In the August 4 Guardian, the writer Hanif Kureishi weighs in on what British multiculturalism might mean in light of the atmosphere of extreme intolerance that prevails at some of the London Mosques. (Via Locana)
Kureishi’s name has been in the air a bit since it was revealed that the men behind the 7/7 bombings in London were second-generation Brit-Asians. The spread of an ultra-fundamentalist ethos amongst second-generation British Muslims was something Kureishi explored in his screenplay to My Son the Fanatic (which began as a short story in The New Yorker) as well as in The Black Album, a novel responding to the turmoil in the British Muslim community following the Rushdie affair.
But the interesting part of this essay isn’t really its central point about the poison of religious extremism –- which I think any moderate or progressive person would probably agree with. What is more intriguing is actually Kureishi’s unusual use of the word ‘multiculturalism’ in the context of British ‘faith schools’. There’s a lot of confusion about what these schools are and how they work (especially for us non-Brits), and in this post I’ll explore them a little. Here’s Kureishi:
If the idea of multiculturalism makes some people vertiginous, monoculturalism — of whatever sort — is much worse. Political and social systems have to define themselves in terms of what they exclude, and conservative Islam is leaving out a lot. . . . You can’t ask people to give up their religion; that would be absurd. Religions may be illusions, but these are important and profound illusions. And they will modify as they come into contact with other ideas. This is what an effective multiculturalism is: not a superficial exchange of festivals and food, but a robust and committed exchange of ideas — a conflict that is worth enduring, rather than a war. When it comes to teaching the young, we have the human duty to inform them that there is more than one book in the world, and more than one voice, and that if they wish to have their voices heard by others, everyone else is entitled to the same thing. These children deserve better than an education that comes from liberal guilt. (link)
The rhetoric of multiculturalism that has supported to the establishment of a number of state-funded Muslim schools in England in recent years, with plans for more to be built –- with the blessings of the Blair government.
But for Kureishi, the people who need to come to terms with multiculturalism aren’t mainstream Britons, but radicalized and culturally isolated British Muslims. Kureishi is therefore opposed to these schools, which he sees as ‘monocultural’ rather than multicultural, and if anything, part of the problem:
It is not only in the mosques but also in so-called “faith” schools that such ideas are propagated. The Blair government, while attempting to rid us of radical clerics, has pledged to set up more of these schools, as though a “moderate” closed system is completely different to an “extreme” one. This might suit Blair and Bush. A benighted, ignorant enemy, incapable of independent thought, and terrified of criticism, is easily patronised. (link)
For Kureishi, there is no difference between radical clerics in the East London mosques and the state-sponsored Religious Education that is universally taught in the English school system. Most Americans, used to the strong separation of church and state that has been in effect in American public education since 1948 (i.e., when prayer in school was banned; McCollum v. Board of Education), will probably see what Kureishi is saying as essentially common sense.
But it’s a more complex story than that. Britain has never been a place where strong separation of church and state has been practiced. The Anglican Church is still technically established (in England at least -– not in Wales or Scotland), and enjoys certain privileges by virtue of its special status in English life. Did you know that the English monarch is not permitted to marry a Catholic? And that the Archbishops of Canterbury and York have reserved seats for them in the House of Lords? Most of these are merely symbolic, token privileges, remnants from an era in which the Church of England was one of the driving political powers in English life. But they would be unthinkable in the U.S., India, or France.
Also, the Anglican Church is by law an ‘open church’, which means that people who ordinarily never go to Church services are still permitted to use local parish Churches for baptisms, marriages, and funerals. Thus, while active membership in the Anglican Church dropped to 11 percent of the English population by the 1990s (according to Monsma and Soper’s The Challenge of Pluralism, which is my primary source for much of the background information in this post), 55 percent of England is still baptized into the Church, and 60 percent casually identify as Anglicans. (“Social Anglicans,” one could say)
Most importantly of all, Britain (here including Scotland and Wales) has a long tradition of directly funding religious education in schools. Though this tradition of Anglican schooling goes back to the early 19th century, it took significant steps forward in 1870, when the British government first began building primary schools, and then again in 1944, when the modern system of Local Educational Authorities (LEAs) was put into place.
Since then, the “faith schools” Kureishi is referring to in this opinion piece have in fact become quite widespread: 35 percent of British primary and 16 percent of secondary schools fall into this category. Because their students significantly outperform students at non-religious schools, many faith schools are quite selective in their admissions process. Historically the schools were either Anglican or Catholic, with very small numbers of schools given over to other denominations (Presbytarians, Methodists, etc.), as well as a handful to Jews. However, it’s important to note that most Christian faith schools do admit students from other faiths without any ‘religious tests’ (for instance, frequent Sepia Mutiny commentor ‘Bong Breaker’ –- a Bengali Hindu -– went to one of the more prestigious Anglican schools, and clearly benefited from the experience).
[Some of these schools do not admit non-Christians. There was a controversy in Manchester about this not too long ago.]
The Anglican Church has been quite explicit about their reasoning for this policy of inclusion -– with endlessly declining attendance in England, they are in desperate need of new members, and they see the inclusion of non-Christians in Anglican state schools as a potential source of new converts (see the extracts from the ‘Dealer Report’ here). This policy of inclusion is also a good one from the civil rights perspective, as it lessens the perception of discrimination amongst England’s minorities. Anyone can go to one of these schools if they can get in, and I imagine for Hindu or Muslim parents the danger of their kid converting to Christianity is probably mitigated by the significant educational advantages that this kind of education offers.
Until quite recently, no Muslim schools were able to match the strict criteria necessary to receive state support. Now a few have appeared and more are in the offing, which raises two serious questions to consider. One is, will the Islamic state schools be places where moderate, multiculturalism-friendly Islam is inculcated? The second is, will the principle of the government’s ‘supportive neutrality’ to the different faiths be challenged once more ‘foreign’ faiths enter the picture? In short, can the British public handle state support for Muslim schools?
With the first question -– do the Islamic schools work? — I don’t have much information, except to say that it appears so. Indeed, because of the strong degree of state control and oversight that is associated with state support, the Labour government has been keen to support these schools wherever possible (see this interview). It appears to be a way for them to ‘reach out’ to the Muslim community (or more cynically, to appease it), while also gaining leverage against the informal and sometimes dangerous ‘education’ offered at some Mosques. In essence, if you can’t stop the kids from getting religionized, maybe you can control the kind of religion they are exposed to.
A fair criticism of the Islamic faith schools (and a reason why they are in fact potentially a bad idea) is that most Muslims in England are immigrants, unlike the members of majority faiths. Though advocates for the Islamic state schools promise they will be centers for a moderate kind of Islam, the schools might not be helpful to immigrants or the children of immigrants who aspire to learn the ropes of British society. In short, the Islamic state schools run the exact significant risk Kureishi identifies — ‘monoculturalism’ rather than multiculturalism.
But the Islamic schools have in fact been controversial for other reasons than this, particularly to English conservatives. A number of Church officials as well as people associated with existing (Christian) faith schools like David Bell have spoken out against them, along fairly predictable lines. This way of thinking -– support for state religious schools, except Muslim schools -– seems openly discriminatory and, in David Bell’s case, hypocritical.
One interesting twist on this issue – and a way to potentially resolve the integration/religious freedom dilemma inherent whenever we think about multiculturalism in the realm of religion –- is the proposal for ‘multi-faith’ schools, which are ‘faith schools’ that are actually split between four religious communities. The students in such schools are fully integrated, and are given a fair amount of religious education in common, with some separation for specific/advanced instruction.
