Let’s give sharia another flogging
Published on The Drum, ABC Online, 25 July 2011
http://bit.ly/qyFOMt
It is tragic and ironic that the recent ‘flogging of a Muslim convert’ story weaved another strand into the anti-Muslim whip.
There was absolutely no mention of religion when this Sydney story was first broadcast on news bulletins, presumably based on the police and court reports.
When I heard this report about the 40 lashes with an electrical cable, I immediately cringed as I evoked Opus Dei and self flagellation. Here we go again – mocking, then defending and contextualising the diversity of Catholics.
But once the intoxicating word sharia was added to the cocktail, this local story spilled over into national banner headlines.
The story epitomised all the ingredients that so many Australians love to loathe and it played right into the hands of Muslim-haters: a young convert whose name happened to be Christian; a gang of four bearded men; an attack in the middle of the night; whipping the victim while he is held down; punishment for allegedly having alcoholic drinks with the boys. All the stereotype boxes are ticked.
Rather than feeling relief that this was not a Catholic, I empathised with the Muslim elders who braced themselves for a flogging. They pre-empted this with yet another condemnation of these (un)Australian crimes that have no right to incriminate Islam and no place in Australia. These crimes are neither sanctioned by Muslim clerics nor representative of Muslim communities, but executed by misguided Australians.
The sharia label was draped like a burka to completely cover this story, as if quarantining some imported disease before it spreads, as if the case was closed even before it was open. But the label shrouded many questions such as the relationships between the offenders and the victim, their mental states, pathologies, personal debts and mentors. Even if a victim or offender blames a religion, or voices in his head, or a movie, or a book, or a media report, this should not justify generalisations and criminalisations about that source. Just as the Catholic faith per se cannot be blamed for paedophile priests.
The story was no longer about a local crime which must face the full force of the law. It was now a renewed ‘I told you so’ moral panic that directly linked Islam with these barbaric crimes.
Even Prime Minister Julia Gillard tried to placate the panic merchants before they whipped up a frenzy: “There’s only one law in this country, Australian law”. NSW Police Commissioner Andre Scipione was just as blunt “There is no place in Australian for sharia law, full stop”.
What is always missing with these stereotypical stories is some sobering perspective.
If this is an isolated case of misguided individuals, do the extreme actions of an extreme minority deserve such moral panic? The victim reported the crime to the police who in turn acted swiftly and responsibly, putting the religion aside, and concentrating on the crime. One of the offenders was arrested and another voluntarily turned himself in. Both are now out on bail and it is now revealed that the assault had more to do with bad debts than alcohol or sharia.
In Arabic, sharia literally means the path (to the watering hole). It is derived from the teachings of the Koran and the Sunna – the example and utterances of Mohammed as recorded in the Hadith (narrative).
For centuries, Islamic scholars and Imams have had diverse interpretations of sharia, with many cultural customs. It is akin to the catechism for Catholics, except that its application is more localised than universal. Among Catholics, local variations can be seen with the liberation theology in Latin Americans compared with the crucifixions in the Philippines compared with the monastic movements in Lebanon.
Unlike Catholics, Muslims have no singular papal head of church or clear hierarchy of clergy. But like Catholics and indeed all faiths, there is the usual human spectrum of literalists, conservatives, moderates and progressives. The extreme interpretations of sharia criminal codes where the ‘haram’ offences are met with abhorrent punishments have attracted most attention, and need most perspective.
Catholics have their own canon law regarding the status of homosexuals, divorcees, abortions, unbaptised children within the church. The consequences are not normally violent or inconsistent with Australian law, nor are they directly attributed to the Bible. But they have been practised and observed by Catholics in Australia since the First Fleet.
Similarly, civil aspects of sharia have been practiced in Australia and not normally inconsistent with Australian laws. For example, customs relating to funeral parlours, businesses, Islamic banking, Islamic charities, halal meats. When family disputes reach stalemate, sometimes they turn to their local Imam where sharia is invoked to resolve issues of marriage, divorce, custody and inheritance. This can be problematic if the cleric has no formal training or accreditation in Australian family law. But it can also prevent the protracted and costly process of family court settlements.
This compatibility between Australian laws and sharia customs has been the subject of a new report Good and Bad Sharia: Australia’s mixed response to Islamic Law by Queensland academics Ann Black and Kerrie Sadiq, to be published in the University of NSW Law Journal next Monday. Their report reveals that 90 per cent of Muslims interviewed did not want to change Australian law, and they conclude that “the wider Australian community has been oblivious to the legal pluralism that abounds in this country”. Perhaps our well intentioned leaders need to read the report before denying sharia practices exist. They may never need to be enshrined in Australia, but the blinding criminal aspects may blur out the civil pathways.
Sharia criminal codes cannot be implemented by individuals or groups on their own accord. They cannot be self appointed law enforcers. This is illegal under both Australian and sharia law.
One of the rules in sharia is that one must always obey the law of the land, which always prevails.
Despite all these perspectives, I suspect that the offenders will receive heavy sentencing as a public deterrent to others who dare to take the law – whether Australian or sharia – into the own hands.
There is always something ironic about such public ‘floggings’ in order to steer people onto the right path.