Gender Jihad/Islamic Feminism

[JediMaster12]

I understand that this could be a potential for hostilies so I am coming out and saying it. This thread is dedicated to the idea that Muslim women can attain modernity in the Middle East.

 

Gender jihad is a phrase coined by anthropologist Lara Deeb. In her ethnography An Enchanted Modern: Gender and Public Piety in Shi'i Lebanon, she talks of the 'pious modern' woman. The pious modern is a sort of in between woman who accepts certain Western ideals like dress but is still pious in that she places emphasis on the community. It is stipulated that Western feminism places emphasis on the individual self and this is seen as selfishness to these Lebanese Shi'a women.

 

Gender jihad is what it is, a struggle for gender equality. In terms of the Islamic community, it is this drive towards an authenticated Islam while leaving behind the tradition or what they perceive as backwardness. Overall it is the idea that a Muslim woman could be equated to men in terms of being able to participate in public ceremonies and still be pious.

 

Authenticated Islam is the reinterpretation of texts from the Quran and hadiths. The reinterpretation was to lead away from the more 'backward' traditions like during Ashura where men used to self flagellate and spill blood in memory. The authenticated version would be to donate blood.

 

My question is, can the West see past the Orientalist images they have conjured up and accept that modernity is not necessarily the Western idea?

[Achilles]

My question is, can the West see past the Orientalist images they have conjured up and accept that modernity is not necessarily the Western idea?

I'm not sure I understand the question within the context provided.

 

Is the argument that equal rights for women is inherently Western?

Is the argument that islam can be "modern" by allowing women to wear blue jeans but maintain tradition by allowing honor killings?

 

Please help me to understand where you are going with this.

[True_Avery]

I'm with Achilles.

 

Could you restate the question please?

[JediMaster12]

Sorry let me add:

 

Western view of Islam is always seen as backwards or anti modern and any political Islam is seen anti-American. Most of it comes though the Orientalist view of the Middle East, the viewing of the 'other.' What I am asking is given what you think you know and what I gave on the pious modern, could authenticated Islam be constituted as modern?

[Achilles]

Western view of Islam is always seen as backwards or anti modern and any political Islam is seen anti-American. Most of it comes though the Orientalist view of the Middle East, the viewing of the 'other.'

You sound as though you consider these "assumption" to be incorrect. Since there does seem to be something of a culture war happening within islam, wouldn't it be safe to say that some of these viewpoints are based on fact?

 

That I am asking is given what you think you know and what I gave on the pious modern, could authenticated Islam be constituted as modern?

Modern by whose standards? By theirs (which you seem to be arguing we don't know by making multiple references to Orientalism)? Or by ours (which you seem to assume the answer is "yes" by default, hence your multiple references to Orientalism)?

 

Could it be that there are objective standards by which we measure modernity? What would those be? Perhaps some sort of moral or ethical standard rather than how many McDonald's restaurants they have or how many Xbox360's are sold to Saudi oil princes?

[JediMaster12]

I was operating under the premise that modernity is based upon Western standards. If you are looking for standards, the common form is demographics that look at education, technology and infant mortality and lifespan. Generally speaking, Western ideas of modernity involve this whole notion of 'unveiling' and bringing democracy. You could go far to say that it is ethnocentrisim on the West's part.

[Achilles]

I was operating under the premise that modernity is based upon Western standards. If you are looking for standards, the common form is demographics that look at education, technology and infant mortality and lifespan.

Could I take liberty with your criteria and perhaps expand them a bit to encompass those used to determine the U.N. Human Development Index?

 

In the 2007 report, Kuwait ranked 33rd, Qatar 35th, United Arab Emirates 39th, Bahrain 41st, Oman 58th, and Saudi Arabia 61st. All other Middle Eastern countries were either ranked Medium (71st through 155th) or Low (156th through 177th).

 

Countries that love them some honor killings like (some of) "the Stans" seemed to come in somewhere between 0.794 (73rd) and 0.551 (136th).

 

So within the context that you've provided, some Middle Eastern countries are probably fairing pretty well in the modernity department, whereas a lot of have a lot of work to do. Unfortunately, the answer to the question that you asked doesn't seem to shed a whole lot of light on the spirit of the question you started out with.

 

Generally speaking, Western ideas of modernity involve this whole notion of 'unveiling' and bringing democracy. You could go far to say that it is ethnocentrisim on the West's part.

Based on the title of the thread, I would have gone more the "women won't get stoned to death while the police watch just because they were alone with a man" vibe

 

That's just me.

