Saturday, March 25, 2006
Zainah Anwar: Let there be public debate on laws
New Straits TimesTHE fact that three daughters of current and past Prime Ministers in Malaysia were moved enough to share the same stage, the same passion and the same commitment to speak out their convictions in public on the imperative of justice for women in Islam shows a collective concern about disturbing trends in this country.
Last Saturday was a moment in history in Malaysia when we saw Hanis Hussein, Marina Mahathir and Nori Abdullah join hands to open the Sisters in Islam International Consultation on Trends in Family Law Reform in Muslim Countries. It is also a source of hope that change in the Muslim world is inevitable.
All three felt compelled to lend their voice to the growing force of Muslim women throughout the world who now speak out publicly to demand justice and equality and a stop to the use of Islam to justify continuing discrimination against women.
In much of the Muslim world today, it is women who are at the forefront in challenging governments, religious authorities and Islamist groups who hide behind the infallibility of the divine word to perpetuate patriarchy and to silence dissent.
In Iran, women, including daughters of mullahs and conservative families, are forced into the public space to confront the realities of an Islamic revolution driven by a punitive and legalistic Islam. The Islamic utopia promised where everything would be perfect because God’s law is perfect was anything but.
The women woke up to a reality that Islam, as Imam Feisal Rauf of New York said, was not a pronoun. Islam does not speak. It is human beings who speak in God’s name. It is human beings who use the authoritative text for authoritarian purposes. The justice of God is an ideal at the textual level. At the reality level, so much injustice is perpetrated in the name of God.
For me and my group, Sisters in Islam, it is an article of faith that Islam is just and God is just. If justice is intrinsic to Islam, then how could injustice and discrimination result in the codification and implementation of laws and policies made in the name of Islam?
It is at this level that Muslim women all over the world have begun to organise and demand reform of laws and policies to uphold the principles of justice, equality, freedom and dignity in Islam.
For most Muslim women, rejecting religion is not an option. We are believers, and as believers we want to find liberation, truth and justice from within our own faith. We feel strongly that we have a right to reclaim our religion, to redefine it, to participate and contribute to an understanding of Islam, how it is codified and implemented — in ways that take into consideration the realities and experience of women’s lives today.
For many women today, our lives are at a collision course with patriarchy’s construction of the "ideal" Muslim woman. For too long, men have defined for us what it is to be a woman, how to be a woman and then used religion and tradition to confine us to these socially constructed limitations that reduce us to being the inferior half of the human race. For too long, we submitted, seeking their approval and applause because the power of reward and punishment lay in their hands.
But not anymore. Women today are educated and economically independent. They will not be cowed into silence in the face of injustice. If the injustice is committed in the name of religion, then today’s women will go back to the original source of the religion to find out for themselves whether it is the revealed text that perpetrates injustice or is it an act of interpretation by human beings.
For those of us in civil society, as feminists, as believers and as activists living within a democratic constitutional framework, it is important that we assert and claim our right to have our voice heard in the public sphere and to intervene in the decision-making process on matters of religion.
The fundamental question needs to be asked: Who decides which interpretation, which juristic opinion, which traditional practice would prevail and be the source of codified law to govern our private and public lives and punish us if we fail to abide? Which opinion from the rich corpus of our heritage would fall by the wayside, forgotten? On what basis is that choice made? What are the guiding principles used in choosing one juristic opinion over another? Whose interests are protected and whose interests are denied?
This process of deriving "the right" opinion to codify into positive law is a human construct. The product of this very human engagement with the divine text is not the divine law of God. It is human knowledge and understanding, limited by human experience, human frailties and the context of time, place and circumstance.
The Islamic Family Law recently passed by Parliament, the Hudud passed by Kelantan and Terengganu and the Syariah Criminal Offences Law are all a product of this process. They are not divine law just because they bear the name Islam or Syariah. It is human beings who codified and drafted the laws, it is human beings who passed them through the legislative assemblies.
Thus, when Islam is a part of public law and public policy as in Malaysia, then by necessity such laws and policies must be opened to public debate and public feedback. This is how governments are held accountable in a democracy.
The writer, a former journalist, is a women’s rights activist and is the executive director of Sisters in Islam.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
3 comments:
Zainah Anwar’s article in the New Straits Times (24th March 2006) demands that Islamic or Syariah law be subjected to public debate and feedback since it is human beings who codify and draft these laws and pass them through the legislative assemblies.
The Quranic principle of consultation or shura has always been the backbone of the implementation of Islamic law and there is no incompatibility with Islam if believers, whether male or female, voice their opinion on matters that affect them.
