A group of York students has won the opportunity to have their very own I-phone application developed after winning The App Challenge final, held at the Ron Cooke Hub on Wednesday, January 18.
YUSU Welfare officer Bob Hughes has warned students to be vigilant after a student loans phishing scam has been revealed.
Her Majesty the Queen will be visiting York on Maundy Thursday, 5th April, as part of the 800th anniversary of York’s Charter for the traditional “Royal Maundy” ceremony.
A flood caused by a heating system “failure” forced the university IT services to shut down many essential systems on Sunday night, causing problems for many students on the eve of their exams and assignment due-dates.
Mufti Muhammad ibn Adam, scheduled to speak at the University on Wednesday February 16th, is an Islamic scholar and a teacher who offers Islamic guidance on his online Sharia clinic Darul Iftaa. His website made the news in July 2009, when the Sunday Mercury reported Darul Iftaa as one of the Sharia courts across the country to offer “illegal fatwas” that “transgress human rights standards as applied by British courts.”
These include rulings on the website that state, “When a man calls his wife for sexual intimacy, she should come, even if she is busy in the cooking area.”
Another ruling states, “As for the wife it is not permissible for her to leave her husband’s house without his consent.”
The article on the Sunday Mercury entitled “Islamic Sharia Law courts operating in West Midlands” can be accessed here.
A report compiled by Denis MacEoin of the Institute for the Study of Civil Society London (CIVITAS) entitled Music, Chess and other Sins further noted, “He rules that women may not swim (even for medical reasons) where a male lifeguard is present” and “the legal punishment for adultery is stoning” amongst others.
In light of this, Mariel Stringer-Fehlow, Chairman of Amnesty International Society, Qaisar Siddiqui of StandforPeace, Felix Bungay of the Freedom Society, Peter Bartley of the Jewish Society, Jon Ward of the Conservatives Society and Zoe Lederman of the International Development Society have lodged an official complaint to YUSU about this matter, spearheaded by third-year undergraduate Sam Westrop.
Westrop, part of StandforPeace said, “On behalf of a number of societies, we would like to stress that this is not a Freedom of Speech issue. It is however, a “decency” issue. We call upon the Student Unions and University authorities to condemn the speaker and his views, and to publicly urge the society hosting the event to either cancel or change the speaker."
Stringer-Fehlow further elaborated, “If we campaign against homophobia and hate speech in other countries, how can we encourage it on our campus?"
Receiving no response from YUSU on this matter, the coalition of students and societies have sent a letter to Vice Chancellor Brian Cantor on this issue. They have gathered support from numerous parties, including York Outer MP Julian Sturdy and left-wing journalist Nick Cohen.
Sturdy commented, “I believe in the absolute importance of freedom of speech, but I am not happy that this vile speaker is using the university as a platform to produce tension in the community."
Furthermore, Cohen, Observer columnist and author of “What’s Left?” provided his views on this matter, “Freedom of speech includes the freedom of vile men to propagate foul views, but it does not exempt them from criticism. It is essential that students act as free men and women and correct, mock and refute reactionaries who stray on to their campuses. They should on no account allow enfeebling notions of political correctness to hold them back."
Several others have also lent their support to this matter, including Hasan Afzal, who is a Muslim anti-extremist activist.
According to the Communications Officer for the Institute for Middle Eastern Democracy, “With less than a week since the Prime Minister made his speech in Munich condemning violent and non-violent preachers, it's to the lasting shame of York ISOC if they welcome this preacher of hate."
Westrop concluded, “We, a coalition of Muslim, Jewish and other students of varying political and religious persuasions urge the Islamic Society to replace the speaker for this event with someone far less disgusting."
To this, York ISOC has released a statement refuting the claims against Mufti Muhammad ibn Adam.
Dina Salah, President of York ISOC stated, “The complaints have been fuelled by a single press release by rightwing think-tank CIVITAS, which fails to reference the original source of the claims, instead recklessly sensationalising and listing views which have been taken completely out of context.”
Concerning a statement on Darul Iftaa that says, “It is a grave sin for a woman to refuse sex to her husband”, Salah refuted claims by the coalition of societies that Mufti Muhammad ibn Adam “legitimises rape.”
According to Salah, “The above extract omits a later extract that he notes in the same article, which directly delegitimizes rape.”
“He adds that it does not in any way mean that the husband may force himself over her for sexual gratification … if the wife is not in a state to engage in sexual activities and has a genuine and valid reason, and the husband forces her, then he will be sinful,” quoted Salah from the article, which can be found here.
Salah emphasised, “It is important to note that socially conservative views should not be confused with violent extreme views – whilst one is completely abhorrent the other should be confronted and discussed openly through rational debate… How can there be meaningful progression in our society, when individuals seek to restrict opinions and prevent constructive challenges of diverse views?”
