Some feminist empowerment! These women are fighting for the right to be imprisoned if they charge rape and can't prove it with four male Muslim witnesses, to be lashed or even executed for sex outside marriage, to be divorced at will by a husband they can't divorce at will, to share their marriage with other wives, not chosen by them etc etc. In return, they'll be the prison guards of other women less "virtuous' than themselves.
Every totalitarian and repressive movement has lots of women in it. Such movements need women, to keep the other women in line, to go where men can't go, to bring the ideology into the family. That's not feminism.

This is a good article on that.

http://www.stophonourkillings.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1222

Don't know why the link didn't show, but here it is again.

I agree with some cat; this may be a moment of empowerment, but not all women's activism is feminist, and this empowerment does not strike me as particularly feminist empowerment. Women are a huge segment of the population, and no social/political/religious movement would succeed without any support from women. But that doesn't make the movement inherently feminist.

I mean, yes, they're fighting for what they believe in, but that only goes so far. If what they believe in is anti-feminist (not to mention a host of other things I object to), then I can't get too excited.

It's not directly related, but somecat's comment

Every totalitarian and repressive movement has lots of women in it. Such movements need women, to keep the other women in line, to go where men can't go, to bring the ideology into the family. That's not feminism.

Reminded me absolutley of the Dukhtaran-e-Millat.
who spent this Valentine's day harassing youngsters on dates.

Not all oppressed people know they are oppressed or feel that way for instance. If you grow up in a cage, you may not be very happy, but if no one tells you your in a cage then how would you know to feel otherwise? Perhaps these particular women were not treated badly by the men in their life. Perhaps they really believe that they are correctly worshipping their creator. This issue is more-so to do with the power religion has over people..

From our perspective it may seem that these women are fighting for their own oppression, to live under strict Muslim rule.

This assumes the alternative to strict Muslim rule is a secular, liberal legal system. In many cases, women are indeed at the forefront of fighting for strict Muslim rule, but they are certainly not fighting for their own oppression: what they are fighting for is at least some form of equality under the law.

Islamic law, being "moral" and "religious" is acceptable to people for whom liberal, secular law is not. And Islamic law, even the backward (mis-)interpretation of it that gets implimented in these places, is much better, e.g. in granting some form of equality under the law, to women than is the alternative of tribal "law".

To us, it may look like these women are pushing for their own oppression, but for many of them, even a sexist law such as provided by fundamentalist religion is infinitely better than having no legal system at all.

E.g., Some Cat points out that

These women are fighting for the right to be imprisoned if they charge rape and can't prove it with four male Muslim witnesses, to be lashed or even executed for sex outside marriage

... but perhaps they are fighting for the right to at least have a trial at which they have a chance to prove the rape, rather than the potential alternative in which they have a 100% chance of being passed around their community and serially raped and then murdered in a more viscious fashion than Islam would allow for executions.

This could be a history-making movement -- except that the men who write the history of this period won't mention these women.

This is a reply to some cat:

Some feminist empowerment! These women are fighting for the right to be imprisoned if they charge rape and can't prove it with four male Muslim witnesses, to be lashed or even executed for sex outside marriage, to be divorced at will by a husband they can't divorce at will, to share their marriage with other wives, not chosen by them etc etc. In return, they'll be the prison guards of other women less "virtuous' than themselves.

Or maybe they're just fighting for what they believe in? They're fighting for a place where they can go practice their religion. If Islam really made women inferior to men, you think they'd follow that religion? I don't think so.

A man can't marry another woman without the permission of his first wife. If he does, then the marriage is invalid and therefore haraam. It's haraam for anyone (man or woman) to have sex outside of marriage.

If Islam really made women inferior to men, you think they'd follow that religion? I don't think so.

