Week 7- Agency, Gender, and Embodiment

            In the chapter, Agency, Gender and Embodiment by Saba Mahmood, Mahmood explains the definition of what it means to wear the veil. The veil is not only a sacred piece of clothing but it is also used as a particular guide on how to behave. With the veil comes with certain responsibility. Mahmood explains, “To practice al-haya means to be diffident, modest, and able to feel and enact shyness (Mahmood, p. 156). Therefore with the veil you also have to have the ability be reserved which makes it harder for women whose personality isn’t quite shy. One of the women that Mahmood studied said, “It’s just like the veil [hijab]. In the beginning when you wear it, you’re embarrassed and don’t want to wear it because people say that you look older and unattractive, that you wont get marries, and never find a husband. But you must wear the veil, first because it is God’s command, and then, with time, because your inside leans to feel shy without the veil, and if you take it off, your entire being feels uncomfortable about it” (Mahmood, p.157). Eventually women who wear the veil accept the terms and conditions that come with it.

            With recent events at the New York Fashion Week, modern clothing made a debut on the runway with all kinds of women wearing a veil (hijab). I understand that this is a great way to market veils to Muslim women and represent the Muslim community in women’s fashion. Diversity is what we need in all types of media and outlets. However what does that mean to non-Muslim women who see that veils as a piece of fashion? Non-Muslim models just wear the hijabs just on the runway and then they take it off after the show, when in fact Mahmood explains that its not really meant to be taken off whenever.  If western women see hijabs as just a fashionable scarf based on the runway does that degrade the sacredness of the veil?

"Modest Models"

A New Yorker article about a modeling agency based in New York that specifically signs "modest models"- this includes Muslim hijab wearing models, as well as non-Muslim models who prefer to dress more conservatively. Just another example of how Islam is becoming more integrated with Western fashion, but not necessarily declaring this a good or bad transition.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/09/19/modest-models

Reza Aslan's another interview with Fox News. Highly encouraged!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jt1cOnNrY5s

Subject of Freedom by Saba Mahmood

Saba Mahmood, in “The subject of freedom” discusses how Feminism and Islam can be easily critiqued within feminist discourse and under western perception as these two, neither can be seen parallel empowering each other nor seen as an agency for empowerment. She entails the idea of freedom and liberty is mediated by cultural and historical conditions to better know the power politics, knowledge production, construction of bodies and subjectivities. The women’s mosque movement for the society of Egypt seemed to be effected as they helped transformation. However, for feminist scholars it seemed to be a subject of scrutiny because of the ideas embedded with in this discourse of tradition and culture were rooted to women as a subordinate.

     In my opinion, when we tend to give definition to “freedom”, it gets limited rather than extending it. It may be taken under scrutiny because freedom to me looks different than what freedom to my neighbor looks like. I was thinking about this question that she brings in her writing, “How do we conceive of Individual freedom in a context where the distinction between the subject’s own desires and socially prescribed performances can not be easily presumed, and where submission to certain forms of (external) authority is a condition for achieving the subject’s potentiality? (Mahmood p. 31)”

The Subject of Freedom by Saba Mahmood

In the chapter The Subject of Freedom Saba Mahmood explores Muslim Women's agency. She debates that there are negative reactions to women accepting Islam and that there is a wide belief that if they were freed from that society, they would let go of Islam. Mahmood argues that women's resistance should be understood as women's attempt to transfer power to themselves from a male dominated structure and establish autonomy. Furthermore, Mahmood explains that a woman’s freedom needs to be based on procedural principle and not an ontological one. Later Mahmood covers the topic of norms and discusses how norms are “performed, lived and inhabited” (Mahmood, 22) and gives a great example of how the norm which is a social construct imposes a bodily restriction and some authors oppose the veil but support the modesty. What form of norms are Muslim women mostly confined to? Are they legal, moral or social norms? What makes a norm die out specifically pertaining to the Muslim community since usually a norm is so closely intertwined with religion? Can Muslim women establish agency through certain norms or do norms need to be destroyed in order for women to establish agency?

I think a perfect example of a norm diminishing or transforming is the case of the Burkini where Muslim women chose to save their act of virtue but also challenge a norm that was mostly imposed on them by the western world that if they are wearing a burqa then they cannot enjoy the beach like everyone else. In an interview with the Burkini creator Aheda Zanetti she says that “it has given women freedom” and challenges the French authority who want to ban it which goes back to what Mahmood was arguing about positive and negative freedom. Zanetti was trying to practice positive freedom by giving Muslim women a way to have “autonomous will” (Mahmood, 11) and the French authority were practicing negative freedom by imposing their own perception of what freedom means. In addition, Zanetti challenges the French authority by asking them “what do you mean it doesn’t combine with French values?” which makes me question: How can we decide whose values are more important and from there create norms accordingly? 

