Arlene--
Let me first say that it is not my desire to speak on behalf of Muslim
feminism or any feminism, I am merely drawing upon works and perspectives
which I have found influential in this context. That being said, I will
take a moment to provide some responses to Chris's points from a different
perspective (which is of course, only one of many perspectives). Chris's
points are noted first, followed by my response. I will offer just a few
points on both female circumcision/genital mutilation and veiling as
well...though let me note that this post in no way is able to offer a
difinitve discussion/analysis of either issue.
----
RE: "Law and scripture is defensible only if it is just and responsive to
change"
-- This is as if to say that Islam is not only static and unchanging, but
subsequently backwards and irrational, e.g. Islam as the "other". The
works of Said are invaluble in demonstrating the forces and relations of
power behind this discursive construction, and the agenda this
representation of the "other" serves. Moreover, we cannot justifiably
conceive of "Islam" as a monolythic, singular entity. To quote "The
peculiar practices of Islam with respect to women [has] always formed part
of the Western narrative on the quintessential otherness and inferiority of
Islam" (Ahmed, 1992:148). Sadly, Chris has fallen into this trap. As a
useful starting point, Leila Ahmed (and others) distinguish between
"ethical Islam" and "political Islam". Ethical Islam, according to Ahmed,
provides for the rights of women (property rights, sexual rights and
reproductive rights, etc.) Establishment, or political Islam
"...articulates a different Islam from the ethical message that the
layperson justifyably hears or reads in the Quran" (Ahmed, 1992:225). The
Taliban serves as but one example of political Islam, but as I keep saying,
is not indicative of Islam as a whole nor of the diverse experiences of
women vis a vis Islam, despite media representations of such.
RE: "Circumcision is practised on women in the name of Islam and in the
name of the sunna."
Female circumcision predates Islam. Efua Dorkenoo argues that there is no
basis in religious texts for female circumcision/genital mutilation
(fc/fgm), and that it is how the religious books of Muslims, Catholics,
Protestants and others have been interpreted that matters. For a more
extensive discussion of this, please see her book "Cutting the Rose", 1994.
Let me also note that fc/fgm is not practiced by all Muslims, nor all
Africans, nor is veiling practiced by all Muslims. My concern here is
again, the construction of Islam as the "other" and the construction of
women as "victims" of Islam, a construction which completely negates
women's agency.
RE: "The
confinement of women in Islam is not for their good, but to control
reproductive freedom. Until women are reproductively free the world will
never be free."
Again, Islam as the "other" and women as "victims". We need to get beyond
these discursive constructions (which I see Chris employing time and time
again) if we are ever going to be able to address conditions/areas in which
women's rights are constrained, eg, is Islam to blame or the structure of
patriarchy, and/or as Ahmed points out, the connection between the
development of private property and efforts at constraining women's
reproductive freedom in order to ensure property hiers?. Let me also point
out that according to Leila Ahmed, the Quran mandates women's reproductive
freedom, including abortion, as well as thier right to sexual pleasure.
Let me also note, while I'm thinking about it, that if we are going to
recognize women's agency (which I think Chris denies in his construction of
Afghani women as "victims" and Westerners as the "saviors") that agency
must also be resognized in the context of women's choices to have fc/fgm
and to veil. Regarding veiling in particular, the veil has been used as a
political/subversive weapon, as in the case of Turkey where many women
donned the veil in protest of government regulations against veiling, not
to mention the fact that many women veil out of acceptance of cultural and
religious mores for modesty (see the film "Conversations Across the
Bospherous") - not all veiling is "forced veiling" and I will continue to
rail against such essentialist representations of veiling. This, as
fc/fgm, is a complex issue, to employ essentailized understandings of these
and other issues denies women's agency, and perpetuates the "Third World
woman as victim" construction and belittles the lived realities faced by
women world-wide. The creation and use of essentialized categories of
"oppressed" women in "other" countries will not advance women's rights,
they only serve the agenda of Western global, neocolonial interests.
Said's discussion of Western interests vis a vis the construction of the
"other" (especially the "Islamic other") is a good staring point here.
RE: "The Afghani women made this plea and you rejected it."
It seems to me that Chris, not Afghani women, made this plea...given what I
have said previously, I am suspect of his plea and uncomfortable with the
agenda Chris has set forth. We must get beyond the victim/savior dichotomy
proffered by such discourse. Moreover, as Mernissi contends, the desire to
identify and construct "Non-Western" female liberation movements as needing
to be similar to those in the West has distorted the analysis of Muslim
women and has kept "analysis at the level of senseless comparisons and
unfounded conclusions" (Mernissi, 1987:7). This is also what I see Chris
doing.
There's so much more I can say, but I am getting a bit tired. In closing,
let me say that I am vexed and concerned by the situation in Afghanistan
for example, and would in fact like to find a way in which I as a western
feminist may address the conditions which many women are facing in
Afghanistan. However, I do not agree with the agenda Chris seems to be
advancing. I feel that his representation of women as victims, his
representation of Islam as the "other" and his call for the liberating
force of the West is misguided and as I have stated elsewhere, very
dangerous. I would however, like to engage in dialogue with others
concerned with this situation (without of course, the caustic little
insults!) so that perhaps we may be able to find/formulate alternative ways
in which to address the situation. This is, in fact, very important to me.
Arlene, if you're interested, I can forward to you a more extensive
bibliography on works which I have found useful in the context of both
fc/fgm and veiling.
Jessica
