Farzana Hassan2013-05-20T09:45:08-04:00Farzana Hassanhttp://www.huffingtonpost.ca/author/index.php?author=farzana-hassanCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Farzana HassanGood old fashioned elbow grease.The Best Way Muslims Can Counter Terrorismtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.32746702013-05-15T12:23:35-04:002013-05-15T12:31:46-04:00Farzana Hassanhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/farzana-hassan/100,000 innocent people. Fortunately for us, the idea was dismissed by Esseghaier and his alleged accomplices, perhaps for lack of know-how or resources.
The RCMP, FBI and CSIS are all working diligently to protect the public from such monstrous agendas. However, something must also be done to counter this evil at the idelogical level, where plots to murder innocents are hatched. Attitudes and ideas give rise to conspiracy theories or Muslim anger toward the West. These ideas must be challenged and countered as an important part of any counterterrorism strategy.
As a member of the Muslim community, I know very well the Islamist narrative on the issue of militancy. It prevents even moderate Muslims from condemning terror in the forthright manner it requires. Most ascribe the desire to murder unknown people to "root causes" which justify the unjustifiable or at least to explain the inexplicable. And those are the moderates. The more extreme are convinced shadowy state agents are actually behind terror attacks. Some of these conspiracy theories publicized by local Muslim groups, reinforce an existing narrative of conspiracy that is readily bought by a disturbing number of people.
Drone bombings in parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan are often cited as "root causes" of terror. But can terror be equated with drone attacks? The reasonable answer is that it cannot, because only a propagandist would suggest that tragic civilian casualties caused by drone attacks are deliberate. Drone attacks target militants, the very same medievalists who stone women, who kill mercilessly over perceived insults to Islam, who murder other Muslims, who attack teenage girls for wanting to get an education. Any dreadful accident with stray drones cannot be equated with terrorist attacks. Yet this feeble case for moral equivalence forms part of the narrative which even moderate Muslims accept.
Such warped moral parallels have prevented Muslims and their non-Muslim apologists from acknowledging that terror is never justified. Nor will it do to claim that terrorists are not true Muslims, because peace is at the core of Islam. We cannot define our faith by the way its noblest followers behave. Religion can bring out the best and the worst in people.
Only when Muslims drop the false narrative of moral equivalence and acknowledge Islamic terror will the extremists see themselves marginalized. Only through a truly moderate grassroots movement can the curse of Islamic terror be eradicated.
We must be grateful to the courageous imam who tipped off the RCMP on our own foiled plot, but unfortunately the false narrative that the West conspires to kill Muslim innocents has clouded the judgment of most Muslims here and abroad. It is time to shed such notions, to eschew not only violence itself but unfounded explanations for violence. That would be true moderation. The true moderates must step up their efforts. They must be watchful about any tendencies in their midst toward radicalization and attempt to counter such egregious agendas before they do any damage.
]]>Ideas About Modernizing Islamtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.25787872013-01-30T00:29:04-05:002013-03-31T05:12:01-04:00Farzana Hassanhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/farzana-hassan/
Members of the audience exchanged ideas on modernizing or "moderating" Islam. Was there indeed a window of opportunity to interpret Islam's precepts in line with modern sensibilities on women's rights? Was there potential to change people's attitudes on the status of minorities in Muslim countries? Was Islam in its most orthodox manifestations at all compatible with modern faiths, philosophies, ideologies and worldviews?
It was heartening to note that even Muslim members of the audience entertained the questions unreservedly. They appeared calm in the face of what was obvious criticism of mainstream Islam's prescriptions for women and minorities.
For example, a candid discussion followed on the Quran's punishment for adultery: One hundred lashes for both men and women convicted of adultery -- a crime under Sharia law. I pointed out to attendees that equal punishment in light of unequal sexual opportunities between men and women appears unjust. Under sharia law, men can contract up to four marriages. Women on the other hand have no such opportunity. With such disparate opportunities, awarding a punishment equal in severity to both men and women does not seem right. Most members of the audience agreed with my conclusions.
The doctrine of militant jihad also came up during the discussions. I suggested that the terrorists were in gross violation of the Quran's retributive law of equality on which they justify their actions. Such eye-for-eye retribution is untenable in the modern world. Terrorists disregard the fact that civilians are never intentionally killed by countries that abide by the Geneva conventions.
Other issues such as the predominance of honour killings in patriarchal Eastern societies, the incidence of child marriage, the segregation and veiling of women and the unfair sharia statutory laws were also discussed at length.
One Muslim even suggested we need not discuss the legislative aspects of the Quran, as religious law has become irrelevant in this day and age.
I agreed but also noted that one could not escape such discussions because fundamentalist Muslims subscribe to an extremely virulent form of Islam that has had lethal consequences for innocent people including women and minorities in Muslim majority countries. I stated that it was imperative to provide an alternative narrative to such radical discourse.
Toward the end, the audience also discussed ways to "modernize" Islam. Was Islam going through a reformation similar to that of Christianity's 400 years ago? I am of the opinion that these "reformations" cannot be compared. Whereas the Christian Reformation involved a revolt against the Papacy, Islamic reformation would have to include challenges to doctrine and dogma. I noted that it is easier to challenge institutions rather than entrenched religious beliefs.