Another new occurrence is the proposal to start a Hindu state school in northwest London in 2008, which has recently been approved. Once the state school system becomes more complex than simply Christians/Jews vs. Muslims, the parameters of the debate over religious education in England will change yet again. (There are also apparently two Sikh state schools in the UK; I don’t know if there are any plans for Jain, or Buddhist state schools.)
Some closing thoughts. Though Liberal Democrats and others on the British left would love to see an end to state support for religious schools, it’s not likely to happen as long as the schools continue to be popular — and outperform non-religious government schools. (The Left would also like to see the abolition of the Monarchy, which seems to be about as popular in Britain as Diego Maradona)
The U.S. model of strict separation ensures that the public school classroom cannot be used as a site where extremist religious views are propagated. The simplest and most radical solution to the multiculturalism question in the UK would be to simply dismantle the faith school system entirely, and follow the U.S. Model.
[Similarly, the simplest and most radical solution to the ‘Personal Law’ conundrum in India would be to establish a Uniform Civil Code with a completely secularized and woman’s-rights oriented approach to marriage, divorce, property rights, inheritance, and childhood custodial rights.]
But the American model isn’t for everybody, and state support for religion is a fact of life in Britain, and not likely to go anywhere. As long as it exists, fairness dictates that new religious minorities –- Hindus, Muslims, etc. -– should have the right to try and participate in the faith schooling system. It is the task of the British government to try and ensure that such endeavors as Islamic faith schools work to the advantage of the cause of tolerance, integration, and cross-cultural understanding, and benefit British society on the whole.
Moreover, as we’re seeing with the corrosion of the secular school system (a corrosion that George Bush himself is promoting, with his support for Intelligent Design), even the vaunted American system is itself in some jeopardy.
[Other links: —Saheli’s response to the Kureishi piece —Locana’s follow-up post, taking it back to the Indian system –A recent Crooked Timber post on the British religion/education issue.]
Wow, there’s a lot there. I really have to go revise but let me say I couldn’t agree with Kureishi more. A lot of the people arguing against faith schools have unfortunately taken an anti-Islamic angle, as you mention. My criticism is aimed at no specific religion. In the linked post, I gave my Christian school as an example of how religion can be a major part of schooling, whilst giving those from other backgrounds space and respect.
Let me put my views in two sentence:
School represents the most formative years of your life. It is your opportunity to mix with people unlike yourself, to learn about others and to expand your horizons.
School is not about socialising purely with people exactly like yourself. I honestly can see nothing positive about faith schooling and I regard it as one of Tony Blair’s worst legacies.
On a side note Amardeep, I tracked down a discussion about Hanif Kureishi amongst some friends of mine in the British Asian media which may give you an opinion as to how some in the industry view him. Some extracts:
Huh. You specifically, and admirably, decided to tackle the legal and political ramifications of Kureishi’s piece. I wasn’t really thinking of that–I lack the tools or even need to participate in a serious discussion about the nitty gritty of British educational and financial policy. But as part of a cultural discussion, I liked Kureishi’s essay b/c it makes a point that’s indepedant of any policy decisions that the British government makes. Even if they go ahead and open tones of faith based schools, his point would still be relevant–it would be addressed to all the ostensible Moderate Muslim parents, whose existence he’s quite famously immortalized in film and novel. I mean, I think the consensus is that the unfortunate parents of these bombers were not exactly aiming to create little Wahhabist insurgents. They just wanted nice successful children to give them cute grandchildren without totally losing their culture. The relevant point is really addressed to them, or young version of them, currently facing choices on how to raise their children. And the relevant point is this:
When your children are young and safely in your care is the time to expose them to a torrent of ideas, and to train them hard in both the fine art of critical thinking and the mindful/heartful vision of religion&culture you would hope to pass on to them, whatever it is. Isolating them in a monoculture prevents them from achieving true success in this nation you’ve made theirs, and spoon-feeding them crumbs of pop-up Islam without any substance leaves them vulnerable to the enchantments of charismatics. Neither strategy promotes their success, either as Brits or truly pious Muslims.
That’s a point you can always try to make, and hope, if you are sincere and loving enough about it, that someone will listen to you.
Actually, quite a lot of us (22%) would like to see the abolition of the monarchy – see here
A very interesting piece. I heard Tariq Ramadan echo very similar sentiments on HARDtalk the other day, focusing on the need for the infrastructure of Muslim culture in the West to be incorporated rather into the larger context.
I guess the question though, is at what level? Kureshi is arguing that this needs to take place at a social level. This does not address the attitude of cultural isolationaism within a community.
For example, if kids are sent to regular schools, the community will respond to the need for religious education through unregulated after-school programs. In the former case, at least the local education authority is able to participate/ regulate at some level.
You mention the US model. Here is one result of this model: less than 40% of Americans actually believe in evolution. This is largely a result of the huge pseudoscientific, reactionary, and at times irrational Creationist “industry” that has been spawned directly through the alienation of religiously minded people from the educational establishment.
I really can’t see British schools taking evolution out of the syllabus.
Sunday schools are nothing new, religious or otherwise. Many Chinese families send their children to weekend classes which teach them how to speak Cantonese or Mandarin, Chinese history; how to ‘be Chinese’. I always thought this was a great idea (although the weekend is a precious time for kids). I’m surprised other communities didn’t adopt it to a greater extent.
The key is that the children will mix with other types of people at school. They can have their Koranic studies at the weekend and regular school during the week. Plenty of public schools (using the phrase in the US sense) have non-denominational prayer rooms for those who are overcome with the urge to pray.
less than 40% of Americans actually believe in evolution. This is largely a result of the huge pseudoscientific, reactionary, and at times irrational Creationist “industry” that has been spawned directly through the alienation of religiously minded people from the educational establishment.
most americans don’t believe in evolution (a a poll). and i doubt it has to do with the creationist industry, rather, the slogans and rhetoric associated with creationism appeals to many americans, though they don’t know what evolution or creationism really entails (most creationist “theories” have bizarre features like a “water canopy” where the pre-flood earth is enveloped in a sea of water above the sky sumerian style). the fact that 80% of brits believe in evolution is probably a testament to the lower religiosity of the country, a recent survey suggests that 38% of brits affirm strong religiosity and 65% of americans do.
For example, if kids are sent to regular schools, the community will respond to the need for religious education through unregulated after-school programs. In the former case, at least the local education authority is able to participate/ regulate at some level.
Look, you can’t stop people from educating their children how they see fit. You can just try to mix that up a little with legal balances. And promote less caustic choices. Integration isn’t going to stop die-hard anti-establishment type parents–but so far there probably aren’t that many of them. The point is to provide them with less fundamentalist options and the cultural encouragement to use those options.
Private organizations in the UK (and the US, and wherever) could also do their best to promote both progressive Islam (as carefully defined to exclude fundamentalism and militancy) and integration. Integration doesn’t have to mean loss of cultural identity. Just lots and lots of mixing and exposure and trained-in respect for the variety of cultures.
The one small (and I admit it’s small) possible advantage to this method of schooling is that it gives students a sizeable dose of religious education from a sanctioned/controlled source.
Young people often turn to harder forms of religion with extra enthusiasm because they see it as something totally different from the rest of life — i.e., as an escape from the frustrations and disappointments of reality.
Their parents often have little control over it really (as we see with the My Son the Fanatic type stories, which are not so uncommon).
By providing exposure to religious experience early, it’s possible the education will have an inoculation type effect on the kids. Following the “faith school” model found with other faiths, the kids are quite likely to grow up as skeptics– like the rest of England.
As I said, it’s a small and hypothetical advantage.
