Oil: The root of all evil?

I’m reading an extremely interesting and thought-provoking paper called Oil, Women and Islam by Michael Ross. I’m sure the title itself is self-explanatory, but here’s an introduction nevertheless:

“Women have made less progress toward gender equality in the Middle East than in any other region. Many observers claim this is due to the region’s Islamic traditions. I suggest that oil, not Islam, is at fault; and that oil production also explains why women lag behind in many other countries. Oil production reduces the number of women in the labor force, which in turn reduces their political influence. As a result, oil-producing states are left with atypically strong patriarchal norms, laws, and political institutions. I support this argument with global data on oil production, female work patterns, and female political representation, and by comparing oil-rich Algeria to oil-poor Morocco and Tunisia. This argument has implications for the study of the Middle East, Islamic culture, and the resource curse.”

You can read it here.

-F

Decoy Politics

This is ridiculous. And the fact that Anni agreed to waver his initial choice in favour of a male candidate is even more ridiculous. Majority wins, right? Sorry but no. No to democracy and democratizing the Maldives. No to patriarchal interpretations that’s central to fanaticism. I want nothing to do with a movement, be it a majority or a minority, which treats women as an optional extra.

We didn’t use to be a male-only nation. We were once a kingdom ruled by queens, both before and after the (forced) conversion to Islam. Our women weren’t a meek, submissive lot who allowed the honour of men to be founded upon the degradation of women. In fact, the infamous Arab traveler Ibn Battuta wrote: “It is a strange thing about these islands that their ruler is a woman, Khadija. Her army comprises about a thousand men, recruited from abroad, though some are natives. They are paid in rice monthly.” He also wrote how the “womenfolk do not cover their heads, not even their queen does so, and they comb their hair and gather it at one side. Most of them wear only an apron from their waists to the ground, the rest of their bodies being uncovered. When I held the qadiship there, I tried to put an end to this practice and ordered them to wear clothes, but I met with no success.” Another traveler Al-Idrisi wrote: “All these islands have a chief (ra’ïs), who unites them, protects and defends them, and makes truce according to his ability. His wife enacts as an arbitrator among the people and does not veil herself from them. When she issues her orders, her husband, the chief, though he is present, does not interfere with any of her ordinances. It has always been a custom with them that a woman arbitrates, a custom which they not depart.”

Today it’s an entirely different story. Within the past five years extremists have succeeded in doing what even Ibn Battuta could not. Everywhere you look you see women garbed completely in black from head to toe. These women do not work, do not bother with education, do not concern themselves with politics/economy, and do not believe in contraception or vaccination. Their entire world is behind the closed doors of their homes- the ‘natural’ boundary drawn for them by men who make Kaiser Wilhelm look like a liberal. Where did we go wrong?

The increasingly popular acceptance of this extremist muck as the norm, as the part and parcel of Islamic tradition, is a symptom. It signifies our unstable politics and economical insecurities and how they affect each island-state. In the face of poverty, 2004 tsunami disaster (some island populations still remain displaced in temporary refuges), low income (unless one is a parliament member), limited educational opportunities, increasing domestic violence and drug trafficking, one can easily understand what attracts a man or a woman to become a raging zealot. Amidst alienation, despair, hopelessness and feelings of being abandoned by a God who is not supposed to let His believers down, Wahhabism offers a new interpretation to the purpose of life and shows a way of feeling empowered. This ultra-extremist doctrine, which was founded by the 19th century evangelist Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, persuades the zealot that individual trials and tribulations are trivial when compared to the state of the Islamic World (Palestine, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Iraq et al). And the only way to revive the ummah’s honour and dignity is to follow Abd al-Wahab’s example and rid Islam of the corruptions (capitalism, feminism, intellectualism, sectarian divisions, mysticism etc) that has crept into religion. In his book ‘The Place of Tolerance in Islam’ Khalid Abou el Fadl writes: “According to the Wahhabi creed, it was imperative to return to a presumed pristine, simple, straightforward Islam, which could be entirely reclaimed by literal implementation of the commands of the Prophet, and by strict adherence to correct ritual practice. Importantly, Wahhabism rejected any attempt to interpret the divine law historically or contextually, with attendant possibilities of reinterpretation under changed circumstances. It treated the vast majority of Islamic history as corruption of true and authentic Islam.”

