2011 in Review - Religion & Politics

Note: A version of this article was first posted on the Foreign Policy Blogs Network on 15th November, 2011 and can be found here.

2011 – in the world of religion and politics, we have seen banning of Muslim “Hijab” in France, Congressional Hearings on “Radicalization of Muslims in America” and various similar acts across the globe; but what I keep coming back to in my mind are the lives lost on account of the Blasphemy Laws in Pakistan.

In January, Pakistan lost it’s Governor of Punjab, Mr. Salman Taseer, because he stood up against laws that were so blatantly anti-Islam; laws that were promulgated and have since been used as a tool to oppress women and minorities. Later in March, Pakistan lost its Federal Minister of Minority Affairs, Mr. Shahbaz Bhatti, to the same fight. I have previously written in attempt to reveal the truth behind these Blasphemy Laws and how they are, in fact, not true to Islam at all.

In Pakistan, from January through to July, there have been eighteen new cases registered under these laws, three life imprisonment sentences awarded, over a dozen harassment cases registered and five lives lost; all the while, only one accused was acquitted. What is more troubling is that these are just the cases that were reported – an immeasurable amount go unreported and possibly end in the loss of lives.

Salman Taseer said “people told me I’m making a mistake and I should back down, but I said no. Today if I don’t stand up, then tomorrow people who think like me won’t be able to.” For this reason, I have chosen people like him and Shahbaz Bhatti as my people of the year. They have been able to draw attention to the long standing injustice that these laws propagate so shamelessly – and all in the garb of a religion that preaches nothing of the sort. It is a shame that these people have had to lose their lives for many to take notice.

Following the death of Mr. Shahbaz Bhatti, government officials in Pakistan were too afraid to attend his funeral services. They were afraid of the clerics that would see their attendance as an agreement with Mr. Bhatti’s stance on the Blasphemy Laws, and in contravention to their beliefs and, therefore, liable to death. The same fears posed as a hurdle for the family of Mr. Salman Tasser when no lawyer was eager to take on his family’s case against his murderer. Many hailed his murderer as a saint and a “warrior of Islam”. I was afraid when their Warrior was sentenced to death – afraid of what the clerics would pull into the streets in retaliation. Although the streets were surprisingly calm, the judge that passed the sentence has had to go into hiding, out of the same fear.

It is this fear that most live in, day in and out. Ever since the inception of these laws, a sect known as the Ahmedi’s have been forbidden to wish the Islamic greeting of peace (“Asalam’o’alaikum” meaking “peace be with you”) as they have been branded non-Muslims. Others are afraid of walking into the wrong mosque or touching the Qur’an incorrectly, for fear of being accused of committing blasphemy.

However, the fear has managed to escape one proud Pakistani. Although the agony did not end for Mr. Taseer’s family with his death, his son having been kidnapped later in the year (his whereabouts are still unknown), Mr. Taseer’s daughter, Shehrbano, has managed to turn this loss into determination. She continues her fathers work and has been awarded the Human Rights Foundation award for Extraordinary Bravery in promoting Human Rights for her campaign against the Blasphemy Laws.

So, although my memories of this year are peppered with Blasphemy cases and a injustice done and lives lost as a direct result of this iniquitous and anti-religious law, the year ends with a hope for a better one to follow. A hope that rests on the shoulders of people like Shehrbano – who, in the face of adversity have shown insurmountable strength.

In her acceptance speech at the Human Rights Foundation, Shehrbano said that those that supported these “draconian laws” did so on the bases of their emotion rather than on fact. My hope is that the facts are highlighted come 2012 and that these facts pave the way to an enlightened approach to the Blasphemy Laws – so that they are finally eradicated and the true meaning of Islam is returned to this Islamic Republic.

Apostasy and Islam

Note: A version of this article was first posted on the Foreign Policy Blogs Network on 5th October, 2011 and can be found here.

Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani was arrested in 2009 and sentenced to death for apostasy in Iran – various Human Rights groups are now pleading for his release. Although the ruling itself is said to be questionable in light of the Iranian civil code, the ruling was passed under the Shariah.

