Who Hates Whom?

Note: A version of this article was first posted on the Foreign Policy Blogs Network on 24th May, 2012 and can be found here.

When I first came across Mona Eltahawy’s article, questioning “Why do they hate us?” - “they” being misogynistic rulers of Middle Eastern and Muslim nations, and “us” being the female population – I have to say my instant reaction was one of apprehensive agreement. Apprehensive, because I’ve seen womenfolk suffer cruel injustice in my part of the world (Pakistan, innately feudal and supremely “Islamic”), but never had I felt that I too was disadvantaged because of my gender and I knew the injustices though furthered in the name of Islam, had nothing to do with the religion and everything to do with politics. So I nodded, but with a guilty conscious.

In the days that followed the publication of that article, there was outcry on how “Muslims” treated their women and how the religion was to blame, but like any other argument, there was also the flipside which I was happy to find presented in a more articulate and accurate manner.

Ms. Hilal Elver put it best when she said, “there was nothing new in Eltahawy’s article. Many of the issues she raised were already well known, thanks to Western media that has been issuing frequent alarmist warnings to the public about the menace of Islam… Giving a platform to Muslim women writers critical of Islam has also become a very popular tactic in Europe… This makes the European public feel comfortable when they adopt public policies against Islamic practices.” Eltahawy singling in on Muslim culture and teachings of Islam as the reason for discrimination does the same. Not to undermine Eltahawy’s experiences or dub them untrue, the fact of the matter is, as Sarah Mousa put it, Eltahawy is “out of touch”.

Sherene Seikaly and Maya Mikdashi point out that the Foreign Policy’s “Sex Issue”, though being a world issue, with the exception for one article, “reproduces much of the dominant and sensationalist discourse about sex in the Middle East.” They rightly conclude “[t]he battle against misogyny does not follow a ‘men hate women’ formula. It cannot be reduced to a generic battle of the sexes spiced with a dose of Islam and culture. It cannot be extracted from the political and economic threads that, together with patriarchy, produce the uneven terrain that men and women together navigate.”

In the words of Ms. Elver “[v]iolence against women does not respect religious, cultural or state borders. Statistics are very clear on that. Women in politics in high level positions have to pay a big price no matter which country we consider, although some do better than others … A closer look into two areas in which Egyptian women are disadvantaged – one on a legislative level, and the other on a social level – reveals flaws rooted in governance, rather than culture or religion.”

Writing for the Washington Post, Dalia Mogahed points out “[r]eligion is the dominant social currency in the Arab world. Everyone from pro-democracy activists to anti-woman authoritarians invokes its imagery, moral authority and emotional appeal for legitimacy.” That is the reason politicians and clerics alike have abused the tenants of religion to promote personal agendas. We’ve seen it take shape in Pakistan against women and minorities, radicalizing in the Zia era (General Zia, Pakistan’s fourth military dictator, holding office from 1977 to 1988) and continuing to date.

None of this is to say that women are not treated badly in the Middle East or elsewhere, it is to state that they are treated badly in “secular” nations just the same. Muslim nations have been run by women yet a super power such as the United States has not; why then does that not translate to mean Muslims are more progressive? Mental barriers are created because we do not always get the whole picture. Let the reader decide, but give the reader all the facts - not your bias version of it. Eltahawy gave her side of things, it was up to the Foreign Policy Magazine to ensure they filled the gaps with other articles. Most critics of this particular issue of the Foreign Policy Magazine do not deny the good intent behind its publication, but what was that about the road to hell?

Note: A version of this article was first posted on the Foreign Policy Blogs Network on 24th March, 2012 and can be found here.

Pakistan and the United States of America may seem like polar opposites, but when you push aside the semantics, you’ll find the same people everywhere: insecure, intolerant, injudicious and irrational.

In Pakistan:

The Domestic Violence Bill was first proposed in the Senate in 2009 and has since been lying dormant and the subject of much disapproval and suspicion. Members of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-Fazl (JUI-F) [extreme-right-winged religious party] have said that the Bill was unislamic for promoting “western-style freedoms”. At first glance, the fact that the JUI-F are opposing something named Domestic Violence Bill seems to be self-serving.  Take a deeper look and you’ll find that they’re not wrong in opposing the bill as it is currently drafted – however, their grounds for rejection are more than flawed. Beside the abysmal state of drafting (e.g. the definition of “sexual abuse” contains the phrase “any kind of sexual abuse”), I have the following problems with the Domestic Violence Bill  as it is posed today and I’ll leave you to make up your own opinion on the matter.

