There’s a very interesting review of books by Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Irshad Manji in Nation. Though it’s all worth reading, the author, Laila Lalami, makes this observation in passing on one of the key puzzles in debates about Islam and women:
Meanwhile, the abundant pity that Muslim women inspire in the West largely takes the form of impassioned declarations about “our plight”–reserved, it would seem, for us, as Christian and Jewish women living in similarly constricting fundamentalist settings never seem to attract the same concern.
Lord, Kim, you are really dangling a hook for the RWDBs to bite! Talk about troll-baiting!
Maybe I’ll just head over to timblair.net and say, “If perchance any of you ladies and gentlemen would have some insights to share on the topic of ‘Women and Islam’, Kim over at LP would just love to hear your opinion!”
Not at all, Paulus. It’s actually a very interesting review if you care to read it!
I read that article the other day – it was very interesting, though I fear a little too subtle and willing to criticise all sides for some people to be able to cope with!
Yeah, it is a thought-provoking article. I was referring just to the title of your post, which will draw in certain commenters like moths to a flame!
One comment on the article. Lalami wrote, “Women–and men–in Muslim societies face problems of underdevelopment (chief among them illiteracy and poverty) and tackling them would go a long way toward reducing inequities.”
Cool. So very highly developed and wealthy countries, such as Saudi Arabia, must have gone a long way towards “reducing inequities”. I look forward to the next women’s lib march down the streets of Riyadh.
I thought it was an example of the classic ‘bad review’. We are left in no doubt what the reviewer’s opinions are, but we know next to nothing about those of the authors whose books are being reviewed.
Rather like reading Greg Sheridan on Al Gore.
My comment is awaiting moderation.
Whatever happened to those tee-shirts?
Paulus wrote:
Of course! Whenever a country generates lots of wealth it always showers it on alleviating the misery of the poor, even when there’s a prince 1341st-in-line-to-the-throne suffering, having to make do with only one string of polo ponies! Why, there’s not a single country where that isn’t so, is there, Paulus?
Hi Kim,
I have a few comments to make and will spread them over two posts.
Lalami, the author of the review, makes the important point that female genital mutilation isn’t only practiced by Muslims. Some North African Jewish, Animist and Christian communities also do it. What’s more, genital multilation isn’t mandated by the Koran.
“In addition, and despite having written a book called The Trouble With Islam Today, Manji has not taken the trouble of learning to speak, read and write Arabic fluently, nor of visiting any Muslim country.”
Manji has been to Israel and the Palestinian territories. I don’t regard her failure to read/write fluently in Arabic as a valid criticism.
“These right-wing Islamist parties resist changes in civil codes that grant women more rights or, worse, want to impose antiquated and dangerous forms of Sharia.”
It seems that even Ms Lalami would have some dificulty with your “The Unbelevable Truth About Sharia Law” post
Continued…
“… women-and men-in Muslim societies face problems of underdevelopment (chief among them illiteracy and poverty) and that tackling them would go a long way toward reducing inequities.”
This statement is puting the cart beforre the horse. As I have said before, societies are unlikely to develop until women are freed from patriachy. Unless women are so freed, I fear countries like Saudi Arabia will descend into poverty and violence once the oil stops flowing.
“Muslim women are used as pawns by Islamist movements that make the control of women’s lives a foundation of their retrograde agenda, and by Western governments that use them as an excuse for building empire.”
Who are these “empire building” Western governments? If this is a refernce to Iraq, I suspect many neo-cons in America now wish they had never invaded.
Finaly, Lalami is right to criticise the USA for blazenly supporting tyrants while at the same time banging on about bringing democracy to the Middle East. Bush needs to get tough on countries Egypt and Saudi Arabia and demand that concrete democratic reforms take place now.
steve, it might go to whether she can read what people in the middle East actually have to say for themselves.
This is also a fair point:
Rob – perhaps it’s better described as a review essay. Lalami clearly wants to get her own point across.
“Muslim women are used as pawns by Islamist movements that make the control of women’s lives a foundation of their retrograde agenda, and by Western governments that use them as an excuse for building empire. These women have become a politicized class, prevented by edicts and bombs from taking charge of their own destinies. The time has come for the pawns to be queened.”
And here was I thinking it was all about oil when deep down all we really want is a peek under those Bhurkas.
