Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Women in Islam: Damsels in Distress?

By Soumaya Ghannoushi, Comment Is Free. Posted December 18, 2007.


The west should stop using the liberation of Muslim women to justify its strategy of global dominance.
Advertisement

It seems that Muslim women - particularly those living in western capitals- are destined to remain besieged by two debilitating discourses, which though different in appearance, are one in essence.

The first of these is conservative and exclusionist, sentencing Muslim women to a life of childbearing and rearing, lived out in the narrow confines of their homes at the mercy of fathers, brothers, and husbands. Revolving around notions of sexual purity and family honour, it appeals to religion for justification and legitimization.

The other is a "liberation" discourse that vows to break Muslim woman's bondage and free her of the oppressive yoke of an aggressive, patriarchal, and backward society. She is a mass of powerlessness and enslavement; the embodiment of seclusion, silence, and invisibility. Her only hope of deliverance from the cave of veiling and isolation lies in the benevolent intervention of this force of emancipation. It will save her from her hellishly miserable and bleak existence, to the promised heaven of enlightenment and progress.

It is a game of binaries that pits one stereotype against another: the wretched caged female Muslim victim and her ruthless jailer society against an idealized "west" that is the epitome of enlightenment, rationalism, and freedom. Those escapees who leave the herd are held up as living testimonies to the arduousness of transition from the twilights of tribe, religion and tradition, to the dawn of reason, individualism, and liberation.

There is no denying the manifold injustices that cripple the lives of many Muslim women and stunt their potential. But these appear in this condescending liberation narrative as representative of the condition of the millions of Muslim women around the world and exclusive to them. There are no colors, tones, or shades here. There are no living real women, urban or rural, educated or illiterate, affluent or poor, Turkish, Malaysian, or Egyptian - differences so crucial in defining women's life chances and shaping their situations.

All we know about this ghostly creature is her Muslim identity, as though she was entirely shaped and affected by religion and theology irrespective of social background, economic circumstances, political reality, or regional and local cultural traditions. Important as it is, legal and theological reform will on its own do little to improve the lot of impoverished, uneducated, or insecure women in Somalia, Iraq, or rural Bangladesh.

The narrative revolves around a dehistoricised, universal "Muslim woman"; a crushing model that oppresses flesh and blood Muslim women, denies them subjectivity and singularity, and claims to sum up their lives with all their vicissitudes and details from cradle to coffin. It reserves for itself the right to speak for them exclusively, whether they like it or not.

Representations of the Muslim woman serve a dual legitimizing function, at once confirming and justifying the west's narrative of itself, and of the Muslim other. The victimized Muslim woman is the lens through which Islam and Muslim society are seen. In medieval times she was cast as an intimidating powerful queen or termagant (like Bramimonde in the Chanson de Roland, or Belacane in Parzival) reflecting an intimidating powerful Muslim civilization. And when the power balance began to shift in Europe's favor in the 17th and 18th centuries, she was made to mirror her society's fallen fortunes. She turned into a harem slave, leading little more than a dumb animal existence, subjugated, inert, abject, powerless, and invisible. She is the quintessential embodiment of a despotic, deformed, and backward Islam.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: neocons, muslim women, women in islam, imperialism

Soumaya Ghannoushi is an academic and freelance writer. She is a researcher at the University of London.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
well
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Dec 18, 2007 7:28 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Far too many women are abused both physically and sexually and made to feel like second class citizens or less than human in this nation for us to play savior to women the world over before actually constructing a culture where women ARE safe, respected, and treated equally, and where they are in control of their own lives and bodies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Real Saudi Woman
Posted by: ScottP on Dec 18, 2007 9:10 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My girlfriend for years was a Saudi woman. I think she's the only person I ever knew well who couldn't cough up one nice thing to say about her place of origin, not even once a year. Remember, the repressive Saudi regime is the result of US policy, propped up by the US, supported by the US even after 911. Don't ever think US foreign policy has any intention of liberation, in fact it is repeatedly opposed to it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The statement could be broadened a bit...
Posted by: Xynyx on Dec 18, 2007 10:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
to include women in any of a number of fundamentalist patriarchal religions. Why pick on Islam alone?

And I get the justification thing... I'm not going to condone that... but the story that caused this latest stir certainly did expose one of the more reprehensible behavior patterns of... the regime... whether it's a Muslim thing or a dictator thing doesn't seem to matter.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Surprise! Posted by: oregoncharles
The Reality
Posted by: Peterpiper on Dec 18, 2007 1:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After some thought I don't think we should blame the religion for whats happening. It should be the followers who are screwing it up. I think the problem is alot of these woman abuse cases is because of deep rooted system of culture rather than religion. They use their culture to influence religion and use it to back what they feel is "culturally" correct: Woman as subservients.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Islam and western values.
Posted by: oregoncharles on Dec 19, 2007 11:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article is carefully designed to obscure an inconvenient reality: the actual treatment of women within Islam.

