Do unto others as you would have them do unto you

“This is our country. This is our religion, our culture. They should learn to accept it as such.” This was the response of a Pakistani friend when I brought up a recent national news item. Your paper announced it as, “Keeping it all in the family: Stage performer Qasoor Haideri’s son is to marry two of his first cousins within two days of each other.” I pointed out how such an occurrence is doubly horrifying to western minds. For one, it’s a case of marriage between first cousins which is considered incestuous in most western societies and often forbidden by law; and second, polygamy is arguably an even greater taboo and is, almost always, illegal in the West. It is also prohibited in certain Muslim countries like Turkey and Azerbaijan whose legal codes take after western ones. Would such news then reinforce the stereotype of Muslim societies as intrinsically orthodox and reactionary?

My friend’s rejoinder, though, is not without justification. The West is not always consistent in its own choice between cultural relativism and universal morality. The burqa ban in France is one such example. Prior to this, French women were allowed to wear as much (or as little) as they pleased in public, the only restraints being those of ‘public decency’. Even the veil’s detractors would find it difficult to describe the veil as too ‘indecent’ an item to be worn in public. Clearly, this is an innovation in French law and is Muslim-specific. It would seem, then, that the West is in no position to lecture us about universal and absolute human rights that apply, regardless of local culture. The pickle for us is that it is often the Muslim world that clamours for a universal standard of human rights and privileges.

When western cartoonists choose to break our religious taboos, we shout for a universal standard of reverence for all religions. Similarly when the French imposed their controversial ban, Muslim voices called for respecting the universal right of personal choice in matters sartorial. Invariably, these demands are predicated on the concept of absolute rights common to humanity, regardless of individual culture and religion. Since religion and culture are disparate, such demands would hold no traction otherwise. So are we inconsistent when we dismiss western calls for respecting the universal right of women to be treated equally?

My conversation with my friend did not reach this far, but I would guess his response would be that there is no indication that the women marrying Qasoor Haideri’s son are being forced to do so. Their right to personal choice in matrimony is hence not being violated. Fair enough, but there is a finer point here. Our country and many other Muslim ones allow polygamy i.e., the marriage of a man to more than one woman simultaneously. But polygyny, in fact, encompasses the reverse as well — polyandry, which is historically rarer but not unknown, is when one woman has two or more husbands at the same time. Notably it has been practised in traditional Tibetan communities. A legal system based upon the premise of universal and equal rights for men and women could very well allow for polygamy, but not just polygyny. Or are we better off being cultural relativists when the shoe is on the other foot?

Published in The Express Tribune, November 5^th, 2010.