Mona Eltahawy on Afghan Women

Sahar

It’s always refreshing to hear Muslim women’s voices on issues affecting them.  There should be more Muslim women in such discussions– Egyptian writer Mona Eltahawy’s being no exception.  However, when I read her recent article No Faith in Afghan Clerics, I was somewhat disappointed.  Eltahawy takes what is a complicated issue and reduces it to misogyny. 

In response to the murder of activist Sitara Achakzai in Kandahar, Eltahawy’s rips into the Taliban right from the outset and sees the incident as a message of hatred of women. 

“Clearly, misogyny has married impunity and the Taliban – ousted from power in 2001 – are, once more, terrorizing the women of their country”.

She then proceeds to blame the Afghan President, Hamid Karzai , and Afghan clerics for legitimising this misogyny.

“When the president is willing to sell women out and when those who claim to be the gatekeepers of God give sanction to such selling out, it is not difficult to understand why the Taliban’s hate for women gets a free ride.”

Sorry Eltahawy, but the situation is a little more complicated than Karzai’s selling out and the Taliban’s rise to power. The political context of the occupation is essential to understand what’s going in the country. In order to ensure popular support from influential political factions, Karzai and the government, along with its Western supporters, need to appease powerful tribal leaders.  The current debacle over the law that allegedly legalises rape (which the government is now reviewing) is an example of Karzai pandering to conservative Shia votes. 

The conservatives themselves are men reacting to the threatening Western presence and targeting women who are often the victims of wars and the political instability that it brings. With the threat of outsiders, women become burdened with the need to carry and preserve culture. Afghanistan is a salient example of how the need to ‘protect’ culture (in many ways in the guise of Islam) has played a dominant role in national politics. This has occurred within the context of 3 wars: the Soviet war, the civil war and now the post-2001 war. These wars have pillaged the country, destroyed the social and political infrastructure, and shaken the cultural landscape. Many of the battles during these wars have occurred on the bodies of women; so the issue of dress has become paramount. It is not a coincidence that America’s 2001 invasion was under the rubric of liberating Afghan women by removing their burqa.  In the politics of visibility, the appearance of women becomes a symbol of x identity and x ideology. It’s not necessarily a hatred of women, which is how Eltahawy has interpreted it as but a desperate power game by two patriarchies wanting to control women who have historically become the signifier or identity and reflections of political campaigns.

Afghan women themselves have recognised the complexity of their plight and understand the Western presence in the country is feeding the extremism. Female Afghan MP Malalai Joya states, 

“We have to continue to expose the crimes of this occupation, and not let our opposition to the Taliban blind us to the fact that foreign interference and military occupation is not helping bringing democracy.”

The political instability in the country is the product of the past wars and the current occupation; and this has ensured the vulnerability of Afghan women  and exposed them to violence and political repression in an environment of reactionary politics.  Eltahawy concludes,

“I am a Muslim woman who is fed up of those leaders and clerics who claim to speak in the name of my religion and yet who ignore its message of justice and equality. They are just as much to blame as the gunmen who shot Achakzai and Kakar.”

But are not the Western forces to blame as well for their support for these leaders and clerics? Someone is  legitimising their authority and driving the extremism after all. In focusing on extremism and oppression of women divorced from a political context, Eltahawy reinforces the orientalist tale that the West’s presence is one of benevolence. Out of the goodness of its own heart, Western forces have penetrated this land of extremism to liberate its people. That the 2001 invasion to oust the Taliban was justified, and the occupation exists in order to save Afghan women from Afghan men.  In actuality, Eltahawy’s refusal to acknowledge the West’s part in the extremism rampant in Afghanistan, and its responsibility for the debilitating status of Afghan women, she has ignored one of the main factors contributing to the problem.

Muslimah of the Week: Fatimah

 

Fatimah was the daughter of the Prophet ( pbuh) and Khadija. There is a lot of controversy around her with Shia and Sunni differing in what she meant for the original community. As a result, it’s been difficult to gather information about her that isn’t riddled with the politics around her. Instead, I’ve briefly focused on her character and why she is an inspiration for Muslim women.

