How feminists have let down Muslim women and girls

[beastlyslumber]

This is a brilliant conversation with Yasmine Mohammed, talking about how liberal feminism has betrayed women and girls, what the wearing of hijab really means for girls, how women are being enslaved and tortured by Sharia law. And why feminists need to start caring.

open.spotify.com/episode/4yNPedvPGE2lZ4uPtYViot

That's the spotify link. I'll link it on apple music as well: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/e208-yasmine-mohammed-discusses-how-western-liberals/id1437447846?i=1000587384528

Hopefully one of those links will work for you!

Yasmine Mohammed, author of Unveiled: How Western Liberals Empower Radical Islam , shares her story of growing up in a fundamentalist Islamic home in Canada. At 13, when she tried to report the abuse she suffered at the hands of her step-father, she was told by a judge “you come from a different culture, and that’s how your family chooses to discipline you, so we just have to accept that.”

And here lies the inherent contradiction in the way in which the West views fundamentalist Islam versus other fundamentalist religions, and turns a blind eye to the abuse and suffering of millions of girls and women. She and Bridget discuss how alienating that is, the message those girls receive is “we don’t care about you, you are ‘other.'”

They cover the escalation of rape culture, sexual harassment, the problems with celebrating the hijab, the indoctrination of attitudes towards girls and women in Muslim culture, and being called Islamophobic for criticizing a tool and system of oppression. They bond over shared traumatic experiences and discuss their belief that if you can use your own trauma to help others, it has not happened in vain. If you only ever listen to one episode of Walk-Ins Welcome, this is the episode.

I listened to this earlier today and wow! It's very moving. Thanks so much for recommending this.

I transcribed a small section of this interview as I think it's directly relevant to this thread:

INT: Ilhan Omar, the first Muslim woman to serve in the US congress, the first woman to wear a hijab on the house floor, has been very critical in the past of US led sanctions that hurt Iran's economy, but she's been noticeably quiet abou the protests. In fact, i don't think she's said anything at all in support of the women of Iran. How do you understand that?

MI: It just makes me furious. If you are coming from a country that you have experienced the misogyny, then how can you call yourself a feminist, and then you just show your sympathy with the Islamic Republic and not with the women of Iran? So Ilhan Omar and many other western female politicians, they care about 'my body, my choice' in the west, no? But when it comes to women of Iran, when they go to my beautiful country, they wear compulsory hijab, and they say nothing. They say 'this is your culture.' This is an insult to a nation. You know? Basically by wearing hijab, all those western female politicians, they actually empower Iranian regime to kill Mahsa. I'm not only angry with the Islamic Republic, I'm angry with all those western female politicians - the highest representative of the EU parliament - I'm angry with them as well, because they should be accountable, they should be responsible about the death of Mahsa Amini. Because when you wear hijab, you're allowing the Iranian regime to say "Look, even the highest representative of EU, they wear hijab. Who are you? How dare you to break this law?" So this is called hypocrisy, that's all.

INT: Yeah, let's talk a bit about their professed reasons for doing that [...] they'll say that this is a culture that we need to respect, or that -

MI: No, they're lying, they're lying, they're lying. Look, before the revolution, women were allowed to choose what they wear. This is not Iranian culture. This is the culture of misogynists. Forcing a seven year old girl to cover her hair is a culture? It's not. It's the culture of Taliban. It's the culture of Islamic Republic. It's the culture of Isis. [...] They only care about their political agenda, that's all I can say. [...] Left and liberal are lost. [...] Most of them keep silent. Why? Your silence actually empowers our oppressors. You're taking sides by keeping silent. You're taking sides. You're actually allowing our oppressors to kill us.

INT: And what do you think about their professed fear of stoking Islamophobia [...]?