The Shariah, as we know it today, is an amalgamation of five sources, only one of which is unanimously believed to be divinely revealed (the Qur’an). The rest (Sunna, Ijma, Qiyas and Ijtehad) are all transmitted and understood by people following the Prophet years after his passing; therefore, arguably prone to human error. Whether or not the additional sources to the Shariah are legitimate is a separate argument – one that is not up for debate today. What is essential to understand is that all schools of thought agree, theoretically, if a concept contradicts the Qur’an and the actual actions of the Prophet, it cannot be accepted as a part of the Shariah – much less deemed divinely ordained law (which is the connotation “Shariah” takes today).

Chapter 2 verse 256 of the Qur’an states “There shall be no coercion in matters of faith.” This verse is often quoted to prove that Islam can not be spread by might, or what many jurists call “conversion by the sword”. All Islamic jurists agree that conversion under oppression is void, and in fact, that if a non-Muslim is coerced to convert, the oppressor has sinned. If this is so, how could the converse not similarly hold true?

When studying the Qur’an in light of the times each revelation was received, I find two clear examples of where the Qur’an clearly speaks of apostasy, even specific apostates, and does not prescribe a punishment for them – clearly proving that no divinely ordained legal requirement exists within Islam for the state imposed punishment of apostasy. Let me cite those examples:

1) The Hypocrites of Uhad

When members of Muhammad’s army at the battle of Uhad turn back and run from the battle field, the Qur’an says, “those who were tainted with hypocrisy… Unto apostasy were they nearer on that day than unto faith” (3:167). The verse continues to talk about how God knows what is truly in their hearts; it does not say whether those who had turned away should be cast out of the society, let alone hung. In chapter 33, the Qur’an refers to these people again, calling them “hypocrites” and saying that God is just in His retribution. Again, it says nothing of a punishment to be met out in this life and such retribution, mentioned throughout the Qur’an, alludes to punishment in the after-life.

2) The Truce of Hudabiya

During the famed Truce of Hudabiya, when the Muslims of Medina and the pagan Arabs of Mecca entered into a treaty of peace, a clause of the treaty stated that minors of either side that had gone over to the other without the consent of their guardian, were to be returned. The Meccan’s held married women to be subject to the guardianship of their husbands, therefore, returnable. At this time, many women had secretly converted to Islam and fled to Medina and some women from Medina had returned to Mecca. In line with the practice of “khul” – a form of annulment initiated by the woman in accordance with Islamic injunctions (in the practice of which the woman leaving her husband would have to return her dower money), if a woman was leaving Mecca and moving to Medina, she would return her dower money and in cases where she did not have the means, the treasury of Medina would help pay. In the cases where the women were returning to Mecca and abandoning Islam, in chapter 60 verse 11 of the Qur‘an, we find clear instructions that the treasury of Medina is required to pay out the amount of dower to the man whose wife has left him to return to Mecca.

Undoubtedly, the women moving to Mecca were apostates, they had abandoned their homes and lives that they established as Muslims to return to their pagan culture and belief, but instead of ordering they be hung, the Qur’an gives them the leverage and allows the state to step in and pay their annulment dower.

If a divine law were to be created, it would have been created either at Uhad or during the Truce of Hudabiya or at another time as deemed appropriate. It was not.

That said, most schools of thought in Islam prescribe life imprisonment in cases of high treason (as is the case in most countries to date); and in cases where the accused is not deemed dangerous, no punishment is recommended at all. Very few jurists believe capital punishment should be adopted, and that too only in cases where it is believed that the apostate is attempting to harm the Muslim community, or the “Ummah.”

Mehdi Hasan, writing for the Guardian, asks a very essential question: “Muslims have to ask ourselves: Is the God we worship so weak and needy that he requires us to force our fellow humans to worship him? Is our religion so frail and insecure that it cannot tolerate any rejection whatsoever? And why are we silent as an innocent Christian is sentenced to death in the name of Islam? To hang a man for refusing to believe in Islam is theologically and morally unjustifiable; it is not just un-Islamic but anti-Islamic.”

Keeping in mind that any rule/law under the Shariah that is contrary to the Qur’an must be struck down as invalid, I believe it is safe to say that capital punishment is not the penalty for apostasy. I think it’s time to let Youcef go home.

