First of all, I can say that some Muslim clerks are fanatically scared of the hegemony of Western concepts… and its “threat” to their values… They’re afraid of the pervading surreptitious consequences of CEDAW, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, that might affect Islamic traditions and lead to abrogate the Islamic family and society.
Muslim clerks overlooked many articles in the law that are advocating for enhancing women’s position in Lebanese society and judged the law from a minority of articles. Some of the women who were lobbying against the law whom I talked to said that they fear that if this law is passed, then the articles that don’t go in line with Islamic beliefs may be implemented forcefully.
Second, I’m pretty sure that Muslim clerks wouldn’t object on the issues that some articles of CEDAW call for and that DON’T conflict with religious teachings. Some of these issues include:
-Suppresses trafficking of women
-Helping mothers and families by providing access to maternal health care
-Ensuring the ability to work and own a business without discrimination.
-Providing educational opportunities, including access to education and vocational training
-Ending the discrimination in the field of employment, including the right to work, employment opportunities, equal remuneration, free choice of profession and employment, social security, and protection of health.
However, there are some articles that contradict with Islamic convictions. But before going into some of these articles, it’s crucial to point out that the issue of family privacy is sacred in Arab societies meaning that what happens in the family must not be disclosed to strangers despite the graveness of the situation. That’s why some men (and women) find it difficult that the law would allow women victims to report the assaults to the police station or other concerned body and expose their family issues even if the attack was a verbal one. This secrecy and the act of “tabooing” family relations is part of Arab culture. For example, even when a girl is abused (physically, sexually…) by a family member and even if the family member, say, is from the extended family, the family members would hush everyone and burry the case in the “3ayb” black hole.
As what I referred to above, some of the articles oppose Islamic beliefs. One of CEDAW’s articles call for ending forced marriages and child marriage, and ensuring that women have a right to inherit property. As one of those lobbying against the law explains: If a 17 year old girl wants to get married, the law wouldn’t legitimize it because she’s considered a child by the law and on the other hand, she can have a boyfriend. Illegal sexual relations of course are illegitimate in Islam… This is where the law conflicts with Islamic beliefs. The objection here relates to the issue of child marriage. In Islam, a girl must be consulted about the guy she wants to get married to and she must NOT be forced to marrying a certain guy. However, in Saudi Arabia, men are still raping children; all this in the guise of the holy marriage ritual. (http://news.change.org/stories/saudi-girl-12-sold-in-marriage-to-80-year-old-relative ) This is a dilemma!!! What to do in this case??? I know this is uncommon in Lebanon and prohibited in Islam, but dear Mufti, what if such thing happened in Lebanon, who’s going to protect the poor girl if Lebanese laws don’t and the father doesn’t abide by Islamic Sharia??
The second issue is inheritance. We know for instance, inheritance rights in Islam are greatly misunderstood. Because in general men are responsible for the family financially (Islam OBLIGES men to financially take care of the expenses of every member of the family), women inherit half of what men inherit. It is crucial to point here that women sometimes inherit the same amount or even more than men. (http://islamicmisconceptions.blogspot.com/2008/08/inheritance.html )
Islam tends to protect weak members of the family. If for example, a family consists of five married men and one of these men died and has little kids, even if the connection (the father) between the heir (the children) and the predecessor (the grandfather) is broken down (deceased), Islamic Sharia gives them up to 1/3 of the inheritance whereas if the father was still alive, he would inherit 1/5. ( http://www.iicwc.org/lagna/iicwc/iicwc.php?id=529 ) I included this example to explain that the issue of inheritance is not a simple thing and it doesn’t ignore women’s and children’s rights. On the contrary, it takes into consideration the various cases of inheritance conditions and ensures fair distribution of property among members of the family.
According to the law specifically to article 13, the state parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in other areas of economic and social life …to ensure equal rights between men and women in particular to (a) The right to family benefits. Islamic views towards inheritance might be at odds with this peculiar article as it might offer fair but not equal shares of inheritance.
Although article 16 of the law ensures equality in marriage and family relations, including equal rights with men to freely choose spouses and equal rights and responsibilities with men towards children, the law may not be applicable in a multi-confessional (and schizophrenic) society like Lebanon whereby each Lebanese citizen is subject to the laws imposed by his/her own religious background.
Examining paragraph 1, subparagraph (b) that states that “States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in all matters relating to marriage and family relations…” in particular granting “The same right freely to choose a spouse and to enter into marriage only with their free and full consent”, Muslims fear that the law would permit Muslim women to choose to marry non-Muslim men which’s forbidden in Islam. I’m not going to delve into this debate to avoid digressing from the main issue here. It’s important to note that the Lebanese state has made reservations to article 16 (paragraph 1, subparagraphs c, d, f, g), among other articles, that pertain to giving women the same responsibilities as men during marriage and its dissolution, the same rights and responsibilities as men in matters relating to their children, the same rights and responsibilities as men with regard to guardianship, wardship, trusteeship, and adoption of children, and the same personal rights including the right to choose a family name, a profession and an occupation. Although these subparagraphs don’t pose a “threat” to Islamic beliefs, they may conflict with the Middle Eastern traditions. Some Middle Eastern men and NOT NECESSARILY MUSLIM men fear that the patriarchy they once enjoyed could be threatened by the law.