“Ironically, the talk scheduled to be delivered by Muhammad Ibn Adam Al Kawthari is actually Misconceptions About Islam, aimed to clarify common misconceptions related to the very issues such as women’s rights and Shariah law, which the societies have brought attention to,” Salah continued.
Salah went on to say, “Regarding the rest of the accusations, we invite all societies to come along to the talk on the 16th of February from 6:30 till 8:30 at PX / 001 and raise these issues in an open and friendly debate.”
"diverse" views. Yes I suppose you could call them that....
while i dont think he legitimises rape, the notion that a woman has to "obey" her husband's sexual desires is still demeaning and degrading.
No references? Everything is from the speakers website. If that's the public stuff god knows what he says in private.
A CIVITAS report notes of al-Kawthari:
"He places severe restrictions on male doctors treating female patients; he rules that women may not swim (even for medical reasons) where a male lifeguard is present, or where there are non-Muslim women; using tampons is 'disliked' (makruh-a classification in shari'a law); a woman may not travel beyond 48 miles without her husband or a close relative accompanying her; a female is encouraged to remain within the confines of her house as much as possible; polygamy is permissible. If anyone were to ridicule polygamy, he would become an unbeliever; it is a grave sin for a woman to refuse sex to her husband; it is forbidden to have close, intimate relations with or have love for non-Muslims; Muslims are not to sit, eat, live or mingle with them; the legal punishment for adultery is stoning."[1]
Al-Kawthari recommends that if someone engages in sexual intercourse outside of marriage, the punishment should vary from a hundred lashes to death by stoning[2]. Furthermore, Al-Kawthari legitimises rape. He has stated, "The narrations of the beloved of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) clearly signify the importance of the wife obeying her husband in his request for sexual intimacy. It will be a grave sin (in normal circumstances) for the wife to refuse her husband, and even more, if this leads the husband into the unlawful."[3]
The same Civitas report notes that similar places for fatwa rulings in the UK have demanded that homosexuals should be beaten. While it is impossible to know what many of these rulings state, as they are decided behind closed doors, this question from the Darul Iftaa website, cited in the Civitas report, suggests something:
"Question: The questioner is about to start a career in law. Someone has told him that most aspects of English law would be forbidden to him to practise. Could he/she defend people of crimes (irrespective of guilt), and could they advocate rights for people such as homosexuals?
Answer: One should not help defend someone who is guilty of a crime. One must not help others gain a right prohibited by sharia or disapproved of by it. ‘When practicing law, one must do so within the limits of Shariah. As such, one is not allowed to advocate rights that are incompatible with Islam, such as recovering interest money and fighting for the rights of homosexual and/or lesbians.’[4]"
Furthermore, Al-Kawthari recommends that the legal punishment for theft is amputation, "The penalty for the one who steals (when the above conditions are met) is that his/her right arm is amputated. If a person steals a second time, his left foot is amputated; if a third time, then he will be imprisoned until he repents, but no further amputation will take place."[5]
1 - http://www.civitas.org.uk/press/prcs87.php
2 - http://www.daruliftaa.com/question.asp?txt_QuestionID=q-16484743
3 - http://www.daruliftaa.com/question.asp?txt_QuestionID=q-07335282
4 - http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/ShariaLawOrOneLawForAll.pdf
5 - http://www.daruliftaa.com/question.asp?txt_QuestionID=q-18254323
Having friends in high places always works out especially when you have buddies in every society who follow right wing ideologies. What I find so vile and disgusting is that it was ok for the Standforpeace to host Raheel Raza an apparent “anti-extremist speaker” who suggested it was ok for the US to bomb the innocent civilians in Pakistan and Afghanistan as they receive US aid, in the Q and A session. Surely, this isn’t an extremist and offensive statement- yes apparently this is the “powerful weopen” Standforpeace employed with her “common sense, bravery…and intergrity”. The Standforpeace blogs are full of sensationalist material, clearly the writer was born to write for the Daily Mail. What I say is to any society is that no society has the right to dictate who you can or cannot invite to speak, unless you bring someone who incites violence or hatred. This is when it is wrong, it wasn’t so long ago I heard one of the societies wanted to bring Nick Griffin to speak at York University…glad they decided against this. Anyway, I look forward to the Misconceptions talk, and hope these people if they truly stand for peace, act humanely and with some integrity. When did societies start getting so nasty?
Extraordinary, commentator number 4 won't say anything about the homophobic misogynistic speaker who wants to stone women to death but he or she will concoct ridiculous stories about the acclaimed, award winning human rights activist stating that the murder of her countrymen is acceptable. Laughable you're using a daily mail inference when you're the one quite happily accepting homophobia, misogyny and hate rhetoric. You're either really stupid or completely amoral - number 4: you faintly fascist ideologue you - you get to pick which one!
comment deleted by the author My contribution here is that I think most people do not believe that cutting off people's hands as a punishment for stealing is acceptable in ANY context. Although I admit they're unlikely to do it again. But how disgusting!
