Muslim Marriages on the Rocks Again

The place of Muslim marriages in the country’s legal and parliamentary frameworks has once again landed on the rocks. This time, debate among South Africa's Muslim leaders is building up to the Ministry of Justice’s call for comment to the draft Muslim Marriage Bill (MMB) before 15 March 2011.

Positions have hardened, but the challenge remains the same. Can the South African parliament pass a law that recognizes Muslim marriages, as enunciated in the constitution? Without a law, judges are left to interpret the constitution and also Islamic law on the basis of expert witnesses.  The sticky point is how to frame Islamic law on marriage in terms of the general intention of the constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights.


This reflection turns to those who have come to dominate public debate among Muslims. They reject the proposed Bill with all the religious rhetoric that they can muster. At the same time, they articulate unusual support for a secular constitution that separates religion and state. Both are worthy of critical analyssi. 

Founded in Port Elizabeth around a Newspaper and now a website, the Majlis under the leadership of AS Desai has led the charge against proposed Bill. His articles and writings have spread throughout the country, challenging Muslims and their religious leaders in particular to reject this and any other proposed Bill on offer. 
The highly charged debate on Muslim radio stations, on websites and in mosque platforms, is framed in extreme theological rhetoric. Anyone supporting the bill, even in some modified form, is meddling in heresy (kufr). The Bill itself is called Kufr MMB (Heresy Muslim Marriages Bill), and those who support it are themselves implicated in heresy.
This theological framing of the debate has had its desired effect. Many religious leaders who had previously supported the bill have turned around (and some have turned back to support it too).  New groups of religious leaders are formed, and coups engineered within existing ones. The charge of heresy has a salubrious effect.
The rhetoric has however obscured the main problem of non-recognition. Muslim women are the most obvious victims of non-recognition, particularly working-class Muslims who do not register their religious ceremonies in a civil court. In the past, when they approached the court for redress, they were turned away because Muslim marriages were “potentially polygamous” or did not conform to Christian ritual form.
The new constitution set out to change these colonial and apartheid responses. And the court record is beginning to build an alternative case history since 1994.
Not surprisingly, the defendants in these disputes have been men. They are the ones who unilaterally repudiate their wives, given them a limited amount of compensation at divorce, or take on second or third wives (often in mid-life crises). In all these cases, women receive meagre consideration or compensation for supporting homes, careers and businesses during the most difficult periods of a couple’s journey in life.
When summoned to court in these cases, men have taken recourse to fact that Muslim marriages are not recognized! The colonial and apartheid regimes harboured deep prejudices for not recognizing Muslim marriages; many Muslim men did not have to be taught how to use such prejudice to their advantage. One may say that these Muslim men have played an equally powerful role in supporting the no-recognition of Muslim marriage.
In post apartheid South Africa, Muslim men in conflict with their spouses want to naturally maintain this status quo. They do not want their wives to seek redress in court, nor in any progressive interpretation of Islamic law. The religious language of a Kufr MMB provides a perfect cover for this status quo.
All the substantive objections to the Bill reveal this male privilege. We are told in no uncertain terms that the rights of men are given by God and the Prophet Muhammad, and may not be tampered with. In some of the objections, women are regarded as emotional, deficient in intellect and wayward. Their demand for rights are framed as feminine weakness or religious infidelity.

Surprisingly, the objections raised to the proposed Bill also make a very explicit constitutional argument. They make an important point about the limits of the state in the definition and practice of religion. Echoing a venerable European tradition of the separation of religion and state, they are arguing that the proposed Muslim Marriages Bill interferes in the freedom of religion. Stressing all the values of a secular state, they want to preserve the so-called purity of Islamic law.

Clearly, the present debate does not revolve around the protection of ‘purely’ religious beliefs and practices like prayer, fasting and the like. And one has to look through the religious rhetoric to appreciate the underlying cause for concern. Not many would agree that the Bill of Rights was drafted to defend all cultural and religious practices. 

The Muslim Marriages Bill debate in South Africa deserves careful attention. On the one hand, it advances the cause of the secular constitution. More importantly, though, it points out how cultural practices can be clothed in religious rhetoric that limit the fundamental goals of the constitution. 

