Hijab: Personal Choice Not State Law

Hijab, the head cover Muslim women wear in keeping with their religious traditions, has become in modern times a politically charged issue in several Muslim countries, and more recently in Europe. In the early eighties, Iran imposed hijab on its female citizens, while Syria banned it from schools during the same period. Syria gradually came to term with hijab, as the number of Syrian women who chose to wear it increased drastically during the nineties. Hijab is enforced today in Iran and Saudi Arabia, and banned in Tunisia and Turkey. France banned the hijab in 2004, and far right politicians and pundits are calling for similar ban in other European countries, and have already succeeded in doing so in the Belgium city of Antwerp.

The Turkish parliament passed last week a constitutional amendment that practically repealed early constitutional provisions that allowed the Turkish government to ban hijab from government buildings, universities, and schools in the late nineties. Although the lifting of ban is not in force yet, the confrontation over this issue with secularists who control the military and the courts has already started. Secularist Turks are up in arms, protesting the new amendment, and preparing to challenge it in court.

The debate over hijab is emotionally charged, with secular Turks presenting the move as the first step toward ending democracy in Turkey and forcing all Turkish women to wear headscarf. This alarmist language has clouded the debate and created a sense of panic, as the choices presented are based on the logic of either/or, as if the only choices society can make is that between banning or enforcing the hijab. These are of course false choices, as society can choose neither to ban nor enforce. The third choice is the one available to women in most Muslim countries. In most societies, the decision to wear headscarf, or to take it off, is a personal choice.

Yet, the real problem is not in the decision a woman makes, but in the politicization of that decision. The problem lies in the moral inconsistency and the use of double standards in addressing an issue concerning individual choice and freedom of expression. The only morally defendable position is in denying the state the right to either force or prohibit people to follow practices they genuinely believe to be required by their religious traditions, particularly when these practices do not violate the rights of others.

The argument to ban hijab often rests on a paternalistic attitude derived from the dominant position enjoyed by the group to which the person who advocate hijab ban (or enforcement) belongs. For decades now, anti hijab writers refused to consider it as a personal choice and an individual right, protected under international humanitarian law. Reza Afshari, for instance, insists that wearing hijab must not be seen as a self-expression of Muslim women, but rather as a symptom of a male-dominant culture. He, further, argues that Muslim women have internalized the "male-dominated culture." He even claims that, in addition to being sub-consciously misguided, Muslim women have another reason for wearing hijab, namely to avoid "those sanctioned practices that permit harassment of women in public, forcing them to comply with repressive norms and rewarding them by according them a marked difference in the ways men treat women in public."

The argument is both flawed and sexist. It is flawed because it can be equally used to undermine the right of women who chose not to wear hijab by those who could argue that the latter style of dressing is not a personal choice, but is rather influenced by the dominant culture. The argument is, more importantly, sexist as it assumes that women cannot have a mind of their own, and are always vulnerable to manipulation by male members of their society.

Even if we grant, for the sake of argument, that the above assertion is correct, then the remedy cannot be a decision to ban hijab and deny women the right to personal choices, in violation of equal protection of the law. The remedy must rely on persuasion, education, and enactment of laws that would empower women to act on their on volition, instead of being forced by the state to wear the headscarf or take it off.

A similar argument was recently made by Cheryl Benard in a report that was published by the RAND Corporation in 2004. Benard refused to see the Muslim headscarf as a religious practice, and chose instead to castigate it as a provocative political statement and a challenge to Western democracy. Benard insisted that hijab is worn by women who belong to one of several problematic categories. "In the United States," she claimed, "hijab is typically worn by the following groups: recent immigrants from rural, traditional parts of the Muslim world; fundamentalists; unassimilated traditionalists belonging to the strongly observant minority; the elderly;" and, the author states that when it is worn by "young women," these women "want to get attention and make a provocative statement in their schools, colleges, or workplaces."

What is provocative is not that Muslim women are choosing to wear hijab, but that there are still individuals that lay claim to intellectualism and liberal tradition who, in keeping with Orientalist strategies, continue to deal with the followers of the Islamic faith as silent objects of research who must always be defined by their detractors, but never allowed to define themselves in their own voices. This sad state of affairs was highlighted in an article by Manal Omar that was published in the Guardian in April 2007 under the title "I felt more welcome in the Bible belt."

Manal narrates in the article her ordeal during a short stay in Oxford, England, when she was challenged by an angry man who did not approve of her wearing a swimsuit that covered her body. Not only did the man speak with her in condescending voice, but the newspaper that reported the event with sensation and negative spin refused to interview her, and relied solely on the account of her accuser.