[RyuuKage]

I'd say as long as true Islam (not the american version, in other words) has women as property, then no, it can't be called modern

[Totenkopf]

Don't know whether modern is really relevant here. Perhaps "enlightened" vs barbaric or some suitably negative term.

[adamqd]

People tend to assume that there country, continent, Religion, is the center of the map, the rule to follow, the right way. Western Modernity is a western phrase, our choices, laws and wants do not count elsewhere, I'm not saying it's not horrible to witness there treatment of women, that is bad 'IMO'. My biggest problem is that decisions, laws, wars and people's fate are still decided by Religion... It's archaic imo.

[Web Rider]

No, I don't think you can have true Islam or an Islamic society with the level or reinterpretation required to create a equal-level modern society. Once you've re-written the religion to the point where Islam tells people to do things completely diferently than it did before, it's not Islam anymore.

 

And I don't think current Islam has the capabilities within an Islamic State to be a modern society with equality between men and women.

[mur'phon]

No, I don't think you can have true Islam or an Islamic society with the level or reinterpretation required to create a equal-level modern society. Once you've re-written the religion to the point where Islam tells people to do things completely diferently than it did before, it's not Islam anymore.

 

I disagree, several Christian churches preaches gender equality. If they can modernize, I dont see why Islam can't, or would you say they are not christian?

[JediMaster12]

I'd say as long as true Islam (not the american version, in other words) has women as property, then no, it can't be called modern

 

What would you say is true Islam? Women are not labeled as property. What does stoning have to due with anything? Hell the Bible speaks of stoning to death.

 

Western ideas of modernity have been accepted throughout the world as a standard for modernity. Authenticated Islam is the reinterpretation of the Quran and as someone else pointed enlightenment. Specifically in the ethnography I am referring to, Shi'a Lebanese women consider the "traditional" to be a mode of ignorance, something to move away from. To put it directly, the "traditional" person is a person who practices religion improperly or without true comprehension and who believes that her role is a domestic one. The other extreme is the "empty modern" and the "westernized" person who is selfish, materialistic and obessessed with her appearance and social status. The 'pious modern' is an in between. They say they are modern in that they have women who go to work outside the home and they participate in public presentation. They also show public piety by that they use their modernity to better the community.

 

You sound as though you consider these "assumption" to be incorrect. Since there does seem to be something of a culture war happening within islam, wouldn't it be safe to say that some of these viewpoints are based on fact? [/Quote]

Was the Protestant Reformation anything different? That was a religious culture war in of itself.

[Achilles]

Was the Protestant Reformation anything different? That was a religious culture war in of itself.

I'm not sure how the protestant reformation has anything to do with "western stereotypes" of islam. Could you please explain?

[JediMaster12]

The Islamic Revolution in Iran of 1979 was seen initially as a movement of enlightenment, not a movement to makes things as they were in the Prophet's time. The Protestant Reformation was an enlghtenment in that it was a reformation of the Church. I know it sounds terrible but the way I see it a revitalization or reinterpretation is no different from the movements we've had in the States. Western media and the fanatics make it otherwise.

[Achilles]

The Islamic Revolution in Iran of 1979 was seen initially as a movement of enlightenment, not a movement to makes things as they were in the Prophet's time.

I suppose that's one way of looking at it. I would be more inclined to attribute the revolution to political factors, since "enlightenment" is typically not associated with taking political prisoners, but I'll stick around long enough to allow you to make your case.

 

The Protestant Reformation was an enlghtenment in that it was a reformation of the Church.

Reformation=enlightenment? Not sure I'm willing to make that leap. Not all changes are for the better. Neither are all changes motivated by lofty philosophical agendas.

 

I know it sounds terrible but the way I see it a revitalization or reinterpretation is no different from the movements we've had in the States. Western media and the fanatics make it otherwise.

Forgive me for pointing this out, but this seems to be the 4th or 5th time you've moved the goal post during this thread.

 

You said: "Western view of Islam is always seen as backwards or anti modern and any political Islam is seen anti-American."

 

16th century religious reform in Europe has nothing to do with this. Modern zeitgeist in the U.S. has nothing to do with this.

 

What does any of this have to do with how equal rights for women factor into modernity?

 

The facts of the matter are these:

 

1) There is no moral argument that supports the idea that women deserve fewer rights than men.

2) Since the moral philosophy is not inherently "Western" or "American", there is no reason to consider equal rights for women to be a "Western" or "American" standard.

3) Women are not granted equal rights (dare I say they are not granted any rights) in a majority (if not the entirety) of muslim countries.

