TayoBlog

After hearing about the new round of sanctions announced by the US (October 2007) against Iran, I decided to probe the issue beyond the one liner soundbyte of lead articles in newspapers. The latest sanctions are closely linked to the as yet unproved nuclear weapons that Iran is reportedly developing, or has developed.

The fact is there is no smoking gun as Elbaradei has repeatedly said, but reading the liberal press, you would not come to this conclusion.

In the process of trying to read beyond the headlines, I came across a very interesting interview that the BBC conducted with IAEA chief, Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, in May 2007 and which has not been converted into regualr news. BBC's own report on the interview seems to sidestep the most important points made by Dr. ElBaradei. You have to be willing to listen to the interview on Radio, or pick it from the website dedicted to prevent sanctions and military intervention against Iran (http://www.campaigniran.org).

As one probes a bit deeper into the standoff between the US (and to some extent the EU) and Iran, one clearly gets the impression that the balance of the press is a misnomer. When it comes to national interests, and particularly the Middle East, the major Western Press is no different from the state-owned press that one finds in the authoritarian states in the region. Whenever a reference is made to the latter, the state's role is always mentioned without fail. But how does one mention the bias of the free press that suppresses crucial information from the public debate? I suppose one can be happy with the confinction that alternative presses will ensure that we get the information needed. But I do think that the western press has undermined its credibility on this issue. And like their approach to the Iraq war, they no longer deserve the credibility that they think they still enjoy.

In fact, one can go one step further. By slanting the news to the benefit of the soundbytes cycled by US and EU politicians, the press is clearly helping to create a mood where an air-strike against iran seems justified. And here you surely have a he burden of responsibility?

Starting in January 2008, I  will be beginning a new research project at the University of Cape Town in the study of Islam. The project is dedicated to a critical and comparative study of Muslim publics in different parts of Africa since the end of the Cold War. For the purpose of this project, a Muslim public is a discursive space formed by multiple and competing interventions on a variety of topics through texts (written and oral), gestures, rituals, organizations, institutions and multiple media. A Muslim Public is a form of public sphere.

The project has identified three countries and three key aspects of Muslim publics for detailed investigations. The countries chosen are South Africa, Tanzania and Ghana, representing three key regions of Africa south of the Sahara. In each country, the research will focus on three broad aspects of Muslim publics: agents, media, and effects.

The present and future of Muslim publics will be in the spotlight of our contemporary world for some time to come. This research takes a broader analytical view to map the possibilities and the threats that emerge from developments within religious groups, and the constraints that are imposed from without. Using the framework of of Muslim publics within broader public spheres, and focussing on agents, sites and effects, the research will help us to appreciate the past and anticipate the future.

For more information, please visit www.uct.ac.za/depts/religion, or write to me Abdulkader.Tayob@uct.ac.za 

The Council of Islamic Ideology, Islamabad, Pakistan has recently launched a journal called IJTIHAD. The journal is publishing a special issue on “Islam and the West” in September 2007. Khurshid Ahmad Nadim, the guest editor, requested a number of people to to express their opinion on some issues related to Islam and the West. These answers will be translated into Urdu.Since these thoughts will not appear in English, I decided to put them on the Blog.

 

1.    Today when we speak about Islam and West, how is “West” defined? What is the point of emphasis: geography, civility, modernity, political policy?

Both the West and Islam have acquired specific meanings in modern discourse that have very little connection respectively with a geographical direction and a particular religion or belief system. The dictionary or theological meaning of these terms has very little relation with the manner in which they are used. Because of this disconnection with reality, it is very difficult to be precise. In fact, it is in my view best to avoid the use of these terms altogther. Perhaps, we can only do so by trying to deconstruct their usage. We can specify their meanings, expose their geneaology and their arbitrariness.

In our times, the term West carries the privilege and burden of modernity. It is not a geographical direction but a state of mind, associated with the most progressive advances made by human society in the last few hundred years. The West is used to contrast against something else. The West is a claim made against other perceived cultures which are identified as Eastern, African, Islamic or Oriental. Sometimes, this association between the West and progressive values is weak, and at other times it is strong.

