Liberated Libya

Dear readers

Liberation is breaking out all over. I am thankful for the positive outcomes in Tunisia's election. For more detailed coverage, I refer you to The Arabist. A Personal Note on Tunisia's Elections, The Arabist.  But, I have limited time and energy, so will keep my focus on things closer to home.

Presciently, Democracy Now had reported before Qadaffi's death that Qadaffi was particularly threatened by Islamists, and ordered them detained, tortured, and killed. Nermeen Shaikh, Anjali Kamat, and Amy Goodman discussed the fact that Islamists will be free to speak under the new government.

Democracy Now also interviewed Mahmood Mamdani, of Uganda, who I think is a genius. He noted that Libya is more divided than neighboring Tunisia and Egypt. He commented on the increasingly military focused approach of the West towards Africa. Concerns were expressed by both Kamat and Mamdani that the NATO powers would try to extract concessions from the Libyans, with the potential for turning Libya into another Iraq.

Overall, DN has great Libya coverage. Here is a taste.

Muammar Ghadafi killed in Libya as Interim Government Seizes Last Stronghold. Democracy Now.

Democracy Now generally has great coverage of a lot of things, and even the New York Times has noticed.

A Grassroots Struggle Gives Voice to Struggles, New York Times.

Meanwhile, not everyone is happy about Qadaffi's death. Qadaffi was particularly close with Uganda. Many Africans believe that the west only intervened in Libya to gain access to the oil. Nigerian Muslims also mourned Qadaffi's demise, and some leaders suggested retaliation was possible. Qadaffi cultivated many African allies, and was a strong supporter of the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa. South African mercenaries may have been involved in helping Qadaffi escape.

Josh Kron, Many in Sub-Saharan Africa Mourn Qadaffi's Death, The New York Times.

Gadaffi's SA Soldiers, the New Age.

Meanwhile, the leaders of Libya's transitional government, including Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, the chairman of the Transitional National Council, has vowed that the new government will be based on Islamic tenets. Islamic banks will be established, and Libyan men can marry more than one wife now. (Hurrah for them).  The New York Times characterizes this move as "a new piety."

Adam Nossiter, and Kareem Fahim, Revolution Won, Top Libyan Official Vows a New and More Pious State, The New York Times.

In my view, this statement in and of itself is not that controversial, as elements of Sharia are present in most countries, including Egypt. I have written many posts on this, including this one Initial Thoughts on Shariah Law and Women. The issue is whether having law based on Islamic tenets will result in discrimination against those who are not Islamic, such as Jews, Christians and Bahai. This is, in my opinion, a matter of both interpretation and enforcement. Has the US and NATO bet on the wrong horse again? Taliban anyone?

Sorry to be a contrarion, but I am one of those who is a bit concerned that Qadaffi was captured alive, and then executed. A better approach would have been to put him on trial, like Saddam Hussein or Hosni Mubarak. The right to a fair trial is, after all, one of the cornerstones of democracy.

Max Fisher, Qaddafi was captured alive, who killed him? The Atlantic. 

I was appalled by Secretary Clinton's comments on Qadaffi's demise. Have some, gravitas Madame Secretary. Death is not a game.

We Came, We Saw, He Died.

WMB

Does Shariah Allow Women to Vote?

 Women voters stand in line to cast their ballot in Egypt's first major democratic vote, the Constitutional Referendum, 2011. Photo Credit: the author.

Sometimes I can see what people are interested in by what they type into search engines in order to get to my site. This morning, I saw the following question: Does Shariah allow women to vote? This is an interesting question. Again, we must make the distinction between Shariah, and fiqh, which is Islamic Jurisprudence as applied.

I think that we should start this inquiry with reflections upon the words of Arzu Merali, the Director of Research for the Islamic Human Rights Commission. Writing in The Guardian, she notes that neither men nor women could vote under Mullah Omar's regime in Afghanistan. Mullah Omar was the spiritual leader of the Taliban, and was Afghanistan's "head of state," from 1996 to 2001. She makes the important point that the cruel excesses and limitations upon womens' rights in Taliban-led Afghanistan must be seen as an indictment of the Taliban's prejudices, and cultural views, not an indictment of Islam.

