Eid Mubarak!

May Allah accept all our good deeds, prayers and our fasts.

Have a good Eid everyone!

The Permission to Narrate

Sahar

Feminists Naomi Wolf and Philis Chesler have recently been debating the topic of the ‘veil’ and Muslim women. It’s become somewhat of a heated debate with both sides claiming they have a better insight into the lives of Muslim women. This audacious insight of course does not actually rely on actual engagement with Muslim women, nor the participation of Muslim women in this debate– aside from brief references that are then interpreted and made to make sense through the position of both women.

Just a brief overview of the debate first:  Wolf’s experience in Morocco led her to make the following claim that Muslim women are not necessarily restricted by their religious attire (chador and headscarf) and in fact feel liberated, especially sexually. From these observations, Wolf calls for a more nuanced approach in understanding women’s freedom. Chesler has responded with the charge that Wolf is legitimizing oppressive practices and responds with outrageous statements that conclude with the following: Muslim women are oppressed in Islamic attire, they lack agency, and the Western approach to liberation is more fitting.

What interested me was the assumption of these women to debate the issue of the hijab (whatever forms of it) and the experiences of Muslim women without involving a practicing Muslim woman who observes the hijab or at least be a part of the community and faith that practices it,  and thus be more qualified on the subject.

Wolf attempts to recognise the opinions of Moroccan women and speaks on their experiences, but her own understanding of Islam, Muslim women or even the subject of Muslim dress seems to be too difficult for her when she confuses Pakistani dress (‘shalwar kameez’) with Moroccan Islamic dress which can come in the form of niqaab, abaya, jilbaba or just modestly dressed in loose pants/skirt/top and a headscarf.  So Wolf not only ignores the differences in cultural dress—for the Muslim world is just one monolithic entity anyway– these differences don’t really exist and can all fall under the category of ‘traditional dress’ conveniently juxtaposed against Western ‘modern dress’. By wearing any traditional Muslim dress (‘shalwar kazmeez’), Wolf thinks she has direct access to the experiences of Muslim women. Dress therefore becomes the embodiment of Muslim women’s lives, and a way to access their world.

As for Chesler, she too does not have much credibility (not that she does in the first place considering her inane islamophobic and racist views on Palestinians and Muslims as a whole) when she declares that ‘most’ Muslim girls and women are not given a choice in wearing any Islamic dress.  She supports her claims by shamelessly citing two women (Hirsi Ali and Nouri Darwish) who have publicly renounced Islam and have built their careers on feeding Islamophobic hysteria in the West.  So Muslim women are spoken for either through an Islamophobic feminist or apostates who work for right-wing American think tanks bent on demonizing Muslims and Islam.

Putting these absurdities aside, I also find it telling how the debate treats Muslim women as objects in an exhibition, as spectacles, who function as objects to be analysed, observed, dissected, commented and repackaged to be easily consumed by a Western audience. Muslim women’s voices are only heard through interpretation of two white women (the subject) who assume the permission to narrate what it is like to be a Muslim woman who chooses to cover her head, in whatever form.

The alienness of Muslim culture is retold in the language of universalism (western norms and feminist ideals) to ease the anxiety of the Western observer towards difference. We see this in how Wolf insists that there are similar sentiments behind Islamic dress that Western feminists can relate to “This may not be expressed in a traditional Western feminist set of images, but it is a recognisably Western feminist set of feelings”.  Or in the intimacy of Muslim homes, the presence of designer labels like Victoria Secret is comforting. Muslim mores are measured against white Western standards and only legitimised and accepted once shared values and practices are recognised. To send the reassuring message: “see, they are just like ‘us’”.

The notion of white being a signifier of objectivity is imperative here. Wolf, like the colonial traveler, is an objective observer who can participate in the local customs and wear the traditional dress– yet can remain ‘detached’ from her surrounding in order to make perceptive observations that can be taken away for examination.  Thus, both women’s subjectivities as white, upper-middle class Western women are not called into question when they speak on behalf of Muslim women in this debate. It is in fact this same subjectivity that permits them to narrate for Muslim women.  They speak with an unquestionable authority as whiteness has a moral-worth of its own masquerading as universal and never questioned.

