Female Emancipation Need of the Hour

[Kuchana]

Thoughts? Give a rebuttal if you wish.


http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&sect...=28&m=6&y=2004

Female Emancipation Need of the Hour
Layla Ahmad Al-Ahdab, Al-Watan

The plight of women in Arab countries is a sad one. They find themselves between the hammer of Westernization and the anvil of tradition, and it seems the hope of wriggling out between those two problems is no greater than the hope of change in Arab societies in general.

Yet call for change we do, simply because life is fluid and time stops for no one. We must approach change with an open mind. We must take an active role in bringing it about, otherwise it will drag us helplessly behind in its wake.

There are attempts everywhere to hijack the emancipation of women, to tar the very idea with the brush of Western intervention. The term itself conjures up Western ideas of what the role of women should be. But what of Islam’s emancipation of women? Islam was able to combine spiritual development with the moderate regulation of worldly affairs under the umbrella of continuous and progressive reasoning. Why then are there still so many among us who are frightened of change, who resist tackling any important contemporary issues and pretend that all is well with our society.

A satellite channel recently aired a live discussion program with a man who was supposedly a scholar. The program made mostly tedious viewing, with the guest turning it into a lecture to the viewers. Ironically he became rather agitated when several women rang in, even though they were all furiously agreeing with him — which in itself casts some doubt on the integrity of the channel.

His argument in any case was not so much concerned with female emancipation as with countering Western thought, though again the man did not like the term “Islamic thought”.

Still, if you cannot counter thought with thought, then with what do you counter it? How much longer are we going to let ourselves be shackled by the stark black-and-white choice between on the one hand rigid adherence to antiquated notions of what women are or, on the other hand, immersing ourselves totally in Western culture and understanding? In this situation women are nothing but pawns in the game between extreme conservatives and Westernized liberals.

The scholar rejected any and all criticism of tradition, ignoring the fact that even tradition was not always what it is now but developed over time. If tradition is synonymous with religion we had better find a new definition for this term that makes it clear that it is set in stone.

If on the other hand tradition is simply what man himself develops then we should be the first to try and improve it — taking from it what benefits society and leaving what does not. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and the caliphs after him all took things from earlier societies in order to develop their own. We must learn to do what they did and always change our situation, learning from the experiences of others and simultaneously holding firm to our fundamental beliefs. If we do not do this then how can we claim that Islam is for all time and every place?

Backward traditions combined with various religious beliefs such as the non-Islamic concept of original sin and Eve’s role in the fall of Adam have all contributed to the suppression of women here. This is particularly glaring in the excessive use of the legal principle known as “Sad Al-Tharaya”, i.e. forbidding actions for fear of future consequences, something akin to the “thin end of the wedge” argument. This rule has been used to keep certain views dominant and hinder the progress of women and, as a result, society as a whole.

Sheikh Muhammad Al-Duhaim says: “We need to re-appraise our understanding of the Shariah — without this we cannot embrace people in our religion nor will they join our religion. We cannot let them restrict the mercy of Allah by prohibiting things for fear of what they might lead to. This must be stressed especially where the person taking the legal decision is following his own desires, or prevalent backward traditions, or has himself a lack of common sense and understanding. The Shariah, with all its rulings is far greater than any such person.”

One of the most important issues that jurisprudence must tackle is the role of the woman in society, particularly their social, political and professional participation. They must make it easier for women to help build their country. This participation is not one we should rush into — rather we must learn from the mistakes of others. Our goal is not to reach a point like that of some Western societies whereby a woman is totally pre-occupied with work, does not see to her children and deprives her body of necessary rest.

In an article published this month, the Deputy Minister of Employment Abdul Wahid Al-Humaid said the criteria for employment for women were as follows: First, that the work suits the woman’s physical and natural disposition; second, that it suits her own qualifications and experience; and third, that it does not come between her and her natural role as a mother and wife.

Perhaps the recent ministerial decisions holds out some hope for our long-cherished dream that one day women will gain their full Islamic rights here. Perhaps then we will no longer have to listen to views like the following comment by a so-called scholar: “Women must always follow men, for men are more highly regarded in this world and the next; look at inheritance, legal matters, polygamy and divorce.” God help us when such backward and primitive views prevail. They serve only to stain our great religion.