She ellequontly described her painful experience as she was rendered an object of ridicule, and her story was used as a springboard for attacks on multiculturalism and Muslim immigrants as it was debated on an online discussion forum. "Looking back," she wrote, "what disturbed me the most about the debate was that my very identity was reduced to a cluster of cliches about Muslim women. I was painted in broad strokes as an oppressed, unstable Muslim woman. I was made invisible, an object of ridicule and debate, with no opinion or independent thoughts. The fact that I had dedicated the past 10 years to working on women's issues on a global level, led a delegation of American women into Afghanistan in 2003, and put my life on the line in Iraq struggling for women's constitutional rights were clearly beyond anyone's imagination."

Politicians and pundits who question the right of Muslim women to practice their faith do not only ignore the leadership role they play, but also fail to recognize their capacity to be inspired by their faith. The claim that hijab is worn today by oppressed women is seriously flawed, and is remnant of 19th century Orientalim. Many women who chose hijab today are highly educated and actively involved in public life. They include lawyers, journalists, politicians, directors of non-profit organizations, human rights advocates, professors, and leaders of religious groups and grassroots organizations.

It is about time that Muslim women's personal choices are respected and their voices are heard.

This article appeared in the following publications

Media Monitors Network
Middle East Online
Alarab Online
Online Journal
Aljazeera Magazine
Dawn

Read more >>>

Undermining Civil Liberties at Home

Civil liberties are always precious for free people, but particularly so during times of turbulence when the future seems uncertain and society struggles to gain its balance and move in the right direction. These are, sadly, times when opportunists try to advance their fortune without regard to other people's rights, bigots hide behind the language of patriotism, and freedom is curtailed in the name of security. It is under such conditions that civil liberties and the right to dissent become exceedingly important, as free and open debate becomes essential for pursuing the best course of action.

Yet bigots, racists, and zealots have always tried to pursue their narrow agenda during the time of war and conflict by exploiting fear and hiding behind patriotic rhetoric. The last time zealots used foreign threats to silence defenders of human rights and critics of foreign policy was during the fifties, when a junior congressman with the name of Joseph McCarthy used his position and exploited national fear and anxiety to attack his ideological opponents. McCarthy confused dissent with disloyalty, and claimed to defend freedom abroad as he was undermining it at home.

McCarthy, for instance, accused the US Army of harboring communists and described the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of being "a front for, and doing the work of, the Communist Party." He went so far as to question the loyalty of the Democratic Party, accusing it of "twenty years of treason."

His divisive and misguided approach was eloquently described by a courageous journalist with the name of Edward Murrow, who decided to confront McCarthy on March 19, 1954. "[Senator McCarthy's] primary achievement," Murrow asserted on national TV at the height of the McCarthy era, "has been in confusing the public mind, as between the internal and the external threats of Communism. We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law."

The neo-conservative pundits, who lead a smear campaign with the aim to marginalize Muslim Americans, read from McCarthy's manual. They have repeatedly painted Muslim Americans critical of their inhumane and exploitative foreign policy as disloyal. They most recently chided Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England for attending the annual convention of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) in 2006 and for inviting ISNA officers to visit the Pentagon. They have accused ISNA, and every other Muslim American organization of repute, of being sympathetic to terrorism for the sheer fact that these organizations have been critical of human rights violations by friendly foreign countries, including Israel, and have defended the civil rights of minorities under occupation, including the Palestinians.

In an article published in the Washington Times under the provocative title "Front-Gate," Frank Gaffney called Congress to investigate the "judgment," even the "loyalty," of government officials who interact with Muslim leaders and organizations. Gaffney, the president of the Center of Security Policy, a neo-conservative think tank, has taken every opportunity in the last five years to rebuke public officials who met with Muslim leaders, including Karen Hughes, former Deputy Secretary of State. His insinuation was followed by an attack on Hesham Islam by Claudia Rosett, a staffer of another neo-conservative think tank with the name of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracy. Rosett castigated Mr. Islam, a retired Navy commander who served his adopted country with distinction and honor, basically for having the tenacity to reach the position of special assistant to Secretary Gordon, having been born in Egypt and having expressed critical views of Israel's policies.

Members of the Muslim American community, including main stream Muslim organizations and leaders, have come under concerted and intense attacks by neo-conservative organizations because they have expressed concerns about the dire conditions of Palestinians under occupation. Although these organizations have been subject to close scrutiny by government agencies, and have not been implicated in any violation of anti-terrorism statutes, neo-conservative pundits and organizations continue to use innuendo, spin, haft truths, and unfounded accusations to cast a shadow of doubt on their loyalty and their commitment to the rules of law, and to isolate them and cut them off of political debate.