Since 9/11, the West has meaning has become very strong. This attack and the events that followed them have been the pretext for the re-emphasis of the West as a place of positive values, democracy and a beacon of light for the rest of the world. Against the terrorists and against Islamic radicalism, the West stands for these positive values. It can protect the world against the threat of violence and destruction. The West thus stands for good against evil. Looking at the use of the West since 9/11 helps us to focus on its power and its producers. We can see how the West is a form of identity against an enemy and against an Other. The West as a source of positive value is a self-ascription that is repeated in political speeches and popular literature. This kind of identification works best if there is clearly defined Other. For many, Islam has become that Other of the West.

We must remember, however, that West has not always been associated with positive value, both by people who regard themselves as such, and by others. Shortly before the events of 9/11, globalizing trends tended to reduce the significance of the West as a distinctive culture. All cultures were open to change and diffusion. And earlier still, during the anti-colonial movements, the West was regarded by the colonized as a source of oppression and arrogance. This shows us that the West is under repeated construction and change. And more importantly, its meaning is generated by those who use it.

2.    How are Islam and West dichotomized? Are there any common concerns between Islam and the West? Is the emphasis on similarities or on conflicts?

The dichotomization between Islam and West takes place through points of conflict and contestation. And one has to identify groups and individuals who wish identify themselves in relation to the Other. The second half of the 19th century was the starting-point of European imperialism when it increasingly adopted a colonial project together with a civilization mission. The prompted many Muslims, as well as people of other cultures, to define themselves in relation to this project. Many Muslims defined themselves in relation to the West. The West is a central component of Muslim politics, which can be plotted along a spectrum of Westernization to anti-Westernization. The West belongs to both extremes.

It is a prison of mutual identification that has continued in our times.

As people inhabiting the planet, there are obviously many points of common concerns and common objectives. But these common concerns are obscured by the dichotomies. Sure, there are also genuine differences as well. But the differences are magnified through these terms.

3.    Is the West, as a civilization, essentially against religion?

Taking into consideration that the West is an unstable definition, no easy answer can be given. The West is not against religion as such. But it puts religion, just like everything else, under a microscope for further investigation. In modern Western culture, nothing is too sacred that cannot merit reflection and criticism. At the same time, though, some of the major revolutions in European history have come from religious inspiration and motivation. Capitalism cannot be dissociated from religion, nor can colonialism. On the positive side, the end of slavery and civil rights have also come from religious determination and conviction.

Europe, with a long history of religious institutionalization and power, is more hostile to religion, than the US. In the latter case, religion was one of the foundation stones of a new state and society.

4.    Have Muslims in the West contributed to the new multi-cultural identity of Western civilization?

Muslims have contributed to multi-culturalism by their presence. They have demanded respect and equality for practicing religious rites and registering their association within these societies. It has not been an easy task, as fear and prejudice have obstructed their efforts in many of these societies and cities. Permission to build mosques in some European societies has taken many years. The democratic structures and institutions in these societies, however, have guaranteed Muslims a place. The persistence of Muslims has expanded the meaning of identity and culture in these societies. In the United States, where there exists a more accommodating attitude towards religions, Muslims have not faced these obstacles.

It should be remembered that Muslims are not only ones who have made a difference. Other cultural and religious groups, like Hindus, African Christians and Afro-Caribbeans, have also forced Western societies to reflect on their assumptions about identity and culture. These different presences have led to mixed results. Some have accommodated the new cultures, while others continue to resist multiculturalism. The events following 9/11 are used to limit this inevitable process.

