Are Muslim Women Oppressed? - An exploration of the place of women in Islam

Britain has been in turmoil over veils in recent days, after a school in Yorkshire suspended a Muslim teacher's assistant for wearing "niqab"—a form of the traditional veil that leaves only a slit for the eyes. Further stoking the flames, House of Commons leader Jack Straw revealed that in meetings with constituents, he had asked niqab-wearing women to remove their veils for better face-to-face interaction.

The niqab controversy has focused on thorny questions of cultural integration and religious tolerance in Europe. However, it is also a debate about women and Islam.

For Westerners, the veil has long been a symbol of the oppression of women in the Islamic world. Today, quite a few Muslims regard it as a symbol of cultural and religious self-assertion and reject the idea that Muslim women are downtrodden. In our multicultural age, many liberals are reluctant to criticize the subjugation of women in Muslim countries and Muslim immigrant communities, fearful of promoting the notion of Western superiority. At the other extreme, some critics have used the plight of Muslim women to suggest that Islam is inherently evil and even to bash Muslims.

Recently, these tensions turned into a nasty academic controversy in the United States, as the Chronicle of Higher Education has reported. In June, Hamid Dabashi, an Iranian-born professor of Iranian studies and comparative literature at Columbia University, published an article in the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram attacking Azar Nafisi, Iranian émigré and author of the 2003 best seller "Reading Lolita In Tehran." Nafisi's memoir is a harsh portrait of life in Iran after the Ayatollah Khomeini's Islamic revolution, focusing in particular on the mistreatment of women, who were stripped of their former rights and harshly punished for violating strict religious codes of dress and behavior.

Complaining that Nafisi's writings demonize Iran, Dabashi branded her a "native informer and colonial agent for American imperialism." In a subsequent interview, he compared her to Lynndie England, the US soldier convicted of abusing Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

While Dabashi's rhetoric is extreme, it is not unique. Even in academic feminist groups on the Internet, criticisms of the patriarchal oppression of women in Muslim countries are often met with hostility unless accompanied by disclaimers that American women too are oppressed.

A more thoughtful examination of Islam and women's rights was offered earlier this month at a symposium at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. The keynote speaker, Syrian-American psychiatrist Wafa Sultan, an outspoken critic of Islam, described an "honor killing" of a young Middle Eastern woman that occurred with the help of her mother. In a later exchange, another participant, Libyan journalist Sawsan Hanish, argued that it was unfair to single out Muslim societies, since women suffer violence and sexual abuse in every society including the United States. Sultan pointed out a major difference: In many Muslim cultures, such violence and abuse are accepted and legalized.

Yet the symposium's moderator, scholar Michael Ledeen, rejected Sultan's assertion that Islam is irredeemably anti-woman. He noted that the idea that some religions cannot be reformed runs counter to the history of religions. Several panelists spoke of Muslim feminists' efforts to reform Islam and separate its spiritual message from the human patriarchal baggage. Some of these reformers look for a lost female-friendly legacy in early Islam; others argue that everything in the Koran that runs counter to the modern understanding of human rights and equality should be revised or rejected. These feminists have an uphill battle to fight, and they deserve all the support they can get.

Meanwhile, using the language of tolerance to justify oppressive practices is a grotesque perversion of liberalism. The veiling debate is a case in point. No amount of rhetorical sleight of hand can disguise the fact that the full-face veil makes women, literally, faceless. Some Muslim women in the West may choose this garb (which is not mandated in the Koran), but their explanations often reveal an internalized misogynistic view of women as creatures whose very existence is a sexual provocation to men. What's more, their choice helps legitimize a custom that is imposed on millions of women around the world who have no choice.

Perhaps, as some say, women are the key to Islam's modernization. The West cannot impose its own solutions from the outside—but, at the very least, it can honestly confront the problem.

Thank you. I liked him in the beginning myself, until she became pregnant and he left us to support her. Which we did willingly. It was after the marriage and the fact we would not sign for his green card things changed. Lawyers advised us not to do it and and I think he resented that. He also has not told his family of the marriage or the baby to this day. I hope he doesn't go back and marry there and leave his Indian bride at home. Then my daughter will be in more of a mess. I feel he should do the right thing and tell his parents. They keep trying to arrange marriages for him. What a mess. But she is sober now (thank the Lord) and she does go to temple, they are Sikh. She dresses in sari's and has that sparkley thing on her forehead. All I can say is I hope things work out for her and somehow with the grace of God they will. I don't think her brothers or little sister want anything more to do with her as she has caused so many problems whenever she used to be around.

Why yes, she was blonde. Funny that you guessed that. Peroxide blonde I was told, but blonde nonetheless.

When I was at Air Force pilot training, we had students from the middle east there. On the whole, terrible pilots. They were dangerous.

On Fridays, we would all go to one of two officers clubs on base. One was a "casual bar" we built ourselves, the other was the base club. At the latter one, pretty young girls from the town would visit. The Muslims would go nuts. They drank like fishes and would come right up and grab the women.

