The CBE Scroll

Blog voices from Christians for Biblical Equality

The Subjection of Islamic Women

Written by: on Monday, June 4, 2007

I would like to point out an article in The Weekly Standard by Christina Hoff Sommers, in the May 21, 2007 issue, called “The Subjection of Islamic Women and the Fecklessness of American Feminism.” The first paragraph reads as follows:

“The subjection of women in Muslim societies–especially in Arab nations and in Iran–is today very much in the public eye. Accounts of lashings, stonings, and honor killings are regularly in the news, and searing memoirs by Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Azar Nafisi have become major best-sellers. One might expect that by now American feminist groups would be organizing protests against such glaring injustices, joining forces with the valiant Muslim women who are working to change their societies. This is not happening.”

She goes on a couple of paragraphs down: “The condition of Muslim women may be the most pressing women’s issue of our age, but for many contemporary American feminists it is not a high priority. Why not? The reasons are rooted in the worldview of the women who shape the concerns and activities of contemporary American feminism. That worldview is–by tendency and sometimes emphatically–antagonistic toward the United States, agnostic about marriage and family, hostile to traditional religion, and wary of femininity. The contrast with Islamic feminism could hardly be greater.”

Sommers then follows with example after example of the skewed priorities of American (secular) feminism and takes them to task for their moral short sightedness. She sites Katha Pollitt, a columnist at the Nation, for example, who draws a “common thread of misogyny” between Christian Evangelicals and the Taliban, and journalist Barbara Ehrenreich, who characterizes Christian evangelical movements (that’s us!) as “Christian Wahhabism,” i.e., the name of the sect that is the inspiration for Osama bin Laden. These radical feminist philosophies “collapse moral categories in ways that defy logic, common sense, and basic decency,” such as casually placing “limiting young people’s access to accurate information about sex and opposing abortion [in the U.S.] on the same plane as throwing acid in women’s faces and stoning them to death” [in third world countries]. Likewise they seem to be “incapable of distinguishing between private American groups that stigmatize gays and foreign governments that hang them.”

It may be that some of these feminists are tied up in knots by multiculturalism, she says, and find it difficult to pass judgment on non-Western cultures. Maybe they find it easier to find fault with American society for minor inequities than criticizing heinous practices elsewhere. To her credit, Sommers does mention some activity in the secular feminist movement, such as Eleanor Smeal and Mavis Leno’s efforts with the Feminist Majority Foundation (FMF) to create a national campaign in 1997 to expose the crimes of the Taliban.

Fortunately, Muslim women are creating their own growing movement to address their plight. “Islamic feminists,” says Sommers, “believe that women’s rights are compatible with Islam rightly understood. One of their central projects is progressive religious reform. Through careful translation and interpretation of the Koran and other sacred texts, scholars challenge interpretations that have been used to justify sexist customs. They point out that forced veiling, arranged marriages, and genital cutting are rooted in tribal paganism and are nowhere enjoined by the Koran. Where the Koran explicitly permits a practice such as the physical chastisement of wives by husbands, the feminist exegetes try to show that, like slavery, the practice is anachronistic and incompatible with the true spirit of the faith. This kind of interpretation of scripture has been practiced by Jewish, Christian, and Islamic scholars for centuries. Now Islamic women want to play a part in it, and nothing in Islamic law, they believe, prohibits their doing so.”

I don’t know how much of this slanted piece I believe, but it does appear that Islamic feminism differs radically from its best known contemporary American secular counterpart — having instead a faith-based, family-centered and positive-towards-men approach. Too bad that the CBE version of gender equality isn’t better known, or Sommers might have seen some hope in America.

I appreciate CBE’s international scope and was happy to see the most recent issue of Priscilla Papers highlights gender justice worldwide. The moral need and imperative to engage Muslims can’t be emphasized enough. Does anyone else see an opportunity for Christian egalitarians to dialog with and help our Muslim sisters? Although the details may be different, we speak the same type of religious language and have similar approaches. Perhaps some CBE members have already involved themselves in such projects. If so, why aren’t they better known? Maybe if [more/bigger/more impressive] joint projects could be undertaken, perhaps both our respective patriarchal societies could be helped.

9 Comments »

Comment by Rachel

June 4, 2007 @ 4:33 pm

I’m very glad that this issue is being addressed. I may be doing an internship in Spring of 2008 in Cairo, Egypt, and I am interested in learning about the simularities and differences between Christian and Islamic feminism.

I can believe that American secular feminism is overlooking gender discrimination in other cultures–just look at the abortion debate! There is this insistence among Western feminists that abortion is a great victory for women’s rights, but elsewhere in the world, such as in China and India, the vast majority of fetuses aborted are female. In those patriarchal societies, having a son is the ideal, and historically, many female infants have been simply thrown out into the streets to die. Now, ultrasound makes it easier for eager parents to determine ahead of time if they will be blessed with a son, and if not, they can just have an abortion and start over. It’s legal and efficient infant abandonment.

