Maryam Namazie in Oz

Iranian-born British woman takes her battle against media silence on shari’a to Australia


The ‘Marxist’ Muslima Namzie is a false flag operation.

The Australian  What really bothers Maryam Namazie is the silence of the media and the inaction by the British government over what she says are sharia’s attacks on the fundamental rights of Britain’s Muslim citizens. Her group, One Law for All, has been fighting since 2008 to stop what she describes as the rise of political Islamism in Britain. Iranian-born British woman takes her battle against media silence on shari’a to Australia   (Barenaked)

However, Namazie is  not one of us:

Maryam Namazie, antisemitic supporter of jihad ... – Jihad Watch

Maryam Namazie is a Marxist antisemite who claims to be anti-jihad but actually has attacked Israel and spread Palestinian jihad propaganda on numerous occasions. An anti-jihadist who doesn’t support the country on the front lines of the global jihad? Pull my other leg.

Marxist antisemitic “antijihadist” from One Law For … – Jihad Watch

The Leftist dhimmi blog Harry’s Place, which dabbles dilettanishly in counter-jihad poses while seldom missing an opportunity to denigrate and defame genuine counter-jihadists, has not surprisingly signed on to the Marxist antisemite Maryam Namazie’s One Law For All hit piece on Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, SIOA and SIOE.

She’s not one of them either, and her existence is enough to worry the Bungla:

Promoting sharia hysteria down under – Maryam Namazie arrives in Australia

Australia must fight calls for sharia law  (Maryam Namazie)

ATTENTION has again been focused on sharia law in Australia since the flogging of a convert in Sydney for drinking alcohol.   (The Australian)

Sharia law is fundamentally the demand of Islamic states to limit citizens’ rights.

My organisation, One Law for All, has been campaigning against sharia and religious laws in Britain and its resulting ever-shrinking secular spaces and brutal and discriminatory laws, particularly against women, for nearly three years now. The same must be done in Australia and everywhere.

While the far-Right blames, and scapegoats, Muslim immigration for the rise in sharia law in order to further its racist and inhuman agenda, it is the people living under Islamic laws, or the many, who have fled sharia and sought refuge in Australia and elsewhere who are the principal victims of Islamism, and at the forefront of the struggle against it.

Related Coverage

Nowhere is opposition to sharia and Islamism greater than in countries ruled by Islamic laws.

Islamic groups and Islamists will often feign representation of Muslims, while in fact Muslims, or those labelled as such, are not a homogeneous group like any other. There are rights activists, freethinkers, socialists, secularists, humanists and atheists among them. Sharia law is not the culture of Muslims but Islamist culture. The claim of representation by Islamists is in fact shared by far-Right groups (which by the way have more in common with the Islamists than not); they too wrongly assert that sharia is the consequence of an increase in the Muslim population. The call by proponents for the accommodation of sharia law in Australia does a great disservice to the many that have resisted, fled, and sought refuge in Australia even if it is primarily regarding sharia’s civil code.

As one supporter of the One Law for All campaign in Britain has said: “It is supported precisely because it is limited to denying women’s rights in the family. No hands are being cut off, so there’s no problem.”

In fact, sharia family law is a pillar of women’s oppression in countries under Islamic laws. And it often exists even when the penal code no longer applies.

Under sharia law’s civil code, child custody reverts to the father at a preset age, even if the father is abusive. Women who remarry lose custody of their children even if the child has not reached the preset age and sons are entitled to inherit twice the share of daughters.

Also a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man’s. A woman’s marriage contract is between her male guardian and her husband, and a Muslim woman is not permitted to marry a non-Muslim. A man can have four wives and divorce his wife by simple repudiation, whereas a woman must give justifications for requesting a divorce, some of which are extremely difficult to prove.

The Islamic Sharia Council in Britain explains why this is so: With regards to women’s testimony, if one forgets, the other can remind her. It’s the difference between a man and a woman’s brain. A woman’s character is not so good for a case where testimony requires attention and concentration.

And this also applies to divorce. Women are governed by emotion; men by their minds, so he will think twice before uttering talaq (divorce). It goes on to say it is not derogatory, but the secret of women’s nature.

While there is an obvious difference between stoning a woman to death and denying her the right to divorce and child custody, the fundamentals and misogyny behind sharia’s civil and penal codes are the same, it is just a matter of degree. It is deceptive, or at best a mistake, not to see the civil aspects of sharia law as part of, and an extension of, its penal code.