Having said, though, it seems that Muslims have limited their contribution in self-centred ways. They have helped their host-societies, Western societies, to challenge their assumptions, and develop new ways of understanding groups, religions and cultures. There is very little evidence to indicate that Muslims, particularly religious leaders and institutions, have incorporated multiculturalism as part of their own ways of doing things. How do Muslims relate respectfully to Christians, atheists, Jews and Hindus in a multi-cultural environment? It seems that, for the most part, Muslims have not questioned their own assumptions of other cultures and religions. At best, they rely mainly on traditional notions of ahl al-kitab (People of the Book – Jews and Christians) to accommodate other religions and cultures. Compared to medieval notions of single monocultural regimes and modern nationalist regimes, such ideas are progressive. However, in the multicultural global village and societies that we live in, these are not adequate. The idea of a hegemonic Islamic state, as a default preferred option, has not been questioned.

5.    How is the role of political Islam seen in defining the relations between Islam and the West?

Political Islam, in whatever form, sets the framework for relations between Islam and the West. Political Islam stands for Islam, and implies that politics pervades the meaning of religion in Islam. For most Westerners, religion occupies a distinctive sphere of social life and a distinctive sphere of human subjectivity. Religion may influence art, politics and society, but it remains distinct. Political Islam with its claim of an indivisible whole between religion and politics is difficult to understand from this perspective.

In the last few decades, Political Islam implies, though, there is only politics and very little religion in Islam. In this way, the moral values and spiritual foundations of Islam are being obscured. Many Westerners are simply astounded when they get to know the ethical, spiritual and artistic aspects of Muslim societies. Political Islam plays a big role in obscuring these dimensions of Islam in the public sphere. It only puts forward the idea that Islam is political, and nothing else.

6.    How do you assess the role of Western media in covering Islam and its image building?

he media plays a significant role in the construction of identities. And the media by nature prefers to work with contrasting images of identities that stand out from each other. In this regard, Islam in its uniqueness and strangeness has been an attractive subject for the media. A woman with a veil, or a man with a flowing garment and long beard, stands out against accepted norms in European societies. The camera is attracted to these images. And out of these images, perceptions and stereo-types are built.

And yet, the media in the West is not as one-sided as it appears at first sight. The image that attracts the stereo-type harbours a desire as a point of contact. Out of this point of contact and this desire, conflicting sentiments are produced. Love and hate are very closely connected with each other, especially at their extremes. Whilst the overwhelming trend is negative, the Western media also produces some of the most powerfully moving and positive representations of Islam.

Moreover, one cannot forget that there are competing ideologies and interests behind the media, and most media is driven more by profits than politics. In this competition, one can easily identify media sources that are reluctant to exploit the negative image of Islam. They turn their criticism equally, sometime with greater vehemence, at conservative forces and political ideologies within Western societies. They often lead the way in exposing Muslim stereo-types in Western media. Within this democratic spirit, media does find a balance.

7.     What are the fears of Muslims against the West? Are they real or imagined?

Western countries clearly have interests in Muslim countries. Primarily, these are economic interests. Muslim countries possess huge natural resources, and not only oil, which Western countries need in abundance and at the best price. Muslims also represent consumers and a market for Western countries and firms. Some Western countries also have clearly political interests, the most significant being the support of the state of Israel. The 20th century history of Jews, and particularly the Holocaust, has created a special relationship between Western countries and Israel. Not all Western countries have exactly the same relation with Israel. Germany is the most acquiescent, and the US for very different reasons too.

Given these interests, Muslims have been suspicious of Western designs and plans for the region. In recent years, moreover, with the invasion of Iraq and the continued unconditional support for Israel, Muslim attitudes towards the West have become extremely hostile and negative. In these circumstances, it seems difficult to develop a mutually constructive relationship.

Fear and suspicion, however, cannot be the foundation for the future. They do not foster a healthy and mutually beneficial relationship. Another more constructive way has to be found.

It may have to begin with a more critical look at the meaning of Western and Islamic interests as such. While broad strokes create obvious differences, careful observations seems to easily explode the arbitrary lines that have drawn between Western and Islamic. Muslim countries are diverse, and the individuals that live within them extend their networks and relations across geographical and cultural boundaries. Similarly, the West is intensely divided within itself.