Women are given a lesser share of the inheritance only because they have the sole right to that money, in contrast to men, who must share it with their spouses. Legal matters also are not so black and white. In certain instances one female witness serves against two male witnesses. The issue of polygamy, a long-discussed one, serves in times of war for example, where the number of male providers is vastly reduced. As for the promised virgins in Paradise, Dr. Al-Bouti says, “Women also are promised men in Paradise, but due to their natural shyness it would not be suitable to mention these men in the Qur’an.” I personally do not agree with this, as I believe women are only naturally inclined toward one man, but who knows what lies in store for women in Paradise? Bearing in mind that everyone who enters Paradise will be fully satisfied, who knows? But how can we deduce from this that men are superior to women?

Rather than prohibit the emancipation of women, let us redefine it and show how it can be used to gain women their social and legal rights.

One question still remains: What are women to do if the person who denies them their legal rights is a member of their own family? How many women are ashamed or scared to ask for their inheritance or their right to choose their husband? How many women are beaten by a husband and rashly divorced, how many find themselves an unequal partner in a polygamous marriage?

We must teach our new generation of boys and girls about their rights and their equal standing in all matters in order to quash prehistoric ideas that tell us a woman’s voice and her shadow are both prohibited. Note that I do not ask whether it is forbidden for their face and hands to be shown, though I do point to the fact that it would be passing strange given that they must be revealed during Haj and Umrah.

There is no need for us to focus solely on this issue. I would only say that there is a Hadith telling us that the blood of a believer — in our times, the blood of an officer — is dearer to Allah than the Ka’aba itself. The face of a woman, on the other hand, is neither dearer than the Ka’aba nor is it dearer than our traditions.

(Layla Al-Ahdab is director, Al-Raya Development Center.)

[kitty]

While I'm sure the plight of women in Arab countries is, by Western traditions, terrible, I think it is completely the wrong approach for Wester countries to employ force and Western imperialist attitudes to enforce change to Western systems. There's something to be said for a) struggle for oneself (i.e., to struggle for your own rights rather than to have them handed to you by an outside party) and b) the egotism of assuming that Arab traditions are automatically 'backward'.

[Kuchana]

The article is written by an Arab and/or a Muslim I believe and he/she wrote that they thought some of the traditions was backward for women's rights to progress. I don't think it's automatically egotism to think that, especially if an Arab or a Muslim may think along the same lines.

There are attempts everywhere to hijack the emancipation of women, to tar the very idea with the brush of Western intervention. The term itself conjures up Western ideas of what the role of women should be. But what of Islam’s emancipation of women? Islam was able to combine spiritual development with the moderate regulation of worldly affairs under the umbrella of continuous and progressive reasoning. Why then are there still so many among us who are frightened of change, who resist tackling any important contemporary issues and pretend that all is well with our society.

[kitty]

Originally Posted by Kuchana

The article is written by an Arab and/or a Muslim I believe and he/she wrote that they thought some of the traditions was backward for women's rights to progress. I don't think it's automatically egotism to think that, especially if an Arab or a Muslim may think along the same lines.

yeah, i recognize that the article is written by someone within the arab culture. i *still* feel like it's messed up for western cultures to go in and make social change modelled around our own society.

i think it's egotism to think that another tradition is backward because the implication is that our tradition is therefore 'forward'... indicating a sort of progression or superiority (enlightenment) of thinking in western cultures. to me, it's akin to talking about 'third world', 'developing' countries, or calling all non-western societies 'tribal'.

and even if it is an arab or muslim woman speaking, there's no guarantee that she speaks for the entirety of arab and middle eastern culture. in our american communities, there is such a thing as an 'uncle tom'... if we only heard the 'uncle tom's opinion, that wouldn't make him/her an objective and fair representation of his/her culture. i'm not calling this woman a sellout, but i am saying that she is only one woman, and we, as america, should consider the socio-cultural ramifications of running roughshod through the world force-feeding our own cultural values onto other peoples.

[Mr.Lum]

its by a woman.

Originally Posted by kittygirl

yeah, i recognize that the article is written by someone within the arab culture. i *still* feel like it's messed up for western cultures to go in and make social change modelled around our own society.

i think it's egotism to think that another tradition is backward because the implication is that our tradition is therefore 'forward'... indicating a sort of progression or superiority (enlightenment) of thinking in western cultures. to me, it's akin to talking about 'third world', 'developing' countries, or calling all non-western societies 'tribal'.

and even if it is an arab or muslim woman speaking, there's no guarantee that she speaks for the entirety of arab and middle eastern culture. in our american communities, there is such a thing as an 'uncle tom'... if we only heard the 'uncle tom's opinion, that wouldn't make him/her an objective and fair representation of his/her culture. i'm not calling this woman a sellout, but i am saying that she is only one woman, and we, as america, should consider the socio-cultural ramifications of running roughshod through the world force-feeding our own cultural values onto other peoples.

