Recently Indian newspapers have been flooded with reports about the Dar-ul-Uloom?s (an Islamic school propagating Sunni Islam in India) fatwa stating that it is un-Islamic for women to work with men. Yet again we appear to be at the crossroads: having to choose between antiquated traditions and moving forward into a society where men and women are accorded with the same level of respect and treated as equals.

As Indian society is relaxing its earlier rigid views about women and their position in society and allowing them to go out and work in cities, the Muslim clerics are adamant about regressing back in time and making sure that the benefits of feminism and society?’s more liberal attitude towards women aren?t passed on to Indian Muslim women.

As usual, a huge fury erupted after the fatwa was issued with many Muslims divided on the issue. It seems that as a silent feminist movement is in the works in India, Muslim women are largely not included in it.

Already Muslim women have been held back from the effects of liberalization that overtook the Western world in the 1960′?s and are at present slowly seeping into Indian society. Indian Muslim women were just beginning to take small steps towards becoming more empowered when the Dar-ul-Uloom had to go and declare such a fatwa making it unfit for women to work with men.

Why curb Indian Muslim women?s rights to such an extent? What does the Dar-ul-Uloom expect to achieve? Do they want all women to stay at home and have babies?

Think of this: there are so many amazingly intelligent young Muslim girls out there who are being robbed of higher education, who are being robbed of the ability to contribute to society and make it a better place for us to live in. Back in my old school there were quite a few girls who already knew that by the time they completed the 10th grade and were declared literate that they would be married off and sent away from their parents to go live with their husbands. They didn?’t even protest. It has literally been ingrained into their heads since the time they were kids that they are expected to grow up, get married, stay at home and have kids. And the thing is, when such a notion is being put into your head right from the time that you were a little kid, its pretty obvious that unless your extremely determined and rebellious, you’re most certainly going to follow through with what your being told.

Indian Muslim women barely have any established organizations that will allow them to voice their views and allow them to protest and be there for them to fall back on once they do decide to protest. They’ve been brought up in a culture where they are raised to be dependent on their parents and then transferred from their parents to their husbands. They spend their entire life being protected and shielded, never once taking chances or choosing to be different because they know that they will be shunned by their own society.

But the thing is they just need to step up and take a stand. I mean, sure it?s going to be hard. Even when Mahatma Gandhi decided to fight for Indian freedom, it wasn?t an easy feat. But he did it and ended up prevailing against the British.

If you fight long enough and hard enough for something you truly believe in you can achieve it. After all, it’s their own life, they have exactly one shot to make the most of it, to live it to the fullest and be given the freedom to do what they want to. And when such an opportunity (The Dar-ul-Uloom?s fatwa has managed to generate a significant amount of sympathy towards the plight of Indian Muslim women) as this arises they have to step up, take a stand, and be brave. Sure you’re leaping towards the unknown. You don?t know what exactly is going to come your way. But at the same time, you have to hope that there will be light at the end of the tunnel.

A French Muslim in Belgium - no longer allowed to wear her niqab

I just read an article about the vote in Belgium that led to a nationwide ban of wearing burqas in public.

On one hand, I can see where people who are for the ban are coming from. The burqa does have a lot of stigma both within and without Muslim culture. It’s one of the more ambiguous Islamic concepts, and it’s hotly debated. Some Muslims believe it’s mandatory, others believe it’s just an option, and others still think it’s absurd. Personally I don’t think it’s a particularly liberating piece of clothing and I don’t expect I’ll ever wear one.

On the other hand, I don’t think this is the way to fix anything. First of all this absolutely screams Islamophobia and xenophobia and will only serve to perpetuate the negative assumptions about the Muslim world. Secondly, it’s a serious restriction of personal freedom. I think it’s really troubling and I can’t help but wonder if there’ll be similar action from other countries.

Writing that last sentence it just occurred to me that countries closer to (my) home do things that are really similar. In particular, I’m looking at Saudi Arabia. In case you don’t know, it’s kind of the opposite there–it’s illegal for a woman not to wear a hijab in public. Now, I chose to focus on Saudi Arabia because while other countries with the same sort of policy get talked about a lot (as I’m pretty sure Belgium will be), Saudi Arabia seems to get away with it a more easily. It shouldn’t.

But I think that’s enough ranting on my behalf. Fbombers, I’m really eager to know what you think about this, so please comment.

France: one woman wearing a niqab (burqa) and the other dressed in typical Western clothing walking together

A little over a month ago, The Huffington Post put up an Associated Press article entitled “Sarkozy: Burqas Are ‘Not Welcome’ In France.” The gist of the article was that French President Nicolas Sarkozy used “some of the strongest language against burqas from a European leader at a time when some Western officials have been seeking to ease tensions with the Muslim world.” Burqas, for those unaware, are a type of Islamic religious garb for women that cover the entire body. Burqas have a nasty reputation for being a hindrance to female equality in the Muslim world, and also apparently in France. Thus, some in that country would like to see them banned from being worn.

I saw this as an affront to the basic human right of freedom of religion, or more importantly, freedom of expression. It was in this spirit that I wrote this in the comments section of the article:

This is absolutely ridiculous. A woman can choose to where [sic] whatever she wants. When a burqa is a symbol of subservience, it is when the woman is forced to wear one.

Sorry about the dumb spelling mistake. And using the word “the” before “woman” doesn’t sound right, deconstructively. My bad.

Anyway, now that I reexamine what I wrote, I think I only agree with about half of what I commented. I still think that the burqa ban is ridiculous, and that a woman has the right to wear whatever she damn well pleases. However, I think I’m going to have to take back the second half. The burqa is still a symbol of subservience, even if a woman is forced to wear it or not. This is because the religious institution it comes from is sexist.

Some of you are probably offended right now. Wait, keep reading.

My beef isn’t with Islam specifically. Rather, it’s with the Abrahamic religions in general. I’m not a Muslim, but I am a member of another Abrahamic religion—Judaism. The sexist commonality, at least for me, came in the realization of the similarities of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

Most people point to specific verses in the Bible/Qur’an when they think of sexism (and homophobia and heterosexism) in the major monotheistic religions. From the Torah’s story of the fall of humankind from Eden due to woman, the execution of gays, the “impurities” of menstruation and seminal fluid, to the New Testament’s call for wives to “submit” to their husbands, and to the Qur’an’s implorations of women’s modesty. These are all pretty damning (yes, pun intended), but not what I see as the most basic cause of these religions’ problems with sexism.

Really, the dilemma is that all three religions seek to assign gender roles to how people should live. Wives are still sex objects, but only to their husbands. Husbands must fulfill the role of provider for the family. In each religion, this concrete separation evolved into intensely patriarchal systems. Oh, and don’t even think about trying to do anything differently, lest you be stoned to death.

Just like social superstructures imitate economic bases, so do specific aspects of religions imitate their simplest principles. Within the confines of religious law, burqas, as well as other religious clothing mandated only for women, like Jewish sheitels, are oppressive in nature.

The trick is, though, that you have to introduce choice into the matter, which is what feminism is all about. Women who are able to choose what they want to wear are not oppressed in that manner. Even though religious garb still may carry oppression symbolically, the woman who wears it is not necessarily oppressed in this particular area of her life, as long as she has chosen her outfit.

In conclusion: a burqa is still symbolically sexist, but a woman who chooses to wear one is not proclaiming subservience to men. This goes for all religions with gender-clothing. Religions are sexist when they assign gender roles, since overcoming sexism means choosing what role you want regardless of sex. France’s burqa ban eliminates that choice, and is thus a dumb law.

I should never be allowed to ramble. Who knows, I may not agree with this entire post in a month.