Granted, secular feminists would argue that this is an abuse of a beneficial practice, but so few are addressing the issue at all. I have to wonder if, in their wholesale investment to defend abortion, they fear opposing it on any level will undermine their position. Apparently turning a blind eye to gendercide in a third-world country is an acceptable price to pay for ensuring that privileged American and European women can be irresponsible without consequence.

Comment by Mary

June 4, 2007 @ 11:52 pm

Maybe the problem is that the American PEOPLE, not only American feminists, are playing ostrich about the horrendous denial of basic human rights to billions of people around the world, including some Muslim women. Sommers makes the same mistake so many others do: thinking that women’s rights is a women’s issue. No, it’s an issue of basic justice that all civilized human beings OUGHT to be concerned about.

I find it more than a little ironic that patriarchy, so smugly touted in some Christian circles as a means of extending protection to women, essentially does nothing when it comes to actually protecting women, especially non-Western, non-Christian women. And I find it especially tragic when a woman becomes a mouthpiece for the ages-old blame game, this time with a new twist: it’s the Western feminists’ fault that non-Western Muslim women are oppressed.

No, we’re all our sisters’ (and brothers’) keepers, at least if we claim to follow the One who gave his life in order to save our sisters and brothers–and us, too. I think it’s time to stop pointing fingers as though feminism–that terrible notion that women have the same human rights as men do–is the root of all evil, and start actually living consistently with our stated belief that how we love our neighbors is a measure of our love for God.

Comment by Lisa

June 5, 2007 @ 9:47 am

I agree that this is an issue that needs to be brought to the forefront. A few week ago, I read a book that dramatically changed my view of this subject. I read a book called “Sultana” Obviously, Sultana is a fictious name. If her real name was very discovered, she would probably become the victim of an honor killing. Sultana is a member of the royal family in Saudi Arabia (According to the 2000 volume of Operation World, Saudi Arabia is #1 for Christian persecution and human rights violations) It deals with all these issues. It deals with all the the thorny humans rights issues, especially the treatment of women. Sultana has 9 sisters and 1 brother. The brother is basically given anything he wants and is treated like a prince should be. But the girls are treated only slightly better than the household slaves. Even in the royal family. Women are considered property and their sole purpose in life is to serve and submit to men. In Saudi Arabia, a woman can be killed if her ankle is exposed. It also discusses honor killings and how rape victims are treated as well as many other issues that involve the treatment of women. It was a very eye-opening read to say the least. For example, in Saudi Arabia, if a woman is raped, she is usually stoned to death. The man who raped her usually gets off with no punishment at all. Some of the stories Sultana tells in this book are horrifying. But I applaud the courage of Muslim women who are willing to tell the truth.

At the end of the book, Sultana talks about how she dreams of freedom and choice for all Saudi Women. But at the same time, she sounded almost defeated. She hoped and dreamed that things would change. But she believes that the treatment will not change until the culture changes. I think the same is true in America. The culture in the American Churches have told us that it is okay to treat women like second-class citiziens and relagate them to the sidelines. It has told us that we are not allowed to use our God given gifts to further the Gospel.

As I read Sultana’s story, I couldn’t help but pray that she would find true freedom in Christ. But somehow, But when you look at the Western Church from the perspective of someone like Sultana, I think it would be very hard to get her to believe there is freedom in Christ. I don’t know for sure, but I suspect that Sultana would say that converting to Christianity (especially the Christian in North American Churchs) would mean switching from one patriarchal religion to another. I personally feel that unless and until the North American Church becomes more egalitarian, it will continue to be very difficult to reach our Muslim sisters for Christ.

Lisa

Comment by JLP

June 5, 2007 @ 10:49 pm

There is enormous support for abortion in the Western world because there are many men (who may or may not support the feminist movement) who want it. It allows them to have sex without responsibility.

We in the West have a culture of sex without responsibility, and this is what fuels the demand for abortion. It goes far beyond the feminist movement.

Comment by Liz

June 6, 2007 @ 2:19 am

Such good comments! This article shows up the end result of hierarchy, however ‘mindly’ it is seen to be practised in the western world. To look at any philosphy we need to take it to its extreme conclusion to evaluate it. In this light, egalitarianism stands up very well against patriarchalism. Now we just have to convince middle-class comfortable ‘complementarians’ that their philosphy of ‘equal in being, different in function’ ends up in the extremes which are experienced by the vast majority of women around the world. We also need to somehow explain how endorsing mild hierarchy prevents any serious outcry against the abuse of women in these countries. All power to the Muslim women who are standing up for freedom and basic human rights in the face of persecution, torture and death – may God honour their bravery and conviction

Comment by Rachel

June 12, 2007 @ 11:32 am

I agree. I probably should have clarified with my above comment that I am an egalitarian. I was trying to point out what happens when the church fails in its responsibility to push for social justice, and leaves it up to the secular world. If we don’t like the way secular feminism works, let’s do it the right way, I say.