I nonetheless offered the following solutions from Islam's own philosophical framework. First, the principle of "istihsaan" or "juristic preference" must be revived and deemed an overarching exegetical principle. This would result in the most equitable religious rulings. All else must be subordinated to this supreme Islamic principle.
For example, I have often argued that the Quran's injunctions on social issues such as polygamy have now come into conflict with its own normative principle of creating a just society. In today's world, therefore, it is more important to uphold the Quran's over arching principles of justice and fairness rather than its specific seventh century manifestations.
]]>How We Should Talk When We Talk About Gunstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.23574392012-12-24T17:52:14-05:002013-02-23T05:12:01-05:00Farzana Hassanhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/farzana-hassan/
Despite the inescapable emotion involved in such a tragedy involving the loss of innocent lives, both sides need to approach the argument in an unbiased and dispassionate manner. The debate needs to be depoliticized and examined at a strictly human level, where gun-related crimes have caused unspeakable horror and heartache. The children who died at the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary will never see their dreams fulfilled.
The anti-gun lobby and the pro-gun lobby are in each other's sights, as always. To the anti-gun lobby, having a gun readily accessible to the bad and the mad obviously facilitates gun-related crimes. The pro-gun lobby sometimes counters this by suggesting that such massacres can be avoided by arming more people for their own protection.
Had the principal and the psychologist who tried to stop the shooter had firearms, they may have prevented or limited the tragedy. A fair point, but the argument still needs to be addressed at a deeper and more human level.
It is based on the same type of reasoning that caused a proliferation of nuclear weapons among nations. The argument works as follows: guns are readily available to virtually every American citizen who want them, therefore we need more guns to protect other citizens. The result? Even more guns in circulation, with an increased chance they will end up in the wrong hands and lead to all kinds of tragedies, accidental and deliberate.
Gun lobbyists seem obsessed with the rights of citizens to own firearms. In countries where guns are more strictly regulated, there can also be attempts to inflict mass killings on unsuspecting children, but few that can cause the lethal outcome of last Friday's Connecticut tragedy.
China suffered a mass stabbing at an elementary school just hours before the Connecticut shooting. There too a deranged killer walked into a school and inflicted injury on 22 school children of roughly the same ages as the Connecticut victims. However, none died. And that's the point: gun laws in China are so heavily regulated that private citizens do not own guns.
China is of course a police state and similar restrictions can never apply in the free Western world, but guns may nonetheless still be regulated here so they seldom end up in the wrong hands. Because no system can be perfect, perhaps security guards outside school buildings can be armed: an unsavoury but necessary measure.
American legislators need to consider more carefully whose constitutional rights are at stake, and realign their laws to benefit the innocent. The right of some citizens to own guns must defer to the right of all citizens to feel safe in what should be the safest of all havens, an elementary school.
]]>Respect Women? Say No to the Niqabtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.23221032012-12-21T12:26:07-05:002013-02-20T05:12:02-05:00Farzana Hassanhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/farzana-hassan/The following excerpt is from Farzana Hassan's book "Unveiled: A Canadian Muslim woman's struggle against Misogyny, Sharia and Jihad" (available here). It is taken from the chapter "The Burka Debate"
The Supreme court of Canada ruled on Thursday, December 20 that the niqab would not be permissible in courts of law in the majority of cases. The excerpt below explores some of the issues associated with the niqab and face veils in Canada, and explains why the practice of veiling must be discouraged in a free and democratic country like Canada.
I firmly believe that legislation protecting the rights of women who are forced into wearing the niqab is not only desirable but essential. The influence of radicalism grows stronger by the day. As more Muslims become radicalized, the expectation to wear the burka proliferates. This is so because burka advocates are stubbornly doctrinaire and their ultimate goal is to spread this practice among all Muslims by scaring them with hellfire theology. That is why I see an increasing number of burka-clad women in my neighbourhood mall. These swaddled women are barely able to contribute positively to society. They cannot easily become nurses or doctors, bus drivers or electricians. Indeed the impracticality of the burka marginalizes its wearers, and a society that allows such marginalization risks being perceived as dysfunctional. It seems burka advocates are concerned only about the rights of women to "choose" to wear a niqab or burka. The truth is that there are several other rights, of much greater importance, such as the right to choose what career to adopt and whom to marry, that these retrogressive advocates deliberately ignore.
In Canada we must not allow the situation to get to the point Britain has reached on this issue. Because the burka has become so common in Britain, the government is reluctant to pass legislation against it. A similar scenario must be avoided in Canada and the United States, where the observance of the burka thankfully is not yet so widespread. Here the burka is still uncommon enough that courts can still debate whether to allow the testimony of veiled women. The Ontario Court of Appeal debated a test case of a Muslim sexual assault complainant in 2010, who insisted on remaining both invisible and anonymous, yet needed to testify in court. As expected, the woman's stance was supported by feminists, liberal activists and Muslim fundamentalists, all of whom cited her right to religious freedom. The Women's Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) was one such feminist group. Although it cautioned against using this case to set a precedent, the group made it clear that it wanted the court to accommodate the woman's request. I feared that would set the wrong precedent as Islamists would most certainly invoke it to advance their fundamentalist agenda.
This happened around the same time that Quebec also passed Bill 94, which would deny public services to women in veils. I sought an Islamist woman's opinion on Quebec Bill 94. She responded that, while religious fatwa (religious verdict) did not necessitate the niqab, religious taqwa (the desire to excel in faith) required that she don the face covering. With this in mind, she would abide by any laws requiring her to relinquish some of her religious freedoms, but insisted that such laws would interfere with her desire to excel in piety and religious observance. According to this woman, therefore, the niqab was clearly a religious preference rather than a requirement.