So it is not that Muslim women are silenced by her hijab, as many white  feminists like to claim, but because they are made to be silent by those who wish to speak for them.

A Desire To Look

Sahar

Unfortunately I’m extremely busy at the moment so could not write an entire piece on this list of the the hottest Muslim women  in the world , but Muslima Media Watch  has written a good post on it so check it out.  I myself could not help but make a comment on the politics of this list.

I had no idea most of these women were Muslim–mainly because they do not stress this aspect of their identity so much;  to have them on this list was somewhat baffling. It was disturbing to note their inviting poses and their nudity.  I’m reminded of European colonialism’s insatiable desire to unveil the Muslim woman, due to its obsession with looking. The colonised world was an exhibition for the European gaze, and the native as a spectacle.  The veiled Muslim woman of this period frustrated Europeans because she violated their right to look and undermined their world of exhibition.  Moreover, she refused to be exposed, made vulnerable–her existence dissected by white eyes.  Importantly, she could look without being seen and this politicised her presence.

It was not a surprise then that the veiled Muslim woman became a focus of both the coloniser’s quest to unveil and thus dominate her (by extension the Muslim society to which she belonged to) –and a symbol of national resistance.  

The Europeans in turn demonized the veil– or in today’s context–the hijab.  They forced her to unveil, to show them what she was hiding. In revenge, they unveiled her in paintings where her body was laid bare for them to see. She was also photographed in the same way. These paintings and photographs were disseminated throughout Europe and evoked sexual imagery of a feminised Orient being penetrated by a lustful Europe.

The message was clear: The exotic woman of the Orient had given herself up for the white man. She would be saved from the brutality of her world which the veil became a metaphor for.

This list of Muslim women, with not one of them in hijab, exoticised and nude,  is a modern attempt to possess the Muslim woman. In fact, the article on the list of Muslim women ends with the reminder “And the good news is, you can look at them any time of day…”.  There is a sense of excitement in it because the Muslim woman is available for them to see, and there are no barriers (veil). Such an attempt is made even more apparent in that it is a supposed ‘celebration’ of the holy month of Ramadan for Muslims.  By exposing her to the Western gaze a similar message is being sent: the Muslim woman is under the control of Western capitalism. She has been unveiled and objectified,  and here lies the real attraction of such a list.

An Unwanted Spokeswoman

Sahar

I couldn’t help but laugh out loud when I read Mark Landler of The New York Times’ interview with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Reminiscent of a colonial-style arrogance, the brazen title of the interview, ‘Saving the World’s Woman—A New Gender Agenda’ set the mood of the interview.

In the interview, Clinton is asked a series of questions in which she highlights political, economic and social problems facing women  today, and what she considers  ‘solutions’.  We are given the impression that she wants to be remembered for her contribution in alleviating the problems women are facing.

I find it remarkable that Clinton– who assumes the role of spokeswoman for all women in the world—is talking about global women’s rights, while concurrently a part of a government that has wrought so much havoc on many in the developing countries specifically mentioned in the interview (India, Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq).

I wasn’t surprised by her attempt to present herself as a representative of women, considering she ran in the Presidential elections under such a rubric.  However, her policy stance on women seems disjointed and incongruous when you consider she is known for her hawkish stance on numerous issues like nuclear weapons and Iran, national security and the Israel-Palestine conflict. According to academic Stephen Zunes, she has opposed restrictions on U.S. arms transfers and police training to governments that have horrendous human rights violations like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Israel.  She has insisted upon unconditional funding for the disastrous and illegal war in Iraq and further increase in military spending.

Clinton asserts “ I happen to believe that the transformation of women’s roles is the last great impediment to universal progress — that we have made progress on many other aspects of human nature that used to be discriminatory bars to people’s full participation. But in too many places and too many ways, the oppression of women stands as a stark reminder of how difficult it is to realize people’s full human potential”.

