It’s been an eventful summer for Muslim women around the world. On August 14, 2009, Afghan President Hamid Karzai signed into law the Shia Personal Status Law making it legal for Afghan men to starve their wives if they refused to have sexual relations with them. On July 29th, 2009, Lubna Ahmed Hussein, a widowed Sudanese journalist was threatened with forty lashes by Sudanese authorities for having worn dress pants in a public place. Finally, there is the planned caning of Malaysian model Kartika Shukarno for drinking beer in a nightclub in the eastern Malaysian state of Pahang.

Consider first the Shia Personal Status Law enacted into law by President Hamid Karzai, assumedly to appease a hard line Shia cleric. The law not only grants exclusive rights to child custody to the father or grandfather but also requires women to ask for their husband or father’s permission before leaving the home. The only time a woman would be allowed to leave home without such permission is if she has “reasonable legal reasons” which are conveniently left unspecified.

Other provisions of the law are even more alarming. In the words of women’s rights activist Wazhma Frough, “the law allows men to even deny food or any support to their wives if they refuse to have sex with them.” Other provisions of the law allow also make it possible for men to legally marry children enabling the custom of child marriage pervasive in rural Afghanistan. According to Afghan female parliamentarian Shinkai Karokhail, the current law is still an improvement from the previous version which had made it impossible for women to leave the home without male permission under any circumstances and required them to have sexual relations with their husbands once every four days.

Moving on to Sudan, Lubna Hussein, a journalist, was arrested on July 3, 2009 along with eighteen other women because she was wearing dress trousers. There was nothing provocative about the tailored pants that fully covered her legs and yet Lubna Hussein stands threatened to be sentenced to forty lashes under the charge of “being dressed indecently”. Her name has been put on a travel blacklist by the ruling regime and she is now prohibited from leaving the country.

Ten of the women who were with Ms. Hussein at the time of the arrest chose to plead guilty to “indecency” and paid a fine and were lashed ten times. Ms. Hussein and another woman have chosen to fight the charges to bring attention to the plight of tens of thousands of women who have been lashed in the past decade under the country’s indecency laws. The Islamist Government in Sudan has routinely imposed draconian laws on Sudanese women to testify to their “Islamic” credential regardless of the law’s actual relationship with Islamic doctrine. In the words of Ms. Hussein, "These laws were made by this current regime which uses it to humiliate the people and especially women. These tyrants are here to distort the real image of Islam."

Finally, take the case of Malaysia, relatively speaking a functioning democracy where Islamic courts function alongside civil courts. The consumption of alcohol is forbidden to Muslims but permitted to the country’s Christian and Hindu minority. Ms. Shukarno has been fined the equivalent of $1,400 and six strokes with a rattan cane. Kartika, who is married and a mother of two was found guilty of drinking a beer in a hotel bar. In the northern Malaysian state of Kelyantan Muslim women have also been forbidden from wearing bright lipstick and high heeled shoes that may make noise in order to promote public morality. According to Mohamed Isa Ralip President of the Shariah Lawyers Association of Malaysia said “its not about causing pain, it is about educating others and about teaching the person a lesson.”

The three contexts under discussion are undoubtedly different in demography, culture, geography and historical context. But they are all post-colonial Muslim states fraught with a crisis of authenticity that consistently leads them to believe that public displays of religious piety are at the core of religious practice. What easier targets to center these expressions of piety and pristine public morality then the private and public behavior of women.

The Afghan law essentially gives the state the right to enter the private sphere of the family and control even what happens between a husbands and wives. It legislates essentially the nature of the relationship and creates a particular power dynamic that makes the woman an appendage to a man with her duties circumscribed entirely and completely by her gender. Political machinations aside, the law is an expression of an unapologetic patriarchal system where such subjugation enshrined in law is considered an expression of Afghan Islamic identity, legislated and signed into law through democratic process.

Similar tactics underlie the Sudanese and Malaysian cases. Ultimately, both represent the relegation of public morality as a task to be accomplished through legislation and enforced through instruments of the state such law courts. The underlying logic of all three cases is that if all temptations are forbidden by law then all need for individual conscience will conveniently be eviscerated. The assumption is that in a perfect Islamic society, there would be no need for an individual conscience at all. If women are covered from head to toe it is assumed, few would be tempted to engage in sexual promiscuity. If there is no bright lipstick, noisy high heeled shoes, women dressed it pants it seems all Muslim men will suddenly become better believers and more eligible for heaven. If wives submit easily, can never refuse sex and are forced by the state to obey their husbands then it is assumed they will be even less likely to covet other women.