The most effective way to fight terrorism is vigilant police work (which Scotland Yard is clearly quite capable of ), and steps like the one Tony Blair announced today — deportation of people who preach hatred or incite terrorist activities, even indirectly.
In this post, I came out tentatively in favor of the Islamic/Sikh/Hindu state schools as a matter of fairness. I think the best (practical) option really is probably to turn British faith schools into “multi-faith” schools as often as possible. That solves the problem Bong Breaker mentions — i.e., the need to be exposed to people and ideas that are different from oneself.
Excellent post Amardeep. It also brings home forcefully the point of how Christian (or post-Christian, but NOT post-religion) these societies are. Anglican schools in Britian (or even Catholic schools here though I realize they aren’t state supported) aren’t as problematic as Islamic schools because students churned out from these schools aren’t too different from society around them. I thought Bong Breaker’s comment about being in a Christian school and still learing to respect other faiths was telling. I guess the crux of the anxiety is that people are simply not certain whether that would be true with Islamic schools as well. David Bell’s lack of support for Islamic schools, while it may be hypocritical, is all too understandable.
I used to be very strongly against gvt funding of any religious (or any private) schools. Then I read up a little, particularly an article by Harry Brighouse at Crooked Timber.
Now, given that it’s not possible (or desirable) to ban religion, we’d be better off having the gvt controlling and regulating religious schools to ensure kids get a decent education. Funding is one way for the gvt to exercise control.
But the danger of religious school isn’t just bad curriculums that prevent children from making good life choices, its also that religious kids don’t socialize with the general population.
For example, in Toronto and Montreal, most Jewish kids attend Jewish only high schools. They receive excellent educations, but often (in my experience) come out with pretty wierd ME politics views. Not really a big deal, but telling.
(And if Canada had significant Muslim high schools, similar things would no doubt happen.)
It would be better if the religious schools were forced to have some proportion of their studebnts be of a different faith. For example, the puiblically funded Ottawa Catholic school system, one quarter of the kids are muslim.
Are these sorts of proposals — gvt controlled curriculums and mandatory multi-faith student bodies — practical in the UK?
No, not practical in the UK. If a Bradford school is told to have 20% white students, they’ll have a tough time finding enough.
As far as I’m aware, the get-out clause for many of these effective madrassas in the UK are that they allow any student to study there. But of course we all know no non-muslim is going to apply.
I mentioned my school not just to give an example of a Christian school with a very diverse ethnic makeup but also to illustrate one point I feel is sometimes lost. Whilst the UK is secular, our head of state (the Queen) is also the head of the Church of England. Christianity is part and parcel of the UK. Nobody stipulates you have to be Christian to be British, but I do feel that we should respect Christianity if we’re going to live here and demand mutual respect. No harm came to me from singing Thine Be The Glory in St. Paul’s Cathedral every now and again.
Christian schools have been here for years – when the government sanctioned other religious schools could open up, only Muslim schools did. All the other immigrant communities – and that’s a lot – have students happily studying in Christian schools or state schools with no religious affiliation.
For example, in Toronto and Montreal, most Jewish kids attend Jewish only high schools. They receive excellent educations, but often (in my experience) come out with pretty wierd ME politics views. Not really a big deal, but telling. (And if Canada had significant Muslim high schools, similar things would no doubt happen.)
Ikram, I agree that this is a concern. One thing to keep in mind might be that many of the places where the Islamic state schools are going up are already Asian or black enclaves. Many kids are mainly surrounded by others like them even in mainstream schools.
Incidentally, I’m extremely wary of the proposal to create separate civil laws for Muslims in Canada. It doesn’t work well in India, and you can be sure it won’t work too well in Canada either.
In the modern world, laws need to be based on principles of universal rights (especially women’s rights), not religious scriptures.
Christian schools have been here for years – when the government sanctioned other religious schools could open up, only Muslim schools did. All the other immigrant communities – and that’s a lot – have students happily studying in Christian schools or state schools with no religious affiliation.
BB,
As I mentioned, there are now two Sikh state schools open, and a Hindu state school is coming in a couple of years (Found out about the Sikh state schools from here). But you’re right that other religious groups seem to be less obsessed with this than Muslims.
Oh, and there are 33 Jewish state schools. It’s a little different, because most English Jews aren’t immigrants. But worth keeping in mind.
Interesting tidbit: with only 3 percent of the British population, regular Mosque attendance is higher than regular C of E attendance in raw numbers.
Amardeep,
Why do you believe that separate civil laws don’t work well in India? My perspective has always been that they are critical to the functioning of a secular democracy. Curious to understand what you are saying.
Can’t say I’m entirely sure about that British Council webpage Amardeep (incidentally, produced in Poland!) There may be at least 4 Islamic STATE schools, but there are over 100 independent Islamic schools in the UK!
I found this article interesting, in particular for this quote:
About the separate healthcare centres – I know of several Muslim nursing homes in the UK, which I suppose I can understand. But I have also now noticed at least two Muslim-only health centres. All the doctors are Muslim and obviously so are the patients. Again, I can completely understand a Muslim woman preferring to see a female Muslim doctor, but this still worries me a lot.
At medical school I’ve had a lot of run-ins with some of the more firebrand students, who openly state they will only practice Islamic medicine when they graduate. Abortion is one area where many have strong views, but I would have thought contraception is a no-brainer. Yet they say they will never recommend contraception to their patients. This really outrages me, we’re all supposed to be learning the same medicine and practicing in the same way and I’d say the same to a Catholic of the same opinion. Medicine and religion; that’s a debate for another day.
This is madness. How can that be in line with the Hippocratic oath?
By the way, have you heard the news? Tony is going to ban Hizb ut Tahrir and Al Muhajiroun.
I dont know about it – I hate them – they are composed of bigots racists and fascists – and whenever I see them on TV I have an unmistakeable urge to strangle them – but I dont know whether it just wouldnt be better to discredit them relentlessly and stigmatise them as the fascists they are just like the BNP are treated rather than sending them underground or whatever.
What do you reckon?
I myself am amazed that there has not been a major religious riot caused by these phookers already….
Again, I can completely understand a Muslim woman preferring to see a female Muslim doctor, but this still worries me a lot.
and i completely understand white white women preferring to see a female white doctor, but this still worries me a lot.
after all, all prejudice and discrimination is created equal, right?
Hari Chandra,
There is something called Polygamy. In my view, it should be illegal in any modern society, but it currently is not illegal in India for Muslims. Also — Triple Talaq (instant divorce with insignificant monetary responsibilities). An extremely ugly, retrograde practice.
Many other problems exist in the Muslim Civil Code. And there are even a few things in Hindu Civil Code that could use some updating (relating to women’s rights in cases of child custody, alimony/maintenance, and women’s rights in divorcing men).
Without a UCC, India is forced to wait for the AIMPLB to institute reforms for the Muslim community. For nearly 20 years, despite overwhelming public hostility to Triple Talaq, the AIMPLB has basically twiddled its thumbs.
Laws should be decided by courts and legistlative bodies — and be applied fairly to all citizens — not undemocratic entities like the AIMPLB.
It’s not necessarily the Muslim community that is to blame for the current state of affairs. The Indian supreme court ruled against Triple Talaq in 1986, but Rajiv Gandhi overrode it with an executive order. Since then, neither the courts nor the Lok Sabha have done anything about reforming backwards practices for fear of offending religious communities (either majority or minority).
Amardeep:
I’m not disagreeing with you that Muslim and Hindu personal law both contain some exceptionally retrogade and downright unacceptable provisions, and the methods of changing those laws is less than adequate.