By the way, I myself am not a practicing Muslim. I am a practicing Presbyterian and sometimes Unitarian Universalist. However, I have a deep respect for many of the world's great religions, including Islam, Buddhism, Christianity and Judaism. Zakat, which is a pillar of Islam, is basically tithing. Ramadan, which is a pillar of Islam, is basically a more rigorous version of Lent. Accordingly, do not interpret my words as an attempt to convert you. Rather, interpret my words as an attempt to "get it right."

Saraji Umm Zaid, writing at modernmuslima, makes a very important point. She notes that we must respect Shariah, but that we should not fall into the trap of focusing on the "virtues of the Ideal Place of Women in Ideal Islam." Rather, we must confront the reality on the ground. It is not enough, she argues, to simply place all the negative aspects of how women are treated in predominantly Muslim societies, on "culture." She notes that among conservative Muslims,

[] there is a resounding silence when the issue being raised is Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), honor killings, forced marriages, the unequal application of hadd punishments on women, or the denial of education to girls and women. 

Saraji Umm Zaid urges the average Muslim to petition governments, and urge for change against these practices. She states that Muslims can no longer afford to be silent about human rights abuses, especially those committed against women, in the name of Islam. I provide a long quote from her here, because her words are simply brilliant:

Prophet Mohammed, sallalahu aleyhi wa salaam, was mocked and assaulted because of his strong and courageous stance on the status of women.  He came with a message that lifted women up and gave them dignity.  Fourteen hundred years later, we have descended back into the dark pit of Jahiliya, and Muslim women around the world find themselves cast into the same slavery that the Prophet, sallalahu aleyhi wa salaam, was sent to liberate them from.

It does not make you a "radical feminist" to decry honor killings and volunteer for peaceful campaigns to educate and change laws.  Raising your voice against Female Genital Mutilation does not mean you want to "undermine Islam."  To the contrary, working against these injustices in the way of Allah is a manifestation of the desire to uplift Islam and the Muslim people.

When the Taliban decided to deny education to any girl over a certain age, it is the conservative Muslims, the ones who profess adherence to "Qur'an and Sunnah" that should have spoken the loudest against this.  The longer we stay silent, the more people, both Muslim and non Muslim, will begin to equate "Shar'ia" with the oppression of women.

Returning to the topic of voting, the teachings of Islam, according to Jamal A. Badawi, author of "The Status of Women in Islam," Al-lttihad, Vol. 8, No. 2, Sha'ban 1391/Sept 1971, informs us that Islam gives women the right of election, as well as of nomination to political offices. Women have the right to participate in political affairs and the Holy Quran gives examples of women who participated in political discussions and even argued with the Prophet Mohammed (See Qur'an 58: 14 and 60: 10-12).

Interestingly, Pakistan, a predominantly Muslim country, has had a woman head of state, Benazir Bhutto, and several other prominent female politicians. According to Saimah Ashraf, women in Pakistan are allowed to drive, vote, attend co-educational universities, and hold paying jobs.That being said, life in Pakistan is not very pleasant for women, as there are honor killings and high rates of violence against women there, but that is another topic.

Certainly, women just voted in the last referendum here in Egypt, and the Egyptian legal system is based in part on Shariah. The Parliament in Egypt is currently suspended, so no women or men are serving in it. The country is being run by the SCAF, which appears to be composed entirely of men. There is certainly a lot of room to expand the role and influence of women in Egypt now that the country is in the process of forming new political parties.

The right to vote was established in Iran in 1963. Iran has a very high number of women in Parliament, and women form more than half the entering class in Iran's universities according to Simin Royanian as well as an article in the BBC by Roxana Saberi. According to that article Women in Iran's Parliament are very active, and women also serve in local government. However, in Iran, women cannot be judges, and have many social rights restricted. President Ahmadinejad is quite conservative on the role of women, and wants them home with their families.There is a lot of room for improvement on the political role of women in Iran. According to Raz Zimmt, writing about Iran's parliamentary elections, currently only eight women have been elected in the 8th Majlis (elected in March 2008), in comparison to four women in the first, second, and third Majlis; nine in the fourth Majlis; 14 in the fifth and sixth Majlis sessions; and 13 in the seventh.

I have not had time to review the situation of women and the vote in Saudi Arabia, but this quick survey indicates that under Shariah, women certainly have the right to vote, and in many countries that are governed by Islamic Jurisprudence, women have that right as well. 


I would like to leave you with some wise words from Dr. Christina Jones, a professor of Law from Germany with expertise in Islamic Law:

I would like to leave you with the following proposition: It is possible to use Islamic law in the interests of women's rights. It is possible to combine the very best for women from all of the interpretations of the Quranic text. The decision to do this is political.