In April 2011 I was invited by the University of British Columbia to deliver their annual multiculturalism lecture, where I argued that the burka represented one extreme while nudity represented another. Both should be proscribed. Section 174 of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibits nudity in public places. People who wish to walk around nude in public places, including public offices, hospitals and schools, could object to such laws by citing the individual freedoms argument that burka adherents generally cite. They could very well state that their individual freedom to appear naked in public was curtailed. But were their rights absolute? Here we have two extreme situations. One of them entails a complete absence of clothing, while the other hides someone totally from view. If prohibiting the one extreme can be deemed constitutional in the interest of public welfare, then surely its opposite can also be, especially when it has the added disqualification of being a tool in the hands of criminals and terrorists.
At the lecture I delivered at the University of British Columbia, a member of the audience expressed concern that Muslim women would simply withdraw from society if they were forced to remove their veils in public. I responded that such a fear is too pessimistic. Such a conclusion is based on the flawed assumption that niqabi women will refuse to adhere to the law. Even the sexual assault complainant, known as N.S., has agreed to testify without her veil if she loses.
The issue of the burka ban in public would have to be assessed as a matter of common good rather than as a matter concerning the individual rights of a few women, some of whom I knew would be coerced into wearing such attire. I met a few university students at UBC who divulged to me that they were indeed being coerced. Moreover, religious freedoms could not be taken as an absolute.
Restricting certain individual rights to advance the common good is not anti-democratic. People often assert that the right to choose what to wear is a democratic right. Indeed it can be. However, democracy must not be confused with anarchy. Democratic societies must still regulate social interaction in public, and practices deemed detrimental to society must be subject to regulation. Canada has already done so in the case of public nudity. It must do so in the case of the burka as well, which constitutes the other extreme.
Based on the above arguments, I was able to convince many that a burka ban could easily be deemed constitutional. Huffington Post Canada asked me to engage in a public debate with Farah Mawani, a local activist, on who could change the most minds about the burka ban issue. I offered a discourse in the Huffington Post based on the above rationale and won the Huffington Post debate.
The argument from multiculturalism also needs to be addressed, as there are many who defend the burka from this perspective. They assert that different cultures have to be accepted on their own terms. If a culture considers the burka or hijab appropriate or even beneficial (and some Muslim women certainly regard it as beneficial) then this viewpoint must be accepted. Dr. Kathy Bullock, an Australian convert to Islam and an active member of the fundamentalist Islamic Society of North America (ISNA-Canada) devotes pages and pages of her book Rethinking Muslim Women and the Veil to proving just how wrong the West is in its perception of the veil as an oppressive garment. Because Muslim fundamentalism celebrates the burka and the resultant seclusion of women, an elaborate rationale exists to justify these practices. From this angle Kathy Bullock writes: "I argue that because of capitalism's emphasis on the body and materiality, wearing the hijab can be an empowering and liberating experience for women." Canadian journalist Naheed Mustafa also writes: "Wearing the hijab has given me freedom from constant attention to my physical self."
In my opinion, such discourse amounts to justifying the unjustifiable. Minorities within the diverse cultures of Canada that rationalize the subjugation of women in this fashion are not equal to cultures that don't. To assert this is not to discredit multiculturalism, which, correctly observed, is a noble concept. However, we must never tolerate the abuse of multiculturalism, and the type of political correctness that turns a blind eye to misogyny is just that sort of abuse.
Women who wear the face veil are in fact denied a face, a name and an identity. As a result of political correctness and narratives advanced by ultra-orthodox Muslims, many young Muslim women have been led to believe that in order to be respected they must assume the anonymity of the niqab or hijab. Such women include Cair-Can's Maryam Dadabhoy, whom I have debated on television. This sentiment is unfortunate. Muslim women must be respected simply because it is their human right to be respected -- for who they are. What the conservatives fail to realize is that the minute they have decided to wear the niqab, they have acknowledged that they are not people but sex objects who need to be hidden from public gaze or else they will most certainly end up tempting men. They have allowed men to define them. Part of this sanctimonious narrative is the preposterous suggestion that the burka does not marginalize women, and that women who wear it can engage fully in everyday life. Yet I have observed the difficulty with which burka-clad women eat in pubic, lifting their veil with one hand while trying to eat with the other. This is all quite unnecessary, as Islam does not even prescribe the face veil.
]]>Pakistan's Extremist Persecutions Now Include The Disabledtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.18303282012-08-27T00:00:00-04:002012-10-26T05:12:07-04:00Farzana Hassanhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/farzana-hassan/
Rimshah Masih allegedly burned pages of the Quran and other Islamic textbooks, including a Quran primer. The girl was found holding the charred pages. She was subsequently beaten by an angry Islamist rabble which, supported by the usual obscurantist mullahs and bigots, is demanding the severest penalty for this disabled girl.
Unfortunately, Rimshah is not the only Pakistani facing such charges. Asia Bibi, another Christian accused of blasphemy, has languished in prison since 2010. She is the unfortunate woman on death row for allegedly showing disrespect for the Prophet Mohammad.