I agree, but much of the Islamic religion and tradition has been hijacked to suit the needs of men. the immam at the mosque my dad used to make me go to used to talk about that a lot. if you look at the ISlamic civilizations back when, they were far less repressive than are many now and women had much more freedom. the repression of women is a more recent occurance. Islamic societies used to be far more inclusive and I guess you could say freeer than the West during their hayday (before the assent of Europe) so I have no objection to women who want to reform the society now and improve the status of life for themselves and others in the Islamic/Arab world. not to mention that many of the repressive traditions practiced are condemed by Islam or are "pagan" and have little basis.

[kitty]

yeah, i have no objection with women who want to reform islamic culture either. actually, i'm completely for that, but i am against the idea of having america swoop in and change the islamic culture... even if it's ostensibly FOR the islamic women.

[mr. x]

^---agreed, women there need more freedom to speak freely but with that freedom comes Sex in the City and not that im saying its a horrible show but thats definetely what i consider a side effect at this point (its a lil too fast)

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Originally Posted by kittygirl

yeah, i have no objection with women who want to reform islamic culture either. actually, i'm completely for that, but i am against the idea of having america swoop in and change the islamic culture... even if it's ostensibly FOR the islamic women.

Look I don't mean to be rude, but no one on this thread has suggested or even mentioned America coming in and "riding roughshod" all over native cultures except for you, who is bringing it up in every single post. We get the point. US invasion = bad. It's been done in other threads.

But the desire to eliminate ridiculous bullshit like religious police going around arresting people for holding hands isn't some Western desire being imposed from the outside by force, nor coming from a desire to emulate the West. They put these kind of issues to a recently vote in Malaysia, hardly a pro-Western country nor one where democracy was imposed from outside. Results: Islamofascist nuts out. Barisan Nasional in. You may find women who support veiling. Very few who support sexual segregation of women and men at schools, grocery stores, etc., or exclusion of women from the professional sphere, etc., except when her husband is standing right behind her smacking his fist against his palm.

And as for the women who support veiling: most of the women who do find value in it as a form of protection from men, whether for its symbolic (marking them as devout and thus not sexually available) or it's physical protective value (completely shielding off their bodies from being ogled by men). But doesn't the fact that they will go to such extreme measures to protect themselves from men, say a lot about the men around them? See this point illustrated a lot with Arab tourists in Malaysia. Malay men are far better off for having broken out of the impulse of viewing every woman who takes off her tudung or doesn't wear one as a slut begging to be raped in a drunken orgy.

You yell and scream about American imperialism and American values imposed in the name of freedom, but a lot of these customs and culture imposed by Arab imperialism in the name of Islam are far worse, and I'm proud that there's at least some Islamic countries like Malaysia and Turkey who stand up and reject the backwards bullshit. And yes, plenty of Islamic law and Arab custom is backwards. E.g. hudud. Most people would be entirely unafraid to call as backwards a law which punishes rape victims rather than rapists as backwards --- both morally backwards as well as plain old ass-backwards.

Just as such, there's parts of Islam I think are more forward-thinking than the US views on same matters, and that I wish Malaysia would cling to more closely, such as principle of avoiding borrowing at interest or lending money speculatively. Call what's backward-thinking backward-thinking, call what's forward-thinking forward-thinking, and everyone's better off.

[kitty]

alibaba... i'm responding directly to the article, which kuchana invited us to share our opinions on. the article's intention is a support of 'Western intervention' which is specifically outlined in the first line of the second paragraph.

believe it or not, i did read the whole article and outlined my thoughts on the issue. surprisingly, you accuse me of harping on the idea of american imperialism when it was not previously mentioned in the thread... notice how i am the SECOND post in this thread and the first one was a posting of an article alone, but which specifically alludes to 'western intervention' as being something worthy of support. so yes, i'm the first to talk about 'american imperialism' but i did not pull the idea of intervention by 'first world countries' out of my ass.

if you don't like to talk about american imperialism, maybe you shouldn't chime in on threads that are specifically about the idea of intervention into another culture/community's struggle.

But the desire to eliminate ridiculous bullshit like religious police going around arresting people for holding hands isn't some Western desire being imposed from the outside by force, nor coming from a desire to emulate the West. They put these kind of issues to a recently vote in Malaysia, hardly a pro-Western country nor one where democracy was imposed from outside. Results: Islamofascist nuts out. Barisan Nasional in. You may find women who support veiling. Very few who support sexual segregation of women and men at schools, grocery stores, etc., or exclusion of women from the professional sphere, etc., except when her husband is standing right behind her smacking his fist against his palm.