When we would ask them how Muslims could be drinking and lusting after women, they brushed it off with two excuses:

1. "They were not in the 'Kingdom' but were in an infidel land, so Allah would forgive. Besides, they would give extra alms to the poor to make up for being drunk."

2. "Western women were pigs anyway (being infidels) so they did not count. Also, it was their fault for giving them erections because of the way they dressed - so they deserved to be treated like whores anyway."

I kid you not.

In my opinion, any Western woman who would even think of dating a Muslim man is insane.

hat part you put in parenthesis "screening themselves completely except for one or two eyes to see the way" is not in the Koran.

The text, as found in the Abdulla Yusef Ali New Revised Translation says, "O Prophet! Tell They wives and daughters and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad); that is most convenient. That they should be known as such and not be molested. And Allah is oft-forgiving, most merciful."

Making up Koran quotes will not win you Brownie points w/ this crowd.

The outer garment spoken of here is called a jilbab, which is basically an ankle length overcoat. It doesn't even cover the head.
OK Tamar :see sura 24:31- The veil could be said to be based on modesty. But for Muslims to argue the veil is optional is wishful thinking . It represents a clash between 7th century culture and modernity. Religiously though t he Quran requires the veil to be worn by Muslism women: 24:31 is clear as a bell. See also 33:59 I also think Aisha knew best when is recorded in the seminal Muslim written biography of Mohammad (hands up which bloggers have read this work?) that certain events occurred before the veil (note here the word veil- linked to sura 24;31) was IMPOSED (no choice here) on Muslim woman. Go to the earliest Islamic sources and get the truth. Now was it for modesty? In part possibly , but Mohammad imposed it because of simple jealously- the problem with polygamy and keeping other (Muslim) men at bay, a rather unvirtuous start to a so-called pious act. He was upset when one Muslim man saw one of his wives in her house alone. Yet true piety is internal. Externals do not fool the true God. The true God makes people pure from the inside out, not from the outside in.

OK Tamar :see sura 24:31

You weren't originally quoting Sura 24:31, you were quoting sura 33:59 and you mangled it on purpose to try to make a point, which is uncalled for.

As for surah 24:31, it states in the Abdulla Yusef Ali version, "And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, ....; and that they should nt strike their feet in forder to draw attention to their hidde ornaments. And o Ye believers! Turn ye all together towards Allah, that ye may attain bliss.

The translation of the same verse by Dr. Rashad Khalifa reads, "And tell the believing women to subdue their eyes, and maintain their chastity. They shall not reveal any parts of their bodies, except that which is necessary. They shall cover their chests, and shall not relax this code in the presence of other than their husbands, their fathers, the fathers of their husbands, their sons, the sons of their husbands, their brothers, the sons of their brothers, the sons of their sisters, other women, the male servants or employees whose sexual drive has been nullified, or the children who have not reached puberty. They shall not strike their feet when they walk in order to shake and reveal certain details of their bodies. All of you shall repent to GOD, O you believers, that you may succeed."

Here's a quote from the Encyclopedia of the Orient, "It is assumed that suras 33:59 and 24:31 in the Koran orders women to wear the hijab, but these passage are open for other and better interpretations. A slightly clearer command to wear the hijab comes in a passage from the hadiths, but even these do not concluslively imply a general obligation for a Muslim woman to cover her head, as it really only refers to the wives of Muhammad. ...Moreover, the Arabic word translated into the English "veil" is actually not "hijab" but "jalâbîb," a plural form of "jilbab." A jilbab would normally be translated as "woman's dress", a dress that covers most of, or the entire body, and not necessarily the head. Hence it is possible that this aya does not require women to cover their hair or even their faces, but to wear the body garment in such a way that they cover and hide erotic parts of a women's body, such as her breasts."

I also think Aisha knew best when is recorded in the seminal Muslim written biography of Mohammad...

Most of the Hadith and Sunnah were not even written down until all these people had died so how can they trump the Koran itself?

Go to the earliest Islamic sources and get the truth.

The Koran itself IS the earliest source of Islamic law.

The reason IMO that most Muslim women wear the hijab (head scarf) or the more extreme ones wear the niqab (face veil) is to out-pious their peers and even the matriarchs of their religion, which misses the point of true modesty and piety, or as you put it, "True piety is internal. Externals do not fool the true God. The true God makes people pure from the inside out, not from the outside in."

In this discussion over the hijab, let's not forget that the Apostle Paul, in 1 Corinthians 11:1-15 asks the women in the congregation to cover their heads with a headscarf or veil. If you look at greco-roman frescos and sculpture from the time of Christ, you will see that most women wore veils very similar to hijab (except they didn't cover the neck as tightly as muslim hijab does).

Until very recently, most Christian women covered their heads w/ a scarf or a hat when attending services or just out in public.

Don't these women look so oppressed?!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.