Asa feminist what do you think about the burkha/niqab, liberating or oppressive?

Just an afterthought - I accept that it must be very difficult for an atheist to fully understand how faith can be such an important part of a person's identity, their being, their person-hood. I've heard some say that faith is similar to being in love. It's virtually impossible to describe to someone who's not experienced it in a way that they will genuinely understand.

All I can say is that for me, being a feminist is intrinsic to my personal faith and my personal faith is intrinsic to my identity as a feminist. That is my truth, but I don't expect others to share it.

But, I expect that there are those who will insist that this means I cannot be a genuine feminist as a result.

I'd like to think we could save our energies for challenging sexism and the mechanisms of patriarchy, focussing on what unites rather than what divides us rather than bickering over who's a "good enough feminist."

There have been and still are many, many institutions in our society that are rooted in the patriarchy, institutions marked by sexist attitudes, traditions and practices, that discriminate either directly or indirectly against women (and/or other groups.)

Such institutions and groups are extremely varied in their remit, history, size and influence. I'm thinking of everything from the medical establishment to the England and Wales Cricket Board, from the Roman Catholic Church to the London Stock Exchange, from Ivy League Universities to the Fire Service, from Trade Unions to the Royal Society (science), from the government in Westminster to the art and literature communities. And, yes, Islam is in there, too.

There are women working with and within these institutions and groups to make changes, to expand opportunities for women, to challenge barriers they face, to shift minds and hearts, to change laws and rules. Maybe they are up against pretty hefty odds, but they still work at it.

Why do they do it? Maybe it's a function of their overall belief in justice and feminism. Maybe it's because there are other aspects of the group they admire and believe in and know they could do so much better if they addressed the institutional sexism. Perhaps they feel they have a better chance of changing from within instead of beating on the door from outside. For many, they identify strongly with what the group is about and feel working within the institution is preferable to turning their back on it entirely and losing an intrinsic part of their identity, their person-hood.

Other feminists may think them daft, wasting their time or even colluding with oppression by even being involved with the institution or group. Perhaps they find the group or institution so "beyond the pale," that they can't even bring themselves to engage with anyone associated with that group. If that's the case, no matter what the women fighting from within do, or say, it will never, ever be enough.

I believe there is a place for women to work within such institutions and groups to push for change. We've seen evidence where that has worked throughout history and around the world - sometimes little steps, sometimes big leaps, but certainly enough evidence to show that it isn't automatically a waste of time and complete separatism is the only way to go.

I think we miss an important trick by rejecting women (and often men as well, don't forget) within institutions and groups who are challenging the status quo one, because in my opinion, we should lend them our encouragement and support from outside, not slap them down as traitors to the cause because they are not doing things "our way." Also, I think there is much we can learn from what they do - what has worked, what hasn't worked, etc., that can be applied to other settings, other situations and perhaps even to our own efforts. I personally believe it takes working within AND without to enact genuine change.

That is what makes me despair about the trajectory of this thread. No matter what those who identify as Muslim and as feminists say about their own experience, or the experience of others, there are some who seem completely unwilling to "hear" anything they say. Furthermore, some seem to feel entitled to define that they can't be feminists because they believe one cannot be a Muslim and at the same time a feminist. They either don't see or frankly don't care that this means they are rejecting the very person-hood of other women, and that does not sit at all well with me. That for me is most certainly NOT what feminism is about.

Thanks for the Fatal Feminist link. There are some very interesting articles on it, although personally I felt that in some instances she was reading things that simply weren't in the source text. As an atheist I suppose I just don't have that leap of faith. Interesting nonetheless.

What cantspel posted sounds horrendous, it basically reads like a justification for rape within marriage.

It's very hard to not sound bigotted when discussing these issues, I realise I never come out well from this, but how else can I express my view? If there were no sharia council, no covered women, no half testimony all in the guise of Islam I'd have nothing to say would I?

There is a spread of Islam, there's a much larger influx of non European Muslims that change the face of an area. This is not good/bad but it's visible and so people notice and question that culture.

The rhetoric before, should you mean antisemitism, blamed a failing country on the greed of a minority group. This is not the same. My criticism of Islam is the inherent sexist theme that runs through it, it is belief (ie choice) and not nationality.

How do you discuss this sexism and homophobia, which are common beliefs held by this group without sounding prejudice?

It's hard to read The Sharia council's website without feeling incensed.

and if you would let wilders in to the country then i assume you would also argue that zakir naik should be allowed in, and muslim speakers that preech hatred against others should be allowed in?

just stop for a moment.

consider a muslim women who has got a civil divorce, but she cant get an islamic divorce, therefore she cant marry again or move on with her life.

and tell me it is not relief for her to beable to get that divorce, which is what the shariah council allows. it says 95% of its work is women seeking divorce, so it doesnt even go near that witness testimony stuff, as it is not dealing with that.