Politics of Piety

In reading Saba Mahmood's first chapter of her book  The Politics of Piety: The Islamic Revival and The Feminist Subject, my take away is that the piety movement is hard to understand for feminists of all sorts because of western ideals surrounding the concept of freedom in which rebelling against the system that is oppressive is the "proper" way to be liberated from said system in order to gain freedom. This "conservative" approach of the piety movement can be seen less as a revolt, as the women are operating within this system of oppression and yet are becoming liberated. Mahmood is thus making a comment about how freedom and equality are different for all people and shouldn't be generalized as it limits feminist scholarship  for the sake of "political clarity". She then says that we must "leave open the possibility that our political and analytical certainties might be transformed in the process of exploring non-liberal movements...[which} teach us beyond what we can learn from the circumscribed social-scientific exercise of "understanding and translation" (Mahmood p. 39)."

From this article I went on to try to better understand what I read and how to understand the piety movement more so. That is when I found the documentary called The Light In Her Eyes and an interview with Saba Mahmood. Reading the interview helped to clearly define what the piety movement is and what it does for the women who are involved. Also, watching the trailer made me understand the drive behind the women who are involved in the piety movement as to them learning and memorizing the Quran gives them a better understanding as how to operate in the social structure that often oppresses women and how they can have a voice and not get taken advantage of because of the male dominated culture in which they live in. Of course the film and the interview don't present the analysis that Saba Mahmood does in her book but I think it is useful to see that these women, contrary to U.S. media portrayals, do not need to be liberated or saved.
 http://thelightinhereyesmovie.com/resources/interview-saba-mahmood/
http://thelightinhereyesmovie.com/

The Subject of Freedom

In Saba Mahmood's work, we explore how ideas and notions about freedom and liberty are used in a Western Liberal framework within the humanist minded literature and hegemonic knowledge productions. She contends then is within this liberal model and presupposition of viewing freedom that feminist scholarships fail to give power to the resistance that women enact in Mahmood's piece, especially in the example about the mosque women's movement. This example is critical to Mahmood's because it exemplifies how Muslim women have been able to practice their own forms of power by learning about the Quran and hadiths within the larger male- dominant discourse that many  Western and liberal-minded feminists want to label as mere resistance. There is agency and power within resisting  and we cannot forget that, just because it looks different in other places we aren't accustomed to viewing as liberated in the hegemonic U.S. mindset.

Mahmood argues that there needs to be room within intellectual inquiry in academia to redefine what the subjects of freedom and liberty and piety all mean when we talk about them in a mainstream outlet. Especially since knowledge production is so vital to understanding how perceptions and ideals about freedom and liberty have been and continue to be constructed through a Western voice of coercive and forceful logic or rationale. It is within this challenge to the dominant discourse of freedom and piety that we as scholars will be able to take out the bias of our social location as U.S. inhabitants that fill our minds with unnecessary critique without accountability. How can we redefine what freedom and liberty mean to us now then?

The Subject of Freedom from The Politics of Piety

     In Saba Mahmood’s “The Subject of freedom from the book The Politics of Piety”, Mahmood discusses many points about Islamic women and western women’s differences in culture and politics. Mahmood first talks about the relationship between feminism and religion. When we discuss these two subjects together, we discuss Islam due the importance of the Islamic Movement, the Piety Movement and the Women’s Mosque Movement. What all three of these movements have in common is that they have a part of the Islamic Revival and they also have a history of Islamic women becoming involved and in powered through the work of the movements. This poses a problem according to western feminist because of the overall western feminist theory that "Muslim women need to be saved in a movement that is run by patriarchal rule". Mahmood states that it's not fair to assume that these women have no voice and that although there is patriarchal rule that women have no part in the movement without knowing the history first. For example, one of the main topics about the Women's Mosque Movement and the Piety Movement is how it affected and impacted Egyptian Society. This doesn't just affect men but also empowers women within the movement.

     Within this first chapter, Mahmood also talks about agency and resistance. Mahmood askes the question “How do women contribute to reproducing their own domination and how do they resist or subvert it?” In this case, Mahmood says to focus on women’s agency. Due to the vision that western women and feminist have of Muslim women, discovering women’s agency helps create a voice for Muslim women and also helps feminist make parallels to gender. However, how do we know as a western culture that this always has to mean oppression. Lila Abu-Lughod’s idea of power and resistance challenges this notion that resistance as a Muslim woman doesn’t always mean oppression but can be used as a “diagnostic of power” (P.9). (Refer to Lughod’s example about Bedouin women and sexy lingerie).