Fatimah was just 5 years old when the family received the news of her father was to be the Prophet of Islam.  As a result, Fatimah witnessed the struggles of her father spreading the word of God early on. There were many occasions where she is said to have come to his defense because the Prophet (pbuh) was harassed and bullied him. At times she would stand in defiance against violent groups who attacked the Prophet (pbuh). According to tradition, on one occasion while Muhammad was performing the Salah (prayer) in the Kaaba, Abu Jahl and his men poured Camel placenta over him. Upon hearing the news, Fatimah rushed to her father and wiped away the filth while scolding the men.  She was slapped across the face but this did not stop her from continuing to defending the Prophet (pbuh).   The incident marked many which symbolized how she did not stand meekly but joined his struggle to defend Islam and the early Muslims.

Fatimah was given the title of az Zahra (The Lady of Light). She was a kind and charitable woman who often gave away all her food to the poor, even if it meant she was left hungry.  She showed great patience during long periods of severe poverty.

She inherited from her father a persuasive eloquence that when she spoke, it was rooted in wisdom and both men and women were moved by what she had to say. 

Fatimah tried to participate as much as she could in the affairs of the growing Muslim community.  Many times she would accompany the Prophet and her husband Ali (Muhammad’s cousin) in battle tending to their wounds and providing food for them.  At the Battle of the Ditch she played an important supportive role by preparing food during what was a long difficult siege.  She also accompanied her father in the campaign to liberate Makkah.

Along with Ali, Fatimah was also called upon by Abu Sufyan to intercede on his behalf with Muhammad while attempting to make amends following the violation of the Treaty of Hudaybiyya.  Abu Sufyan also asked for Fatimah’s protection when she went to Mecca while it was under occupation which she refused under instruction from the Prophet. (pbuh).

What we can take from the life of Fatimah is the strength, courage, intelligence, piety and leadership from a woman who contributed a great deal to the first Muslim community.  The fact that she had a prominent role in treaty discussions, in aiding fellow Muslims in battle and was sought after as a patron for men shows the level of participation and respect she had in the community.

 

 

Islam, CEDAW and International Law

Farah

In the past few years I’ve noticed a disturbing trend. Now I don’t have a problem with trends. Trends are fun, they make me cool, and that means I can relate to the young people. The problem is with this new trend is that its called “Let’s Obsess about Human Rights.” The other problem with this trend is that every time it rears its god ugly head its accompanied by its really, really irritating friend “Don’t worry about engaging in critical dialogue with human rights because then you might just realise it’s a load of crap.” I don’t really have a problem with human rights in principle… alright, I do. Actually, this whole post is all about the main issue that I have with women’s rights in particular (codified in the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women – CEDAW). Specifically, the fact that international law is an ineffective tool within which to realise women’s rights, especially when in relation to Islamic states. There are two main issues which have not been wholly reconciled within the literature. With this limitations in mind, it is argued that norms and principles for the empowerment of women are more stable and fundamental when adopted freely from within the state. Any determined project for the empowerment of women must be addressed from a bottom-up approach.

Firstly, women’s rights discourse is rooted in western feminist’s assumption that the oppression of women in Islamic states is solely attributable to the culture and to Islam. They argue (in response to the concerns of cultural relativism) that basing rights discourse on differing cultural values will undermine women’s rights because certain ‘undesireable’ elements of the culture are antithetical to women’s rights. ‘Oppressive’ cultural practices must be rejected before progress can be achieved. This assumption that discrimination is rooted in culture is reflected in CEDAW at Article 5(a). It states:

5. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures:

(a) To modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudices … and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women;

Blaming the culture undermines the substantial evidence that the disenfranchisement of women is rooted in economic and social conditions. (For a fuller discussion on this point I’ll direct you to read Sahar’s post “Women and Culture”) Within the context of CEDAW and international law it is important to note that this approach is attempting to initiate top-down ‘cultural’ change and ignores the wider economic and social problems which contribute to the injustices against women. What is needed is grass-roots change; Muslim women must examine the justifications for, and the extent to which, the system have been corrupted by the influence of colonialism and current social and political conditions. There are a number of contemporary Muslim women’s organisations that are actively engaging in such a dialogue. Their efforts in engaging with rights discourse on their own terms are hampered by Western feminists (and CEDAW) who insist on culture-blaming and thus deny the Muslim women her agency. At best, the role that treaties like CEDAW can play is as pieces of public persuasion that may help grass-roots activists and politicians eager to promote a process of domestic reform.

