Nelofer Pazira: Sharia law is not the real problem for Afghan women
Women don't leave home, not because of men but because they don't feel safe
My phone has been ringing too many times these past few days – mostly journalists and producers calling to book an interview. I am an Afghan. The topic: "Sharia law in Afghanistan allows men to rape their wives." All of a sudden, there is an enormous interest in Afghan law. But all they are interested in is condemnation.
My favourite producer says: "We are looking for local outrage and you are our top choice." When I try to explain that I'm equally outraged at the way the media is treating this story, there is silence on the line. And when I say, what about context as well as outrage, she says: "Let me check to see if we have time in the show and I'll call you back right away." I never hear from her again.
I'll repeat the usual mantra: any law or practice that treats any member of a society, men or women, with prejudice should not be tolerated. But with the West's hysteria on this issue, I wonder whether we're not projecting our own fears of sharia on to what's unfolding in Afghanistan. In the West, we hear the word sharia and we tremble because all we know of Islamic law is the Taliban, the Danish cartoons affair and executions in Saudi Arabia.
In the case of Afghanistan, the new legislation will affect women of the Shia minority – about 5 per cent of the population. The majority of all Afghan women are in fact hostage to far more draconian practices, enshrined in customs and traditions that date back to pre-sharia days – and are in some cases contradictory to Islam.
Even in its conservative interpretation, Islam recognises women's rights to land ownership. It insists on the "consent" of both sexes when entering a marriage contract or sexual relations. What is branded as "sharia" for Shias in the legislature is basically giving Afghan men the right to control their wives, which is already practised widely.
While Hamid Karzai's government may call for the review of the law the attitude of Afghan men won't change with the re-wording of a legal document through external pressures, especially from the West.
Most Afghans suffer from lack of security. Afghan TV programmes break taboos by reporting frequent cases of rape and the abuse of young women. Powerful mafia gangs operate freely amid corruption. Most Afghan journalists working for one of the 14 independent television and radio stations risk their lives to report these stories; and the victims of these crimes and their families face social humiliation – in some cases retaliation and threats – by going public.
But there hasn't been a single protest in the West about these crimes which are affecting the lives of women every day – not a single expression of support for these victims who, of course, don't make it into the headlines; because we are too busy looking for "local outrage" in order to condemn the Afghan government.
This week more than 100 Afghan women from 34 provinces met in Kabul to discuss the situation of women in the country; they highlighted insecurity as the biggest impediment to their freedom and equality. Most women fear to leave their homes, to attend school or go to work – not because of their husbands, but because they don't feel safe. Their rights to education, freedom of movement and action are guaranteed in the Afghan constitution, but the gap between words and reality is too huge to be bridged simply by revising a few clauses in a legal document. Sure, we must fight to protect the legal rights of women. But we must also seek ways to bring about change so that legislation is relevant to the lives of women and men in Afghanistan. The majority of Afghans cannot read and write; an even greater majority don't go to the courts to resolve family and marriage problems. The few who are educated who might seek legal help are sceptical about the rule of law because of the corruption and lack of trust in the Afghan government and the judicial system.
This government has lost its legitimacy because most Afghans view Karzai as a Western puppet. Mr Karzai, of course, has been making concessions to conservatives to prove he is the leader of a sovereign state – in the hope this will help him win the next election. But causing him this international public embarrassment and forcing him to give in to even more Western dictates is undermining his already shrinking local popularity – let alone any chance of re-election.
By all means, help Afghan women. But spare me the hysteria.
The writer is an Afghan-Canadian journalist and film-maker. She starred in the award-winning film, Kandahar, loosely based on her own attempt to find a childhood friend in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited





Comments
No apologist for Sharia law will change that - but thanks for showing certain people that sharia law is not some nasty law imposed on women by men - it is enforced and wanted by women as well as men - in fact, women are ofetn the most religious and conservative. The law can protect people against religious powers.
This writer cannot say what IS ir ISN'T Islam - it is all open to interpretation and can mean anything you want. But if one believes in literalist islam, then it's OK to keep slaves, beat wives and rape children - just like the 7th c warlord mohammed.
Afghanistan has always been an awful tribal dustbowl - the 'West' or the 'British' did not cause that - that's just the way these primitive backwards people are. It is not we in the West who are hysterical, it is muslims everywhere.
Man made law meets with your approval because you are somewhat educated, probably white and male (or you want to be that demographic, no matter what the facts of your life may be). The minute the man made system deals you a blow, then its bloody murder. You are arrogant even against your Creator. You disrespect His Prophet and do only harm to yourself in your blindness. You are up in arms about defending a cultural tradition that is ending fast, degrading to the point that you wrote this defensive nonesense to vent--in other words, your insecurity shows, Mr. Westerner.
