In the final meeting with Payam-e Zan, Ziba Mir-Housseini interviews and debates an Islamic cleric about the oppression of women in feqh and the misinterpretation that is shown in society and law. The conversation began with the context of Allameh and his contribution to such oppressive thinking. According to Allameh, all of his teachings should be thought of in a pre-revolutionary Iran in which women are banned from being judges and leaders and from taking part of Tehad. Yet, Allameh completely respected his wife and failed to “practice what he preached.” This statement then led to the rules and laws to obey, while differing from what society implicates. Sa’idzadeh refers to the Sunni feqh and Shi’i Hadith for the inequality of women and the need for men to “…see women in need of protection and support,”(175) which he does not claim to be a principle in feqh, rather a perspective. He then blames Sunni misogyny on Hazrat-e Zahra and his distaste for women. Sa’idzadeh later went on to further explain the reasoning behind women’s inability to serve as a judge or leader, which he refers to their unstable emotions and the lower capacity for reasoning.
This chapter in Mir-Housseini’s article “Agreeing to Differ,” was an extremely hard article to wrap my head around. It invoked so many emotions that I had to stop several times to be able to move on to the next topic, all of which were eye-opening. To read that a woman’s value is not held in the same regard as men and it be argued by Muslim men was infuriating. Whether it be “blood money” or “marriage dowery”, both men and women should be equal, regardless of duties. I truly applaud Mir-Housseini’s composure while listening to the defense, while it also encourages me to further understand the thought process of which these teachings, principles, and ideas come from.
No comments:
Post a Comment