Muslim Heretics Conference

So is Islam Hadari to be enforced by whipping now?

Thursday, 03 April 2008

Some participants at a seminar organised by an insitution created under the auspices of the Umno-led government want non-Muslims found committing khalwat (close proximity) with Muslims to also be held liable. They also want heftier penalties for Muslims caught for khalwat, prostitution, consuming alcohol and involvement in gambling activities.

An angry Farish Noor says this is further proof that the so-called ‘moderate and progressive’ brand of Islam that was sold to us as ‘Islam Hadari’ was little more than another Umno propaganda device; serving to placate the concerns of the international community while in fact serving only to extend the power and hegemony of the state at home. 

I am having a tough time writing this particular article as I am absolutely consumed by anger at the moment. In fact, I am livid as I have never been for such a long time.

The reason for this sudden rise in my blood pressure level is that after a two-day seminar organised by the Institute for Islamic Understanding (Ikim) and the Shariah Judiciary Department of Malaysia, it was suggested by some of those who took part that “non-Muslims found committing khalwat (close proximity) with Muslims (will) also be held liable” and that they too will be under threat of punishment (The Star, ‘Proposal to Persecute Non-Muslims for Khalwat’, 3 April 2008) According to the report, “Syariah Court of Appeal Judge Datuk Mohd Asri Abdullah said the seminar had proposed that non-Muslims committing khalwat with Muslims should also be sentenced accordingly, but in the civil courts.”

Furthermore the participants of the seminar also proposed “to impose heftier penalties – of up to four times the current penalties – on Muslims caught for khalwat, prostitution, consuming alcohol and involvement in gambling activities”.

Furthermore the participants of the seminar also proposed “to impose heftier penalties – of up to four times the current penalties – on  for Islamic Understanding (Ikim) and the Shariah Judiciary Department of Malaysia, it was suggested by some of those who took part that “non-Muslims found committing khalwat (close proximity) with Muslims (will) also be held liable” and that they too will be under threat of punishment (The Star, ‘Proposal to Persecute Non-Muslims for Khalwat’, 3 April 2008)”.

And what might these heftier penalties be? According to the same report, “Ikim and the department were proposing that the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965 (Amendment) 1984 be amended to impose stiffer penalties of RM1,000 fine or five years’ jail or 12 strokes of the rotan for Syariah Lower Courts and RM20,000 fine or 10years’ jail or 24 strokes of rotan for Syariah High Courts.” It then added that “there was also a proposal for Syariah judges to enforce whipping for these offences” and that “another proposal calls for the establishment of a rehabilitation centre for those convicted of offences related to morals and faith such as prostitution and effeminate men, and enforcement of Section 54 of the Syariah Criminal Offences Act (Act 559) to set up such centres”.

So this, apparently, is what the great minds of Ikim and the religious departments have been cooking up and intending to serve to us, the Malaysian public, all along. While Muslims are angry about the portrayal of Islam and Muslims in the film ‘Fitna’ by the right-wing Dutch politician Geert Wilders, one is left with the question: As long as Muslim leaders and intellectuals remain stuck in their morass of outdated conservative thinking, would it not remain the case that Islam is seen as a religious of violence? How, pray tell, can scholars like me defend the image of Islam and Muslims when Muslim governments like ours allows such outlandish and dangerous ideas to spread, and harbour such proponents of conservative-fundamentalist Islam in the very same institutions that were meant to open up the minds of Muslims and lead us – and Malaysian society – to a more modern, progressive and liberated understanding of Islam and religion in general?

The fact that such proposals could have been made at all speaks volumes about the state of Muslim thinking in Malaysia today. Worse still is the total disconnect between reality and ideals, and the fact that some of these Muslim thinkers fail to see just how unjust, inhuman and dehumanising these proposed punishments are in the eyes of millions of other Malaysians and foreigners alike. Whipping? In this day and age? And what would happen to the image of Malaysia as the so-called bastion of moderate Islam when the international media gets a glimpse of this non-so-moderate Islam at work? Is Islam Hadari to be enforced by the whip today?