The injustices in the scenario are numerous, from the public subjugation of Muslim women as an expression of a society’s piety to the fact that the system is designed entirely to facilitate the journey of men (not women) to heaven. But what is most notable in the framework is the desire on the part of Muslim publics in all three countries to have the State as a stand in for the conscience of the individual believer.

The lack of questioning not only of the blatant disregard for gender disparity so visible in all of these incidents is not the only cause for deep dejection. Equally disturbing is the desire to make being a good Muslim not an issue of individual effort but of robotic obedience. Few bother to ask whether giving zakah (charity), abstaining from alcohol, or sexual promiscuity is really an exercise of obeying Divine Guidance when it is enforced by the State and not a question of free will. Are robotic Muslims lulled into obedience by the threat of starvation, the fear of being caned or flogged at the same level of religious devotion as those who freely choose to abstain from forbidden acts?

Women and their subjugation have become the visible symbols of Islamic statehood and the piety of the Muslims that live in them. Instead of outrage such incidents are met with approbation and lauded as efforts to Islamize the society. If the worth of women and the tragedy of their subjugation is not enough for Muslims to be shocked out of their apathy, then perhaps the notion of a lulled ummah cornered into obedience out of fear rather than religious devotion should be.

@OmarG: I see your statements as supporting my arguments as well as Mr. Zakaria's. Will you continue further and attempt to answer our questions?

*Ms.* Zakaria; names originally from Arabic are typically female when they end with 'a'. I believe its the same in Hebrew, also a Semitic language, or is it a 't'?

Out of the jam: Well, that's what sites like this attempt to answer. Is it ungodly: I don't think it is ungodly to wish so; however, some number of Muslims have worked themselves up into beleiving that it is, and change management is an entire field of study for a very, very good reason.

>>> This explains, I think, my astonishment at many contemporary Muslim behavoirs and choices. I had been operating on the naive Islamist assumption that Muslims sincerely want to obey the Quran and Sunnah.

But I believe Muslims do want to. I think we disagree on matters of fiqh and political complexity and the existence of a 13th dimension in physics and the structure of economy... as any developed society would and should. I think the Quraan and Sunnah starts in a personal sphere, long before it even starts applying in the public sphere. The people must be on the path before they aspire to govern by it.

Perhaps cultural identity has a play with us, but not all Muslims are highly educated with idealised views of the world. That liberal and idealised view is further hardly drawn from the Quraan and Sunnah .. many times, its a view applied to the Quraan and Sunnah. Not all people have been raised or live purely on the basis of their principles (actually noone has, we just think we have). Not all have the resources and cultural grounding to entertain lofty idealisms when pragmatism is the order of their day. So to disagree on issues of temporary and earthly nature is natural.

But we should agree at least on the principles of respect and understanding and our conduct in the public sphere and with each other. That is an ungovernable space akin to "do unto others as you would have done unto you". I don't think we should rush to judge others, even if they rush to judge us. Because when the time comes and Allah SWT judges all of us, we will be drawing short sticks and hoped we had rushed to each others forgiveness in the world.

Quraan and Sunnah are such dynamic and lofty concepts. Idealised by the life of the Prophet SAW. Its said that one of the Messengers (SAW) great qualities, was that he gave the ideal response to every situation presented to him. Your view of those principles are inevitably shaded by your experiences. While we would all like to say that there is sexual equality, its not that practically possible in a rural environment reminiscent to the 12th century.

All I'm saying is that issues like this, are proven to be part of a post-colonial fallout. A temporary political problem routed in abstract and debateable concepts. I think its wrong to assume that crisis exists because "they" are insincere Muslims who don't really understand the Quraan and Sunnah. Its temporary because we can change it and should strive to. And the striving starts with us, and extends to our immediate environment first.

>>> Dividing humans into clearly defined groups solely based on their religion or nationality is not only a simplistic way to view the world, it is also dangerous, argues eminent economist Amartya Sen...“We may suddenly be informed that we are not just Rwandans but specifically Hutus (‘we hate Tutsis’), or that we are not really mere Yugoslavs but actually Serbs (‘we absolutely don’t like Muslims’),” said Sen....In reality, says Sen, people have many identities....In the book, as in his lecture, Sen argues that conflict and violence are sustained today, no less than in the past, by the illusion of a singular identity that is predetermined by birth or religious affiliation, regardless of one’s level of allegiance to that particular identity.<<<<

This is from the "Illusiion of Identity" article I linked to. For the benefit of those who clearly didn't read it.

http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-96559-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html

....not all Muslims are highly educated with idealized views of the world.
- Posted by Ghulam

It seems to me that therein lies a big part of the problem of Islam's image worldwide. (No, I am not suggesting Christianity is characterized by high levels of education.) You get some half-educated megalomaniacs who get those with even less understanding of the world to attack those who aren't like them in some way.

