I am pleased to see that Mr. Syed Mustafa Zaidi of Manchester, UK has been found guilty of child abuse. Zaidi, a Shi'a muslim, forced two young boys to participate in a ritual self-flogging exercise during the holy month of Ashura, in which Shi'a lament the martyrdom of Imam Husain AS, the grandson of the Prophet SAW. This act of self-flogging is an extreme one, only observed by a tiny fraction of Shi'a muslims, and even Zaidi's own religious community expressly forbade boys younger than 16 to take part in the ceremony. That has not stopped Mr. Zaidi from (predictably) claiming that this is an issue of religious expression and a necessary act of faith.
The issue is notable because it serves to highlight the necessity of governmental oversight of
religious practice. Not to define what religious practices are
"correct" or not, but rather to simply be blind to religion when
evaluating issues against the law. The question of whether
self-flagellation is an authentic Islamic or Shi'a practice is a
(bloody) red herring - the question is simply whether the actions
violated Law. And they did, so Mr. Zaidi deserved to be prosecuted
accordingly. Bringing this issue into the domain of religious freedom
only serves to cloud the issue, and taint the entire muslim community,
Sunni and Shi'a alike.
(see related discussions at Talk Islam and at Deenport)
child abuse
Wednesday August 27, 2008
Categories: The Gates of Ijtihad
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Subscribe
About City of Brass
City of Brass by Aziz Poonawalla approaches issues from the perspective of a Muslim of the West. Aziz, a member of the Dawoodi Bohra Muslim community, has been blogging since early 2003. His other major Islamsphere projects include the group weblog Talk Islam and the annual Brass
Crescent Awards. Aziz currently resides near Madison, WI with his wife and children.
Recent Posts
Most Popular Posts
Tag Cloud
Afghanistan, Barack Obama, Christianity, conservatism, Election Day '08, foreign policy, free speech, Green Revolution, guest post, hajj, health, human rights, Iran, Islam, Islamophobia, Israel, muslims, News, Obama, Obama Administration, PLI, politics, presidential election, Ramadan, religion, religious freedom, Republicans, terrorism, Ummah, women
Blogroll
- Planet Islam - aggregator of RSS feeds from all over the Islamsphere
- Talk Islam - group weblog and central nexus of the Islamsphere's most popular bloggers
- Islam in China - by Wang Daiyu, about Islam in the far East
- Tariq Nelson - Islam and politics from the African American muslim perspective
- An Indian Muslim - by indscribe, about Islam in India and the Subcontinent
- 'Aqoul - group weblog for analysis and commentary about the Middle East/North Africa (MENA)
- Chapati Mystery - by sepoy, "started out wondering what T. E. Lawrence and Bhagat Singh would talk about, over dinner"
- Mr. Moo - by Musab Bora, a UK-based muslim who has a hilarious sense of humor.
- Crossroads Arabia - by John Burgess, about the politics and culture of Saudi Arabia, with an emphasis on human rights.
- Eunomia - by Daniel Larison, pragmatic conservative political punditry and comment
- Dean's World - group weblog founded by Dean Esmay, "defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy."
Guest writers
- Ali Eteraz
- Hesham Hassaballa
- Zeba Iqbal
- Aamer Jamali
- Taha Raja
- Hussein Rashid
- Joe Trippi
- G. Willow Wilson
with regard to helmet laws, there are other arguments besides religious ones as to why a helmet should not be mandatory - this gets into the whole nanny-state debate, essentially. If such shades of gray exist then it's hardly an "accomodation" - it is more of an acknowledgement that the Law is more an attempt at social engineering than a flat moral principle. Laws themselves are not black and white entities and also have a range from outright moral dictates to utterly asinine whims. As such, the sikh-helmet issue fits neatly into the gray area.
this gets into the whole nanny-state debate
nations with universal health care are de facto nanny-states. the medical argument is a common one given for why sikhs should have to abide by them (though usually they end up not having to).
but more relevant to your point, some scandinavian countries (i believe sweden) have thought about banning infant male circumcision as child abuse since the the infant can't give consent and obviously reconstruction is a rather difficult process. obviously this intersects with the religious dictates of many muslims* and jews, and the non-religious customs of many africans.
* i know in some muslim countries males do not get circumcised traditionally until around puberty, like in turkey. so that might not be banned.
As you know, I firmly put these sorts of questions in the 'freedom of religion' debate because the defendents frame them that way and the state is required to consider whether such acts (cicumcision, ritual flogging, avoidance of wearing helmets, etc) are an integral feature of a 'religious tradition', and thus deserving of the state's protection.
Zaidi was properly charged, IMO. Forcing anyone for religious reasons (or any other so called "reason") to "torture" themselves is abuse. I'm not even sure a 16 year old should be beating on himself, but at least he can perhaps refuse. The younger children didn't have an option according to the charges.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.