Pakistanis collectively have shown little outrage at these travesties. In fact, the religious climate of the country has turned even educated Pakistanis into dogmatists who think that freedom of expression stops at religion. The media have reinforced this, especially popular talk shows and television dramas.
Concern from the international community has dwindled disturbingly, as Pakistani clerics await Asia Bibi's hanging.
In both cases the charges appear unfounded. No one knows how Rimshah acquired pages of the Quran or the primer--or if the charred pages were indeed taken out of these books. And no one really knows what Asia Bibi actually said to the women who accused her of blasphemy.
Bibi, a mother of four, dared to touch the eating utensils of nearby Muslim women. When she merely expressed displeasure at segregated and elitist eating practices, she was accused of blasphemy. Since then, fanatics have harassed her family. Rimshah's family has fled, as have hundreds of other residents of her Christian neighborhood.
Christians suffer daily in Muslim countries. Their lives are in constant peril because of radical Islam's assault on beleaguered Christian communities.
Attacks on Christian churches have become common. While all religious minorities are targeted in Muslim countries where radical Islam has taken root, Christians are particularly vulnerable because they are accused of allying themselves with the "crusader" West, particularly after 9/11.
In yet another outrageous case, eleven nurses--including three Christians--were recently poisoned in a Karachi hospital for not fasting during Ramadan. Fortunately all are recovering. We now also hear reports of Samuel Yacoob, an 11-year-old Christian boy, who was tortured and beaten to death in Faisalabad, Pakistan.
Christians in Islamic countries are voiceless and suffer under an intolerable legal framework, with its archaic and reprehensible blasphemy laws. They also endure attacks on places of worship, economic hardship and workplace discrimination.
Muslims everywhere must protest blasphemy laws, demand freedom for Rimshah and Asia Bibi and offer protection for members of their religious community. Blasphemy laws in Pakistan must be repealed.
The international community can also help. France has taken up Rimshah's cause. Canada must also put pressure on the Pakistani government to release these victims of religious bigotry.
The legal framework of Pakistan requires an overhaul. More fundamentally, the masses need to be educated to respect human rights and freedom of expression, even in religion. Only when its citizens can be persuaded that civic responsibility begins with tolerance will Pakistan step out of the dark ages and strive for the dignity all of its diverse people deserve.
This article was first published in Toronto Sun, Aug, 24th, 2012]]>Just Say No to Shark Fin Souptag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.16890102012-07-20T11:46:21-04:002012-09-19T05:12:38-04:00Farzana Hassanhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/farzana-hassan/First Toronto, and now Calgary, has done the moral thing.
Both cities have passed a bylaw banning shark fins -- and thankfully even with the support of young Chinese Canadians anxious about our damaged environment and depleted oceans. Calgarians have enthusiastically backed the new law, including members of the Chinese community, where the delicacy has been prized for centuries.
I am vegetarian, but I am told that shark fin is tasteless, though its chewy-crunchy texture is distinctive. Chefs give the soup different flavours by adding special ingredients to the broth. Demand is high purely because shark fins themselves are rare and expensive. Hosts wish to impress and flatter diners by serving such exclusive fare. The diners know it is expensive, and the host knows that the guests know this. It really all comes down to status.
But even if diners were to like the taste, is it worth feeding our indulgences by subjecting these fish to such brutality? Once only a delicacy served at Chinese weddings, shark fin soup is now also served at business lunches across the Pacific rim. Shark populations are consequently declining at alarming rates, threatening over half of shark species with extinction. And yet, with increasing prosperity in China, the demand for shark fin is soaring.
Perhaps the most outrageous aspect of it all is the grisly way sharks are harvested. The following information is not for the fainthearted, but it still needs to be stated. Man's inhumanity to animals is epitomized by the way millions of sharks are slaughtered each year to cater to our extravagances.
After the fish are captured, their fins are chopped off while they are often still alive. They are then thrown back into the treacherous waters to die a lingering death. Sinking to the bottom of the ocean, the fish can no longer look for food or fend off harassment by other creatures. Many simply rot till they die. This is hardly the image of sharks one sees in movies like Jaws. Despite their malevolent reputation, sharks are actually very gentle creatures, and vulnerable to such predation by humans.
It is therefore heartening that Toronto activists like Rob Stewart of finfreetoronto.com want to take their message to the rest of the country. The delicacy still enjoys support among some Chinese in Canada. Hopefully Chinese Canadians everywhere will ultimately boycott the product as their counterparts in Calgary recently did; 70 per cent of Chinese Calgarians supported the ban.
Sharks continue to be harvested to cater to an ever-growing demand. It is therefore imperative that something is done to lessen the demand. Some opponents of a ban have suggested this is tantamount to marginalising Chinese culture. But is it important to preserve a part of a culture that carries with it the stigma of inhumanity?
Consumers of shark fin soup must consider the effects of declining shark populations on our delicately balanced ecosystem. Not only must we act responsibly and humanely toward the animals that inhabit the earth's land and waters, we must also ensure an abundant, clean and fertile world for posterity. Rob Stewart of finfreetoronto.com is working hard to gather support for a shark fin ban. Toronto and Calgary have taken the lead, but a shark fin ban must occur nationwide. Let us preserve our environment for a safe, green world.]]>Why I Love Canada: Here I Can Question My Own Faithtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.16340612012-06-28T11:56:40-04:002012-08-28T05:12:04-04:00Farzana Hassanhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/farzana-hassan/
I have benefited from Canada's prosperity, professional opportunities, the tolerance of fellow Canadians and the wonderful opportunities to grow intellectually in an environment that fosters tolerance for differences and divergent opinions. In this regard, I consider myself most fortunate as I am a Muslim woman with unconventional ideas about my faith.