First, its application seemingly is only in Islamabad Capital Territory – acts committed outside the jurisdiction are non-actionable under this Bill. Section 7 states that an “aggrieved person” shall not be evicted from the household without consent “whether or not he or she has any right, title or beneficial interest in the same.” Household is not defined.

Where most people seem to have taken issue is the clause defining Domestic Violence, to include “Emotional, psychological and verbal abuse” which is further explained as “repeated exhibition of obsessive possessiveness or jealousy constituting serious invasion of the victim’s privacy, liberty, integrity and security”.

The Bill means well – it aims to cover all forms of domestic violence, whether they relate to a married couple or an adopted child or a member of the family with special needs (coming under the definition of a “vulnerable person”). However, the potential that the Bill be misused and abused – as it is framed right now – is vast. It appears that it has been drafted on emotion and not on prudent understanding of the real issues. Much like the disinterest that was seen in Parliament during the passing of the Women’s Protection Bill (which has somewhat done away with the hudood ordinance backlash that left women at the mercy of the interpreters of the rape laws) – when female members of parliament were against this bill only because it was said to be against the injunctions of Islam. Why didn’t they take the time to do their job and understand the issue or even understand the purported injunctions of Islam that were the backing of such legislation? Because they were unfazed by its repercussions.

Similarly, those who have drafted this Bill, although meaning well, have not done so in the most sensible fashion. Legislation proposing to give the weaker members of society a voice is bound to be criticized and delayed; just like in the Acid Control and Crimes Act took a year to pass and the Anti-Women Practices Act which took three; it’s a shame reckless drafting is only further hampering the process.

In America:

The Violence Against Women Act is up for reauthorization. Since is enactment in 1994, there’s been a reported 50% fall in spousal abuse cases. The reauthorization would continue the current grants program, expanding efforts to reach the Native American Indian tribes and further allow safeguards to lesbian, bisexual and transgendered victims alike. In the words of Senator Patrick Leahy, “a victim is a victim.”

Some Republicans (or the American version of the JUI-F, however you wish to see it) think the reauthorization would widen immigration avenues (immigrant victims may claim battery) and “dilutes the focus on domestic violence by expanding protections to new groups, like same-sex couples”.  The NY Times reported that “the conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly called the Violence Against Women Act a slush fund ‘used to fill feminist coffers’ and demanded that Republicans stand up against legislation that promotes ‘divorce, breakup of marriage and hatred of men.’”

Vice President Joe Biden is pushing this re-authorization. “Imagine now the message it sends if [the law is] not reauthorized. Just ask yourself, what message would be sent to every one of our daughters, every one imprisoned in her own home?”

Granted, the debate in the U.S. Senate is on how much funding is going to be afforded to this program and who all shall be entitled to claim benefit under it, which is a step ahead of where Pakistan’s Domestic Violence Bill rests. The National Task Force to end Domestic Violence Against Women said that the reauthorization had been filed as “motion to proceed” in the Senate and is likely to be debated on the Senate floor next week.

Coming together:

An argument in the Pakistani Senate was that if the Domestic Violence Bill were passed, a spouse couldn’t question the other as to where they had been even if they come home at four in the morning, drunk. To this, Mr. Abbas Nasir, writer for a leading Pakistani newspaper said, “If his contention hadn’t been so sad, it would have been laughable. Doesn’t he know that if your spouse (man or woman) arrives home at four in the morning and you haven’t the foggiest where they have been and why, your relationship may well be over anyway and is best terminated?”

The president of Concerned Women for America, Penny Nance, wrote members of the U.S. Congress to oppose the Violence Against Women Act. “It pits husbands against wives,” said Janice Crouse, spokeswoman for the group. She said elements of the law were triggered by “very flimsy” claims of abuse. “A woman can, with the barest evidence and no evidence at all, claim abuse and get him out of the house.”

Moral of the story:

We’re all the same, save our preference for fashion.

'Til Kingdom Come

Note: A version of this article was first posted on the Foreign Policy Blogs Network on 20th February, 2012 and can be found here.