A weekend in Dubai! Thoughts on a Thoughtful Meeting

This was not a shopping weekend, but it is hard to miss and resist the fusion of souk and mall in this glitzy city. The Institute of Ismaili Studies invited me to speak to their alumni on how one may think of moral philosophy in a modern world. More challengingly, how might such a philosophy be taught by secondary school teachers.

It turned out to a great meeting, allowing me to reflect deeply on the kind of issues that I have been thinking about for a long time. These are preliminary thoughts shared on this blog.

Allow me a short digression. What really impressed me was the participants at this meeting. They were men and women who were involved in one or other way in education. Some of them were experienced, while others were recent graduates or still students. They were not only involved in Islamic religious education, but these issues clearly were most important for them.

Having read about the Aga Khan and seen a video documentary two years ago on how the Ismaili are facing modernity, I was surprised to come across very similar concerns among them about living in a modern world. I thought that they had overcome what many other Muslims were grappling with. They were concerned about the image of Muslims and rising tide of Islamophobia, suspicious of American foreign designs and policies on Muslims, and also about permissive values infiltrating religious  communities.

At the same time, though, they were clearly interested and willing to confront difficult questions thrown at them. I was here for 2 of the 3 days, but saw enough of a deep and critical engagement with the three of us invited to speak.

The first talk was presented by Dr. John Hull on religious education. He began with his view of education in general, and then presented a Christian theology of education for the modern world. He argued that freedom was the central distinction and pre-occupation of humanity. This quality was given to both men and women as part of the special creation of God. Created in the image of God, creativity was their destiny. And education should be directed to this goal. Moreover, he added, all religions should and were able to develop an argument for primary value of freedom. There was a place for training and even indoctrination in an educational system, but freedom was and ought to be the ultimate goal.

Prof. Liam Geron followed with an equally provocative thesis the next day. He traced the history of the Enlightenment in Europe and its antagonistic relationship with religion. Whilst championing the cause of ‘Man’ and of freedom, the Enlightenment and the liberal state were deeply committed to the suppression of religion. He also related the failed promises of the Enlightenment to rid humanity of barbarisms. In the name of science, state and the pursuit of wealth, the Enlightenment and its successors unleashed terrible wars and mass killings on humanity. Moreover, he turned to the modern liberal state as the inherited legacy of the Enlightenment. It too was committed to the elimination of religion from having any influence in society. Homing in on schooling, he showed how systematically religious education was prevented from playing a constructive role in the life of individuals and society. In the war against terror, religion was being used to serve the ends of the state.

I followed later with a talk on ethics and modern Islam. I began where Prof. Gearon did with the Enlightenment thinker Kant. However, I presented two interpretations of the Enlightenment. The first was lead by Alasdair MacIntyre who argued that there was no ethics possible in the aftermath of Kant. Having  destroyed all foundations of an ideal model of life, Kant could only bequeath a future devoid of ethical commitment. Against this judgment, however, I presented the argumen of Abd al-karim Soroush who recognize value in the ethical heritage of the Enlightenment. Turning the ethical heritage of the Middle Ages on its head, the Enlightenment provided a basis for science and development that made ethics possible. Going on from this modern ambiguous heritage, I turned to present how contemporary Muslims related to ethics. Using the example of human rights, I pointed out how identity had become a major obstacle in thinking about ethics and human rights. I then turned to the ethical heritage of Islam, and proposed that a close and critical reading might be helpful. As an example, I provided an overview of Al-Mawardi’s Adab al-Din wa ‘l-Dunya.

I hope to share my reflections on this meeting in another Blog, and perhaps a more detailed paper. My reflections will include a really interesting article that I read of Armando Salvatore on Muslims and the European public sphere.

Burning the Qur'an, Recognition and a Spot on Global TV

This is a Blog that has taken much longer to write....

I started with Terry Jones last week but then could not complete it. So I will leave my early (and still relevant) reflections here, but then complete them with related ideas on religious discourse in the public sphere.

