In Morocco, uproar over marriage law tests Islamic rule

[frigidmagi]

Washignton Post

Amina el-Filali, a moon-faced Moroccan peasant girl, seemed destined for an obscure life in this dreary little farming village 50 miles south of Tangier.

But that was before she was lured into sexual relations at age 15 by a 23-year-old unemployed laborer who took her into a shed next to the eucalyptus grove behind her house. That was before she was ushered into an early wedding, with the man who took her virginity, by a traditional Muslim family eager to salvage its honor. And that was before she swallowed rat poison to commit suicide rather than endure what she told her mother was an unbearable marriage.

Since Amina took her life shortly before lunch March 10, she has become a national cause, an icon for women’s groups, human rights organizations, progressive politicians and millions of ­Western-oriented Moroccans who have demanded changing a law that permits marriage at such a young age.

The law under attack is based on Islamic jurisprudence and tradition. As a result, the demands for change present a particularly unwelcome challenge to Morocco’s new Islamist government, which was elected in November on a promise to make Morocco more Islamic — not less.

The quandary faced by Prime Minister Abdelilah Benkirane and his Justice and Development Party, Morocco’s main Islamist group, has high stakes for Morocco, which depends heavily on European tourism and thus on its reputation abroad.

But it is emblematic of tensions emerging in places such as Egypt, Tunisia and Libya, where Islamic groups rising to positions of power in the aftermath of the Arab Spring are beginning to confront pressures pitting principles imported from the West against their Islamic traditions.

“Little girls raped in their village — it happens all the time,” said Khadija Ryadi, head of the Moroccan Human Rights Association in Rabat, the capital, about 100 miles south of here. “But it was important this time, because everyone is waiting to see what the reaction of an Islamic government will be.”

The demands for change have arisen only eight years after a landmark modernization of the country’s family code, spearheaded by King Mohammed VI. That effort was widely hailed — by the United States, the United Nations, European governments and human rights groups — as a triumph for the then-newly crowned king and an example for the rest of the Arab world.

The family code, or mudawana, set 18 as the legal age for marriage for both sexes. But it also provided for exceptions to be decided by judges on the basis of special legal and social circumstances. In practice, the provision robbed the age limit of much of its meaning; the Justice Ministry estimates the number of such exceptions at about 35,000 a year.

Now the uproar set off by Amina’s case has led to an effervescent Internet reaction in Morocco, with loose allegations of rape and demands for immediate change, including a Facebook site named “We are all Amina” and a deluge of tweets repeating the slogan.

Anti-rape demonstrations have been staged in the largest cities, attended mainly by women. The U.N. office in Morocco declared that marriage laws should be modernized, and the left-wing Socialist Union of Popular Forces party has petitioned for a parliamentary investigation mandated to recommend amendments.

Amina grew up in a cinder-block home, one of a few dozen scattered around the dirt lanes of Karmida. Her father, Lahsin el-Filali, 48, a farmhand who makes about $6 a day, took a second wife when Amina was 10. The family remained united, and she was close to her mother, Zohra, 44. Although she was behind several grades, Amina attended a local school and, according to her mother, dreamed of becoming an engineer.

Amina went to the shed by the eucalyptus grove only because the laborer, a neighbor named Mustapha el-Hallaq, forced her to, the mother said. “She was never his girlfriend,” she said. “If she went with him, it was because he would accost her on the way home from school. He would take her to the grove, and that’s where it happened.”

The parents discussed their daughter’s relationship with Hallaq in a lengthy interview at the family’s home, over heavily sugared mint tea, fried eggs and several loaves of bread.

Amina’s father described Hallaq as a local tough and said he had complained to the police about Hallaq’s advances toward Amina. When she revealed the sexual relations, he and Amina’s mother said, she told them that Hallaq had forced himself on her. “Rape” was the word they used.

Nevertheless, the parents met with Hallaq’s parents, and together they de­cided to go to a judge and ask for authorization for the young couple to marry, what Zohra described as a “compromise” between the families. Both sets of parents knew that in Moroccan tradition, particularly in the countryside, a later marriage to another man would have been impossible once it became known Amina was no longer a virgin. In addition, Hallaq was to pay a bride’s price of $625. According to Moroccan tradition, the amount was specified in the marriage contract. But Amina’s father said it was never paid.