Often members of my own faith community have looked upon my opinions with suspicion. They would very well deny me the right to question, challenge and remould the accepted narrative within Islam. The orthodoxy views the opinions of laity with distrust, thinking only "experts" have the right and proper knowledge to interpret faith; I for one firmly believe that anyone who is affected by religious precept and practice ought to have the right to question and reinterpret it.
That has been my position ever since I started debating Muslim issues publically. I strongly believe that as a Muslim I have every right to question my faith, to arrive at my own unique understanding of it, and to practice it according to my very own sensibilities as a unique human being. For that I am grateful to my adoptive country, Canada.
Canada has taught me the value of free thought and expression. Undoubtedly many from among my own family and friends have attempted to place restrictions on my right as a free thinking individual, but I continue to reserve that right and choose to exercise it even as I speak now from the depth of my heart.
Thank you Canada for letting me question and think critically and above all, for letting me be myself!]]>Hey Islam, Get Your Hands Off Our Arttag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.14274252012-04-16T13:13:28-04:002012-06-16T05:12:01-04:00Farzana Hassanhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/farzana-hassan/depicts a woman wearing Muslim veils holding a bra while folding laundry.
Irate calls over perceived insults to Islamic culture, belief and practice have once again stifled freedom of speech and expression. The art student, Soorya Graham, is nonetheless fighting for her right by insisting her work be displayed once again at the school. Her photo showing the Muslim woman holding the bra was reportedly stripped off the wall by another student.
What addles the mind about the incident is the audacity with which fundamentalists impose their religiosity on others.
Graham, who also wears a head scarf, merely wanted to show the world that veiled women are the same as other women even underneath those sombre layers of clothing. Perhaps she thought the public was under the impression that women in Muslim veiling do not wear undergarments. Graham had hoped to dispel that impression and as a Canadian student she had every right to do so. But that right has been rudely snatched from her by bigots.
Her artistic expression undoubtedly offended them. But so what? This is Canada. People have the right to express their religious beliefs freely. And if the fundamentalists are unhappy with these freedoms -- they too are free to leave.
What they most certainly are not free to do in Canada is steal art and use it to impose their fundamentalist agenda on others. The perpetrator is allegedly another Muslim student. Her actions have sparked controversy over issues of free speech, the limits of artistic expression as well as the limits of multiculturalism.
She allegedly acted on behalf of an Islamic Education centre in Kamloops, B.C., that has expressed open opposition to the art work. The centre is funded by the Saudi Arabian embassy. Both the Embassy and the education centre feel the photo mocks Islam.
In Saudi Arabia, men are now technically banned from working at lingerie store. The demand for the law came from Saudi women themselves, who had previously felt a sense of shame and embarrassment in dealing with male salesmen while buying lingerie. Despite opposition from top clerics who discourage women from working in stores, the law that was appraised by King Abdullah in 2006 allowing female-only workers is now finally being enforced.
In Saudi Arabia, therefore, garments worn underneath the burka -- that symbol of Wahhabi-manufactured piety -- are meant only for the eyes of the husband. It explains Saudi chagrin over the controversial photo in Kamloops. Saudi Arabia, however, cannot impose its value system on Canadian citizens who enjoy the right to free expression.
Our civil liberties are enshrined in Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Included among these are freedoms that foster a range of artistic and intellectual expression. It is only in allowing this wide range of ideas that societies can evolve and progress. And while certain types of artistic expression may very well offend religious sensibilities, our artists and intellectuals must not be denied their full creative expression.
Canada is not answerable to Saudi Arabia.
]]>Post-Oscar, Canada's Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy's Brave Work Continuestag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.13051432012-02-28T07:41:59-05:002012-04-29T05:12:01-04:00Farzana Hassanhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/farzana-hassan/
Obaid-Chinoy was recognized for her short film Saving Face, which documents the horrors of acid attack burning. Saving Face will be aired on HBO on International Women's day this year.
At the ceremony, Obaid-Chinoy also acknowledged the contributions of others who helped toward the making of the film. In particular, she praised the work of Dr. Mohammad Jawad for his invaluable service in performing reconstructive surgery on the victims of these barbaric crimes.
In daring to expose such atrocities, Obaid-Chinoy is aware of the risks to her own safety. Individuals who speak out against injustice are often themselves the targets of cruelty and barbarism. Obaid-Chinoy, however, remains undeterred and called for a continuation of the struggle to achieve social justice. She stated "all the women in Pakistan who are working for change -- don't give up on your dreams."
Although the filmmaker called the Oscar "the award," this is hardly the first time she has tackled human rights abuses in countries plagued by violent patriarchy. The filmmaker has previously documented crimes against the oppressed women of Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. And her work continues, she says.
Obaid-Chinoy is working towards recognizing the "real heroes" of Pakistan, those marginalized women who are raped and beaten on a daily basis.
Therefore, her next project involves the launching of a television program that will highlight the struggles of ordinary women working to eradicate oppression from their midst. This is how Obaid-Chinoy hopes to inspire change and progress in the country. She dreams of a Pakistan where acid attacks will soon become a thing of the past.