Mufti Qabbani should bear in mind that Lebanon is a multi-confessional society…there are also secular Lebanese… This law is not directed to Muslims only…It’s not intended to banish Islamic societies (and for God’s sake when someone argue with me about this law, please give me another plea than this. This is way outdated.) With all the respect, rejecting the law is a mere act of rashness and bigotry…
Finally, I ask the Mufti and all the Islamic women organizations to reconsider the law with all of its articles. They’ve done wrong to Islam as they contributed to the already distorted image of Islam as a religion that suppresses women’s rights… I also ask his PR committee to consider the wording of the report and not to reject it as a whole but to have some reservations on it. (Consider the headlines of the various newspapers and you know what I’m talking about: http://www.assafir.com/Article.aspx?EditionId=1879&ChannelId=44278&ArticleId=2862&Author=سعدى علوه )
Note: I’m not an expert in laws or in Islamic jurisprudence.
All the secrecy and taboo is cultural and not Islamic.
And if a woman is being abused verbally, physically or sexually by her husband, who is going to help her? Because Islamic courts sure don’t help her because they do not grant her a divorce. And the Mufti doesn’t allow the law to take place. And the poor women are caught in between.
As for marriage and inheritance. There is an article in the beginning of the law which CLEARLY states that religious regulations are to be taken into consideration.
If a girl is 17 and *wants* to get married, they can get married 3al shari3a, then wait a year w ysajlowa legally. It’s not really a big issue.
Same goes for inheritance. And also, let’s say the dad passed away, and the brother doesn’t care about the family. He takes double the inheritance, and then doesn’t spend a dime to support his sister(s). This is unfair. This law makes sure that if he doesn’t perform his duties, his privileges (double the inheritance) is taken away. Which is downright necessary.
I don’t find it contradictory to Islamic beliefs. AT ALL.
Well, there’s something called “Khulo’ ” in Islam that grants women divorce, but again it takes a looong time before the courts approve… As you said, these issues particularly with respect to marriage could be resolved somehow, but I’ve tried here to present the main “arguments” that Islamic clerks gave in accordance to their absolute rejection of the law. I think also that the issue of civil marriage is a main concern for the clerks since the law allows women to choose their own spouses and this is forbidden in Islam (Muslim women cannot marry non-Muslim men according to Islamic Sharia). Thanks for your comment, Zeina.
Yes, Islamically speaking, a woman is allowed to divorce for a reason as small as she doesn’t like her husband! (And this is evident in cases through the hadith).
But this isn’t how it’s applied today. In Malaysia, a woman witnessed her husband cheating on her and when she went to the Islamic courts they refused to give her a divorce because she didn’t have four witnesses! This is outrageous!
And their arguments, respectfully, make no sense.
Even civil marriage. This isn’t an Islamic state. It’s a secular sectarian state. A huge part of Lebanon is secular (as you said). Why do you acknowledge the Christians and the Druze’s way of marriage, but you don’t acknowledge them?! It’s so unfair! And this is to say that they can go to Cyprus, get married there and come back and register! How does this make any sense?
And PS, even if it IS forbidden in Islam*, this is the woman’s business and hers alone. It’s none of theirs to forbid her. Do they forbid Muslims from drinking? If they don’t have a law against it then they shouldn’t against this. It’s a private matter between people and God.
*Not all people believe this. Many people (and they are more in number than one might think) believe that it is actually allowed. And their are scholars who believe this and who perform interfaith ceremonies between Muslim women and non-Muslim men. And no, it’s not clearly stated in the Quran.
Regarding the issue of civil marriage, as I mentioned above, I’m not an expert in Islamic laws, but as far as I’m concerned, there’s sort of concensus among Muslim clerks that Muslim women can’t get married to non-Muslim men. This is the first time I hear about the fact that there are Muslim scholars who actually say that civil marriage doesn’t oppose Islamic beliefs. Interesting. Do you have any evidence/link to that??
http://www.forpeoplewhothink.org/Answers/Interfaith-Marriage-FAQs.html
“The jurists who allow permission will all be moderates, and Dr. Mohammed is one of them. The matter is rather new so you would have to do independent research on others. The position of all jurists who subscribe to the “maqasid al shari’ah” approach is that such a marriage is allowable, and among them is the famous contemporary Shaykh Abdallah bin Baya. Regardless, our view is that a correct position is not determined by the plurality of subscribers, but by the cogency of the argument.”
Here is his argument: https://www.irshadmanji.com/sites/default/files/Eng_BothPages.pdf
His argument isn’t as cohesive as others I’ve read. There are many more, but I need to go for now.