“I did not want the marriage,” said the father, sitting with his first wife across the table and his second, seven years younger than Zohra and the mother of a boisterous 5-year-old daughter, a little to his left. “But Zohra said it was necessary for the honor of our family.”

Informed of the marriage plans, Amina instinctively resisted and then resigned herself, he said. “She said at first that she didn’t love him,” he said, “but then, as the procedure with the judges went on, she said, ‘Okay, he’ll be my husband.’ ”

The couple were formally married Dec. 12, and Amina moved in with Hallaq’s family nearby. Zohra said her daughter visited frequently and soon began to express her misery, citing beatings from Hallaq and unkind treatment from his family.

“I don’t know for sure what was happening, because she was at his house and I was at my house,” the mother said. “But she used to come here and complain that he was beating her. I told her that if that was so, she should go to the police and lodge a formal complaint. But she never did. She was afraid of him.”

(Hallaq was unable to provide his version of events; his mother said he was gone from Karmida. But he told a Moroccan journalist recently that the affair began with a phone call from Amina. He said that all the sexual relations were consensual and that he agreed to the marriage out of regard for Amina. As for the suicide, he said, his bride often seemed sick after her visits home, where, he said, her father would beat her.)

Even on the day Amina went to the market to buy rat poison, the mother said, witnesses saw Hallaq beating her along the way. She bought the poison and took it home in the late morning. She began vomiting after lunch and died in the hospital that afternoon, the parents said.

On the walls of their living room, decorated in gaudy plastic, hung studio photographs of Amina’s two elder sisters, Fatiha and Hamida, both beaming in their wedding dresses. Asked why Amina’s photo was not also displayed, the mother reached into a plastic bag and pulled out an ID-style head shot showing Amina with a strict Muslim covering over her hair and forehead. Another photo in the sack showed Hallaq on the day he married Amina, decked out in new clothes with a stylish scarf around his neck and standing alone in front of an idealized seaside scene painted on the wall.

The government’s stance

The Islamist government’s justice and liberties minister, Mustafa Ramid, and its family affairs minister, Bassima Hakkaoui, declined to be interviewed about Amina’s case. Earlier, however, Hakkaoui said a change in the early-marriage provisions, contained in Article 475 of the penal code, was not on her agenda.

“Article 475 is unlikely to be abrogated from one day to the next under pressure from international public opinion,” she told Moroccan journalists. “Sometimes marriage of the raped woman to her rapist does not bring real harm.”

Hisham Mellati, Ramid’s penal-law attache, said a police investigation, citing neighbors, showed that Amina and Hallaq had been sweethearts for months, stealing off frequently to the shelter of the eucalyptus trees. Mellati, fingering through a thick file at the Justice Ministry in Rabat, said that, on the basis of the investigation and Amina’s testimony, judges concluded that the sexual relations were consensual and that Amina was a willing partner in the marriage.

Much of the agitation surrounding Amina’s case, including its description as a rape, is thus ill-founded, he said.

According to Morocco’s penal law, Mellati said, rape with the use of violence is automatically prosecuted and is punishable by prison. Even if the sexual relations between a young girl and an older man are consensual, he said, there can be a crime classified as “leading a minor astray,” which is roughly parallel to statutory rape. But the degree to which Amina was pressured into the sexual relations was unclear, he said.

In any case, if there is no violence, judges can grant permission for early marriage despite the family code, he said, provided the families petition the court and follow a procedure that takes several months. In Amina’s case, he added, there were five sessions, including one in which the judge sat alone with Amina to ensure she was not being pressured to accept the marriage. “The law was strictly followed,” Mellati said.

The Justice Ministry has for some time been studying an overhaul of the entire penal code, which dates to 1962, Mellati said. When it comes time to consider Article 475, it will be judged according to the same criteria as other laws and amended “if Moroccan society wants it,” he added. In the meantime, he said, a police investigation is looking into what pushed Amina to commit suicide. It has as yet reached no conclusion.

Although the wave of protests has been directed at the Islamist government, Morocco’s monarch, regarded as a descendant of the prophet Muhammad, has retained the right to intervene. His role as ultimate arbiter of religious values gives him the power. Moreover, the controversy is tied to the family code, which was his signature initiative.

A new constitution, issued last year after demonstrations tied to the Arab Spring, was welcomed as an advance toward democracy because it committed the king to name a government from the party with the most votes. This put Islamists into the government, but the king kept defense, security and national religious affairs in his hands.

