Feminism and Islam
[This is based on a talk hosted by the LSE Student Union's Islamic and Feminist Societies on 22nd January 2007]
From a personal perspective, I identify as both a Muslim and a feminist and I don’t see this as in any way contradictory. To this end, I’d like to discuss five potential challenges to a reconciliation between feminism and Islam.
From a professional perspective, I am interested in how policy can support Muslim women’s rights and interests accepting that the term ‘Muslim women’ includes myriad of people not all of whom agree with each other.
1) Theory vs reality
As a Muslim, I have very little criticism to make of the Qu’ran in terms of its treatment of women. As a doctrinal text, it did indeed widen women’s options, and enshrined rights that women did not previously have. It is, I think, entirely accurate to say that the Qu’ran was an advocate for women’s liberation.
The practice of Islam all over the world, with some exceptions of course, is generally one of active policing of Muslim women, our bodies, our autonomy. In this country, we do have forced marriage, we do have murder in the name of honour, and we do have female genital cutting or mutilation within the Muslim community, and using Islam as a justification.
We can argue about the validity of those interpretations of the Message of course, but the reality is that those interpretations exist. They are real, whatever the theory of how things ought to be.
I know that one defence against this would be to say that there is Islam the religion and Muslims the people, but I don’t think that’s good enough. Because it is Muslims as people that need to be ensuring that Islam the religion fulfils its potential. I think it has been too easy for some people to excuse the oppression of Muslim women by Muslims by claiming that the ‘true’ version of Islam isn’t so sexist.
2) History vs present
We seem to be a bit stuck in the past when it comes to finding inspiring Muslim women to learn from. We have definitely had some inspiring Muslim women in the past. But have there been no inspiring women in the last millennia? What have Muslim women been doing for 1000 years that we can’t seem to find them? I raise this point because Bibi Khadija (Prophet Muhammad’s (pbuh) first wife) and other women of her time are regularly referred to as evidence of Islam’s progressive approach to the woman question. And they are excellent examples of, in my opinion, feminist Muslim women.
But I think that we have also had some inspiring Muslim women in our lifetimes. Shireen Ibadi and Fatema Mernissi are two current examples and there are many others if you don’t happen to agree with their take on things.
Just as Bibi Khadija challenged the way women were perceived in her time by taking on roles that were the purview of men, so too are there Muslim women challenging prevailing social norms and trying to reframe what options are open to Muslim women in the present. I would like to see more Muslims, especially Muslim men, embracing these trailblazing women as examples of:
- excellent Muslim leaders, for all Muslims
- inspiring Muslim women for those interested in Muslim women’s rights
3) Sex and gender
There does seem to be a tension between some of the fundamentals of feminism and some of the core ideas within Islam. Feminism is very much about understanding and then redefining gender roles and relations. Although feminists disagree about many things, they are committed to equality and freedom for women.
Related to this is the idea of choice. Thus most feminists subscribe to the idea that women should have the right to choose whether and how they should fulfil roles such as wife, child carer and bread-earner. Feminism separates biological sex from socialized gender. In this understanding men can be the primary carers of children while the mother works more outside of the home in paid labour.
Islam on the other hand has more difficulty with the idea that gender is a social construct. Gender roles are seen to be derivative of biological sex and are therefore not so flexible. Motherhood, and caring for children and the domestic sphere generally, is understood to be one of the most important, if not the only, responsibilities of a woman.
That is not to say that a Muslim woman cannot join the paid labour market. But I do think there is deep resistance to the idea that a father could take up more of the caring responsibilities when this happens so that the division of labour in the home is more balanced. Individual men do of course do this, and it is a process of negotiation that is ongoing and ever-changing.
But the status of motherhood is very high in Islam which I think presents a challenge to the idea that it is a gender role that is socially constructed and not a biological fact. So the circumstances where men are doing more of the care work I think are very much the exception and not seen as the ideal situation.
4) The role of men
A lot of Muslims and a lot of feminists seem to be quite obsessed with the position of Muslim women in Islam. That’s great for me of course. But how helpful is it really in terms of advancing my interests to be the object of constant battle, debate, and discourse? Is the issue really about ‘Muslim women’ in these discussions?
Feminism talks about gender inequality as much as it talk about women’s rights. And, perhaps most importantly, feminists emphasise gender relations as a primary vehicle for the oppression of women.
But the important point to take away from it is that feminists care about men. The way to liberating women is to engage with men. What men are doing matters. Women can only be un-oppressed if we understand who is gaining from the oppression, why, how they are doing the oppressing, etc. Men are a part of the conversation about why women lack power in society.
Islam does also recognize the equal importance of men I’d say, but I don’t think as Muslims we follow that opportunity through in our debates. We are perhaps too happy talking about Muslim women, and Muslim women are the battleground of so many of our conversations and debates about what is right and proper and halal. But why don’t we talk about what is going on with Muslim men?
5) Rights and law
Both feminism and Islam have a healthy preoccupation with women’s rights. They differ, however, in how they attempt to realize these rights. Feminism’s purpose is to change society using law when necessary. They see women as agents and subjects. They strive to embody the ethos and politics of feminism, and they are the emancipators - doing the actual changing of society so women have more equality.
Islam’s purpose is to change society as well, but its agent of focus is often the individual. It seeks to encourage individuals to be ethical and just from within an understanding of the Divine. It has guidelines about how we should eat, speak, dress, pray, relate to each other, etc. and it is through this self-regulation of individual behaviour that an ethical society could then be built.
Muslims do also flirt with establishing norms in law for example through Shariah. But it is when these guidelines about self-conduct become codified in law that difficulties arise because a central tenant of Islam is that there is no compulsion in religion. If I choose to drink or eat pork, it is my potential sin and my soul that could suffer. It is up to me to take responsibility for my choices to stay on or stray off the Path.
Establishing law when we’re talking about murder is understandable. When we’re speaking of other areas such as dress, individual choice is a more acceptable guiding principle. If there is no compulsion in religion I should not be forced to wear the hijab. But I’m not sure how well Muslims have been grappling with choice in this country. Are we really ok with women choosing not to wear the hijab?
In these discussions amongst Muslims, I find that we don’t use the language of ‘rights’ to make our points. More often I hear the language of ‘dignity’ used, as in “we want to preserve the dignity of Muslim women”. And ‘dignity’ is used interchangeably with ‘modesty’. In this narrative, Muslim women are treated more as objects rather than agents or subjects. And the purpose is not to change society, but to change individuals, to change individual Muslim women.
What I would like to see is:
- Muslims embodying the faith: living righteously and ethically.
- Muslims acting as emancipators: engaging more actively with women’s rights.
It’s not enough to say that there’s nothing contradictory between feminism and Islam. Muslims must be an active, proactive force for change against the clear, sustained and grave oppression of Muslim women.
—————————————–
zohra is Policy Officer for Race & Gender at the Fawcett Society. She coordinates Fawcett’s new ‘Seeing Double’ project on ethnic minority women. This article follows on from the roundtable Fawcett hosted in December called ‘The veil, feminism and Muslim women’. A report on the discussions is available on the Fawcett website.
This is a guest post.
Nice post Zohra — don’t you sleep?
I went to an open day at my local mosque in Finsbury Park — not that one, the other one — after the Madrid bombings. I was a bit upset but I didn’t want to give in to hate. So I took my entire family.
I learnt there that the Quran was indeed a female Magna Carta insofar as it included a list of unequivocal female rights. I can’t remember what they were exactly but they included rights to property, divorce, etc, which at the time put the Islamic world ahead of the Christendom. But that was 1,000 years ago and this is now.
Good luck with your efforts
“I think it has been too easy for some people to excuse the oppression of Muslim women by Muslims by claiming that the ‘true’ version of Islam isn’t so sexist.”