Terry Jones, pastors to 50 in Gainesville, is a famous man. He is known to almost everybody on the planet who has access to TV, news and the Internet. It does not take much these days to get on Global TV. In spite of the latter's increasingly contracting attention span, a threat to burn the Qur'an, draw the Prophet Muhammad, or insult Muslims is a sure way to get you a spot.

Of course, one cannot credit the Terry Jones of this world for single-handedly turning free speech into media attention. Mass media provides a spectacle that is both fascinating and tempting. It appeals to a human emotion for recognition, so central to human interaction. Recognition takes place when we talk to each other, when we also argued with each other.  In all aspects, recognition is a kind of self-affirmation even when the other is attacked.

What kind of affirmation comes from public mass media, though? What does it say about Terry Jones?

I am not inclined to go a psycho-analytical route. I will leave that to the experts, but perhaps to Jones himself.

With my research project on Islam and public life, I have become more aware of taking into consideration early pre-modern conceptions of the public life in general. And this includes readings in the Qur'an.

In the last couple of weeks, reading thru the Quran has alerted me to many ways in which the believer is asked to respond to Other. I mean here the other who refuses to believe.

The responses are varied. One of those is to be ready to take up arms. But this is not the only one, not even the dominant response.

There are equally many others. Two of these are very interesting. The first is to recognize that the unbeliever is under the impression that what he or she does is good. The phrase used is "tazyin a'malikum" which can be roughly and literally translated as "beautification of your deeds." The perception created is that the bad deed (in the eyes of the believer) appears beautiful and good to the doer.  A second one is related but with the same effect. The heart of the unbeliever has been sealed (tubi'a). God has caused this.

There may be  others. However, these two at least put the onus on the believer to take a stand in the situation.  Condemnation is clear, but it is prefaced by a certain orientation. The other's misguidance is regarded as self-inflicted. Misguidance is given an aesthetic dimension, a beautification. The second option, of course, is that God has closed the path to good for the man. This perspective is again condemnatory from a believer's perspective. However, it lifts the blame even further from the Other. He or she is now firmly blocked from the Truth.

These values may be imporrtant for thinking about public spheres of competing perceptions and perceptions of Truth.

For now, I wonder if these perceptions of reprehensible behaviour have resonance in how Muslims respond to public insults (or perceived insults)? I have heard that US Muslims have the sense that they are under constant attack, under deep scrutiny.

More importantly, what do such responses offer for such a public? And how can this be contrasted by what Muslims actually feel today under the conditions of a modern public? If recognition is denied them by a public that is increasingly hostile, are they taking recourse to these kinds of perceptions?

Admissions Policy: Does not Race have a history?

An informative debate was held at UCT on its Admission Policy on 3 Sept 2010. The spotlight fell on how and why UCT has chosen race to address the imbalance in the student profile at the University.
UCT might be an eiite university, but the issues raised at the meeting reflected much wider concerns:

From the revolution that never happened, to the skewed manner in which race was being applied, to the failure of the schooling system, to the desperate desire for schooling, and to the racial profile of class. 

The meeting was supposed to be a debate, but it turned out to have been an opportunity to present yet another list of unsolvable quandaries. All of them were important, but the speakers seemed to be throwing juggling balls or pins around at each other and towards the audience.

As I was listening and trying to keep as many of these missile in flow, I thought that there was more than one had to add. It is not something to replace the others, but crucial for the set.

It is very clear that race, imported from the past, plays a big role  in our country. Looking back at the last 16 years though, race has acquired a new history. A new layer consisting of several strands has been added to the Racial Classification Act of apartheid. One of these strands is government legislation as well as practices. And this often receives the lion's share of attention.But there are others, as the history of race is not over in South Africa. I am thinking about racial perceptions and practices that have been changed or consolidated: that blacks have proven themselves to be incompetent, or that whites  have really benefited from BEE.There are a myriad other ways in which race is thought and practiced. The post-apartheid record does not merely consist of living in the shadow. Race is sprouting new directions that wait for our attention.

Race was taking on new meaning, adding to the apartheid legacy but quite distinct.

What does this mean for UCT's policy of admissions?

Not so sure, but we should keep juggling perhaps.

