The Objectification of Women: Women in the Media

The topic of women in the media is a widely-discussed one now, and I’m thrilled to know that it is being given so much attention. Unfortunately, though, women don’t seem to realize that they’re being used as commercial commodities. In my English class in Spring 2007, my teacher showed us a documentary that had done an in-depth analysis of this issue; it was done during a section of the semester on the syllabus when we had to learn to analyze events and circumstances in order to respond to them more wisely and critically. It was then that I started paying attention to how negatively women are portrayed in the media. We don’t realize that we are being used to satisfy men’s (sexual) fantasies. And however we are portrayed as, it is only and only to attract men and is hence something that will give men intense pleasure. For instance, how often do we see women giving child birth in movies or music videos? Rarely, if ever! Because that’s not something men are likely to gain pleasure from. Rape, oh yes, some men actually find pleasure in seeing women being raped! How sickening!

What’s even worse is that, in the ads and commercials entertained by women, most of the goods being sold are not even for women! Most car commercials objectify women when they use a woman to advertise for the car – a woman who’s barely dressed, that is. Of course, it is just to get men’s attention, and the car sellers know their targets too well; the target’s desires are not just acknowledged but accepted and obviously even appreciated as well: Men will be more likely to pay attention to ads if they contain naked women, and not enough people seem to mind this.

How should we approach solving this, one would ask. Well, I think it’s important to first let females know how they are being objectified and abused in such a cunning way that it’s almost deniable. Making observations and then providing information is always a great way to begin making way for change to occur. That way, females can hopefully see how they are being misused – rather, abused – and stand up against it. Not all might agree, and not all might be willing to fight it, but I am also sure that not all know what they are doing and how much they are being taken advantage of, either.

Bacha Khan Trust Awards for Pukhtun Women; Deadline March 30, 2010

I received this in an e-mail from a Pukhtun Googlegroup. Zahid Bunery had mentioned it to me some days ago, but I didn't think it'd be this great a deal, to be honest. And now I see it is! So, please sSpread the word, guys! Encourage as many girls and women as you can to apply. Nothing to lose; lots to gain.

Any questions should be directed to Zahid Buneray. Phone: +9291-2246851; e-mail: womenawards@gmail.com.

I'm not sure if it's someone else who's to nominate you, or you nominate yourself. I'll ask. But in the meantime, take a look.

-----------------------------------------------
Assalam-o-Alikum

Baacha Khan Trust is going to present tribute to women of this region who have done their outstanding work in their fields even in worse situation but our brave women have proved that they can do and can face the challenges.

We would like to invite applications from following fields; preference will be given to young applicants.

1. Literature
2. politics
3. social work
4. sports
5. journalism and media
6. special women
7. music
8. aviation
9. arts
10. medicine
11. law
12. economy
13. and others which you feel that your work is very special

Please send us
* Your detailed profile of your background, education, experience and your achievements in your field,
* Your photograph,
* Contact number and present address,
* Any suggestions for the improvement of this program.

Last date for applications: March 30, 2010

E-MAIL, womenawards@gmail.com
Address, Coordinator of women award,

Baacha Khan Research Center, Baacha Khan Markaz,

Pajagi Road Peshawar,
For further inquiry, please call Zahid Buneray at 10-4 PM on +9291-2246851

Website: http://www.baachakhantrust.org

Abu Hanifa's Golden Words: "I MAY be wrong."

Imam Abu Hanifa (r.) is known to have said, "I believe that my opinions are correct, but I'm cognizant of the fact that my opinions MAY be wrong. I also believe that the opinions of my opponents are wrong, but I am cognizant of the fact that they may be correct."

So, having read this about him, who among us can HONESTLY say that we have scholars today like Abu Hanifa who will *admit* that they MAY be wrong? That there's at least a slight chance that they may be wrong and their opponents, whoever those might be, MAY be right? How many "scholars" today are willing to accept the *fact* that their views are just that -- views! Not necessarily FACTS, as much as they might want them to be facts?

Then there's that hadith I heard about some years ago that went something like:
"Every mujtahid (a person who applies ijtihad, which is  independent judgment to legal issues, using reason and knowledge) is correct. If the mujtahid is correct in her/his ijtihad, she/he receives two bounties; if wrong, then only one bounty." (Narrated by al-Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, Hanbal, and some otheres -- but I can't find the exact hadith; if anyone else does, please lemme know. Thanks in advance.)

((The preconception and expectation is, of course, that the mujtahid will have studied for an ample amount of time and ample classical and contemporary texts to arrive at the conclusion she/he ultimately does. And so if they err, there's nothing wrong with it, for they will be rewarded either way for their studying and trying.))

Then there are other classical jurists and interpreters who, when citing the views of other scholars, they'd say, "According to A, this verse means ...; according to B's interpretation, this is the case; C, on the other hand, believes that such and such is the case; ... ; as for ME, I interpret it this way."