I think that has been one of my biases, because my friends and family I feel have met the theory and adjusted their understanding of Islam to meet the current modern realities. There is also a question of the spirit of the Quran: it was highly feminist in 7 century AD, thus it should continue to set a progessive agenda for women’s rights and means. But like you said, the practical implementation has been more cycnical and dogmatic than the spirit of the text.
I also agree with the difference between the seperation between gender and sex. In many Islamic communities, I see the rather bizzare situation where many women become highly skilled individuals, often with college degrees, and usually with good grades. But it seems that her education is not a means for her to enter the job market or the means to purse her ambitions, rather it provides her family with a signal to send potential suitors about the status of the family. This needs to stop now! On a purely economic standpoint, Islamic societies are only using half their potential and they cannot hope to compete on a global stage if they waste half their resources.
I think the reason we don’t talk about muslim men and their problems in Western countries is that most people have a caricature about them. Many people believe that most of the family resources are spent on the boy (which certainly has a ring of truth in it), and that it is the girls who are oppressed by their male relatives. Logically: if the males are disempowered or the females empowered, things will improve for all. But I don’t think this approach is ever going to be useful. It makes for a zero-sum game rather than one which could lead to a bigger pie for all parties involved.
Lastly the issue of how the practical implementation of Islam occurs: it is highly difficult due to the decentralised nature of the religion. There is no Pope in Islam. That said however, more and more Imams and taking it upon themselves to issue laws, that have little basis in the Quran. And bizzarely, the older generation of Muslims, take these laws seriously when they know that there is no basis for such edicts. It seems that whilst Islam is becoming more popular amongst the younger generation, they prefer the lazy route i.e. Whabbi nonsense Islam. I feel that the younger generation wants to have a group to belong to, but heading towards a lazy analysis of Islam is the danger. Many of them piously follow what their Imams say, BUT, the actual interpretation is wrong, and the ethical implications are dire.
Zohra,
That’s an interesting perspective. I sometimes wonder what Jesus would have made of Christianity. Similar sentiment amongst Muslims might be appropriate?
“But the important point to take away from it is that feminists care about men. ”
what?
has anyone seen this?
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/article1354063.ece
i think this woman has a lot to say about it from a grass-roots level.
b’shalom
bananabrain
Can a Muslim woman have four husbands?
Can Muslim women walk into any mosque to pray to her god?
Is there a single example in the Qu’ran where the author is aiming the contents of the text at a female reader?
Where are the female prophets and apostles?
Islam is a religion for men. Like the African slaves who got indtroctinated into Christianity in America, you are nothing but a convert that’s trying to see where you fit in
You are borne of woman. If you must worship, worship your goddess
kismet hardy, the first person to become a muslim was a woman.
a woman is regarded as the third source of islam.
also there are examples in the quran where the author (god) is aiming the contents of the text at a female reader. I think you will find examples on every page.
If islam was a religion for men, why is it that islam gives more rights to a woman than a man?
will reply to your article later zohra.
Why do women have to cover up so men are not led to temptation?
Why does the woman suffer if he gets a stiffy? Why isn’t the man punished when she gets fired up?
And yeah, the first person to convert to Islam was a woman. Because her husband said so. Power to her!
I had to pinch myself. Am I in the 21st century, or have I been transported to some distant century in the past.
Clearly there are problems in Countries where the majority are Muslim and many males quite literally consider women to be inferior because religeous sources say they are.
Here in Britain and the West, it should be a given that we are all equal under the law. Yes there are those who would argue that women are inferior, however man (sic) made laws have advanced equality and will continue to do so, not only for women.
Religeous beliefs and arguments based on arcane beliefs from wherever have no place in modern democratic societies.
Obviously I am not a believer in a supreme being, always male, and would certainly refute any religeous texts based on the supposed relevation of such a being to a privaleged human (male).
It is curious to me that males in the middle east are the only ones who received the wisdom of this so called god ( Jews, Christians and Muslims), telling them that they are the mirror image of this deity and the only ones who are trully worthy.
Get real, we are alone and it is we and only we who shape our destiny. Secular states are the only ones that give true freedom of thought, and the only ones that have advanced, warts and all.
Just to add a couple of points to Kismet’s excellent post. Please clarify:
Why are 2 female witnesses are equal to one.
Why is a divorce is much easier for a man than a woman in Islam?
Why are women prevented from reaching their educational/intellectual apex?
Why are their some verses in the Quran that seem to imply women are ‘impure’ or ‘unclean’?
Why is the woman entitled to 50% less property than the man?
Why are women portrayed as temptresess? who ‘lure the men asrtay’?
Why cant the men wear veils instead of the women?
Why is a husband allowed to smack his wife? Is she a child or something?
Why is there a worse punishment for a woman committing adultry than a man?
Why is it always Eve’s fault?
Please accept my questions in the spirit of sincere curiosity…these kinds of questions are always spinning around in my head and telling me that the treatment of men and women in Islam seems kind of unfair, please enlighten me…
What a load of subserviant rubish. Why not read Gina Khan http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/article1354063.ece
Now there is a free thinking individual. A real human being.
“Now there is a free thinking individual. A real human being.”
Do you realise that Gina Khan still considers herself a muslim and actually deals with many of the questions in the blog, and has some similar conclusions? If you actually also read the others post, you’d realise BananaBrain already posted that story.
BTW Zohra is a isn’t a fictional character from the land of nod, she is a ‘real human being’.
LOL at Gina Khan dressing in jeans. Where’s the miniskirts?
Do you realise that Gina Khan still considers herself a muslim and actually deals with many of the questions in the blog, and has some similar conclusions?
Exactly! Such a shame that ignorant and deeply stupid bigots like lithcol cannot see this through their red mist of hatred. But then the world will always be full of twats.
Sadly, bigots like him will always use people like Gina Khan as a shield for their bigotry, it is a hazard that they have to face in speaking out. I guess they’ll just have to address it somewhere in their speeches, or spell it out even further so that bigoted frothing at the mouth cretins like lithcol understand more clearly.
Why do women have to cover up so men are not led to temptation?
Recent studies have shown men are more likely to cheat than women. So if you put an attractive married man and attractive married woman in front of each other and asked them both would you cheat with the other person? Who would you think would be more likely to say yes?
Women don’t have to ‘cover up’ they are asked to preserve their modesty to a certain extent. Covering of the hair makes a massive difference to the appearance of a person, also not wearing clothing that reveals the shape of the body.
People like kismet get so wound up with not being able to perve on every woman that crosses their path. Next time you see a nun ask her why she is covered up please.
He first person to convert to Islam converted through her own will, yes keep swallowing the bitter pill.
Lithcol, you are once again confusing culture with religion. Show where the inferiority comes from in the Quran. and please don’t praise the equality of women, go back a 100 years and a woman voting would make old men wee themselves and the current inequality that exists in organisations is still apparent.. Your also confusing the jews, muslims and Christians talking about them being the mirror image of god. Lithcol religious beliefs do have a place in modern society, do you expect the 2 million muslims to wake up in the UK one day and just go omg I was wrong. No don’t think so.
raz is gina khan fit?
Why are women prevented from reaching their educational/intellectual apex?
and its not allowed to leave a bruise.
They are not some of the greatest scholars in Islam had female teachers and there were even female scholars in Islam
Why are women portrayed as temptresess? who ‘lure the men asrtay’?
Cost they are FIT!
Why is a husband allowed to smack his wife? Is she a child or something?
Beating is allowed in Islam! Oh yeh! But only with a twig with light tapping
id answer more but i got exam papers to mark
Doesnt it clearly state in the Quran that hell is full of women?