     This then leads to the very important question about freedom. What is it and how does it differ from the west and the third world? In this case, there are many different types of freedom. There is positive freedom and negative freedom according to Mahmood. However, there needs to be an understanding that freedom is different and shapes many different lifestyles, practices, brains and bodies. This doesn’t mean that either or is wrong nor right or that one type to freedom is better than the other. Mahmood leaves us with this question about freedom “How do we analyze operations of power that construct different types of bodies, knowledges and subjectivities who’s trajectories do not follow the entelechy of liberatery politics? (P.14)

Politics of Piety The Islamic Revival and the Feminist Subject

In the first chapter of Politics of Piety: The Islamic Revival and the Feminist Subject, Saba Mahmood explores the revival of Muslim women and some of the challenges Muslim women face in Cairo, Egypt in 1995. The women's mosque movement provided their own lessons and teachings of the scriptures, social practices, and the refinement of the "ideal virtuous self." The adoption of the hijab and the autonomous piety in the mosque movement sets the subjects in a transcendental liberal theory in a presupposed religion where women are subordinate. Mahmood describes the two common freedoms in the liberal theory that are both infused in the concept of individual autonomy, negative freedom, and positive freedom. Negative freedom refers to the "absence of external obstacles to self-guided choice and action", while positive freedom is understood by the "capacity to realize an autonomous will...self-mastery and self-government." (Mahmood pg.11)  The liberal theory of freedom brings to light resistance and the "westernization" idea of Muslim women's oppression. However, Mahmood critiques the idea of resistance by redirecting the issue to subject and power. She builds on Judith Butler's Poststructuralist Feminist Theory of sex/gender dichotomy, which expands into a much greater depth of societal norms and aspirations in piety. Also tied into Butler's analysis, Michel Foucault draws an insight to the subject of Power and it's relation to the subordination of women in the Muslim religion. Rather than the domination of others, power is a mere product of operations to subdue discourses of oppression within the mosque movement.

Mahmood's approach is internal, rather than the common "outside view." On one hand, we hear about the oppression and subordination of women within the Muslim religion. Yet, on the other hand, we rarely hear about the advances and modernity of pious Muslim women. It is a movement that we can all admire as these women operate on their own view of freedom. The freedom to believe, read, teach, and exercise a religion that is predisposed to men.

Week 6 - The Subject of Freedom from the Politics of Piety

            In Saba Mahmood’s The Subject of Freedoom from the Politics of Pietry, She talks about the differences between Islam women and Western women in the context of what freedom is for them. After 9/11, Western media viewed women who wear hijabs or burkas as being oppressed by men. Western media portrayed Islam to be a violent and oppressive religion without actually knowing the religion of Islam.  A lot of western women felt the need to save Islam women from being “oppressed”, however these women had no real knowledge of Islam, this was a form of colonialism. What western women fail to understand is wearing a hijab or burka is also an expression of freedom.

            Mahmood states that, “the veil makes it easy for women to avoid sexual harassment on public transportation, lowers the cost of attire for worling women, and so on” (Mahmood, p.16). In western culture we tend to think that Islamic women are oppressed, but what we fail to realize in comparison we are oppressed. How many times do we see stories of college girls being sexually harassed or assaulted on campus? If wearing a burka meant that you are liberated from these things then that means Islam have more freedom than an American girl on campus. Instead of viewing burkas and hijabs as an “oppressive” thing for women, we should view them as clothing that allows women to be free.

Unholy Matrimony and (Un)Veiling Feminism

In the article "(Un)Veiling Feminism" Najmabadi discusses the conflicting dynamics between feminism, secularism and nationalism. She brings up many key points on the issue of contrary fears between modernity and tradition as explained in this quote, "...by mudding the clear lines of what or who is Islamist, has enabled feminist who speak secularism to find more hospitable and growing cultural space. The resistance of drawing such clear lines has been exasperating to hard-line Islamist set on keeping these boundaries clear and patrolled"(33). While, reading this I couldn't help but relate it to current issues occurring here in the U.S issues dealing with social cultural practices going against  legal institutions. We see the clash in our everyday life but obviously in different contexts. In America we also discuss what it means to be American and automatically reduce every "American" to a single unified experience, which is unfair to do. Najmabadi explains a similar problem with the concept of what Iranianess is. She also explains the common issues in women's activism and discusses the hijab. She highlighted the conflicting opinions between women on this specific issue. I think its important to note that she explains each aspect of feminism, secularism and nationalism from different perspectives and then inflicts her own ideals. Modernity and tradition in my opinion have always clashed and I've noticed that in my personal experiences as well. To know and learn the perspectives of different people help highlight your own opinion on an issue.