And despite being an atheist, I reckon that the Pope would agree with that.
I agree that all religious text seems to have its dark sections, but I don't see Christian or Jewish speakers on campus preaching that women should be stoned for sex outside marriage. Big difference I think! And my two Muslim housemates agree!
comment deleted by the author With regard to number 6, yes Christianity does think homosexuality is immoral, but I haven't seen the Vatican hanging 15 year old boys from cranes..
comment deleted by the author and in addition to that, no.6, if Nick Griffin called for people's hands to be cut off for theft, would that make him "stand for peace". I doubt he would get a platform anywhere, regardless of whether he was doing it or not; his views would be seen as repugnant and medieval. Why the double standard?
#6 As a Catholic although more importantly a Christian I believe homosexuality is wrong, but I also believe in freedom of choice, not everyone believes in God, so why should they follow scripture?
Where faith is concerned, I think that if you believe someone has committed a serious sin, leave it to God to do the judging, surely if you 'punish' them by <b>murder</b> you are committing the worst crime of all in the eyes of God as personally I dont understand how a 'loving God' would commened brutality and oppression amongst his people (female or not we are all his people). Maybe the speakers arent carrying out these actions themselves but they are happening.
I would like to say to all the muslim women out there that God loves you just the same as men, we are all equal in the eyes of the Lord. If you are being opressed it is those men who will be punished, not you! Dont EVER think your sinful because you fancy walking outside without a chaperone or for denying sex! God lead his people out of the dessert, I pray this oppression amongst women will be delivered one day!
Hmmm...found this on their website, not sure if I agree 100% though. University of York Islamic Society reply to IAW speaker allegations
on 02/13/2011 by yorkisoc
University of York Islamic Society FULL PRESS RELEASE:
Recently, a few societies have raised their concerns regarding the York Islamic Society (ISOC) choice of speaker: Mufti Muhammed Ibn Adam Al Kawthari, who will be speaking in York ISOC Islam Awareness Week event.
The complaints have been fuelled by a single press release by rightwing think-tank CIVITAS, which fails to reference the original source of the claims, instead recklessly sensationalizing and listing views which have been taken completely out of context. These complaints have used a number of sentences that were taken out of context and due to space limitations we will only discuss one accusation and as for the rest of the accusations we invite all societies to come along to the talk on the 16th of February from 6:30 till 8:30 at PX / 001 and raise these issues in an open and friendly debate.
One of the issues raised is the statement: “It is a grave sin for a woman to refuse sex to her husband”.
The complaining societies presented the following sentence “Furthermore, Al-Kawthari legitimises rape. He has stated, “The narrations of the beloved of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) clearly signify the importance of the wife obeying her husband in his request for sexual intimacy. It will be a grave sin (in normal circumstances) for the wife to refuse her husband, and even more, if this leads the husband into the unlawful.” However, the above extract omits a later extract that he notes in the same article which directly delegitimizes rape. He adds that “However, the above does not in any way mean that the husband may force himself over her for sexual gratification. The Hadith mentions “the husband spends the night in anger or being displeased” which clearly shows that he must restrain himself from forcing himself over her. Muhammed Ibn Adam Al Kawthari goes on to say “Similarly, it should be remembered here that, the wife must obey her husband in his request for sexual intimacy unless she has a valid reason. She must obey him as long as she does not have to forego her own rights. As such, if the wife is ill, fears physical harm or she is emotionally drained, etc; she will not be obliged to comply with her husband’s request for sexual intimacy. Rather, the husband would be required to show her consideration.” Also he adds “If the wife is not in a state to engage in sexual activities and has a genuine and valid reason, and the husband forces her, then he will be sinful.”
The complete statement of Mufti Mohamed could be found at this link http://www.daruliftaa.com/question.asp?txt_QuestionID=q-07335282.
What seems to be happening is that speakers are being quoted bizarrely out of context, or have social values or political ideals conflated with actual violent extremism, when there is no link between the two. Speakers which are popular amongst Muslim students, that provide valuable discourse, that condemn terrorism and provide no security risk whatsoever, are now being associated with the scourge of extremism; and consequently the good name of your every day positive Islamic Society and popular Muslim figure is being attacked.
It is important to note that socially conservative views should not be confused with violent extreme views – whilst one is completely abhorrent the other should be confronted and discussed openly through rational debate. We find it deeply problematic that individuals seek to tarnish the good name and reputation of Muslim scholars under the premise of “extremism” and “islamism” based on misquotes and reckless sensationalism of a very serious issue. We feel that such an approach is not cohesive to good campus relations and seeks to alienate Muslim students from engaging properly in their Students’ Union and hindering their development of a strong Islamic identity.