The results of the recent general elections have shown that the Malaysian public has reached a level of political awareness and maturity that is unprecedented in our history. It also points to an increasingly urbanised, well-connected, better-informed and more politically-conscious electorate that will not be satisfied with empty slogans of a more ‘moderate’ Islam and theme parks with crystal mosques. Why, even in the ranks of the Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party (Pas), there are more and more progressive voices who are calling for real economic and structural reform, and contemplating the possibility of creating a new social contract based on a welfare state model for all Malaysians.

But it is in the ranks of Umno and the Umno-led institutions of the state that we see the mental quagmire of the elite at its worst. Ikim and the Shariah Judiciary Department are both institutions that were created under the auspices of the Umno-led government. Yet the so-called reforms we have been presented are not intended to open up the minds of Muslims, but rather to add yet another layer of moral policing on Muslim society today.

More worrying is the fact that now the scope of Umno’s Islamisation policy has extended to cover non-Muslims as well, and this can only be read as yet another attempt to impose Islamic legal and political hegemony on the non-Muslims of Malaysia . How and why should a non-Muslim be taken to court for simply being in love with a Muslim? And why, for that matter, should a Muslim be punished for simply loving a non-Muslim? Furthermore the non-Muslim partner in such a relationship may not even regard it as wrong to simply be in love with another. Yet the advocates of this reform are suggesting that he or she has committed a sin even if he or she has not done anything wrong according to his or her belief system.

This in turn points to the slow erosion of respect for diversity and pluralism in Malaysia , where a group of Muslim communitarians do not seem realise the fact that Islam is simply one of many belief-systems in Malaysia and that the values of Islam may not be relevant to those who are not part of that faith community. Yet by calling for these legal reforms, these sectarian leaders seem to be implying that what constitutes an offence for Muslims must also constitute an offence for others too. How does this communitarian slant fit with the universalist and pluralist claims of Islam Hadari then?

That such a conference could have been held so close after Umno’s disastrous showing at the recent elections would indicate that this Umno-led government is totally bankrupt of ideas and can only shore up what little support it has left by playing the Islamic card and pandering to the gallery yet again. Moral policing of any kind is just one further layer of policing on society, and this is fundamentally part and parcel of the state’s attempt to remain in power at all costs. The net result would be the further control of Malaysian society as a whole and the costs will be borne by those Malaysians who are Malaysian-minded enough to see beyond race and religion, and to cross these cultural-religious frontiers by falling in love with others. Instead it is those very Malaysian-minded Malaysians who are under threat now, by laws and regulations that make it virtually impossible for us to love one another and live with one another.

Finally, this is further proof that the so-called ‘moderate and progressive’ brand of Islam that was sold to us as ‘Islam Hadari’ was little more than another Umno propaganda device; serving to placate the concerns of the international community while in fact serving only to extend the power and hegemony of the state at home. Should these reform measures come to pass, it is our duty to remind ourselves, our fellow Malaysians and the international community that what passes under the label of Islam Hadari is really a conservative brand of statist Islam that promotes imprisonment, detention, moral policing and whipping. Let the cameras of the international media come to Malaysia to film the spectacle of Malaysians being arrested, detained in rehabilitation centres, whipped and injured for life by the morality police and religious authorities. Let the whole world know that ‘Islam Hadari’ has never opened up the minds of Muslims. Let us expose this lie once and for all, and the liars behind the lie as well.

Dr. Farish A. Noor is a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University of Singapore; and one of the founders of the www.othermalaysia.org research site.

Aliran - So is Islam Hadari to be enforced by whipping now?

Can Women’s Rights Coexist With the Tenets of Islamic Law?