In the article "Unholy Matrimony" by Juliet A. Williams, she explains how she was first introduced to  the idea of sighed which is a temporary marriage. She then goes to explain the different dynamics on how the culture itself views sighed vs. how the western world views these marriages. The molding of modernity and tradition which was explained in Najmabadi's article comes into play here with how Williams mother in law views her sons relationship Williams explains, "Recognizing the social complexities of the practice, Ali's mother nonetheless believed that a temporary marriage would provide the best way to reconcile her son's lifestyle choices with her own commitment to maintaining within the family a respect for the boundaries of propriety established in Islam"(614). This brings up many questions. Although, it seems both are getting what they want to what extent is does this completely blur the lines of modernity? Also, I found it very interesting how William included how the U.S chooses to cover and critique sighed's. The media has a lot of power in shaping and manipulating people's opinions and social aspects especially when it pertains to the Islamic world. One of the New York times article's headline was "prostitution has made a comeback". Headlines like this are what then carry a negative context when relating it back to the Islam World. Our media has painted a picture of how this concept of temporary marriage only furthers proves the sexual oppression of women and the dominance in men. Where in the Islam context they see it as a sign of progression and modernity especially for women to gain financial independence.

Both articles explain the dynamics of modernity and tradition and how it is viewed from different perspectives. My question is as a society how can we help stop the bias western news media platform from allowing them to misconstruct and manipulate social cultural practices?

Blog #2: Modernity

In "(Un)veiling Feminism", Afsaneh Najmabadi historicizes women's influences in Iran with regard to secularism, modernity, nationalism, and feminism. Prior to the rule of Riza Shah, many feminists and activists in Iran fought for "women's education, and next the reform of marriage and divorce laws" (Najmabadi, 36). Rhetoric by certain revered leaders argued that God did not want women educated, a fallacy which Iranian feminists aptly disproved by questioning where this was discussed (Najmabadi, 35-36). However a huge shift occurred in the 1930's when Riza Shah's regime pushed for what was described as 'modernity' of Iran and Iranian women through anti-chadur policies. These new laws prohibited women from dressing in this apparel and led to female teachers losing their jobs and girls being removed from schools. The backlash of these new policies not only led to a means of division of women in society during this time period, it also lead to many anti-foreign policies in Iran which can be seen today. Furthermore, the shift in what was viewed as modernity vs secularism began to only be focused on whether a woman was pro or anti veiling. There was a huge backlash around this as a division between secular and Islamist feminists was created around views of unveiling as the ultimate sign of modernity.

"Unholy Matrimony? Feminism, Orientalism, and the Possibility of Double Critique" by Juliet A. Williams discusses temporary marriage in Iran and Shiite dominant parts of Iraq. In her research, Williams finds many issues with how U.S. reporting of temporary marriage relies heavily on orientalist ideals which essentially portray Middle Eastern men as desiring harems of subordinate women who they can take advantage of sexually. These western reports portray these arrangements as not only being traditional/backwards, but also as exploitative of women and oppressive of people's sexuality through Islam. However, temporary marriage is not as simple as these Western reports would like to have readers believe. Temporary marriage can be viewed as being similar to western engagements, but better to some extent as well. Any critique of temporary marriage relies on Western standards of moral marriage, and often sensationalizes what temporary marriages actually are. Temporary marriages are a sign of modernity as they allow for individuals to experience a sexually intimate relationship without "the 'decadent' Western style of 'free' sexual relationships" (Williams, 626). Often reasons behind Western critiques of temporary marriage are reflective of issues around marriage in the U.S. as temporary marriages are very similar to western marriage.

Both pieces are reflective of notions of what modernity looks like in Iran through Western and non-western eyes. Both authors are attempting to break apart racist generalizations often stipulated in orientalist views of the Middle East as these are not only harming but dehumanize women and feminists in this part of the world. By doing this, these authors are creating a way to view the similarities in the world through factual dialogues around the histories and practices in Iran. It is extremely important to not believe sensationalism around practices in Iran as it has a rich history which cannot be over simplified as just being a debate over veiling or temporary marriages. The only way for an end to injustice in a real way is to unite and stop othering people through means of cultural difference.

Women's Empowerment, Religious Versus Secular

 Juliet A. Williams - Unholy Matrimony? Feminism, Orientalism, and the Possibility of Double Critique File

This was an interesting article because it discusses how the framing of “temporary marriage” when discussed in the United States makes it seem like it is a fancy way to legalize prostitution. Towards the end of the article Williams discusses parallels of American marriage, what with the divorce rate being so high to Sigheh. In the American western sphere 50% of marriages end in divorce. There is now a prenuptial agreement that has been popularized because of the high rate of divorce. This agreement allows the persons to keep the money they earned before they were married and not have to share it in a perfect split with their spouse. Sigheh in this article was introduced by the woman’s boyfriend’s mother. It was interesting how Williams admits that she judges how her boyfriend’s devout Muslim mother will probably judge her, and is actually surprised when she seems to judge the mother about being religious more than the mother judges her secularity. This is a rhetoric that follows the Western notion that religious Muslims in particular harshly judge “modern secular” lifestyles, when in fact the West seems to more harshly judge religious people. 