Posie, forgive me for sounding like I'm invoking Godwin's law here, but I do find your comments about the "spread" of Islam and Muslims "cropping up" on Mumsnet sounds frighteningly like rhetoric we have heard before.

There are those who seem able of questioning, discussing and debating the issue of feminism in relation to religions, including Islam, without sounding as though they have a fear and loathing of Muslims as people. From what have read in your posts on this thread and in the past, you are not one of them.

I care not whether you call me obtuse or any other term.

In my experience, there are many people who try to cloak their disdain for and hatred of a group of people (e.g. Muslims, women, gay men and Lesbians, whoever,) behind a swathe of accusations, arguments and opinions which they swear blind are simply logical, common sense, etc. Oh no, of course they don't hate such and such, it's just they can't understand why they do so and so and it's so unfair, yada yada.

The result is still demonising, still "othering," still divisive and still silencing.

KRITIQ It came from the sharia councils own website. I have already linked to the site so it is there for you to read yourself.

That's alright then if Orthodox Jews have fucked up laws and customs, Islam should just carry on.

Jewish communities are not widespread either and they don't seem to crop up on MN either. However if they were growing at the rate of Muslim communities with the same amount of extreme behaviour I've no doubt it would be discussed an awful lot more.

K. You are being purposefully obtuse and defending the indefensible.

"Angles curse?" Where did that cut and paste rant come from then cantspel?

There are no women in the Orthodox Jewish rabbinical courts. If an Orthodox Jewish women wants to divorce, she must ask her husband for a "Get," which releases her so she can be married again. Without that, even if a civil divorce is granted, other marriages aren't recognised and any children are considered illegitimate.

If the husband refuses to give Get, the woman can appeal to the rabbinical court to in hopes they will compel him to grant this. Some years ago, I worked with an organisation where there were many women who were absolutely stuck when their husbands refused but the rabbinical court was reluctant to do anything about it (and have little power to enforce any action on men.) Sometimes, husbands demand considerable payments from their wives or custody of children in exchange for granting a Get. The women I knew regarded themselves as feminists, but also devoutly Jewish, and continue to campaign to change the fact that men can hold women to ransom in this way.

So, it's not unique to Islam (although I think folks find it "safer" to have a pop at Muslim women and Muslim systems than it is to bash Jewish women and Jewish systems.)

To be fair, I had to pay a huge wadge to get my first H to agree to a divorce, and that was through the civil courts. So, it's not just those who recognise decision-processes outside the state who can end up having to "buy" their way out of a marriage.

The 50's housewife was told to lay back and think of england but
Wow 60 years later to have lay back and think of Allah

Narrated by Abu Hurayrah that the prophet said, "if a man calls his wife to his bed and she does not come, and he goes to sleep angry with her, the angels will curse her until the morning." Agreed upon. This narration should be enough to make any woman pay heed to the severe warning by the prophet that the angels curses are upon those who do not respond to husbands sexual needs because the purpose of a woman is to fulfil that and for that they are made in order to produce offspring. We also know that Allah does not rejects supplication made by angels as they are His closest creation who are always praising and glorifying Him.
Narrated by Abu Hurayrah that the prophet said, "By the One in Whose Hand is my soul, there is no man who calls his wife to his bed, and she refuses him, but the One Who is in heaven will be angry with her, until the husband is pleased with her once more" reported by Muslim
The angles' curse will befall every woman who is rebellious and disobedient; this does not excludes those who are too slow and reluctant to respond to their husbands:
"Allah will curse those procrastinating women who, when their husbands call them to their beds, say ?i will, i will.....' until he falls asleep." Reported by Tibraani
Marriage in Islam is intended to protect the chastity of men and women alike, therefore it is the woman's duty to respond to her husband's requests for conjugal relations. She should not give silly excuses and try to avoid it.
The prophet said "if a man calls his wife to his bed, let her respond, even if she is riding her camel (i-e very busy)." Reported by Al-Bazzar
The prophet said "if a man calls his wife, then let her come, even if she is busy at the oven". Reported by Tirmidhi
Narrated by Jaabir the prophet said "if anyone of you is attracted to a woman, let him to go his wife and have intercourse with her, for that will calm him down" reported by Muslim
Narrated by Abdullah the prophet said, "there are three people whose prayers will not be accepted, neither their good works:
A disobedient slave until he returns to his masters and puts his hand in theirs
A woman whose husband is angry with her, until he is pleased with her again
And the drunkard until he becomes sober" reported by Ibn Hibban
The warning given to women whose husband is angry with her reaches such an extent that it would shake the conscience of every righteous wife who has faith in Allah and the last day. She is told that her prayer and good deeds will not be accepted, until her husband is pleased with her again

"In many other matters, the nature of women are considered. For example, the right of divorce is vested in the hand of the man while she is allowed to ask for divorce either directly or through a Qadi (Judge). Why? Because the women are kind-hearted human beings who are governed by their emotions, a character strongly needed for bringing up the children. On the other hand, man is governed by his mind more than his emotions." Holy Crap....2011.