HOW many Quran/hadith interpreters -- or scholars of Islam in general -- are this way? THIS is the sign of a true scholar. When they tell you only THEIR views, THEIR answers to questions, or then the answers of only those with whom they agree, then you should know that this person isn't a real scholar and is afraid of having someone disagree with him.

Supposedly, most Muslims worldwide belong to the Hanafi School of Thought. (And I'm starting to think that it's because Hanifa was, for the most part, the most reasonable of all the classical jurists and scholars. It's such a relief to see that humans DO possess the ability to distinguish reason from ... what's the opposite of reason? stupidity? k, maybe not.)
Now, if this is really the case, HOW MUCH do we know about Abu Hanifa? How many Hanfi followers REALLY know what Hanifa really said? How many can claim to have any knowledge about his words of wisdom at all? Why don't we ever, EVER hear anyone reminding us that he said this and that we should learn something from him? ...

(Note: I understand that many of us don't believe in any madhhabs or schools of thought, but realistically speaking, they're there, and there's just no point in denying that. So! Hanafi law is the most ecumenical among Muslims today.)

Then there's also the hadith that "the disagreement of the ummah is a source of mercy." (Well, it MIGHT not be a hadith; we're not sure because it might just be a word of wisdom instead .... but I read it in a book about Quran and authority, and the author said it's accepted as a hadith among many scholars but as simply words of wisdom among others.)
Anyway, so, one of the first books that Islamic Law students are assigned to read is The Disagreement of the Scholars is a Mercy for the Nation. Does anyone wanna guess why? Obviously because that gives us more leeway: we might agree with one scholar on one thing and disagree with her/him on other things WHILE agreeing with another on something else.

So what *I* wanna know is ... why do we hate disagreeing with each other? Why do we FEAR disagreements among ourselves? Sure, it's unhealthy when we are not taught how to *handle* those disagreements, and we end up abusing each other and declaring that those who disagree with us are heretics and such; it gets even worse when violence is used BECAUSE of those disagreements.

But why don't we try to read different views instead of accepting only ONE view as "correct" to realize that we JUST MIGHT not be right? that our favorite scholars JUST might not be the ONLY "correct" people on earth?

Is it really far more convenient to just fight and fight and kill each other than it is to listen to the other side's views and understanding?

Arranged Marriage 101

The question, "Awww, how cute! Did you guys have an arranged marriage or a love one?" always bugs me. Why does it have to be either one or the other? 

So here are some lessons for those who think those are the only two types possible, at least for Pashtuns ... okay, at least for me.

1. Arranged marriages are NOT the opposite of love marriages. Is it fair to put the two against each other?  I mean, people will sometimes ask, "Oh, cool. So was the marriage arranged or love?" But what if the parents chose for the partners to be together but the two fell in love before their wedding day? Or what if they were in love long before their parents ever arranged for them to be married? What do you call the type of marriage that is arranged by elders/parents but the couple had a strong say in it and even fell in love before their wedding day?)

2. Arranged marriages are NOT synonymous to forced marriages. (Some people don't wanna have an "arranged" marriage 'cause "I wanna have a say in my marriage!" What? What does this mean?)

So!

Arranged Marriage 101 

There are different types of arranged marriages. There are forced ones in which the couples don't see each other before marriage and in some cases have no idea who they're gonna be spending the ENTIRE rest of their life with; they are forced in that at least one partner's permission is not sought.

Then there are arranged marriages in which the parents or other elders select a partner for their children/grand-children and let them know about it. In rare cases, the couple might be allowed to meet before marriage, though never alone -- meaning, their meeting is always supervised (or it should be, anyway) with people around, though not necessarily in the exact same spot as where the couple might be talking or sitting or standing.

The concept of arranged marriages over all

See, arranged marriages are supposed to be good for humanity -- because so much effort is supposed to be put into making sure that the guy will take perfect care of the girl, and the girl will be a perfect daughter-in-law for the in-laws and wife for the husband; so much effort is supposed to be put into ensuring that she will not bring shame to the family, she will take care of her parents-in-law as the grow old, while her husband will love and respect her parents just as he does his own and never shame her family, just as she never does his. And just overall, she's supposed to be an excellent match for the guy's family and her husband is supposed to be an excellent match for her family.

The whole concept they are supposed to illustrate is that when we get married, it's not just to the person we marry but we practically marry his/her families, the entire community. When a proposal comes for a girl, her parents are supposed to say something like, "We'll think about it," (unless they just don't like the guy's family, in which case they'll make some excuse and reject it. Often, in these days, that excuse tends to be, "She's busy with school, and we want her to finish school before she gets married." Big lie in most cases.). Once the elders do this, they are supposed to do some investigations on the guy's side -- meaning, they should go into the guy's village (or city, or neighborhood) and ask people their opinion of the guy and his family. Some parents don't want their daughter to be involved in a polygamous marriage, so they might ask about the guy's personal and marital life, if any. Then the parents go to the guy's house and check his family members out, along with household matters that should be paid heed to. In my area, the most important thing the guy's family takes into consideration is, besides her white/light skin color, her cooking skills. They'll have the girl cook for the potential in-laws, at least some chai or something, and if the families are related, then a large meal with some dishes cooked by the girl. ((DISCLAIMER #1: I do not speak for, nor represent, all Pukhtuns.))