Such attacks have disfigured the faces of countless number of victims, many of whom are women in their late teens or early 20s. The effects of the attacks include the charring of facial or bodily tissue, as well as at times, the dissolving of the bones. Acid burning can also at times cause blindness in the victim. And needless to say, the psychological effects of such attacks are deep and long-lasting.
Acid attacks are a form of retribution usually perpetrated by men over perceived breaches of family honour. According to well-known journalist Nicholas Kristoff, such attacks are at an all time high in Pakistan. As many as 200 acid attacks are reported in Pakistan each year.
Local non-governmental organizations are working toward eradicating this curse under the leadership of several prominent Pakistani women. The Acid Survivors Foundation is one such organization that works to rehabilitate acid attack victims. Doctor Mohammad Jawad, who is featured in the film, is a Pakistani plastic surgeon who performs these difficult surgeries on the unfortunate victims. In so doing, he has brought a degree of hope and comfort back into the lives of these physically and emotionally scarred women.
In May, 2011, Pakistan adopted stricter penalties for perpetrators of acid attacks. These include 14 year prison sentence as well as a fine of one million rupees. The real challenge, however, lies in the implementation of the law according to Valerie Khan Yusufzai, the head of Acid Survivors Foundation, as perpetrators often get away with such crimes due to connections with influential people.
Meanwhile, the struggle continues and Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy has performed an invaluable service by exposing the crime through her acclaimed film. As a Canadian of Pakistani origin, I offer her my congratulations and wish her all the luck and success in her future endeavors.
]]>The Death Penalty for Tweets?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.12722802012-02-13T22:24:35-05:002012-04-14T05:12:01-04:00Farzana Hassanhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/farzana-hassan/deported from Malaysia to his home country so as to stand trial for alleged blasphemy. The offense is punishable by death in Saudi Arabia.
Surely this appears like a scene from the desert landscape of seventh-century Arabia. One would have hoped that in the 21st century, dissident voices would come to be acknowledged as legitimate self-expression in all four corners of the world. Alas, such is not the case in countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, where the slightest perceived attack on religion can imperil the lives of freethinking individuals. Shameful!
In arresting Kashgiri, the country has obviously kowtowed to Islamist groups, especially the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). This international Islamist outfit has taken upon itself to quash any legitimate criticism of religious practices.
Although the OIC's UN resolution 16/18 employs a change in terminology from the original "combating defamation of religion" to "combating intolerance," in essence its objectives remain the same -- crushing any criticism of orthodox Islamic belief or practice. UN resolution 16/18 states: "Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against persons based on religion or belief."
But shouldn't this wording work both ways? Why then are the Saudis so intolerant of this young man's religious beliefs? Or is this provision meant to only prevent criticism of Islam?
As for Kashgiri, he was only expressing some very human doubts about his relationship with the prophet of Islam. His post, which was later deleted, had read:"I have loved things about you and I have hated things about you and there is a lot I don't understand about you...I will not pray for you."
His statements evoked a number of hostile tweets from enraged Saudi citizens. Presumably, the majority of people who tweet in Saudi Arabia are young. It is indeed shocking that so many young people in Saudi Arabia remain so unenlightened as to seek death for their fellow citizen who dares to disagree with the accepted religious narrative? Facebook was no exception. A Facebook page titled "The Saudi People Demand the Execution of Hamza Kashgari" also attracted more than 13,000 members.
But the question remains: How can one construe Kashgiri's musings as deserving of execution even in the archaic world of Muslim blasphemy laws?
The man does not deserve to die for his opinions -- and admittedly, this is not saying much. It amounts to setting the bar extremely low for what should constitute as tolerance.
Tolerance in fact demands that we take up this man's cause and try to save his life from destruction at the hands of totalitarian governments.
Furthermore Malaysia, a supposedly moderate Muslim country, has partnered with Saudi Arabia in castigating this courageous young man. Demonstrations must be organized in front of both the Saudi and Malaysian embassies and consulates to highlight this sinister partnership.
]]>The Shafia Women: Killed By Double Standardstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.12410732012-01-30T07:09:51-05:002012-03-31T05:12:01-04:00Farzana Hassanhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/farzana-hassan/verdict for the three accused family members is guilty as charged on four counts of first-degree murder. The Shafia couple and their eldest son Hamed will now face the almost inevitable prospect of life in prison.
Perhaps at the time of committing the heinous crimes, the trio had forgotten they were no longer living in Afghanistan where such crimes go unreported and unpunished. Indeed, in those parts of the world, such atrocities are often not even regarded as crimes. But Canada's legal system did not fail the victims. After weeks of exhaustive testimony and hours of jury deliberation, justice was delivered to the unfortunate victims of the unthinkable crime.
The jury had to decide between three possible outcomes: guilty of first-degree murder, guilty of second-degree murder, and not guilty. The jury could also pass a different verdict for each of the accused. However, the facts of the case being as incontestable as they were in terms of damning evidence, no other outcome of the jury's deliberations seemed likely.
A second-degree murder verdict was a non-starter. There ought to have been some immediate provocation to the convicted trio for things to have escalated to the point where all four victims were led to their brutal deaths. The jury therefore faced two stark choices: arriving at a guilty verdict for premeditated murder or a "not guilty" verdict because of lack of evidence.
