essay no. 2
Sep. 9th, 2002 10:33 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
phamosmy second essay for columbia's liberal arts masters degree/human rights program is supposed to be 1000 words on a recent event, article, or book that relates to the subject i plan to study (women's/international human rights). if you would like, please read and make comments
The recent public attention devoted to Islam and the Middle East has exposed, in part, the inhumane treatment of women in fundamentalist countries. The press has written extensively on the strict interpretation of Sharia law enforced under the Taliban in Afghanistan, and even occasionally mentioned the slightly less stringent form subscribed to by the Wahhabist government in Saudi Arabia. Possibly the most shocking recent application of Sharia law has been in a country often overlooked by the American mass media, one not immediately thought of when listing fundamentalist Muslim states. In Nigeria, ostensibly a constitutional democracy, Sharia courts have sentence two women in the past two years to death by stoning for the crime of adultery.
The first woman, Safiya Hussaini Tungar-Tudu, has since had her conviction overturned on an ex post facto basis, as her “crime” was committed before Sharia law was formally imposed in her home province of Sokoto1 . But in October of 2001, her baby was used against her as proof the the divorced 35-year-old had engaged in sex outside of marriage. Had she never been married, her crime would have been fornication, for which the punishment is merely flogging rather than death2 . Tungar-Tudu first claimed she had been raped, but as there was no proof, she changed her plea “to having had consensual sex with a husband who divorced her two years ago. Before Islam came to northern Nigeria 5 centuries ago, a woman was not considered to have had sex outside marriage if she had a child by a former husband for up to 7 years after the divorce. This pre-Islamic custom has somehow become knitted into Sokoto’s 21st century Sharia law.”3
The second woman, Amina Lawal Kurami, was tried on very similar terms in Katsina province. Once again, her baby was the main evidence against her, and “the man she said lured her into having sex denied it.”4 An appeal was filed on the unlikely basis that “the father of Amina’s child is her former husband, using the defense allowable under Islamic law, that the foetus lay dormant in her womb since the divorce 2 years ago.”5 The appeal was overruled by Sharia courts in August, but the sentence has been suspended until Amina’s child is weaned. Though many members of Nigeria’s secular government have condemned the ruling, President Olusegun Obasanjo has indicated “he would not intervene directly in the case.”6 Appeals may continue all the way to the state’s Supreme Court.
Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights allows that “in those states in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right to enjoy their own culture.” This could be construed to indicate that Muslims in northern Nigeria should be allowed to enforce Sharia law as part of their culture. Since Lawal’s sentence, Nigeria’s justice minister has taken the opposite tack, claiming that “such punishments contravene the federal constitution, because they discriminate unfairly against Muslims.”7 Those in power in the northern provinces, however, seem to have no intention to stop enforcing Sharia. This has raised tensions between Muslims and Christians throughout the country, as well as undermining the presidency of Obasanjo. The Nigerian constitution explicitly “forbids any level of government from imposing criminal law based on religion.”8 In effect, he has demonstrated that he has no real power over nearly half his country, while that half flouts international human rights covenants on such topics as gender discrimination and torture.
When and if the stoning is carried out, Lawal will be buried up to her neck in sand, whereupon men from her village will throw rocks at her skull. This would seem to easily fall under the type of “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” that is explicitly impermissible under Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In addition, the fact that only men are to stone her emphasizes the underlying gender prejudices about both sex and cultural power that underlies much of Sharia law, and this case in particular. The law certainly discriminates unfairly against women, as the only concrete proof of copulation is pregnancy, and only women, obviously, can get pregnant. The burden of proof is significantly higher for men -- men were named as sexual partners in both cases, and neither were even charged after they denied their participation. The Sharia courts in northern Nigeria do not accept DNA tests as evidence, seeing them as an affront to God9 , so “to convict a man of [adultery] he must either confess directly to the court, or no less than four men have to attest to witnessing the physical act of adultery.”10 Also, the differentiation between the crimes of fornication and adultery seem unfair. Most first marriages in northern Nigeria are arranged by the families of the parties, so the woman later charged with adultery had no agency in creation of the one factor that will increase her punishment from flogging to death. There is finally no way for the courts to take into account the possibility that the sex was nonconsensual. Sharia courts demand just as stringent a burden of proof on rape victims -- many people must have witnessed the act. Therefore, though it seems to not be relevant in either of these particular cases, Sharia courts may well sentence a rape victim to death for being impregnated while raped.
In a sense, it may truly be cultural relativism that makes this crime so particularly heinous to American females. The idea of being condemned to death for engaging in sex, consensual or not, seems so beyond the pale as to be nearly incomprehensible. Many may say, however, that the role of female sexuality in Muslim societies is to be respected, and a Western prism not imposed upon it. However, there is a large difference between honoring and respecting conservative views on sexuality and cultures which demand that women be demure, and holding men and women to highly differentiated criminal standards with regard to their roles in any given sex act, with consequences potentially culminating in a cruel and inhuman execution.
The recent public attention devoted to Islam and the Middle East has exposed, in part, the inhumane treatment of women in fundamentalist countries. The press has written extensively on the strict interpretation of Sharia law enforced under the Taliban in Afghanistan, and even occasionally mentioned the slightly less stringent form subscribed to by the Wahhabist government in Saudi Arabia. Possibly the most shocking recent application of Sharia law has been in a country often overlooked by the American mass media, one not immediately thought of when listing fundamentalist Muslim states. In Nigeria, ostensibly a constitutional democracy, Sharia courts have sentence two women in the past two years to death by stoning for the crime of adultery.