Nyrone, your questions are the same kind of questions that have perplexed me but I have to admit many of these questions are based on what I have heard because not being of any particular faith, I haven’t read the Koran. I am inquisitive by nature..I don’t wish to offend!
After asking questions about inheritance I have been told that the woman is in a better position than a man, as a woman would inherit from both her father and her husband while a man just from his father. This 50% then allows for an ‘equal share’. Fair enough I say.
The answers to my other questions including that of the veiling of women have not been quite as clear cut. I’ve had both men and women give very different accounts for the reasons that some women (and not men) wear the veil, some due to ‘modesty’ issues and others because it ‘empowers’ women so that they are not seen as sexual objects and the focus is on their mind. My objection lies in why it is only women who must conceal themeselves lest be leered at by men. Men can be just as sexually alluring…Maybe all human beings should walk around veiled from head to toe…hmmmmm
As for it always being Eve’s fault.. This is not a question which can be aimed just at Islam. If Adam tempted Eve how different would society be? Would women priests be seen as such a contentiuos issue? Would women who showed an ounce of independent thought be burned at the stake, accused of witchcraft?
It seems that the repercussions of such a notion has extended beyond that of Eve/women being seen as temptresses; it seems to have justified a whole raft of other unfair practices which have allowed women to be viewed and treated as subordinate.
It is unfair to suggest that Islam doesn’t address women’s rights at all. Its just that it is difficult to offset the rights a women has to protect her wealth through a pre-nuptial agreement, against the so-called role that a women is expected to fulfill primarily as a mother and in the domestic sphere. Islam protects women in one sense financially but takes away in terms of setting out a clearly defined gender role, one that not all women can be expected to fulfill. Not all women wish to have children, and furthermore in my case not all women are ‘domesticated’! ( I leave all that cleaning & tidying to those with OCD!)
I look forward to some of Nyrone’s and Kismet’s questions being answered. Apologies if I have gone off on a tangent, I just thought I’d say my piece!
Great article by the way Zohra!
PS… I don’t think men ‘beating’ women, with anything including a twig can be justified. In fact to be beaten with a twig sounds like its a punishment designed to humiliate which in my opinion is on par with leaving a bruise.
Maybe I would find less fault with some of this stuff if there was equality full stop. Equality in punishment (so if i wish i could beat my bloke with a twig-without leaving a bruise of course-) and I could have more than one husband if the one I had wasn’t performing(!) well enough and men would be expected to cover up just as much as women are and help look after the kids (again 50-50, I wouldn’t want the bloke to do more than his fair share)etc etc etc… I dunno just a thought.
A very interesting and balanced view susan. quite refreshing to read. I have tried to answer some of the shorter questions. the other questions require a more detailed response.
“People like kismet get so wound up with not being able to perve on every woman that crosses their path.”
Shiraz, please don’t make assumptions about Kismet, if you hang around here you’ll see what people are about. The questions being asked here are legitimate and need to be discussed.
Susan, I think a good way of looking about Islam in this context (or more generally) is to look at the roles and rights on women in ‘Arabia’ before and after Islam. Before the situation was even more dire, and after the prophet, the rights extended were quite massive. However after the 14th century, that sense of progessiveness and liberal values has been slowly eroded and now we are stuck with something puritanical and dogmatic. As ever religion is in the eye of the beholder.
Shiraz, I didn’t say modern society in Britain was perfect. It is however progressive. Rights for all have progressed over the last 100 years, especially for women.
You appear to believe that men cannot have self control when confronted by an uncovered woman.
How pathetic. Sexual molestation and rape occur in predominately Muslim countries as well, where I assume the women are covered.. The fault is entirely due to the immature, unsocialized impulses of the males involved and should be punished.. Instead, what do we find? The woman is blamed and called a whore etc.
I would of course not expect anyone to wake up one day and abandon their belief systems. I was born into a nominally Christian household, however it took approximately 15 years before I finally rejected the belief in a supreme being.
At least I was free to do it.
Your religion appears to be your culture, defining your values, your politics. Unchanging for ever, given that you believe it to be the literal words of your god. All other beliefs being inferior or just plain mythical.. Come on the world is rich in its diversity , and it must be said progressive.
By the way your pseudonym appears misplaced. - Shiraz—the city of flowers, wine and poetry. Producing good wine until the mad Mullahs sent Iran back to the stone age. You can have wine in heaven but not here on earth. Great.
Thanks Sahil, I think I understand what you are saying. That the changes were radical and progressive at the time. But as we know the world we live has changed dramatically and how is it that the roles and rights of women should stay the same?
The changes are evident in my own family. Between my grandmother’s and mother’s generation and that of my own. My grandmother married young, looked after 5 kids and her husband; my mother had an education, found herself a good job, got married at an older age and had fewer kids. Me? I dunno I have just completed the education part and thankfully my lack of domestic skills means that I haven’t yet been pestered to make someone a good wife(!) But all this shows that in 50 yrs in my family at least there have been huge changes in the role that women play.
It is therefore difficult to see how in a thousand and even a hundred years a women’s role and her rights can remain static.
Islam as I understand has not stood in the way of progress in science something which was evident at the emergence of the faith and I’m interested to see if the acceptance of progress can be applied to gender roles and rights. Are these seen as final and not up for discussion?
I would just like to throw the following into the mix:
“But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife, and God is the head of Christ. Any man who prays or prophesies with something on his head disgraces his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled disgraces her head–it is one and the same thing as having her head shaved. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, she should wear a veil. For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God; but woman is the reflection of man. Indeed, man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man. For this reason a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. (Corinthians 11:3-10)
“As in all the churches of the saints, women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. (Corinthians 14:33-35)
Precisely El-Cid
Zemz, you clearly have a problem and I won’t aggravate it by giving a long reasoned reply to your outburst. In short, I have problems with the way all extant religions, past and present, treat women as second class beings. If that is bigoted, so be it.
As to hiding behind another and not speaking out, that is certainly not true. Fortunately we are free to express our opinions in this country, and criticize any belief system ( and I don’t mean making hate speech threatening death etc to others, for which you should be punished).
Perhaps Zemz thinks I am an infidel and so must also be a bigot. My Christian friends certainly think I am a heathen, but would never accuse me of bigotry because I argue against their beliefs.
Finally Zemz, I have never experienced the red mist of hatred. I dislike and take a strong stand. Hate is a self defeating motivation and not something a civilized human being should express.
anyone arround here heard of male chauvinistic cristian colonialism? which over the las 200y has seriuosly agressed and sabotaged all muslim countries?
any progressive, feminist thinkers in muslim countries have been mismanaged to a good extent by the post colonial elites, at the service of good busines and control for the former master
it is a power , not a religious debate, rich muslims (eg women) can be free poor cristians (eg women)are as opressed and repressed as poor muslims
Ah, this makes me nostalgic for MPAC.
If you want to prevent a society from ever attaining its maturity, give the men power over women and say God said so; then both are enslaved: one by power, the other by its lack. The yoke lies heavy on both, and neither shall be free of it until each are fully equal to each other, especially under the law. So far, the only societies that seem to have understood this sufficiently enough to put it into practice are those which are both secular and liberal. (Coincidentally, these societies reside in democratic countries with the broadest bases of economic prosperity and the greatest personal freedoms. Which leads to the intuition that a good deal of the hatred of the West currently being fomented by less responsible clericals is in great degree energy diverted from a suppressed envy of the West.) If history is a guide, societies which refuse to allow complete economic, legal and social equality and opportunity to women so hinder their own development that they will never be anything more than second- or third-tier societies.
I made a post about this recently:
http://jinnzaman.blogspot.com/2007/02/feminist-critique.html
loblollyboy,
What about China? I know there are human rights abuses etc, but they seem to be equal opportunity oppressive? And most certainly don’t meet the democratic model.