Then, if the families like each other, they'll set a date for engagement/nikaah and other ceremonies. Often, the girl isn't aware of this, or she MIGHT be aware of it, but it's understood and expected that she'll be okay with it -- for, if the elders decide something, it must not be challenged. But whether or not the girl is told of it WHILE the search is taking place depends on ... I guess families. In many unfortunate cases, the girl is told of it only after everything has been arranged and her permission is not taken.

Sometimes, even the guy doesn't know this is going on.

Some families are reasonable and kind enough to let the potential couple at least see each other's pictures before marriage; few will let them talk on the phone before marriage; extremely rare ones will let them meet before marriage. But, in any case, the marriage has already been arranged, so their meeting/talking/seeing pictures is just to let them see what they have been placed under and what to expect. ((DISCLAIMER #2: With the new media we have today, the couple may find it  very convenient to interact and "get to know each other" before marriage; but, of course, not everyone has access to that kind of technology in all parts of the world.)) The couple cannot reject the proposal after the elders have arranged it all.

And of course it's all done only to protect the youth (who obviously remain young even after reaching the age of late 20s or 30s); our elders believe they know more about marriage and life than we do, so they are sure that they can choose a good partner for us, even without our innocent say sometimes because they are convinced that they know what's best for us while we don't.

So!! The whole concept of arranged marriage is good, but the way it's practiced in most societies is unhealthy because not always is the permission or consent of at least one partner considered.

In the next blog entry, I’ll discuss the “high rate if divorce in the west” and the fear of it in the east.

One Hundred and Eighty Degrees

I love the last stanza of this poem. Wow! Just Wow!

One Hundred and Eighty Degrees

Have you considered the possibility
that everything you believe is wrong,
not merely off a bit, but totally wrong,
nothing like things as they really are?

If you've done this, you know how durably fragile
those phantoms we hold in our heads are,
those wisps of thought that people die and kill for,
betray lovers for, give up lifelong friendships for.

If you've not done this, you probably don't understand this poem,
or think it's not even a poem, but a bit of opaque nonsense,
occupying too much of your day's time,
so you probably should stop reading it here, now.

But if you've arrived at this line,
maybe, just maybe, you're open to that possibility,
the possibility of being absolutely completely wrong,
about everything that matters.

How different the world seems then:
everyone who was your enemy is your friend,
everything you hated, you now love,
and everything you love slips through your fingers like sand.

~ by Federico Moramarco

Arabic Class Skit - 1

Last week, we had to present some skits in our Arabic class. Now, I’ve always longed for such an opportunity, but never in the past has any gone as well as this one.
This was our second one this semester, and thankfully, there are many more left before the semester ends. I’m thinking of posting each one here on my blog, ‘cause they might be funny to some of us.

It was entirely in Arabic, but I’ll write it in English here. (It’s funnier in Arabic, but oh well.) The assignment was to use all the vocabulary, the tenses, and the phrases we’ve learned this semester so far, and that’s like 6 chapters from our text.

So here’s how it went.
I’m sitting in a restaurant, having ordered my 12th glass of mango juice, looking as depressed as I can, even crying a little.

A girl a few booths away from me has been watching me for a while and finally approaches me.

Girl: Assalamu ‘alaikum, Sister. I have been watching you for the past hour, and you look very sad. AND this is your 12th bottle! Not good, not good at all, Sister. What is wrong?

Me, bursting into loud tears: My fiancé just left for Iraq to join the army, and I feel so lonely now! I need him!

Girl: Awww, I know how you feel. My beloved did, too. I know it hurts, but it’s okay. They’ll come back to us soon, inshAllah.

Me: Yeah, but mine was handsome and kind and made me laugh a lot and helped me with my Arabic homework and with studying for exams in my Arabic class. ~sniff, sniff~ and he was such a good student all of his teachers loved him, and he was so nice all of his friends loved him. And he helped them with their homework, too.

Girl: Awww, sister, I’m so sorry. I feel for you. Mine was a very kind person, too. I think of him all the time. He was very intelligent as well and always helped me in EVERYTHING --  in housework, too.