Those are some great sobstories -- but I think you are deliberately misconstruing my argument. I am not in support of sexual segregation, nor do I believe that sexual freedom should be limited only to Western societies (or that struggling for it is trying to be Western -- that would have me buying into the 'forwards' vs. 'backwards' bullshit that I talk about later). But I do support the idea that if it's oppression, than who is America (or Britain, or Canada, or China or any NON-native culture or community) to run in and save the day? You mention religious policing -- I find it humorous that you condemn religious policing by advocating that America take on the role of global/morality police. How is that any better than the religious policing that goes on in these countries?

You yell and scream about American imperialism and American values imposed in the name of freedom, but a lot of these customs and culture imposed by Arab imperialism in the name of Islam are far worse, and I'm proud that there's at least some Islamic countries like Malaysia and Turkey who stand up and reject the backwards bullshit. And yes, plenty of Islamic law and Arab custom is backwards. E.g. hudud. Most people would be entirely unafraid to call as backwards a law which punishes rape victims rather than rapists as backwards --- both morally backwards as well as plain old ass-backwards.

I at no point yelled or screamed about American imperialism. If you'll note my first post on this subject, you'll see it was a rather even-handed acknolwedgement of the persecution of women in Arab countries, but countered with the assertion that direct American intervention is not the answer.

Regarding the categorizing of cultures as backwards rather than forwards -- typefications like these have been historically used to rationalize manifest destiny, the enslavement of the peoples of 'developing' nations, and the thinly-veiled pillaging of their lands by the 'more advanced' Western societies. Is it so impossible to consider that maybe cultures that may not share Western ideals of sexual freedom may also be capable of struggling for change on their own -- within the routes offered by their culture rather than the cultural destruction that would be wrought by the intervention of non-native forces?

And if you want to share the sob stories of persecuted peoples in other countries, and how America should do something about it, perhaps consider that it's not all peaches 'n cream in America. Perhaps before we go 'letting freedom reign' in all these developing countries, we should use our tax dollars on domestic problems of oppression and persecution.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Originally Posted by kittygirl

I find it humorous that you condemn religious policing by advocating that America take on the role of global/morality police. How is that any better than the religious policing that goes on in these countries?

Originally Posted by kittygirl

And if you want to share the sob stories of persecuted peoples in other countries, and how America should do something about it, perhaps consider that it's not all peaches 'n cream in America. Perhaps before we go 'letting freedom reign' in all these developing countries, we should use our tax dollars on domestic problems of oppression and persecution.

I did not advocate once that America act as global morality police. In every single post you reply to, first Mr. Lum's and now mine, even those which have absolutely nothing to do with or say about American interventionism, you turn it right back on to that subject, and admonish everyone that "American invasion isn't the answer," "America should clean up at home." So in order to avoid any further possible remote ambiguity on this subject. I AGREE. So please stop accusing me of advocating an American invasion which I am not in favor of, not for the least reason because it would be my homeland being invaded.

Originally Posted by kittygirl

Regarding the categorizing of cultures as backwards rather than forwards -- typefications like these have been historically used to rationalize manifest destiny, the enslavement of the peoples of 'developing' nations, and the thinly-veiled pillaging of their lands by the 'more advanced' Western societies. Is it so impossible to consider that maybe cultures that may not share Western ideals of sexual freedom may also be capable of struggling for change on their own -- within the routes offered by their culture rather than the cultural destruction that would be wrought by the intervention of non-native forces?

So what, exactly? Every kind of ideology has been used to justify horrors. The doctrine of classlessness and human equality led to the gulag, Cambodia's killing fields, etc. So maybe I should say we shouldn't argue people are equal. Dismissing an argument based on what people who shared that argument have done in the past is just another form of ad hominem attack.

And as to your comment "Is it so impossible to consider that maybe cultures that may not share Western ideals of sexual freedom may also be capable of struggling for change on their own" ... uh, yes, it's possible to consider, that's why I was giving all those examples from Malaysia which you deride as "sob stories," of people who voted our own resident Islamic party PAS out of office precisely for their imposing various aspects of Sharia law in the two provinces where they were previously elected. I'd call that a pretty successful struggle for change, which is precisely why I mentioned I'm proud of my country, Malaysia. (In fact this is what my member title means, "negaraku boleh," "our country can do it!")