So far, in public at least, he has kept silent on Amina.

What a sad story.

[Charon]

The situation is sad, but the outcry is wonderful.

"Oh no, these countries are choosing Conservative Muslim ideologies in their democracies!" Yeah, and they are still democracies, which means that the moderates and the liberals who cannot stand some of the BS the conservatives do get a voice, and if they try it can be a loud one, and no democracy was ever set in stone. Let's hope this is the beginning of change in Morocco.

[Josh]

The situation is sad, but the outcry is wonderful.

"Oh no, these countries are choosing Conservative Muslim ideologies in their democracies!" Yeah, and they are still democracies, which means that the moderates and the liberals who cannot stand some of the BS the conservatives do get a voice, and if they try it can be a loud one, and no democracy was ever set in stone. Let's hope this is the beginning of change in Morocco.

Supposedly representative governments have been plenty brutal and barbaric, and 'democracy' has been used as a veneer to legitimize thugocracy before. How many recent dictators had 'elections' every so often?

Personally, I don't think many of these recent revolutions will hold. I'd like to be wrong on this one.

[Comrade Tortoise]

The situation is sad, but the outcry is wonderful.

"Oh no, these countries are choosing Conservative Muslim ideologies in their democracies!" Yeah, and they are still democracies, which means that the moderates and the liberals who cannot stand some of the BS the conservatives do get a voice, and if they try it can be a loud one, and no democracy was ever set in stone. Let's hope this is the beginning of change in Morocco.

It is a bit funny. People do not seem to understand that in the "west" democracy is only tolerable because of the collective experience of europe and the US during the (late)renaissance and enlightenment. The American Revolution was born out of a social tradition that goes back to the social traditions of pre-fall-of-rome germanic tribes. A social tradition that only expanded and got louder/more forceful during the enlightenment. The idea of individual autonomy (if not individual rights, which are different, and of course, who is considered a person or individual is subject to change over time) goes back that far. To say nothing of the other parts of europe where systems derived from roman civil law, in contact with those same germanic tribes etc etc etc etc on through the god damn history comes into play. Point being: western societies have a long-evolving social and legal tradition that makes democracy...tolerable. Worst system of government, it is just better than the others.

Non-western societies do not have that tradition. We should not expect them to suddenly import western ideas when they go democratic. At least not overnight. We should in fact EXPECT theocracy-by-way-of-democracy in these states, because they have been living in subornation to the will of allah as they perceive it for a long god damn time.

[Charon]

Yes, clearly that is why every state that has been involved in the Arab Spring has had an uprising to increase democratic power within their country.

I'm not saying they want to be like us, or that this democracy is not heavily tinted with theology and autocracy. But it is democracy none the less, and quite frankly, once people get a taste of it I think most governments are going to have a damn hard time snuffing it out. And I'm not talking about reforms within the next few months, or even the next few years. I'm talking about the next few decades.

Supposedly representative governments have been plenty brutal and barbaric, and 'democracy' has been used as a veneer to legitimize thugocracy before. How many recent dictators had 'elections' every so often?

Personally, I don't think many of these recent revolutions will hold. I'd like to be wrong on this one.

And what evidence do we have of that this time? Egypt has been panning out rather mediocre, but even then the Military is learning damn well that the people will not stand for this shit anymore and they have no intention of becoming the next Syria.

[Comrade Tortoise]

Yes, clearly that is why every state that has been involved in the Arab Spring has had an uprising to increase democratic power within their country.

I'm not saying they want to be like us, or that this democracy is not heavily tinted with theology and autocracy. But it is democracy none the less, and quite frankly, once people get a taste of it I think most governments are going to have a damn hard time snuffing it out. And I'm not talking about reforms within the next few months, or even the next few years. I'm talking about the next few decades.

That is kind of my point. Just because they have imported democracy does not mean they will import all of the other cultural values that go along with western democracy. Cultural values that took centuries to evolve in western societies and are in direct conflict of centuries-evolved prevailing cultural values in the arab world . They will eventually, because people are rational on a long enough time-scale, but it wont be immediate. Certainly not fast enough for human rights organizations.

[Josh]

I sort of agree with Ben, but not in terms of cultural values. It's about security and stability, and we have repeatedly seen democracies backslide over exactly those issues.

