Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Farzana Hassan

GET UPDATES FROM Farzana Hassan
 

Intolerance and the Religious Right

Posted: 01/15/12 11:34 PM ET

I recently delivered a talk on honour killings at an event organized by the Aiman Foundation, a children's rights advocacy group based in Scarborough, Ontario. The discussion revolved around the sociological causes of honour killings, including certain religious attitudes as a possible reason for so many of these killings in various religious communities.

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.

 
 
 

Follow Farzana Hassan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@FarzanaHassan1

I recently delivered a talk on honour killings at an event organized by the Aiman Foundation, a children's rights advocacy group based in Scarborough, Ontario. The discussion revolved around the socio...
I recently delivered a talk on honour killings at an event organized by the Aiman Foundation, a children's rights advocacy group based in Scarborough, Ontario. The discussion revolved around the socio...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 7
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Patrick Flannery
Editor, nerd, dad.
05:11 PM on 01/25/2012
Wow, a genuine moderate Muslim voice speaking out against the barbaric elements of the religion. Nice to see, and far too rare.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Mike Ghouse
09:54 AM on 01/17/2012
Farzana,
I am echoing Dr. Leipert's words, I do not agree with many things, but on this one, I agree with you. I'm glad you took the challenge for a civil dialogue and I hope they see essence of Sharia as well as the misinterpretations and misapplications of it and accept it as human effort to serve justice and not a divine law. All human efforts are subjected to questioning just as our own constitution that is constantly challenged an amendments are made for clarification and universal understanding; Sharia needs that exercise as well. Your words resonate with me. We are planning on a Sharia conferences in the US and here is article on basic Sharia at Huffington post - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-ghouse/sharia-law-not-in-america_b_653250.html
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Farzana Hassan
10:10 AM on 01/17/2012
Thank you, Mike. Nice to see you on Huff Post. There's a lengthy discussion on my article underway on facebook in the group called "Progressive Muslims". I thought you were a member of the group. What was disconcerting about the reaction of the audience was their undue focus on defending an ideology rather than the victims of these heinous crimes. I feel the priorities of Muslims are terribly skewed on such matters. They did not ask me questions on ways to develop support systems for these women or how honour killings can be prevented. In stead they started accusing me of blaming Islam. This, despite the fact that I was careful in stating that it is a puritanical and conservative brand of Islam that is fixated on sexuality issues.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Dr. David Liepert
Author, "Muslim, Christian AND Jew"
05:24 PM on 01/16/2012
Farzana, I don't always (perhaps even often, sorry!) agree with you but on this issue you are correct. This sort of un-insight­ful, un-educate­d, un-enlight­ened and yet un-questio­ned and unquestion­able interpreta­tion of al-Sharia means Muslims who know and honour Muhammad's path can't honestly support any of it. So-called "Sharia Law" requires a complete reboot.
In Muhammad's day, while the Qur'an made it clear that adultery, fornicatio­n, and sexual oppression were things God hated, it also made prosecutin­g those sins virtually impossible­, by disallowin­g circumstan­tial and hearsay evidence, and requiring 4 direct witnesses to the actual act: without 4 witnesses the accuser was punished and permanentl­y ostracized instead!
A companion once complained that were he even to walk in and find his wife having sex with his best friend he wouldn't be able to do anything but swallow his anger: if he killed them he would be killed, if he spoke of it he would be punished as well. Regardless­, most Islamic scholars have studiously ignored that precedent and chosen to enforce their own populist interpreta­tions instead.
The most important principle I get out of the Qur'an and the Sunnah is that even though all God's teachings regarding appropriat­e sexual conduct is clear, what other people choose to do with their own sexuality is their own business. I agree, the impact of these fixations on other peoples sexual practices is profoundly negative, and sits at the heart of evil abuses like honour killings.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Farzana Hassan
09:42 PM on 01/16/2012
Thanks very much for the feed back, David. And by all means, disagree with me as much as you like!
BTW, your book sounds very interesting!.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Dr. David Liepert
Author, "Muslim, Christian AND Jew"
07:27 PM on 01/17/2012
Thanks for that Farzana, I'm going to give your work a second look too.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:38 PM on 01/16/2012
God is either right or he is wrong, god either provided laws or he did not, he either gave all humans equal rights or he did not. God either dictated the Koran through Gabriel to Mohammed or he did not. God either created a garden with one woman, one man and a talking snake or he did not.

The overwhelming evidence in all societies and cultures ancient or brand new in this world is that none of the tenets, creeds, laws, guidelines, land claims or otherwise came from an almighty and all powerful creator.

So debate between fundamentalists and moderates over rules set forth by a mythical being that has shown no evidence that they are anything more than a creation of humans to assume control over other humans is moot at best. Instead the debate should have focused on why there is so much disagreement, violence and struggle for control and power in every religious realm when no single human has ever been provided with anything more than long loved fables from which people wish to create doctrine from.