Unaiza, as a reformed Evangelical Fundamentalist, I promise you your assessment is incorrect. The fundamentalist church has a lesser place for women and I bought into it for YEARS before finally seeing the light. Women (and men) can be tricked into thinking oppression is good for them, or can be frightened into submitting to it and even pretending to embrace its ideals -- indeed, this is how totalitarian governments like Nazi Germany prospered until they were conquered by an outside force.

Oh, and to clarify my last comment: I don't think Islam makes women inferior to men. I do think Islamic Fundamentalism does, however, and my understanding is that's what we're discussing here.

Patriarchal religions are not compatible with Feminism. Any belief system that has an all powerful male god controlling your life should be put in the same box as the tooth fairy. Not even..At least when our children get older they become smart enough to figure out the truth all for themselves. Although the woman fighting for their mosques are empowered and certainly worthy of our admiration, we should try to be aware that the next step for them is to find out who and what is actually oppressing them.

"It's haraam for anyone (man or woman) to have sex outside of marriage."

...except when the local tribal judge orders a bunch of guys to rape some woman or girl who is not married to any of them in order to punish one of her relatives.

Actually, of the three Abrahamic religions, Islam is the least patriarchal (textually). There is no basis in the Quran or Hadiths for discrimination against women. That's a remnant of the tribal cultures that Islam was put on top of. The Quran is fairly explicit about the fact that women are equal to men, and Muhammad was well known for the fact that his closest friend and adviser was his wife Fatima. As well, towards the beginning of Islam, some of the most influential jurists were women.

Even when it comes to dress, the Quran doesn't distinguish between men and women. Both are supposed to dress modestly and cover their hair, hence the long robes and head covers that the Saudi Princes wear. It's just that men have enforced this selectively.

I think the problem is most Americans don't have a very sophisticated understanding of the variations of Islam that are practiced in the world. Not all Islamic societies are "tribal," as Mina says. Islam, as with Christianity, has been adapted to mesh with local practices (many of them violently patriarchal) everywhere it's taken root, and thus there's a wide diversity of Islamic practice. Where there is misogyny, it's not safe to assume that it is the product of Islam, rather than other social/historical/political/economic factors.

It's not clear from this post what these women envision. We just don't know enough about them from this. That said, I will add that it is possible for women to act politically and gain power without that empowerment being feminist. See the excellent work of Nancy MacLean, "Beyond the Mask of Chivalry," on that point.

A man can't marry another woman without the permission of his first wife.

In general, students at an Islamic seminary are likely to have had no exposure to any other ideas at all. You only have to read about life in Pakistan's islamic madrassas to realize this. In such an atmosphere, it's easy to imagine an autocratic teacher whipping up fervor. (Mind you, I'm not asserting that this happened. I've no idea, really.)

This sort of thing has happened before. Algerians elected a muslim fundamentalist party to power in their first free elections. The problem is, secular democracy isn't a natural born human instinct, it needs education to foster it. Witness republican authoritarianism in the US!

And, in any case, feminism itself is hardly a universally held ideal, even amongst women. Just look at Phyllis Schlafly!

So no, I do NOT see how this represents empowerment for women in any way!

"Muhammad was well known for the fact that his closest friend and adviser was his wife Fatima"

Wasn't his first wife Khadija (who died before he married Fatima, right?) his employer (owner of the caravan company he worked for) when she proposed to him?

"Both are supposed to dress modestly and cover their hair, hence the long robes and head covers that the Saudi Princes wear."

...and hence some Muslim women and girls in the West dressing in relatively-modest Western clothes instead of also covering their elbows and ankles on hot summer days while they're at it.

"Not all Islamic societies are 'tribal,' as Mina says."

My bad. I should have been clearer that I was thinking of some denominations (and some ulema?) of Islam, not of all the other non-tribal denominations and ulema too.

Sorry, transposed names. Fatima was Muhammad's daughter, and the wife of Ali (according to Shi'a Muslims). Khadijah bint Khuwaylid (whom I was thinking of) was Muhammad's first wife, and a very successful businesswoman.