Perhaps we might want to take heed from Rumi’s reflections on the relations between self and other:

 

Events in the last week in Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan, have once again raised questions about the meaning of the “War against Terror” in Pakistan. Commentators have been quick to see in the Mosque saga yet another illustration of how Muslim radicals are undermining the rule of law, and dragging Muslim societies into cycles of violence and confrontation. In this picture, US President Bush and Pakistani President Musharraf deserve sympathy and support.

But this is not the only game in town. Many Muslims, particularly those based far from the centre of the conflict, see the saga in a completely contrary light. For them, the War against Terror has become a pretext for attacking Islam and Muslims whenever the opportunity presents itself. All over the world, it is the same story. The attack against Islam is consistent, even though it comes in different forms. Sometimes it is through Israeli occupation, sometimes through American occupation of Iraq, and sometimes even through Muslim politicians.

The two visions are mirror images of each other. And there is something wrong with their simple black and white presentations.

The weeklong Red Mosque saga can be better understood if we take a longer historical view. Founded on the idea of Islamic nationalism, Pakistanis have been at odds about what Islam might mean in a modern state. But in the 1970s matters began to change. When General Ziya al-Haq too over power in a coup in 1978, Islam as an ideology became part of state power. By this I mean that, in addition to religious groups, the military and bureaucrats also realized that there was benefit in playing Islamic politics.

In the next two decades, Pakistan foreign policy used the support for the Mujahidin in Afghanistan and Kashmir to pursue its interests. Inside the country as well, party politics were also divided on religious lines. Islam became a basis on which to gain votes, and therefore authority and power.

The Red Mosque fits directly in the power play of Islam in Pakistani politics. Through its first Imam Abdullah Ghazi, the mosque played a central role in the Afghan Jihad in the 1980s. And it has become the centre of opposition to Musharraf’s policy post 9/11. As Pakistan turned against its former allies, some of them turned against the new general and the new president.

Islam continues to be wielded as a powerful weapon for position and authority. The various divisions and factions that run through Pakistani state and society play with Islam as it suits them.

The War against Terror fits in perfectly with the religious politics in the country. The Good Muslim - Bad Muslim framework that it imposes on society provides support for both President Musharraf and his opponents. The former gets the support of Bush, while the latter can ride global Muslim sympathy.

Such politics provide no way of addressing the many problems that Pakistan faces. Religion/Islam provides a smokescreen for other interests. The veil and the beard are apt symbols for its principally mystifying contribution. It does not not really promise anything better than what the military general generals and the autocrats have promised in the past.

In the last 10 days, I have enjoyed the honour and distinction of speaking at 2 wedding ceremonies: one in the Northwest Province and one in the Western Province. These are two regions in South Africa. I am not usually invited to speak at these events, and I am myself reluctant to do so. Speaking at weddings, especially at Muslim ones, can be quite a challenging task which I prefer to leave to those more competent than me. Since the first was my sister's son, and the second my only cousin's daughter in Cape town, I agreed. I enjoyed every minute of it!

Sitting back, I have had the chance to think more carefully about these events. I realize that I should have done more of the thinking before the events. I did that, but now there is some opportunity to reflect in the aftermath!

Anyway, I raised questions about traditions at these weddings. At the first event, I pointed out that the relentless rejection of traditions breaks down the social bonds that binds people in a community or society. Especially in Muslim societies, I was targeting those who regularly attack social traditions because they do not conform to strict adherence to the Prophetic model. Without realizing the implications of this puritan drive, such approaches eventually break the ties that bind people. And marriage ceremonies, and especially its traditons, reinforce these social bonds. Perhaps traditions must change, I conceded, but they can only be rejected at the risk of greater social peril.