Loblollyboy
Thats Ayaan Hirsi-Ali’s argument. The other part is that secular societies are more successful than religious societies.
Women don’t have to ‘cover up’ they are asked to preserve their modesty to a certain extent. Covering of the hair makes a massive difference to the appearance of a person, also not wearing clothing that reveals the shape of the body.
Oh, now I understand. Covering your hair and wearing clothes that don’t reveal the shape of your body is completely different from “covering up”.
Beating is allowed in Islam! Oh yeh! But only with a twig with light tapping
and its not allowed to leave a bruise.
Oh, well, that’s all right then.
People like kismet get so wound up with not being able to perve on every woman that crosses their path.
There is nothing pervy about finding women attractive.
Next time you see a nun ask her why she is covered up please.
The way nuns dress is an obsolete remnant of a time when mainstream Christianity also believed that women were under a duty to cover themselves to avoid inflaming men, who at that time were not expected to control themselves. Most (but not all) of Christianity has got past that now.
Surely it is just human and obvious that women deserve equality in the world along with men. Humans deserve to be free the main restraint is whether any kind of freedom harms other.
There is a lot of talk some of it deeply scholarly about how religious text should be interpreted. That is what is the correct interpretation but the validity of that text is still seen as valid. Sometimes is it time to question the very source of that text itself. At one time there were about 30 versions of the gospels. Which ones were kept depended a lot on debate and interpretation and could easily have involved political factors.
I am not an Islamic scholar so forgive me if I get things wrong. The creation of the Quran involved Muhammad reciting what the angel Gabriel said to him. That is, it’s a form of channelling. The were multiple instances of recitings in many places. Some were long some were shorter. These channellings were written down on all kinds of things such as bits of paper, cloth and even palm leaves. When the Qoran was put together all this stuff had to be collected, ordered organised authenticated etc. This situation is what can effectively be called an editors nightmare. Further the only person who claimed that he was being spoken to by the angel (or god via the angel) was Muhammad himself. Throughout history there have been many people who claim they can hear angels or spirits talking to them. There are hundreds of people in the West and even in this country who would claim the same.
The point is there is no more reason to believe in the angel Gabriel than Doris Stokes could hear spirits. If we choose to believe in the authenticity of the Qoran then it is a matter of personal choice having nothing to do with science or true evidence.
The point is what do we really know and how can we really know what is true for sure. Some of us are still relying on ancient text studying it almost in the hope that our interpretations will come up trumps with what we want in order to validate our own struggles instead of just applying reason to modern day situations. Even if we still access scripture etc if we have more awareness of our uncertainties would a minority of us still choose to be dogmatic and heavy handed about how received instructions of what is right and wrong influence our behaviour.
I agree wholeheartedly with Kismets point about why can’t women have more than one husband. This question can also be put to Mormon polygamists.
I thought that Zohra’s post was very good, and that many of her points were applicable to other religions too.
I will just add a bit of a dislaimer to the above just in case it sounds too cynical. I am actually open minded about the phenomena of divine inspiration, channeling etc. It is just that there are many angles and questions surrounding the subject. There is a bit of a devils advocate to the points.
Ahem - Actually nuns are wearing the everyday dress of aristocratic mediaeval ladies. The habit is indeed a habit.
I also second Katy’s post #32, as well. Can we please have a discussion about balantant human abuse without the usual stances i.e, Hirsi Ali VS Bin Laden.
Actually can all women just agree to wear bikinis (except the ugly ones of course) and promise all us guys a lot of sex. Is that too unacceptable? We all just want free love as well, like the 60s no?
Ah yes the 60s.
Happy days. How we cavorted naked in the streets. Oh those chance casual encounters. Those nameless sexual unions. Those….
Yeah, right.
HAHAHAHAHA, well I’m only saying what you baby boomers told me. I’m supposedly part of the boring generation. Apparently we have no creativity, not to mention a crap sex drive. You guys had way more fun. And Katy did say your freind kissed Jimmy Hendrix, when would that ever happen now, BTW where is your Led Zep post?? Its required learning us bass players you know.
Yes, I know I promised.
If you’re serious about the bass, go for a Fender Jazz Bass.
Zohra - i apologise for de-railing your excellent and informative post.
No!! I got a Yamaha, Spelling DAMMIT, with active pickups that’s pretty good. Plus I have little cash at the moment. But the Fender is beautiful, and I also love the Hammer Edge Q and that’s what I would get. I just wish I could get that kind of ability and creativity and then sleep with loads of pretty girls, AND have intelligent girls also interested.
If anyone is interested in my old band, I was 16, let me know, I can try and get some track online, BUT only by popular demand.
Why do you think most musicians become musicians.
Robbie Williams put it very succinctly. ‘I’m here to make money and get laid’.
BTW the late Chairman said that Yamaha instruments were always an excellent choice if one couldn’t afford the top of the range item. Reliable and good quality. We have a Yamaha CP70 piano ourselves.
And intelligent girls like ‘musos’ too
William, interesting post. What I Think you are suggesting is that we should question the whole concept of prophethood going right back. which probably also includes philosophers who’s concepts and doctrines are the basis of many societies.
For the purposes of the subject in question (and then by extension all else) We need to assess the concepts and practices based on outcomes. I genuinely think the currently understood ideas of equality are just that - good ideas. What really matters are outcomes.
In one form or another the empowerment Of women has been at best patchy. On the whole its been delivered on a class basis. A good test is the REDUCED social mobility we have over the last few years and the concept of the underclass. The price paid at the impoverished end of the social scale is (much) higher for woman in almost all respects.
Bottom line is that we don’t have equality and we will not under the current system. I would consider, for example, equality in sport not by whether boys and girls can play competitive sports on the same playing field, but by whether girls netball could take a prime slot on Saturday evening as the match of the day.
Hey hold one, mwhy is my song not comong on:
http://www.uploading.com/files/ZYH52QFI/02_Ricochet.m4a.html
Shiraz stated “Why do women have to cover up so men are not led to temptation?
Recent studies have shown men are more likely to cheat than women.”
This is complete rubbish. Who are the men cheating with? With women. The only difference between men and women is that men tend to exaggerate their sexual conquests and women will underestimate them. But logically, hetrosexual men are having exactly the same amount of sex as hetrosexual women.
Islam is fatally flawed when it comes to women’s rights.
If a beleif systeme denies the right for women to remain single, to remain chidless or to form free associations with like-minded women (ie nuns), then what rights for women can such a belief systeme really have?
Think about that a moment.
The right of women to remain childess and single to associate with other women of a similar bent is essential, without which no TRUE reform will ever come about.
The dearth of ANY notable female figures in Islam’s history bears this out.
Magna Carta of women’s rights my ass!
Where are the empresses like Irene and Theodora?
Where are the powerful female political figures such as Isabelle of spain, Catherine De Medici, Elenor of Aquitaine, Elizabeth the 1st or Catherine The Great?
Why is the islamic world completely unable to offer up some female equivalents to what one finds in just about ANY other culture?
We’ve ONE lone figure, “Fatima”, and her only claim to fame comes from an accident of birth; she just happens to be Mohammed’s daughter. She was a model of the “good” daughter and the “good” wife…….
Without the right to remain single and celibate, women are soon reduced to a mere life-support systeme for a uterus, and so you simply don’t get an Elizabeth the 1st.
There are, thus, no significant female historical figures in Islam because Islam’s core texts make NO ROOM for them.
Electro,
I’m rather fond of this this ‘highly esteemed’ single, childless Muslim woman
http://www.geocities.com/mutmainaa/people/Rabia_al_Adawiyyah.html
The question is would such an independent life style be widely accepted on today?
