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