I really related to this article because I coming from a Catholic upbringing found my church and religion really oppressive to me and since have judged Catholics in thinking they are also trying to oppress me. I have some religious friends who have a strong connection to God and allow me to live my life however I wish and then I also have religious friends who, overtime I am feeling sad tell me that I am feeling this way because I do not have a strong relationship with the lord. I have noticed among myself and some of my friends, a feeling of superiority towards religious people because we feel that we have successfully escaped an oppressive space and feel sad for the people still powerless to their church. The United States making sigheh a perverted practice further exemplifies how the “Middle East culture is sexualized and exoticized by the West”. In actual law and practice of sigheh, a person must wait forty-five days in between temporary marriages to determine the paternity of the child, should the woman become pregnant. This law alone invalidates the idea that this is prostitution because a prostitute would need more than one monogamous client to make her living. Throughout this article I was able to empathize and understand why someone would want a temporary marriage. I think many women in the United States as well as men would love to have this option, to be able to be financially tied but not bound together forever. If a couple was engaged, this would be a way to try out married life and make sure the person that they wanted to marry was a good fit for them. It would also be a way for men and women who feel skittish about commitment to try on being a husband or wife and see if they felt they could handle it. I really liked that this article was honest and the author showed where she fell short in her beliefs about religious women because it helped me evaluate the way I had been judging religious women as well.

Unveiling Feminisim by Afsaneh Najmabadi

This article was discussing how since the revolution in 1979, “ the color of a woman’s scarf and the thickness of her stockings” was really important as well as since this revolution women have advanced in society. “They have an unmistakably active and growing presence in practically every sphere of artistic creation, professional achievement, educational and industrial institutions, political participation and even in sports activities.” This article is related to the previous article because it highlights Muslim feminists and secular feminists seeing each other as “other” rather than working together and accepting one another’s lifestyle and choices. In the article it discusses how when women were politically forced to unveil, it drastically backfired and hindered women’s independence rather than furthered it. Women who were in the business sphere had to quit their jobs and stay home because their fathers, husbands and brothers did not want them to go out into public spaces unveiled. In this context the veil culture can seem oppressive, however in terms of women’s safety the veil protects them from unwanted sexual advances and protects their body. Secular feminists had not thought about these results when they supported unveiling because they were not listening to women’s concerns who wore veils. In order for women to lift each other up, we need to stop judging other lifestyles and really talk to the women in every community about what would help them achieve their goals in life and ultimate freedom and happiness. There is no “right” way to be feminist or empower other women. Different women are empowered by different things and neither is wrong. Women have more similarities than differences and we should come together and fight injustice as one strong entity of sisterhood!

Feminism in Iran?

The first encounter I ever had with 'mutah' was when one of my very close friends got mutah-fied (can't think of a better phrase). I told my family members, and I clearly remember how they told me that it isn’t possible. “It must be nikah,” said one of them.

Juliet A. Williams in her piece ‘Unholy Matrimony?’ talks about temporary marriages and marriages in the west. Williams talk about how she got introduced to sigheh and how she rejected this idea.

Although temporary marriage isn’t her focus in this piece, I can’t help but ask few questions about sigheh?

·       Williams write that how sigheh ‘for some  stands as a proud example of Islam’s ingenuity in adapting to changing times by reconciling the demands of tradition with the realities of contemporary social life.’  I wonder when in the history of Islam sig heh came about and when was this when Islam needed to reconcile with contemporary social life?

·       Sigheh, in practice, writes Williams ‘ has been limited to … male travelers have sought to fulfill a presumptive need for intercourse with women at times when men must be away from their permanent wives.’ – Why is it that a men in Islam gets sexual freedom and women don’t? Why can’t I, as a Muslim woman, sigheh to ‘fulfill a presumptive need for intercourse with men’?

o   This is little bit off topic and Williams doesn’t talk about it in her piece at all but reading the piece made me question why is it that Muslim men are allowed to have four wives at the same time and Muslim women aren’t?

There are other very interesting points she has made:

·       She talks about her difficulties when she encountered with temporary marriage and how it is so easy for the West to consider themselves ‘as the seat of moral and social progress.’ Something to ponder on is that how the western media covers temporary marriages and the marriages in West differently even though both has similarities as pointed by Williams in this piece.  

o   The orientalism is so strong, us (west) VS them (Middle East) is so prominent that all the traditions, religious acts, the culture, language, nation, economy, politics is viewed through the western moral lens.

o   The other point she makes is that how self-representation is very important and they (Middle Eastern women) shouldn’t be generalized as one.