"My Fellow American"

Note: A version of this article was first posted on the Foreign Policy Blogs Network on 23rd July, 2011 and can be found here.

On Wednesday, the a federal jury awarded $20,000 to a Muslim woman suing Abercrombie & Fitch (A&F) for refusing a Muslim woman a job based on her choice to wear the Muslim headscarf. More than the news article, the comments on it interested me.

Various readers said that the lady claiming against A&F, Ms. Samantha Elauf, knew that what kind of brand A&F was, what they were promoting, and referred to their ads as “racy” and “showing a lot of skin”, which should be unacceptable to a “practicing Muslim”. Although an interesting point, I have a few problems with this statement:

As an outsider, the reader is not in his right to state what is, in fact, recommended or approved behavior of a “practicing Muslim” just as much as a Muslim cannot comment on acceptable Christian/Jewish/etc. behavior. Forget an outsider; any Muslim does not have the right to judge or command certain behavior of another Muslim. But these misconceptions are our own creation – as Muslims we have allowed ourselves to dictate “Muslim behavioral norms”. We have seen countries order their citizens behind a veil (see: Iran, Afghanistan, etc.), which has made other nations order them out from behind it (see: France).

All this is because we have found it within our right, as Muslims, to tell each other what to do when it comes to dressing a certain way or behaving a certain way. This is not a debate of what is generally morally abhorrent, such as lying, stealing, killing, etc. but when we begin to dictate a certain preconceived general rule of what a Muslim or a Jew should wear or say, we take away the foundation of belief: free will.

The violence that is now commonplace in Pakistan is a result of liberties taken in dictating expected behavior. “Islamist Extremist ” (although I have an issue with that phrase) political parties have pushed their agenda in curbing the rights and movement of women in Pakistan, while advocating all this in the garb of religion.

All this is not to say that it is correct for A&F to have turned Ms. Elauf away based on her religious dress – an official condemnation of such discrimination must be made, and was made, by the federal court; but we must also see and acknowledge the flipside of the argument. A&F are entitled to promote a certain look just as much as Ms. Elauf is entitled to promote her religious belief.

The group “My Fellow American” is aptly advocating that Muslims are as much a part of the fabric of American society as anyone else and that they are allowed the same rights (including employment). Stories such as the one of Ms. Elauf remind us that Muslims are a part of America and ought to remind us that to respect the other side of the story and understand where they’re coming from as well. My Fellow American is looking for other such stories that remind us, as Mitch Albom put it, “You’re not a wave, you’re part of the ocean.”

When “lawn” was just the front yard

Once upon a time, the only occasion I heard the word “lawn” was when my Mother yelled her location to me in the late afternoons as she was gardening and sipping her tea. Now, it is what you wear when you brush shoulders with your fellow tea-sippers, God-forbid any gardening be involved.

I read this article once that mapped the digression of society by the way language evolved. The word “innit” had for long been used as slang and was never acceptable in formal – say, Scrabble – diction; in the same way “lawn” now symbolizes one outfit in your wardrobe that costs, oh, just minimum wage in our country. I have yet to sit through a conversation this spring/summer that doesn’t involve the question of how many new “lawn-joras” I got made and better yet, “whose” lawn I bought – because its not who wears it but who designed it, of course.

For my friends that don’t know what this is (never admit this loudly), it is basically soft, lightweight cloth that we use in our super-hot summers because it breathes easy and because it used to previously be affordable. The character of such material is such that after it is washed, say half a dozen times, it stretches out and fades into something that could only be used as a rag cloth; which would be fine if it cost bare minimum like lawn did back in the day. Now, you spend up to Rs. 6,000 (which is incidentally, minimum wage in Pakistan – which is usually what is paid to our daily workers in factories; domestic help is paid less) on an outfit that you will find several others wearing (in a different color if you’re lucky) real time. The upside: you instantly recognize which designer created this (generic) “work of art”.

Recently, I went to pick my mother up from one of her monthly luncheons. A room full of about sixty women, where I could spot the same outfit on at least 6 of them. That was just one outfit. The others were similarly replicated. Everyone looked like a blurry remnant of the next and, in the words of a classic “Eventually, all things merge into one, and a river runs through it.” A river of jealousy.