On another occasion, I found myself taking a slightly different approach. Some quick observers told me that that I was contradicting myself. On this occasion, I reminded Aishah, the bride of my nephew, Muhammad, that had she been a bride 30 or 40 years ago, she might have heard advice about how to serve her husband, please him to the best of her ability, etc. I read a passage from the great Muslim scholar al-Ghazzali to the same effect. But I tried to point out, in unequivocal terms, that she not follow this tradition. Even in 2007, the women in the audience laughed at me for even suggesting that they would take al-Ghazali seriously. I did not want to take any chances.

At the third and last occasion, I was running out of ideas. But I managed to focus on the importance of building an honest relationship in a marriage for which I quoted the great poet, Rumi. The quote is worth repeating:

If you perceive a fault in your companion, the fault which you perceive in him (or her) is within yourself. The wise is like a mirror in which you see your own image, for "The believer is the mirror of his fellow believer.' Get rid of that fault in you, for what distresses you in him distresses you in yourself.

For me, the relationship between two persons was most important and needed nurturing in a marriage.

Of course, I said much more on these occasion that I am relating in this blog!

At the last wedding proceeded to a close, I began thinking about the kind of traditions and symbols that pervade SA Muslim ceremonies. Societies and individuals are rapidly changing, but the traditions remain quite fixed in their broad, general outline. And that outline depicts the delivery of the bride to the family of the husband! As the last event came to a close, a beautiful song including a melodious salutation to the Prophet was rendered by the presiding Imam and about 3 or 4 men. The bride, with tears in her eyes, greeted her mother, her aunts and then her father. She was then received by her husband and his family!

The irony of this last event is that the young couple will be living in a granny flat of the bride's parents! So much for delivery of the hapless bride to her in-laws. And in the first wedding, my nephew and his bride were already married in court about a year ago. Both had been regularly visiting my sister over the last year!

My point is that social relations have been changing rapidly over the years, but the ceremonies pretended that nothing had changed. The pretence did not stop at the ceremonies. Society happily pretended that marriage was about families coming together. And family regularly delivered their daughters to their new families.

In reality, in South Africa at least. two individuals were joined in marriage at these ceremonies. Thinking about these experiences, Rumi's advise was probably most important in the circumstances.

Prof. Benatar at UCT's Philosophy Department has certainly sparked off intense debate with his inaugural lecture on Affirmative Action. The lecture and the discussion that came in its wake has produced a lot of heat, if not always light. But it has opened up a number of issues for a University in South Africa.

In his argument against Prof. Benatar's criticism against UCT policy, vice-chancellor Martin Hall argued that the policy promotes diversity at the University. Whilst not clear, this remark is self-evident to South Africans who see the country as diverse, multicultural and rainbow. And yet, this rainbowness has hardly been seriously tested beyond its effect in cultural celebration. What does it mean to have a diverse set of epistemologies? How do cultures produce a different ethos of inquiry at a University? Does this mean that there are multiple truths pursued at the University? Is this true of the soft sciences and possibly not the natural sciences?

Perhaps I am stretching the implication of Prof. Hall's remark, but is this an opportunity to taking up that challenge in a serious way? Whichever position one supports in the AA debate, this particular debate of multiculturalism has its own merit. I hope that students and staff might be interested in taking up this issue as well.

Presently, as many of you know, the question is intensely debated in Europe and the Americas. There, the questions has reopened questions of culture, modernity, religion, and values! The European debate, however, is taking place in the context of a war against terror, aka radical islam, aka islam. There are some who think that this latter issue is ignored by South Africans at their own peril. But for the moment, we might use the opportunity to add our voice to this debate from a different experience. And in the process, begin to look at the tremendous challenges and opportunities we face here.

After a flurry of activity in the first ten years of democracy in connection with Muslim Personal Law in South Africa, matters seem to have been bogged down. We are told that the draft bill is with the Ministry of Justice, ready to be sent through to Parliament for final tableing. At the same time, a number of rights groups are concerned that the proposed Bill does not go far enough to protect the rights of women. On the other side, I have heard from numerous ulama (religious scholars) that the proposed Bill is not exactly the Shariah that it is supposed to be. It appears that there is an impasse on the process between these two positions.