That said, separate civil laws, if used properly, are likely critical to preserve minority rights. I am very scared of the slippery slope that India goes down if it enforces a Uniform (read: Hindu) Civil Code.
That said, separate civil laws, if used properly, are likely critical to preserve minority rights.
do cultures as an emergent property have inherent rights in a liberal order? canadians seem to think so (starting with quebec). people can disagree, but i don’t think that minorities have any rights to preserve themselves as minorities (that is, it is no loss if pakistanis intermarry with the white british so that their cultures, genes and religion diffuse toward indiscernability in the briths landscape).
india has certainly had a good track record on minority rights (relative to say islam or europe). but remember how it was done: many groups were simply slotted into a caste system.
if the ends you wish to advance involve the perpetuation of a certain culture-ethnic complex deep into the future, you are likely correct that separate laws are crucial to that perpetuation. chasidic jews in the USA do this without gov. intervention, and ergo, unlike most jews their intermarriage rates are low, because their ritual traditions allow them to be a people apart. myself, i think individual interests should be front and center, and other group-related issues only ancillary (and they should crop up in the cases of discrimination against said groups, because of the deleterious impact said discrimination might have upon individuals).
That said, separate civil laws, if used properly, are likely critical to preserve minority rights?
And what if those minority rights trample women’s rights? How would you “properly” use separate civil laws anyway? Islam allows men to have 4 wives. There’s no way to get around that without trampling in some manner on the religious rights of Muslims.
At any rate, India’s absurd separate civil law system is likely to remain in effect for a while. If the BJP couldn’t (or wouldn’t) do anything about it when it was in power the current government certainly can’t be expected to. I don’t know if anyone followed the recent debates that followed the Imrana fatwa (there was an SM post on it). Many so-called liberals in India said they didn’t want to support the UCC because they were “afraid of giving fuel to the Hindu right.” In other words – women can go to hell.
Well I take your point, but it would be churlish to argue that the average Muslim woman has the same views about going to the doctor as the average white woman. I wasn’t implying that Muslim women wanting to see Muslim docs worries me, I don’t see any prejudice in the statement. What I should have said is that I don’t see any call for a Muslim health centre when there are already a large number of Muslim female doctors practising.
PB – most UK medschools don’t make their grads swear the oath anymore. But you’re right, it’s contrary to what I feel is the essence of being a doctor, in this country at least. Yet they have plenty of support from the Christian Medical Fellowship, oddly enough. Bunch of loonies they are.
I had to go back and look at the cartoon a second time to even notice the paper roll and what all the rigamaro is about here.
Which ties in with something related to my last post in the toilet thread – cultural stereotypes.
Political cartoons are satire. Satire does what? Takes a stereotype and magnifies it to the point of humor. Case in point; The Simpsons. That show is basically taking the piss out of white (working) middle class, middle America, Americans. As someone who came from a similar background, am I offended? No. Why? I see the humor in it. Similarly, I’m not offended by Richard Pryor’s type of comedy which basically takes the piss out of us white folks and black Americans alike. Why? I see the humor in it. Similarly, I’m not offended by BADMASH taking the piss out of a stereotype of Indian women in their video “Girls Gone Badmash”. Why? I see the humor in it. However, I am offended when some people in my country of chosen residence see me as the “sexually loose white woman” and thus act in an illegal way with me. Why? There’s no humor in it.
To quote from the note right above the box where I am typing now;
“Note: Requests for celebrities’ contact info; racist, abusive, illiterate, content-free or commercial comments; pure flames; and long, obscure rants will be deleted. Unless they’re funny. It’s all good then.”
( … and that’s why I felt comfortable being sarcastic here. I didn’t think anyone would take my sarcasm too seriously)
So, it seems there is some room for satirical cultural stereotypes, as long as there is humor in it.
SMR: I’t totally with you on this …
“And what if those minority rights trample women’s rights? How would you “properly” use separate civil laws anyway? Islam allows men to have 4 wives. There’s no way to get around that without trampling in some manner on the religious rights of Muslims.”
…….. and many muslim women in India are fighting against this polygamy law, as women’s rights there start to take on a life separate from religious or minority rights.
Incidentally, I’m extremely wary of the proposal to create separate civil laws for Muslims in Canada. It doesn’t work well in India, and you can be sure it won’t work too well in Canada either.
We already have it in Canada. The Ontario Jewish community has made use of the “binding arbitration” provision in Ontario Law to set up private arbitration panels whose rulings are legally binding (and reviewably by normal courts). The Ismaili community has the same. The only question is whether non-Ismaili Muslims (Sunnis, mostly) should be able to set up a similar panel.
You can read the report on the issue commissioned by the Ontario gvt, and written by former Attorney General Marion Boyd here:
Also worth reading are these survey articles (one, two):
In the modern world, laws need to be based on principles of universal rights (especially women’s rights), not religious scriptures.
One would wish. But informal, non-binding arbitration, where two people take their problems to a local religious leader and follow his dictates, occurs everywhere in ther modern world, even Canada.
The question isn’t whether disputes are only to be settled by secular state law (they aren’t), it’s whether disputes settled by self-syled ‘community leaders’ ought to be reviewed by the gvt or not. There are good arguments on both sides (for example, state review of religious leaders’ decisions could moderate those decisions, but at the same time give those leaders greater legitimacy).
It’s the same problem liberal societies have with religious schools. How to deal with groups of individuals that voluntarily wish to relate to each other in an illiberal manner? How to ensure it is voluntary? How to protect children an vulnerable groups?
Note that the person behind Sunni binding arbitration in Ontario is Indo-Canadian Syed Mumtaz Ali, a graduate of Osmania University in Hyderabad the first South Asian lawyer in North America (called to the bar in Toronto 1962).
Brown lawyers always making trouble.
Punjabi Bwoy, I clean forgot to answer your Hizb ut-Tahrir. A friend wrote an article about it. Here are some excerpts:
“The danger is that the new legislation will allow HT to portray themselves as a group unfairly picked on by anti-Muslim powers. The controversy over Dilpazier Aslam’s firing from the Guardian gave them an opportunity to turn it into a ‘Muslims vs Media’ issue – when it clearly was not.”
“We might not like it, but HT has a perfectly legitimate reason to exist within the UK. The same cannot be said for the Al-Muhajiroun lot of course – who used every opportunity to criticise members other religions and praise suicide bombers.”
“The danger now is that Hizb ut-Tahrir wrongly become a cause celebre for an already alienated generation.”
Well I take your point, but it would be churlish to argue that the average Muslim woman has the same views about going to the doctor as the average white woman. I wasn’t implying that Muslim women wanting to see Muslim docs worries me, I don’t see any prejudice in the statement. What I should have said is that I don’t see any call for a Muslim health centre when there are already a large number of Muslim female doctors practising.
there is a big spectrum of accomidation here. personally, i tend to be OK with women requesting female doctors, but think it is bizarro to ask for a muslim female doctor. but that’s me, we all have to draw our own line on accomidation vs. scarce public monies.
but here is something to think about. i have several acquaintances who tell me that they don’t really like immigrant doctors (USA). that usually means brown doctors. they complain about cultural disconnect, misunderstanding and lack of fluency with the language (these are general physicians, not specialists). should these people get the native (read: white) doctors they prefer? if they are on medicaid (none of these individuals were) that would be up to the gov., which has scarce money. the HMOs will likely assign depending what the think is most cost effective. i bring up this issue because perhaps some readers here will feel this touches an emotional nerve, as many of us have
a) immigrant parents b) some of whom are in the health profession as physicians
when we are talking about accomidating minority groups it seems that the general (though not universal) trend here is to be sympathetic. but i always try to invert the context and see how it would feel about it. like it or not, accomidation is going to be fodder for resentment of the Other, because people are marking themselves off as “Other.” one reason chasidic jews dress the way they do is that it marks them off to those who are outside of their community. muslims of the more conservative bent also often dress faux-arab explicitly so they can mark themselves off from the kufir.
my point is that the narrative tends often be framed by the idea that, “oh, here are these poor minorities from a far off land who have different traditions and need some help adjusting.” it is more complex than that, a subset of jews, and now a subset of muslims, what to be different, excluded and apart. the number of chasidic jews in the USA is trivial, but nevertheless, there are peristant court chases in new york state around church-state separation issues because of their community’s tendency to not respect the standards that are normative in the rest of the country. i see muslims of a particular stripe doing the same, and their numbers are going to be an order of magnitude or more greater.
brown hindus and sikhs also have issues with assimiliation when they are FOB. see the george meth misunderstanding. the difference is that there is a perception that muslims demand differet standards and a respect of their own values on their own terms. i can’t say i think that perception is without any basis.