Halal and Public Identities

The University of Cape Town showcased its latest Research Report (2009) at a special event on August 16, 2009. As itstarted at 5pm, Prof. Visser and later the Vice-Chancellor, Dr. MaxPrice, were keeping an eye on the time to sunset. This was no mystery, as theytold the audience that the proceedings had to be concluded by the time the Muslims could break their fasts for Ramadan. Both special Halal food and prayerfacilities were arranged for the event.

This was not unusual for South Africa, butI want to use this event to reflect on the kind public religious identities inscribed by food. I also want to use this opportunity to reflect on theparticular direction that a Halal industry and an accommodating public seem to be moving Muslim identities.

These remarks by Prof. Visser and Dr. Price drew attention to the presence of Muslims. In particular, all who knew me expected that I had been fasting, and also expected that I would turn to the special food prepared for me. I felt trapped in these expectations. I suspect that they also thought that those Muslims present would make use of the prayer facilities.

As I left the room at the end of the meeting, the Halal food was left untouched and unopened at the entrance of the hall. Apologies to the organizers of the event, particularly Ms. Pather.

It is amazing how consumption patterns and provision make an impact on a meeting. The intention to provide the right choice of meals is clearly noble, but the effects that flow from these are not often considered. For one, they tend to pigeon-hole South Africans in all sorts ofways.

More importantly, with respect to Islam at least, these provisions are driven by a growing Halal industry that leaves little room for individual choice. One is bombarded by pamphlets, e-mails, SMSs and Friday preachers to be on the lookout for Halal certificates, preferably those issued by the authors of these missives and not those of the competition.The Halal industry also directs well-meaning public servants to provide special food. This is the least they can do for cultural diversity.

The halal industry is driven by two powerful forces. The commercial one is probably the stronger of the two. The second, identity, should not be ignored though. The Halal sign has become a powerful symbol of Muslim identity. It announces the presence of Muslims in a neighborhood or city. Moreover, it helps Muslims to express their identity in a clear and unequivocal way.

But what is the substance of the identity? How is this identity constructed? I submit that Halal identities are constructed in a highly restrictive way. They are driven by an overwhelming asceticism; a visceral repulsion towards all kinds of foods. And that list continues to grow as Halal authorities scan food production. Food technology becomes very important, as trace elements of insects, pork and other abominable foods are marked and identified. These days, sweets, milk, water and even toothpicks appear on these lists.

And it appears that this is how public bodies like UCT are presented with halal requirements. The presence of suppliers, of course, makes this all easy.

This particular outlook is a far cry from another approach to Halal, one that in my view is presented in the Quran. In comparison with the one I have described, this one may be called liberalizing.

It struck me as I was reciting the Qur’an one morning. I suppose that I was drawn to this view  because I had always wondered why food regulations in the Qur’an were mostly presented as an  exception to the rule: “He has only forbidden you…” (2:173 and 16:115); “Why should ye not eat…” (6:119); “"In what has been revealed to me, I find no food prohibitions except …” (6:145). The restrictions are mentioned, but they are presented in a general framework of permissibility. To say “all is permissible except this” is very different from“only this is permissible.” Contemporary halal identities live by the latter, but the former dominate the Qur’anic syntax.

In my reading, Verse (6:145) declared some exceptions of food that should be avoided. Before this, however, there are two pages that review food taboos among the Arabs. These include human sacrifice (perhaps cannibalism?), food specially reserved for men and women, and parts of certain animals should not be consumed at all. This verse is followed by a reference to Jewish dietary law, the main point here too being that the latter is too demanding.

In this inter-textual reference, the verse(6:145) does not restrict Muslims to certain foods. It makes everything permissible except “dead meat, or blood poured forth, or the fleshof swine … or, what is impious, (meat) on which a name has been invoked.”

Permissible (halal) food is presented as a relaxation of dietary rules among Arabs and the Jews. Identity was still being constructed through food, but in a completely different way from what we have become accustomed to. Identity was produced in a process dominated by a relaxation of dietary rules, not their increasing restriction.

Identity cannot be avoided in our complex society. However, we can look closer at how and to what effect they are constructed. One could have an identity defined by exclusion, or one defined by inclusion.