The only problem is Islam hasn't gone through a secular enlightenment period like Christianity did hence the horrible, literal interpretations. The horribly misogyny comes from local patriarchs and social, political and economic factors.

Wow. The lack of knowledge about Islam is truely shining through in these comments. I suggest you all pick up any (or all) of the following books before you go passing judgement on Muslim women and making claims about who gets to be the arbiter of Muslim women's oppression. I hear a lot of racist and imperialist arguments from those above.

Living Islam Out Loud - Saleemah Abdul-Ghafur (ed)

Reading Lolita in Tehran - Azar Nafisi

Shattering The Stereotypes: Muslim Women Speak Out - Nawal El Saadawi & Fawzia Afzal-Khan

Voices of Resistance: Muslim Women on War, Faith and Sexuality - Sarah Husain

and for those of you who prefer film:

Nazrah: A Muslim Woman's Perspective - Farah Nousheen (which I will publish a review of this week)

Feminist Review, without seeing more details, I can't help it but dismiss your argument the way I dismiss the arguments of people who tell me that women really do have rights under Dominionism.

Can I have a thumbnail sketch of each of the five works?

I'm very curious and don't have time at this moment to read or see these works.

I second...er third...Feminist Review and Bearcat. Many sexist and repressive cultures often have some of the most progressive and beautifully written scriptures. Social and cultural circumstances are not a direct result of religion, and there are some appalling generalizations of Islam regarding that.

"Reading Lolita in Tehran" I can thumbnail for you, Donna. It's a beautifully written piece my (very) Hindu mother and I enjoyed thoroughly that depicted a Western reading club among many devout Muslim students of the authoress in private meetings after the revolution in Iran in the 1970s. It depicts some terrible scenes of rape and inequality, but through it all, these women keep a very strong, proud Islamic identity with admirable taste and analysis of risque and often "scandalous" pieces of work such as Nabokov's "Lolita". They aren't the result of stringent scripture nor do they define themselves by the way men treat them--they are only as "repressed" as they let themselves be.

I'm glad these women want to keep a place of worship open, not to continue repression, but to practice and embrace their beliefs by the true word of the Qu'aran--not its "selective enforcers".

Ewww re-reading that, I realize my grammar deteriorates as the night progresses. Please translate that summary into something more coherent in your head. Thanks!

Well, I don't know a lot about Islam, but I find it extremely difficult to believe the Quran could be any more sexist than the bible.

And what is wrong with women protesting the destruction of their mosques? The issues of inequality and abuse are related to culture, not religion.

Who here thinks the Christian fundamentalists accurately represent most Christians? I bloody hope not

I typed a post, and I lost it. Sigh.

This is basically what I wanted to say:

It seems like a lot of posters here are confusing "tribal" villages in poor, rural areas of Pakistan with Islamabad, the capital city, located in the richest, most educated, and most liberal part of Pakistan.

Islam has a lot of problems pertaining to women; that's why I'm not religious. There's also a group of men (and some women) who co-opt the language of Islam to terrorize everyone who doesn't agree with them.

However, in cities like Islamabad and Lahore, women aren't regularly stoned in the streets. Women go to college and work, and get degrees in fields like Engineering and Medicine. Even my mother, from a family that wasn't at wealthy, went to college in the 70s, and many of her classmates are practicing doctors. It's not fabulous by any means, but we aren't close to achieving equal rights anywhere in the world.

Just like FeministReview urged people to learn more about Islam before commenting, I urge people to learn more about Pakistan before commenting.

Look at it this way: South Carolina voted to ban gay marriage. That doesn't speak for the voters of Arizona, who rejected a similar ban, or Massachusetts, where gay marriage is legal. While things aren't exactly great for gay people overall, there are places where things aren't quite as appalling.

Basically, women protesting something like this in Islamabad isn't the same thing as women protesting something like this in a rural village where tribal law and tradition (I want to stress this; it's not Islamic law) prevent them from moving around freely, and where a rape can be ordered against them.