The next point that I think needs to be addressed a lot more critically within the literature on human rights is its status as international law. Regardless of what journalists love to claim when pointing fingers at other cultures, human rights is not customary international law and states are not under an obligation to protect and promote those rights. Additionally, enforcement of human rights is also an issue that needs to be addressed. It is difficult to use enforcement mechanisms available for breaches of international law to enforce breaches of human rights. The traditional rules regarding accountability, state responsibility and enforcement are based on essentially reciprocal rights and obligations like those found in international law generally. These enforcement mechanisms operate horizontally and are subject to the political will of individual states. Human rights discourse sits uneasily within this framework. Admittedly, there has been vigorous development of treaty-based human rights law, like CEDAW, which have specific committees to investigate claims of breaches brought by individuals. However, the treaty regime presents an ad-hoc approach to human rights which ultimately undermines its claims to ‘universality’. Additionally, access to those committees is contingent on states granting their citizens access. Individuals have no status in international law. The fundamental driving force in the development of all international law remains the sovereign State.

By highlighting the two issues above regarding women’s rights I have tried to establish that the protection of human rights is a process which depends largely upon strengthening internal institutions, structures and procedures for challenging violations and denials of rights. Governments must develop civil society to ensure that the social and economic conditions aid the enfranchisement of women. Empower grass-roots women’s rights organisations to re-interpret the role of women in their society. None of these happen over night. Change takes time. And even though time isn’t something that a lot of women have, for the rights to be meaningful and fundamental change to occur, people need to wait.

Introductions

Hi, my name is Farah and after a little kick from Sahar I’ve decided to become a regular contributor to Nuseiba. I’ve guest posted a couple of times and been a regular commentator around a couple of blogs and I think sometimes I come off as sounding really harsh but I’m actually quite nice (…ish) when I choose to tone down the sarcasm.

So about me…. I’m originally from Kashmir, India, was born in Kuwait and have been in Australia for over 20 years. I’m currently in my last year of an undergraduate Arts/Law degree in Melbourne and when I graduate next year hopefully I’ll start my postgraduate diploma in cultural studies (and the Ctrl key on my keyboard isn’t working and it’s pissing me off). My major areas of interest are cultural politics and theory, semiotics and discourse analysis, post colonialism, nationalism, diaspora studies, Islamic studies, feminism, international law, indigenous studies and sociolinguistics, and hopefully my posts will do justice to the wealth of academia already written in those areas. I think that’s about it at the moment, I’m quite new to this whole blogging thing actually but really grateful that I have this opportunity to share my point of view. I’ll hopefully be getting some new posts up in the next week or two, and hope you enjoy reading them. Thanks.

Farah.

How to Understand Religious Extremism

Sahar

A recent video of a 17 year old Pakistani girl flogged by the Pakistani Taliban has produced some heated debate. The reasons for the flogging are still unclear, although there’s been numerous explanations as to why it happened. Some say it’s because of adultery, others say refusal of marriage. Whatever the reasons, the debate has highlighted important issues that haven’t really been raised and what I believe the debate should be focused on.

The video is quite difficult to watch. However, Faith from MMW pointed out how these videos have started to desensitise viewers on the horrific treatment of women. I can see where she is coming from. We are bombarded with images coming out of the region of women being stoned, flogged, injured or dead from an honour killing. For many Western viewers, it merely is a reinforcement of Islam’s barbarism and treatment of women.

For many local journalists who question the timing of the video and whether it actually occurred in Swat, the video seems to be an attempt to manufacture consent for further Western intervention and to demonise the local authorities. They do have a point. Why is the video getting so much attention and not the scores of men, women and children being killed over the border at the hands of the occupation?