But evidence was aplenty. The inconsistencies in the testimony of the three, the Google searches, the email conversations, the forensic evidence, all pointed to one thing alone: that the murders were planned and executed by the trio to protect the family honour from what they perceived to be the girls' sinful and dishonourable behavior.
But even though justice is served, the girls and their sympathetic stepmother are gone forever. That is a sad reality we must now live with. Yet, we must also strive to learn from this tragic episode. Indeed the trial has exposed a cultural pathology that needs a closer and unbiased examination.
Regrettably, far too many men raised in patriarchal settings regard their female offspring as liabilities. The birth of a female child is often marked with anxiety and dismay. Later on, the issue of family honour kicks in when the girl reaches puberty. In fact, the notion of honour revolves primarily around women and their sexuality and conduct. The men in the family are rarely subjected to the kinds of constraints their female relatives endure. It is mostly when the conduct of the women is perceived as dishonourable that matters worsen.
Mr. Shafia's polygamous marriage is an example of such double standards. His eldest son, the now convicted Hamed, also enjoyed the liberty to move around town freely. His sisters on the other hand, were forbidden even from visiting the local library. Rona Amir, the fourth victim of the crime also wished to leave the oppressive polygamous arrangement, but was unable to procure a divorce from the patriarchal Mr. Shafia.
Little wonder most victims of honour crimes happen to be women. Such too was the case with the Shafia sisters and their stepmother. But justice is now served. Let this be a lesson to all who wish to impose patriarchal values on their daughters, sisters, and other female relatives: Canada will not tolerate such horrendous violence in the name of patriarchy, honour, or religion.
]]>Does the Burka Enable Crime?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.12259412012-01-24T08:01:03-05:002012-03-25T05:12:01-04:00Farzana Hassanhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/farzana-hassan/event in Toronto on Sunday to thank Minister Kenney for his courageous stand in banning the face veil from Canada's Citizenship ceremonies. The decision enjoys widespread support among Canadians across the country.
While most members of the audience were supportive of the Minister's decision, a few objections were also raised at the event with respect to the constitutionality of such a ban.
For example, Fatema Dada of the Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association invoked the religious freedoms argument in the following manner when she stated, "If somebody believes in it [the niqab] then it's their right to practice it." According to Dada, it should be up to individual Canadians to determine and express their own unique religiosity.
True, but does the argument stop here? Do some religious practices still warrant restrictions? And how does Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms come to bear on this issue?
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
What constitutes a religious right under the Charter then? Is deviant religious practice a religious right according to the provisions of the Charter? Yes, most certainly. Fatema Dada is correct in pointing out this aspect of the Charter. The whole purpose of separating religion and state is to ensure that the state maintains a certain degree of neutrality towards diverse religious practices. It is therefore not up to the state to determine the authenticity of a particular religious practice. If some individuals believe Islam mandates the burka or face veil, then the state must not question that understanding.
This interpretation of Charter provisions would certainly confer legitimacy on the practice of wearing the burka, even though its proponents hold a minority opinion deemed fallacious by the Muslim majority.
The question however remains: Like other religious rights, is the right to wear a burka an absolute right, or can it be subjected to reasonable limits, and if so, what are those limits?
Some religious practices, however deviant, are benign, while others may be quite inimical to society. Furthermore, some religious rights impinge on the rights of other individuals or of society, in which case, is it justified to place limits on them? The burka or face coverings most certainly fall under this category as crime-enabling garbs.
The right to wear the burka is not an absolute right. The Minister, in mandating removal of the face veil in citizenship ceremonies has taken an important and admirable first step in regulating burka use in public.
]]>Intolerance and the Religious Righttag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.12081192012-01-15T23:34:44-05:002012-03-16T05:12:02-04:00Farzana Hassanhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/farzana-hassan/
Needless to say, the discussion turned vitriolic at the slightest mention of religion. Members of the audience took issue with my stance, not over facts pertaining to honour killings, but on my citing various Sharia regulations as possible factors in the murders.
For example, I suggested that adultery, fornication and other sexual misconduct are severely punished under Sharia law. Although perpetrators of honour killings almost certainly do not consciously consider these stipulations, the killers are nonetheless governed by an environment where sexuality is regulated to the point of criminalizing certain types of sexual conduct. Though it is true that even the most conservative brand of Islam does not prescribe murder for women who allegedly dishonour their families, it is equally true that it places men in charge of women's sexual and social conduct. Is it possible that, governed by such Sharia provisions, men take it upon themselves to both monitor and control the behaviour of their wives, daughters and sisters?
Members of the audience objected to my references to these Sharia provisions. Some of them even stated that I had "no right" to hurt their religious sentiments and that "freedom of speech" does not include this right. They stated that I had little knowledge of Islamic precept and practice. Many of them offered lengthy justifications for various Sharia provisions such as polygamy, women's testimony and the physical chastisement of women: justifications that I am already thoroughly familiar with. One gentleman stated that I was questioning God's wisdom by opposing Sharia law.
Indeed the most retrogressive segments of Muslim society often angrily conclude that reformist Muslims only speak from a position of ignorance when questioning orthodox religious practice. Progressive Muslims are ignorant, self-serving, heretical, and hypocritical according to these conservatives, who consistently accuse revisionists of being fifth columnists with nefarious ulterior motives.