Putting aside the contention of a normative discourse on universal human rights, theoretically, Clinton, like any Western leader, adheres to this liberal notion and stresses the importance of universal human rights, yet, she has questioned the credibility of known human rights organisations like Amnesty International when they’ve criticised the policies of the U.S. and its allies.  Moreover, she has also been an outspoken critic of the UN, opting for a unilateral stance in international politics.

She further states “Women and girls are a core factor in our foreign policy”—yet her historical record suggests either she is being disingenuous or is oblivious to the implications of her policies on women in particular.

Knowing the implications of war with Iran because of the experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq, she has eagerly continued with a hawkish stance on confronting Iran where in which she has described the Iranian ‘threat’ as unacceptable and suggesting a military strategy is possible. Early this year she vehemently defended the abhorrent Israeli invasion of Gaza which killed over 1000 civilians.  Just this month she has finalised a defense agreement with India to ensure US companies sell sophisticated arms to New Delhi.  Clinton states that she travels and talks about women’s rights and raises women’s concerns with leaders while simultaneously ensuring the imperial praxis remains.  It’s difficult to imagine how women’s lives are improved when she encourages and in fact openly endorses increasing militarism in countries like Pakistan, India, Iraq, Israel and Afghanistan—rather than on development to ensure political, economic and social stability. There is no mention of the structural mechanisms in place which generate North-South inequalities and maintain them via neo-liberal policies. These global economic policies create an unsafe environment for women and children who are vulnerable to war and poverty. Clinton would much rather blame women’s oppression on religious fundamentalism and global terrorism.

 “If you look at where we are fighting terrorism, there is a connection to groups that are making a stand against modernity, and that is most evident in their treatment of women”. What Clinton fails to understand, or purposely ignores is that the Islamic movements she is alluding  to are modernist movements which are resisting U.S. foreign policies in the Middle East, Africa and Central Asia. They are not simply resisting because of their hate of freedom, so the Bush administration mantra went—rather, they are modern in their own right and challenging a Western hegemony and a colonial modernity that is being imposed on them in the guise of economic exploitation and Western consumer culture.

With glaring audacity she continues,

“What does preventing little girls from going to school in Afghanistan by throwing acid on them have to do with waging a struggle against oppression externally?”

Clearly it’s in Clinton’s best interest as a representative of a government responsible for so many of the conflicts raging in many Muslim countries, to ignore the historical and political context in which women’s issues can be better understood.  The cultural violence that has ensued by Western countries in the ‘developing’ world harks back to colonialism and perpetuated today in similar policies of exploitation and domination.  The throwing of acid can only be understood within such a context in order to read it accurately as a response to the encroachment on national sovereignty and the cultural life of these people—where women often are seen as the cultural/national symbol. Thus, instability ensures women become a prime target of preserving what is perceived to be cultural losses.

If Clinton was genuine about wanting to help women (which I certainly doubt she is) she should– along with her ‘white sisters’– stop basking in the colonial glory of ‘saving’ women in developing countries.  Instead, she should acknowledge her complicity in ensuring that current oppressive political and economic structures remain, which reinforces a dichotomy of power and powerless that has had disastrous effects on global politics, particularly on the lives of women. But I wouldn’t hold my breath on that one.

A feminist blog?

Sahar

A lot of people describe Nuseiba as a feminist blog because it focuses on Muslim women and attempts to express their voice on multiple issues.  However, I don’t really like the idea of Nuseiba being understood as a feminist blog, because my intentions for it are part of a broader project of Islamic revivalism. So I was pleased to come across the writings and work of Nadia Yassine, who is the founder and head of the woman’s branch of the Moroccan Islamist movement Al Adl Wa Al Ihsanne (Justice and Charity). Yassine highlights her position as a politically active Muslim woman who is  conscious of the  issues plaguing her community, especially that of women. Her vision, expressed in the following quote,  is similar to what I see for Nuseiba.