@fester: Yes, I think that is a big part of the problem, too. Uneducated people can still be polite, dignified and noble in treating others. But, when it comes to things outside thier level of experience, they quickly find themselves in over thier heads and easily outmaneuvered.

>>says Sen, people have many identities

Yes, I think so too...under normal circumstances. But when push comes to shove and they ahve to choose, they will stick with one, at least publicly. Sen's examples themselves show this all too clearly.

Fester >>> You get some half-educated megalomaniacs who get those with even less understanding of the world to attack those who aren't like them in some way.

No. Issues like the ones above are predicated by intelligent middle-class people with a post colonial mindset.

OmarG >>> Yes, I think that is a big part of the problem, too. Uneducated people can still be polite, dignified and noble in treating others. But, when it comes to things outside thier level of experience, they quickly find themselves in over thier heads and easily outmaneuvered.

You guys are indirectly ring-fencing terrorism and social advancement and its not very cool. By being so general, you're associating one political failure with a whole set of differences that may actually be justified. The Taliban were justified in critiquing the US political maneouvering with regards to the gas-pipeline situation, and the UN's failure to support them afterr the civil war. Osama was justified in being critical of American troops stationed on Saudi land. Or shoud I say, such criticisms were rooted in a justified view.

>>> But when push comes to shove and they ahve to choose, they will stick with one, at least publicly.

That's why he calls it an illusion.

>So most of today's Jews or Christians do not suffer from the common disability of today's Muslims: existing in a police state that uses all the tools of modern technology, psychology, and medicine to enforce the power of totalitarian rule over the people, while waving Islam as a banner to prevent change that could bring freedom.<

What a load of judeofascist horse manure. The one critical thing solomoan the troll left out was that all Muslim police states are puppet client regimes of the West. Of course a truly independent and stron islamic world would be bad news for the criminals running the world today. As British Prime Minister Henry Bannerman clearly stated in the 1907 Campbell-Bannerman Report :

"There are people (Muslims) who control spacious territories teeming with manifest and hidden resources. They dominate the intersections of world routes. Their lands were the cradles of human civilizations and religions. These people have one faith, one language, one history and the same aspirations. No natural barriers can isolate these people from one another ... if, per chance, this nation were to be unified into one state, it would then take the fate of the world into its hands and would separate Europe from the rest of the world. Taking these considerations seriously, a foreign body should be planted in the heart of this nation to prevent the convergence of its wings in such a way that it could exhaust its powers in never-ending wars. It could also serve as a springboard for the West to gain its coveted objects."

You mean, spying, concentration camp network, arming emergency
units with weapons and teaching them to arrest civilians, locking up 15 year olds in the camps, torturing people, mass murdering them, controlling every aspect of media, lying day in, day out, night in, night out? Is this what this total cretin means? Well, he's got the wrong country. I think he means the US. And what about "israel" and its terrorists high on the Hasbara feces thinking they're living 5000 years in the past? "Enlightenment," my foot.

>You mean second class citizens akin to a non-Muslim in a Muslim country?<

More idiotic projections from the local inbred hillbilly who thinks he understands global geopolitics. Read the above response. Patriot Act or Military Commissions Act to name a few, ring a bell, moron?

@Ghulam: >>That's why he calls it an illusion.

How they behave after they choose is quite concrete and not so illusory. So, perhaps I'm having a hard time understanding the ramifications of Sen's critique, or his critique may not be relevant since this is how people actually behave. If it reflects reality and such identities are real to people, then how is it illusory? Calling it an illusion assumes there is some sort of shared, concrete truth that choosing an identity violates. If so, what is that concrete Truth?

>>Osama was justified in being critical of American troops stationed on Saudi land.

How?? The Saudis couldn't defend themselves and if they fell, a vital resource would be in the hands of people who would screw us with it (Saddam's takeover or native militants). Why would any state who can prevent resources from falling into the hands of its enemies not move to protect its interests??

Why would any state who can prevent resources from falling into the hands of its enemies not move to protect its interests??
>>>>

