| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
In "Islamic feminists stir the pot in Far East" from the Toronto Star (thanks to Skeetstreet), Haroon Siddiqui "speaks to religious scholar who blames Muslims, not Islam, for gender inequity."
Musdah Mulia is the scholar in question:
She wears the hijab but says it's not Islamically mandatory, a position augmented by a big majority of Muslim women in Indonesia, indeed around the world, who don't don it and feel no less Muslim.
"Asma, daughter of AbuBakr, entered upon the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) wearing thin clothes. The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) turned his attention from her. He said: O Asma', when a woman reaches the age of menstruation, it does not suit her that she displays her parts of body except this and this, and he pointed to her face and hands." -- Sunan Abu Dawud, book 32, no. 4092.
She wants polygamy banned, and also "contract marriages," which give a religious patina to short-term relationships that, inevitably, involve poor women.
"Marry women of your choice, two or three or four..." -- Qur'an 4:3
She says men needn't be the legal guardians of women over 21.
"Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the other..." -- Qur’an 4:34
And that’s not all.
She wants the marriageable age of women to be on par with men - in the case of Indonesia, 19, rather than 16, for girls.She challenges the rule against women marrying non-Muslims.
Musdah Mulia is no Westernized secular feminist. She is an Islamic scholar, with a PhD from the Institute of Islamic Studies here.
She teaches there part-time but her day job is director of research at the ministry of religious affairs, from where she needles the government. When her bosses issued a white paper last year updating religious laws, she wrote a 170-page critique that annoyed them and the conservatives.
But, this being Indonesia, she still has her job and is in increasing demand as a speaker.
And Mulia came from a strict background (Islamic tolerance alert here):
Mulia, a granddaughter of a cleric, went to an Islamic boarding school and grew up in a strict environment: "I could not laugh hard. My parents did not allow me to befriend non-Muslims. If I did, they ordered me to shower afterwards," she has said.
But then, as Siddiqi takes pains to emphasize, she traveled to "other Muslim nations" and realized that:
"...Islam had many faces. It opened my eyes. Some of what my grandfather and the ulema (clerics) had taught me was right but the rest was myth."
So what led to her transformation? It turns out that her parents, her grandfather, the clerics, had Islam all wrong, and she, Mulia, had gotten hold of the real Islam:
The more she studied Islam, the more she found it modern and radical. It had liberated women 1,400 years ago, well ahead of the West.
So the hijab, the burka, the chador, the polygamy, the divorce that the man achieves by uttering a phrase three times, the unequal inheritance laws, the inability of women in many Muslim countries to leave the house without a male relative as escort, the ban in some Muslim countries on women even driving -– all this is now inexplicable to her, given that Islam "had liberated women 1,400 years ago, well ahead of the West."
The claim that Muhammad actually improved the lot of women is curious. It is based, apparently, on the supposedly terrible position of women in pagan Arab society. But did those conditions really improve with the coming of Islam? Even Aisha, Muhammad's beloved child bride, said: "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women" (Bukhari, vol. 7, book 72, no. 715).
So many fighters for women’s rights in Islam end up like this. They cannot admit to others, and they seem not to be able to dare to admit to themselves, that Islam itself contains the texts that are responsible for the continuing mistreatment of women: not only in the Qur’an, but in the "authentic" Hadith, and in the records of Muhammad’s treatment of and attitude toward women in the Sira.
I wish Mulia well. But despite her attempt, and that of Siddiqui to support her, how can she really help if she insists on ignoring the passages I have quoted above and many others? These are not being misinterpreted, unless millions of Muslims are doing the misinterpretation. They are properly reflected in the difficult position of women throughout Muslim lands -– a position that is difficult to the precise extent that any country's legal system approximates the theoretical ideal of the Sharia. Look at Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Sudan. It is only in those Muslim countries that are the least Muslim, either because they have managed to constrain Islam from within (Turkey, Tunisia) or because Islam has been constrained by outside powers (the Soviet campaign against all religions, including Islam, that changed the Central Asian Republics), that women have had a chance for a more decent existence.
Yet Mulia insists that "gender inequity emanates not from Islam but from Muslims and their cultural traditions and interpretations."
But she does not ask, much less answer, what exactly molds Muslims, in every respect, if it is not Islam? What molds the "cultural traditions and interpretations" of Muslims if it isn't "Islam"?
Beyond the basics of faith, Mulia says, most laws affecting women are man-made. "None of it came as a fax from heaven."