·       Other points she makes is how once we have a stereotype about someone, we tend to stick to it instead of looking for other explanations.

The second article for this week was (Un)Veiling Feminism by Afsaneh Najmabadi. Honestly, I decided for this week’s readings because I thought it will be about veils in Islam. Although it did talk about veiling in Iran, it wasn’t the focus of the article.

Najmabadi tells us it is important to know the historical background in order to understand the secularism, nationalism, and feminism in Iran. She argues that it’s important not to generalize history to conclude about Feminism and Islam.  She talks about Iranian revolution and women, and how it changed feminism in Iran.

Again, I’d like to point out few things I found very interesting in her article.

·       She mentions how Iranian women are given voice to reinterpret history and religious texts, but these interpretations are limited to the public sphere and not to the religious sphere.

o   I think this is true for other places too where a women have a voice as ‘public intellectuals’ but aren’t invited to speak on religious occasions. This is true for local MSAs, local mosques and for national debates.

o   Recently on twitter, there was a trend with the hashtag #NextTimeRememberHer, where women were talking about the absence of Muslim women at the important debate.

·       Another thing which is quite interesting is that before the revolution in Shah’s regime women were forced to unveil and today after the revolution women are forced to veil.  This makes me think if women do get to choose their clothing themselves.

o   Recently with the burqini ban, it was a French male who decided that women are being oppressed and their freedom is taken away from them, and therefore they shouldn’t be wearing burqini. Ironically enough it was him who took away their freedom of choosing by themselves.

o   This also made me think that it’s not just men who force women to act in a certain way, but women are doing the same thing. During Shah’s regime, there was a group who was for veiling and there was a group that was anti-veiling. I didn’t read about a group that was pro-choice.

Unholy Matrimony and (Un)Veiling Feminism

In the beginning of the article Unholy Matrimony by Juliet Williams talks about how Ali’s mother was a very powerful matriarch who ruled her husband and six son. I found this to be very intriguing because normally when you think of Muslim women you think of oppression and men ruling the family. Ali’s mother wanted them to sigheh ( temporary marriage). “A contract made between a man and an un- married woman specifying the duration of a union and an amount of money to be given by a man to his temporary wife.” A temporary marriage means a loss of virginity in the Muslim culture and it also associated with prostitution. My first question I had reading this article was, why would his mother want them to sigheh. I think the answer to my question is that it stands as a proud example of Islam’s ingenuity in adapting to changing times by reconciling the demands of tradition with the realities of contemporary social life.

Ali’s mother was not saying in this case that temporary marriage was shameful. She viewed it as the announcement of an open-ended wedding engagement in the contemporary United States. Juliet A. Williams: “As a self-proclaimed feminist and a pro- fessor of women’s studies trained in the tradition of Western liberal egalitarianism, I felt almost obliged to condemn a social institution so clearly enmeshed in practices of gender subordination and exploitation ranging from the maintenance of virginity norms to prostitution.” She wanted to find a point of entry for exploring the social meaning and possibilities of temporary marriage that would not lead to stereotyped judgements about islamic women in their society. “Tamilla Ghodsi contends that the only way to prevent temporary marriage from being used to enable prostitution is to formalize and institutionalize it.” Temporary marriage as it is currently looked at exploits the most vulnerable members of society. Marriage has long been occluded by popular idealizations of marriage as a relationship whose essence lies in a mutual experience of romantic love in the United States. To end this article, Juliet Williams says that because she encountered with temporary marriage, it made her to consider her own complicated relationship with Western-style permanent marriage. 

Afsaneh Najmabadi talks about secularism, nationalism and feminism in this article. “It is about how feminism itself may have worked as a veil, about the veiling work of feminism as a boundary marker for secularism of Iranian modernity.”A problem that she is trying to emphasize in this essay is the generalization of the current discussions of islam and feminism. She then starts to talk about the culture of revolution. Woman in Iran have faced social restrictions since 1979. They are discriminated against by the shape, color and thickness of a woman's scarf. There is a very dominant culture in Iran and woman feel silenced. 

Unholy Matrimony and Unveiling Feminism in the Name of Modernity

In "Unholy Matrimony? Feminism, Orientalism, and the Possibility of Double Critique", Juliet A. Williams discusses how the West is quick to judge Muslim-majority countries and their societies and the hypocrisies that often occur. It is safe to say that Westerners, along with the media in the West, are quick to partake in orientalism and how "difficult it can be for those located in the West to disengage not just from orientalist constructions of the other but also from assumptions about the West as the seat of moral and social progress."(Williams 616-17) In reality, as Williams points out, Western marriages are not very different from temporary Iranian marriages. There is a level of hypocrisy when the West views itself as superior in the liberal and progressive arenas, but you cannot critique Iranian culture through a Western lense. The way Western media portrays women in the countries of Afghanistan and Iran as needing to be saved because they are being oppressed or used as sexual objects in temporary marriages is another hypocrisy. Here in America, plenty of women have temporary marriages, except here its called "living with your boyfriend". How is that any different than a temporary marriage? Western thought is imperialist; it is often considered the standard. The United States, however, is a poor example of equality. The wage-gap still exists, our sexual health is often looked over in politics, and we've yet to have a female President.

