Re – above response to the Dalai lama’s lack of response. Yes he has retired from politics and I should imagine it is a sensitive issue within both Tibetan political and religious circles. I think that, what I take away from the suicides is that we can all do more for our Tibetan brothers and sisters. We can give up some of our comforts, our securities and really make a difference. I am saddened every time I read of a self immolation. I am also ashamed that the world’s powers have not done more to support the Tibetan community regarding China’s occupation of Tibet. Time and again governments, politicians and us, as individuals, have stood back and done little. I do not wish to enter into the debate and long history of occupation and inaction. What I would like each of us to take away from this is that we can each do more. We can show that these tragic loss of lives, the self immolations and the many other Tibetans who have severely suffered and died as a result of Chinese occupation, has not occurred in vain.

One person can make a difference, and so can you. Talk to your friends and colleagues to build awareness and support for the Tibetan people. Talk to your politicians. Get involved with your local Tibetan activist group. Put aside a cup of coffee a day and donate the money towards supporting displaced Tibetans. Run your own fundraises at work, or information days.

“Last weekend President Obama announced the appointment of Rashad Hussain as Special Envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Already embroiled in controversy over remarks Hussain was alleged to have made in 2004 concerning the prosecution of Sami al-Arian, this appointment warrants careful consideration because of the problematic mission and track record of the OIC, which has embraced an intolerant religious agenda antagonistic to international human rights standards.

Comprising 57 states, the Organization of the Islamic Conference is the second-largest intergovernmental institution in the world after the UN. It is a unique body. A political organization, it pursues a religious mission. The charter of the OIC makes clear that it exists, not only to promote the economic and humanitarian goals of member states, but also to “defend” and “disseminate” Islam itself. The OIC even has a “Department of Islamic Propagation (Dawa) Affairs” dedicated to establishing Islam. Earlier this month the OIC’s High Commissioner for Dawa, Salem Al Houni, presented a speech in Cairo in which he affirmed the OIC’s commitment to spread Islam through the world.

It would be inconceivable for nations with Christian majorities to band together to form an intergovernmental organization devoted to advancing Christianity and the global interests of the Christian Church. The existence of the OIC is testimony to the reality that mainstream Islam recognizes no distinction between politics and religion.

In fact the OIC lobbies aggressively in UN forums to shield Islamic states from criticism on human rights grounds. The key issue is the role of the OIC in advancing Islamic Sharia. In 1990 the OIC promulgated the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, which subordinates human rights to the Sharia, declaring in Article 24 that “All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah,” and in Article 25 that “The Islamic Shari’ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification to any of the articles of this Declaration.”

One of the subsidiaries of the OIC is the International Islamic Fiqh Academy, which claims to rule on doctrine and issue religious edicts in the name of the OIC for the whole Muslim world. In May 2009 it promulgated a series of fatwas, including rulings on Religious Freedom, Freedom of Expression and Domestic Violence. These affirm support for Islam’s traditional apostasy laws (which require that those who leave Islam should be killed); they call on the Muslim world to prevent freedom of speech from being used to criticize Islam; they declare that in Islam it is not “violence or discrimination” to criminalize homosexuality or apply Sharia laws for adultery (which include stoning adulterers); they endorse “non-violent beating” of wives; and they call upon Islamic nations to reject provisions of international covenants on the rights of women and children, if they “conflict with the provisions of Islamic law and its purposes”.

In announcing his new Special Envoy’s appointment, it is commendable that President Obama expressed hope that Rashad Hussain would be able to strengthen partnerships with the Muslim world in education, economic development, science and technology and global health.

But conspicuously absent from this list was human rights.

Without a doubt, Rashad Hussain has strong religious credentials for this appointment. The Texas-born and Yale Law School-educated Hussain was characterized by President Obama as a hafiz, someone who has memorized the whole of the Arabic text of the Koran. This skill reflects a pious Islamic upbringing. His position on individual rights and freedoms under Sharia conditions, however, is not so apparent. One clue can be found in a co-authored 2008 article he published through the Brookings Institute. In it, Hussain argues that the counterterrorism efforts “must reject labels that make mainstream Islam a part of the problem,” and the US should recognize “the benefit of strengthening the authoritative voices of mainstream Islam”. Does Hussain also believe that, when it comes to human rights in OIC member states, “mainstream Islam” is the solution, and not part of the problem?

