Uthman Badar seems to write regularly for The Drum. I do not understand how the ABC still has a columnist who is a spokesperson for Hizb ut-Tahrir. I don’t have time to go into the details, but suffice to say that everyone in the UK has known exactly who HuT are since the 2006 London bombings — and if they had known before, there may not have been any 2006 London bombings.
Meanwhile, the man himself wrote yesterday trying to claim that giving sons twice the inheritance of daughters is not discriminatory. I do not have time right now to write a whole breakdown, but luckily his argument falls flat on its own accord.
Caroline Overington, who first reported [pay-walled] the case in the media this week for The Australian, wrote:
The imam of the Canberra Islamic Centre, Adama Konda, agreed that the “standard expectation is that a Muslim will leave full shares to sons and half-shares to daughters” because “one boy is equal to two girls”.
Notice how the two directly quoted statements have the word ‘because’ inserted, by the reporter, in between them. Why? Well because the Imam, as is clear in the court transcript, did not say ‘because’, he was simply explaining what the law is, not giving its reasoning.
But Ms Overington felt the need – for that requisite pinch of sensationalism it seems – to present an explanation of what the law was as being the reason for that law, so it could be made out as if Islam attaches, per se, a lower worth to women relative to men, and that this is the reason why a daughter’s share of inheritance is less than a son’s.
To me, the word “because” was not the most influential part of that paragraph, but anyway. Read on (my bold):
… As for the reason why male children inherit double the share of female children, this has nothing to do with the worth ascribed to either gender. Indeed, only those who see the world through the lens of wealth and materialism would infer the worth of people from the material gains they receive. Rather, the law has a context and is part of a larger coherent framework.
Ah! So the female children are not worth less, they just deserve less because, at the end of the day, inheritance is just stuff. Right?
… The consideration, which accounts for the differences, is not for who is valued more, but is based on factors such as the degree of kinship between the heir and testator (closer heirs getting more), the placement of the heir in the sequence of generations (younger heirs getting more), and degree of financial responsibility towards others (those with greater responsibility getting more).
The female has no continual financial responsibilities as a child, sister, wife or mother; these responsibilities are always on the men of the family. The husband is obligated to cover the expenses of his wife’s basic needs of food, clothing and shelter, as well as to cover the expenses of their children’s upbringing. The wife is absolved of these duties, though she may assist if she chooses to. She has a set right, by law, in his wealth, but he does not have a right in her wealth.
If we were to apply the atomistic view of liberalism, we may now argue that men are discriminated against! Of course, this would miss the point entirely, which is that the problem is not with Islam, but with the premises of liberalism which divorce the individual from the community and, in an abstract appeal to an intrinsic equality, neglect the circumstances of the real world, taking as a focal point the imagined, apolitical and ahistorical, free individual.
So the dependent female is not valued less than the independent male who is obligated to provide for her and she is, by the same token, obligated to depend on him (well, supposedly she can choose to take on the “duties” of being self-reliant — I wonder if Badar’s wife does).
I bet Badar’s daughters will be forever grateful that Islam has absolved them of the duty to look after themselves and their families. Lucky them.