The answer to your question, Clairwil, is a resounding “no”.
Also, the fact that you had to go all the way back to the 700s merely reinforces what I said in my comment above.
Could you not find someone a little more contemporary….like say from the 10th century?
One other thing needs to be said. Basra and what is now known as Iraq remained majority Christian well into the 9th century.
Rabia, thus, may have merely “kited” her celibacy off the majority Christian community surrounding her.
Islam considers celibacy, and in particular female celibacy, to be the “enemy” of god.
Years ago my mom had a book on women in the world’s great religions. There were abundant representatives from Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity and other faiths as well.
Under “Islam”, though, there was but one lonely entry. A women who early on had attempted to establish an order of Muslim nuns. I’ve been searching around for info on her, but haven’t yet found any on line.
She was arrested, charged, tried and then beheaded.
“Celibacy”, the sharia judge thundered, after barely ten minutes of deliberation, “is the enemy of god”.
There are no Rachels, no Devorahs and no Ruths here.
No queens and no empresses either.
i am a muslim woman who would like to express this:
there are tons of women who were role models in muslim societies during and after the life of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH): wives (Asia), mothers (asmaa, hajir), businesswomen (khadija),queens who ruled (shajjaret aldur in egypt),soldiers (khoula), nurses (aisha, nusayba),tons of female clerics who taught the now famous male clerics (one proudly announced he was tutored by 12 female clerics) ….remember, while the Prophet was still alive, it was his wife aisha who was the primary tutor of men in all religious matters …no man surpassed her knowledge…there was no sexism….that we got from the western colonialists who rammed their values on our societies
but we muslims have gone backwards since then. while we still keep the commandments and pray, etc., we have suffered under western colonization and post independence dictatorships….religion cannot thrive under oppression and it is our dictators that make the rules …. it is only recently that women have been encouraged to be educated when before they were great scholars. muslim men are also oppressed. we make a big deal about women not being allowed to vote in some countries, but you forget most men can’t vote either in the same places. and if you can vote, the elections are rigged, so what’s the point?
there is equality….in oppression. we need to get rid of these U.S. backed puppets (they back them for the sake of cheap oil and to prevent anti-american democracies from flourishing)and bring back the golden age when muslim advances in sciences spurred a renaissaince in a europe that was previously occupied by muslims.
granted we may not get back our edge but we have many scientists and academians to be proud of who would flourish under a democracy. our economies would also flourish when petro-dollars go to the people not the dictators
religion does not oppress women….men do. men are oppressing, raping, molesting, murdering, starting wars, pimping, trafficking women for sex,denying us votes, a voice, rights,…and we can only fight back through education and invoking our divine God given rights.
eve did not tempt adam….the muslim version is that the devil fooled both of them together. and if we take the christian version that the devil fooled eve who led adam astray…then it serves him right for being dumb enough to listen to her in the first place.
Electro,
To be honest I’m not totally clear what it is your looking for. You dismiss Fatima because she was Mohammed’s daughter but esteem Elizabeth 1st and so on who, whatever their impressive personal achievements and struggles were born to royalty.
To make my motives clear and avoid any confusion. I am not a Muslim or trying to argue that any one religious tradition is better than any other. I’m just not comfortable with dismissing the achievements of Muslim woman as Darcy is or wishing to cram them into another narrow category by only valuing celibate women. For me the issue is choice whether one chooses to be one of three wives, single or a wife and mother. That choice is sadly lacking today in the Muslim world and I favour any historical example however old that inspires women to take control of their lives.
I am a little uncomfortable with the notion of becoming a nun as one of liberation. Whilst the convent did liberate many women, lets not forget that it was also used as a dumping ground for unmarried daughters. Let’s also remember the complicity of nuns in enforcing misogynist views of women in the Magdalen Laundries and so on. The women of my own Catholic family could certainly add their testimony to that sorry tradition. Their experiences of nuns were largely as either child abusers or assisting and facilitating the physical abuse of children. I’m not dismissing the convent tradition at all just asking you to remember what it meant in practice before advocating other religions take it up.
Like I say I’m not sure what your parameters are but does Irshad Manji count. A hugely controversial figure sure but I think the debates she has started are valuable, even if her position is likely to remain a minority one.
Darcy,
If there have been no female Muslim leaders can you clarify what this book is based on
http://www.upress.umn.edu/Books/M/mernissi_forgotten.pb.html.
‘I pity England - on the road to ruin due to unchecked Muslim immigration’
I’m unclear why a comment on immigration in England is relevant here. The topic for discussion is Islam and feminism.
You both might like to explain to me why ALL the women here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_feminism
and here
http://www.jannah.org/sisters/famous.html
should be dismissed.
There hasn’t been a man or woman born that I would point to as a complete and ideal example to anyone but from my secular perspective I wholeheartedly support the efforts of ALL religious women of any faith to make their religion and culture relevant empowering and meaningful to them.
“Celibacy”, the sharia judge thundered, after barely ten minutes of deliberation, “is the enemy of god”.
Islam isn’t the only religion against celibacy. Although some Sikh groups do practice it, the Gurus were advocates of people living the ‘householder’ lifestyle.
There are no Rachels, no Devorahs and no Ruths here.
No queens and no empresses either.
Electro, I’m going to try and engage meaningfully with you, but if your agenda is simply to spout ill-informed prejudiced views you will get banned. One of the reasons why its so difficult for Muslim women to get heard is because everytime they speak out against patriarchy, people such as you take it as a re-affirmation of your orientalist views.
Anyway, the existence of queens in itself doesn’t mean much. This country has had lots of queens but women’s social liberation didn’t come until the last 100 years or so. And we are talking about a religion, Christianity, that is over 2000 years old. So don’t get too ahead of yourself.
The Indian-subcontinent has had more women political leaders than any other part of the world, so one could make the assumption its great for political equality, going by your standards. But it’s not.
Political and social equality generally comes from economic well-being. The richer you are, the more equal the society. Although all this seems to have evaded the Japanese despite their wealth. Hmmmm..
Haven’t Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia all had female leaders in the very recent past?
to darcy:
if you believe in freedom of speech, then don’t attack those who voice opinions different than yours.
there were many examples of muslim advances in the sciences (ibn alnafees) and even philosophy (avaceni is latin for ibn sena and avaroos is ibn rushd) also maths (aljabr gave the world algebra, which is still named after him today, etc…i cannot write everything here, you would have to read it yourself…this was all while europe was in the dark ages. the largest library in europe was that of andalusia during the muslim reign in spain…and when the christian kingdoms of castella attacked putting spain under isabella and ferndinad it was burned to the ground…a tremendous loss for humanity
what do you mean “al taqiyyah”? you are misusing an arabic word…if you show me what you meant i can give you the correct arabic word. it is silly to criticize someone in a language foreign to you and native to the one you criticize (i’m an arab), but it did give me a good laugh. thank you
what makes you think i fear to tread on the subject of honor killings or fgm? they merely weren’t the subject of my debate.
i (a female) happen to work as a volunteer in an agency that educates women about the dangers and inhumanity of these practices. but the women are not to be blamed alone when many men refuse to marry uncircumcised women, forcing women to fgm their daughters to ensure they marry. you think we can solve these problems with a magic wand, but it takes a long time to change society’s opinions/perceptions.
honor killings go against islam, but they are a part of traditions and customs in some countries which is why some people tolerate them. they are also illegal in every single muslim country, but because people tolerate it, culprits go unreported and judges are hesitant to give harsh punishments since laws aren’t specific when it comes to sentencing. these things need to be fought through education because we don’t have the democratic institutions that allow us to change laws. everything is at the whim of our dictators.. the bottom line is that just because something happens doesn’t mean it’s a religious practice….just like christianity frowns on pre-martial sex, but looking at today’s christians you would think otherwise…you cannot blame religion for the flaws of people.