Here I was thinking what I wore defined who I was and made me stand out from the rest – but I guess I want to be like everyone else just so I can prove I spent way too much on this one outfit. How rich must I be? All this in a country where 24% live below the poverty line. Great!

When I admit that I have not bought any “lawn this season” because I don’t like lawn generally, I am looked at strangely with an eye that says “sure, you cheap bastard.” Maybe I am cheap. Maybe I don’t like wearing something that is printed in a manner that it makes me feel like bed linen, or maybe, just maybe, I’d rather spend that money on a vacation. I’m not saying I’m more charitable than Ms. Lawn, but I’m saying that I’d rather spend that money on something more durable.

Someone said that the money I spend on food (approximately 60% of my paycheck) is money, quite literally, down the toilet. I think the same about your outfit that makes you look like just another Smurf.

Potato-potato-perspective.

Veiled Questions

Note: A version of this article was first posted on the Foreign Policy Blogs Network on 13th April, 2011 and can be found here.

France houses over 65 million people – 5 million of whom are reported to be Muslim. Of these 5 million, only 2,000 wear a full face veil. In a country of 65 million, legislation that is targeted at 2,000; is this behavior not reminiscent of school-yard-bullying?

Islam is the second largest religion in the country but another study showed that within the next 10 years, most Europeans will not associate themselves with any organized religion. That being said, “second largest” implies a majority of some kind; and democracy teaches us what?

Although the niqab, or face-veil, is not unanimously agreed upon amongst Muslim scholars; for instance, a member of the clerics at Al-Azhar in Cairo (one of the most reputed Islamic Schools), has said there is no place for the full face veil in the Shari’ah; it remains still, a cultural norm amongst most that choose to wear it.

Be it a right claimed in the name of religion, or a cultural practice, the fact of the matter is that Muslim women, are the only ones that wear a niqab. Their right to cover their faces falls clearly under Article 4(2) of the Declaration On The Elimination Of All Forms Of Intolerance And Of Discrimination Based On Religion Or Belief, 1981; thereby making signatory states (France included) duty bound to enforce.

People have argued that the legislation, although seemingly aimed at emphasizing the secular standing of France, is more of a political play to gain support. We’ve seen religion being used as a tool for popular support in most countries, many of which consider themselves Muslim nations (e.g. Pakistan); but we have also seen that such discrimination has only further fueled personal prejudices and intolerance.

In the meantime, two niqab-wearing-protesters were arrested outside the Notre Dame in Paris on Monday – apparently because they were part of an “unauthorized demonstration” and not because of their veils. It is reported over a dozen people gathered there – but only the two wearing a veil were arrested. Is this not harassment?

The law itself is a bag of confusion: people who force women to don a veil are subject to up to a year in prison and a $43,000 fine and possibly twice that if the veiled person is a minor. But what if the woman wants to wear it herself? In an attempt to garb the targeted law as something applying to all faiths [see also: Frances ban on “religious symbols” in the classroom 2004 – which basically only hurt women wearing a Muslim head-cover or, Hijab], it also bans people from wearing masks or full balaclavas, except during fetes, artistic performances or sports events – so just Muslims women, Darth Vader and thieves posing as skiers are generally not allowed to walk the streets of France. But if Darth or the thief is riding a motorbike, they too are exempt. Basically, it’s just Muslim women or others who constantly don a veil. So, just Muslim women.

The way I understand “secularism” and “democracy” was that the state itself would not prescribe to a particular religion – but that it would also not discriminate against its citizens for choosing one and freely practicing it. This ban, if nothing else, goes against these concepts. Insolent much, Sarkozy?

A Play on Words

Dr. Firdous Ashiq Awan, Minister of Information, has said that the release of Davis was in accordance with the Shariah. Now, she could’ve just said “the law of Pakistan” since we’re so certain that it is in line with the injunctions of Islam (it is not), and let it be. But to shut up the multitudes who are mesmerized by the mere mention of the word “Shariah” – making the act done unquestionable and undeniably just, she (as many before her) did a quick play on words and lay the issue to rest.