Because if as a planet we ever want to crawl out of the bronze age we need to stop defining other people's territories and possessions as "our resources." And if the US is the big tame civilized smart monkey it claims to be, shouldn't it be living up to the enlightened pap it purports to shove down other people's throats and setting the best example? You think two dimensionally and from a monolithic self projection of the US's aims as your own. The US government doesn't care about you any more than any kid sitting in a hut in SubSahara. They just want you to think so so you'll keep passing out the kook-aid after you've drank your own dose. Whether the US is protecting "its interests" or not, lots of people are starting to fight back any way they can. And there are a lot more of them than there are red neck grunts sitting in the US. It reminds me of a time in San Francisco when gangs were actually robbing and attacking old people on the busses and Muni. After a while, I started noticing those old people ganging together in numbers when they travelled, starting to carry weapons, starting to fight back rather than just falling to their knees and saying ... yes massah, whatever you says massah, jest don't you hurt me none. And yeah, I know the reference I am making. One day, and this is an absolutely true story. I was on the bus and saw some punks hassliong an old woman threatening to followe her off the bus. I was sitting across from her and planned to get off that bus wherever she did. She had a weird grin on her face and I looked over and she had the biggest butcher knife imaginable in that purse. And I thought ... right on. She was ready to die fighting these guys rather than live in fear of these thugs. That was back in the 1970s. One time I actually did get off the bus when some thugs got off after heckling somebody. Power in numbers Omar. And the US is old and senile like a drunk on the floor of a bar threatening to kick everybody's ass. The days of the royal white conquest are over. Step out of your own ego (nafs) and enjoy the show. It's really cool.

@Akenanubis: I think this conversation is being tilted away from caning and other issues to, once again, why America is the ultimate bad guy. How did we get to this?

Anyway, access to oil is in every citizen's interests. Remember the oil crisis of '73? Remember the recession-causing run-up of oil in 2008? Bad economies = bad social disruptions = evaporation of anyone caring about what you care about. Perhaps the best thing we've learned from Muslim countries is that when the economy is in the toilet, people do bad things, turn on each other and morality gets discarded. So, a prosperous economy typically results in people caring about the environment, morality, other people because they can afford to.

I don't want that, and my government doesn't want that, so yes indeed the government's aims are my own.

I don't want that, and my government doesn't want that, so yes indeed the government's aims are my own.
>>>>

You speak too warmly and intimately about "my government." They are just people. Not your family, not your wife and child. There is no unified and monolithic "government" with a clear and justifiable human agenda and business model in the US. Again, this is what I say about you every time I post. You speak blindly and in defense of yourself while projecting the government onto yourself. Which is foolish. You said all these same things a year aho when presumably there was a different "government." Or was there? If you are employed by them and are speaking with the team jersey on your back, then fine. That much is obvious. Your points and posions are all very clear. But it doesn't seem like anyone here is buying it. Scream louder. Maybe it will work. But if you are dismayed that all political discussions on a global and/or Muslim cite come back to the foreign policies of the US, and prior to them Great Britain and other European colonialist powers, well then that's like getting frustrated when every discussion of diabetes comes down to diet, exercise, and lifestyle.

"Bewildering" is the only way I can describe this conversation. It is my government because I vote in the election of its officials, bind myself by the results, it has solid authority within its territory, it has legislative powers over me, and most importantly, I am a citizen of this state which means I accept the system I live in. Is that clear to you?

And in fact, I've been a civilian with no ties to the military for some years, now.

Did you ever take a political science course in your life, or were your college years full of weed smoking and sit-ins? Seriously.

And as for your assertions about discussion of US foreign policies and the past of colonialism, are you really suggesting that women are under legal assault in Muslim countries because of the US?? Do you paternalistically and utterly **deny the agency** of non-European peoples? Do you attribute all bad things to white people? Get serious, please.

Bewildering" is the only way I can describe this conversation. It is my government because I vote in the election of its officials, bind myself by the results, it has solid authority within its territory, it has legislative powers over me, and most importantly, I am a citizen of this state which means I accept the system I live in. Is that clear to you?
>>>>

LOL. I can actually hear your voice saying that! Have another Bud and relax.

Ah, the ever-dependable DrM provides us with what seems like the Muslim world's standard approach to all problems: Blame the Zionists! Blame the West and its dictator puppets!

What good has that approach - ninety years of anti-Zionism and over a century of anti-Westernism - been to Muslims? Iran threw off the Shah - are Iranians better off spiritually or economically today? If Israel didn't exist, would that really improve matters, or would Muslims get screwed down even harder? What kind of future do Muslims face if they keep going down that road?

Loyalty to petrified opinion never yet broke a chain, or freed a human soul.

- Mark Twain

Ah, the ever-dependable DrM provides us with what seems like the Muslim world's standard approach to all problems: Blame the Zionists! Blame the West and its dictator puppets!

- Posted by Solomon2

...And look who's feeding the troll!

Yeah, seriously...don't feed the troll, man.

Yeah, seriously...don't feed the troll, man.
>>>

Oh come on, we're ALL trolls in this nuthouse. Except maybe Ghulam.

Oh come on, we're ALL trolls in this nuthouse. Except maybe Ghulam.

- Posted by Akenanubis

Perhaps, but most of us, you included, can make commentary without the pointless, yet predictable, personal insults.

Comments for this article have been archived and no further comments are allowed.