fgm is another practice that is wrongly attributed to religion in order to ensure it stays. we are making progress in eradicating the practice in the present generation and future ones, but it will take ages before it disappears completely. laws prohibit it, but people do it covertly, again, with no one reporting the incident, you cannot make arrests. and laws cannot change what people think…that takes work.
what makes you think i live in the west?! (another good laugh) my good english? it is a product of education. you seem to be a very hostile person bordering on prejudice. if you could, you would probably deport muslims from your country even if they are citizens. i say this because you want me to leave the west even though I AM NOT IN ANY WESTERN COUNTRY. SORRY IF MY ENGLISH GAVE YOU THE IMPRESSION. I AM IN THE MIDDLE EAST TYPING THIS IN THE PRIVACY OF MY HOME. YOU SHOULD COME VISIT. YOU SEEM TO THINK WE LIVE IN TENTS AND RIDE CAMELS.
if you ever want people to respect your opinions you have to respect theirs and not be so hostile when expressing yourself….i imagined living in a democracy teaches these things…i stand corrected…
impeachbushjr,
I reckon Darcy is just a troll. He clearly doesn’t put a lot of thought into his remarks if he thinks I of all people would be interested in English immigration. Or is Darcy the sort of moron that thinks Britain is England?
Some excellent and welcome comments from you. If you don’t mind me asking where are you based?
Clairwill #50#53
My freinds and I know a childless single Muslim woman who goes to our interfaith group. She is about 40 years old I think. It seems she has not had much hassle and still goes to Mosque and fasts etc. Not sure if she will be just one of the few however.
I have read Irshad Manji’s stuff. Yes she is controversal and she is still for Islam but wants reform. She is very brave and I am surprised she hasn’t been harmed. She puts forward lots of questions worth thinking about. It was through her
that I first read about the concept of itjihad
(critical questioning, thinking for oneself etc)
in Islam.
Electro #51
You mention about great women in other religions. I do not know much about all religions. However one of the religions you mentioned was Buddhism. The last couple of years I have had a wake up discovering how much sexism has existed in Buddhism. For example
Women can’t attain enlightenment their best hope is to be born a man
Women have to walk backwards in temples, bow to men
Women having fewer material resources than men in terms of sangha etc places of worship.
Hierarchies in places and practices etc.
Recently the Dalai Lama had promised change at least
in Tibetan Buddhism. All this was after reading a book by Tenzin Palmo “Cave in the Snow”.
http://www.tenzinpalmo.com/
there is lots of stuff
http://www.dharmalife.com/issue21/power_denial.html
There is a lot of work to be done all over the world in terms of equal right for women not just in Islam.
TO CLAIRWIL: THANK YOU FOR BEING OBJECTIVE
TO SUNNY: THANK YOU
you were right on when you said part of the reason that muslim women find it hard to get heard is because when they do there is sometimes some form of backlash. i cannot tell you how disappointed some western (white) men and women who meet me in the international conferences here in the middle east are when i tell them i proudly wear my headscarf or that my religion doesn’t oppress me. they only want me to say how oppressed i am and what a shame my religion is holding me back from realising my potential. i don’t know what they watch on tv or hear about us, but our grievances are political and economical. i also can’t tell you how many times i have joined a discussion llike this online hoping to foster understanding only to get attacked for my opinions. i am surprised how hostile people living in democracies are to contrasting opinions. they also have a tendancy to look down on people of other races and faiths (this from the people who gave my people slavery and colonisation).
i can only say that dialogue and respect are the only way forward if we are to share this planet in a civil manner. otherwise the terorists will win by capitalising on the hatred and venom we spew at each other. their worst nightmare is that we will one day get along.
Yes, Turkey, Pakistan AND Blangladesh have all had female political leaders recently.
Tansit Ciller was western educated. Bhutto, who is half Persian, spent her formative years being taught by Irish nuns. I know nothing of the background of Bangladesh’s Prime Minister.
Sunny: I’ve no interest whatsoever in engaging in idle slander. I realise that just about ALL of the world’s religions have given women the short end of the stick, but this thread is about Islam and women, is it not?
If I may just point something out concerning the article.
The author begins, chest puffed out, by promising to take the bull by the horns, but then promptly kicks off the exercise by telling us all there isn’t any bull!
Consider the following statement.
As a Muslim, I have very little criticism to make of the Qu’ran in terms of its treatment of women. As a doctrinal text, it did indeed widen women’s options, and enshrined rights that women did not previously have. It is, I think, entirely accurate to say that the Qu’ran was an advocate for women’s liberation
How can any sensible person let such twadle off the hook without a challenge, a single peep of protest?
If Islam’s core texts have played no role whatsoever in the status assigned to women across whole swaths of the Islamic world, then goodness, gracious what on earth has?
Animism?
By that one simple statement, Zohra demonstrates that she isn’t stepping up to the plate to find answers; rather she sets herself up, right from the get-go, for a heaping helping of smooth soothing denial.
Forgive me for appearing somewhat braindead, but what is the point, exactly, of ELABORATING on “feminism and Islam”, if Islam, according to this author, has had no detrimental effects at all on the living conditions of women and the weak male/female power relations so prevalent in the Muslim world?
What’s the point, here?
Both the Koran and Hadith clearly and unequivocally assign women the status of *inferior*; there’s simply no way over, around or under that fact.
Now Sunny, you speak of banning individuals for making unflattering comments about relgion, but what of following statement penned by Clairwil about the Catholic church: Their experiences of nuns were largely as either child abusers or assisting and facilitating the physical abuse of children.
Geez, what was the name of the order, Clairwil?
The Little Sisters of Perpetual Pain?
Shame on you! Tsk! ( Don’t ban her )
Were I to make similarly coloured statements about abuses that take place in Madrassas, my comments would be banned.
Clairwil, though, gets a pass.
It’s not fair!
Lastly, this little gem: Anyway, the existence of queens in itself doesn’t mean much.
For some, Sunny, being a queen means everything…
The modern world is essentially a product of Western Civilization. Science, rationality and the freedom of the individual, tempered by laws arrived at by common agreement, have led to an immense improvement in the lot of the individual and the human race in general.
However, there are parts of the world where the lack of general acceptance of the above constrains development and leaves whole populations mired in ignorance and poverty. The ruling elites are only too aware of the advantages.
In many of the posts I find people looking backwards and seeking to blame others for their current problems.
Grow up. My grandfather had few rights and my grandmother even fewer. Poor pay, poor nutrition, poor housing etc. My parents argued for better conditions, sometimes to their detriment. However things improved and I benifited.
My children are doing even better. All in the space of 100 years.
Societies can and do improve, but not by harking back to the past. Certainly not by arguing about the meaning of texts written at a time so distant from modernity that their very contemplation by a modern mind finds frankly farcical.
‘Their experiences of nuns were largely as either child abusers or assisting and facilitating the physical abuse of children.
Geez, what was the name of the order, Clairwil?
The Little Sisters of Perpetual Pain?’
How the hell dare you belittle what my family went through? What evidence do you have? How dare you. You are nothing but a despicable little piece of shit and I pray I’m granted the strength to forgive you. The women in my family abused by the Catholic church were far better and more intelligent than your showing here suggests you are. Their experiences were all too real. You are not even fit to lace their boots, yet you think you can laugh at their experiences. Damn you to hell and I hope you rot.
I have no idea what the the name of the order of nuns concerned was but I have no reason to suspect my family of lying. If you have it, lets hear the evidence against the abuse that took place in Lourdes and St Joseph’s. Let’s also hear the evidence against the abuse that too place in the Magdalene Laundries and other Irish Catholic institutions.