Shariah in Egypt and elsewhere part two

 Veiled woman with child attends a political rally about the Egyptian Constitution. Location, Tahrir Square, Cairo, Egypt. Photo Credit, the author.

According to Toni Johnson of the Council on Foreign Relations, Shariah guides "all aspects of Muslim life, including daily life, familial and religious obligations, and financial obligations." It is derived mainly from the Holy Quran and the Sunna, the path and practices of the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH)

However, given that I am in Cairo, I decided to go to the source. Al Azhar University, located in Cairo, is Sunni Islam's foremost seat of learning. It is one of the world's oldest universities.  Al Azhar teaches Shariah, among other things. According to scholar Ruqaiyyah Waris Maqsood, one must separate Islam from the cultural practices of a given country. For example, Islam insists on the free consent of bride and groom, so would in theory make arranged marriages illegal. Saudi Arabia forbids women from driving cars in that country, but according to scholar Maqsood, this "bizarre law has nothing to do with Islam." Afghani girls were cruelly banned from education under the Taliban, yet Islam encourages all Muslims to seek knowledge from cradle to grave, from every source possible.

In November, a law was passed in Oklahoma barring Oklahoma courts from considering Islamic Law (which my previous post establishes is actually fiqh, not Shariah) when deciding cases. US District Court Judge Vicki Miles LeGrange suspended the measure until a November 22, 2010 hearing. Amazingly, Fox News coverage of this story gets it right. They state "the implementation [of shariah] varies widely."

I think, my friends, that this is the point. Just as Christian pastors and priests vary in their interpretation of what Christianity requires, so to do Muslim clerics vary in their interpretation of what Islam requires. Indeed, this is the problem. Regardless of what the Holy Quran actually says, some countries have mixed in their intolerant, misogynist cultures, and used those cultural reasons to disenfranchise women. It is the implementation of the law we must resist, not Islam itself.

The Quran does advocate modest dress for both men and women. However, the interpretation of what is required varies widely. In Indonesia, most women do not veil. In Egypt, practicing Muslim women may wear no head covering, a Hijab covering the hair, or Nekab, covering everything but the eyes.  According to Maqsood, only one verse in the Quran refers to the veiling of women, and that is in regard to the wives of the Prophet Mohammad, whose wives were to wear Hijab in the presence of male guests.

Indeed, Proverbs, Chapter 1, (King James Version) which is part of the Old Testament, a text respected and revered by Christians, Jews and Muslims instructs us to seek wisdom, justice, judgment and equity.

1 The proverbs of Solomon the son of David, king of Israel;

2 To know wisdom and instruction; to perceive the words of understanding;

3 To receive the instruction of wisdom, justice, and judgment, and equity;

4 To give subtlety to the simple, to the young man knowledge and discretion.

5 A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels:
Let us educate ourselves on this matter of Shariah, before we make hasty and intolerant judgments.

WMB

Initial Thoughts on Shariah Law, Women, and the Muslim Brotherhood

Dear readers

My students had a lively debate in my leadership class yesterday about whether Shariah humiliates women. (By the way, and importantly, they suggested the topic, and they voted on it. It was not my idea).  I learned a lot. Let me just start by saying that I do not know the answer to this question. But since I am a "lifelong learner" I am ready to study up on it. My biggest reaction to the debate was pleasure that all the students were extremely well prepared. I also was extremely relieved that no blood was on the floor by the end of the debate.

First of all, I learned that Shariah is based on the Holy Quran and the Sunna.

One side of the debate made a very persuasive case that the Holy Quran has a progressive stance on the rights of women in society and in the family. The other side of the debate made an equally persuasive case that Shariah, as actually implemented in Saudi Arabia, Iran and Afghanistan, and to a certain extent Egypt, severely and unfairly restricts the rights of women.

This topic is of interest to both Egyptians, and those who follow Egyptian politics because the policies of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB's) proposed  Freedom and Justice Party are to be based on Shariah ("Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party to be based on Islamic Law," Al Masry Al Youm English, February 23, 2011)  At least four Islamic political parties are likely to be formed in the wake of Egypt's uprising. ("Muslim Brotherhood to Establish Freedom and Justice Party, Al Masry Al Youm English, February 21, 2011) The Freedom and Justice Party is scheduled to officially begin on June 17, 2011. ("Brotherhood Expects Political Party to Be Active by June," Al Masry Al Youm English, May 18, 2011)

A thoughtful article, "Why Shariah?" by Noah Feldman, a Harvard Law Professor, in the New York Times (March 16, 2008) makes the following point.