Me, not really listening to her: And ~ sniff ~ and ~sniff~ he loved me so much and we wanted to get married next month. Ya Allah, why me! Why me! AND he loved mango juice – like the one I have here with me. ~cries~ And ~sniff, sniff~ and his favorite weather was warm weather, like me, and did not like cold weather, and I don’t like winter, either. And we liked the same sports, like basketball and football, and we ran in the mornings and evening, and we ate at our favorite restaurant often, and ~sniff~ and we both loved Pashto music ~cries harder~

Girl: Sister, don’t cry … and my name is Dua; what is yours?
Me: ~sniff~ Thank you. I am Maha. ~crying gets louder~ And I’m an American but of Iraqi descendant. And my mother is from Morocco and my father is from Iraq. My grandmother is also from Iraq. She lives with us because my mother is sick nowadays. I want to graduate soon so I can go home and live with them. My fiancé ~crying a little more~ and I love Chicago. He studied there for five years.

Dua: Mine studied there too. And he worked at the UN for 8 years then.

Me: ~sniff, then crying~ Mine was such a good person. He also worked at the UN for 8 years. And he majored in Business.

Dua: Ya Allah, mine majored in business, too!

Me: Sister, do you think mine knows yours? Maybe they do!

Dua: I don’t know! Do you have his picture?

Me: Of course, of course! Here.

~ exchanging pictures~

~ both in shock; show the pictures to class: it’s the same person! ~

Me, banging on the table: Haraam!! Haraaam!!! HARAAAAAAAAMM!!!

End scene!
hahahahahahahahaha! It was SO much fun! :D:D:D Hey, it took us like 30 minutes to come with this play, k? And we had only HALF a day to prepare!

Interview with Dr. Riffat Hassan

 

Dr. Riffat Hassan is a scholar of human rights in Islam and is Professor of Religious Studies and Humanities at the University of Louisville, Kentucky (USA). She's also "a champion of progressive Islamic thought; she has been engaged in research on the roles and rights of women in Islam for over 25 years. Dr. Hassan was a speaker at the United Nations International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo, Egypt, in 1994 and at the UN Fourth World Conference on Women in China" (according to newsline.com, the full link of which is given below).
And, of course, who could forget that she's the author of Equal before Allah?: Woman-man Equality in the Islamic Tradition.

I smiled when I read on Wikipedia that Riffat Hassan was one of the first to accept "the Islamic feminist label."

(Notice: Expect many, many more blog posts similar to this one in the future; I'll be dedicating random posts every now and then to the progressive thinkers whom I've been looking into for a research that started last year and will be ending in late April. I will also be listing my reviews/thoughts/summaries of most of the books and articles I've read on contemporary progressive Islam and influential progressive Muslims who are important icons in Islamic Studies. No worries -- I'll define the term "progressive" when I post those blogs, ka khairee.)

k, so, I think this interview with her is very well worth reading. With each answer of hers that I read, I felt like a HUGE rock had been lifted off my back. For instance, her views on the highly patriarchal (if not also misogynistic) Maududi, on ijtihad, on scholarship in Islam, on women who veil and/or wear the hijab, ... oh, that's pretty much all of it in this interview.

The interviewer says to her:
"Today the hijab is a hotly contested topic around the world. You have stated on numerous occasions that "Wearing hijab today is a sign of submission to Saudi Arabia." Don't you believe in a woman's right to veil, based on her understanding of the Quran?"

And Dr. Hassan answers:
"Did I say that? First of all, this issue needs to be studied in an objective scientific way. The practice of veiling comes before Islam. Orthodox Jewish women, to this day, wear the veil. Specifically in the context of the Quran, this issue needs to be understood historically. My unhappiness lies in the fact that the young women wearing the veil have not done research on the subject. If they did and still wore it, I would respect their right to wear it. But given the nature of the Arabic language and the general openness and universality of the Quran, I believe that the Quran offers us many options with regard to the dress code. The principles of the Quran are justice and compassion. It does not focus on outward dress. Those verses were revealed in a particular context and time. The underlying principle is modesty. The word used in the Quran is jilbab. But it is not the case that everybody in the world should wear the jilbab. If the Quran was revealed, say, to the Americans, it would have referred to American dress. What is mandatory is modesty. At the time, the jilbab enabled women to go out. It was not restrictive."

(I love how she starts off with "Did I say that?" Goes to show how anything we say can not only be misunderstood but exaggerated to such an extent that it becomes a lie. I note this happening on my own blog quite often as well, and for some reason I refuse to ponder, I am NEVER surprised.)

Anyhow, I love her response. I, too, have always believed that MOST women who wear the hijab/niqab have never actually researched the topic at all.

I'm not going in order of the questions at all, but take a look at this one. The interviewer asks:
"You state that the Quran has been interpreted over the past centuries in a very misogynistic and patriarchal context. Is your position that all the great Arabic scholars have deliberately misinterpreted the Quran?"

Hassan's answer: "You have to differentiate between the scholars."

Interviewer: "Maulana Maudoodi, for example."