Sharia law has no place in Britain EVER about anything

If in doubt read the part about the justification of two women's testimony.

I often lurk on this forum but never post but having read this thread and the reference to the sharia council i just had to google

www.islamic-sharia.org/general/ came up so i had a read.

having read some of the utter clap trap on that site how can any woman of the islamic faith declare themselves to be a feminist?

How bizarre that you think a council that is required to ensure women are shafted further after being purchased by allowing refunds is a good thing? How about no money and normal human rights?

Just a thought.

Are any women on these councils?

No, just I'd wonder exactly why you'd want to invite a one issue hate mongerer into this country: www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/10/04/mainstreaming_hate?page=0,0 Also Loonwatch have a lot on him: www.loonwatch.com/

Spero - Your rhetoric that any bad behaviour that occurs (no matter by how few) within a minority group must therefore tarnish the reputation and treatment of that group as a whole is flawed (but sadly familiar)

Some Muslim men (like any other group of people) aren't very nice. Therefore Muslims must be punished/denied rights? Is that really reasonable?

I think not.

P.S I'm already very familiar with Nahida's blog and enjoy it very much.

So what are you saying Goth - freedom of speech so long as it is speech you agree with?

Why not shine a light on what Wilders is saying and debunk it, rather than given him credibility in the eyes of some by banning him?

And I am afraid that 'yuck sharia' is going to be the default reaction of many until the men who operate this system clean up their act - some of the comments of the women on the fatal feminist site, detailing what they have gone through are horrific. And the men act in this way, claiming God and right are on their side.

I would rather there be regulations and clear guidelines governing such organisations (whether Muslim, cultural, Jewish, whatever) rather then a "Yuck, shariah" reaction. I agree absolutely that the civil should always have the greatest authority in legal matters, most, in fact nearly all Muslims feel the same.

Baroness Cox is the same women who tried to invite the vile Geert Wilders into the country, so I'm a bit dubious of her motives.

People can chose to be bound by decisions made in arbitration, outside the official court process, which is what the bill is about - the archbishop of Canterbury caused a stir a while back by saying he thought it would be a good idea for sharia law to be recognised in this way - I think there are already tribunals operating under Jewish religious laws for eg.

But i am very pleased that Baronness Deech has put this bill forward: sharia law clearly discriminates against women and should be given no credence in this country, particularly in areas of family law where women are already likely to be more vulnerable.

well whatever, it may sound dreadful, but to the women in abusive marriages who this is their only way of getting away from their abusers it is not. and that is 90% of the shariah councils work. helping women in abusive situations, who dont have to pay their husband any money, as their husband is an idiot.

however they do pay money to the shariah council, which imo is a rip off, where are these women suppose to get £100 + from to pay these mens wages. and because the shariah council exists, no other imams will get involved in marriage disputes for free for fear of stepping on their toes,

and who appointed them to be our judges? they appointed themselves, are unaccountable and make their own rules, i am not supporters of them totally, but see the good they do aswell.

Nope Nailak, it sounds dreadful.

It is awful that any money exchanges hands in these matters.

if the husband is at fault, then the wife doesnt have to pay him anything, so as you can see for women in abusive situations, these courts are very helpful.

if the women gets married to a man, demands a large mahr and then one month later decides to divorce, then she would have to pay back all or some of the mahr, if the husband wants it.

obviously most reasonable men wouldnt want to be married to a woman who doesnt want to be married to him, so these khula cases are mostly those where the man is unreasonable.

As the Sharia council clearly indicates it deals with religious matters only. You cannot get a divorce with them unless you have first obtained a civil divorce. They do not deal with child custody, maintenence payments as those are a matter for the civil courts, much like the Jewish Beth Din, which people seem to be far less het up about.

Spero - You are entitled to your opinion of course, certainly there may be women for whom this is the case, but you can't state that this is true for all women.

However, it's not opinions I'm concerned about, it the legislation. For me forced covering or uncovering are equally bad and the law has no place legislating women's clothing.

Anyway here are two interesting protests against the French burqa ban: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newsvideo/8036686/French-women-cause-a-stir-in-niqab-and-hot-pants-in-anti-burka-ban-protest.html

and on a slightly lighter note: vimeo.com/18644246