Comment by Lori

June 14, 2007 @ 6:43 am

To be blunt, I don’t see any difference between Islam and many complementary teachings.

1. Women have to wear headcoverings. (Entire denominations teach that it’s a sin for women to enter a church uncovered.)

2. Husbands should have authority over their households, even to the point of physical discipline. (There is a minority in Christianity who practice “domestic discipline,” where husbands punish their wives for disobeying.)

3. Women should marry young and live at home until they do.

4. Women should have limited education.

5. The Koran/Bible teaches the subjugation of women.

6. Women are fundamentally subordinate to men and must remain so all their lives.

As a friend of mine said in an e-mail, if Christianity looks no different from the rest of the world, then how we can we claim to follow the True God?

Comment by Lori

June 14, 2007 @ 9:19 am

Man, oh, man. Talk about perfect timing. Just a few minutes ago I visited a major Christian website and came across a column written for singles. Here are some quotes.

Today’s view of marriage says that it is something that should be delayed and put off until certain things occur in life such as a college degree, great job, a certain age, certain experiences, etc. The message most young singles take from that is that those other things are more important than a marriage commitment and that such a commitment could not survive less-than-ideal conditions. And we’re seeing the results of that materialistic philosophy….

I realize that many who might be reading this article want to get married, but have yet to find a partner. Many are in that situation because they were encouraged to postpone marriage by their parents or even church leaders. Now they find themselves in a wasteland, where suddenly their career consumes so much of them that they don’t know how they’ll meet single Christians who might be husband or wife material.

I’m convinced that if we taught teenagers and early twenty-somethings that they should determine their own sex drive and decide if they are “gifted” to tolerate a life without marriage, we’d see the virginity rate among unmarrieds skyrocket and once again men and women would give each other their virginity instead of adding another partner to the list and causing feelings of regret and pain.

The author spends most of his column talking about how you need to get married early to avoid falling into sexual temptation, as if the two are linked. I was in my 30′s and my husband in his forties when we got married, and we were both virgins. Indeed, I found his column very patronizing.

And indeed, that’s the whole headship/courtship mantra. People can’t be trusted with their emotions and desires. You need to rush into marriage as soon as possible to reign in those desires. If you don’t, then you might, just might, give in to them. Or you’ll become so selfish and obsessed with your desires (i.e. a career) that you won’t be capable of a good marriage (for women it’s being a feminist and for men it’s being Peter Pan). Both men and women are infantalized and instead of learning how to deal with difficult situations (like sexual temptation), are encouraged to jump right from Daddy and Mommy’s home into marriage: in other words, to remain cosseted and protected from the difficulties of having to deal with your hormones. This is despite the evidence showing that people who marry later in life tend to have happier and longer-lasting marriages. Sad, sad, sad.

Comment by Terri

June 25, 2007 @ 8:07 am

One of the greatest flaws of religion has been the degradation of women. It doesn’t take a lot of theological digging to find the evidence that we need to support our suspicions. I would like to be able to say that Christianity is different, but alas, our Christian heritage also reduces women to passive, servile, unintelligent, half humans. The fact that a vote had to be taken to ascertain if women possessed souls lets us know how pervasive the notion of women as the ‘total other and opposite’ really is.

I had a conversation with a brother at church that turned into a discussion about males and females. It’s great when that door opens. We were discussing sin and I asked him why women are still required to pay for their sin even after redemption by an imposed subjection and passivity to men. Doesn’t God make (all) things new for her? Why would women be attracted to a religion that allows them to suffer as Christ did but disallows their access to Christ’s authority and power? No answer. Then, I added the Scripture found in 1 Timothy and asked whether it worse (as in Eve’s case) to be thoroughly deceived by Satan – he totally fooled her – or, as in Adam’s case, to sin willfully, because the text says, that he (Adam) was not deceived. No answer. After a few minutes he finally remarked by saying, ‘Well, all mankind has sinned,’ which didn’t answer my question. In reality what he admitted, when put to the test, was that men and women both contributed to the Fall (equality) but that that equality really did not extend to equal benefits at Redemption – for men and women. The teaching is that salvation is provided for all (for women too – they readily admit that) but that gifts and positions of authority are given by God based solely upon sex (that the ability to be a leader is based on the presence of a male sex organ and the ability to be nurturing is based on the presence of a female sex organ). What happens is that this usually brings me back full circle to the very first question I asked, which was never answered.

Has anyone else noticed this type of disconnect?

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 

Bad Behavior has blocked 260 access attempts in the last 7 days.