Mark — I found the review frustrating because it told you virtually nothing about the books supposedly under review, other than a few quotes the reviewer picked out to criticise. Lacking context, and not hvaing read the boods, it’s impossible to judge if the criticism is fair.
Good that she (he?) mentioned the Egyptian feminist Nawal el-Saadawi, though. Her ‘The Fall of the Imam’ is an excoriating account of Khomeini’s Iran. Why she didn’t merit a fatwa and Rushdie did is an interesting question. Possibly because she’s a woman, and not worth it?
el-Saadawi was in the news again recently but I don’t recall in what context. She was Health Minister in the Egyptian government at one stage.
No doubt there are other reviews around, Rob. The author obviously wanted mainly to use the books as a hook to make her point in this instance, I’d agree.
Saudi is rich, but it ain’t highly developed.
Just sayin.
D’oh! That’ll teach me not to read.
Tigtog said it better
The real problem in Saudi is that there’s no tax. The country floats on oil revenue. If governments don’t need your (i.e. citizens’) money, they won’t cede you power.
Bernard Lewis put it well. No taxation without representation was the old Boston Tea Party rallying cry. Yes: but no representation without taxation!
[OT] The problem with Saudi is that it’s a bloated theocratic monarchy ruling over millions of pissed-off unemployed young men with a lot of time on their hands a lot of fundamentalist clerics to choose from.[/OT]
On the topic, Lalami has a very good point as regards the preponderance of generalisations that makes up most discussion of Islam by ‘western’ commentators. What I’ve read of Manji and Hirsi Ali reads like a school report card:
‘Lately Islam has been disrespectful and agressive with teachers and other students and has been disruptive in class. Islam needs to focus more on his Modernisation homework. His failure to complete the Enlightenment program and lack of respect for the Feminism compents of the course have lead to doubts about his willingness to progess to 4th fom. Islam’s apparent role in a spate of violent playground incidents have been of great concern to the faculty.’
This ignores the incovenient fact that there isn’t (to drag the metaphor past all endurance) this big loutish kid called Islam you can single out of the crowd an blame for everything. Islam isn’t a bloc, Muslims don’t think in lockstep etc, etc. Some generalisations are better than others, but all generalisations are reductive and ultimately misleading (except this one), and reductionism and conflation are wrecking understanding on both sides of this debate.
Leinad: “…Islam isn’t a bloc, Muslims don’t think in lockstep…”
Doesn’t matter; it’s scale that matters.
Look at it this way. There are 1.3 billion Muslims. If only 10% think and act in a way that worries the West, well, that’s 130 million people who you need to worry about.
I’m sure Islam wasn’t a bloc in 1453, either; but it didn’t matter. There was a big enough bloc to breach the walls of Constantinople, and slaughter and enslave the people within. And that was the only fact that counted to those unfortunate Greeks.
“Meanwhile, the abundant pity that Muslim women inspire in the West largely takes the form of impassioned declarations about “our plight”–reserved, it would seem, for us, as Christian and Jewish women living in similarly constricting fundamentalist settings never seem to attract the same concern.”
“(S)imilarly constricting fundamentalist settings”? Let us not even bother with her suggestion that Christian women are living in similarly constricting fundamentalist settings (SCFSs). We shall turn to the Jews. Tell me precisely where Jewish women are living in SCFSs. On a scale even remotely comparable to Muslim women. Oh yes, we shall get to Christians in good time, but let us start with the Jews, shall we? Name names, and locations.
Of course, the obvious test for this (I’d like to call it a “theory” but then I’d be too generous) “notion” is simple – let us observe the exodus of Jewish (oh, and Christian too!) women to the Levant and farther so that they can enjoy equivalent or better conditions of living (SCFSs no less!). Well?
In real life, some women in the west may choose to be Muslim or convert to it, but I would be amazed to learn of any who would choose afterwards to live in Saudi Arabia, Iran, et.al.
Muslim women can drive, remain single, dress as you like, speak your mind, put Sharia far behind and not be put to death for it. Here, not there.
The steady, ever increasing stream of immigration flows in one direction only.
Go west, young woman!
It wouldn’t have been just afterwards, though, if the Greeks had taken vengeance on the Bedouins of Egypt for what was done at Constantinople by the Ottoman Turks just because both societies were Muslim, would it?
