the sin, love the sinner.") The Christian is orthodox (right beliefs) rather than orthoprax (right practices), and his texts contain principles from which he can reason correctly about the world.(*)

(*) This followed from the idea of synderesis, originally in Plato's Timaeus, expanded on by Paul in Romans. Usually thought of as "that little voice" in the head that, if well-formed, tells you something is wrong.

Islam lacked this concept. They translated syneideresis as niyya (intention) which is not the same thing. It was not until the mid-19th century that damir began to be used as the translation for 'conscience'.

Qur'an is not only correct, it is complete. The ijma' is that nothing more can be added to it. Man's task is to understand it - perhaps more deeply over time - and to apply it. The answers are in the book, either explicitly or by analogy (qiyas). For example, orthodox Jews took a prohibition on lighting a fire on sabbath and determined by "qiyas" that you can't flip a light switch either, because the electrical spark is analogous to the prohibited fire. Mohammed trimmed the number of rules, but the principle is the same. If you want to know the Right Thing To Do, you have to Take It To The Book. You cannot rely on your own conscience. (This accounts also for the very different courses taken by Western law, including canon law, and shari'a law. Of course, most modern muslims have been corrupted by European influences, in this respect no less than others.

A young woman I know, an American convert to Islam, once commented that those countries that insisted most strongly on shari'a were precisely those countries that were most primitive by every measure.
+ + +

Australia. I suspect that countries like Australia, Canada, the United States, et al. can absorb muslim immigrants more easily than countries like France, Germany, et al. That is because the former are immigrant countries and, while each new wave gets treated with suspicion by the older waves, there are mechanisms for naturalizing them. G.K. Chesterton observed about the US that it was a country founded on an idea rather than on a nation. You could be a German by blood - in fact, you could only be a German by blood - but you could be an American by pledging allegiance. That was why America was always more concerned about "loyalty". They could not depend on Darwinian "blood loyalty."

It is also why France has a problem absorbing immigrants. How do you make newcomers understand the Bastille or the mission civilitrice? Let alone Napoleon, or Chalons, or Charlemagne? Europe fought long bloody wars to make the boundaries of their States correspond to the boundaries of their Nations. An Indonesian who has moved to Rotterdam will not relate to the little Dutch Boy or to William the Silent precisely because these are the Stories of a people. OTOH, Washington at Valley Forge, the 20th Maine at Gettysburg, or the Rescue of Bosnia are the Stories of an idea.

[zameel]

The careful reader will notice himself contradicts himself in his essentialisation of Islam in the above post. At the start of the post he begins by lamenting the situation that there is no normativity in Islam (in other words, there is too much individual opinion), and he ends by claiming there is no room in Islamic teachings to think outside of the normal interpretations of the Qur'an and ijma' (consensus). This dilemma in witnessing the actual "crisis of authority" (as Oxford's Francis Robinson calls it) in Islam, and himself's typical Orientialist regurgitation of the homogeneity of Islam, needs an explanation from those who hold to this view. The problem is, of course, that himself and many others (who may not know it but certainly think it) believe Islam should be explainable using some neat categories, but the reality is far more complex. Both the idea that a traditional normativity does not exist today and the idea that Islam is not capable of containing a plurality of views on certain secondary issues are false. In fact, both normativity (whereby the majority believed they were within the parameters justified by the religion) and heterogeneity characterised Islamic orthodoxy from the very beginning.

Nov 10, 2009 18:09:19 GMT himself said:

What we notice is that any horrific action by a muslim is based on a misreading of the Qur'an; but every horrific action by a Jew or Christian is a direct consequence of his religion

I don't believe any of the horrible crimes I mentioned above (honour killings, Iraq war, Rwanda genocide, Nigerian witch hunt) are "direct consequences" of religion. I think religion plays a part, in some cases a larger part and others a lessaer part, but the double standards present in much of Western discourse in the media and elsewhere means the opposite of your comment appears to be the truth and appears to be what people accept to be the truth. Hence Sarah attempts to explain away the bias in the media of calling crimes committed by Muslims by the qualifier "Muslim" but not doing so (except rarely) for others, by assuming this difference first exists before providing an explanation; it is this assumption, that Islam is essentially more evil, more violent than what the West has produced, that drives modern double standards - and this seeps into politics too (for example Norman Finkelstein shows in a brilliantly written article the double standards in the mainstream media in comparing the Human Rights abuses of Saddam Hussain before the 1991 war and Israel's Human Rights abuses, crimes against humanity and war crimes which were in fact far worse [Israel and Iraq: A Double Standard, Norman Finkelstein, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 20, No. 2 (Winter, 1991), pp. 43-56])