Does it ever occur to the doctrinaire conservatives that perhaps reformists have indeed examined all the arguments in support of Sharia tradition, and still choose to reject them because they find the arguments specious? Intimate familiarity with a particular discourse, rather than ignorance of it, can enable us to identify its gaps and contradictions.
After the lecture, a couple of individuals challenged me to sit with them to discuss the flaws in my understanding of Sharia law. During their public diatribe against me, they dared me to sit with them one-on-one to debate some of these issues at length. I will gladly accept their challenge, but only if they maintain their civility and maintain an open mind.
As one who has experienced threats and intimidation at the hands of fundamentalists, however, I am convinced they cannot or will not meet either of my conditions.
]]>Another Sad Anniversary of Islamic Extremismtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.11832832012-01-04T13:51:53-05:002012-03-05T05:12:02-05:00Farzana Hassanhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/farzana-hassan/assassinated by a member of his own elite guard for defending a Christian woman by the name of Asia Bibi for allegedly disrespecting the prophet of Islam.
A few months later, the Minister for Minority Affairs, Shabaz Bhatti, was shot dead for the same reason. Sherry Rahman, the current Pakistani ambassador to the U.S. who started a campaign to introduce amendments to the law, also received death threats for attempting to introduce changes to the law.
Rahman did not suggest repealing the law; she merely proposed the inclusion of "mens rea" or intent to commit blasphemy in the current stipulations. And yet, she faced condemnation from religious fundamentalists. Currently, the law does not recognize intent as a factor in determining culpability in blasphemy cases. One can be accused of blasphemy even if one has not intended to commit such an act.
These unjust laws came into effect in their current form under the military dictatorship of General Mohammad Zia ul-Haq. Inspired by a puritanical and punitive brand of Islam, the General introduced amendments to existing blasphemy laws by increasing penalties for certain offences.
The law had existed in the subcontinent since Colonial times, however, it underwent the kind of transformation that rendered religious minorities especially vulnerable to accusations by a Muslim majority that has become increasingly fundamentalist in its religious orientation. As it stands, the law prohibits blasphemy against any recognized religion. However, it only comes into effect when Islam is allegedly under attack by members of minority faith communities.
The most troubling sections of the blasphemy law revolve around alleged blasphemy against the prophet Mohammed. It carries the death sentence and can be accompanied by fines if the charge is considered serious enough. Thus far both Muslims and non-Muslims have been charged with the offence of blasphemy.
There is great potential for abuse of such provisions. Foremost, the possibility of misinterpreting intentions and gestures is immense. The law states that if someone insults: "by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or incites, or attempts to promote or incite, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities," that someone shall be fined and punished with imprisonment for a term that may extend to five years.
This leaves the field wide open for anyone to accuse another of having insulted their religious sentiments.
The blasphemy law in Pakistan must be repealed without further delay. Asia bibi, who still languishes in jail, must be freed and her dignity and good name restored. The state must not police the religious beliefs of its citizens. Nor must the clergy be allowed to determine which interpretation of Islam is correct.
Caring individuals should sign various petitions to free Asia bibi. Let Taseer's murder by a religious fanatic not be in vain.
]]>The Biggest Story of 2011 for Me? Bagging Bin Ladentag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.11712362011-12-27T08:12:08-05:002012-02-26T05:12:01-05:00Farzana Hassanhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/farzana-hassan/
As champion of the most radical strain within Islam, his death marked a new beginning in the quest for global peace through a war on terrorist networks. The jubilation in Washington, D.C. over his death was an obvious indication of the relief felt by Americans. But it may also spell complacency among the masses, that all is now right with the world's struggle against radical Islam.
Osama's agenda included sowing seeds of hatred among Muslim youth. In so doing, Al-Qaida's villainous leader was merely upholding a fundamentalist ideology that is endemic to political Islam. Its tenets include the pursuit of militant jihad. This hateful ideology has poisoned the minds of enough number of people who would gladly sacrifice their lives for some "higher purpose" that fetches rewards in a hereafter.
The effects of Bin Laden's legacy are pernicious enough to have spurred a climate of warring religiosities. The world had come closer to forging a clearer understanding of human rights, universal brotherhood, and dignity of all peoples--men and women, black and white, rich and poor. After the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the desegregation of the American south, the formation of regional and national peace alliances, the world appeared to be moving toward more tolerance, egalitarianism, and pluralism. Sadly, however, the most retrogressive form of radical Islam has gained considerable momentum in the past few years as a geopolitical force.
One can only lament this backward march toward bigotry, fanaticism, militancy, and elitism. Even peace-loving Muslims who reject the hateful agenda of radical Islam are often victims of such intolerance.
These adversarial religiosities ought to have been a thing of the past, for the world was making progress toward tolerance and understanding. But the warring religiosities are once again resurgent. They have even surfaced in the much touted "Arab Spring."
One would not be wrong to suggest that the Arab spring has turned into a bleak winter for beleaguered non-Muslim communities living in Muslim majority lands. Attacks on Christians in Egypt are a classic example of this unfortunate development.
To top it all, one cannot criticize or question the ideologies that breed such fanaticism. Attempts to throttle free speech by the Organization of Islamic Conference and other fundamentalist outfits are effectively under way. The culture of hate and bigotry that Osama created has permeated the grassroots. Though he is dead, his ghost lurks in all the recent terrorist attacks, the sectarian violence and the religious strife internationally. His death was significant. So is his legacy.