What she did not tell us was what happened to the other accounts he was charged with. What about the fact that he did not have a valid visa to be in Pakistan (for which the Lahore High Court had placed him on the Exit Control List – and which only the same court can take him off of). But let’s not discuss these other very important issues.

Besides, Clinton seems to be positive the US did not pay the Diyyat and I’m almost certain that Davis could not afford that hefty a sum on his own. So, what in fact did happen and why is the Government resorting to the old disgusting blame game that leaves Islam as the only thing to be questioned, therefore, unquestioned?

In other news today, the Minister of State for Religious Affairs has been dubbed by the Supreme Court to have taken part in the “Hajj Scam”. Since we’re talking about rhetoric, that’s the worst sentence I’ve read in a while.

The Truth Behind Blasphemy

Note: A version of this article was first posted on the Foreign Policy Blogs Network on 5th March, 2011 and can be found here.

“You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State.” – Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Founding Father of Pakistan: August 11, 1947.

July 5th, 1977: Pakistan saw the advent of a new Head of State. Not elected, Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq was the second Chief of Army Staff to overthrow the government in a bloodless coup d’état within the first thirty years of Pakistan’s inception – escorting in an age of “Islamization,” contrary to everything Jinnah had propagated. In attempts to rally support, Zia used the oldest trick in the book – religion as a tool to gain popular support; contaminating the true essence of religion.

Zia’s claim to fame is the introduction of the “Shariah” (literally meaning “the way” – interpreted as Islamic Jurisprudence) into the legal system of Pakistan through the Hadood Ordinance. [An Ordinance, passed by executive order lacks Parliamentary approval.] Under these broad rules, Zia sought to “Islamize” Pakistan by introducing laws on adultery, fornication, slander and blasphemy, amongst others. Under these same laws, he curtailed the rights and liberties of a minority sect, the Ahmedi’s, restricting their movement and shunning them to somewhat of a class of untouchables [Note: Islam has no tolerance for distinguishing between class and creed].

Although we could talk about each of these laws and how they are specifically against the injunctions of Islam (which the Federal Shariat Court – a court that has the power to question and amend laws to bring them in line with Islam – ought to have shot down at first instance), and how protests and years of struggle have enabled Pakistani’s to finally amend some [See: Protection of Women (Criminal Laws Amendment) Act, 2006], a pressing issue today are the blasphemy laws.

These laws have been incorporated into Pakistan’s criminal legislation through Section 295 of the Criminal Code. Section 295 of the Pakistan Criminal Code forbids damaging or defiling a place of worship or a sacred object [Note: the place of worship is not defined as a mosque]; 295-A forbids outraging religious feelings [Note: religion not specified]; 295-B forbids defiling the Qur’an and 295-C forbids defaming the Prophet. Except for Section 295-C (defaming the Prophet), the provisions of 295 require that an offence be committed with intent (which is a tough burden of proof to dispel). Defaming Prophet Muhammad merits death with or without a fine, with or without intent.

It is 295-C under which most egregious acts are committed. Before, it was a power game where Muslims in a village would accuse a Christian of defaming the Prophet or defiling the Qur’an, sending him to prison and leaving his property up for grabs. Now, a false sense of Muslim pride has been aroused with concerns to the honor of the Prophet. We saw this take an ugly turn with the Danish cartoons in 2005 and now, in Pakistan, the call to amend the Blasphemy laws has claimed the lives of two government officials, Governor of Punjab, Salman Taseer and Minister of Minorities, Shahbaz Bhatti. [Please note: such acts have burdened Pakistani soil since time immemorial; it is only recently when it has moved into the political circle, agitating the international media.]

The problem is the misconception that “blasphemy” is a crime punishable by the state under the Shariah. Time and again we’ve seen Muslim clerics, “mullah’s” come on various talk-shows in Pakistan, quoting the Qur’an, proving that slandering the Prophet and his honor is punishable by death. One such cleric quoted, quite fluently, verses 56-58 and then 61 of Surah (chapter) Ahzab (number 33); strategically missing out two verses which clearly change the topic of discussion.