Obviously, this sort of thing doesn't excuse invading another country. That is both immoral (because it trades a certain evil for a speculative good) and clearly counterproductive. And the reality is that the US is closely allied with the most reactionary regime of all. That tips us off to the real agenda. Protecting women is just a smokescreen.

That doesn't mean it isn't worth doing. We mustn't withhold someone's human rights because of her family's or even her country's religion.

There is actually a model for an effective, moral campaign for human rights: the campaign against apartheid in South Africa. Granted, it's difficult to pressure an oil state; at the moment, they rule the world. But they do feel moral pressure, as the King admitted, first by complaining about it and then by pardoning the victims (without reforming his courts.)

The article, and some responses to it, reflect a large helping of liberal guilt. Because Islam is a colonial religion (forgetting its own history of imperialism), we feel that we shouldn't criticize. Indeed, we're in an awkward position, sucking at the oil teat while bad-mouthing the owners. As I pointed out above, we're in an even worse position when our own country is invading theirs for no good reason (in the process making things much worse for women there).

An uncomfortable fact remains: as far as I can tell, there are important conflicts between certain tenets of Islam and Western, and especially progressive, values. The most obvious is the one this article is trying to avoid: the systematic and apparently deep-seated devaluation of women. That is what permits actions that aren't in fact Islamic, like honor killings or genital mutilation. And it's also reflected in the dress codes, far more restrictive for women than men.

There are also conflicts with freedom of speech and religion - remember the fatwa against Salman Rushdie? You can be sure that he does. That was based on Koranic rulings against apostasy or any mockery of Islam. Hence, also, the bizarre response to the Danish cartoons.

Historically, there are similar conflicts with Christianity, actually the bloodiest and least tolerant of religions. We can still see those conflicts with churches that never bought into the Enlightenment: the fundamentalists and the Catholic Church. (Most American Catholics, except for Pat Buchanan, are really pretty Protestant in their attitudes. But the Church itself is part of the Religious Right, and even tries to impose its dictates on Catholic politicians.) We need to remember that tolerance and secularism were ways to stop Christians from killing each other en masse.

Those values could do the same thing for places like the Middle East. Unfortunately, the Enlightenment arrived there in the baggage of colonial armies, and the area seems never to have gone through a similar process of reform.

Even more unfortunately, that process cost Europe rivers of blood. We can only hope the process is more peaceful in the Middle East - but it isn't looking good.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Note Posted by: oregoncharles
Maven
Posted by: maven on Dec 19, 2007 12:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am weary of religion being confused with culture. Patriarchal cultures will create or interpret their religion in patriarchal terms and practices. When Jewish men prayed daily that they thank God they weren't born a woman, they were reflecting the patriarchal culture of the Israelites. When Christianity was formed--clearly it was an amalgam of the teachings of the Christ as well as the "Old Testament" religion of the Jews--again a patriarchal culture defining the rules of a religion.

Most middle-eastern cultures are extremely patriarchal--and so the pattern is repeated in the religious practices, either by interpretation or literally codifying the behavior with religious laws.
The more that the fundies of all religions are out in front saying their definition is absolute, a definition that includes the worst of cultural behavior, the more that the real loving nature of most religions is shoved to the background.

Remember, ultimately this is a question of power and history teaches us over and over that power is never surrendered easily.

The best way any man or woman can prove that their religion is exemplary is to live life lovingly and prove to the world that their religion can expand beyond its primitive cultural past and that the faith has a spiritual foundation in goodness and love. Anything less opens the religion up to rejection--throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Iraq war has nothing to do with it
Posted by: Hans B on Dec 20, 2007 2:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author writes: "No wonder then that the "Muslim woman" liberation warriors, the likes of Nick Cohen, Christopher Hitchens, and Pascal Bruckner, were the same people who cheered American/ British troops as they blasted their way through Kabul and Baghdad"...

That's deliberate blurring, giving the impression that women's rights were a reason (or an excuse) for the Iraq war. Nothing could be further from the truth, surely the author knows that. No one - no one - seriously pretended that Iraq had to be attacked to free Iraqi women. Everyone knew and acknowledged that Iraqi women were (at that time) very emancipated in comparison to almost every other Arab nation. Women's rights never had anything to do with the Iraq war. Nor is it true that warmongers are feminists and vice versa.

I'm sympathetic to the "no meddling" argument, but there are limits. The recent victim of rape in Saudi Arabia, sentenced to lashings for her "crime", was pardoned because of Western outrage. Should we have shut up out of respect for local custom?

I live in France where the veil controversy has raged. And I supported - as did every single French Arab woman I know - the ban on veiling shoolgirls, as a way to protect them from oppressive tradition. It simply is not true that as regards women's rights, all cultures are equal.

Women cannot liberate themselves when oppression is total. There first have to be some cracks in the prison through which to see the light - and into which to push the crowbar. Those first little cracks are often brought by Western influence. I don't see how that can be denied.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]