It’s never a dull moment in Pakistan, but various moments filled with dull people. A rally was held on January 28, in the city of Rawalpindi, against the establishment of a place of worship by the Ahmeddia community. The Ahmedi’s are a minority community who consider themselves a sect within Islam, but were declared non-Muslims in 1974 by the government. A place where Ahmedi’s had been praying for the past 17 years (it is illegal for them to call their place of worship a “mosque”) became a central point of contention when, in the words of the official press release of the Ahmeddia Community, “miscreants” wanted to deprive them of the right to pray there.

Just some two weeks after this rally, the Lahore Bar Association banned the sale of products produced by Shezan, a company owned by Ahmedi’s, in the cafeterias of the subordinate courts. Of course, drinking fruit juice that came out of the factory premises of someone you consider an infidel must be a crime. I can just see the next campaign: “Satan loves Shezan”. Speaking with a local paper, the Lahore Bar Association Vice President Rana Javed Bashir Khan said cafeteria managers at subordinate courts would be directed to stop buying or selling Shezan products. He said strict action would be taken against those who did not heed the ban.

Then there’s Difa-e-Pakistan (literally: Defense of Pakistan), an emerging political or social force – it is still unclear which – that neatly amalgamates the extreme right and some supposed progressives into one little group, sealed with an intolerant chant. On February 12th, Difa-e-Pakistan held a rally that had attendee’s carrying portraits of Mumtaz Qadri, the assassin of former Punjab governor Salmaan Taseer over a blasphemy controversy. They were chanting slogans against Ahmedis and their ‘uncalled for’ activities in Rawalpindi. Praying is uncalled for, apparently.

All the while it is estimated that some 150 people have died in terrorism-related violence in the month of February so far. The bigger issues: the feeding of this rage and this anger that is translating into terrorism, terrorizing Ahmedi‘s and non-Shezan-drinkers alike, go unnoticed. The fact that Difa-e-Pakistan was allowed to host such a large gathering of people, propagate an agenda that is clearly exhorting violence and get all the media coverage they want, should leave us in a panicky-dismay. Instead, we defend them with the right to free speech – not realizing the difference between speaking your mind and inciting terrorism. We brush that off and sit around and debate the rights and benefits of selling fruit juice.

Followers of any faith will tell you that ‘Til Kingdom Come, there can be no judgment and no condemnation. That’s God’s job. The Qur’an talks about how the Jews and the Christians before the Muslims thought they too were God’s chosen people and would be awarded Heaven for their lineage alone. The Qur’an also says that they are mistaken. Where do we as Muslims get off thinking we’d be given the benefit of a different yardstick? Where do we get the right to brand the other a non-believer, liable to burn for time immemorial?

Come Judgment Day, will we be able to substantiate our claim of a moral high ground? If not, should we not be more concerned about the rampant support of groups such as Difa-e-Pakistan instead of making the life of another, equally entitled, completely unbearable and void of spiritual rights?

I suggest we all discuss this over a carton of Shezan juice.

The Power Game Where Women Always Lose

Note: A version of this article was first posted on the Foreign Policy Blogs Network on 25th March, 2012 and can be found here.

Last year, a girl named Amina El-Filali was raped in her town of Larache, Morocco, where her parents filed a criminal complaint. The case was taken to court where, in accordance with Article 475 of the Penal Code the judge ordered the rapist to marry his victim, thereby absolving him of his crime. Since Amina was a minor, the court was required to obtain the consent of her parents before authorizing this marriage; Amina’s father now says he was pressured into agreeing to the marriage. Under the Family Code, once a decision is passed by the judge, it cannot be reversed.

Amina committed suicide last week. She was 16.

A bill was first introduced into the Moroccan legislature in 2008 to amend this law, but has been shelved since. Legislation, much like rape, is a power game. Since those who have the authority and power to change this law are unaffected by it, they do not pursue it with urgency. Requiring a woman to marry her rapist is telling her that her being is restricted to the honor (or dishonor) it brings to the family. No longer a virgin, she would only bring shame, so transfer her legal status to the man that started this mess to begin with – she’s his problem now. A hand-me-down.

