Brandon Davies, Iraq and the Privatization of Islamic Law
At a recent speaking event, a student asked me whether or not Iraqi college students are asked to sign "honor codes" requiring, among other things, their maintaining of their chastity, much like BYU students apparently do, for the violation of which BYU's basketball star, Brandon Davies, was thrown off his team. (The allegation is that he had sex with his girlfriend, though the public reason offered was simply violation of the honor code. Doesn't matter for this post.)
I could only imagine. If a Dean at a law school in a more conservative part of the country, let's say Kerbala University College of Law, ever got it in his head to ask students to sign such a thing, which he never would unless he went insane, the result would be easy to predict. The 18 year old student would take it straight to her father, who would get a posse of male relatives together, who would arrive at the Dean's house with sticks if he's lucky, but more likely guns, and demand to know what the hell the Dean was insinuating about his family by asking about such things, and who the hell the Dean thought he was by assuming guardianship of his women, he knows perfectly well how to take care of his own family, thank you very much. I am not sure the Dean would escape unharmed, it seems doubtful.
The point is, no honor code. But it points to something broader, something I would describe as something of a phenomenon really not just in Iraq, but in much of the Muslim world, and it is the privatization of much shari'a dictate. When you hear Iraqi Islamists describe the legal changes they want in the law, you might get a few state prohibitions here and there, ban on alcohol, prohibition of money interest (I never think they are serious, but anyway), but not much. Even the headscarf as legislative mandate has lost of its former appeal. Islamists are fixated on the headscarf, actually just about any conservative Muslim I've ever known is fixated on it, leading one prominent Egyptian opposition columnist at some point to pen a brilliant column entitled (my translation), "Did the Almighty send down His Glorious Message to the Holy Prophet to Cover the Hair of Women?" But as legislative mandate, you really don't hear much. In fact, often there is an explicit disclaimer in Iraq among Islamist groups that hedscarf requirements are at all part of the legislative agenda.
What do they want? Basically, the state to get out of their way in areas where they think Islam matters. Let families be run by religious rules, repeal the state family law codes. (Art. 41, constitution). Keep in place, maybe even expand, rules that give men protecting their family's honor reduced sentences if they find a female member of the family in flagrante delicto with a man not their husband.
By contrast, far less sympathy and interest not only in state enforcement but even nonstate public enforcement. No Deans issuing honor codes. Nobody actually wants Sadrist volunteers roaming the streets deciding who is and is not engaging in "Islamic" behavior. It was tried, in conservative Basra, and it failed. The Sadrist electoral comeback was subsequent to their disclaiming those tactics. Perhaps two decades ago, there was appeal to that, which is why it started to characterize Islamic revolutions and conservative states, but Islamic movements today, from Hamas to the Brotherhood, realize it annoys people when they do that. By and large, not completely but compared to their "Sisters of Zainab"/basiji (Iran) and mutatawa'een (Saudi) counterparts, it is much less pronounced among more modern movements. It's best left to the family it is felt.
To be clear, this isn't liberal individualism. It's not left to the individual female to cover her body as she wants to. It is up to her father, unless she's married, and then it's her husband. (Naturally social pressure counts too, but not state pressure.) If she is Shi'i and wants to marry a Sunni, it's her father who decides it that's okay, not the state, not her and in some cases it will be, in some not. If her husband beats her savagely, then there is recourse, but again, it's not the state's business, cops don't see it any more their place to interfere there than they would to prevent her from marrying someone of the opposite sex. Rather, her recourse is to her father, her brothers, her uncles, her cousins, who have a sit down intervention with the fellow to tell him to act like a man and not like a bully. His own family male members might get in on it too, they don't want a wifebeater in the family. But the cops? No way any of the male members want them near.