I personally feel that secularism is a neo-colonial manipulation of the West. It is a sign of progress if a country loses its religious identity, yet in the Pledge of Allegiance, Americans state: one nation under God. In "Unveiling Feminism" Afsaneh Najmabadi discusses feminism, nationalism, and secularism in the "modernizing" of Iran. It is interesting to see how unveiling is seen as a sign of feminism and secularization. That Iran, under Western eyes, was progressing. It is also interesting how women became the symbol of secularism in Iran an modernity and how the discussion shifted to the needs of women under Islamic interpretation. Why is unveiling seen as progressive when it can also be seen as imperialistic and neo-colonialistic? Is secularism really progress or is it conversion to Western standards? It can definitely lead to a wave of feminism and the reinterpretation of religion through the female perspective, which helps women have a stronger voice in their daily lives and in their own religion.         

"Unholy Matrimony" and "(Un)veiling Feminism"

In ““Unholy Matrimony? Feminism, Orientalism, and the Possibility of Double Critique,” Juliet A. Williams uses double critique to show how notions of the West and non-West are mutually constructed, the former being marked in national media as more superior and modern than the latter. U.S. news articles written about temporary marriage in Islam, or sigheh only fuel anti-Islamic sentiment by painting the religion as traditionally patriarchal and oppressive towards women .But of course, it is not for Western writers to say whether or not women in Iran, Afghanistan and other countries are being treated as such. Williams’ article demonstrates how the majority of the knowledge on Islam is circulated largely through Western media, and that itself is selective, providing us with a very narrow look into how Islam actually plays out elsewhere; the West depends on this Orientalist framing to maintain itself as more progressive and ahead than the rest of the world. In reality, however, marriage discourse in the U.S. is somewhat sanctimonious. The time of engagement before marriage or prenuptials comes to mind when thinking about temporary marriage, and women who partake in those practices are not vilified. In addition, juxtaposing non-Western marriage customs with our own silence critiques of marriage in the U.S., that point out how it is not only temporal (divorce rate is 50%) but also perhaps stubborn to change (same-sex marriage debate).

Afsaneh Najmabadi historicizes Iranian secularism, nationalism and feminism in “(Un)veiling Feminism” to look at these concepts as reconfiguring and always changing, which challenges the idea that non-Western countries with Muslims are inferior because they are traditional and stuck in the past. When Riza Shah authorized state-sanctioned unveiling of women wearing hijab in 1936, the issue became more complex than merely limiting women’s rights; women became divided on unveiling itself. Those who opposed taking off the hjiab stopped coming to school, and debates over women’s rights arose. Najmabadi argues that if we look at Islam, nationalism, secularism and feminism as fluid, then we cannot continue to view them as antithetical to secularism and modernity.

I also think it’s important to note that both texts look at Iran specifically and do not speak for Islam’s role in other Muslim-majority countries. Bringing different narratives to light is crucial to emphasize that Islam is not monolithic and that women in other Muslim-majority countries are going through very different political and historical contexts. Nor do these authors claim to speak for all of Islam, which I appreciate. This drives the point home that discourse about Islam and feminism needs to be headed by women who have a connection to both, to work against hegemonic Western discourse.

Double critiques

In Juliet A. Williams' "Unholy Matrimony? Feminism, Orientalism, and the Possibility of Double Critique" the author initiates a study where she compares Western marital culture to those in Islamic societies in order to challenge the "othering" Western media has done to Islamic women and cultures.
Williams initially critiques her own ignorance and judgement towards her mother-in-law as a result of her internalized liberal rhetoric to tolerance. Her mother-in-law, according to Williams, lives a contradicting life that she cannot understand through her Westernized ideologies which prove more prejudice than "liberal." Williams becomes particularly conflicted with her "traditional" and "progressive" social perspectives when her mother-in-law demands Williams and her husband to sigheh. Initially, she rejects the idea as she recalls its cultural history and assumes her mother-in-law has similar intentions, but realizes her feminist critiques led "to a recapitulation of stereotyped judgements about the sexual oppression of women in Islamic societies" (615).  In critiquing orientalism, Williams provides a double critique which not only critiques orientalist discourse of Western ideology, but how the orientalist discourse depicts the West as a determinant of moral and social ways of life. The way that marriage in Islamic societies is portrayed in news reporting ultimately suggests that Western marital practices are the "normative ideal against which other marriage forms are judged when it comes to news reporting" (Williams 623).