Now we see your true colours! You have no interest in women’s rights except where they allow you to score points against Islam.
Up until now I was willing to debate with you but your scorn for the suffering of women speaks volumes. I have no idea what your agenda for women is but I suspect that you regard us as a good stick with which to attack Muslims.
You are beneath contempt.
Sahil
How dare you give credit to someone else for my post.
Bastard.
Womens rights and religion they are not compatible so forget about it.
Clairwil, spare me your “Angela’s Ashes” spiel, would you?
To glibly state that “nuns facilitate child abuse” amounts to little more than cheap slander.
It might interest you to know, before you go right off the deep end, that I’m half Irish myself, and so know a little about ‘em.
Your relatives are probably full of whiskey-blasted blarney when it comes to Catholic horror tales; the stories they recount are exaggerated and embellished only so that they can wear them like badges of honour.
The Irish can be full of shit.
One other thing, any abuse they underwent came more from “Irishness” than anything Catholic.
And like all *progressives* of a certain generation, you can engage in anti-Catholic bigotry…..the only acceptable form of anti-religious sentiment still permitted…. without a second thought.
Both the tone and volotility of your outburst reminds me a great deal of my Irish grandmother; a bitter, mean-spirited women given to such outbursts and a women my siblings and I referred to as “the witch”.
Now we see your true colours! You have no interest in women’s rights except where they allow you to score points against Islam
Precious……and predictable.
If that’s the best you can do, I certainly understand why your relatives need help with their boots.
Electro:
How can any sensible person let such twadle off the hook without a challenge, a single peep of protest?
She addresses that by pointing out that there is a difference between theory and reality, and that Muslims need to do more to turn that theory into reality.
Besides, that is her interpretation, and unless you have a direct discussion with her, you cannot know how exactly she interprets her religion and is happy with its guidance.
Forgive me for appearing somewhat braindead, but what is the point, exactly, of ELABORATING on “feminism and Islam”, if Islam, according to this author, has had no detrimental effects at all on the living conditions of women and the weak male/female power relations so prevalent in the Muslim world?
Don’t think you’re reading that properly. It is an exploration of tension between the two. It’s difficult to say what impact the religion has had. Sikhism for example goes even further in according equality between men and women, and yet Sikhs are very far behind in manifesting that.
So culture, history, political struggle, economic status etc all have an impact too.
Clailwil’s point isn’t theological but about people’s experiences. You notice we don’t ban people for posting links to articles where people talk of their experiences.
Precious……and predictable.
Really, that describes you more than anyone else Electro. As Clairwil points out, you don’t care about womens rights, only scoring cheap points with some flaky bits of history picked up from various websites. You’re as sad and predictable as Old Pickler. Go away please, you’ve sullied this place enough already.
Electro,
Here’s the thing I don’t dismiss Catholicism or Christianity because of it’s excesses. You know nothing about my family and have no business rubbishing them as an ‘Angela’s Ashes’ cliche. Why not try explaining their welts and scars?
You dismiss me as a bitter Irish cliche. Very well can you also explain the strong Scots and Scots- Irish Protestant influence on my beliefs and in my genetic make up? Can you explain the Muslim and Hindu beliefs I’ve absorbed from other family members? Can you also explain and dismiss my belief in Theosophy on the basis of ‘Irish heritage’?
Like I said before you are not even fit to lick the soles of my ancestors boots let alone help lace them. Or can you tell me what was wrong with all our scholarship boys and girls that got to university despite having no money? Can you tell me why our war dead were inferior? Can you tell me why all those who lived and toiled were beneath you?
I don’t even compare my self to my forbears. I’m not fit. I just feel privileged to have any connection to them at all.
So like I say how dare you rubbish them?
I’d love to be as enlightened and intelligent as they were.
Electro,
Are you saying that ‘Angela’s Ashes’ was not based on the truth? There have been a lot of criminal cases worldwide of priests being prosecuted for child abuse. Seems a bit of handy denial on your part.
I’ve been reading a particularily boring book called ‘The Tipping Point’, that suggests that nearly anyone put into a position of power will abuse it. And that’s not even in a religious context.
Unlike you, I thought Zhora made a good, and it must be said, honest, case for change in attitudes. Here, for instance:
“It’s not enough to say that there’s nothing contradictory between feminism and Islam. Muslims must be an active, proactive force for change against the clear, sustained and grave oppression of Muslim women.”
Did you miss the words ‘grave oppression’? Not everyone subscribes to your, ‘lets throw the baby out with the bathwater’ style of debate. Zhora is clearly a bit more nuanced than you.
Given the sad fact that liberals of whatever colour cannot change society without people being willing to change themselves, your arguement falls.
The emancipation of women is one of the high spots of the ‘Age of Enlightenment’. It was gained against a huge degree of clerical resistance, which reflected in turn male societal attitudes. If you care to reflect on the Age of Enlightenment, it is pretty clear that female liberation came late in the process.
Hopefully the rest of the world will not make the same mistake.
i would say zohra makes a crucial point when she refers to the policing of what muslim women are up to. basically this is what people - i.e. the traditional males ( and older females etc.) seem to want to focus on - who is wearing what and doing what with their bodies. till we can get away from this obsession there is going to be difficulty with gaining any kind of freedom for women who happen to be muslim.
“Muslims embodying the faith: living righteously and ethically.”
well there you have it - another significant point. if you are an independent woman making your choices and living your life then too often the accusation is ‘oh you’re not islamic’
yeah - by who’s definition? is what i always say. the trouble with this business of ‘embodying’ the faith is it comes down to whose idea of the faith people should be embodying. and the hoo ha about muslim women and dress and modesty is that for a lot of people that’s what the muslim faith embodies. outer signs, not inner spirituality. people ( both male and female - in fact i d say a lot of the women are worse in this way) are so judgemental about what you wear - they seem to think they can tell about what kind of person you are.
ha.
you’d think God was an old Muslim man if you listen to what the Mullahs tell you.
They really do like to set themselves up as ‘intermediaries’. and you know..that’s always what seems to happen with ‘organized’ understanding of ‘religion’ - no clergy - yes - so why the mullahs? its going to end up that way with some people wanting authority. unless someone is going to be able to translate for themselves i don’t know that one can rely on such male-dominated translations.
Islam say lots of lovely things about women
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/women/long.html
And for balance there’s quite a bit of misogyny in the Old Testament too
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/long.html
I have a problem with people arguing against the idea that men are indeed turned on my women when its a womans body, never a man, that is used to sell everything from cars to hamburgers. This isnt an issue of eqaulity between men and women but difference between men and women. It is because men and women are different physically that women cover and men dont. More importantly Muslim women cover because we have been instructed by our creator to do so, and it was an example sent by the best females of mankind.
Also there is nothing worse than shameless Muslims trying to justify why Muslim women have to cover themselves. Yes the hijab can prevent men from raising their gaze but if it doesnt will women refuse to wear the hijab? Hope not. As I have said before the main reason, the first reason, the only reason that a woman covers is because it has been made obligatory upon her by her creator. Whatever ease, or difficulty is accompanied by wearing the hijab should be enjoyed or endured with patience and love for Allah.
p.s. and yes there is ease and difficulty in wearing the hijab. But there is ease and difficulty in doing alot of other things that we wouldnt suggest not doing, i.e. school, work, being a parent, I could go on and on.
I’d like to add that Muslims shoudlnt be trying to appeal to the sensibilities (Those sensibilities being immediate gratification) of the disbelievers when explaining why Muslims do this or that. If it isnt sufficient that we do it because we are slaves to and love Allah, too bad.