Basically, if the choice is having a vote or having reasonable security from rape gangs wandering the streets, people will take a strongarm who provides that security.

Democracies tend to arise from states that have established middle-class systems and a reasonable level of security.

'Freedom' means everything and therefore it means absolutely nothing. The great lie of our conception of the world is that people want freedom, when what they really want is security, stability, and enough liberty to do what they want to do in day to day life. If a dictatorship secures that for a large enough portion of the population, they'll tend to follow it for a while. Where the dictatorship breaks down is when people have enough stability and security to feel the desire for more- more goods, the ability to openly practice differing religions, etc.

We can hope, we can help where we can, but don't be surprised when shit breaks down. A lot of these agglomerations are false states that were created by colonialism for the purposes of easy territorial division, and they're not culturally or territorially stable and won't be so long as they keep trying to categorize themselves along the maps the Euros drew in the first place.

See, here's the thing: creation of government should never ever ever ever be guided by optimism. If a person has a sunny outlook on the world and a general faith in human nature, they need stay far away from the development of governing systems because governing systems should be guided by skepticism and worst case scenarios. Unfortunately, people tend to think every revolution is a brand new day and this time we'll do it right, rather than just another revolution in a history chock-full of attempts at better times to come. 'Democracy' is no magic bullet and it fails just like any other system, and it can give a veneer of legitimacy to any number of atrocities because hey, the majority willed it.

[Charon]

I sort of agree with Ben, but not in terms of cultural values. It's about security and stability, and we have repeatedly seen democracies backslide over exactly those issues.

Basically, if the choice is having a vote or having reasonable security from rape gangs wandering the streets, people will take a strongarm who provides that security.

Democracies tend to arise from states that have established middle-class systems and a reasonable level of security.

I'm not saying Somalia is a ground ripe for Democracy, but Tunisia, Morocco, Egypt, and pretty much all of the countries that have undergone the Arab Spring do not have rape gangs wandering the streets so far as I know. What is your qualification for how much security and stability are required? Remember, the United States didn't have much of either in our early years.

'Freedom' means everything and therefore it means absolutely nothing. The great lie of our conception of the world is that people want freedom, when what they really want is security, stability, and enough liberty to do what they want to do in day to day life. If a dictatorship secures that for a large enough portion of the population, they'll tend to follow it for a while. Where the dictatorship breaks down is when people have enough stability and security to feel the desire for more- more goods, the ability to openly practice differing religions, etc.

Yes and no. Freedom may not have a specific definition by your terms, but one can still tell the difference between freedom and oppression. It's just a matter of how "necessary" oppression may feel at the time.

We can hope, we can help where we can, but don't be surprised when shit breaks down. A lot of these agglomerations are false states that were created by colonialism for the purposes of easy territorial division, and they're not culturally or territorially stable and won't be so long as they keep trying to categorize themselves along the maps the Euros drew in the first place.

Again, yes and no. With some exceptions the states formed in the Middle East are not nearly as bad as some of the states formed in Africa. Many had larger "identities" already that most Europeans were happy enough to follow after the colony broke apart. With the exception of Israel and the Kurds, I don't think territory has been a huge issue for most Middle Eastern States.

See, here's the thing: creation of government should never ever ever ever be guided by optimism. If a person has a sunny outlook on the world and a general faith in human nature, they need stay far away from the development of governing systems because governing systems should be guided by skepticism and worst case scenarios. Unfortunately, people tend to think every revolution is a brand new day and this time we'll do it right, rather than just another revolution in a history chock-full of attempts at better times to come. 'Democracy' is no magic bullet and it fails just like any other system, and it can give a veneer of legitimacy to any number of atrocities because hey, the majority willed it.

Here I am going to have to disagree with you vehemently. I think you are mis-characterizing Optimism. Optimism is not rainbows and puppies and holding hands where everything is lovey-dovey and all humanity gets along in one big lovefest. That is Idealism. Optimism is simply the belief that things can get better than they are, and frankly I believe that the majority of people (not all) in government should be optimists. I do not want to live in a nation where the majority of people running it think that things are going to get worse. No, that's wrong... let me give an example. When a Depression begins, I do not want the people in government who are going "Well, we're fucked." I want the people who are going "Well this sucks, but here's how I think we can fix it." I generally associate this with optimism.