At his most recent post as White House Deputy Associate Counsel, Hussain helped draft President Obama’s “New Beginning” address to the Muslim world in Cairo last June. That speech mentioned human rights, but it emphasized dialogue rather than defending individual liberties as the key to improving relationships with the Muslim world.

The OIC makes a strong claim for itself to be considered the global voice of mainstream Islam. However killing those who leave Islam, criminalizing homosexuality, banning any critical analysis of Islam, wife beating (non-violent or otherwise)—all these are antithetical to international human rights principles, and impediments to a true partnership between the OIC and the United States. Strengthening the authoritative voice of the OIC, while it actively works to defend such practices, would harm American interests. Lack of engagement on these central human rights issues would be understood as acquiescence or approval. This could be a high price to pay for a New Beginning with the Muslim world.”

http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/02/a-new-envoy-to-the-united-nations-of-islam

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dEy69_qVarI

An Islamist attack on a young woman in the Moroccan capital is raising concerns about civil liberties

By Mohamed Saadouni for Magharebia in Casablanca – 11/05/12

Rabat Salafists assault woman over dress

Intense debate on personal freedoms renewed recently in Morocco after a young woman wearing a short modern dress in a Rabat market was assaulted by people described as Salafists.

Witnesses told Magharebia the girl was stoned and beaten because she was wearing clothes that were too revealing in the eyes of the assailants.

Human rights and women’s organisations issued statements denouncing the assault on the Moroccan girl, during which she was stripped of her clothes entirely. Young Moroccan men and women turned to Facebook and online groups to call for protection of individual freedoms in Morocco, including the group “Débardeur and I am fine.”

“Though this incident appeared in the media and gained wider attention, that does not mean it is not repeated on an almost regular or semi-daily basis in all the alleys and streets of our cities. It may not end in stripping the girl of her clothing, but the verbal and physical harassment that women may experience is sometimes more heinous and horrible,” said Nora Al-Fuari, an activist journalist at the Al-Sabah daily and a member of the Facebook group.

“From here came the idea of creating this page on Facebook, which we made open to everyone, including those in hijab or niqab, or the ‘coarse’ males who share the same vision with us. The selection of Débardeur is just a symbol, in reference to freedom—the freedom of women to wear what they want. Débardeur was mother of the ‘short skirt’,” she added. “In the end, the body is her body and no one has the right to confiscate it.”

Prime Minister Abdelilah Benkirane responded to the controversy by speaking out in defence of personal liberties.

“I believe in freedom, God created us free,” the prime minister said. “Who is Benkirane to tell Moroccans to shave your beards or to impose the hijab? Individual liberties are sacred and are not to be touched,” he added.

Meanwhile, a Salafist supporter on the Facebook page going by the name Abu Ayyub clung to the necessity of Moroccan women to respect the requirements of Islamic dress. He contended that there was a legitimate “Sharia” dress that must be abided by.

“We must abide by the teachings of our Islamic religion, which calls on women to cover up their charms and abide by the veil imposed on Muslim women. I’m against calls for women to reveal their charms, and that must be countered firmly and with stricter protection of morality,” the commenter wrote.

Rights group Beit Al-Hikma (House of Wisdom) added its voice to the chorus of protest over the assault. The association said the attack on the young woman took place “under a government headed by an Islamic party, and this would block the move towards democracy, freedoms and the rule of law”.

The group added that it was not just about the assault on the young woman, warning also of the consequences of remaining silent about what is happening in several cities under the cover of the “Popular Committees”, which acted to expel women they considered prostitutes, such as Al-Hajeb in the Ifrane region, and to demand closure of bars, as in Kenitra.