It is this chauvinistic mentality that led to the creation of a law in Pakistan that required a woman to produce four witnesses before she could accuse someone of rape. This was the law of the land for some 27 years before it was amended in 2006. There were numerous movements in Pakistan throughout the years to change those laws, but they were always debated out of Parliament and vetoed by female parliamentarians just as much as men. Why? These women were from affluent families that remained sheltered from such crimes and they were told by clerics that changing this law (that was introduced in the garb of a religious mandate) would be against Islam – and these women blindly agreed.

Various countries have a law similar to Morocco, where the rapist gets away by marrying his victim. The fact that most of these countries are predominantly Muslim is often cited to be the reason for such codification; it is becoming a fad to blame all ill on Islam. I find no such injunctions in the Qur’an, and even though rape is not specifically mentioned, the Bible does address sex outside of the marriage contract:

“And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.” (Exodus 22:16-17 – similarly, see Deuteronomy 22:25-30)

Whether based on religion or not, there is no argument for forcing a girl to marry her offender (or forcibly marrying anyone, for that matter – but that’s another debate all together) for shame of “losing her honor” for no fault of her own.

It wasn’t until 1991 that the English courts recognized marital rape as a crime; before such time, consent to sex was implied in a marriage. The House of Lords unanimously threw out this principle, calling it a “common law fiction” which was “absurd”. Many countries now recognize marital rape as a punishable criminal offense; many still, do not.

Moroccan women have taken to the streets to push the bill from 2008 into law. Let’s hope it doesn’t take the life of another Amina before we can discard these incongruous laws world over; because in the words of the House of Lords, they really have “no useful purpose to serve”.

Know Your Religion

Note: A version of this article was first posted on the Foreign Policy Blogs Network on 27th January, 2012 and can be found here.

A year ago I stumbled onto an interesting website; after relatinged a short story, it asked the reader to guess the religious context in which the tale was set. The questions varied from the way women dressed (burqa-esque fully clad) to the practice of allowing men multiple wives. When I finished taking the quiz and looked up the answers, I realized how pre-programmed my perceptions were. As a Muslim, I was willing to accept that all listed societal vices were somehow traceable to acts of Muslims (albeit not in line with the true teachings of Islam); but what I was not expecting was for these to be stories from Christian and Jewish neighborhoods.

We are too quick to judge and hold other religious beliefs in contempt. Take for example a story of a group of men who have declared it against their religious sensitivities to allow girls to leave their homes wearing short sleeved shirts. Or segregated buses, banning women from appearing on billboards and pepper-spraying girls who appear in public with boys. These are all tales from Jewish communities in Israel, but could very well have been stories from my home town of Lahore, Pakistan. If I have learnt anything, it is that inane acts are done in the name of religion every day and almost never do they rightly follow the tenants of that religion.

A popular belief is that religions have been interpreted or created to help men maintain power while disallowing the female population a voice. This is exactly what Dov Linzer, an Orthodox rabbi, said whilst writing in the NY Times: “It seems, then, that a religious tenet that begins with men’s sexual thoughts ends with men controlling women’s bodies.” During her tenure as Prime Minister of Israel, Golda Mier was asked to set a curfew on women to control the increasing cases of rape. She refused, saying: “It’s the men who are attacking the women. If there is to be a curfew, let the men stay home.

In 2010, Nicholas Kristof printed a “Religion and Sex Quiz” that taught me that abortion was in fact not mentioned in the Bible, regardless of what the Republicans say. My personal favorite asinine rules are created within the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Some months ago clerics banned women from touching bananas and cucumbers to avoid “sexual thoughts”. Previously, Saudi cleric Sheik Abdel Mohsen Obeikan issued a fatwa, or Islamic ruling, calling on women to give breast milk to their male colleagues or men they come into regular contact with so as to avoid illicit mixing between the sexes (these men were now foster children and, therefore, social interaction would be deemed devoid of sexual context).

Disparity between what is pronounced as religion, and what it actually is, exist in all faiths mostly because we are all too willing to take someone else’s word for what is divinely ordained. As the Nigerian saying goes: “Not to know is a bad thing, to wish not to know is worse.”

The Crossroads of Religion and Politics

Note: A version of this article was first posted on the Foreign Policy Blogs Network on 14th December, 2011 and can be found here.