Hassan: "Yes. He was very patriarchal in his thinking. We now know that the vast majority of the hadith were not authentic in the sense that they referred to Arab culture rather than what the Prophet (p.bu.h) said. Hadith became the lens through which the Quran was seen. The discipline of Tafsir, or the interpretation of the Quran, was developed afterwards. The difference between original texts and tradition has been merged. Iqbal tried to separate this."

As far as ijtihad is concerned, the interviewer asks:
"Who is capable of undertaking ijtihad today?"
Riffat Hassan: "If scholars could come together, we can do a lot better. I think there is a lot of capability. This is why we need an institution. And this is my mission."

We really have forgotten that we have the option of ijtihad available to us, and we CAN figure out HOW to apply the concept of it and WHEN (i.e., in which contexts) if our current "scholars" could actually start communicating with each other and holding dialogues instead of labeling each other as heretic or blasphemous or whatever.

The beginning of the interview may also be of interest to some of us; I found only the last part relevant to recent discussions held on my blog and chose to post it here.

P.S. On the idea of interpretations and my thoughts on which interpretations should be accepted and which ones rejected, you may check out my post called "A Note on Interpretations and Scholarship (among Muslims)."

"Islamic Feminism"

The idea of "Islamic Feminism" seems to give a headache to many Muslims, and event I wasn't okay with it for a long, long time. I've been empowered, however, to start using the word feminism more proudly. (Hopefully, I don't need to explain why, but if I do, I'll define a feminist and explain why feminism lies in every single human (note: I said human. Human only.))

Anyway, so I was just introduced to this link by a friend. It's an old, old interview, but I thought I'd share it here. Seeing feminism used in the same sentence with Islam is always a pleasure, anyway.

k, so, it's an interview with three great ladies, one of whom I've never heard of before, and they discuss how "Islamic feminism" differs from "Western feminism," along with the issue of the veil (which is said to be symbolic; Leila Ahmed in the interview explains why) and other concerns that Muslim women face largely due to a highly patriarchal interpretation of Islam. These women are: the great Dr. Sardar Shaheen Ali (Professor of Law at University of Peshawar, Pakistan; visiting scholar at the University of Warwick Law School, United Kingdom; Author of Human Rights and International Law: Equal Before Allah, Unequal Before Man? Note: She's Pukhtun, AND I get to see her in a few months, ka khairee :D:D:D), the great Dr. Leila Ahmed (Professor of divinity at Harvard, Author of Women and Gender in Islam: The Historical Roots of a Modern Debate), and the great Dr. Nayereh Tohidi (Associate Professor of Women's Studies at California State University, Northridge; director of USCN's new Islamic Community Studies program; editor of Women in Muslim Societies: Diversity Within Unity).

I was told that Islamic feminism has been on the rise during the last couple of decades, but I believe it only now. We have hope as long as women like these continue speaking up. And if another woman disagrees with them, she needs to speak up as well (whether for herself or for other women).
Peace.

Forbidden

"Forbidden"

I have dug inside me,
A well – a deep, infinite well.
In it lives with me My God
The God of both women and men,
The God of the oppressed and the liberated,
The God of the cursed and the blessed

There with me, my feelings dwell,
Far from the fondness of human thought,
Unwelcome elsewhere
The feelings I’m forbidden to relish,
The secrets I’m forbidden to reveal,
The questions I’m forbidden to raise,
The mistakes I’m commanded to regret,
But I don’t. For I have no regrets.
Only mistakes to learn from.

There, I speak the unspeakable
I quarrel with My God,
And My God allows me this –
And there, I think the forbidden
And My God hears me, too,
There, I demand answers,
And My God answers me, too,
My God hears the shattering of my voices
And pacifies my frustrated nerves
There, I heave sighs suppressed elsewhere,
And screams ignored elsewhere,
But I must scream,
For the forbiddance of speaking has boiled my brain,
And the ludicrousness of the ulama, the “learned,” vexes me,
And the labels of heresy and blasphemy grieve my soul
But I must tell my stories.

And I tell my God,
Why have you forbidden me these natural thoughts?
Why am I nothing but a dangerously seductive being, who
Incites sordid feelings in men?
You must forgive me, Dear God, for I mean no harm,
But you must permit me to ask –
Why do you objectify me when You created me Yourself?
They tell me You’re all-powerful;
But then why did you make me the reason men behave so despicably
When they see my face, or my hair,
Or my ankles,
Or my eyes?

And My God smiles at me
And tells me
“Don’t confuse My guidelines with the orders of men.”
Just as the well starts to flood, and I
Develop confidence and valor
And my spirit ascends the seventh heaven,
And my heart glows with peace
And my mind enfolds the universe

I have become a woman.
A woman at last.
And I’m going to tell my stories.

~ Qrratugai
~ Mon., March 1, 2010

The Islamic Bill of Rights for Women in the Mosque

There's a list of women's rights in the Mosque, called "The Islamic Bill of Rights for Women in the Mosque" by Asra Nomani. I found it on someone else's blog and then Wiki'ed it.

