Should Verse 34 of Chapter 4 of the Qur’an be banned? Religious Texts, Practices and the Constitution

The South African Human Rights Commission decided not to support a banning of a translation of the Qur’an which, according to a complaint lodged by Fazel Mohamed, promoted violence against women. Mr. Mohamed had found a translation of the Qur’an in a Johannesburg bookstore, and pointed to a portion of verse 4:34: “As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly).”

 Since 9/11, there have not been a shortage of individuals who have taken offence against one or another verse of the Qur’an, or of Islam in general. A pastor in Florida organized a ritual burning of the Qur’an on Network TV, while Geert Wilders in the Netherlands has built his political career on his promise to ban the Qur’an. Only this week, the details of a spoof on Islam and an apparently related attack on the US Ambassador in Libya are still unraveling. Fazel Mohamed has joined a rather motley group whose “mission” seems to be directed against some or the other symbols of Muslims.

It is difficult to make any serious comment on these events, other than pointing out that they are often childish and opportunistic attempts at gaining publicity, while playing out deep personal prejudices and conflicts. In our mediatized world, an attack on Islam is guaranteed to get you the attention of the media and an immediate reaction from Muslims.

However, Fazel Mohamed has tied his complaint closely to the prevalence of marital violence against women. This is a particularly endemic problem in South Africa, making the complaint less frivolous than it appears at first sight. While government and civic bodies attempt to eradicate the source of marital violence, the question of any religion’s complicity in promoting violence is a matter that deserves serious attention.

Prof. Pierre de Vos takes a view in support of Fazel Mohamed. He correctly lists a number of practices and views advocated by one or other religion in South Africa, which fundamentally contradict the values of the Constitution. Moreover, he suggests that the only reason why they are not proscribed is the support they enjoy from power lobby groups or powerful religions.

I think that the matter requires more careful reflection and consideration. Religious texts are complex, and religious practices should be debated in more sensitive ways. Both Prof. de Vos and Mr. Mohamed fail to appreciate the deeper and richer significance of religious practices in our societies, and their entanglement in a constitutional culture of South Africa.

All religious texts are part of a complex system of meanings and practices that go beyond one particular verse, or section thereof. There is a world of hermeneutics, but also rituals and dispositions that make up a world that is negotiated between the text and context, and past and present.

Over the last century, the verse has come under critical evaluation among Muslim communities. Its interpretation has come under the influence of modernization, a culture of equal rights, and in South Africa, the Constitution of 1996.

Under the influence of a new set of values, the verse has brought a certain level of discomfort among a large number of Muslims. Some of this discomfort was revealed when Muslims responded to Faizel Mohamed’s complaint. They tried to argue that the verse was not a blanket advocacy of violence; they said that it was not even violence when considering that one ought to use a tooth stick of piece of cloth; and they reminded Fazel Mohamed that this was a last resort in a desperate situation.

In their responses, Muslims exposed the limitation of interpreting the verse in the light of the values of the Constitution. They were not willing to admit the offending practice advocated by the verse. They hardly appreciated the patriarchal framework of the text. At the same time, however, they revealed their discomfort in a text that desperately called for interpretation in contemporary society. They demonstrated merely what happens when a text meets a new context.

Muslims in general are divided in their responses to texts like these. A minority believes that such verses should be interpreted in the light of new social values. The verse assumes patriarchy, but does not advocate it, they say. Strict literalists argue that the verse cannot be explained away, but then embark on social and political projects to reinforce or even bring back patriarchal values in society. Conservatives, who are in the majority, work around the verses and mitigate their evident excesses.

Ironically, both Pierre de Vos and Fazel Mohamed take a rather fundamentalist approach to the text. They seem to assume that religious texts are an accurate reflection of practices. Just like their fundamentalist counterparts, they seem to think that religious texts lead to only one set of meanings, and one set of acts. Fundamentalists demand a meticulous fidelity to these texts, while Pierre de Vos and Fazel Mohamed assume that they do.

Beyond these responses, moreover, the verse is part of a vast forest of texts and commentaries on marriage relations. This verse is a particular response of a husband towards the infidelity of his wife, and contrasts with another that deals with the infidelity of the husband. This verse is clearly patriarchal in tone and intent, but should be read with many more that emphasize which values (kindness, justice and fairness) a patriarch should cultivate. There is even a hadith that suggests that the Prophet Muhammad himself was not inclined to support the ‘right’ of a husband “to strike (lightly)”.