Other neo-conservative organizations, including Daniel Pipes' Middle East Forum, have worked tirelessly to set up nominal Muslim organizations of insignificant membership and following, in an effort to undermine mainstream Muslim organizations. Some of these organizations surfaced last month to write a letter of protest to Rabbi Eric Yoffie, the president of the Union of Reform Judaism (URJ), published in the Jewish Weekly. The letter asked Rabbi Yoffie to withdraw his organization from interfaith dialogue engagement with the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). The organizations, led by Stephen Schwartz's Center for Islamic Pluralism, disagreed with Rabbi Yaffie's assertion of the need for American Jews to learn first hand about Muslims.

The authors of the letter, who called themselves "moderate" Muslims, had the effrontery to question whether the president of the largest Jewish group in the country can speak for American Jews, suggesting that they are in a better position to do so: "If Rabbi Yoffie believes that Jews are ignorant about Islam, he should be recognized as speaking only for himself." Schwartz, converted from Judaism to Islam few years ago, continues to promote a neo-conservative agenda, and maintains close relationship with a network of Muslim bashers, that includes Daniel Pipes.

In response, Rabbi Mark Pelavin of the Union of Reform Judaism (URJ), rejected the claims by the self-proclaimed "moderate" Muslims that ISNA supports terrorism and promote violence, citing past statements and positions taken by the leading grassroots Muslim organization in the United States. The URJ's response reminded the letter's authors and their sponsors that no one who is serious about engaging Muslim Americans can ignore their largest organization: "If we are serious about engagement with the Muslim community, and we are, than it makes sense to go where the American Muslims are."

The far right in general, and the neo-conservative network in particular, will press on their quest to silence the Muslim community and to prevent Muslims to engage in an urgently needed national debate on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But these efforts can succeed only at the expense of America's democracy, and America's ability to engage in national discussion, essential for developing the right policies for America's welfare and for world peace. If these undemocratic efforts are allowed to continue, they will not only lead to further isolate the United States and undermine its credibility as a society of equal rights and due process, but they will eventually undermine freedom at home.

McCarthy, who exploited the Cold War's uncertainties to persecute his ideological opponents, was defeated because courageous Americans like Edward Murrow, George H. Bender, Joseph Nye Welch, and others spoke in opposition of his witch hunt campaign against patriot Americans. Muslim bashers, who exploit the War on Terrorism to persecute Muslim Americans, will be stopped when more American leaders, like Eric Yoffie, reject their ploys to marginalize and silence Muslims, and speak out loudly against their divisive and deceptive voices that would only undermine our freedom and democracy.

It is imperative that American leaders speak out against bigoted voices that attack Islam and Muslims. We should all recall with pride the words of Edward Murrow, which are as true today as they were fifty years ago. We need only replace the phrase "Senator McCarthy" with "neo-conservative pundits." "This is no time for men who oppose Senator McCarthy's methods to keep silent--or for those who approve...We proclaim ourselves, as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom--what's left of it--but we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home."

This article appeared in the following publications:
Middle East Online
Media Monitors Network
Online Journal
Alarab Online
Official Wire
Aljazeera

Read more >>>

The Politics and Morality of Apostasy*

[This article is a summary of a longer paper, whose url is provided below]
The issue of apostasy under Islamic Law (shari'ah) brought recently to public attention in the widely publicized case of the conversion of an Afghan citizen raises troubling questions regarding freedom of religion and interfaith relations. The Afghan state's prosecution of an Afghan man who converted to Christianity in 1990 while working for a Christian non-governmental raises in the mind of many the question of the compatibility of Islam with plural democracy and freedom of religion. Although state court dropped the case under intense outside pressure, the compatibility issue has not been resolved because the judge invoked insanity as the basis for dismissing the case.

The case was presented as an example of conflict between Islam and democratic governance, but in many respects the case is rooted in, and influenced by, the forced secularization of Muslim society, and the absence of free debate under authoritarian regimes that dominate much of the Muslim world.

The issue of apostasy, like many other issues stemming from the application of shari'ah in modern society, is rooted more in the sociopolitical conditions of contemporary Muslim societies than in Islamic values and principles. More particularly, it is rooted in the incomplete transition from traditional to modern sociopolitical organization. It is rooted in the decision of many post-colonial Muslim countries to abandon traditional legal codes informed by Islamic law (shari'ah), in favor of European legal codes developed to suit modern European societies. The new laws where enforced by state elites without any public debate, and with little attention for the need to root legal code in public morality.

