KABOBhero: Lubna al-Hussein
This Sudanese media worker was charged by the government with ‘indecency’ for wearing trousers, which carries the medieval penalty of forty lashes from a whip.
After this story gained wide media coverage, the Sudanese officials looked for a way out. Al-Hussein was an employee of the UN and was therefore immune, they said in an attempt to save face and salvage the law. She responded by quitting her job and demanding a trial in the hopes of getting it thrown off the books. Her defense was that the law was both in contravention of Islam and the government’s constitution.
At her second court date two days ago, supporters lined the street, many wearing trousers as civil disobedience in solidarity. They chanted against a return to the Dark Ages. The police used tear gas to disperse the crowd, saying it became a riot.
Al-Hussein has become a symbol, and hopefully this will embolden the people Sudan and Arabs in other countries to stand up (a difficult notion of course given not everyone gets media attention or was employed by the UN).
The court adjourned the case to investigate the UN issue further. My guess is they still want to use that as a way out, so as not to cause any changes to this draconian and senseless law.
Al-Hussein said she wants to get rid of Article 152, which decrees up to 40 lashes for anyone “who commits an indecent act which violates public morality or wears indecent clothing.” Indecent dress, many women there argue, is not defined in the law, thus leaving it up to the tastes of arresting officers and giving them no guidelines.
Al-Hussein’s willingness to fight patriarchy and to assert her rights is commendable. She said she is willing to appeal the case to the highest court. If effective, she could spare thousands of Sudanese women from state violence.
Also, observers should note that she grounded her arguments in Islam, arguing that the law as it stands distorts the teachings. “If some people refer to the sharia to justify flagellating women because of what they wear, then let them show me which Quranic verses or hadith [sayings of the Prophet Mohammed] say so. I haven’t found them,” she said.
If successful, this will bolster arguments by human rights activists that their campaigns can be rooted in religion. In religious societies, this may be necessary to achieve legal decency and to check the state’s powers. This is no easy struggle, but an ultimately necessary one.
Sudan should act just in this case and rebut the pressures of the less tolerant. Sadly yet predictably, it is turning to further repression to squash support for her. Police assaulted one of her attorneys. They also cracked down on another woman journalist, Amal Habbani, who published an article in the paper Ajrass al-Horreya (Bells of Freedom) entitled: “Lubna, a case of subduing a woman’s body.”
I applause al-Hussein and her supporters. Now, France needs an al-Hussein, too.
Incredibly brave woman, and I'm pleasantly surprised to see that she has many brave supporters in the streets.
"Also, observers should note that she grounded her arguments in Islam, arguing that the law as it stands distorts the teachings. “If some people refer to the sharia to justify flagellating women because of what they wear, then let them show me which Quranic verses or hadith [sayings of the Prophet Mohammed] say so. I haven’t found them,” she said."
If the Patriarchal society claims to get its supposed male hegemony from Islam, well then proving them wrong would be the best way to not only obtain real rights for women but would also cause cultural changes. She's basically telling the authorities that they are full of shit, and to prove that she can't wear pants, I like it.
[...] on Lubna al-Hussein and the Trouser Fiasco: here, here, and resulting social issue unrest [...]
Just another publicity stunt from a DDM (Deen Deficient Muslim) sista. Its actually against sa'riah for males to wear female clothing and females to wear male clothing.
Maybe now she'll get to seek political asylum in Europe. :Live the fast life. YEAH!!
Yeah, but Khalid – trousers are not exclusively men's clothing. Look at, for instance, the Pakistani dress for men and women. Virtually the same, save for that women's tend to be more colourful and have a long scarf for purposes of Islamic modesty. The dress consists of long loose shirts and loose, long trousers. Are you telling me that's unIslamic?
It is true that under shar'iah men and women cannot emulate one another's style; meaning as a man you cannot wear clothing which is distinctively womanly and taking away from your gender-identity as a male. But things aren't as cut and dry as they used to be in the time of the Prophet SAW; gender-specific clothing was far more defined than it is today.
Today, men's clothing and women's clothing, at least in modern European culture, have a lot of similarities but still have their differences. Women's clothing, for the most part, is generally quite different than men's even if the basic themes exist in both fashions – i.e. a shirt and a pair of pants. Additionally, if we're saying that pants are specifically men's clothing and something like a jalabiyya is strictly female's – then what of thobes? Are the men of the Khaleej emulating women in their clothing? No, of course not. It's men's fashion to wear kilts in scotland – does that mean that when a Scottish woman wears a skirt, she's emulating a man? No, of course not.
What is more important is whether or not Islamic guidelines for modesty are being met – are the man and woman's's awra covered? Are their pants and shirts loose-fitting? Etc etc. Even scholars of the Salafi persuasion believe it is permissible so long as the woman is wearing a loose garment over.
But quite seriously, bro, I think our Ummah has bigger issues than pants.
Excellent response Sana.
Also, keep in mind Khalid, that men and women do not wear the same type of "jeans." Male and Female jeans are VERY different. You only have to look at a pair of women jeans to see that it would be very difficult for a man to fit himself into them comfortably.
Furthermore, even if a women did dress like a man, there is nothing in the Islamic legal records that says that she could be punished (much less receive 40 lashes for wearing "pants").
Exactly. Even with the shari'ah ruling against the imitation of the opposite sex in clothing there is no specific punishment given. In fact, as far as my knowledge goes and if I'm wrong someone correct me, there is no punishment in the dunya for immodest clothing in general. It's a moral ruling with moral consequences and God is left to judge and either reward or punish in the akhira.
There is correct/incorrect clothing in Islam, falling in line with the religion's emphasis on modesty, control of the ego, and moderation. But that's not to say that that justifies lashes for wearing clothing that doesn't fall within the guidelines – when the Prophet SAW never did any such thing, why should we as Muslims?
I agree that it would be hard to define which is appropriate clothing, however it could be that ms Lubna wore pants tailored for men, and is seeking a bit of attention in an otherwise lackluster life; with the added bonus of free air-tickets to Vienna!!
Like you said, there are more important things then pants.
Not worth making opportunists like sista Lubnan heroes!
70 excuses, yo.
You are vouching for her "good Muslim" credentials, Will? Shouldn't one of this blog's Muslim members have done that?
so glad people are fighting about pants these days….
I'm really excited to hear about new underwear laws….and the brave souls who will stand up and FIGHT THEM.