However, it should be remembered that Islam is a religion based on divine knowledge, and is guided and restricted by fundamental principles that had been defined in the Quran and Hadiths, and thus any public debate should only be undertaken within an atmosphere of desire to uphold divine justice and gain God’s favour.
In order that the public debates retain their significance, each sector of the public voicing their opinion should be represented by individuals who are knowledgeable in the field of Islamic jurisprudence. The importance of this requirement can never be stressed heavily enough.
The matter of Islamic law is too important for Muslims to allow public debates to become forums for gender issues and platforms for advancing the latest fad legislation.
Perhaps I can't say much about this issue as I am not an adherent of the Islamic religion. If this post challenges your conscience, I wish to convey my deepest apologies. Yea, itjihad (forgive me if my spelling is incorrect) is something that is needed to reinterpret sacred texts in light of the changing world. By this I am not saying that God's Word is supposed to be changed, to suit human's desire. But rather it is relooked as the way it is, within the context when the revealed Word is given centuries ago, to apply it in terms of today's challenges.
Perhaps one of the reason that ithjihad has not been done is due to the reason that there is not many people in Malaysia or perhaps in the Muslim world that wants to engage in itjihad, due to the feeling that they are not 'qualified' enough. Prominent scholars at the other hand may perhaps feel that there is no need for further rediscovery of the meanings in sacred texts. Yea, issues of such complicated nature is not easy to deal with. There is no hierarchy within the Muslim world to recognise official scholars or theologians, thus making no one doing the initiating work, perhaps.
But coming back to my own understanding of the history and traditions within the Christian world. In the past, the Vulgate or the Latin scripture is exclusive for the clergy within the Catholic church, and religious education or knowledge is limited to few. There is no scripture in vernacular language, and believers are told to believe what they are taught without challenge, argument or thinking. Difference in interpretation is not tolerated. Matters regarding the doctrine, rituals and law are only discussed within the hierarchy of the Church, with the normal uneducated simple lay men know nothing about. Legalism and judgemental spirit creeps in as the Church tries to force 'religion' to the people. Church becomes an cultural institution rather than a place where people seek God intimately and connect spiritually. Faith in God becomes a package in life, rather than a choice in life.
It became a dead 'religiousity'. Christianity becomes a culture rather than a living faith. Believers could not actively take part intellectually in developing their faith and relationship with God, but passively doing rituals as part of the popular culture of the day, and giving the privilege of authority to the religious ones to dictate how should they live, rather than discovering it by their own.
But by God's intervention in changing history, things change. The scripture is available to all, in a form they can appreciate, understand and apply practically in their daily life. They can think and choose for themselves either to choose worldly values or Godly values, through personal discovery and conviction of God's truth. While the principles remain, the methods of religious life change in order to make the faith relevant to the changing world. I personally believe that God's way is not too high that its exclusive for the knowledgable few, but its relevant and applicable even to the simplest matter of life. None of us can fathom the mind of God, or even can give the best interpretation of God's Word, but that shouldn't stop us from living the way we believe God wants us to.
Public debate may perhaps be too outrageous and oblivious to the nature of the Malaysian society. Perhaps what could have been done are efforts to see through this issue in a new light, according to the Quran and Sunnah alone. Scholars must be willing to put away their personal preference or existing school of thought, to be truly consistent with the revelation of the Quran and Hadis, which I believe upholds justice and equality. They must perhaps be more open to differing views and be more critical in making any judgements, even on well-established interpretations.
This is my view.
Hi fauzi,
Thanks for contributing your views on the subject of public debates on Islamic law.
Ijtihad has always been an important part of the development of Islamic jurisprudence right from its earliest years even before the four main schools of thought (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafiee and Hanbali) were established. The Prophet’s (Peace Be Upon Him) companions were practicing ijtihad when they had no direct access to him.
It should be noted however that ijtihad can only be exercised when there is no clear ruling within the Qur'an or Sunnah with regards to a particular matter. Ijtihad is therefore essentially the last resort, it cannot be utilised when solutions are evident in the Qur'an and Sunnah, and crucially ijtihad can never be exercised when it is in violation of the Qur'an and Sunnah.
There exist certain groups of individuals in Malaysia who profess to be Muslims, calling for open public debates of Islamic law. The ultimate aim of these individuals are to create an environment whereby they can advance the legislation of Islamic laws which are based on the latest feminist cause transplanted from the West. It is completely unacceptable that views on matters related to Islam be represented by anyone applying only their human opinions and benchmarks.
Post a Comment