"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.