One reason for the divergence between Western and Muslim views of Shariah is that we are not all using the word to mean the same thing. Although it is commonplace to use the word “Shariah” and the phrase “Islamic law” interchangeably, this prosaic English translation does not capture the full set of associations that the term “Shariah” conjures for the believer. Shariah, properly understood, is not just a set of legal rules. To believing Muslims, it is something deeper and higher, infused with moral and metaphysical purpose. At its core, Shariah represents the idea that all human beings — and all human governments — are subject to justice under the law.

In fact, “Shariah” is not the word traditionally used in Arabic to refer to the processes of Islamic legal reasoning or the rulings produced through it: that word is fiqh, meaning something like Islamic jurisprudence. The word “Shariah” connotes a connection to the divine, a set of unchanging beliefs and principles that order life in accordance with God’s will. Westerners typically imagine that Shariah advocates simply want to use the Koran as their legal code. But the reality is much more complicated. Islamist politicians tend to be very vague about exactly what it would mean for Shariah to be the source for the law of the land — and with good reason, because just adopting such a principle would not determine how the legal system would actually operate.


My students made some interesting points. One team pointed out that there are varying interpretations and applications of shariah, which allow some disturbing behavior towards women. For example, the law in Saudi Arabia, which the Saudi Government claims is based in sharia, allows amputation, and stoning for various violations of the law. In Iran, my students argue, a woman is wholly the possession of her husband. In Saudi Arabia, women may not drive, unless they are accompanied by an employee or close male relative. In Afghanistan, they argued, only 5% of women can read and write, and young women are married off early for the bride price.

The other side argued persuasively that in fact these governments are not following the true Shariah. The true Shariah, they argue, protects the role of women. The Quran elevated the status of women, who were subjected to infanticide in the Arab desert 1400 years ago at the dawn of Islam. Islam came to address the wrongs committed against women. Men at the time could marry as many women as they chose. Islam limited men to four wives, who must be cared for in equal measure. In addition, my students pointed out, it is the case that women in Britain and America could not own property until the early 1900s. How can Shariah humiliate women, when it has always allowed women to own property? They noted that Shariah states that gender is recognized in the Holy Quran, and that a woman's personhood is respected. According to my students, Islam honors mothers, and protects the rights of the wife in divorce and marriage.

Fiqh, or Islamic Jurisprudence, my students argued echoing Feldman, although they had not read him, should not be confused with Shariah. The Islamic Jurisprudence applied in Taliban run Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia, they stated, is not Shariah. Those governments are mixing culture, and their own internalized sexism, with Shariah. Feldman makes an argument that supports this position, saying that the governments in these countries are not adequately limited by Islamic scholars, and thus, behave somewhat arbitrarily. He states:

But if Shariah is popular among many Muslims in large part because of its historical association with the rule of law, can it actually do the same work today? Here there is reason for caution and skepticism. The problem is that the traditional Islamic constitution rested on a balance of powers between a ruler subject to law and a class of scholars who interpreted and administered that law. The governments of most contemporary majority-Muslim states, however, have lost these features. Rulers govern as if they were above the law, not subject to it, and the scholars who once wielded so much influence are much reduced in status. If they have judicial posts at all, it is usually as judges in the family-law courts.


In other words, the problem is that traditionally, Islamic scholars had significant social power. They could control arbitrary or unjust rulers and protect the people. Unfortunately, these scholars have lost their social position in the modern world, and have thus lost the ability to ensure that Shariah is applied in accordance with the consensus of Quranic law. For Shariah to be applied properly, there would have to be an effort to rebalance the power of the Islamic scholar in order to reinstate their ability to restrain the executive, like a kind of "Supreme Court." In the absence of these balancing institutions, Feldman and my students argue, the Saudi state, for example, has imposed extreme restrictions on the actions of women that arguably many Islamic scholars would argue are in conflict with the intention of the Quran.

Anyway, this is a very difficult topic. I am not suggesting an answer. I am just trying to become literate about it. I hope you found my musings informative. These are my thoughts for today. Lots to think about. WMB