Nov 10, 2009 18:09:19 GMT himself said:

Let a rabbi say something horrible, it is a crime of Judaism; but let Anwar al Awlaki say something horrible and he is misreading the Qur'an

The question here, as you rightly point out further down, is: who gave al-Awlaki the right to interpret and read the Qur'an? The Rabbis are trained, and it wasn't a few of them that allowed the massacre of civilians and children, but several - it represents a mainstream view and a mainstream policy in Israel.

You'll find that most of the so-called Muslim terrorists and extermists are not traditionally trained ulama. In fact they are usually engineers or doctors. Osama Bin Laden was a trained engineer. Al-Zawahiri was a paediatrician. I think al-Zarqawi was an engineer. The extremist British preacher Abu Hamza was an engineer. And lo and behold, al-Awlaki is also an engineer. Even those who sporned the radical political movements, Qutb and Mawdudi, were literary critics and journalists, not traditionally trained ulama.

In other words, none of these had the dozens of years of traditional training like the major ulama of today; to name a few: Ramadan al-Buti (Syria), Wahba al-Zuhayli (Syria), Abdullah Siraj al-Din (Aleppo), Mufti Taqi Usmani (Pakistan), Moulana Arshad Madani (India), etc. Even those ulama from the Wahhabi and Salafi orientation like Bin Baz and Ibn Uthaymin (who also studied Islam for dozens of years) were the first to condemn the likes of Bin Laden and other extremists before they were even known to the world. One "salafi" site (salafis are puritan Muslims, and you'll notice the puritanism and anti-traditionalism in their writings, but they are nonetheless mainstream in my view) exposes the errors of al-Awlaki based on the highest ranking salafi scholars of today, like Bin Baz, Salik al-Fawzan and Ibn Uthaymin: www.salafimanhaj.com/pdf/SalafiManhaj_Awlaki

In other words, al-Awlaki is not a proper Islamic jurist or scholar. He does not have the right to issue fatwas. But you are also right in another respect, in what Francis Robinson has called the "crisis of authority" in modern Islam since the 1800s (during and after colonialism which resulted in an exponential rise in literacy rates and the breakdown of the traditional ijaza system of transmitting sacred knowledge); the true and traditionally trained ulama have lost the high authority that they had and their authority has now become very diluted; in fact, any Tom, Dick and Harry nowadays can have a strong influence on Muslim masses (say, for example, the tall, popular, originally CIA-friendly and charismatic Bin Laden) so long as their rhetoric resonates with Muslim communities. Awlaki is a good speaker, you can listen to him on youtube. But that does not mean he has the authority in the traditional sense. Today's crisis of authority does need fixing. Muslims do need to learn to rely on proper ulama, although everybody should have the oppurtunity to reflect on and study the sciences, not everybody should have the license (traditionally referred to as "ijaza") to issue authorotative statements.

Nov 10, 2009 18:09:19 GMT himself said:

The Christians benefit here by having, for the most part, a normative body that can rule on matters. There are creeds and councils, popes and patriarchs. The Catholic and Orthodox churches comprise the overwhelming majority of Christians world wide, and they have authoritative teachings regarding their principles

It is true that in classical Islam councils and popes did not exist. It was much less hierarchical and elitist. But that does not detract from the fact that there was a strong interplay between the ruling elite, the intelligent ulama and the powerful masses in formulating orthodoxy (a good article on this is "The Social Construction of Orthodoxy" by Ahmed el-Shamsy in the Cambridge Companion to Classical Islamic Theology). Thus the Creed of al-Ash'ari became normative. The Law of Abu Hanifa, Malik, al-Shafii and Ahmad became normative. The Spirituality of Junayd al-Baghdadi and al-Bistami became normative. What is interesting about all of these normative schools is that they were born out of a conflict between those who went to the extremes of these disciplines (hence extreme rationalists like Mutazilites, extreme legalists like the Kharijites and extreme esoterists like the Ismailis) and those who were overly puritan and fundamentalist (like the extreme Hanbalis). They represented a via media and thus embodied the Prophetic wisdom "the best of affairs are their middle-points" (khayr al-umuri awsatuha), which also informs much of Islamic ethics (see e.g. Ghazali's works on ethics). The Cambridge Companion to Classical Islamic Theology is a good introduction to showing how this worked out in classical Islam. In short, it wasn't hierarchical institutions and councils that determined normativity in Islam, but individuals and their writings that became accepted by the masses. Of course this structure has faced a blow in modern times, but hopefully something constructive can emerge (besides the Bin Ladens and Ed Hussains).

