TayoBlog

The Centre for Contemporary Islam at UCT organized a highly successful workshop at the Capetonian Hotel in  on May 22, 2010. The purpose of the workshop was to discuss the apparent deadlock on the proposed Bill to recognize Muslim marriage conducted only according to Muslim rites.The meeting invited a number of speakers to address the issue.Here follows my initial recollection and intepretation of the meeting.

Mr. Enver Daniels, the Chief State Law Advisor, opened the meeting with some reminiscences of the challenges that began with the interim constitution in 1994. He had worked with the former Minister of Justic and Constitutional Development, Mr. Dullah Omar, who had predicted that recognizing Muslim marriages was not going to be easy. Mr. Daniels suggested that without a Bill of Rights, many practices associated with cultural and religoius life in South Africa could be accommodated in law. But this was a thought exercise that merely emphasized the impossibility of thinking beyond the Bill of Rights, and beyond culture. Both were non-negiotable features of South African public life.

Ms. Hoodah Abrahams-Fayker from the Women's Legal Centre followed with a paper on the steady stream of women, Muslims included, who knocked on the door of the Centre for relief. Muslim women, it seems, did not find relief at the informal mediation institutions established by Muslims. The support provided by ulama was found to be particularly inadequate. The Women's Legal Centre also shed light on how it challenged the Ministry to stop procrastinating on the issue of the recognition of Muslim marriages. There was no need to have a perfect piece of legislation acceptable to all. Ammendments could emerge later on the basis of specific experiences.

One of the important questions that emerged from this second session was the cause for the long delay in passing legislation according to the Constitution. The delay could not be justified, as other contentious laws were passed since 1994.

Dr. Moosagee's sharp and focussed paper divided Muslims into three camps. Secularists wanted islamic law to conform to the constitution, while "ultra conservatives" rejected any law that would be incorporated in South Africa law. The middle ground was occupied by the majority who were prepared to work with a compromise. However, he warned that this third group opened the door to rampant secularization of Muslim marriages. Values of justice, freedom and equality would completely change Muslim marriage practices as we know them. For Moosagee, such values spelt the death-knell of the Sharian as a divinely ordained legal system.

Dr. Moosagee's paper got to the heart of the matter, but the responses were quick and decisive. Participants pointed out that the practice of the Shariah, it seems, was governed by everything other than justice, freedom and equality. Not many participants could accept that inference.

Rosiedah Shaboddien began with some fear that  everything that needed to be said was said. But her presentation helped in turning attention once again  to the lived experiences of women in society. The Islamic Shariah arrangements in South Africa had failed women. Most clerics selectively took from the tradition, and completely ignored its provisions for the rights of women. For example, South African practice discouraged women to demand that contracts stipulate limitations. Whilst the history of Islam had emphasized the contractual nature of Shariah, pointed out Shabodien, society and clergy now did not want a contract to stand in the way of love. In a contract, for example, a brideroom could accept that he will not take a second wife without the express permission of his bride, or give her the right of divorce. Shaboddien pointed out gender equality was a deep fear stalking the corridors of the Sharia as practiced in South Africa.

The final presentation by Dr. Munir Farid brought the day's discussion into sharp perspective. He homed in on the idea of Tradition in modern society. Dedicated to preserving community, looking back and upholding the values of the past, Tradition ignored the violation of rights on a day to day basis. And yet, whilst advocating preservation, tradition  could not stem the tide of social change. In fact, Farid showed how the Shariah was continually changing. Perhaps one could say that change came from the back door while the front door proclaimed that no change was permited. More directly, Farid seemed to suggest, there was much room for change within tradition.

The workshop was overflowing with ideas and perspectives. In a matter of one morning, it presented the gist of the debate raging within Muslim societies since 1994. It opened up questions that had been raised before. But more importantly, it brought these positions in conversations with each other.

Will a solution be found? It is not clear, but at least, the participants felt that the discussion could not and should not be stopped. This time, moreover, as many voices as possible should be kept in earshot of each other. More importantly, experiences with other religous traditions or of Muslims in other parts of the world should be brought into the debate.