Thank you Jessica for taking the time to provide much for me to think
about. I'm going to read this later today, when I can give it the
attention it deserves.
Arlene
On Sat, 13 Mar 1999, Jessica Urban wrote:
> 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
>
>