The very first time I watch a video of a woman being shot or stoned to death in a long abandoned sports stadium anywhere in Australia or America or even Europe, I promise to say the very same things I have said about being female in a Muslim country.
A name returns.
Say the name out loud and remember the name.
And how she died in front of a cheering stadium and her remaining children watched as well.
Zarmina.
I agree, another Kim, that such events are appalling and indefensible. I was responding to j_p_z’s comments on another aspect entirely.
Unfortunately, history shows that whenever economic and political insecurity is exploited by rabblerousers the populace becomes more and more willing to tolerate the commission of barbarous atrocities. It’s happened in nation after nation, century after century. It’s always appalling and indefensible. It’s just not always Muslim.
I’m wary of varied and sundry versions I keep hearing of how we Western women should just be grateful we’re “allowed” to do all these things that Muslim women are not.
I am not grateful to have basic human rights. I am never “allowed” to do anything based on someone’s version of the truth.
Those rights are mine because I live by them and defend them. Taliban or fundies of any type will not have a say.
I’m wary as well if anyone tells me that to be allowed to continue LIVING I have to accept an outdated, patriarchial version of ANYTHING.
Three cheers for Another Kim! Well said.
That includes “the religion of peace” because that is where the violence is today.
Thank you, Another Kim. Lalami is dreaming if she thinks that the lives of fundamentalist Christian and Jewish women are restricted in the way that those of women in Muslim nations are restricted, policed, and controlled. Lalami seems to think that the “cynical responses in the Muslim world” demonstrate only cynicism towards the (admittedly, often hypocritical) values promoted by westerners …. perhaps the cynicism is more indicative of “the Muslim world’s” long-held, complete and utter disregard for women other than a few daughters of powerful men.
There’s a difference between social sanctions and legal sanctions, Tanya, but it would be wrong to underestimate the power of the former for those who are raised in a fundamentalist environment anywhere.
Mark, the difference between social and legal sanctions is acute, especially when you consider the right to:
1) Work
2) Education
3) Mobility
4) Property
5) Consent or not
6) Give evidence
7) Custody of children
Sure, life can be no bed of roses in a fundamentalist setting of any sort, and this would include any number of cults from the entire religious or quasi-religious spectrum. The thing is that, when a religion is subject to the rule of law (rather than comprising the rule of law), those sufficiently motivated to brave the social sanctions can do so.
I agree, Mark: social sanctions can be extremely strong. However – correct me if I’m wrong – there are no fundamentalist Christian nor no fundamentalist Jewish nations. The nexus of political control and geography matters.
Imagine that you are a woman living in a fundamentalist Jewish community in Queens (NY), a breakaway-Mormon community in Arizona, or even a devoutly Muslim community in Melbourne You will come into contact with others from outside your community. You can see that other women live free. You have options, right? You can actually get out of the community. You may lose all of your family, your financial well-being, and a good share of your emotional well-being, but you can get out and there’s a good chance that you will lead a reasonable life in the long term. It’s pretty unlikely that the police will forcibly take you back to your nasty husband and his family or have you stoned to death.
I have friends who are devout Muslims. All of them arrived in western countries thinking that their countries ‘looked after THEIR women’ and that the west was terribly hypocritical. The turn around in these people’s ideas after only a couple of months was astounding. Yes, they are still concerned about patronizing westerners who are intent on saving them and somehow manage to screw up the process. But, no, they don’t seriously engage in the kind of thinking presented by Lalami. The truly ignorant westerner is one that thinks that change should not happen in Muslim countries until western countries ensure complete equality to all their citizens.
I don’t disagree, Bismarck, but more than a few of those things could be denied to women by their families – and certainly bravery is an apposite word.
I get the reluctance to speak of this.
It appears as a right wing tool. To some extant, it is being used as such.
It is the truth though.
Steve Edwards et al:
In your attempts to prove her wrong, you haven’t even bothered to focus on her entire essay, instead picking out random sentences to pick apart. She answers your question further down the page:
(My emphasis)
I think Lalami’s point is the selectivity of the concern and its political motivation, Tanya. That doesn’t invalidate your argument and I am certainly not defending religious systems of law anywhere. That’s why I’m disturbed by tendencies in America and Australia to incarnate religious “values” in secular law.
j_p_z presents a classic case. No matter what, no matter where, so long as it was bad and a Muslim did it, Ruthless, Monolithic, Homogenous Islam did it!