I agree, I think there is some basis to that. I believe it was Punjabi Boy who expressed his irritation at how nobody in the mainstream media has pointed out that very large communities like Hindus and Sikhs have integrated comfortably into Britain, they merely highlight that the Pakistani Muslims feel alienated and wonder if it is British culture that has made them feel this way. I’ve always believed in one rule for all, and your point about Muslims demanding different standards in whatever country they are in is occasionally very true.
The medicine thing – I haven’t brought it up before because I find medicine as boring as buggery so figured others would too. As I mentioned before, there are vocal members of ISocs (Islamic Student Societies), especially in London. My girlfriend went to LSE and having seen what a hotbed of warring factions that was, I assumed medschool would be far less political. Not so.
Two girls were actually kicked out of my medschool last year – for refusing to reveal their face. The first two, pre-clinical, years were no problem as it’s mostly lecture-based. But once we hit the wards, they were asked to remove their veils. They refused. The ISoc weighed in and it split students. I got a bit of flak for bringing up a very rational point – British patients are going to need to see their doctor if they are going to be able to trust them. And what about ID cards and hospital security? So they left. Anyway, there are still burqa-fied girls in the junior years, so it may be repeated all over again next month.
Oh and about people preferring non-FOB docs. In my experience it is INDIANS who prefer to see white docs and white patients who think their GP from the Punjab is lovely. Anyway, check this out:
Young, female and Asian – Britain’s favourite doctor
We already have it in Canada. The Ontario Jewish community has made use of the “binding arbitration” provision in Ontario Law to set up private arbitration panels whose rulings are legally binding (and reviewably by normal courts).
Well, two wrongs don’t make a right. If Canada already has this kind of provision for Jews, then as a person believing in true secularism and separation of church and state, such practice should in fact be condemned and not used as an excuse to justify even more “religious” laws. Otherwise, by this logic, every society should follow every “religion” to create any laws no matter how retrogade or absurd they are. After all, if muslims and jews can have their own laws then why not scientologists and wiccnas, even if their laws are violative of fundamental human rights? Canada already started down this slippery slope with the christian fundie freaks “marrying” girls as young as 13 years old. Is it right to “respect” their religious beliefs and enact a law to institutionalize this?
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/polygamy/polygamy.html
This conversation captures the essence of such crackpot logic: ..Ron Barton: If a man, an older man seduces a 13-year-old girl, he doesn’t commit, in his own mind he doesn’t commit sexual abuse on that girl. Once he’s successful in having intercourse with her, then in his own mind he views himself as married. Hana Gartner: IF NO ONE COMES FORWARD TO COMPLAIN BARTON HAS NO CASE. IF IT’S NOT BOTHERING ANYBODY – WHY DON’T WE JUST MIND OUT OWN BUSINESS? Ron Barton: Well, that’s been the attitude for many years in Utah and I think in other states where fundamentalists live is that this is a victimless crime. They’re not bothering anybody. Nobody is being injured and that’s simply not true. We establish laws to protect young women and we can’t have a second standard for girls that grow up in Colorado City, a lesser standard and say that’s fair.
The idea that this is just a “binding arbitration” is a red herring – given how men enjoy a much more powerful position than women under muslim laws, there would be tremendous pressure upon women to conform to “religious piety” and get the short end of the stick under such a regime.
There is absolutely no place for religous laws in a truly secular society. If we believe in the fundamental tenets of liberalism that every person is expected to be treated equally by the society, why should some be subject to different laws than others? It does not rocket science to figure out what such laws should look like.
They refused. The ISoc weighed in and it split students. I got a bit of flak for bringing up a very rational point – British patients are going to need to see their doctor if they are going to be able to trust them. And what about ID cards and hospital security? So they left. Anyway, there are still burqa-fied girls in the junior years, so it may be repeated all over again next month.
the burqa is ostentatious overkill. it isn’t that common in most islamic countries, let alone western ones. it creeps people out. because some muslims have made the association of islam -> burqa, and islam is the object of islamophobia, objections to the burqa are often dismissed by some (though not most) as islamophobic prejudice. that is the problem i have with a term like ‘islamophobia,’ once muslims manage to tack on a practice to islam (which is a religion defined more by practice than christianity), than that practice gets a level of protection that other deviances do not. for example, if your doctor came in, and he/she was peirced upon the wazoo, with a crap load of tatoos and bizarre eye make-up, how would you feel? goths are freaks, because they want to be freaks, but they never go into the people professions (if they remain goths as adults) because they know that people don’t warm up to them. they are different. that’s why they do the goth thing, they want to display their difference. i honestly don’t look at western muslim girls in burquas as that different from goths, the fact is that a full on burqa (as opposed to a hijab, but when i was in bangladesh estimate that 90% of the women didn’t even cover their hair) is a cultural innovation, not a necessary condition of cultural identity, for many south asian muslims (speaking of britain) who do this. unlike goths, girls in burqas (or muslim converts who decide to dress faux-arab in an oregon winter) have hitched their wagons to a major culture-religion, and so are afforded some protection.
in the end, many aesthetic and etiquette norms are arbitrary, but they need to be relativelly universal to prevent social anomie. when subcultures, whether they be goths, muslims or chasidic jews, deviate from the cultural norms, it is in part to emphasize their separation. there is only so far a gender-equity/blind biased western culture can go in regards to accomidating the most common interpretation of conservative islam.
Gujubhai – I respect your sentiment but if you believe Boyd’s point of view – as I do – you’ll see that it sets out to mitigate just the risks you outlined. In order to control the risk, the law has to acknowledge religious arbitration as a mechanism for resolving social disputes … and that’s where we’re hung up, right? Ikram – I sense you understand the finer points with respect to Muslim law – better than I at least. If you could paint a couple of scenarios to show the risks, benefits – I for one would appreciate it. – Varun
Of course it is about wanting to be different and wanting to stand out; ironic when you examine the purpose of the burqa.
Burqas are still very much in the minority in the UK. The majority of people who I see wearing them are middle-aged (well, I assume they are!) and normally walking with (or behind) their husband. I assume also that they are recent immigrants. However when British-born South Asian or white convert girls adopt the burqa, I really believe it’s a statement of wanting to stand out – not just from everyone, but even amongst their Muslim community. Effectively a holier-than-thou attitude. At no point does the Koran stipulate such strict covering, it’s a very skewed interpretation of covering one’s modesty.
Goths or burqa-wearers are perfectly free to do as they please, and as you say razib, you assume they wouldn’t enter into a career working with the general public. The analogy to Hasids or goths is quite apt, it’s about visibly demonstrating your identification with your special group.