But those who legislate in Saudi Arabia, Iran, the Sudan, and Pakistan think that they are following a mandate from heaven. For what after all is the Qur’an itself, in the Islamic view, if not a "fax from Heaven"?
This is the kind of article that, while it seems to be on the side of the angels, helps promote confusion about Islam, by offering a worshipful account of someone who may be brave, but whose every remark reflects considerable mental confusion. A little less sentiment is in order. Ibn Warraq put it well: "There are moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate." Too many Muslim reformers think they must defend Islam at all costs, whatever mental contortions they have to perform in order to do so. It is only "bad Muslims" who are responsible. Yet "bad Muslims" seem to be those who most fervently accept, in every area of life, the actual teachings of Islam. The more relaxed and unobservant the Believer, the better his treatment of women.
That is something that even Ms. Mulia cannot hide from forever.
Posted by Robert at April 11, 2005 8:41 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Poor victimized women. Even after they undergo female genital mutilation, after they're beaten regularly by their "husbands" (gotta be a human first to qualify as a husband), after they're raped by family members and those family members are pardoned while the women are executed to save the family's honor, etc. etc. ad nauseam, they STILL defend Islam! The Islam that says
Tabari IX:113 “Allah permits you to shut them in separate rooms and to beat them, but not severely. If they abstain, they have the right to food and clothing. Treat women well for they are like domestic animals and they possess nothing themselves. Allah has made the enjoyment of their bodies lawful in his Qur’an.”
Bukhari:V1B22N28 “The Prophet said: ‘I was shown the Hell Fire and the majority of its dwellers were women who are disbelievers or ungrateful.’ When asked what they were ungrateful for, the Prophet answered, ‘All the favors done for them by their husbands.’”
Qur’an 4:15 “If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, take the evidence of four witnesses from amongst you against them; if they testify, confine them to houses until death [by starvation] claims them.”
This is a clear case of "Stockholm Syndrome".
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at April 11, 2005 10:02 AM
I emailed Mr. Spencer about something similar. In Holland we have quite a problem with Muslim families marrying off their daughters. Now there's a Muslim organisation going around telling everyone that marrying off women is not Islamic. I mean, more power to 'em if they can convince Muslims that what they are doing is wrong, eventhough I think they should point to the law instead of the Qu'ran when telling people what they can and can not do. But then again, there's plenty of jurisprudence in Islamic law that says fathers are allowed to marry off their virgin daughters. So again, although it might not necessarily be exclusively Islamic, Islam does condone or even promote it (like female circumcision) so it's hard for me to believe Islam is there for the betterment of women. Maybe 1400 years ago it was an interesting package for women to buy into (although I don't think women had a lot of choice back then, nor anyone else who came into contact with Islam) but now it's hopelessly backward. These 'Muslim feminists' need to realize something better has come along and jump ship.
Posted by: Leveller at April 11, 2005 11:11 AM
You must realize that the Toronto Star is the consummate bleeding heart liberal newspaper in Canada. This political orientation is even in the paper's charter or mission statement. I'm not kidding - it's called the Atkinson Principles (link blow).
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Render&c=Page&cid=1035976365613
Posted by: johnb at April 11, 2005 11:28 AM
This sounds like someone standing in a prison cell saying " I can do anything I want to in this 6x6 cell."
Posted by: Carolyn2 at April 11, 2005 11:53 AM
When muslim women can choose their own husbands or choose not to marry at all; wear whatever clothing they wish; travel freely without permission or chaperones; pursue the careers of their choice; and assume total control of their own lives, then they will be free.
When a muslim says: "Islam liberates women", he believes it to be true, but the Islamic model of freedom is antithetical to the Western model. The Islamic definition of individual freedom is found in the Qur'an and unless one is familiar with its doctrine, one will naturally assume that freedom has a universal definition. Until Westerners realize that muslims base every aspect of truth upon Islamic canonical texts, they will misunderstand what appear to be benign and peaceful declarations.
Two of the most difficult aspects of Islamic rationale for me to reconcile are that the refusal to accept Islam and self-defense against Islamic aggression are considered "attacks against Islam" and justifications for jihad. When muslims declare that the Qur'an forbids warfare except when muslims are threatened, "threatened" could mean virtually anything to a muslim. If they decide to impose Shariah and are opposed, that is a "threat." If they decide to impose Islam on African Christians and they resist, that is a "threat." If they decide that they aren't getting enough respect and Islamic "freedom" in Western lands, that is a "threat." Anything contrary to the doctrine of Islam "threatens" muslims.