However, proponents of human rights and particular women’s rights have responded emotionally and outraged by what they perceive to be the violation of the girl’s dignity. Groups like the Feminist Majority Foundation have seen the video as reason why they (Western forces) should stay; ‘nobly’ stating “We recognize there are forces that want to establish a dictatorship in Afghanistan. That would be horrific for women. We can’t desert them now.” In other words, they’re committed to ‘saving’ these Muslim women from the barbarism and evils of the Taliban.

My earlier post on ‘Women and Culture’ referred to how women’s oppression in Muslim societies is often framed as an issue of religious extremism. It’s too easy to blame this flogging incident on religious extremism. However, little has been said of the political situation in the region. Not much has been said of Western intervention in Afghanistan, the excessive American drone attacks in Pakistani territory and its consequences on Pakistani people and its government especially. In the past year, Pakistan has slowly begun to unravel and become vulnerable to the whims of different political groups, both local and international. This context and political ramifications needs to be considered when such videos are released. Are we forgetting the video of women being stoned to death and one where she was flogged prior to the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001? The area between Afghanistan and Pakistan has huge political investment, not only for Afghanistan and Pakistan, but for Iran, the U.S. and India.

Shireen M Mazari, a defence analyst believes distancing is needed from the U.S. in order to cope with the extremism and militancy, “the situation on the ground will alter in the state’s favour, creating a more enabling operational environment in which to deal with extremism and the militancy that it is breeding”. Indeed,  contrary to popular Western belief, it’s not an innate feature of the region and its peoples. Religious extremism doesn’t emerge in a vacuum, the political environment is feeding it.

Considering the political context of the conflict in nearby Afghanistan, the video cannot also be understood as an issue of culture/religion alone. But I also think framing the issue in human rights terms has proven not to be helpful either. For many locals, the mention of human rights is often associated with the West. In a region where many problems are blamed on Western intervention (and quite rightly in many cases) this can prove to be counterproductive. Muslims and particularly, religious authorities need to move away from the human rights discourse and focus on a religious discourse to communicate their condemnation. Religious authorities need to be demanding where is their religious mandate to commit such acts? What are their credentials? Further, they should be highlighting what Shariah ruling has to say about punishment under related circumstances. There are very very specific conditions in which certain punishment can occur. These conditions are often impossible to meet, which escapes wanton punishers today.

The Iranian experience has proven to be relevant here. According to studies by Iranian scholar Ziba Mir-Hosseini, women’s groups in Iran have been successful in improving the situation of women by framing their issues in Islamic terms. In doing so, they have legitimised their voices.

In other words, local critics  need to stop talking in foreign tongues.  The best way in dealing with both the Afghani and Pakistani Taliban (for there are two types) is  using religious discourse, while minimizing feminist and human rights references which are locally perceived to be discredited due to their political associations.

Muslimah of the Week: Sukayna

Sukayna was the great grand-daughter of the Prophet; the daughter of Hussein. She was influenced by the tragic death of her father and three brothers which inspired her stance against political, social and personal injustice.

Sukayna refused to submit to the custom of face-veiling and maintained the right to meet and speak with men.  The Muslim community at the time was being threatened by outside customs from older civilizations that were detrimental to women in the Muslim community; Sukayna resisted these forces and fought to maintain the public presence of women.

Sukayna associated with powerful and influential members of the community. She passionately debated with the outstanding minds of the time and attended tribal council meetings.

Whatever the political disputes around the death of her father; Sukayna was an example of a woman, which according to historians, was outspoken about the excesses of the dynasty and political authorities.

Sukayna refused offers of marriage from caliphs and princes although ended up marrying five and some even say six times. What she is known particularly for is her use of the right to stipulate conditions in the marriage contract. She specified conditions that guaranteed her right to personal autonomy. She refused to see marriage a way to limit her freedoms. Furthermore, she specifically included the limitation of monogamy and took one husband to court when he attempted to break this condition of the marriage contract in order to take another wife.

Sukayna’s life shows us that strength and activism is not an aberration to Islamic understandings of femininity. She serves as a reminder that women were not meek members of the community, but expressed their disagreement on issues and resisted personal oppression or injustices around them.