"Islam has a lot of problems pertaining to women; that's why I'm not religious."

Aren't those more problems some denominations and ulema of Islam have pertaining to women?

This whole situation reminds me of the way neither "it's not religion, it's culture" nor "it's inherently Christian" exactly applies when people do things in the name of one denomination of Christianity that another denomination of Christianity disapproves of.

I realize that this is a feminist website, but I'm surprised not to find at least a bit more weight given to ideas of cultural relativism. We each come from societies and groups from which we derive our values. We of course believe our values to be right; otherwise they wouldn't be our values. It's important to realize that there are many such value systems out there, which may operate on very different core assumptions. For example, I think it's fair to say that most of this site's readership tends to place emphasis on the importance of the individual and personal satisfaction/freedom. There are other belief systems which place more emphasis on service to the family, society as a whole, or god(s). I think it's natural for one group to apply its values to others, for example for feminists to judge the actions of Muslim women in Pakistan.

I also think that it’s wrong to say that these women are supporting their own oppression. They’re supporting their roles in a society which agrees with their system of beliefs; conversely, to force them to live in roles they might not support could be seen as a sort of oppression, even if their newly-assigned roles would allow them greater personal choice. While it’s possible that this may be “anti-feminist,� is it ok to condemn their choice as wrong because we feel they’re violating our system of values? Are our values (personal liberty, for example) universally right, or are they right within our groups? What makes these values more right than those in fundamentalist Islamic states? Is it the idea of the disenfranchisement of large portions of the population? Simple majority rule is obviously a dangerous path, but to assign universal unrestrained liberty is just as destabilizing. Who gets to decide which values/societies get to be in charge?

Donna Darko: "The only problem is Islam hasn't gone through a secular enlightenment period like Christianity did hence the horrible, literal interpretations."

Wha? Christianity doesn't have problems with horrible interpretations. We have problems with interpreting secular documents (2nd amendment, rape laws) in the US.

Besides, the Islamic World did go through an enlightenment during the European Dark Ages. While it wasn't entirely secular (neither was the European enlightenment), it was amazingly tolerant of other religions, and focused on equality within the ummah, or Islamic community. What we see now with repression of women and intolerance of other religions is similar to the massive increase in conservative Catholicism in Poland in response to the oppression of the USSR.

Bearcat,

I'm not so sure about Christianity not having problems with horrible interpretations ... those problems with interpreting secular documents often spring from horrible interpretations within Christianity.

And to expand upon your response to Donna regarding the Enlightenment: much of what we today identify as fundamentalist, evangelical Christianity sprang forth from the Enlightenment and was justified using Enlightenment era thinking. Much of for what we liberals often credit the Enlightenment also is actually a product of the previous "Age of Reason" (which was certainly not secular) and the Humanistic/Romantic (and also not necessarily secular, but justifying much of secular society) idealogies that arose post-Enlightenment.

Regarding also, equality within the Ummah, in thinking about why women might be supporting Islam, we'd do well to remember P.J. O'Rourke's (perhaps not a popular person to cite around here) explanation of the conversion of Bengalis to Islam about 1000 years ago (quote is approximate from memory): "Islam provided equality before the law and a set of laws worth being equal before". Certainly fundamentalist Islamic law is not as worth being equal before (nor does it provide as much equality before the law) as our liberal, secular laws are. But in a tribal society, Islamic law, even if it is tainted by the sexism of the society, is often much better than the only alternative which is tribal law, which, in the cases at hand, does not provide for any sort of equality before the law, etc.

Sorry, that's supposed to be a question mark at the end of the first sentence. The point was that we're not that different.