PS – Was watching BBC Newsnight and they were doing a street piece to camera with a young white convert about her feelings since 7/7, when an English guy ran up to the camera and shouted “All muslims are murderers! All muslims, bombers, the lot of them”. Oh dear.
Gujubhai – I respect your sentiment but if you believe Boyd’s point of view – as I do – you’ll see that it sets out to mitigate just the risks you outlined.
Well, my point is exactly that : you it is impossible to “mitigate such risks” as you so delicaely put it. I pointed to the chrsitian fundie link as the evidence of this assertion : if Canada has not been able to stop child marriages and polygamy – acts that are, in fact, illegal and attract grave severe sentences for those who do not bleong to those sects by christian fundies, then how will Canada ever get around to assuring the rights of those “volutarily” giving up some of them? In any civilized country having sex with a minor prior to the age of consent is automatically considered to be child rape – except when you throw in a completely irrational “religious belief” and then frame it as an issue of “freedom of religion”. I am sorry, I do not accept such religios beliefs : if religious beliefs are in violation with fundamental human rights, then religious beliefs have to back off. If your religious law tells you to follow caste system, sharia, slavery or polygamy – it is your religion that must change and become civilized, rather than the civil society bending over backwards to accomodate such retrogade beliefs.
The whole problem with introducing sharia in Canada or with its practice in India is exactly this : it’s a society’s surrender of human rights and disenfranchisement of a certain part of the poulation against irrational religious beliefs violative of human rights. In any civilized society, by law, you cannot sign away your rights even fi you want to. For example, even if you gave a written consent to someone to murder you, you will still be tried as a murdere if you actually killed them (euthanasia etc are legal exceptions). Even suicide is illegal in many countries. Unfortunately, the only exception is when it’s done legally, in contravention of constitutional guarantess, under the pretext of “preserving religious freedom”. Well, no freedom is absolute – you can shout “fire” in a crowded theater to cause stampede when there’s none and then say that it’s your freedom of speech – the freedom of religious practice must be subject to being non-violative of the fundamental human right of equal protection under the law.
Think about this : there is just absolutely no way that you can disenfranchise the rights of a population on one hand, and then try to “mitigate such risks”. It does not work, as the experiment in India with implementing separate personal laws for muslims demonstrates so very well. The greatest victims of that system are powerless muslim women who are now so entrapped into the system that there is no social institution – not even the supreme court of India – that can do anything to help them.
Venal politicians are always ready and willing to take away the rights of the powerless and expolit them. That’s precisely why you need iron-clad constitutional guarantess for equal treatment and equal protection under the law. India is a spectacular failure in this respect. Look at the US : there is no religious civil law, but I don’t see anyone arguing that religious minorities are worse off in the US. unfortunately, if Canada does go ahead and do it, clearly there will be at least some people whose rights will be violated, no matter how well the system is designed. That’s something no liberal thinker should ever accept.
Gujubhai – I know your heart’s in the right place but here’s the catch – the proposal actually reduces the possibilities of abuse such as you list …
Try the link below to see Marion Boyd’s view
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/cpress/20050723/ca_pr_on_na/sharia_boyd_1
Here’s a relevant excerpt
Marion Boyd has been both ridiculed and applauded as the supposed architect of Ontario opening its family law system to Muslim Sharia dispute resolution. But the exasperated former Ontario attorney general says both extremes are wildly misrepresenting what she recommended the province do as it considers reforms to its civil arbitration act.
Rather than opening a door, Boyd’s provincially commissioned report last December recommended placing limits and oversight mechanisms on an arbitration system currently open to abuse.
Under Ontario’s 1991 arbitration act, civil disputes ranging from child custody and support to divorce and inheritance can be resolved through an independent arbitrator if both parties agree. Catholics, Mennonites, Jews, aboriginals, Jehovahs Witnesses and Muslims, among others, have availed themselves of this right to settle family law questions without resorting to the courts.
The arbitration concept dates back as far as the 1870s in Ontario.
But in the past couple of years a very public tussle over the use of Sharia religious arbitration raised fundamental questions about whether the current system should continue.
“Right now the law allows (Muslims) to do this. It has forever,” said Boyd.
“The new step – the recommendations – are to say, ‘You can only do this if you actually follow Ontario family law.”‘
What do you think? Do you still think we’re on the wrong track?
Amardeep, Must thank you for this comprehensive post. Earlier on the Imrana post, I made a comment:
For a hands down critique of (instant)triple-talaq read this feature of Sabrang issue, which proves how that practise is not just unIslamic, but also against the very ethos of justice and fairness enshrined in Islam. The feature includes several gems such as: a) Uzma Naheed – member of AIMPLB b) Nilofar Akhtar – Adv. Bombay High Court,family laws.
c) Flavia Agnes – from Majlis d) Yoginder Sikand – of Qalandar fame. Must say, I am awed by his profound knowledge on Islam.
and of course two excellent pieces by Javed Anand, which leaves no room for doubt.
I strongly recommend, everyone(attn:gujjubhai) who wants to know about this triple-talaq scene in India to read it.
From this, it is clear that AIMPLB is NOT the authority on Muslim personal laws(not just talaq). I am still not informed enough, about pros-cons of UCC. However, it’s clear from this that main prob. is not as much as the non-implementation of UCC, but such retrograde bodies — sometimes not even bodies, but individuals representing these bodies — issuing retrograde ‘fatwas’.
The courts are the ultimate arbiters.
Gujjubhai: The courts can and have intervened in it. I agree with you, victims of such practices are invariably hapless muslim women and ofcourse the legal recourse can be a long drawn process.
Having said all this, I am still looking for an authorative source, which states unequivocally, leaving no room for ambiguity about AIMPLB’s role (ie. a guiding body which people are free to listen to of their own free will. Nothing more).
I’ll appreciate anyone pointing me to resources.
At no point does the Koran stipulate such strict covering, it’s a very skewed interpretation of covering one’s modesty.
and to follow up: in the USA girls who are hyper-“modest” often justify it like so: it is a tenet of my religion [islam]…. since religion is privileged to some extent in the USA (and from what i can tell, in most of the western world) in a way gothism is not, people don’t dispute this. but it is actually just an interpretation of their religion, and not even the majority interpretation. if a christian said, “my religion says that homosexuality is a sin” most secularists will have some standard talking points on hand about how said christians do not adhere to other aspects of the Law as stipulated in leviticus and numbers. they do not have similar responses against muslims. part of this is lack of familiarity, but i think part of it is also the connection and identification of islam with minority racial-ethnic identity, and the perception that attacking islam is somehow tatamount to attacking a racial-ethnic group. this is why i’m being a bitch about bandying terms like ‘islamophobia’ around, i don’t think there is any shame in hating ideas, ideas are not people, they are mental constructs, and they have no sacral quality, they are simply a means which serve the ends of humanity (religious people dissent on ontological grounds from this view, but my audience here is secularists).
i firmly believe that the partisans of the enlightenment (or whatever you want to call it, i know many here find my eurocentric enlightenment promotion rather objectionable) need to firmly decompose belief from the rest of the identity and get to work in engaging with islam like they have engaged with christianity since 1750 and judaism since 1850. analogies are never perfect and conditions change, the jews were liberated in a period when european culture was rather chauvanistic and self-confident, and so the jewish reform movement came to the fore in a period where jews accommodated the mores of german gentile culture in the face of criticism from many secularists (the atheist king frederick the great of prussia detested jewish superstition and was a confirmed anti-semite). now is not then, and intellectuals who excoriate islam as superstitous clap-trap in the way their antecedants did judaism and christianity are likely to be tagged with the term ‘islamophobe’ (of course, ibn warraq and other apostates tend to be immune to this charge, which indicates that the ideas have not been decoupled from the persons, as those who come from the islamic milieu have a privilege that others do not have, just as blacks like bill cosby have license to criticize black culture in a way that a white would not).