Nov 10, 2009 18:09:19 GMT himself said:

The Christians also acknowledge that human beings are sinners in need of salvation

Are you suggesting Islam does not acknowledge this? See my response to Robert Spencer who does say just that.

Nov 10, 2009 18:09:19 GMT himself said:

Thus, it does no good to point to a sinful Rwandan priest. He may have been "more Hutu than Catholic" and fell into the horrible payback for centuries of Tutsi domination and oppression

The Catholic church and racial separation was very strongly intertwined. It's not a question of "more Hutu than Catholic", it's in fact a question of how Catholicism and the Church in Rwanda actively bred the racial tensions. The Belgian invaders typically created the conflict by giving Tutsis authority as the more handsome of the two (there were no racial categorisations before colonialism) and thus the authority of the church and state were given to the Tutsis. This inevitably created a strong alliance between the two, which during a "social revolution" in the fifties was transferred to the Hutus. The church and state worked together to actively discriminate the Tutsis. And it was in fact the very normative authorities within the Rwandan Catholic hierarchy that justified and helped execute the genocide. Priests following the genocide in fact wrote to the Pope condemning him for calling it a genocide. See: Church-State Relations in Rwanada and the Genocide, Simanga Kuwalo: www.docstoc.com/docs/14793984/CHURCH-AND-STATE-RELATION-IN-RWANDA-AND-ITS-IMPACT-TO-THE-GENOCIDE

Nov 10, 2009 18:09:19 GMT himself said:

This is not much different than beheading an Iraqi nun because a Danish newspaper printed some cartoons. The main difference is that in the first case, the motivation was racial and that the religion had an authoritative body that could tell him he was wrong.

There is indeed a much bigger difference. The atrocities in the Muslim reaction were carried out by angry men who killed a few here and there; the Rwanda genocide was a systematic detruction of a people perpetuated and helped by the authorotative body (which did not tell them that "it was wrong" at all).

Nov 10, 2009 18:09:19 GMT himself said:

Islam is a "protestant" version of orthodox Judaism, so we would expect similarities between them

This is untrue. If you read the Qur'an it is hardly legalistic. It asks Muslims to reflect, think, look, deliberate, consider, ponder, wonder etc. Less than 10 percent of the Qur'an is dedicated to rulings and laws. Islam in fact criticised the Jewish religion for being too legalistic and it criticised the Christian religion for being too spiritualised. It seeks to find a balance between letter and law. Your critique of Judaism and Islam is the age-old critique of "Semitism vs Aryanism" which seeks to find a divide between the arid, irrational legalism of Judaism and Islam and the loving rationality of Christianity. In fact the situation is far more complex, and the academic world has moved away from these simplistic categories.

Nov 10, 2009 18:09:19 GMT himself said:

To a Christian, prohibitions on pork, lighting fires, commandments to stone adulteresses, and so on, are not moral commandments. The adultery is wrong, of course; but so is the stoning

To demonstrate the flaw in your reasoning: how do you assess what is a "moral" commandment and what is not? Why is stoning wrong but not adultery when these laws both came from God? How exactly do you determine what is morally correct? Are you a moral relativist? Or does scripture matter? If scripture matters, you would follow at least some dietary rules (based on Gal 3 and Acts 15), you would follow the Sabbath laws (which is one of the Ten Commandments) etc. Difficulties are many.

Of course, the developing church knew this. Hence, why it had to produce a set of "canon" laws. Paul often contradicts himself with regards to the law (as EP Sanders shows), which shows the situation is not as simple as either you or Paul try to make out.