She wrote it after her visit to Meccca, where she noticed that:
"I was a fully realized human being. There were no back doors for me. There was no back entrance. There was no back row where I had to pray. I prayed alongside my father. I walked in through the front door with him. When I dared to try to do the same at my mosque in Morgantown, I was screamed at and yelled at and I was told to take the back door. I was told to sit in the balcony. And so for almost two years now, we've been fighting and we walked in through the front door and into the main hall. And I now sit on trial because 35 men at the mosque have signed a petition to have me banned for being a troublemaker. So on March 1st, the start of Women's History Month, I launched what we're so proud to call the Muslim Women's Freedom Tour. And what I did was I posted on the door of my mosque 99 precepts for opening hearts, minds and doors in our Muslim world. And with it I attached a bill of rights for women in the mosque and a bill of rights for women in the bedroom, so that we can assert and reclaim all that Islam created for women."

This is really sad; I don't agree with this whole idea of women's entrance into the Mosque through the "back" door -- again, it makes the woman nothing but an evil seductive and a dangerously sexy being who's gonna create "fitnah" in the mosque. A man might get turned on by seeing her, even if she's covered from head to toe, and then God will punish HER for having created such feelings in the man.

I myself have had some horrible experiences with the mosques here, and I've read stories of women who defy the idea of being subjugated to the extent of not even being ALLOWED in the mosque (even in the west, mind you!) or of praying in a suffocatingly small area of the mosque -- simply because it's assumed that women won't come to the mosque or don't NEED to come. Well, maybe they would if you didn't make their stay in the mosque this miserable, damnit. One of the ones I regularly attend has more women than men coming to it on weekends, and yet ... the area for women is a small room. And it gets so musty in there at times it's impossible to breathe. But how big is the area for men? It's at least six times as big as the women's area! And they always close the door so that we won't see the men and they won't see us, and because the mic system is pathetic there, we can't even hear what the imam says! For Friday prayers, they have the women go to a house near the mosque (bought by a former imam of the mosque, I was told) to pray there.

Just three weeks ago, I watched a documentary/film called "Me & the Mosque" presented by this Pakistani-Canadian lady named Zarqa Nawaz. She made the film because she noted the huge barrier that Muslims have created between men and women in the mosque; she also found it interesting yet depressing that each mosque (in the west) seems to go through these phases when during one phase, the leader of the mosque will be a misogynist loser who thinks that women don't belong in the mosque and so he'll do everything he can to PREVENT them from coming (including making the space for women SO tiny AND adds BARS to it such that it's literally too suffocating for women to stay in there for more than a minute or so), and in another phase, the leader will be someone more reasonable and human -- and someone more knowledgeable about Islam -- and will therefore not have these solid bars and glass between the men's and women's sections. It's definitely worth watching. For once, some Muslims are standing up and recognizing the problems that we Muslims OURSELVES are creating in our communities. (I mean, you know how we love to point out all the problems that non-Muslims have created for us, yeah? Well, we, TOO, have created many, many problems for ourselves, and when exactly do we plan to solve those?)

Anyway, I'll be giving a conference presentation on Muslim women in the mosque in a few months, ka khairee, so I'll try to post something on that later on. But for NOW, let's take a look at the notorious and controversial (but absolutely great) Asra Nomani's bill of rights. (lol @ notorious and controversial. Sadly, just about EVERY Muslim woman who speaks up about Muslim women's issues is considered this. But then again, why NOT! She was the lead organizer of the woman-led Muslim prayer, led by Dr. Amina Wadud.)

k, more on that another day, ka khairee.
Here.

1. Women have an Islamic right to enter a mosque.
2. Women have an Islamic right to enter through the main door.
3. Women have an Islamic right to visual and auditory access to the musalla (main sanctuary).
4. Women have an Islamic right to pray in the musalla without being separated by a barrier, including in the front and in mixed-gender congregational lines.
5. Women have an Islamic right to address any and all members of the congregation.
6. Women have an Islamic right to hold leadership positions, including positions as prayer leaders, or imams, and as members of the board of directors and management committees.
7. Women have an Islamic right to be full participants in all congregational activities.
8. Women have an Islamic right to lead and participate in meetings, study sessions, and other community activities without being separated by a barrier.
9. Women have an Islamic right to be greeted and addressed cordially.
10. Women have an Islamic right to respectful treatment and exemption from gossip and slander.

On Interpretations of Islam ... part 2?

Gosh, it's been THIRTEEN days since my last post?!?! My, where have I been!

Well, actually, I'm really busy these days. Everything seems to be going in a million different directions, and it's becoming SO difficult to keep up!