If you mean by feminism pleading the cause of women, then I am a feminist; but better yet, I’m activist for the restoring of the rights granted to women by Islam. But I am very cautious regarding labels. Mine is not the feminism of Simone de Beauvoir, the Western style feminism. I have my very own Islamic references.

The thing is the West got rid of the idea of God, at least in the public sphere. Its endeavors are purely materialistic. They thus automatically exclude any idea of spirituality or return to God. My struggle, on the other hand, is essentially spiritual, not a struggle between men and women for material entitlements. God has given rights to women in Islam; these inalienable rights are far greater than any rights enjoyed by other women anywhere else at any given time. With that said, the rights of women in Islam have unfortunately eroded over the course of Islamic history. This malaise that has steadily eroded the rights of women in Islam has taken its toll on men too. It is an endeavor to restore the rightful place of women in a society that can never be revived without their real participation.

New blog

I’ll be writing for a new blog called The Granada Blog . It is part of a broader project of intellectual revivalism. I think any Muslim who is interested in the current state of our community and wanting to understand it should check out the blog. The writers are highly educated, informed and genuinely passionate about such issues.   The following is a brief description of the aims and objectives of the Granada Project.

The Granada Project represents a core of students and professionals that are currently attempting to introduce cultures into the Muslim community that have the ability to empower its members. By cultures, we mean modalities of ‘thinking in practice’ that reflect both our principles and the contexts we are a part of.

The first culture we are trying to create and sustain is one of critical movement. That is, we are striving to generate community movement that incorporates a critical and insightful understanding of our society.

It is our hope that out of this culture a movement will emerge that will be able to service our community by providing it with an experienced understanding of our society.

Mona Eltahawy on the burqa

Sahar

It seems that Mona Eltahawy has joined the vocal liberal camp in Europe (particular France) that wishes to either discourage or entirely ban the burqa. The New York Times published her response to the burqa debate raging in France. Eltahawy begins her article stating her ideological position as a Muslim feminist and asserts, “I detest the full-body veil, known as a niqab or burqa. It erases women from society and has nothing to do with Islam but everything to do with the hatred for women at the heart of the extremist ideology that preaches it”.

I also disagree with the burqa and don’t see any explicit justification for it in Islam apart from a matter of interpreting what is modest dress.  But Eltahawy goes to as far to reduce the burqa to a symbol of misogyny– which sounds quite familiar. During the 2004 banning of the headscarf in state schools and government institutions, many French feminists actually used the same explanation to describe the headscarf along similar lines. The headscarf was described as oppressive and a symbol of Islam’s hatred for women. But I’m sure Eltahawy would find this conflation problematic yet difficult in distinguishing when she admits she concurs with Sarkozy when he stated that the burqa is a sign of submission of women and subjugation. Instead, Eltahawy believes that the best way to support Muslim women is to “say we oppose both racist Islamophobes and the burqa”, and claims, “We’ve been silent on too many things out of fear we’ll arm the right wing”.

However, the best way to support Muslim women is to respect their choice in how they express their religion and culture. It is not to impose what we think is good for them.  I find it ironic that Eltahawy who claims to be a feminist is ignoring the importance of choice, agency and the lived experiences of these women— which are essential factors in understanding women in feminist analysis.

Nor do we all agree with Eltahawy who, perhaps due to her socially privileged position is detached from the social, political and religious motivations for wearing burqa, and can’t comprehend how it can be a vehicle of success for some or a proud reinforcement of Muslim identity for others. The burqa can be understood as a symbol of the outrage Muslims are feeling as they are exposed to an increasingly xenophobic Europe.  It’s symbolic of an attempt to cling on to an identity that is being eroded in a hostile environment. I write this piece now after just reading about an Egyptian woman who was stabbed in a German court 18 times by the man she was suing for harassing her for wearing a headscarf.  It is not the burqa alone that is being undermined and discredited but Islamic dress entirely. Therefore, the call to remove the burqa cannot be devoid of such a context and for Eltahawy to think that divorcing her criticism from such a context as viable is politically naïve.