Then, one has to take into consideration the affective world around texts. Beyond the interpretive debates and social dispositions, texts form part of deeper rituals in society. In the case of the Qur’an, verses are not so much understood as they are heard, performed and experienced. For many Muslims, the full force of this section of the verse is only now becoming apparent in the public debate.

It is certainly true that some values advocated by religions, or practiced as such, are in conflict with the values of the Constitution. And this particular section of the verse in question, when acted upon literally, would constitute a violation of the dignity of a woman in a marital relation. And thus, such a practice (‘striking one’s wife (lightly)’) should be proscribed (which it is). But what about reciting such a verse, or reading its translation, or debating its interpretation?

Fazel Mohamed and Pierre de Vos are to be commended for raising the problem of religious texts and religious practices in our societies. However, they seem to ignore the deep engagement called for between the Constitution, a new set of values, and values and practices that have developed over time. Their questions generate more debate, but more often merely stifle debate, often the very debate that is going on in religious communities.

The Constitution of South Africa is a founding document that emphasizes equality, dignity and mutual respect.  These values overlap but are not identical with Islam, or with other cultural and religious groups. These values are clearly not embraced by each and every person in South African society. South Africans accept the constitution but they often carry on as if nothing has changed.

What is required is a full appreciation of the worlds of meaning and interpretation that face the constitutional challenge of South Africa. Any short-cuts close off this engagement, and threaten to replace one fundamentalism with another.

Values in Public Life

The Iraqi ambassador to South Africa, Dr. Hisham al-Alawi, visited the Department of Religious Studies, and presented a  paper on Islam and Democracy and related developments in the region. He made some interesting comments, but one stood out strongly. It is also the one that he re-iterated in different ways.

He proposed that Muslim intellectuals should ensure that ethics and values form part of public discussions and consideration. The values of justice and 'do no harm' ought to be part of the fabric of society, motivating behaviour and mutual support. Muslims ought to do more to support these values.

The sentiment was supported by Fatima Chohan, the SA Deputy Minister of Home Affairs. She reminded Ambassador that SA Muslims were doing well to assist the poor, but lamented the sectarian nature of religious leadership squabbles in South Africa. From a Home Affairs perspective, she knew at close hand what Muslims had done with Muslim Personal law and justice. Under pressure of a sustained public debate, the Muslim Marriage Bill and justice were being forced to part ways.

This urgency is expressed often among concerned Muslims in South Africa and abroad. They feel that the public profile of Muslims is dominated by conservative trends, or highly sectarian ones. The values that they associate with religion, justice, fairness and good values, are missing.

Where have Muslims gone wrong? Where was the wrong turn taken? Some then invariably blame religious leaders, obscurantists. If there is feminist angle to the critique, then men too are included in the accused line-up.

At this meeting, I also got the feeling that academics were expected to save the day. They surely knew the values of Islam, and ought to promote them in one way or another. Many may include academics in the line-up mentioned above, but the Ambassador thought otherwise.

I thought about this challenge, and even felt a sense of responsibility for my inability to take it up. Here was a country full of problems waiting to be resolved. Grab the opportunity and run with it!

The feeling of inability was, however, mixed over the years with unwillingness, and now increasingly with the realization that the lament and desire was misplaced. Unwillingness was invariably informed by my own commitments that I thought were more important. Like the individuals I am talking about, I do sometimes regret this. I think that I had my priorities wrong!

But what do I mean when I say that the lament and desire was misplaced?

The same feelings were often mentioned by a friend who put this is in bold and revealing perspective. Why, he asked, do Muslims not have a Mandela? or a Dalai Lama? or Martin Luther? He meant it as a serious indictment, to which I had only feeble answers.

More importantly, however, his question put the desire for goog public values in perspective, I thought. The lament and desire represented a deep disappointment in the representation of Islam. Islam had a bad public image, and a good Mandela who was Muslim, or even converted to Islam, would do the trick. It would put Islamic values in the public eye. It would do a great deal to the self-image of Muslims in public.

Why do Muslims need a Muslim Mandela? For that matter, why should Muslims be seen to be supporting good public values? It seems to me that the Muslimness of these values were more important than the values themselves.  I suggested to my friend that I thought that he was more interested in the image of a Muslim Mandela, than the values.

I think that the same might be said about the Ambassador's wish. With due respect, I do think it has a lot to do with extremely negative role played by "Islam" in the Iraqi war. If we leave out the American invasion for a moment, the role played by Sunni-Shia sectarianism, and the jihadists who tried to exploit the situation through the blood of Iraqis, is nothing to be proud about.