As to legal equality, there's an awesome fatwa out by the Grand Mufti of Egypt. It would take a long time to explain, so instead, go to my blog (http://thesoggyliberal.wordpress.com/2007/02/22/a-huge-step-forward/)
or Eteraz.org

The problem with invoking cultural relativism is that all cultures that I know of are hostile to feminism. Islamic cultures, tribal cultures, Middle Eastern cultures, Western cultures, Christian cultures--feminism has been perceived as a serious threat by all of them. So, no, I do not think that all aspects of all cultures are equally valid or good; too many cultures include the subjugation of women as one of their cherished tenets. Samhita asked about women's participation in the move to more fundamentalist forms of Islam; it seems to me to be on a par with Quiverfull women. It may be something they believe in deeply; it may be something that they're willing to fight for; it may be connected to their cultural and religious heritage. That doesn't make it feminist.

"Islam has a lot of problems pertaining to women; that's why I'm not religious."

Aren't those more problems some denominations and ulema of Islam have pertaining to women?

Actually, Mina, no. Some of my current issues with religion pertain to things like how men can marry non-Muslims but women can't, and how two female witnesses are equivalent to one male witness.

I think I'm just going through a transitory stage, really. I'm only 22, so I need to reconcile my very liberal, feminist beliefs, with a fairly conservative religion. I don't know if I will become more or less religious later in life, but I do know that I would never gravitate towards a religion other than Islam.

That was all very off-topic, though.

Didn't sound off-topic to me, prairielily. Though I may be biased, as I find your posts interesting as a rule!

I have a friend who has gone/is going through a similar process in reconciling their draw to Catholicism with their feminism; it may be easier for her because liberal Catholics are a more highly visible group in the US. (Now that's off-topic, I guess!)

EG: Regarding relativism, have you ever heard of the desert/forest culture hypothesis? I haven't heard it referenced in a while, but it seems applicable here.

I haven't. What is it?

Cultural relativism is the principle that an individual human's beliefs and activities should be interpreted in terms of his or her own culture. (Thanks Wikipedia!)

Therefore, it doesn't matter if you think your own culture is sexist if you're positioning your culture as 'less sexist' than another, which is certainly up for debate... and in the eye of the beholder.

An issue here is in the interpretation of "mov[ing] to more fundamentalist forms of Islam." Is wearing hajib moving in that direction? Is praying 5 times a day? Is adhering to the role of a wife/mother? What actually constitutes fundamentalism? And what right does a non-Muslim have to make that determination? These are all very complex questions that I think need to be raised here. Did anyone notice that these are female students from an Islamic seminary? I think they've probably got a better handle on what Islam is all about than most of the people posting here.

Also, I agree with prairielily that there is a need to take into consideration the history of Pakistan, particularly in its relationship with the U.S. and how that has affected its status in the region and how Pakistani officials are perceived by their own people. It's quite telling that an undelying reason behind this protest is to give a big F*** You to the U.S. 'puppet' government in Pakistan (as was reported in the article).

The desert/culture hypothesis (as I remember it) says that cultures that originated in the desert (such as the Abrahamic religions) are necessarily more oppressive than cultures that originated in forests (Native Americans from the Pacific Northwest, Celts) because of the harshness of the climate. When you are constantly struggling to preserve your genetic lineage (as we all do, though not consciously), you will treat women like prisoners/property to keep them out of the hands of rivals, and you will attack rivals more readily to get more resources or to protect your resources. I think Islam and Christianity are exceptions (somewhat), since both originated in desert areas that were prosperous because of trade and oases. But, of course, both carry baggage from the cultures they sprang from, and the cultures they were grafted onto.

Yes, thank you, I know what cultural relativism is; what I've said is that it doesn't trump feminism when it comes to my values. Every action has already been judged in the context of its own culture, and especially misogynist actions are almost always condoned by their own cultures. I see no reason to condone them.

I don't think I said that my culture is less sexist; I would certainly argue that it's sexist in different ways; and when it comes to it, I would argue that the culture I spend my time in--leftist, feminist, urban intelligentisia culture--is less sexist than fundamentalist cultures of any stripe (though I've never met any fundamentalist Wiccans, so I could be wrong).</