Since I am quite proud and enamored of my own culture and heritage, I empathize with muslims who feel the same way about their own. But it is pathetic when intelligent people engage in denial of the intrinsic iniquities of Islam and blame them on culture. Islamic culture is the embodiment of Islam; Islam in motion, Islam animated. All of the inimical, vile practices found in Islamic culture come directly from Islamic canonical texts, except maybe honor killings. They may not be sanctioned in the Qur'an, but they are universally accepted in Islamic society. I'm sure Muhammad would strongly endorse them even if he didn't invent the concept.
This Islamic scholar is a lone voice in the dark and a prime candidate for accusations of apostacy and/or blasphemy. Her denial of the immutable doctrine of Islam is not helpful to anyone and it serves to only further confuse non-muslims about Islam.
Posted by: Susanp at April 11, 2005 12:56 PM
My parents did not allow me to befriend non-Muslims. If I did, they ordered me to shower afterwards," she has said.
Nope, no racism in Islam, not one bit. (eye roll of disgust.)
at April 11, 2005 1:26 PM
Eventually this Islamic spokeswoman Mulia will be murdered or otherwise horribly dealt with by male Muslims.
And we will never hear of or from her again.
Posted by: pythagoras at April 11, 2005 1:26 PM
Quoth the sex toy:"...Islam had many faces. It opened my eyes. Some of what my grandfather and the ulema (clerics) had taught me was right but the rest was myth."
So are Muslims allowed to doubt part of the teachings of Islam? If "some" of it is myth, what makes you think that "all" of it is myth? This is why I and so many others leave Christianity. The bible thumpers scream daily that doubting ANY part of the bible cancels your reserve seat in Heaven, because if ANY part of it is "allegorical" then maybe--just MAYBE--it is all (gasp!) allegorical! And that would mean....
BTW you keep talking like that, sweetheart, and I bet that you will have you eyes closed--permanently--by another "face" of Islam.
You'd better get on the next plane for a civilized country like the brave Ms. Nasrin of Bangladesh of the ultra-brave Ms. Ali of Holland.
Posted by: kj at April 11, 2005 2:08 PM
WTF??? Where are the monkeys on this issue, crying "Where are NOW and the feminazis on this issue?" Can it really be? Have they finally realized that the "N" in N.O.W. stands for "National" i.e. "pertaining to this nation"?
Guys, you disappoint me.
Posted by: kj at April 11, 2005 2:10 PM
KJ:
The "feminazis", particularly those of academe do not hesitate to speak to issues affecting women outside of the US, continental or otherwise. They are so doctrinaire in their hatred of Israel and the US that they have managed to convince themselves that the women of "Palestine" are forces of female liberation and progress (just as some gays prance around supporting the Palestinians, utterly unaware of the homophobia that drives Arab gays to take up residence in the universally despised pariah state of Israel), and that the invasion of Afghanistan to remove the Taliban was wrong as the women of Afghanistan should have been somehow magically empowered to liberate themselves.
If you really want a serious critique of American/Western feminism of late, check out Phyllis Chessler's website.
Posted by: waterdragon52 at April 11, 2005 4:37 PM
Forced to shower after touching a non-Muslim?
Only in Islam is having a bath considered
a punishment,this will explain the poor personal hygene by Muslim men that still don't know the purpose or mouthwash and a toothbrush.
No I'm not a Islamophobe,I'm going by experience from using public transit and being
near Muslims that give off that unique aura
of having no clue of their very own surroundings.
at April 11, 2005 5:05 PM
"It had liberated women..."
Islam?
What, were they consider only 1/4 human in ancient Arabia and Islam 'liberated' them all-the-way-up to having 1/2 the worth of a man? (Wow!)
Did they used to require 2 male escorts to accompany them everywhere, and Islam 'liberated' them to needing ONLY to have 1? (Gosh!)
Were they deemed 'unclean' at times other than when they were menstruating in the pagan world, and then Islam came along and 'liberated' them to being 'unclean' just during the specific period of their menses? (Hot damn!)