In short, Muslims need a PR for Islam. They know that Islam is otherwise, but for the Muslims. And my question is: are values important, or the image of Islam? We do have Rumi, and Sufism?

But here I am doing the same thing. Blaming Muslims for the sad state in which they find themselves. They are too focussed on identity, I complain. If only they would turn to values and ethics!

But why these questions, these lamentations? And why the desire to have Muslims representing them. I think that I am partly right about this.

Halal Certificates Under the Spotlight

South African media has been awash with revelations that the Halal certificates on show in shops, supermarkets, restaurants and butchers may not be as trustworthy as their green colour and Arabic inscriptions declare. Islamic religious scholars who have issued them since the 1980s may not be able to guarantee their Halal status.
The furore started late in 2011 when an allegedly disgruntled ex-employee of a meat importer presented a mobile video of workers pasting Halal certificates on pork products in its warehouse. This ex-employee, allegedly working for a rival meat importer, presented the video clip to a Halal authority.
This revelation caused a minor furore within the Halal industry. It was soon discovered that the Cape Town-based Muslim Judicial Council had issued certificates to the meat importer. It was also revealed that other Halal authorization bodies had refused to issue certificates to such importers.
In spite of their differences, Muslim religious authorities tried to limit the damage. They recognized the danger to the Halal certificate that had grown in leaps and bounds. It was now not only pasted on meat and meat products, but was present on milk, face wash, sweets, chocolates, vegetable soup, and even bottled water. The certificates ensured a steady stream of revenue to the issuing bodies. More importantly, it ensured a steady flow of  Muslim consumers to retail chains, restaurants and fast-foods.
The Halal certificate heralded the coming to age of the Muslim consumer.
In January 2011, the intrepid Deborah Petta of 3rd Degree (ETv) recognized a good controversy. She soon arrived at the staid offices of the Muslim Judicial Council of Cape Town, to see how this revelation rocked "the sacred tenets of the Islamic faith."
As usual with 3rd Degree, there was more heat than light as the cameras followed the officials of MJC refusing to be interviewed. But where there is smoke from the heat, there is a fire that cannot be ignored.
3rd Degree presented a binary image. Negligent officials of the Muslim Judicial Council were not doing their job.  In contrast, the cameras turned to the South African National Halal Authority (SANHA) as it explained its more cautious position. We got cameo shots of the pious officials of SANHA reading the Qur'an and raising their hands in prayer.
The media was doing it again: Good Muslim vs. Bad Muslim. Binary, contrasting images is the stuff that apparently made our world.
Understandable, Muslim consumers have been angry about the incident. Some have felt embarrassingly exposed. Others have felt a deep sense of betrayal in the Halal certification process. Others have gloated that they have the correct approach.
The controversy has been highlighted but its key significance obscured. The controversy reveals a deep transformation of Halal through certification.
What is a Halal certificate? At root, it is  a promissory note made to the consumer that the produce being sold is fit for Muslim religious consumption.
It takes the place of at least two personal engagements. It takes the place of a person going to a local market, and buying an animal for slaughter and consumption. The animal might even have been reared in the backyard, or a Common. It also takes the place of a person approaching a local food producer or supplier who attests by word and deed that the food is halal (literally permissible; not sacred and thus exposed to slaughter).
With modern food production, including the global distribution and flow of goods, these engagements  are placed out of the reach of most people. And this is where Halal authorities are born. The Halal certificate speaks for the self, and for an intimate relation between self and Other.
The Halal certificate demands faith in its ability to make a decision for a Muslim, and to replace these deep engagements with self, animal and other human beings.
This personal relationship includes one's ability to decide what to consume, and where to consume. It also includes the essence of a relationship with the other.
A certificate that was invested with so much meaning had failed. The controversy exposed the hasty faith in a piece of paper that promised that one no longer needed to make a judgment, or one no longer needed to build a relationship of trust with another.
Perhaps this is what the rage and disappointed is all about in the Muslim community. Companies and Halal authorities have not yet said fully what they were doing. Like other consumer goods, their transparency is often veiled under so many layers of half-truths, enticements and assurances.
The controversy has been useful in a way. But anger and disappointment should therefore not only be directed at the offending meat importer, or the negligent Muslim official, or the indecent media. It should be cause enough to mourn a hasty faith in a piece of paper, and the loss at a deeper individual and inter-personal relationship.