MI: I don't get this. Every single western feminist who cares about Islamophobia, I invite them, I support them, I even help them, I give them money to go and live in Iran, or Afghanistan. I buy ticket for them to go and live under Sharia law, and then after one year come back and say that okay, you're causing Islamophobia. According to the Sharia law in Iran and Afghanistan, we are being banned from all our basic rights. And you say don't talk about it, you're causing Islamophobia? Phobia is irrational fear, but my fear and the fear of millions of women in Iran and Afghanistan is rational. Of course we are scared of Islamism, of course we are scared of being killed, being hanged, being lashed, being jailed for not practising Sharia law. Those who don't have fear of Islamic ideology, those who don't have any fear of being executed? I think there is something wrong with them.

Ilhan Omar is afraid of stoking Islamophobia, but when it comes to anti-Semitism....
www.timesofisrael.com/the-ilhan-omar-anti-semitism-controversy-explained/

Thanks for transcribing (I can be a bit of a wimp and need to be careful about what I expose myself to, for my sanity) I felt a bit nervous about listening myself.

There are some upsetting bits in that podcast, tea. When she describes the regime in Iran and the people who are fighting back, she does break down.

Is it worth pointing out that nepeta literally said SHE hadn’t listened to the podcast and the OP and other posters praised her post, but then insist their responses to the Muslim women posting were solely to do with THEM not having listened to the podcast?

I enjoyed nepeta’s post and am glad she made it, but it is a rather glaring example, is it not, about the different treatment here?

Nepeta didn't say she refused to listen to the podcast, that it was hateful and wrong, or that we were wrong for discussing it. So that's the difference.

Have you listened to the podcast @Misstache ? Or any of the other podcasts that have been linked in the thread? Do! Then you might have something worth contributing to the discussion, too.

What if I am both currently listening to the podcast and am also critical of the way people are speaking to Muslim women with a different view in this thread?

I am also in agreement with the poster who asks how feminists who oppose hijab plan to go about doing better by hijabis and helping people see how they are internalizing patriarchy and oppression if that discussion can only take place on the terms dictated by people like the OP without also being willing to be generous to opposing women in the discussion? What do we do if we think other women are wrong - banish them and speak to them dismissively or try to provide space for conversation?

I've been very generous to people in the discussion. I'm not obliged to engage with posters who just want to insult the women in the podcast or the women on this thread. I'm allowed to say that I want to discuss this particular podcast - it's not stopping anyone starting their own thread or going off on a tangent - both have happened.

By the way, I don't know who is or isn't a Muslim on an anonymous forum, so this accusation that there's some kind of Islamophobia going on is just complete bollocks. And the idea that I'm supposed to allow people to plop or troll on the thread if they're Muslim is also complete bollocks.

Some other views:

www.law.georgetown.edu/immigration-law-journal/blog/the-war-on-muslim-womens-bodies-a-critique-of-western-feminism/

www.google.com/amp/s/feminisminindia.com/2018/10/05/why-hijab-muslim-feminist/%3famp

www.google.com/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/muslim-feminists-reclaim-the-hijab-to-fight-the-patriarchy-31126

Your second link isn't working. I'll have a read of these resources, thanks.

The extreme 'modesty' of Islamic women is just the other side of the same coin to the USAs 'girls do porn' culture. Both belittle females to their outward physical appearance, rather than valuing the equal human beings that they are. Both should be fully rejected by actual feminists along with any affiliation to patriarchal religions. Females are the givers of life on this planet, if any deity should be worshipped it would be a female. Although personally I think the concept of deities is a male fantasy in and of itself, and the only spiritual god is the unity of all living things.

I've had a read of the two working links this morning. I'll respond to them separately below. Thanks for sharing these!

I think there is a spectrum to that modesty in Islam though

I mean they are talking about the hijab in the links i shared in this thread, but obviously that's very different to the burka or the niqab which I would see as more at the end of that 'extreme modesty' you mention

Whilst I support fully any women who felt forced to wear the hijab to not wear it, I also support the women who want to wear the hijab to wear it. Otherwise what happens to her body her choice.