I think that both of the labels you've put on revolution are wrong. It's not a brand new day, nor is it another failed start. It's an opportunity, either for good or for ill, and thus far I've seen little that makes me think that the Arab Spring was a failed start.

[Josh]

Urgh, quotes are weird now so I'll tag by hand.

I'm not saying Somalia is a ground ripe for Democracy, but Tunisia, Morocco, Egypt, and pretty much all of the countries that have undergone the Arab Spring do not have rape gangs wandering the streets so far as I know. What is your qualification for how much security and stability are required? Remember, the United States didn't have much of either in our early years.

The US had tremendous security for a post-revolutionary state, with law enforcement and legal codes that essentially transitioned from their preexisting royally sanctioned state controls to independent colonial assemblies. The frontiers were largely secure with the native populations pretty much battered into being little more than a very local threat. Colonial-era America actually was the perfect petri dish for an experiment in representative government, and they essentially took nearly twenty years to put it together and still nearly had it collapse in on itself at a couple of points.

What's the level required? Depends on the comfort level of the people involved.

Yes and no. Freedom may not have a specific definition by your terms, but one can still tell the difference between freedom and oppression. It's just a matter of how "necessary" oppression may feel at the time.

That's an entirely subjective standard. There are people who feel that the UK's CCTV systems are a good tool for providing security in a free state, and people who disagree. Personally, I'd hate to live in a surveillance state or one that I couldn't bear arms in, but there are those who strongly disagree. Hence why the term itself is pretty meaningless other than as a slogan.

Again, yes and no. With some exceptions the states formed in the Middle East are not nearly as bad as some of the states formed in Africa. Many had larger "identities" already that most Europeans were happy enough to follow after the colony broke apart. With the exception of Israel and the Kurds, I don't think territory has been a huge issue for most Middle Eastern States.

There's more to a state than having a reasonably common identity. It's stuff like taxation, reasonably universal military capacity, compatibility in laws, etc. The concept of nation state is so recent and it tends to get applied to areas that were loosely tied together but not operating as states in terms as we think of them.

You're right that the North Africa region isn't as bad in those terms as most of the African mishmashes they threw together, so I'll concede this one.

Here I am going to have to disagree with you vehemently. I think you are mis-characterizing Optimism. Optimism is not rainbows and puppies and holding hands where everything is lovey-dovey and all humanity gets along in one big lovefest. That is Idealism. Optimism is simply the belief that things can get better than they are, and frankly I believe that the majority of people (not all) in government should be optimists. I do not want to live in a nation where the majority of people running it think that things are going to get worse. No, that's wrong... let me give an example. When a Depression begins, I do not want the people in government who are going "Well, we're fucked." I want the people who are going "Well this sucks, but here's how I think we can fix it." I generally associate this with optimism.

We're talking past each other on semantics here. I never said that they should be pessimists or go with the negative outlook, I said skepticism. What I was saying was that they should take the view that where abuses are possible in a system, the abuses will occur. A system that allows overmuch concentration of power in a few hands will eventually see that concentration of power used for ill.

You'd definitely want people on deck who think that they can make a better system, that there's a reason and a purpose for the sacrifices to make it possible. However, you want them to be realistic about what they're undertaking. You don't want a rosy view of human nature ascending toward a better plane being the foundation of the system. You need to be able to say that there are a lot of bastards in this world, how do we deal with them so we can rise above?

I think that both of the labels you've put on revolution are wrong. It's not a brand new day, nor is it another failed start. It's an opportunity, either for good or for ill, and thus far I've seen little that makes me think that the Arab Spring was a failed start.

Most populist movements throughout history have started this way, been compromised and reverted to where they came from. I haven't seen any special characteristic to these uprisings that gives me any real faith that they'll be different. The early rise of religious-based organizations amassing power that you were saying could be dealt with in time is precisely the sort of 'uh oh' sign that you're saying isn't there. Just because we're currently calling these democracies when they haven't even left the cradle yet is utterly meaningless, and the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship in these circumstances is a single palace coup.

That said, it'd make my day if we revisited this in twenty years and you could say "I told you so." I don't want to see these people fail. I don't have a sense of superiority to them, or think that they'd have a better shot than if they were more like us because I don't think that the collapse of the American system would produce another reasonably well-balanced republican form of government.