Islam is the foundation of moral commitments for the overwhelming majority of Muslims, and is increasingly becoming the source of legitimacy for state power and law. Yet the post-colonial state in Muslim societies has done little to encourage debate in the area of Islamic law. The increased interest in adopting legal codes based in Islamic values, leave the majority of Muslims with outdated legal codes that was intended for societies with markedly different social and political organizations and cultures.

The apostasy controversy highlights the importance of allowing Islamic reformers more say in public debates about political and legal reforms, and demonstrates the extent to which world powers undercut cultural and religious reforms by backing autocratic regimes the crack down on Muslim reformers in the name of combating political Islam. To legitimize their political rule and enlist the support of religious voices, autocratic rulers often align themselves with traditional religious scholars, who perpetuate rigid and anti-reform agendas in Muslim societies.

Traditionalist scholars have long embraced classical positions on apostasy that consider the rejection of Islam as a capital crime, punished by death. This uncritical embrace is at the heart of the drama that was played in the case of the Afghan convert to Christianity, and which would likely be repeated until the debate about shari'ah reform and its relevance to state and civil law is examined and elaborated by authentic Muslim voices.

At the heart of the apparent conflict between Islamic and democratic traditions is a static and stagnant approach to understanding Islamic law. The conflict stems mainly from a literalist understanding of the revelatory sources, i.e. the Qur'an and Sunnah (the Prophet tradition), and the body of Islamic jurisprudence derived from them through the exercise of juristic reasoning. With the marginalization of Islamic juristic learning and the restriction of public debate on Islamic law by the state, and the traditionalist jurists allied with it, a literalist approach of Islamic law has become rampant in many Muslim societies.

Under such climate, the most rigid and literalist interpretation of Islamic sources prevails, while enlightened and reformist views are suppressed and marginalized. The voices of many enlightened contemporary scholars who reject the literalist interpretation of the Islamic sources are pushed to the side.

Islamic law (shari'ah) is essentially a moral code with few legal pronouncements, and the question of which precepts are purely moral and which that have legal implications are determined through the theory of right.

The theory of right devised by late classical jurists - around the eighth century of Islam - emphasizes that people are ultimately answerable to God in all their dealings. However, by using the term rights of God to underscore the moral duty of the individual, and his/her accountability before God, classical jurists obscured the fact that rights are invoked to support legal claims and to enforce the interests of the right-holder. Because the Qur’an makes it abundantly clear that obeying the divine revelation does not advance the interests of God, but only those of the human being, the phrase “rights of God” signifies only the moral obligations of the believers towards God, and by no means should they be taken as a justification for legal claims.

It follows that the rights of God which are exclusively personal should be considered as moral obligations for which people are only answerable to God in the life to come. As such accepting or rejecting a specific interpretation or a particular religious doctrine, and observing or neglecting fundamental religious practices, including prayer or hajj, should have no legal implications whatever. A legal theory in congruence with the Qur'anic framework should distinguish between moral and legal obligations, and should confine the latter to public law that promote public interests (constitutional, criminal, etc.) and private law that advances private interests (trade, family, personal, etc.).

Unless the above legal reform is undertaken, there is no way to ensure that takfir (charging one with blasphemy) and zandaqa (charging one with heresy) claims would not become a political weapon in the hands of political groups to be used as a means to eliminate rivals and opponents.

*This article is a shorter version of more elaborate paper entitled “Apostasy and Religious Freedom.” The paper can be viewed on line at: http://lsinsight.org/articles/Current/Apostasy.htm

This full article appeared in the following publications:

Media Monitors Network
The American Muslims
alt.muslim
iviews
Future Islam
Naseeb Vibes

Read more >>>

Danish Cartoons: Free Press or Hate Speech?

Freedom of speech is central to both democratic government and human dignity. A society whose people are unable to speak freely and criticize established powers and traditions is doomed to stagnation and servitude. In the absence of critical voices to point out corruption and mismanagement, national wealth would be plundered by those who are trusted to protect public interests. And in the absence of critical minds, innovation and creativity would surely vanish, and science and art would inevitably die.

The modern West emerged from medieval Europe by fighting a political regime which, in the name of order, subordinated vast societal resources to the whims of a careless aristocracy, and by opposing an established church which, in the name of faith, has suffocated free thinking and scientific progress.

It took great sacrifices by many courageous people to establish basic civil liberties that today form the foundation of modern democracy. Foremost among which is free speech which must be protected to ensuring that people can point out with relative ease both corruption and ignorance that erode social fabric and undermine creative thinking.