Williams' text continues on this semester's theme of Western eroticizing and othering of bodies that don't conform to Western cultures. Both authors critique different layers of Western feminism in order to humanize Muslim women and change popular, and yet limiting, discourse regarding their freedoms. It seems that Western feminism overlooks our own problems which are extremely similar to those in third world or secularist countries. Ultimately, the authors want to shift away from over-generalizations that suppress Islamists into one melting pot.

In Afsaneh Najmabadi's text (Un)Veiling Feminism, the author historicizes secularism, nationalism, and feminism in Iran in order to reconfigure these terms. Najmabadi starts her text by clarifying that (un)veiling feminism is not about modern practice in Islamic societies, but rather "about how feminism itself may have worked as a veil, about the veiling work of feminism as a boundary marker for secularism of Iranian modernity (29). She makes the distinction that she is not generalizing all Islamic societies as one, but focusing on Iranian feminism. Islamic activists and secularists have created a new dialogue by making women the center of the discourse.  As a result of the blatant rejection of feminism, a hybrid of feminism emerged. The complete disregard seemed to fuel women to unite and reconfigure Islam. These reinterpretations were public and since the audience included citizens, rather than teachers and preachers, it helped establish legitimacy. Public Iranian Islamic discourse shifted to have women's needs at the center of reinterpretation as a result of the modernity. This shift created new conversations and established new alliances, but there was backlash from "hard-line" Islamists and secular feminists. A divison between secular and Islamist feminists formed as "hard-line" Islamists and secular feminists demanded "women's rights activists to 'clarify' their position by drawing clear lines between Islam/un-Islam and theocracy/secularism" even thought their reasoning differed from each others' (Najmabadi 32).

Hi my name is Avanti Patel and I was born and raised in San Francisco. This is my fifth year at San Francisco State and I am a International Relations major.

Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving?

All of us reading this blog right now come from different backgrounds. We all have different stories, perspectives and opinions. But despite our differences, I think we can agree that we all want justice for women. We want women to be free, and given the right to live out the lives they envision for themselves. But are we okay with the fact that someone else’s version of freedom might look different than ours?

The reading “Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving?” brought to light this terrible idea, that I would be a liar if I said I have never been guilty of thinking, that in order for Muslim women to be free or liberated or happy they must look, act, and dress like “us.” Defining the “freeness” of a woman in terms of apparel is taking such a complex historical, political, and global issue and trying to fix it by suggesting she wear other clothing.

Not to make light of the oppressiveness that does exist behind laws that encroach on individual freedoms by controlling what a woman must wear, but to acknowledge that suggesting that veiling is “the quintessential sign of women’s unfreedom,” as Lila Abu-Lughod writes, is just as damaging to the rights of women. 

By focusing so heavily on the “culture” and religious beliefs of Muslim women, we are looking for religion-centric answers to political and historical questions, which Abu-Lughod explains only drives the wedge deeper between this idea of “us versus them.” By ignoring the historical development of a region, and failing to look at what involvement we as a country have had in said development, we’re failing to understand what is actually needed from us if we want to support Muslim feminism.

The question “can we only free afghan women to be like us or might we have to recognize that even after “liberation” from the Taliban, they might want different things than we would want for them?” is one I feel should be considered by any person involved in women’s rights. The notion that the whole world wants to be American is rooted so deeply in the propaganda of a lot of western feminism that it is almost hard to consider that other’s may not want the same things we do.

In the writing she mentions that the main issue the burqa presents is “how to deal with cultural ‘others.’” And I believe that is true. It is easy to latch on to one text book definition of what feminism is, what being a woman looks like, or what freedom means, when in reality there are so many factors that cause it to differ drastically in different contexts.

  I think the core message in her writing can be drawn from her question “what does freedom mean if we accept the fundamental premise that humans are social beings always raised in certain social and historical contexts and belonging to particular communities that shape their desires and understanding of the world?”

Such a seemingly obvious statement, that it is not every Muslim woman’s deepest desire to be like American women, is one that I think deserves more attention by western feminist's, as well as media. Instead of focusing on spreading American ideals, and what we may consider to be the "correct" way of doing things, maybe we should focus more on the fact that we can have a common destination, but our paths may look different. 

 We all want justice, we want women to be free, and given the right to live out the lives that they envision for themselves, but are we okay with the fact that someone else’s version of freedom might look different than ours? That the lives that they want to live may not be the same as the lives we want to live? That maybe there is no universal answer to what feminism looks like?