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