The Islamic Society stands in favour of freedom of expression, with the only exception being when it incites hatred or violence. This view is supported by the University’s long-established policy on freedom of speech, particularly with its public declaration that members of a University have a particular obligation not to seek to prevent the expression of opinion but to counter argument with argument and thought with thought. How can there be meaningful progression in our society, when individuals seek to restrict opinions and prevent constructive challenges of diverse views? The StandforPeace organisation state “we encourage the very persons-who might usually disrupt such events-to get involved and to come listen and debate with speakers, topics, literature and ideas from a number of differing viewpoints” yet it is this very society who are urging our society to either cancel or change the speaker.
Finally we in the Islamic society wish for a dialogue with all students in the university and they are all welcome to attend our talks and gatherings. We are promoted to the welfare of students and we have not shown through our actions hostility to any group. The claims made by StandforPeace made against us amount to an attack on our principles by tarnishing our reputation in the university. The whole aim of our Islam Awareness Week is to create dialogue and understanding with all students in University in relation to Islam and promoting interfaith communication. All our events are open to all individuals from the University, not only do we extend our invitation to faith societies on campus but also the wider community including the York Interfaith Forum. Ironically, the talk scheduled to be delivered by Muhammed Ibn Adam Al Kawthari is actually Misconceptions About Islam aimed to clarify common misconceptions related to the very issues such as women’s rights and Shariah law which the societies have brought attention to.
to be honest I dont think the above statement is much different to what is supposedly 'taken out of context' at the end of the day women should not have to be 'demanded' to do anything, maybee the woman just doesnt fancy having sex, whats the problem?!
"Would you also be oppossed [sic] to the pope paying a visit to the university? I think not"
Actually, I would. Plenty of people protested his UK visit for his views on contraception and AIDS, homosexuality and poor handling of child abuse in the Catholic Church. It's not about what religion you belong to - it's merely what you stand for. And while this speaker has the right to believe what he wants, publicly advocating for views contrary to democratic values is something worth criticising.
#15 there is a big difference between saying we shouldnt use contraception and murdering people. The biggest difference that within the catholic/christian community these views are expressed but not enforced. Whereas in Islamic communities even here in Britian these type of views are being enforced against peoples will in the name of family honour. There was a case recently in the news about 12-14 year old girls living in Britian being forced into an arranged marriage in Pakistan = rape. Pope, we shouldnt use contraception because sex is for procreation, well that is actually entirely true but difference is hes not saying, 'if you use contraception ill kill you' also the pope visits like once every 50 or so years, these Isalmic speaks are here all the time making young girls and gay guys lives a misery!
I'll rephrase, not murdering but condoning it
Interesting how the IAW 'press release' tries to justify al Kawthari's comments how women should submit to their husbands, but doesn't address at ALL the comments about homosexuals, adulterers being stoned, and thieves losing their hands through amputation.
The excuse that because he doesn't actually cut the hands off people, just preaches it, and is therefore somehow acceptable, is ridiculous. The BNP don't actually murder immigrants but I have no doubt if they in power they would probably f****** do it. And that's we protest against them, because they're intolerant w******. This must apply for everyone! - you can't have double standards.
"The whole aim of our Islam Awareness Week is to create dialogue and understanding with all students in University in relation to Islam and promoting interfaith communication."
Clearly that won't ever work.. How will interfaith dialogue be helped by the Islamic Society, inviting, refusing to condemn (which I take to mean they're supporting his views) someone who wants to beat women. Evil.
NONE of the Muslims that I know agree with what this society is doing.
Someone who argues that a woman can only refuse to have sex with her husband if she has a 'valid' reason IS legitimising rape. No question. But surely this man speaking openly about his views will give more people cause to disagree with him? It also cannot be ignored that matters like this are a concern some Muslims in the uk. Banning this man from the university will not stop young Muslims from wondering about these issues, but make even more people afraid to discuss certain subjects. Silencing people has never made a problem go away.
Hannah - We couldn't agree more. Proscription will only make things worse, and this man has a legal right to speak under freedom of expression laws. It is, as we said, a decency issue. . It is indecent to invite such a speaker in the first place, and it is indecent to give him the oxygen of publicity. Getting people, as Nick Cohen pointed out, to 'correct, mock and refute' these hate preachers is an imperative, and there is better chance of this if attention is brought to the matter.
Furthermore, there is NOTHING to stop the Union or University authorities from criticising the choice of speaker. There is more of a pressure to do so if students of all religious and political persuasions are made aware, and consequently some will proactively get involved.
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report