Would your grandparents defend your lifestyle? How about those before them? You testify as to your failings one moment and then justify your failings in the next.
Face it, you, as a human being, are a slave. You can do nothing without subjecting yourself to something higher than your whims. So, since you must fall subject to a higher fact, why would you choose some ideal that you can't meet (democracy, laisez faires capitalism, hip hop culture...)? God--Allah, Almighty--is Real and is Perfect. Subjecting yourself to Him is what you attack in myopic blindness. Beg His Forgiveness.
Eternal subservience to the totalitarian regime in the sky?
Eternal subservience to the great totalitarian regime in the sky?
Sounds like a form of hell, to me.
Re: "Man made law ..."
Considering any laws put forth in any religious text are almost certainly equally man made, the distinction you are attempting to draw would be meaningless. Unless you have stumbled upon actual evidence that your particular preferred laws are truly the product of a supernatural creator? (Besides, "it says so right here in the book!")
Re: "You disrespect His Prophet ..."
While I am not the original poster, and I myself do not feel motivated by the intent to disrespect, I would like to assume any god big enough to create a whole universe, probably isn't too worried about getting respect from an infinitesimal horde of partly evolved apes--such as ourselves--living on an unremarkable planet on the rim of but one out of billions of galaxies.
Re: "God--Allah, Almighty--is Real and is Perfect."
Somebody wrote that in a book, yes. And apparently we're not allowed to question what somebody wrote in a book?
Re: "Beg His Forgiveness."
Why? The creator of the universe would grant me a skeptical mind, then become angered that I put it to use?
My preference: Question anything that claims to be unquestionable.
Nelofer Pazira does the massively important cause of the treatment of Afghan women few favours by this piece. She claims that there hasn't been a single protest in the West about crimes against Afghan women, yet the Guardian published this in February (and I know this isn't an isolated case)
'Women, who make up a significant proportion of Afghanistan's population, have been killed, burned and threatened for attending school. Many teachers have been executed in remote villages by the Taliban during the latest resurgence'
As a journalist, she shouldn't have found this too difficult to find.
And I don't believe the reporting of the latest attempts to change the law could be described as 'hysteria'. They give essential oxygen of publicity to an issue which is more complex than just this.
Attacking those who are sympathetic to this cause, and creating a false conflict looks more like grandstanding than genuine concern.
Re: Afghanistan has always been an awful tribal dustbowl - the 'West' or the 'British' did not cause that - that's just the way these primitive backwards people are. It is not we in the West who are hysterical, it is muslims everywhere.
are you serious? Your comment actually justifies the main argument of the article-the same one you completely overlooked in your attack on various 'elements' of very different political and socio-cultural realities, perceiving them as if they are static, holistic entities. Politico- Religious movements in the Middle East have become popular among citizens because they resist foreign domination- this is not
based on a hate for western culture- but of western govt foreign policies in the region. British and U.S foreign policy is what has led to a MODERN- popularization of Politico Islamic movements, with Sharia law as a structure seen as impenetrable to foreign intervention.
What is problematic is that people like you- actually not like you- people with real power to cast judgment internationally, do so selectively and fail to realize the greater political implications of their rhetoric. "Condemnation" -describing the recent law past in Afghanistan as "abhorrent" reinforces notions of Western imposition of "values" in an militarily occupied country and region. British Imperialism has featured notedly in Afghanistan's history, even before the denounced Russian Invasion. These mullahs and apparent "authorities" on "Islam" love such condemnation, they take demands to change traditional forms of governance and human rights from political authorities; outline their obvious selectivity-in that the same governments support and have supported some of the most horrendous HR violations in modern times- and by association; transfer this mistrust to HR institutions with less politically charged and selective discrepancies. Hence, 'traditional harmful practices- sharia law is justified among local populations, as a means to resisting foreign intervention and the breaching of national and cultural sovereignty. No where is this more prominent than in Iran-where HR abuse claims are overshadowed by the shaky political history of U.S and British foreign intervention- PS Iranian clerical interpretation of Islam is what Shia Sharia law is based on, Wahabi- what the Afghan Government is based on is similarly justified by Abd Al Wahab's resistance to British foregin intervention in Saudi affairs earlier on.
Hence- Islamic practice is the issue- but slandering Islam as a whole gcements these rigid interpretations through the process described above.
For the majority of these posts-hearts are in the right place- but 'depicting Islam as the issue' exclusively- not only fails to realize the broader local and political processes that inform Sharia law- it does so in order to feed an ethnocentric superiority complex- limited knowledge reflected in a limited analysis. Attacking 'Islam' from the top as holistic will not help. whats needed is the empowering of local moderate voices which can only be achieved if 'foreign intervention' is no longer perceived as a threat- calling Islam anti-human while occupying Islamic nations will be destructive in this regard