The family, the point is, takes care of its own. That apples for wife beating and headscarves, and it applies triply to sexual activity. Meaning she has recourse on beating, she may even have recourse on headscarf (get a liberal uncle if she has one to convince her dad to lay off). And let's not caricature, the fact that in these conceptions the woman doesn't on her own get to decide such things doesn't mean she is voiceless. Convincing fathers to accept a prospective groom (or bride, men need permission too) is a much practiced art in Iraq. But she certainly doesn't get to decide whether to have sex otherwise. Not because of some honor code, but because the family will, definitely, from the time she is about 4, see to it that it's drilled into her head that such things are never ever done. Ever. Ever ever. Ever. To ask what happens if you do is not to understand properly the social ramifications and the extreme effectiveness of the pressure brought to bear by the family. What happens if you show up naked to your Contracts class? I don't know, and I don't know anyone who does either.
So a father not letting his 22 year old daughter travel to America for a two week international law competition is also acceptable, even if the Dean has no place at all denying the spot to a woman (he doesn't, there would be an outcry if he tried). Recourse to the denied daughter? Talk to her mom, see if she can talk to the dad, other male members of the family, if he's open to it get him to meet with the trip organizer (me in the cases I know of course), convince him it's not a sex tour (exaggerating, but you get the idea), etc. Often actually works. Not always, definitely not always.
Now even if the state is left out of it, liberals shouldn't be happy with that, as when it's left to the family, the weaker members of the family obviously suffer more, and the state should step in to protect them. Never seen a 22 year old BOY denied an opportunity to travel by his family. And repealing the family codes does not mean that every woman in Iraq will be married at 15 by any means. What it means is that those fathers who think that's a good idea will do that, while more urban fathers in more educated families will continue to think of college as an important credential for a woman to have before he lets her marry. Those of us who are liberal and think it is important to protect the weak (the poor, women, etc.) should be troubled by that.
Yet it is important to understand the issues before trying to address the ills, and the ill here is not a fear of stick wielding bearded types threatening everyone who passes by and doesn't meet their strict ethical standards. People hate them. It's allowing the state to grow into the role of protector of the weak, to the derogation of family when necessary. It'll take decades. And if it's successful, at some point along the way, conservative Muslim groups, faced with no other choice, will start to think of honor codes as an alternative means to enforce chastity not such a bad idea. . .
HAH
I could only imagine. If a Dean at a law school in a more conservative part of the country, let's say Kerbala University College of Law, ever got it in his head to ask students to sign such a thing, which he never would unless he went insane, the result would be easy to predict. The 18 year old student would take it straight to her father, who would get a posse of male relatives together, who would arrive at the Dean's house with sticks if he's lucky, but more likely guns, and demand to know what the hell the Dean was insinuating about his family by asking about such things, and who the hell the Dean thought he was by assuming guardianship of his women, he knows perfectly well how to take care of his own family, thank you very much. I am not sure the Dean would escape unharmed, it seems doubtful.
The point is, no honor code. But it points to something broader, something I would describe as something of a phenomenon really not just in Iraq, but in much of the Muslim world, and it is the privatization of much shari'a dictate. When you hear Iraqi Islamists describe the legal changes they want in the law, you might get a few state prohibitions here and there, ban on alcohol, prohibition of money interest (I never think they are serious, but anyway), but not much. Even the headscarf as legislative mandate has lost of its former appeal. Islamists are fixated on the headscarf, actually just about any conservative Muslim I've ever known is fixated on it, leading one prominent Egyptian opposition columnist at some point to pen a brilliant column entitled (my translation), "Did the Almighty send down His Glorious Message to the Holy Prophet to Cover the Hair of Women?" But as legislative mandate, you really don't hear much. In fact, often there is an explicit disclaimer in Iraq among Islamist groups that hedscarf requirements are at all part of the legislative agenda.
What do they want? Basically, the state to get out of their way in areas where they think Islam matters. Let families be run by religious rules, repeal the state family law codes. (Art. 41, constitution). Keep in place, maybe even expand, rules that give men protecting their family's honor reduced sentences if they find a female member of the family in flagrante delicto with a man not their husband.