Islam, the word, means submission; submission to God. The God who in the Qur’an gives you the right to take revenge when you have been wronged, but then adds “The recompense for an evil is an evil like thereof, but whoever forgives and makes reconciliation, his reward is due form Allah. Verily, He likes not the oppressors.” (42:20 – The Qur’an). Looking closely, cohorts of the blasphemy laws say that they are protecting the honor of the Prophet.

The other side of the story is that the Prophet, himself, never took such measures to protect the same honor. When he was yelled at, he turned away; when someone accused him, he patiently listened. There’s a famous story about an old lady that would throw trash out of her window on him every day. One day she didn’t and concerned, the Prophet went to her house to check if she was okay. If he was to avenge his honor, he would’ve done it then, or God would’ve said something about it in the Qur’an – but it wasn’t. The Prophet was taught not to judge people, because that was God’s job. He was taught to humbly invite people to Islam and never give up, because you never know when someone may have a change of heart.

It goes against all injunctions of Islam to punish people for a belief dissimilar to your own, much less to met out the death penalty. Time and again God asks Muslims to be patient, to respect your neighbor, protect him and if you find yourself in company that is talking ill of your religion, your beliefs, leave their company and only return when they speak of other matters [See The Qur'an 2:104 and 6:68].

It is this misconception and misinterpretation, rather adulteration, of the Qur’an by its clerics that has led masses to believe blasphemy ought to be punishable by death. It is these people, that go unchecked by the government, much less punished, that are able to turn Pakistan into a hate-mongering nation it has become today.

So, as another day passes, another is buried for expressing his views; views which are far more well-founded than those of the perpetrators that set him in his final resting place. And what of the government? The President of Pakistan did not attend the funeral procession or call the family of the deceased for condolences – supposedly fearing for his life.

A Radical Debate

Note: A version of this was first posted on the Foreign Policy Blogs Network on 10 March, 2011 and can be found here.

There is a fine line between freedom of expression and obnoxious behavior; which may very well be crossed in the coming weeks in Congress.That said, as a Muslim and as an American – I support the debate.

As upset as we were to witness residents of Orange County yelling obnoxious slurs at Muslims gathering for a fundraiser; it was just as much the constitutional right of Yorba Linda and her colleagues as was the right of hundreds that gathered in Times Square this past weekend to proclaim that “today, I am a Muslim too.” One of the above incidents leaves a sour taste in my mouth, as a Muslim; the other may do the same for Rep. Pete King and his supporters. But democracy has never been about individual tastes.

The “Radicalization of Muslim Americans” hearing that kicks off in Congress today may be walking the wire of political correctness, but the reality of the situation is that it should be inspiring people. The calm with which Rep. King and Rep. Ellison discuss their opposing views and their objectives of attending the debates is the lesson to be learned. Ellison, as the first Muslim to be elected to Congress, is reminding us what the Prophet of Islam taught; patience and tolerance. When asked why he was participating in this debate, Rep. Ellison eloquently said; “Because I believe in engaging the process. I think you got to be involved in the conversation. You got to offer an alternative view. And I do plan on saying that I challenge the basic premise of the hearings. That I do agree that we should deal with radicalization and violent radicalization, but singling out one community is the wrong thing to do.”

We can debate how we do not believe the “experts” being used in this hearing are actually experts or how people are saying that Rep. King is “exploiting ethnic misunderstanding (rather) than in trying to heal it” – as long as it is a discussion and not a declaration.

Reports tell us how unpopular King is, even within the ranks of his own party. Again, that is their perspective. I think we can take solace in the fact that a healthy deliberation shall ensue, and pray that nothing accusatory towards one belief system comes of this. But we must stand by the constitutional, and God given, right of everyone to hold their own opinions.

“My Lord, give me the capability to tolerate an opposing point of view. My Lord, keep me wise and aware, so that I may not judge someone or some idea right or wrong unless I have understood him/her or it correctly and completely.” – Dr. Ali Shariati

Gone - Jack Johnson

"Look at all those fancy clothes,
But these could keep us warm just like those.

And what about your soul? Is it cold?

Is it straight from the mold, and ready to be sold?
...
And what about your mind? Does it shine?
Are there things that concern you, more than your time?
...
Gone, people, all awkward with their things, Gone."