This last bit of circular 'logic' was one of the arguments Mohammad made in favor of the Basic Inferiority of Women: ergo- because they were 'unclean' (when experiencing their natural lunar cycle of ovulation) they therefore could not go to prayers as often as men. Thus, men could gain more merit. And women were thereby handicapped, and thus of 'less value'. (In plain talk: we make the rules, the rules say you are worth less because of a unique trait only you have, and so we are better than you. Nyah, nyah!)
No one ever asked Mohammad why he thought THE fundamental manifestation of biological reality and fecundity in the Universe- which a truly 'liberated' mind could consider a profound Revelation of Creation- was to be called 'unclean'?
And pose this counter quandry:
Did not men excrete daily? And did this not make them even more unclean, every day, than such a glorious monthly sign of feminine fertility? Rendering them AT LEAST equal to women (in such a condition of ritual disfavor) in the eyes of the deity?
Any woman who dared ask the 'prophet' this kind of serious question was probably walled up in a room and slowly starved to death.
End of dispute, Koran-style.
I wish these Muslim women like Ms. Mulia, trying to ask similar questions of the imams, lotsa luck.
But remember: The boys make the rules in Islam.
Once you REALLY find this out, and if you survive, there are other world views, beyond Islam, which would welcome women with such chutzpah.
You go girls! (But watch your burqa'd backs.)
Posted by: BigSleep at April 11, 2005 6:48 PM
People, I found this accounting of a real-life stoning from a link on Co-Jet.org, http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/islamwhitewash.htm.
I posted it on another thread, but I want to spread it around. Not only is it horrifying, but the existence of this sort of thing can only make it harder for some of our critics to pretend that we are unnecessarily harsh on Islam.
There are many interesting pieces in this article (paedophilia, quotes, excuses, etc.) that contain some material that isn't often seen, such as the one on the real-life stoning piece (click "stoning to death"). There is a picture of the stoning victim as a little girl, and two pictures of the stoning itself. It's hard to imagine the brutality of this process just from the phrase "she was stoned to death."
There is also a picture of a woman who has been savagely beaten. Her injuries are so severe that she resembles a patient in a burn unit. It has none of the beauty of the lashing in the van Gogh production.
Horrible--absolutely horrible. I can only imagine that more of this sort of thing would help convince fence-sitters and the ignorant that the complaints of people like us about Islam aren't just mean spirited, racist, Islamophobic, intolerant slurs by a bunch of lunatics at the fringe.
Posted by: cubed
at April 11, 2005 9:41 PM
And how do the "civilized" Muslims of Denmark view women?
"Muslim rape concern"
68% of all rapes this year committed by "an ethnic minority"
http://www.cphpost.dk/get/62605.html
"Political uproar after mufti's remarks"
An Islamic mufti in Copenhagen has sparked a political outcry after publicly declaring that women who refuse to wear headscarves are "asking for rape."
http://www.cphpost.dk/get/82118.html
On the "plus side" (as it is):
1) The Danish authorities are actually keeping track of what groups are committing what crimes (unlike some of their more PC neighbors).
2) Even the Liberals are appalled (by what they've wrought, for what it's worth).
at April 11, 2005 11:36 PM
Bernama news agency
Muslim Parent Pleads Guilty To Handing Over Son To Non-Muslim Woman
April 11, 2005 20:08 PM
http://mggpillai.com/sections.php3?op=viewarticle&artid=10144
at April 12, 2005 12:10 AM
Hmmmm. I always thought Islam was a part and parcel of culture and tradition in certain parts of the world--like, the northern third of Africa, insular Southeast Asia, and a good chunk of the southern portion of Asia from the Bend of the Huang He down to the Rann of Kutch and westwards to the Med. Of course, it took a certain kind of "fundamentalist" cultural imperialism to persuade the ancestors of people I'm close to that women should also be taught to read and keep their feet in the natural shape; in Buddhist Thailand, women cannot transmit citizenship and there's a presumption in favor of the father in divorce proceedings, and neither culture of which I speak was historically Muslim.
But, as for feminism, I'm now convinced that apart from woman suffrage and equal pay for equal work, it's really just a middle class spoiled brat temper tantrum that should've been told to shut up and get back in the kitchen. I has a real-life nightmare last time I was Stateside and heard a one-time screaming feminist say that maybe we'd have to give up some liberties to accommodate Muslim sensibilities. It seems these gals are real tigresses to anyone who registers a gentlemanly disagreement; but roll over and play dead with people who'll really mistreat them.
Posted by: Kepha at April 12, 2005 3:05 AM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)