Lifting the veil

By Jay Tolson

Posted April 7, 2008

Judged by much of the media coverage, the status of Muslim women seems to come down to a matter of clothing: what they are required to wear in countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia or what they were once discouraged from wearing in Turkey. But to veil or not to veil is hardly the question. The fate of women’s rights throughout the Islamic world today hinges on matters of far greater substance, from reforms of family and penal codes to new understandings of Islamic law and teaching. In these best and worst of times for Muslim women, it is perhaps not surprising that every promising bit of news seems to come with a disturbing counterpoint.

Related News

• Secrets of Islam
• Faith Matters

Take Shirin Ebadi, the Iranian lawyer and former judge who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2003 for her unceasing efforts to promote democracy and women’s rights. In response to the jubilant reaction of Iranians throughout the Islamic republic, President Mohammad Khatami—a reformist, no less—dismissed the honor as “not worth all that fuss!”

Not long after that, Morocco’s King Mohammed VI proposed a number of significant reforms in family law that stand to improve the lot of women throughout the North African kingdom. But even before he presented the reforms, Islamists took to the streets to denounce them, dwarfing a pro-reform demonstration by roughly 3 to 1. Around the same time, in a Nigerian state that has adopted Islamic law, a religious appeals court overturned the death sentence of a Muslim woman accused of adultery. But other women in Nigeria continue to face adultery charges that, if upheld, will result in death by stoning.

Women’s rights face an uncertain future throughout much of the Islamic world—though nowhere more pointedly than in the constitution-making efforts now underway in both Afghanistan and Iraq. In two nations widely viewed as test cases of the compatibility of Islamic and universal values, it remains to be seen whether and how the principles of sharia (Islamic law) will inform their future laws.

Behind those uncertainties loom even broader questions facing Muslim women everywhere. In particular, rights activists wonder, are the foundations of Islamic law and theology compatible with international standards of human rights in general and women’s rights in particular? And if so, what must be done to surmount the practical hurdles—including the crucial matter of who interprets the law—that stand in the way of reconciling Islam with universal principles of women’s rights?

Muslim women themselves are already actively engaged with these issues. “When I talk with educated women from Morocco to Pakistan,” says Ann Mayer, a professor of legal studies at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, “I find that they are much more inclined to evaluate their condition in relation to international standards of human rights. And they say that international standards only reinforce Islamic standards.”

That underscores one notable development of the past decade: a new confidence among Muslim feminists that Islamic teachings can support their efforts. This represents a sea change, says Amina Wadud, professor of Islamic studies at Virginia Commonwealth University. As late as 1995, many feminists from Islamic countries insisted women’s equality could be attained only by jettisoning religion, including the outward trappings of the faith, such as the veil.

Since then, though, an expanding reform movement within Islam has led more Muslims to explore the sacred writings on their own. This has often reinforced the patriarchal viewpoint of militant Islamists, but it has also supported progressive and feminist interpretations. Wadud insists that it is unnecessary to argue only on the basis of historical precedent, but she finds more in the sacred texts and traditions to support gender equality than to deny it. She notes, for example, that in the period after Muhammad’s death, women, including the Prophet’s favorite wife, Aisha, played “key roles in preserving traditions, disseminating knowledge, and challenging authority when it went against their understanding of the Koran or the prophetic legacy.”

Referring to the decision of Iran’s mullahs to remove Nobel winner Ebadi from her judgeship on religious grounds, Wadud notes, “Nowhere is it said that women cannot interpret the law.” Ebadi herself, in an interview with Iranian émigré author Amir Taheri, makes the same point in her advice to Muslim women: “Don’t believe that you are decreed to have an inferior position. Study the Koran carefully, so that the oppressors cannot impress you with citations and interpretations. Don’t let individuals masquerading as theologians claim they have a monopoly on understanding Islam.”

Fine words, but have they yet had any practical consequences? The answer, many activists say, is a qualified yes. In that widely followed adultery case in Nigeria, for example, Amina Lawal was exonerated but on several technicalities that may not work for other women. The real problem, says Mayer, is that Nigeria’s interpretation of sharia involves a “folkloric version” of Islamic adultery law. First of all, the rules of evidence spelled out in the Koran require either a freely gained confession from the accused or four eyewitnesses to the act of sexual penetration, neither of which was obtained in Lawal’s case. Just as important, the maximum punishment for the crime is supposed to be 100 lashes, not stoning.