Wahhabism was, and is, essentially a political movement that was globalized with the sword. This is evident in the history of Saudi Arabia. According to El Fadl, “in the late 18th century the Al Saud family united with the Wahhabi movement, and rebelled against Ottoman rule in Arabia. The rebellions were very bloody and the Wahhabis indiscriminately slaughtered and terrorized Muslims and non-Muslims alike. In 1818, Egyptian forced under the leadership of Muhammad Ali defeated this rebellion and Wahhabism seemed destined to become another fringe historical experience with no lasting impact on Islamic theology. But the Wahhabi creed was resuscitated in the early 20th century under the leadership of Abd al-Aziz ibn Saud, who allied himself with Wahhabi militant rebels know as the Ikhwan, in the beginnings of what would become Saudi Arabia. Even with the formation of the Saudi state, Wahhabism remained a creed of limited influence until the mid 1970s when the sharp rise in oil prices, together with aggressive Saudi proselytizing, dramatically contributed to its wide dissemination in the Muslim world. Wahhabism did not propagate itself as one school of thought or a particular orientation within Islam. Rather it asserted itself as the orthodox ’straight path’ of Islam. Moreover the proponents of Wahhabism refused to be labeled or categorized as followers of any particular figure including Abd al-Wahhab himself. Its proponents insisted that they were simply abiding by the dictates of al-salaf al-salih (the rightly guided predecessors, namely the Prophet and his companions), and in doing so, Wahhabis were able to appropriate the symbolism and categories of Salafism. Ironically, Salafism was founded in the early 20th century by al-Afghani, Muhammad Abduh, and Rashid Ridaas a liberal theological orientation. To respond to the demands of modernity, they argued, Muslims needed to return to the original sources of the Quran and Sunnah, and engage in de novo interpretations of the text. By the 1970s however, Wahhabism had succeeded in transforming Salafism from a liberal modernist orientation to a literalist, puritan, and conservative theology. The sharp rises in oil prices in 1975 enabled Saudi Arabia, the main proponent of Wahhabism, to disseminate the Wahhabi creed under a Salafi guise, which purported to revert back to the accretions of historical practice. In reality, however, Saudi Arabia projected its own fairly conservative cultural practices onto the textual sources of Islam ad went on to proselytize these projections as the embodiment of Islamic orthodoxy.”

This is where we went wrong- when we adopted Wahhabism as the solution to the Maldivian problem when it should have been treated as a symptom, a warning. Democracy came a bit too late. If anything, democracy, at this stage, is nothing more than necessary fiction. MDP may have members like Mariya Ahmed Didi and Dr. Aminath Jameel who speak for women and their rights. But they are nothing more than decoys. They play a role of deception, to lure us into fantasy of gender equity rather than depravity. Their biological sex might be female, but the cultural construct of their gender is not. And this is precisely why I want no part of this decoy politics.

-F

Want to help a sister win a scholarship?

F and I see education as one of utmost importance, especially for Muslim women. That is why when Amani, a Muslim woman, seeking a scholarship for her MA has asked for help, we are happy to do our bit. She has asked for those who are interested in helping her to view the following link.  The person who gets the most hits will win the scholarship.

This is her message from her blog:

Assalam Alaikum,

As you may know, I am a mother of two, and I’m currently pursuing my MA in English. My husband and I, have to pay for my tuition out of pocket, as we refuse to accept loans based on Riba.

I recently entered a scholarship contest. The theme was ”What Makes U Special.” You can help me win a scholarship just by watching this video. The entry that secures the most views will win a $5,000 scholarship. All you have to do is view the video, available at this link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SO5oP8YlxR8

If you want to help even more, you can forward this video to everyone you know. Every view helps. If you have a blog, facebook, myspace page or website, I would certainly appreciate a link.

Shukran

Amani

Mernissi on Al-Ghazali

Recently Muslimah Media Watch discussed a topic on sexuality and made a common mistake which I believe is worth stressing. The author referred to Al-Ghazali’s theory of sexuality through the reference made by Fatima Mernissi’s ‘Beyond the Veil’ (1987). The author rightly points out how Women scholars of Islam are often accused of being biased and therefore conveniently discredited. Indeed, one must acknowledge the biased tendencies in all authors, whether male or female. However, that doesn’t mean to ignore those of female authors so to not risk the charge their writings are unfairly being discredited!

What’s unfortunate about Mernissi is her own experiences do to an extent influence her scholarship. Her personal experience of living in a Moroccan harem in the 1940s and having been subjected to misogynistic attitudes from the male-dominated and quite segregated community she was raised in, she reads this back into the works of Islamic scholarship to explain her own unfortunate experiences. Furthermore, she attempts to homogenize her experience to mean the experiences of all Muslim women.