The first woman, Safiya Hussaini Tungar-Tudu, has since had her conviction overturned on an ex post facto basis, as her “crime” was committed before Sharia law was formally imposed in her home province of Sokoto1 . But in October of 2001, her baby was used against her as proof the the divorced 35-year-old had engaged in sex outside of marriage. Had she never been married, her crime would have been fornication, for which the punishment is merely flogging rather than death2 . Tungar-Tudu first claimed she had been raped, but as there was no proof, she changed her plea “to having had consensual sex with a husband who divorced her two years ago. Before Islam came to northern Nigeria 5 centuries ago, a woman was not considered to have had sex outside marriage if she had a child by a former husband for up to 7 years after the divorce. This pre-Islamic custom has somehow become knitted into Sokoto’s 21st century Sharia law.”3
The second woman, Amina Lawal Kurami, was tried on very similar terms in Katsina province. Once again, her baby was the main evidence against her, and “the man she said lured her into having sex denied it.”4 An appeal was filed on the unlikely basis that “the father of Amina’s child is her former husband, using the defense allowable under Islamic law, that the foetus lay dormant in her womb since the divorce 2 years ago.”5 The appeal was overruled by Sharia courts in August, but the sentence has been suspended until Amina’s child is weaned. Though many members of Nigeria’s secular government have condemned the ruling, President Olusegun Obasanjo has indicated “he would not intervene directly in the case.”6 Appeals may continue all the way to the state’s Supreme Court.
Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights allows that “in those states in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right to enjoy their own culture.” This could be construed to indicate that Muslims in northern Nigeria should be allowed to enforce Sharia law as part of their culture. Since Lawal’s sentence, Nigeria’s justice minister has taken the opposite tack, claiming that “such punishments contravene the federal constitution, because they discriminate unfairly against Muslims.”7 Those in power in the northern provinces, however, seem to have no intention to stop enforcing Sharia. This has raised tensions between Muslims and Christians throughout the country, as well as undermining the presidency of Obasanjo. The Nigerian constitution explicitly “forbids any level of government from imposing criminal law based on religion.”8 In effect, he has demonstrated that he has no real power over nearly half his country, while that half flouts international human rights covenants on such topics as gender discrimination and torture.
When and if the stoning is carried out, Lawal will be buried up to her neck in sand, whereupon men from her village will throw rocks at her skull. This would seem to easily fall under the type of “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” that is explicitly impermissible under Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In addition, the fact that only men are to stone her emphasizes the underlying gender prejudices about both sex and cultural power that underlies much of Sharia law, and this case in particular. The law certainly discriminates unfairly against women, as the only concrete proof of copulation is pregnancy, and only women, obviously, can get pregnant. The burden of proof is significantly higher for men -- men were named as sexual partners in both cases, and neither were even charged after they denied their participation. The Sharia courts in northern Nigeria do not accept DNA tests as evidence, seeing them as an affront to God9 , so “to convict a man of [adultery] he must either confess directly to the court, or no less than four men have to attest to witnessing the physical act of adultery.”10 Also, the differentiation between the crimes of fornication and adultery seem unfair. Most first marriages in northern Nigeria are arranged by the families of the parties, so the woman later charged with adultery had no agency in creation of the one factor that will increase her punishment from flogging to death. There is finally no way for the courts to take into account the possibility that the sex was nonconsensual. Sharia courts demand just as stringent a burden of proof on rape victims -- many people must have witnessed the act. Therefore, though it seems to not be relevant in either of these particular cases, Sharia courts may well sentence a rape victim to death for being impregnated while raped.
In a sense, it may truly be cultural relativism that makes this crime so particularly heinous to American females. The idea of being condemned to death for engaging in sex, consensual or not, seems so beyond the pale as to be nearly incomprehensible. Many may say, however, that the role of female sexuality in Muslim societies is to be respected, and a Western prism not imposed upon it. However, there is a large difference between honoring and respecting conservative views on sexuality and cultures which demand that women be demure, and holding men and women to highly differentiated criminal standards with regard to their roles in any given sex act, with consequences potentially culminating in a cruel and inhuman execution.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2002-09-09 08:17 pm (UTC)This has raised tensions between Muslims and Christians throughout the country
Many may say, however, that the role of female sexuality in Muslim societies is to be respected, and a Western prism not imposed upon it
There appears to be an illogical leap between the first two statements and the third. Is the problem relevant to fundamentalism, a particular religion or a "western" viewpoint? It feels unclear whether the gender inequality is a direct result of fundamentalism, biased muslim laws or a natural evolution of (in)equality.
[I would posit democracy has something to do with it, as does being a 3rd world or 1st world country, though the two often go hand-in-hand]
Obviously, this is a short article, but I thought the specific target was a little confusing.
I really liked this though. I'm glad to see people thinking about it and writing about it. Please continue posting your work :)
D.
no subject
Date: 2002-09-09 08:38 pm (UTC)(Also, I think my personal bias against any kind of fundamentalism is showing through my attempts to present the argument in a purely rights-driven critique.)
no subject
Date: 2002-09-10 11:47 am (UTC)Well, given the lack of instruction and short length, it might score you more points then. I'm speaking mostly from English academic writing, where there's an emphasis upon being specific that doesn't seem to come into US academic writing. The same applies to journalistic writing between the two countries as well as a general rule.
IOW, I don't know if my advice is actually beneficial under your educational system ;-o
I think my personal bias against any kind of fundamentalism is showing through my attempts to present the argument in a purely rights-driven critique.
Oh, no. That would have been obvious if you'd remarked about Xian Fundamentalism and it's treatment of women. And the hypocracy of the West for not actually doing anything about how these women are getting treated here or abroad.
(Women are still treated just as badly in the majority of Afghanistan, etc)
Not that I'd be one to condemn Fundamentalism, of course... ;)