As I noted in my previous piece on the burqa in France, many of the women who wear it are converts to Islam and willingly wear it as a proud show of their Muslim identity. At university, I witnessed women who wore burqa for two fundamental reasons: they felt it was their best way of expressing their modesty and/or wished to express their Muslim identity as they saw fit. These women were very intelligent, pursuing impressive degrees, and did not all come from conservative families. Eltahawy seems to reinforce the Western assumption that it is Islamic fundamentalism that is motivating these women to wear it. There is no room to factor in the preservation of a particular identity or expression of faith.

Though Eltahawy does make a brief reference to the influence of identity politics, she discounts it with her passionate claim that the burqa is undermining women’s freedom. Whilst making this claim, she assumes a Saidian permission to narrate– in which these women are constructed as having no agency of their own, needing ‘protection’ and so must be spoken for.  However, her narration inaptly imposes a single meaning.

She then writes, “It’s one thing to argue about the burqa in a country like Saudi Arabia — where I lived for six years and where women are treated like children — but it is utterly dispiriting to have those same arguments in a country where women’s rights have long been enshrined. When I first saw a woman in a burqa in Copenhagen I was horrified”.

Eltahawy here reinforces the dichotomy of women oppressed in Muslim countries (Saudi Arabia) and the liberated woman of the West (Copenhagen and France). It’s shocking for her to have witnessed the barbarity and oppression of the Muslim world (veiling) present in the land of freedom (unveiling). She should know that such hermetic and simplistic divisions rely on historical stereotypes tied closely with power but are remote in explaining the social and political realities.  I’m sure there would be many Saudi women who would not appreciate having their existence reduced to something so demeaning—though I do not deny the suffering of those in Saudi Arabia, but my point is women’s oppression should not be a problem restricted to Saudi Arabia. Nor should it be associated with the burqa alone, rather, we should recognise the dangers in such totalising discourses which demote experience.  

Eltahawy further points out how the burqa deprives women of identity and is symbolic of the “erasure of women”.  So a woman’s identity is solely based on physical appearance now? Must a woman define herself based on how much people see of her? She is a non-person, unintelligible, unless she exposes herself. Conversely, many women who wear headscarf and burqa argue that the lack of emphasis they have to put on their appearance makes them more aware of improving their minds rather than looking at fashion attire or physical beauty to understand themselves.

Moreover, the call to remove the burqa (and other Islamic dress) is part of an insatiable desire of the Western gaze to penetrate what is hidden and appropriate it for its own. This is done so in the guise of emancipation but also in the attempt to assimilate Muslim women into a type of ‘woman’. We’re told that the burqa dehumanizes women, so it must be removed in order to put a human face to these women. In actuality, unveiling occurs so they become comprehensible to the Western eye. According to Mina Moallem, they must signify what she calls ‘white femininity’ which, ironically in this context, entails exposing the female body to objectification. In other words, removing the burqa is part of a mimetic process.  Thus, Eltahawy’s dichotomy of the liberating West and the oppressive Muslim world is problematised further in how she ignores the objectification in which woman’s identity, role and importance is contingent upon her market value. Is not a woman erased when she wears a bikini or wears the latest fashion attire, hair done, her face painted like a doll? She becomes meaningless and one can fairly argue, erased.

Eltahawy and Sarkozy’s call to remove the burqa may have different motivations but the implications are similar: undermining women’s choice, violating cultural and religious freedom ( in doing so exposing the contradictions in Western liberalism and its notion of freedom). Moreover, both are operating within a homogenizing framework that is ethnocentrically bias, and contributing to an insidious campaign to undermine and eradicate any manifestation of Islam.

A one-year-old blog

Wow. It was around this time last year when I decided to start Nuseiba , admittedly with low expectations.  One year on and it’s still alive and active, alhamdullilah. Thanks everyone!