Of course, even if the Lawal case and others did not involve a corrupted use of sharia, the punishments that Lawal faced would be in violation of both the spirit and letter of the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), which Nigeria has signed and ratified.

But appeals to international agreements have only limited effectiveness in advancing women’s rights in the Islamic world. Saudi Arabia signed and ratified CEDAW, but it explicitly stipulates that it will not observe any terms that contradict “norms of Islamic law.”

In a more general way, says New York University law Prof. Noah Feldman, a former U.S. adviser to the Iraqi Governing Council, the United States faces a similar challenge in its efforts to guide Afghanistan and Iraq toward becoming democratic and rights-respecting regimes. Feldman points out that as long as America is an occupying power, it can accomplish much “just by suggesting.” But, he cautions, “at a certain point you cross the line to coercing people on how to run their lives.”

In Iraq, there are good reasons for thinking that Islam and women’s rights can coexist. Before the U.S. invasion, says Khaled Abou El Fadl, a professor of law at the University of California-Los Angeles, Iraq was one of the most progressive of Muslim nations in relation to women. Not only were there female jurists and lawyers, but there was also a civil code that blended the best of French and Islamic laws. Among the latter, he points out, was a law allowing a woman the right to divorce her husband and sue for alimony and child support if he decided to take another wife. (A similar expansion of women’s prerogatives is one of the reforms that Morocco’s king proposed.) Like Feldman, Abou El Fadl worries that attempts to expunge Islam from Iraq’s laws will only trigger a stronger urge on the part of many Iraqis to put more of Islam in—and that might mean the most sexist and patriarchal versions of Islam.

Which raises the most important issue: How can Muslim feminists and rights activists win the interpretive struggle against those mullahs and muftis who confuse patriarchal codes and customs with the core principles of the faith? That is a major concern for Irshad Manji, a Canadian author and journalist. Like many other Muslim feminists, she sees the real problem of interpretation as one of overturning Arab traditions of honor that accompanied the spread of Islam and are now being recirculated throughout the world via the Saudi-funded Wahhabi religious establishment.

As Manji explains, within the Arab honor code, individual rights are secondary to one’s status within the family or tribe. Women are reduced to “communal or tribal property.” In Pakistan or Nigeria, she says, a man from one tribe or family may rape a woman from another as an act of communal retribution.

For Manji, one of the best solutions lies in women’s growing participation in trade, commerce, and capitalism, all of which have been valued since Islam’s founding. (Muhammad’s first wife, Khadija, was an astute businesswoman.) And the economic empowerment of women in the Islamic world is not merely theoretical. It is already underway even in the most Arab of states, Saudi Arabia. In Jidda and Riyadh, respectively, women own a quarter and a third of all businesses. And it is no secret among foreigners working in Saudi Arabia that women are the most educated, able, and productive employees in the kingdom.

By consolidating and advancing their economic position, Manji says, and by becoming tax-paying citizens, women can assert their standing as individuals. This emerging reality is hard to ignore, whether in Saudi Arabia or Iran—though it was a significant blow to Saudi women that they were not allowed to participate in the recent municipal elections. Already in Malaysia, Amina Wadud notes, women have helped reform domestic violence law by promoting what she calls a “nice blend of sharia and civil law.”

Still, it is one of the sad ironies of Islam, Manji says, that a religion originally intended to transcend tribalism has, at least in many parts of the world, allowed the tribalist codes to reassert themselves. But Manji refuses to accept that irony as the last word on women’s fate within Islam. And she is far from alone.

Tags: religion | Islam

• Print  |
• Subscribe  |
• + Share this Story |
• Sphere: Related Content

Can Women’s Rights Coexist With the Tenets of Islamic Law? - US News and World Report