Despite the discrimination, proponents of sharia law argue that adult women have a right to choose sharia courts. But the use of the terms “choice” and “rights” are highly deceptive.

Firstly, many are pressured into going to these courts. In one study in Britain, a staggering four out of 10 women attending the sharia court were party to civil injunctions issued against their husbands on the grounds of violence and threatening behaviour. They were not even meant to be in the same vicinity with them — let alone be, as they were, in a Sharia Council mediating civil matters.

In this way, these privatised legal processes were ignoring not only state law intervention and due process, but providing little protection and safety for the women in question. Further, the interviews and observation data revealed that husbands used this opportunity to negotiate reconciliation, financial settlements for divorce, and in many cases access to children.

Also, there is very little choice when living under an Islamic inquisition. Islamists don’t let you pick and choose, but will threaten or intimidate anyone who transgresses their medieval norms. They say so openly.

An Islamic sharia judge in Britain has said, “in the sharia, there is no exception; you have to accept it”. They’ve also said very clearly, “belittling (sharia law) or calling (it) out-of-date constitutes disbelief as Allah says and we know what the penalty for disbelief is”.

Using terms such as “rights” and “choice” are merely public relations ploys by Islamists and their supporters. It’s absurd when Islamists talk of choice. There is no choice when they are in power. And it’s deceptive. One can justify anything by saying it’s a choice. The hadith on stoning comes to mind. It is said that a woman begged Mohammad thrice before he reluctantly agreed to stone her to death.

These are not choices. To say it is so is to say that Muslim women are sub-human. They don’t want custody of their children; they want to remain in violent situations and face marital rape or unhappy marriages, they want their testimony to be half that of a man’s. By using the terminology of choice, proponents hope to dupe the public into ignoring the institutionalised violence and misogyny in sharia law.

Rights, justice, inclusion, equality and respect are for people, not for beliefs and certainly not for inhumane parallel legal systems. Sharia law contravenes human rights. In order to safeguard the rights and freedoms of all those living in Australia, there must be one secular law for all and no religious courts.

Maryam Namazie is the Spokesperson of the One Law for All campaign: www. For more information, read Sharia Law in Britain: A Threat to One Law for All and Equal Rights.

3 thoughts on “Maryam Namazie in Oz”

  1. The woman believes in “open borders”. She says Muslims are coming to the West for “freedom”. She says we should take them all and give them citizenship. She says “nobody” can live in Iran because it’s so awful there, but somehow it is not the Iranians’ job to fix it but our job to give people refuge. If anyone disagrees with her they are “far right” which to her is a term on a par with “kuffar” to a Muslim.
    In her world, the West , despite its advantages, has no right to protect itself by means of border control yet somehow has the power to absorb all the people in the world who want to – or pretend to want to, because with open borders, who knows why they are coming ? – live in freedom. She thinks her little organisation can persuade enough newcomers to go along with her “one law for all” ideals and it can grow into a world government.
    Or something. This woman “dreams large” as they say at Melbourne Uni.
    She is mad.

  2. I ws at both of Maryam’s Melbourne talks (in fact, I bankrolled the Melbourne leg) and it was interesting to witness a room full of predominantly left leaning people listen to Maryam trash multiculturism, cultural relativism and Sharia law. There was a gentleman at the second talk who had never heard of Sharia courts operating in western countries and couldn’t believe it was happening. He stayed behind afterwards and asked my colleague how he could learn more, what books to seek out etc. It was suggested he start with Aayan Hirsi Ali.
    So, Maryam can at least help people take the first steps on a journey to enlightenment regarding Islamism, a journey they’re probably not going to start by listening to Robert Spencer et al.
    Maryams’ views on open borders are not to everyone’s taste (lets face it, they’re never going to gain traction) so why worry about them? She’s part of an organisation of many people and hence has her views and opinions tempered by others, I suggest you let her go about her work, even think about supporting the One Law for All organisation in the UK. There are many ways to skin a cat.

  3. I do agree with the Prawn of Prophecy,
    The best way to fight these people is to let them speak, then succinctly and clearly refute their argument. Prawn (my apologies :-)) has deduced an important point – we need to be informing the public and that is where the first part of this battle will be won.

Comments are closed.