As you all hopefully know by now, Qrratugai is a freak about interpretations, particularly the interpretations of Islam. And so, I was on this group on FB just a minute ago where someone called Amina Wadud a kafir. Now, this is the beautiful, intelligent, and honorable woman scholar of Islam who chose to lead a mixed congregational prayer and has been receiving death threats ever since because, DUH, women are FORBIDDEN to lead men in prayer. Imagine what that could mean! I mean, a WOMAN leading MEN in prayer?! What a blasphemous deed, and what a shameless woman would do something as indecent as that?! God forgive our misguided world!

Anyway, let's not let Qrratugai get all sarcastic and stuff right now. I just wanna share what this one girl said. So, she was calling Amina Wadud kafir (non-Muslim, infidel, etc.) and that she's "only spreading kufr"! So, of course, I had to reply. And I wrote:

Mind elaborating how this is spreading kufr? A lot of Muslims agree with you, but *none* of them can justify on an intellectual level why or how this is kufr or leads to kufr.

It's amusing when (typical) Muslims refer to Dr. Wadud as a kafir or whatever when they don't have the same level of knowledge and understanding as Dr. Wadud. Forget that this lady has studied Islam and women's status in Islam in depth, received a PhD in it, is widely respected(but NOT by the weak and insecure Muslims, of course), is universally read, leads scholarly events and conferences, and is no DOUBT an expert on women in Islam. Yet, OTHERS, who know nothing but what their local imams have taught them, are telling her how Islam views women. LOL. Amusing indeed. Not to mention, Wadud can VERY WELL justify what she has done and what she continues doing. Can anyone else do that? I don't think so. Their ONLY reasoning is: "God says so" -- yet without evidence or support.

Then she replied: "my knowladge might not be same as her but all i know woman can't lead prayers like imam does."
Oh geez :| But she fails to tell us *how* she knows.

One person replied to her saying, "Please follow Allah (and Rasool), not the manmade fatwas and books of sharia written by imams. They are not part of religion in anycase."

And so I said: "Exactly. And not just that, but also, Islam is nothing without its interpretation, and it's interpreted differently depending on who is doing the interpretation. Who said that the interpretations of the men of the 12th century or so should be used even in our time? And how many women scholars have ever been "allowed" to interpret the Quran/hadith without being threatened? Let women speak for once, yo, will y'all! It's silly to make rules ABOUT us and FOR us without knowing us at all or without taking our views on them."

The person disagreed that gender has anything to do with interpretations: "The rules are already made by God. About women and about men. The silly part is not to make rules about women without knowing women, but to add and make rules that override the rules of God.
It doesn't matter if the Imam is a man or a woman, whoever he/she is, he/she is obliged to uphold the rules of God, not the rules of men."

My reply:
Well, their gender/sex starts to matter when interpretations come into play, you see. Yes, the rules have already been provided by God, but who interprets those rules? It's not like they're all that simple all the time. And that's where the problem begins: we're taught that a certain side's interpretation of God's message and rules and guidelines is *the correct one* while another side's is nothing but blasphemy, heresy, aberration, kufr, etc., etc. And so that's when we have to ask, "Really? How so? Why's A's interpretation any better than B's?" And they often say, "Because the majority supports A's interpretation." And you ask, "Why?" And they go, "What do you mean why? That's just how things are you. You can't change it -- you feminist." And you go, "Umm... okay, but just remember that majority, too, can be wrong and isn't always -- in fact, is RARELY! -- right."

My reason for making this blog post was that last comment of mine, that whole conversation starting with, "And so that's when we have to ask, "Really? How so? Why's A's interpretation any better than B's?"

No, we're not scholars, so, yes, we don't have any right to interpret the Quran. BUT!! We don't have to be scholars to use our brain and question what others have said. I don't agree with a lotta the stuff that Imam al-Ghazali said in the 12th century, but I can tell you that what he said made PERFECT sense for his own time (and society). If I lived in his time, I wouldn't be disagreeing with it. But I don't, so what's to stop me? Same thing with Imams Hanifa and the other three. Who said that what they wrote and interpreted was necessarily the "real" Islam? And why in this cruel, sad world are we STILL using their interpretation when almost much of what they've said can't even apply? Besides, didn't Imam Hanifa himself write in his books that "This is MY interpretation; it must NOT be universalized."? It's interesting what the scholars of the past used to say and do in their books. See, they'd tell you what Person or Side A's interpretation of a certain Quranic/hadith text was, what Person/Side B's was, what Person/Side C's was, etc., etc. and only THEN tell you their own. Often, this goes like, "As for me, I believe this...." or "As for MY interpretation, such and such is the case." Or "I, however, understand it to be ...." When they'd agree with a certain person or side, they'd say, "As for me, I agree with so-and-so's interpretation."

Unfortunately, today, it seems like what our favorite scholars agree with is what WE need to agree with, too :S Or what our local imam says, we MUST do :S

I could go on and on about this, especially by bringing up the great Zakir Naik into it. But I'll not burden my readers with that much -- not yet, anyway. :p I will in a matter of a couple of months or so, though, so sneak a peak in about a month or so, ka khairee.