If a woman chooses to put something on her head, be it a hat, a hood, a scarf, a gele or a wig, then they should be supported in their choice to wear the clothes they want to.

Otherwise how is feminism any different to the patriarchy in this respect? If men are standing there saying 'you must wear this' and feminists are standing there saying 'you must not wear this' it's two sides of the same coin - policing womens clothing

I do believe there is room to open up conversations around changing the way hijabs are viewed so that less (no) woman feel obliged to wear them through societal, religious, cultural and family pressure.

But unless you leave room for female Muslim voices to join the conversation, and to voice whether they do actually want to wear the hijab or not then all you are doing is pushing women out of feminism because they don't fit the western ideal.

So, "the war on Muslim bodies" describes how the writer was not allowed to play in her basketball match unless she took off her hijab. The coach was male, don't know about the referee. The writer says that it was this moment that inspired her in her campaign against what she calls Western feminism, which later in the article she calls "white feminism". She describes other instances where girls have been asked or forced to remove hijab.

So first of all I'd say I'm completely against forcibly removing hijab from girls. That is a violation of their bodily dignity and I'd hope that no feminist would be in favour of this. It strikes me as very strange that the writer associates this with feminism when it's not at all clear that this is behaviour undertaken or supported by feminists.

She then says: So, what does white feminism do for us? This “empowering” movement trying to “liberate” Muslim women? It takes away our agency. It denies us the opportunities to function as mothers, athletes, and students. It puts fear in our hearts just to walk down the street. It makes every interaction a battleground for our identity. Choose between being an athlete or practicing your religion; choose between an education or practicing your religion; choose between being a good mom or practicing your religion.

But she's presented literally zero evidence that this is what feminists are doing, or what they're concerned with at all. As we've seen on these threads, Muslim women like Masih Alinejad are begging western feminists to stop with the cultural relativism and take a stand. So I'm struggling to think of examples of how feminists are denying Muslim women the opportunity to be mothers, etc. This seems like baseless hyperbole to me.

She talks about colonialism and imperialism and compares the urging of Muslim women to take off the hijab (by whom?) to the imperialist aggression of the French in Algeria. She then goes on to say that actually Islamic cultures are matriarchal, and western women don't have things any better so they have no grounds for superiority. In her critique, feminism is part of the colonial project.

To this day, Muslim women keeping on their hijabs is a symbol of resistance, a refusal to be an object of possession, and a refusal to be undertaken by our oppressors.

Okay. But much of what we've been talking about is the oppression of girls. It's one thing to choose to wear hijab as a symbol of your religion; it's another thing completely to be told if you don't wear hijab you'll be raped and your hair ripped out. The writer sees the hijab as a symbol of resistance. Masih Alinejad sees it as a symbol of oppression and slavery. There are competing views here. Surely it's legitimate for Western women to weigh up both views and decide which they're more persuaded by? I'd also like to know how the writer squares the circle between her idea of Muslim women as fighters with the hijab as their proud symbol of resistance, and the actual women fighters in Iran who are sacrificing their lives for the right to take the hijab off.

Also, although this discussion has veered more towards talking about hijab, that's only one element of what the podcasts and resources are talking about. I think most people would agree that it's an adult woman's choice to wear hijab. But when it comes to children, it's a different matter. And when we look at niqab and burka it's different again. And when we think about Sharia law, it's something different again.

In "Muslim feminists reclaim the hijab to fight patriarchy" - again we're solely focused on hijab. This article is a very woke and wordy explanation of how some Muslim women feel the hijab represents "an emblem of female inclusivity. The Safra Project, a group that advocates for lesbian, bisexual, queer and transgender Muslim women’s rights is one. It claims hijabs and burqas are part of a Muslim woman’s queer identity. Its members want to embrace their sexual identity with the help of Islam rather than be forced to choose between the two."

I'm not sure this has anything to do with feminists? I don't believe there's such as thing as a transgender Muslim woman for a start.