The caseload of Muslim marriage s seems to be building up, generally with women having to fight for their constitutional and legal rights through courts. Even though a number of cases have come before the courts, and the courts have made judgments that recognize Islamic marriages, there is still no legal framework that facilitates the resolution of differences. Aggrieved parties are forced to turn to the expensive paths of court litigation.

It often comes as a surprise to hear many South African Muslims say that that the South African government has not recognized Islamic marriages. Muslims in a victim mood find it easy to make this claim. After more than a dozen years of democratic, they say, Islam is still not recognized. The truth of the matter, of course, is that Muslims are finding it difficult to come to a consensus as to the terms of the Muslim Personal Law. I doubt that we will come out of this self-imposed corner.

But there is even greater irony in this matter. All the years during which Islamic marriages were not recognized by various governments, there were more than chauvinist colonialists and apartheid ideologues driving the process. In most of these cases, probably all, there were Muslim men using the law (both national and Islamic) to support their personal cases. Before democracy, men as defendants argued that Muslim marriages were not legal in the South African system. Marriages conducted only according to Muslims rites could not be brought before the courts. In effect, it was in their interests that Muslim marriages not be recognized by the apartheid system. Muslim men benefited directly from such non-recognition.

After apartheid, the recognition of Muslim marriages cannot be challenged in courts any more. The Rylands vs. Edross (1997) case set the record straight on this score. Muslim men could no longer use the earlier approach. But men, litigants above everything else, are still using everything in their power to declare the South African rights and democratic instruments off-limits to Muslim marriages. Now they are finding it convenient that Muslim marriage are by definition unique and special. Using this argument, they can avoid dealing with the real consequences within Muslim marriages.

It is my contention that before we see if the provisions of Muslim and secular marriages are compatible or conflicting, we should carefully look at whose interests are served by chosing one or another option. In South Africa, at least, it is not only apartheid that denied recognition to Muslim marriages. Muslim men challenging their wives in court promoted this non-recognition. Now, the idea that Muslim and secular marriages are a different kind of social instruments is serving a similar goal.

It is good to see a newspaper (Mail & Guardian) devoting some in-depth articles on religion in (South ) Africa. The focus the past week was clearly on the implications and effects of religion on economics and politics.

But the most interesting developments in South Africa will probably be seen in the field of law. The South African constitution makes significant provisions for relating religions to parliamentary laws. The parliament has passed some laws that directly impact in this field, but the courts have witnessed a lively forum where the issues have been debated.

In the last decade and more, we have seen a fascinating trail of legal judgments on the meaning of religions in society. The judgments makes very interesting reading, and include the meaning of the symbols of religion in a secular society, and the values of religion in competition with the values of the rights-based constitution. The opinions and judgments can be quite easily and freely found on the website of the Constitutionalt Court of South Africa.

My particular interest lies in the relationship between Shariah and South African law. I hope to use this forum to explore some thoughts on this matter. But I do not think that one should forget the broader framework provided by the constitution, and one that emerges in comparative study. In the current global climate, this is easier said than done.