It is this most important liberty that the editor of Jyllands-Posten cited in justifying the publications of the 12 provocative cartoons, depicting Prophet Mohammad in negative light and insulting Islam and its followers. But was the decision to caricature the Prophet of Islam an exercise in free speech? Or was it an exercise in bigotry and hate speech dressed as free expression?

Flemming Rose, Jyllands-Posten's culture editor who commissioned the 12 cartoons, made the following comment in providing a rationale for his provocative initiative. “[Some Muslims] demand a special position,” Rose wrote, “insisting on special consideration of their own religious feelings. It is incompatible with contemporary democracy and freedom of speech, where you must be ready to put up with insults, mockery and ridicule. It is certainly not always attractive and nice to look at, and it does not mean that religious feelings should be made fun of at any price, but that is of minor importance in the present context.”

The paper’s editor-in-chief further insisted that the objective of publishing the cartoons was to overcome “self-censorship” exercised by writers and cartoonists when depicting Islam. This explanation turned out to be disingenuous as The Guardian revealed that the same paper turned down anti-Christian cartoons submitted earlier by Christoffer Zeiler. In rejecting the cartoons the paper's Sunday editor, Jens Kaiser, wrote the following: "I don't think Jyllands-Posten's readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them."

Kaiser’s words reveal a healthy sense of responsible freedom, as they underscore the importance of avoiding provocation and insult whose aim is sheer mockery. But why was not the same logic brought to bear on the decision of commissioning and then publishing the anti-Muslim cartoons?

It is evident that Jylland-Posten’s editors exercised “self-censorship” when they believed that making fun of religious feelings has a “high price.” The freedom of press they claim was at bottom a thin façade hiding an ugly bigotry directed particularly against Danish Muslims. Indeed, a 2004 report by a Danish watchdog, the immigrant rights lobbyist organization ENAR, claimed that 19 out of the 24 Jyllands-Posten's editorials on "ethnic issues" published between September 1 and November 20 2004 were negative, while 88 out of 120 op-ed pieces on "ethnic minorities" were negative, and 121 out of 148 letters to the editor on “ethnic minorities” were negative.

Jyllands-Poten was less interested in critically engaging the Islamic faith on the intellectual, social, or theological levels, and more in insulting its prophet and humiliating the Danish Muslim community. The freedom of speech invoked by the Jyllands-Posten editors does not represent a courageous stand against an established and powerful group. Nor is it a responsible freedom that aims at engaging in a serious criticism of Islamic doctrines or practices. Rather, it is a mean-spirited statement against a marginalized minority that could only serve to demonize a faith that is little understood by European societies, and greatly misrepresented by European media.

Freedom of press is not absolute, and must be used responsibly by those who claim it. Those who appreciate the importance of free speech for maintaining free and open society must ensure that it is not used by bigots to insult, insinuate, and marginalize. Rather than expanding the critical space to talk about religion in general, and the integration of Islam to Danish society in particular, Jyllands-Poten has irresponsibly used free speech to encourage hate-mongering. Such reckless use of a cherished freedom would only make an open discussion more complicated, and could practically make Danish people less free to address critical issues for social interaction and cooperation.

It is, therefore, vital that leaders on all sides of the issue take the initiative to calm the inflammatory situation, and bring the confrontation to a halt. The emotional exchange between the Western and Muslim worlds would further embolden the bigots in both camps. Western bigots are busy presenting current protests as an instance of “Islamic imperialism,” and a step in bringing the world under the control of Islam. Muslim bigots, similarly, find in the current stand off an opportunity to inflame anti-Semitism in Muslim societies.

A peaceful and orderly expression of indignation falls within democratic traditions, and represents a legitimate endeavor to influence political decision and debate. Resorting to violence, threats, and intimidations, on the other hand, undermines democratic principles, complicates political exchange, and closes public debate, and must therefore be rejected and opposed. While most protests over the publication of the insulting cartoons have been orderly and peaceful, albeit indignant, several unfortunate instances have led to loss of life and property. There is now more evidence that extremists are intent on turning the protests into a weapon to further deepen the divide between Muslim and Western societies, and to turn cultural and ideological differences into a religious stand off and a “clash of civilizations.”

The Danish cartoon episode reaffirms the intimacy of freedom and responsibility and is a powerful reminder that a reckless use of freedom is the surest way to undermine both.

This article appeared in the following publications:

Indianapolis Star
Official Wire
iViews
Media Monitors Network
Middle East Online
The Dawn
Daily Muslims
Naseeb Vibes
The American Muslim
The Milli Gazette

Read more >>>