Who needs logic? Perspective? Nuance? Screw history – it wasn’t the Ottoman Turks who sacked Constantinople, it was Islam!
Beslan school massacre had nothing to do with hundreds of years of ethnic conflict in the Caucasus, it was all Islam!
Mohammad Bouyeri didn’t stab Theo van Gogh, Islam did!
When people argue like this, they’re arguing from prejudice and ignorance. Islam is not a monolithic entity. It is not a political actor. It’s a religion, with a billion followers who believe all kinds of things. Some of them, like Bouyeri, think it’s perfectly cool to stab people who defile their holy text. Others don’t, even though they may be offended by van Gogh’s movie. Yet, people like j_p_z are happy to conflate the actions of individuals and groups with an entire religion, on a selective basis.
When this sicko bombed a gay nightclub, an abortion clinic and the 1996 Olympics, did Christianity do it? Did Christianity invade Iraq? When the Pope takes a crap, did Christianity just have a bowel movement? Hell no; and people who try to blame Monolithic Christianity for the Crusades, the actions of Eric Rudolph or the Osmonds are being just as stupid.
It’s real women, right now, today.
Theory works so well at certain points.
Until someone has a gun at your head, it’s all comfy.
And there is nothing wrong with the Osmonds. Especially Donny.
Oh, I’m all for bringing Donny to LP … one really never gets over the crushes one had as a nine year old.
Yeah, yeah Leinad, we also knew not all Communists were bad, but it was their overall outcomes that stank. Ditto Islam.
Obby, don’tcha know Karl Marx (Khahil al-Maqhs in the original Arabic) was a Muslim himself? It’s true. He had a beard and everything!
What is this ‘outcomes’ crap? Can anybody talk about religions sensibly, without resorting to stupid analogy-speak? ‘Here at Islam we pride ourselves on delivering a wide range of competitive Allah-centric faith-based outcomes for our clients, encompassing world’s best practice while maintaning commitment to core values as laid out by our Founder. If you turn to our prospectus you can see our Five Pillars of Corporate Ethics etc etc…’
Mark, though all Islamic countries shouldn’t be lumped together on every issue, I’m not sure that I agree with her conflating of Bush’s justification of the invasion of Afghanistan with some western feminists support for the invasion.
I think we can safely say that the vast majority of western feminists were opposed to both invasions. Bush did make a couple of statements about how the invasion of Afghanistan was helping women to throw of the burqa but much of that was after the initial stages of the invasion and was obviously self-interested that it had little political traction. Similarly, much of the commentary from SOME feminists was after the initial stages: it was very much couched as the silver lining in a dark cloud.
It’s also rather frustrating that Lalami commits the same mistake that she accuses others of making, i.e. inaccurate, sweeping generalization? She says that the problems and freedoms vary by country – so countries have different problems and different freedoms …hmm, well not to be too hard, but that just means that countries have different variations on the same basic pathology. No, it’s not just Islam, there are local problems. And yes, the US and other countries are active participants in that they prop up regime’s like Saudi Arabia’s. But also yes, the situation for the majority of women in every Islamic nation is significantly worse than in other nations.
Tanya, I agree that most women in Islamic countries don’t have the same degree of freedom than most western countries, but at that point, I think the generalisation breaks down. I think you’d be hard-pressed to say that women in say, Turkey (which has elected a female president) or Lebanon are worse off freedom wise than women in Zimbabwe or the Congo.
Is this an unfair comparison because Turkey and Lebanon are much more secular and prosperous than strife torn central African nations? Sure. My point is that I don’t think ‘Islam’ is the basic pathology, (at least, not the only pathology) that holds women back in the Islamic world. Fundamentalist variants of Islam definitely do, but there are Islamic societies where women are making steady gains in representation and economic rights, and for me, the thread that links these cases together is economic and social capital. (Waves arms in big sweeping gesture) Wherever women are poor and uneducated, they are oppressed. Where they have property and knowledge, their situation is much better. In some cases Islam can be an obstacle, but I don’t think it is neccissarily one.
Whatever the historical/anthroplogical roots of FGM, it has achieved an established position in orthodix Islamic theology. Check this out at Leilouta’s place.
Laila Lalami blogs at MoorishGirl. Looks quite interesting.