In this regard, the association strongly condemned “other Islamists from the ‘Unification and Reform’ [Tawhid wa Islah] organisation and other groups imposing what they regard as known and preventing what they see as evil,” describing what is happening as “dangerous phenomena” that incite violence and hatred.
For his part, Mohamed Hilali, vice-president of the Unification and Reform movement, responded in a statement to Magharebia, alleging that there was “a large fallacy propagated by some people under the guise of individual liberties”.

“We are reassured that individual freedoms will be strengthened more in the presence of Islamists in the government, because the Islamists [provide for] the most freedom and democracy in their educational development in their communities and their movements,” he said.

The incident came immediately after a call by Abu Zeid, a Qur’an reciter and leading member of the ruling Justice and Development Party, for a day dedicated to “chastity and modesty”. He was joined by Salafist jihadist Sheikh Mohamed Fizazi.

Fatiha Mukhlas, a member of the Democratic League for Women’s Rights said that “dress falls under people’s individual liberties and no one should be targeted because of his choice to wear particular clothing, as occurred with the young woman of Rabat.”

London (CNN) — The Dalai Lama refused to answer a question Monday about whether Tibetan monks should stop setting themselves on fire to protest China’s occupation of Tibet.

“No answer,” he said, saying it was a sensitive political question and that he had retired from politics.

He handed over political leadership of the Tibetan community to an elected prime minister last year.

Self-immolation is becoming an increasingly common form of protest for Tibetans who want genuine autonomy from China and accuse Beijing of repression.

More than 30 of them took place in the last year in China, Tibetan advocacy groups say.

The Dalai Lama was speaking in London, where he is accepting the Templeton Prize, an award worth £1.1 million ($1.74 million) which honors “outstanding individuals who have devoted their talents to expanding our vision of human purpose and ultimate reality.”

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/05/14/world/asia/uk-dalai-lama/index.html

see for a explanation of Muslim women’s clothing.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/05/europe_muslim_veils/html/1.stm
please see also
http://skydancingblog.com/2011/05/06/honor-killing-another-bright-light-rubbed-out/

“-Restrictions on marriage: A Muslim man can marry a non-Muslim
woman who is monotheistic, but a Muslim woman cannot marry a non-
Muslim. Apostates and adherents of other religions not recognized by Islam may not be married and if they were married before their apostasy, their marriage is dissolved. In relations between husband and wife, Islam gives privileges to the man in allowing him to have more than one wife and to divorce unilaterally by repudiation.

-Restrictions on inheritance: Women, in many cases, receive half of what a man receives. No inheritance is allowed from Muslims in favor of non-Muslims, and vice versa. If a person changes his religion to Islam, his non-Muslim heirs are deprived of the inheritance. Apostasy constitutes an impediment to inheritance.’

-Restrictions on relations between parents and children: In case of a mixed marriage between a Muslim man and a non-Muslim woman, no freedom is given to the couple to choose the religion of their child. The woman is disadvantaged in obtaining the Hadana (guardianship): The child is taken from her when he or she reaches the age where he or she can understand religion. In case of apostasy, the apostate has no right to custody of the child.

-Restrictions on access by non-Muslims to the exercise of the judicial power or the office of arbitrator; neither men and women nor Muslims and non-Muslims have equal status as witnesses.

-Restrictions on the granting of nationality to non-Muslims, on their access to public office and on their political rights.

-Islamic penalties are harsh: stoning, ablation, death penalty, lex talionis, etc.

-Slavery: From time to time, there are reports of slavery still being practiced in such Arab and Islamic countries as Saudi Arabia and Mauritania.”

Thankfully the writer of the above says, with regard to the discussion needed to reconcile Islamic law to modern concepts of human rights: “….A necessary prerequisite to such a discussion, however, is a guarantee of freedom of thought and of expression – which is not the case today – in order to reach a correct understanding of the Koran, the Sunna and the Islamic jurisprudence. In such a discussion, sociological aspects should not be neglected. Any change should be the result of personal conviction and not of a reaction to critics. Non-Muslims in these countries should participate in such discussion. The gate of igtihad (interpretative and creative effort) should be open for them too.”

However there is no doubt that this is a proposal that not all in the current Islamic world would agree to.