I had a friend in college who was discovering Islam around the time I was. Though we were both born Muslims, we were now understanding it and practicing of our own accord. We were not converts, but “Reverts”. After college, she went on to study Islam at a madrassa-esque school for women and I went on to law school, but we stayed in touch and shared books and articles we found interesting. My interest in Islam was sparked by the post 9/11 hatred that the media spewed about a religion I had grown up with, but never taken the time to understand. Because I didn’t understand Islam, I didn’t know how to defend it. Being dumbfounded on occasion, I decided I needed to learn what was true and right so as to be able to either defend my religion, or agree with the accusations leveled against it.

My friend came from a family that was somewhat religiously inclined. She was never interested in school or having a set career South Asians choose for their children (i.e. doctor, engineer, lawyer, banker) and so, she carefully slipped into a comfort zone that was her religion. Islam tied her to the rest of her family. It gave her a sense of belonging and provided ideas she could contribute when discussions arose, which was often. Her religion was her identity. I think that’s usually the reason we turn to religion, for a sense of belonging and legacy. But turning to a religion without understanding it is like polishing firewood. Sadly, our emotions get the better of us and we neglect the intellectual imperative of understanding the nuances of religion. We defend our beliefs, without comprehension which makes our arguments limp; thereby dissuading non-Muslims even further. Most fail to understand religion because we are taught that questioning is deserving of hellfire, so we silently obey and follow those that teach it.

A recent opinion piece by Eric Weiner in the New York Times explains how “the Nones” or the “people who say they have no religious affiliation at all” are the most rapidly growing group of people in the United States; currently, they make up approximately 12 percent of the population. In Pakistan, we see the Reverts claiming ground.

I see reverting every day with my friends. They’re pulled into the fervent fascination of religion, and feed their curiosity by following one or several neighborhood clerics. Or better yet, someone on television. It is these clerics that later align themselves with political parties or form one of their own (Tehreek-e-Talban is well known). Therefore, in order to pull in the vote of the youth, all political parties play at the heartstrings of our newly-religious-youth and chant slogans accented with God‘s name. This isn’t a novel concept, nor one that is restricted to Pakistan. The case is the same in the U.S. where at last weeks Republican Debate in Iowa, almost all the candidates kept advertising how they were the most conservative and proud of their Christian upbringing.

Back in the day, General Zia (Pakistani Military Dictator 3.0) promulgated various laws that were supposedly based on religion; of these, the most famous are the Blasphemy Laws. Under these laws, a religious sect known as Ahmedi’s were declared non-Muslims. One of the famous Ahmedi’s was Dr. Abdus Salam; Pakistan’s only Nobel Laureate. It is said that when he approached General Zia to protest the declarations, Zia said that his religious clerics had advised him that the Ahmedi’s were changing the words of the Qur’an to promote their philosophy. When Dr. Salam proved otherwise, Zia shrugged and said that he would not have set the law as such had he known better. He did not change it then; admitting a mistake is like admitting defeat. Besides, this law had gained Zia popular vote with the youth and the religiously fervent.

Mr. Weiner argues that the rise in the Nones is due to politics – “God is for suckers, and Republicans.” In Pakistan’s case, God is for every political party to manipulate in a manner that benefits them, regardless of its repercussions or the validity of the statements made. This is because everyone wears religion on their sleeve, the religion that they have not studied, or have been misinformed about by their clerics and elders. Like Mr. Weiner points out, we have lost sight of the graces of God and the behavior expected of us. God asks us to be compassionate, like Karen Armstrong explains in her book “Twelve Steps to a Compassionate Life”, compassion means to endure something with another person; not to feel sorry for them. How can we endure something we don’t fully comprehend?

I wish that the religious clerics that advise our political leaders and Reverts would do so with utmost wisdom, and not with personal hatred or disdain shrouded in a religious chant. I also wish that the Reverts make use of the amenities that are available to them, figure out the truth for themselves, and not follow on hatred towards another people or falsified views of God.

So, although it is considered inopportune to discuss religion and politics at the dinner table, this holiday season, let us do just that. Ask your friends and family to explain their views and you get a moment to explain yours. Respect each others opinions and realize that it is perfectly fine to disagree, so long as your views are researched and not standing on a pile of ill-founded emotions that you picked out of someone else’s recycling bin.

UPDATE: I just saw this on CNN, and found it apt to share. Three religious clerics discuss whether religion and politics mix.