Peace!

Negating the Notion of "Culture vs Religion"

I constantly come across Muslims who think that culture and religion are two different things, very much assured that culture serves as the culprit for every single thing that goes wrong in Muslim societies. At a friend's bridal shower recently, for instance, I heard two girls talking to each other, one of whom was saying to the other, "Yeah, in my family, it's only Islam, alhamdulillah. There's no culture whatsoever." And the other responded in awe, "Wow! Lucky you! And that's how it should be, you know." I smiled in response to this interesting conversation.

We make it seem like culture has absolutely nothing to do with our religion (in our case, Islam) or how it is implemented in our society. However, in terms of how Islam is practiced (not necessarily how it should be), our cultures have everything to do with the practice of Islam. Let’s wonder for a moment why Islam is practiced so differently in Indonesia than in Iran or Egypt or Saudi Arabia; let’s wonder why it’s practiced far more differently in the U.S., Canada, and Europe than in Pakistan, India, or Malaysia; let’s wonder why the practices of the Muslims in China and Japan are not the same as those in Iraq, Syria, or Bangladesh.

Many consider this the "beauty" of Islam: it can be integrated into any belief system, interpreted in a million different ways (even if they're opposite – though this is not unique only to Islam), and practiced in any society and time and culture. Throughout Islamic history, we can spot any point in time and ask what Islam meant for that specific period of time and for that specific region. Today is no exception, and if this breaks our hearts and makes us go, "OMG OMG OMG!! This is not good! We must do something about it!" we're fooling ourselves and wasting our time on something that we don’t have any power over.

So, really, who are we fooling when we lie to ourselves that Islam and culture are two different things? No one but our own selves.

Religion and culture are very much embedded into each other and have a strong and indelible influence on one another. Islam – rather, religion in general – is a theory, a theory that can be put into practice in many, many different ways, often being mingled with the original practices of the society that eventually embraces that religion. One of those ways is by interpreting it in a way that it fits our social norms that existed long before the religion ever invaded our land. The reason for this does not require a genius or a scholar to figure out: Religion needs to be practical, and whichever of its laws and routines are not practical for a certain society, that society will not hesitate to reject them. To ask a people to completely rid themselves of their previous customs, no matter how much they may be "clashing" with the religion they are compelled to accept, is silly and impractical. Looking into Islamic history and the beliefs of the people we call the pagans of Arabia, we notice that a lot of the rituals we have to perform during Hajj are actually derived from pre-Arab customs but were simply incorporated into Islam once they were re-interpreted to fit the standards of the Islamic/monotheistic concept of God and divinity and worship. (The concept of dowry is another example. It was simply made by claiming that it is to help the woman, though it can also mean other things … including some bad things, that is, such as: A man is paying a certain amount of money to the bride so that he can sexually own her for the rest of her life, or so that he can expect her obedience. This is how Muslim scholars in medieval and classical times interpreted the dowry. But today, how many Muslim women, especially in the west, are willing to see it this way?)

So we cannot expect people to give up every single one of their custom that they so cherished before they had to accept Islam, even if those practices clash with our understanding of Islam. It is only natural for them to keep some things from their past and accept new ones from the religion they have been introduced to, or to just mix both or re-interpret their older beliefs and practices so they can be explained from their new perspectives.

As far as the treatment of women is concerned, the thing is that there are teachings in the Quran that, if interpreted from a misogynistic perspective, do in fact support the mistreatment of women in Muslim cultures. The “Quranic” concept of divorce is one (if interpreted literally, the woman has to go through hell to get a divorce; so why bother divorcing at all? And look at what the four Sunni legal schools have to say about divorce, both regarding men and women. Tell me how much of it is in favor of women or their mental and physical security. Hanafi school doesn’t even allow it in case of the woman’s being brutally abused or even when her husband abandons her! Shafi’s law is more women-friendly when it comes to divorce: She can divorce her husband if he fails to provide for her and her kids financially, if he beats her, or even if she’s just unhappy.)

So, no, I don’t agree that the mistreatment of women in Muslim cultures is always the original culture’s fault. Many, many hadith do seem to think that education for a woman is just not a good idea. And the hadith that “education is compulsory upon every Muslim person” can mean so many things. We have to ask what education is, do there have to be differences in the types of education (e.g., should women’s education be limited to domestic education and basic education and man’s education far and beyond that?). So when people don’t support education for women, they DO have Islamic basis. Who are we to say that that understanding of Islam is wrong?

Is this to mean that it's Islam's fault? Not necessarily, because, as aforementioned, Islam is a theory; it becomes practice only once it is interpreted AND then implemented. So it's not necessarily Islam's fault but the fault of the interpretations, though often inexorably stemming from the literal text of the Quran itself.