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

[DarlingDuck]

.

"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.

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

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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."

alexpolismum that is why i struggle with understanding islam and feminist women giving it any support and i am not even sure i would view myself as a feminist.

The text i copied is taken from the sharia councils own website so therefore written by respected members of the council with a greater knowledge of islam than maybe your average muslim and it reads like something from the dark ages.

I do struggle with the whole thing, I try not to, I try to pretend it isn't happening. But then, unlike other oppressors, faith and it's unaltering word and wisdom cannot change without the word of God and his message having to alter. Aside from another Prophet (preferably female) how could this happen?

Cantspel - I've done some searching and found that bit you copied and pasted. I am very disappointed with that website's usage of the hadith particularly in response to the circumstances described. Islam does give both sexes the right to sexual intimacy within marriage but this right is not to be taken with force or coercion.

What these discussions often lack is an awareness of how culture and other factors intermingle. Just as people in the UK and even still on this website used to struggle with the concept of marital rape, so people from different cultural backgrounds do and this needs to be challenged.

Nailak made a very good point upthread about wondering who these people are and how they got to set up an sharia council. This is a sound practical consideration and is why I would like to regulation of these and similar bodies.

There is good practice out there (one mediation organisation tries to balance gender by ensuring that if the religious representative is male, the legal representative is female). The UK Sharia council does not request that witnesses must be male or female, just that one of them is a person of good standing (Mosque leader, G.P or solicitor).

Thank you KRITIQ for your excellent post.

I'm going to delurk to admit that I am finding this thread is a bit weird; especially in as it is the feminist section. I think I agree with almost everything Kritique has said so far. It started out very interesting and informative in the sense that many posters who do wear some kind of covering shared their perspectives on the question, but has seemed to degenerate into a discussion about if you can be a feminist and wear such a thing. I find it most disturbing that in the light of the first section of the thread, posters can take it upon themselves to decide how other peoples' wardrobe defines their feminism in a manner which suggests that they have not read or just not taken in what has been said before. Since when is policing what women wear acceptable behaviour? Let's leave that to the patriarchy shall we; that generally does a much better line in blaming women for all oppression they suffer than we can ever manage.

Personally I think we all live in a patriarchy that oppresses women in a myriad of interesting ways and forms. If feminism is anything at all, it exists to challenge this. I don't think there is any one way to do it, or any one uniform to wear in which to do it. I certainly don't think criticising what feminists wear is the way to do it. It's not what people wear but how they behave that defines their feminism.....

Kritiq While of course I do realise that faith is very important for some people, I admit that yes, I struggle to understand it, and a condition such as you describe is totally alien to me. I don't think that faith per se prevents you from being a feminist - it's the behaviour that faith can lead to that could be anti-feminist. Obviously not all people of faith are anti-feminist.

However, I also wonder how a feminist can support a patriarchal religion and misogynist practices and what leads a woman to believe in it, accept it as the truth. Perhaps it is because they don't believe it to be patriarchal? Perhaps they believe it is all a matter of interpretation? I don't know. I have been trying to understand, but frankly I don't 'get' it.

Without wanting to insult religion of any brand/system I just think of how we react to strippers and prostitutes on these boards. Do we ever just sit back and allow the individual to think she is making her own free choice? That the hidden and overwhelming influence of the patriarchy is molding and shaping her choices, do we ever afford her that freedom?

Alex, perhaps you have a point about perceptions. One person may see an institution as inherently patriarchal so of no value to them while another may either not see it as inherently patriarchal or that it is more complex than that, and what they value in that institution (for example here, faith) is important enough to them to work to address the sexist aspects (or other aspects they don't agree with.) So for example, feminists worked hard for the ordination of women priests in the C of E and this did change. There are still sexist aspects of that institution. Some women have left because they couldn't reconcile this with their feminist beliefs while others stay in there, continuing to work for change.

Posie, I would certainly hope members here would not insult or have a pop at strippers or prostitutes if they came into a discussion. It's one thing to disagree and present evidenced counter arguments, but quite another to insist that someone doesn't meet an arbitrary set of indicators to call themselves a genuine feminist.

Perhaps you should do an MN search.

Surely it's about not throwing out the baby with the bathwater so to speak - keeping the good bits of a religion/culture/institution and separating it from all the patriarchal crap that surrounds it.

True, that our current religions are so deeply entwined with misogyny because they have been interpreted by misogynists from day 1, but if men have managed to twist faith round to put us down then surely we can twist it round again to fight back, just like the fatalfeminist is doing with Islam. There's a lot of feminism in Islam if you take her point of view just as there's a lot of socialism in Christianity.

I do understand though that some feminists might be worried about the "spread" of the patriarchal aspects Islam in the UK, as awful as that sounds. We have a new set of ideologies which are part of our culture now and as such affect us and how we think, particularly as women because we are reminded of the attitudes and ideas that we have just escaped from. Therefore I think it's fair that people think critically about it, just as we do about Christianity, but whilst taking care to remember that there is a load of hyperbolic hatred spurted out by the tabloids intended to incite fear and rile people up.

Yes I reject any attempt to dissemble about sharia law. I just can't 'hear'.

Goth, I am not saying 'a few Muslim men are bad hence all are bad'.

I am saying ENTIRE COUNTRIES are run according to a system that discriminates against and degrades women.

Sometimes you have to draw a line and say - here but no further.

I have struggled with the question of religion in the past since it appears to me that most of those I have encountered appear to be set up along and defined by patriarchal society. I am not religious in any way, although I did dabble with "born again" Christianity in my teens.

However, I have come to understand thanks to many of the fabulous religious people on MN and other parts of the web, that many feminist women believers separate and distinguish between the god they worship and the institutionalised structure and/or some its theology. I have heard it argue that patriarchy has deformed and manipulated their religion and they see their goal as overcoming this.

It makes a lot of sense to me in that I have always been interested in the messages attributed to Jesus in the bible. I find I agree with much of what he appears to say. However, I dislike intensely how the Christian Church evolved and formed into a patriarchal institution which systematically erased and denied female participation and overlooked and/or rewrote much of what Jesus appeared to have said in order to make it fit in with their worldview. If I were to believe that Jesus was infact divine (which I don't) I think it would be perfectly possible to be the same feminist I am and be a Christian, iyswim. It would just mean rejecting a whole load of male patriarchal theology.

I have no such insight into Islam, but I would venture to think that this situation is equally possible. For that reason I don't think that it is necessary to be an atheist to be feminist.

Finally I think that the comparison between religious attire and stripping and prostitution is not valid. It's the difference between clothes and behaviour again. I think it is important not to mix the two.