about 6 months ago we were talking about misogyny, irshad manji, etc. and a muslim woman came on to one of the threads here and basically attributed all the negative aspects of islam (conservatism, anti-woman, etc.) among south asians to the hindu cultural milieu. she pointed to particular aspects of the upanishads, etc. i called her on her bullshit, because muslims always do this crap where they fob off all negativity relating to islam as being extraneous importations. this is the sort of complacent lack of self-criticism that i think develops among a religious group when they aren’t engaged in criticism by other groups or their own thinkers. that she would offer this in a forum where most individuals likely come from hindu cultural backgrounds is a testament to the religious narcissism that has developed among western muslims, because unless she was lacking in total feeling she obviously never thought to imagine how her bold claims that all that is retrograde about south asian islam is due to hinduism and indian culture might be an impolite thing to moot. but she was clearly confident in her beliefs, and responded to my vehement objections in part by telling me how ‘no one respects atheists,’ again, showing her own judgement as being the paramount consideration in any discussion. i’ve talked to christian evangelicals who express this sort of bullshit all the time because they are always hanging out with their own kind. they are often shocked when confronted by my full bore skepticism (i also happen to know a little bit about the religion and can intimidate them by flooding them with anti-apologetic bullshit i’ve memorized), but they eventually take it in stride. i don’t think muslims really encounter this, and when i’ve done this to some of them they really freak out and get offended like i’m flashing them my cock or something (usually this is in response to their efforts to get me to see the light because they assume that if you are from a muslim cultural milieu [in my case, family] than it is simply irrational not to believe).
islamic thought has never been monolithic, and there have been many variations. but the terror of being perceived as orientalists has resulted in the free development of islam in the diaspora without any outside inputs. muslims have been allowed to develop without judgement, because we all know that they worship the same god as christians and jews, and their religion is about peace. but just as hindus in trinidad or mauritius simplified the character of their religion and truncated the caste sytem to the point of lack of relevance, and generated a far more uniform hinduism than in india, so muslims in britain and the USA seem to be generating a muslim identity that glosses over differences between various ethnicities by focusing on a central core of beliefs, which unfortunately seem to privilege extremely traditionalist/conservative practices and interpretations as more “authentic.” while western liberals have been terrified about being seen as orientalists because of the past tendency toward generalization and the neglect of the rich fabric of a particular culture, the lack of attention to the dynamics within the muslim religion by the western milieu has resulted in the generation of a far more homogenous and monolithic identity than in the ummah as a whole, now the orientalist generalizations might actually hold as muslims ape a faux-arab sensibility to a far greater extent than in the countries of origin.
and yes, there are generalizations and errors because of lack of nuance, but that’s how i see things….
What do you think? Do you still think we’re on the wrong track?
Yes, absolutely. The only acceptable governance principle in a free society is absolute equal treatment – and more importantly – equal protection under the law. No law/arbitration/understanding/contract between any two citizens can ever be based upon differential treatment on religious grounds. Leave your religion at home when you step into the court. It doesn’t matter to what extent a society compromises and takes away the this right or even [uts it under pressure through competing mechanisms, every such compromise is morally wrong.
Suhail, Yes, courts are the ultimate arbiters. Courts can only interpret the Constitution and the law of the land. If there’s a flawed legal structure, then courts are indeed constrained.
The people you quote are indeed reasonable, liberal people. However, they are powerless to make much of a change – an advocate or a few courts in Mumbai notwithstanding. This is because they are not the people creating case law, or even interpreting it in most cases. for every case that Nilofer fights in Mumbai, h0ow many must be going to local maulvis who issue fatwas that are even somewhat legitimised by the MPL? how many of those women even get to the court, leave alone a court in Mumbai that’d rule in their favour? you cannot make justice an exception, something that is accessible to only a few people in some urban courts. It must be enshrined in the law of the land.
Fundamentally, when you concede the authority to make law to a religion, then you are essentially creating a superstructure that challenges the soverignty of the parliament and the Constitution. Even more importantly, you are essentially accepting a legal system that claims divine authority, and therefore not subject to reason, and therefore by definition, evolution or change . This is clearly a subversion of free democratic society where the will of the people, within constituional boundaries must be soveriegn, and not some God/Allah/Bhagwan’s divine intervention that cannot be accessible to humans. Will of the people changes with time to reflect progress, new thinking and changed circumstances. How will a modern economy function, for example, without the concept of interest rates? Anything unchangeable and not subject to human reasoning is by definition a totalitarian regime no matter how much lipstick you put on that pig.
I do not think that a society that aspires to imposing Manusmriti or Biblical code or the code of Hamurabi can ever be part of modern civilization : then why make an exception for Sharia, a code frozen in 6th century and basically considered to be the final proclamation of Allah and therefore unchangeable? Saudi Arabia, in fact, justifes despicable persectution of minorities based on alleged legitimacy provided by the sharia : is that what Canadians should be imparting legitimacy to even by slight association? We need people to stand up and say that just get religion out of civil law – that’s te true definition of separation of church and state. The US has come closest to achieving this among democracies, and I think that’s the best model.
Here’s an article that I just came across in today’s Dawn. Tell me how this can this ever be compatible with a free, secular, democratic society?
http://www.dawn.com/2005/08/05/op.htm#1
Sohail,
Here’s what I found from the same issue of Sabrang you talked aabout on triple talaq that illustrates my point about courts being constrained by the law of the land and the Constitution:
“In Ahmedabad WomenÂ’s Action Group (AWAG) and others v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 573, a writ petition was filed to declare Muslim Personal Law, which enables a Muslim male to give unilateral talaq to his wife without her consent and without resort to judicial process of courts, as void, offending Articles 13, 14 and 15 of the Constitution.
However, the Court refused to entertain the writ petition because the issue involved State policies. The Court was of the opinion that the remedy could not be provided by the judicial process and instead must be sought elsewhere.
At the same time, the Court has tried to introduce some safeguards into the talaq process. The Court has stated that talaq, in order to be effective, has to be pronounced. In Shamim Ara v. State of UP and another, (2002) 7 SCC 518, a mere plea taken in a written statement of a divorce having been pronounced sometime in the past was held to not be treated as effectuating a talaq. Instead, a talaq had to be ‘pronouncedÂ’, that is, it had to be proclaimed, uttered formally and articulated. Therefore, the Court has introduced a condition precedent for the effectiveness of a divorce.”
Now do you see the merit of having every citizen subject only to a UCC?
I agree.
Bong breaker: I have noticed a steady increase in the number of muslim girls who take to the abaya AFTER they get into Toronto universities. Which is odd when I point out to you that most of these girls’ mothers just wear the hijab ( if at all). I think what is particularly disturbing is the open declaration in campus newspapers by ‘real ‘ muslim girls that hijab+ abaya/burka is mandatory in islam to be modest. Especially when you consider how this might make muslim girls, who dont wear hijab and or abaya, feel they are not ‘muslim enough’. I have already mentioned that MSA is the biggest student body on most of these campuses.
Now when I see this, I do worry a bit about the shari’a tribunals in Ontario. If guilt can be induced so easily and openly at university level, wouldn’t muslim women be left with no choice but to resort to sharia courts with such guilt + hawk eyes constantly trained on them at a larger level ? Initially I thought this was a good idea as it would be inexpensive and would enable muslims to sort out their disputes in courts that understand where they are coming from [ as explained by pro-sharia tribunals].