By contrast, far less sympathy and interest not only in state enforcement but even nonstate public enforcement. No Deans issuing honor codes. Nobody actually wants Sadrist volunteers roaming the streets deciding who is and is not engaging in "Islamic" behavior. It was tried, in conservative Basra, and it failed. The Sadrist electoral comeback was subsequent to their disclaiming those tactics. Perhaps two decades ago, there was appeal to that, which is why it started to characterize Islamic revolutions and conservative states, but Islamic movements today, from Hamas to the Brotherhood, realize it annoys people when they do that. By and large, not completely but compared to their "Sisters of Zainab"/basiji (Iran) and mutatawa'een (Saudi) counterparts, it is much less pronounced among more modern movements. It's best left to the family it is felt.
To be clear, this isn't liberal individualism. It's not left to the individual female to cover her body as she wants to. It is up to her father, unless she's married, and then it's her husband. (Naturally social pressure counts too, but not state pressure.) If she is Shi'i and wants to marry a Sunni, it's her father who decides it that's okay, not the state, not her and in some cases it will be, in some not. If her husband beats her savagely, then there is recourse, but again, it's not the state's business, cops don't see it any more their place to interfere there than they would to prevent her from marrying someone of the opposite sex. Rather, her recourse is to her father, her brothers, her uncles, her cousins, who have a sit down intervention with the fellow to tell him to act like a man and not like a bully. His own family male members might get in on it too, they don't want a wifebeater in the family. But the cops? No way any of the male members want them near.
The family, the point is, takes care of its own. That apples for wife beating and headscarves, and it applies triply to sexual activity. Meaning she has recourse on beating, she may even have recourse on headscarf (get a liberal uncle if she has one to convince her dad to lay off). And let's not caricature, the fact that in these conceptions the woman doesn't on her own get to decide such things doesn't mean she is voiceless. Convincing fathers to accept a prospective groom (or bride, men need permission too) is a much practiced art in Iraq. But she certainly doesn't get to decide whether to have sex otherwise. Not because of some honor code, but because the family will, definitely, from the time she is about 4, see to it that it's drilled into her head that such things are never ever done. Ever. Ever ever. Ever. To ask what happens if you do is not to understand properly the social ramifications and the extreme effectiveness of the pressure brought to bear by the family. What happens if you show up naked to your Contracts class? I don't know, and I don't know anyone who does either.
So a father not letting his 22 year old daughter travel to America for a two week international law competition is also acceptable, even if the Dean has no place at all denying the spot to a woman (he doesn't, there would be an outcry if he tried). Recourse to the denied daughter? Talk to her mom, see if she can talk to the dad, other male members of the family, if he's open to it get him to meet with the trip organizer (me in the cases I know of course), convince him it's not a sex tour (exaggerating, but you get the idea), etc. Often actually works. Not always, definitely not always.
Now even if the state is left out of it, liberals shouldn't be happy with that, as when it's left to the family, the weaker members of the family obviously suffer more, and the state should step in to protect them. Never seen a 22 year old BOY denied an opportunity to travel by his family. And repealing the family codes does not mean that every woman in Iraq will be married at 15 by any means. What it means is that those fathers who think that's a good idea will do that, while more urban fathers in more educated families will continue to think of college as an important credential for a woman to have before he lets her marry. Those of us who are liberal and think it is important to protect the weak (the poor, women, etc.) should be troubled by that.
Yet it is important to understand the issues before trying to address the ills, and the ill here is not a fear of stick wielding bearded types threatening everyone who passes by and doesn't meet their strict ethical standards. People hate them. It's allowing the state to grow into the role of protector of the weak, to the derogation of family when necessary. It'll take decades. And if it's successful, at some point along the way, conservative Muslim groups, faced with no other choice, will start to think of honor codes as an alternative means to enforce chastity not such a bad idea. . .
HAH
Comments