What’s problematic with Mernissi being used as an indirect reference to Ghazali is that the author instead uses Mernissi’s interpretation or should I say distortion of Ghazali. It’s a harsh accusation to make of Mernissi, however, once reading her book, it becomes clear how she completely manipulates Ghazali’s understanding of sexuality. I’ll refer to a few examples, although there are many throughout her book. Mernissi writes Ghazali sees civilization as “Struggling to contain women’s destructive, all absorbing power. Women must be controlled to prevent men from being distracted from their social and religious duties. Society can survive only by creating institutions that foster male dominance through sexual segregation and polygamy for believers.

She thus argues that contemporary Muslim thinking has been influenced by Ghazali here and gives credence and justification for the dangers of women being active in the public space. Moreover, women should be ‘controlled’ to prevent men from being distracted from their religious and spiritual duties. Mernissi concludes that the “entire Muslim social structure can be seen as an attack on, and a defense against, the disruptive power of female sexuality”.

However, Mernissi’s attack comes with no direct references to his work. Instead, she’d rather write paragraph after paragraph of her own version of Ghazali. If one actually reads what Ghazali has to say about sexuality, it would immediately become clear that nowhere in Ghazali’s work does he specifically talk about women’s sexuality when he discusses sexual desire or sexuality. In ‘Marriage and Sexuality in Islam’ and ‘Breaking the two desires’ Ghazali is concerned with the virtue of both men and women and is in fact talking about sexual desire for both men and women and how excessiveness can lead a Muslim away from their spiritual journey. In the latter book he writes “sexual desire contains evils which may destroy both religion and the world if it is not controlled and subjugated, and restored to a state of equilibrium”. As Katherine Bullock rightly points out in her brilliant critique of Mernissi from her book ‘Rethinking Muslim Women and the Veil’ (2003) Ghazali here is referring to sexual desire in general, or even more so, male desire considering he’s writing for them. This is not surprising considering Ghazali was a sufi and this emphasis on spiritual gross and moderation is in accordance with his Sufi beliefs.

Mernissi completely ignores Ghazali’s sufi direction here. Although Ghazali has a clear male bias in other areas of Islam, one cannot say this about his ideas on sexuality. Considering how he stresses the importance for husbands to ensure their wives sexual pleasures are met, this line of thinking was advanced for his time.

I recommend Katherine Bullock’s ‘Rethinking Muslim Women and the Veil’ for further insight into Mernissi’s distortion.

 

-Sahar

Muslim fashion shows

'The J-lo hijab'

So it’s Islam Awareness Week here in New Zealand. What is this week all about? It’s basically Muslims letting know the very ill-informed New Zealander that Islam isn’t all that bad. In fact, it’s not a terrorist religion at all. True story. Mosques around the country welcome people in so they can learn all about the Muslim religion—a more genuine source than the media, I’m sure.  As part of this week’s events (and following a disturbing global trend) the Muslim community has organised a fashion show for Muslim women.

Although such an event shows Muslims actively and positively participating in their community and doing it in a way that does not feel threatening to non-Muslims—because let’s be honest, they’re fragile little things and can be frightened so easily by anything misconstrued as too ‘alien’. However, a fashion show seems almost the antithesis of Islamic understandings of modesty—both for men and women. It’s one thing to take care of your appearance; it’s another to turn modesty into fashion, a trend—susceptible to market value. Undoubtedly, the circulation of women in societies now (especially in the West) as a commodity of the markets, in whatever shape and form she is produced and reproduced is seeping into Muslim practice too. The hijab (in the general understanding of it to mean modest dress) protects women from the highly sexualized capitalist economy which reduces her existence to what the markets dictate to her. It is a protection from the ornamentation and prostitution of the female body, and the superficial representations of her. Instead, these fashion shows are exposing her to the same capitalist forces which wish to transform her into a profit, a consumer; to dress her in accordance to the current trend.

It is no surprise then given the global trend of women wearing hijab, there has been a shift in focus by the fashion industry to meet a ‘new demand’ as they are putting it. What they really mean is appropriating religious dress and turning it into profit. J-lo pictured here wearing the hijab makes me apprehensive about the next announcement: “hijab is the new black”.

 

-Sahar

White men saving brown women from brown men

Oh, this is just incredible. This, too. And this.

According to the articles, women are blowing themselves up because the big bad Muslim men are forcing them into it by brainwashing them into avenging their dead husbands/children or by raping them (“this would leave her with no choice but to end her life”) or by threatening to kill their husbands/children unless they become suicide bombers. They are treated merely as weapons, a means to an end, and nothing more. So, naturally the US has taken upon itself to ’save’ these helpless women (sound familiar?). And I just love how they are going about it- y’know, being all respectful of Islam and tolerant of Muslim cultural sensibilities. It’s hypocritical and this selective arrogation of feminism and concern for Muslim women (a commonality in imperialistic discourses) sickens me.

- F