And do you even understand the dynamics in Malaysia these days? I find it offensive that you presume the side struggling for positive change is the one that includes the Uncle Toms. In fact, the ones who have sold out their own culture are found on the side which you'd probably identify as "the native culture" --- when in reality they've sold out their native culture far more completely than anyone you'd find on the other side. Not to Hollywood, but to Arab religious teachers funded by Arab oil money, an influence which America is nowhere near to matching. So those who are trying to PRESERVE the native cultures of various countries in the Islamic periphery, which includes elements like syncretism, moderation towards women, etc., face the doubly bitter irony of the opposing side, as well as Americans, implying that some of them are Uncle Toms, while at the same time having to defend themselves against a cultural onslaught which is portrayed by western liberals as a "revival of native culture" or "resistence to western imperialism"

In short, please read my post rather than assuming that cuz I'm not a social democrat, I look down on third-worlders and want to invade them and force feed them hamburgers and porn.

[kuilong]

Originally Posted by kittygirl

Those are some great sobstories -- but I think you are deliberately misconstruing my argument. I am not in support of sexual segregation, nor do I believe that sexual freedom should be limited only to Western societies (or that struggling for it is trying to be Western -- that would have me buying into the 'forwards' vs. 'backwards' bullshit that I talk about later). But I do support the idea that if it's oppression, than who is America (or Britain, or Canada, or China or any NON-native culture or community) to run in and save the day? You mention religious policing -- I find it humorous that you condemn religious policing by advocating that America take on the role of global/morality police. How is that any better than the religious policing that goes on in these countries?

So national sovereignty is the leading principle of your moral system?

[kitty]

Originally Posted by kuilong

So national sovereignty is the leading principle of your moral system?

no it's not because issues of foreign relations and interaction between nations is more complicated than that. however, i do believe that sovereignity is of crucial importance and should not be discarded lightly.

alibaba -- i'm not entirely certain why you even brought malaysia into this discussion. i didn't start discussing the situation in malaysia because i know nothing about it, so please don't assume that i'm taking a stance on one side or the other. that being said, i appreciate your giving all these facts, (i learned a lot about malaysia through your post) but i was talking about intervention in relation to the article posted, i.e. iraq, the iraqi women, and american intervention i.e. the iraqi war. thus, if i am talking only about intervention through military force, it is because we are dealing specifically of a situation in which a war is being rationalized in part because of the plight of iraqi women.

I did not advocate once that America act as global morality police. In every single post you reply to, first Mr. Lum's and now mine, even those which have absolutely nothing to do with or say about American interventionism, you turn it right back on to that subject, and admonish everyone that "American invasion isn't the answer," "America should clean up at home." So in order to avoid any further possible remote ambiguity on this subject. I AGREE. So please stop accusing me of advocating an American invasion which I am not in favor of, not for the least reason because it would be my homeland being invaded.

I'm sorry, but what the hell are you talking about? Mr. Lum's post? Where and how long ago was this?

This thread does specifically have to do with interventionism, so I'm skeptical of your criticism, in regards to this thread. I am not accusing you of advocating American invasion, so please don't assume that I am. By the same token, I don't appreciate your accusations of my point of view, or that I am unnecessarily harping about intervention. This thread is about intervention, so why am i being lambasted for discussing my view on it?

Regarding the idea of backwards vs. forwards characterizations -- yes, it is dangerous. Yes it, like many other ideologies, have fueled wars -- and though it is not alone in having done so, it is still dangerous. One reason why intervention rationalized by this thought is bad is because the intervening culture is making a value judgement on another culture. As I have said earlier, who's to say that American culture, in this case, is better for women than another culture? Who's to say that we are more "forward-thinking"? There is no objective way to look at another culture and simplify things down to backwards and forwards because we are simply not a part of it.

As you describe in Malaysia, there are two sides, and neither of them are straightforwardly good or bad. I agree that struggle for change is good, and in Malaysia, I think you are describing an instance in which social change came from within, which is something I agree with.

I find it offensive that you presume the side struggling for positive change is the one that includes the Uncle Toms.

I think you have misunderstood. I brought up Uncle Toms as an instance in which you could not trust a representation of a culture by a SINGLE person to be the 'gospel truth' of a community. i.e., it is possible that the woman who wrote this article is about as biased as an uncle tom would be about their culture, and we shouldn't be giving marching orders based on that. NOWHERE do I say that any side struggling for any positive change should be considered Uncle Toms, and if you got that impression, well I'm sorry because that's completely against what I believe -- which is that social change is good, so long as it originates within culture and is not imposed by outside forces.