I spent 7 years in Saudi Arabia. The women were not allowed to drive (they might use cars to meet men). They could not go into many establishments (Juice stands, music shops, etc) They had separate waiting rooms at the dentist and the doctor and the hospital. Men had to bargain with the woman’s relatives to secure a wife. There was no equality. When a female is born you kill one sheep. Two for a boy. The inequalities are endless.
Once two Filipinos stopped me on the street and told me they were Muslims. They asked me what I thought of Islam. I said I thought it was Medieval. The discriptions is still apt.
hello j0nz!
“are we really okay with women choosing not to wear the hijab”
of course we are - why shouldn’t we be? ‘who’ isn’t okay with women not wearing hijab - is the question that needs to be asked - actually. Mullahs? yes we know about them - who else? I can see the hijab question seems to be prominent in the minds of many muslim women in some countries - like say France or the UK - but it ain’t on too many people’s minds say in bangladesh. the diasporic angle seems to be one which plays quite an important role. muslims who are growing up in non-muslim countries seem to have more issues about all this stuff. which obviously has it’s own context.
i can safely say that not too many people i’ve met have gone on about me not wearing a hijab. interestingly, the only place it has happened has been over here. {i do find it funny how people go all religious because they’re ‘away from the homeland’. Heh - they should take a closer look at the ‘homeland’. Of course - they might be thinking of saudi arabia when they think that - so goodness knows.}
the fact that none of us can get away from is that whilst Saudi Arabia goes around thinking it can enact the kind of ridiculous policies they are doing with regards to women - then it’s going to be very difficult for people to dismiss the kind of comments one hears about ‘mediaeval islam’. Yes it’s all very good us saying well that’s them and their dodgy interpretation - but it clearly has a lot of influence on people around the world. and plus - it is a fact that we cannot ignore that whilst compared to the medieval world ‘islamic’ laws of inheritance - say- and property rights for women - were wonderful and all progressive and what have you - but we’re not in a medieval world anymore. so if you stick to the traditional inheritance rules - the sons inherit more than the daughters. now why would a modern woman consider that fairer than say - secular laws of inheritance which do not discriminate on basis of gender?
33. Katy - good points.
bikhair - yep it’s clear that considering women sexual objects and nothing beyond that is something the advertising industry and mullahs share. the difference is how they deal with it - one says ’strip!’ and the other shouts ‘cover up’!
and that’s it. Insisting on women covering up to the extent that they do - is wholly ’sexualising’ women. and yeah - you can go around fully zipped up to ‘protect’ yourself - the flip side of that is does encourage people to think that the onus of avoiding ‘hassle’ is on the women more than men. what does this mean? was there more rape in medieval societies? you bet there was. Covering up in my opinion changes the social standards - and it seems to make rape more acceptable.
cos people have an ‘excuse’ - oh she inflamed me! temptress that she was! oh i couldn’t control myself poor little man that i am!
disgusting - thoroughly disgusting.
i watched this incredibly annoying little man called dr. zakir naik go on and on about rape and alcohol. ( you wonder at the minds of these men I tell you). his thesis was that if you drink, you become inhibited (*all fine to this point) - and so! for men - this is very dangerous. WHy? because - clearly - in his opinion - men are all rapists waiting to lunge - and if they drink - why there would be more raping going on etc.
So according to him - if men in the USA drank less - there would be less rape. If i were in the audience - I would have put one question to him - ‘ so how do you explain rape in muslim societies then?hmmm? ‘ And he would be most disappointed to meet all the normal blokes in the world who go to the pub and don’t rape anyone. see its’ men like this dr.naik that go around : a) casting slurs on men in general and b) making muslim men look like a bunch of thugs with no self-respect and self-control and c) finding opportunities to blame women and other ‘externalities’.
Hardly surprising there is a ‘caricature’ of muslim men floating around…its these fellows like Naik perpetuating it!
and one has to wonder - about the kind of moral philosophical implications to all this sort of thing. It really implies that - > if we are faced with temptation, well it wasn’t our fault. In order to fulfill the requirements of our religion - we need to go into a cave - or something - to be away from the ‘temptations of this world’.
So - why not blame God for ‘putting temptation’ in front of you? ‘Oh it’s a test’. Well if it’s a test - then it’s cheating …isn’t it..running away from the ‘temptation’ ( or forcing the temptation into a sack)
!!
And - before I retire - let me make the other point to this crap about the men focusing on women’s bodies. It harks back to the victorian notion that women aren’t interested in sex and that men don’t arouse interest in women. And frankly - that’s crap - complete bull - and i think we ALL know this. The mullahs will have you thinking this same kind of nonsense - one-sided sexuality - but what do they know!?? Next thing you know they’ll be saying ‘I’m God - i know - i created your body’ ! Grrr..
**really makes me mad***
“Sahil
How dare you give credit to someone else for my post.
Bastard.
Womens rights and religion they are not compatible so forget about it.”
Huh, which post are you talking about, this one:
“has anyone seen this?
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/article1354063.ece
i think this woman has a lot to say about it from a grass-roots level.
b’shalom
bananabrain”
If you posted the link before, why didn’t you just post it on this topic?
sahil, the comment about kismet being a perve wasnt a personal attack on him. it was more of a joke, its like my english friend is annoyed at all the muslim women covering up gives him less opportunity to perve you see lol
women do have urges just like men. But I beleive they are able to control them more. they just eat chocolate instead.
as for muslim mullahs, they are the biggest perves i tells ya!
But I beleive they are able to control them more. they just eat chocolate instead.
!
A moslem and feminist: Chuckie you are a screaming nut case on two very important countscounts
i know - chocolate eh?
anyway it’s all moot - who cares who’s attracted to whom more, why is it for some men ( not just any man by the way..) to say who should do what, who’s like what, etc. et.c
i think the whole thing that gets missed time and time again is this business about ‘religious authority’ or authority full stop. ( yes i know anarcho bells ringing again) who gives whom authority? it’s all about challenging this said authority. the thing is that a lot of people contribute to the social legitimacy of mullahs as religious authority. so say even if someone is not an ‘islamic scholar’ if they’ve got enough ‘moral and social’ authority, people will listen to them and give them that authority.
Electro,
You and I are apparently reading different articles in parallel universes.
Zohra says: “The practice of Islam all over the world, with some exceptions of course, is generally one of active policing of Muslim women, our bodies, our autonomy. In this country, we do have forced marriage, we do have murder in the name of honour, and we do have female genital cutting or mutilation within the Muslim community, and using Islam as a justification.”
Did you get the impression from that that she thought that was a correct interpretation of the Qu’ran? I certainly read it as a criticism of these practices, which ran under the sub-heading “Theory v Reality”.
Or:
“Establishing law when we’re talking about murder is understandable. When we’re speaking of other areas such as dress, individual choice is a more acceptable guiding principle. If there is no compulsion in religion I should not be forced to wear the hijab. But I’m not sure how well Muslims have been grappling with choice in this country. Are we really ok with women choosing not to wear the hijab?”
Which seems to me to be a pretty fundamental question.
It is probably worth pointing out that it is not all that long ago that Christian women were expected to wear a hat in Church.
Contrary to the opinion of some, nothing is set in stone.
The article is about tension, it seems to me, and it is interesting to see.
Cutting remarks about the nature of Islam, or any other religion come to that, is unlikely in the extreme to influence anybody who feels defined by it. Gentle criticism of social constructs which hide behind a religion are, in my view, more likely to effect actual change for the better.
Let’s just face it - none of the major religions treat women fairly or equally in their basic texts. Some are better than others, but this seems to depend on their cultural surroundings. That is the history of gender relations in humanity, not just the history of religion. Neither the Bible nor the Quran are what you might call compatible with feminism.
Religions are always interpreted anew by each generation. Every single one. Christians aren’t the same now as they were in medieval times and neither are Muslims.