If women want to claim hijabs and burqas as part of their queer identity, that does not make it incumbent upon feminists to stop campaigning against the oppression of girls and women under Sharia law.

With real and painted veils, women reject the sexualisation of female bodies by covering them. They gain a sense of self-respect without adhering to capitalist norms of beauty. They promote a new version of feminism.

Okay. That's fine by me. But I don't subscribe to the "new version of feminism" (which just looks like woke, queer politics to me.) And I think that other posters have commented on the way 'modesty' is used to sexualise girls and women, and some of the downsides of that.

Democratic discussions about veiling are welcome but ultimately the public needs to acknowledge a woman’s freedom to choose not only her own form of a dress but also to shape its meanings – whatever they may be.

I actually agree with that. As I've said before, the main issue I have as far as hijab goes is girls and women being forced to wear it. We can't pretend that just because some women choose it, that all women choose it. We know for a fact that is not the case.

Otherwise how is feminism any different to the patriarchy in this respect? If men are standing there saying 'you must wear this' and feminists are standing there saying 'you must not wear this' it's two sides of the same coin - policing womens clothing

Yes, but that's a total mischaracterisation of the debate. It's men and women saying "you must wear this" (and in many cases there's a consequence to not doing so) and feminists on the other side saying, "you should be free to wear what you like, no one should rape you or harm you or disown you, your body is your own, you deserve dignity, you deserve a childhood" etc etc.

But unless you leave room for female Muslim voices to join the conversation, and to voice whether they do actually want to wear the hijab or not then all you are doing is pushing women out of feminism because they don't fit the western ideal.

Literally the podcast in the OP and the other podcast with Masih Alinejad are female Muslim voices. They still count, even if they're saying something you don't want to hear or makes you uncomfortable.

What "western ideal"? Do you think feminists are wanting Muslim women to meet western beauty standards in order to be included in feminism? I think this is very obviously not happening.

Would you still have this attitude if we were talking about another fundamentalist religion? It seems to me if we were talking about fundamentalist Christianity marrying off young girls, flogging them for showing their hair, killing them as a punishment for being raped etc, it would be a lot easier for some women to get the picture.

Would you still have this attitude if we were talking about another fundamentalist religion?

I would say the same about Catholic veils, nuns habits, kamilavka, epanokamelavkiom, tichels, kippahs, dastar, amish bonnets, duku, kanga or kofias if I saw any people who wore them being excluded from a conversation about them. I'm agnostic, the religion is irrelevant to me.

But no one is being excluded from the conversation. The podcasts we've talked about are from Muslim women. And I've listened and responded to the other voices you've shared. So can we stop with this bollocks now please?

Also as I've said repeatedly, we can talk about hijab but that's only one very narrow part of the discussion. You seem to be resistant to seeing the bigger picture?

You seem keen to put a lot of negative labels on me

Bully childish, stupid, resistant, attitude, uncomfortable, bollocks which simply aren't true, just because I called out that two Muslim posters were asked (told) to leave the thread.

I'm going to leave the thread now because there are some very useful comments by posters I don't want to derail further

Okay bye then.

Strange that you haven't engaged even with the articles that you shared, which I read and responded to in quite some detail.

If a woman chooses to put something on her head, be it a hat, a hood, a scarf, a gele or a wig, then they should be supported in their choice to wear the clothes they want to.

Otherwise how is feminism any different to the patriarchy in this respect? If men are standing there saying 'you must wear this' and feminists are standing there saying 'you must not wear this' it's two sides of the same coin - policing womens clothing

Surely they should be supported in questioning why they feel the need to do this, whereas men don't? Surely the should be supported in seeing how these kinds of double standards hurt women and girls? Feminists who object to the burkha are not policing women, but encouraging them to examine the unconscious misogyny and hypocrisy at the heart of their oppression, and how they are participating or even contributing to it.

Yes. Although I'd say the misogyny is far from unconscious.