In Islamic tradition, the "law" is divided into several categories. The highest, which is ritual worship (which most books of shariah/fiqh spend most time on), is dependent completely on scripture. The rest, which has to do with human interaction and other elements of law are based on the fiqh principle of "illa" (ratio legis) and "qiyas" (analogy); in other words, fiqh is not inflexible and rigid, but on matters outside ritual worship, as the ulama said "al-hukm yadur ma'a illatiha" (the ruling revolves around their causes/legal justifications) - this means fiqh is time and place-dependent as the fourteenth century Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyya brilliantly portrays in his I'lam al-Muqi'in. For a good introduction in a Western context by an American Muslim scholar, see: www.nawawi.org/downloads/article6.pdf

Nov 10, 2009 18:09:19 GMT himself said:

The Christian is orthodox (right beliefs) rather than orthoprax (right practices), and his texts contain principles from which he can reason correctly about the world

This is the same with regards to the illa-qiyas system mentioned above. "illas" are principles and "qiyas" is the method by which those principles are applied to new issues. Of course, at times there are tensions between these principles (let's say the "spirit of the law") and the positive law (let's say the "letter of the law"); but the spirit of the law, in Islam, was generally favoured over the letter when there was conflict. The example below illustrates this principle (Umar the second caliph refused to amputate a theif's hand because it was the employer's exploitative behaviour that forced the theif to steal):

"‘Umar - may God be pleased with him - [did] not execute the
punishment for theft, even though the operative ratio legis (theft) was still present. In other words, the thief was compelled by circumstance to steal, which rendered him guiltless of sin since “necessity makes what is unlawful lawful.”19 On the other hand, the right of the person who was the victim of theft raised only a consideration of the interest of the protection of wealth; a much less important interest than the interest of the protection of life and
physical well-being. The act of theft, which is the ratio legis required for cutting off the hand of the thief, occurred in these circumstances, which would make it an obligation to execute this injunction. But since the over-arching interests of Islam are more important to preserve than to enforce its positive law, the spirit of the law was placed over the letter of the law, since the law is only intended to promote that same spirit" (Abdullah bin Hamid Ali) www.lamppostproductions.com/files/articles/PRESERVING%20THE%20FREEDOM%20FOR%20FAITH.pdf

Nov 10, 2009 18:09:19 GMT himself said:

Islam lacked this concept. They translated syneideresis as niyya (intention) which is not the same thing. It was not until the mid-19th century that damir began to be used as the translation for 'conscience'

Just because the concept of "damir" happened to appear in the nineteenth century I think by secular Egyptians, that does not mean Islam lacked an adequate conception of "consciousness of sin". In fact this moral "consciousness" of God and of sin may be taken to be the subject matter of the entire Qur'an itself. This is embodied within the complex Qur'anic notion of "taqwa"; in the famous verse where God declares man and woman, nations and tribes, equal (49:13) the exception it mentions is in the degree of taqwa. Taqwa is also the purpose of all worship (2:21). In an important verse 7:201, it describes taqwa as the process whereby an individual who is tempted to sin actively falls back into a state of remembrance and reflection of God (dhikr) and then "sees aright". Those who have the quality of taqwa, the Qur'an says, will be given the criterion (furqan) to distinguish between right and wrong. The degree of taqwa determines the degree to which a person can recognise intuitively right and wrong. As the Qur'an says both the Book (Kitab) and the Wisdom (Hikma) determine truth and in this case moral truth. The Qur'an does not deny the fact many has been imbued with a moral character that is independent of scripture (see, e.g. 91:7-8 and 90:10). Niyya (intention) is also a very important Islamic concept. The Prophet's hadith "actions are (judged) by their intentions" is the first hadith in most books of hadith, and according to many Muslim traditionists represents a "third" of all Islamic teachings. When God's divine punishment killed both the good and the bad in the past, the Prophet commented "they perished together, but they will be resurrected according to their intentions". Intentions form the basis of human actions, hence why it is difficult to divorce the person's constitution from the sin he commits (unless it is done "in the moment"). Hence, the Qur'an says:

"God accepts the repentance of those who do evil in heedlessness and repent soon afterwards; to them will God turns in mercy: For God is full of knowledge and wisdom. [However] of no effect is the repentance of those who continue to do evil, until death faces one of them, and he says, "Now have I repented indeed"" (Qur'an 4:17-18)