But, as with the case of India, separate laws and courts create divisions on so many levels.
It has become difficult to bring changes in without politicians being labelled as anti-muslims, muslim activists as ‘disputing voice of allah’ and non-muslim activists as kufrs looking for digs to take at muslims.
I do not know of problems posed by having separate tribunals for jews/ ismailis et al.in Canada- can anyone help me out there?
razib:I took a World religions course in an American university in the Middle East. I noticed what you pointed out: any fault/problem with Islam was immediately blamed on other religions/cultures ( mostly Hindu/Indian).
Good points in Islam were highlighted by comparing (openly) with cultural practices of other religions ( except they were painted as being from the scriptures). I thought that was uncalled for as positive points stand out on their own . you don’t need to demonise other religions to bring those points out.
I did not see the point of the course as I dont think the students ( 90% muslims , with 95% of those had never been to a non-muslim country) got anything out of it. Since this was a ‘highly tolerant’ Muslim country I was in, I wonder what happens in those that aren’t.
Point being: seclusion/separation doesn’t help. Tribunals will be a step further in that direction.
Two points here. I forgot to mention that the ISoc criticised the medical school for having let them in if they were going to later exclude them. But it later transpired that neither girl had worn the veil (abaya?) to their interview.
The second point is tied in – how people change when they get to uni. It’s a tumultuous time for everyone, and perhaps especially so for those from relatively strict backgrounds. Of course the stereotype is an Asian guy or girl moving away from home and going off the rails – and that happens aplenty. But there is also an element, some of my own friends, who have come from quite moderate backgrounds and then come into contact with hardliners at university and adopted a far more extreme Islam.
Razib once again you put your finger on it – the heinous and “complacent lack of self criticism” is a major, if not THE major hurdle. I too have read up quite a bit, including most of the Koran, in order to counter any nonsensical arguments. But if someone is unwilling to listen, there’s really no point.
re: tribunals, my main concern is that the gov. seems to be adjudicating about religious issues, and so will end up crystallizing particular power structures no matter what its intent. but canada is canada, their fight, hey?
re: muslim disrespect for other religions. this is a common issue that hindus seem to bring up, but i think it is rooted partly in the fundamental differences in outlook between hindus and muslims as regards the nature of religion. the universalist abrahamic religions consistently have engaged in a program of defilement, degradation and humiliation of rival faiths because it is an affirmation of the fact that they supersede all other dispensations. to give an obscure example, when vladimir of rus converted to christianity he had the statue of the sky god perun dragged around kiev to indicate the disrespect of the old gods and implicit dominion of the new. this sort of ritual defilement is simply the precursor to the regular verbal attacks on the legitimacy of other traditions that have been common among muslims and christians, and this has been most prevelant in the premodern period in disputes within the religion due to sectarianism. many christians have pulled back from this attitude via forced readings of their traditions, but what is perverse overtime becomes normative, so i say “forced” only because the verbal gymnastics are non-trivial, but seem to be part of the background now (see this for what i mean).
the problem i have is that the superior attitude seems to be imported into the west by many muslims (or rediscovered anew), and it is resilient partly because i perceive that secularists are not attacking islam with the same ardor that they have christianity. from what i recall, the rise of modernism and the german hermeneutical tradition in scripture analysis in christianity was partially prompted by the skepticism toward religion which became acceptable in the 19th century. in other words, i am not sure if this tradition would have developed from the religion (christianity) if it was not framed by a skeptical element which forced scholars to rethink their attitude toward the text. i am contending that muslims in the west are not being forced to rethink their own attitude toward the religion for reasons of sensitivity. now is not then, so i don’t know where this will lead. i don’t think it is a long term tenable solution….
Bong breaker : I was merely contrasting the scenario with what you described in your university. Someone had paosted links on sharia tribunals. I wanted to add to it.
Just as show of hands – how many of the bloggers here are Canadian, from Ontario. Just want to get a sense how many on the board will be directly/indirectly impacted by the court ruling – should Islamic law come within the Canadian legal system.
me
My perspective here is that introducing Sharia to(or keeping it out of) the Canadian legal system is about rearranging legal processes to provide equitable legal recourse to all. Judging by the discussion on this board Muslims are fully capable of policing themselves. So, if the Islamic community is willing to take the leadership role and work within the Ontarian judicial system, what’s the harm. Here’s a step in the right direction. In today’s paper – U of T is getting two full time professors who will teach Islamic law. So what do you think?
I am from Ontario, Canada dhvaak
My concern is how many Muslims on the panel will be willing to recognise that Islamic law is ‘more open to interpretation than many realize’, since shari’a from my experience, is put forth as a unified code of law.
I am Canadian, I live in Toronto.
I think instead of introducing further complexity into the system. They should introduce a common civil code.
I don’t really see any benifits to religious arbitration.
Canadian muslims are not as ghettoized as the ones in Europe.
The reason for this is that they tend to be a very diverse group, with many different ethnicities. As opposed to say Britan where its mainly Desis, or Germany where the muslim population is mainly of Turkish descent.
So I don’t see how Shaira law helps in that regard.
Asking whats the harm with Shaira law, to me, is like asking whats the harm with racial profiling.
Agreed
I see. There may be a risk. But my stance is that if we have lawyers familiar with both Ontario law and the Islamic law arguing the court publicly – this is a step in the right direction. To a layperson like me – this is like saying, “Come out in the open and let’s formally argue your case in front of everyone.” That’s much better than having cases argued out of sight, where the potential for abuse increases.
Gujjubhai, I think you misinterpreted my giving those links. It was not intended as an argument, against the fact, that maulvis in villages still rule in many cases. Infact, these articles were eye-opener for me, so I thought, I’d share it with you’ll, since we were talking abt triple-talaq. It just proves that if one really knows the thing inside-out, then AIMPLB is nothing more than a haughty self-aggrandizing body laying claim to the guardianship of MPL.
I also agree that one Nilofar Akhtar practising in Bbay is an exception. But atleast these women groups of Awaaz-e-Niswaan, Majlis and many others are starting to raise their voices and winning small battles, if not the war. Hopefully in future, the decisions taken by Mumbai cases will set a precedent in similar other cases elsewhere.
I admitted as much in my first comment, that I am not well-informed on UCC or shariah laws or their pros-cons, so as to bring myself to comment on that. But from my ltd. knowledge, I don’t think that shariah is an unchangeable code as many Muslims perceive it to be. There are scholars who take a liberal view of teachings and place it in modern context, rather than some who chose to take an extremist position – as can be seen by that Javed Anand’s piece, where he compares the laws in several Islamic countries or with major Muslim population. Also, some of (retrograde) sections of the personal laws as present today can in itself be reformed and placed under the court’s jurisdiction. So, the negation of AIMPLB doesn’t necessarily exclude personal laws. I am wondering of a stcenario, whereby the personal laws also explicitly and very clearly, come under he court’s gambit. Is that a possiblity? For eg: to answer yr question, yes, it is possible to have a system whereby Muslims don’t give interest(by not taking bank loans), and give away their interest, for common public good. That’s what most Muslims in most countries do. In view of that(loss of business frm Muslims), HSBC even came out with Shariah banking in UK, and IIRC in Indonesia as well – where the interest part was suitably modified.
Btw, I would want to know if Hindus, Christians and others in India, have their own personal laws? eg. methinks Indian Sikhs are allowed to hold a kirpaan, because of that. Pls correct me if I am wrong. So this UCC vs personal law is a debate encompassing all religions, not just Muslims. And I am not sure, how many folks from other communities are ready for UCC.