Recently, a German Judge was removed from a case because she invoked the Sharia in her argumentation in a divorce case. She turned down the request by a Moroccan-born woman for immediate divorce on the grounds of physical abuse by her husband.
She argued that the woman should have expected this treatment when she got married according to the Sharia. In support of her decision, the honourable judge Christa Datz-Winter cited verse 34 of chapter 4 of the Qur'an.
German public opinion was swift, loud and clear. There was only one law that operated in Germany, some said. Others lamented the deterioration of life in Germany, brought about by those who brought the Sharia with them. Multiculturalism had definitely gone out of hand, was another response.
The reaction reflected the growing wave against multiculturalism in Europe. In the legal meaning of this trend, judges used to extend their analysis to accommodate the norms and values of immigrant cultures. In a spirit of inclusivism, judges went beyond German law in order to arrive at a more just resolution of conflicts.
The application of this principle in this particular case is difficult to understand. Why would a judge acknowledge the presence of an abusive relationship, and then chose to cite a so-called cultural norm to ignore the urgent application? Why cite the verse as argument? It is difficult to see how justice was being extended in a spirit of multiculturalism.
This approach can hardly count as a reflection of a multicultural policy. It spells rather its deliberate death by the judge, and more so by the public outcry that followed. The discussion of the case certainly has put it among many public conflicts and disputes over Islam that regularly appears on the front pages of European newspapers. Aspects of Islamic texts, thought and life are presented for public debate and most often for public rejection and parody.
This particular incident is worthy of deeper reflection, both for its own merit as well as its broader significance for the debate about culture in societies.
The judge clearly thought that a verse cited from the Qur'an was an uncomplicated assessment of Moroccan culture and Islamic law. In her view, there was a direct correlation between a text, or a part thereof, and a complex culture and society. One did not need to understand a person and her social context. One only needed to read a book or its translation. And the citation of the verse was sufficient evidence against the woman's plea.
This clearly Orientalist opinion is hard to believe in the light of almost three decades of cultural criticism since Edward Said wrote Orientalism in 1978. He warned against the tendency to reduce the complexity of a culture simply by looking at its haloed fundamental texts. Such an approach tended to depict the static nature of non-Western cultures through the static nature of their texts.
But Said also alerted us to the political project that lay behind the Orientalist project. The presentation of the Oriental despot, the Oriental female victim and many other tropes was a foil for international power and hegemony. In Europe today, through the last few decades of migration, the enemy has become much too close. And the public debate about Islam has taken up Orientalism's tools to keep the immigrants in their place. In this sense, the usefulness of Orientalism is not surprising.
But the case went beyond the opinion of the judge and the predicament of the case at hand. The advocate representing the applicant chose to make a public comment on the judge's decision. While the aggrieved woman herself protested that the judge's views were quite wrong, and conflicted with her own understanding of the Sharia, the advocate raised the alarm of the possible threat posed by the Sharia to the German constitution. And it was not long before the public debate turned around the horror of Germany under Islamic law! The German constitution was under threat. Germany might even soon be ruled by Sharia law. This was yet another occasion for European public opinion to vent its fears and frustrations on Islam out there, and Islam in their midst.
But this issue raised another aspect that Said's book did not deal with extensively. The judge also seemed to say that Muslim women, even if abused, must live by the culture that they had chosen! The woman of Moroccan origin should have known what Moroccan and Islamic marriages were all about!
The judge's response reminded me of something that has happened repeatedly in South African history. In one such incident, Pamela Scully analyzed a reported rape in George in 1850. The accused was sentenced to death for reportedly raping a respectable white woman. When it later turned out that the victim was not white, but like the alleged rapist, "a Bastard coloured," the sentence was commuted to hard labour. The respectability or otherwise of the victim needed no assessment.
The colonial laws applied only to respectable white women. And the "Bastard coloured" woman could not hope for its protection. Like the racism of the 19th century, the Sharia of Muslims acted as a foil to put women beyond the norms of German laws and ethics. Since the Sharia over-determined the persons living in its wake, its subjects stood outside of German law and norms.
While the public rejected the judge's decision, it also confirmed the place of the Sharia in relation to Germannness and Europeanness. Public opinion confirmed the judge's decision in a way that even she had not intended. She did not reject the grounds for divorce on account of the Qur'an. She had only turned down the request for an immediate divorce. When the matter became public, however, and even extended beyond German borders, Sharia was framed as the antithesis of German law in particular, and Western law in general.
And Muslims could not seek the protection of the latter. In an interview, the woman protested that the judge's understanding of Islam was totally false. German Muslim opinion also quickly came out in her support, and against the judge. But for the German public, it was simply another demonstration that Islam had no place in Europe.
Does this mean that the particular verse of the Qur'an, or Sharia values formulated on its basis, are not subject to scrutiny? Far from it! But one cannot help noticing how culture and public opinion are re-creating a new Orientalism, perhaps even a new racism.