 

So the answer to your question is no. Islam will not be able to achieve parity with regards to modernity so long as it continues to accept (and/or promote) the subjugation of women. Giving a woman "some rights" in order to satisfy "authenticated islam" won't be good enough. I hope that answers your question(s).

[Jae Onasi]

'Modern' views of women are not the norm in the vast majority of Islam, or even the world, for that matter. In some Muslim societies, women are at best second class citizens and in some places, valued less than livestock (Afghanistan under Taliban rule comes to mind). Astro might come in and show me wrong, however.

 

Trying to achieve gender equality in Islam is going to be exceedingly difficult. It will require a fundamental shift in the perception of women as equals. I haven't read enough of the Koran to know if this kind of change is supportable by the texts or not.

[Achilles]

I haven't read enough of the Koran to know if this kind of change is supportable by the texts or not.

Arguably, it's not the qu'ran that we have to worry about, it's sha'ria law. In other words, I would say that the change is supportable by the text, depending on how you read it.

[Arcesious]

I'm not sure how reliable this source is, but this is the first thing I found, it should prove enlightening hopefully:

 

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/women/long.html

 

What's this? Very interesting!:

 

4:34: "Men are in charge of women, because Allah made men to be better than women."

 

So, obviously the Qu'ran does discriminate agaisnt women, if this is a reliable source.

[Jae Onasi]

Arguably, it's not the qu'ran that we have to worry about, it's sha'ria law. In other words, I would say that the change is supportable by the text, depending on how you read it.

You could indeed argue that. Sharia law is supposed to be based on the Koran, but I understand the distinction you're making. If there's something in the Koran stating unequivocally that women are inferior to men, it's going to be hard to justify equality from a Muslim point of view, and that will end up getting reflected in Sharia law. That's the piece of the puzzle I don't have, which is why I don't want to agree or disagree on whether gender equality is achievble in 'traditional' Islam.

 

As far as I know, though, Lebanon does not follow Sharia law as gov't poliy. I thought most Lebanese were Sunni and not Shi'a, and thus a little more moderate, too.

[Corinthian]

And you wonder why people seem so fond of Islam.

 

Making a Modernized Christianity isn't that difficult, given that most of the sexism of the past centuries have been predicated on assumption and the dictates of the Catholic Church. I can't think of any passage in the Bible that states that women are property.

 

Isn't Shari'a Law pretty much part and parcel with the Qu'ran?

[Achilles]

So, obviously the Qu'ran does discriminate agaisnt women, if this is a reliable source.

Careful with the Skeptic's Annotated. I would view it as a starting place for your own research rather than a reliable source unto itself. You may find that you agree with the commentator's conclusions or you might not.

 

As the source points out though, there are entries that argue both sides. For example the passage you quoted:

Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

vs.

Women who are divorced shall wait, keeping themselves apart, three (monthly) courses. And it is not lawful for them that they should conceal that which Allah hath created in their wombs if they are believers in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands would do better to take them back in that case if they desire a reconciliation. And they (women) have rights similar to those (of men) over them in kindness, and men are a degree above them. Allah is Mighty, Wise.

While not a glowing discourse on equal rights, it does show that the thinking is not 100% one way or the other.

 

The bible has similar problems yet christianity has (mostly) been able to successfully abandon the idea that women are subservient to men, so it's not as though there isn't any reason to hope.

[Web Rider]

I disagree' date=' several Christian churches preaches gender equality. If they can modernize, I dont see why Islam can't, or would you say they are not christian?[/quote']

 

The level of female oppression in the new testament is VASTLY different than that of the Islamic holy texts. There is nothing on par with Sharia Law that ever existed in Christianity. In short, modernizing Christianity is a lot simpler than modernizing Islam. Particularly because Christianity has been modernized slowly over time, and Islam has stayed much the same since it's foundation, if not gotten worse in the last 500.

[Jae Onasi]

It certainly looks on first blush that these verses show gender discrimination. However, I'd be hesitant to cherry pick a few verses out of the Koran without a. looking at them in the original Arabic and b. reading them in context with the rest of the text.

[Arcesious]

You may be right, and, if you are, that sadly isn't going to change anything in the muslim world unless if soemone were to point that out, if that is true. Even if that were the truth, which it very well may be, how many people are going to want to change to that? I bet a lot of men in the muslim world wouldn't be very happy to find out if Allah actually told them to treat women equally, and they'd have the arrogance to ignore it, Radical muslims would probably threaten to kill whoever came up with the idea in the first place. I wonder, just how many people in Islam, particularly women, say they beleive in Allah, out of fear of punishment if they stood up for themselves?