Let me give you few choice quotes:
You have to admire this guy's guts: In a country where an estimated 80 percent of women wear veils, Egyptian Culture Minister Farouk Hosni publicly called the veil regressive this week.
Hosni's stand is refreshingly controversial and exactly the type of internal criticism and debate that the Muslim world sorely needs. But don't expect any kind of rigorous debate just yet.OK, maybe what this guy was doing was impressive in Egypt. However, to generalize that this is some kind of a first in the "Muslim World" just shows how ignorant even well-meaning feminists can be. Leaders in Muslim countries, such as Ataturk or even the Shah, were calling the veil "regressive" all the way back in the 1920s.
We know what happened in Iran, but even today it would be news in Turkey if a politician openly said the veil is not regressive, not the other way around. There are certainly politicians who think that the veil is a good thing, most notably the Prime Minister Erdogan (His wife wears a headscarf). But he would not dare to come out and say anything that could be construed as encouraging women to wear the veil. The greatest obstacle in his presidential bid is the fact that his wife wears a headscarf.
I don't think that the Muslim world really needs a new debate on this issue - the debate over headscarves, for what it's worth, has been going on for almost 100 years if not more. And while it is easy for American feminists to sit back and pat themselves on the back for taking what seems to be the correct position on this issue ("Veils are bad"), the actual debate on the ground is much more complicated. For instance, while in Egypt women might be intimidated into wearing a headscarf, women in Turkey have to take off their headscarves if they want to attend the university or work in a hospital. If they do not, the law prohibits their access to these activities. Maybe the Broadsheet writer would like to ponder how this law creates a double standard between religious women and men. Religious men do not have any visible markers. And if we are keeping women with headscarves out of the university because we think they are oppressed, are we not also enabling this oppression by limiting their access to education?
Many women in Turkey choose not to wear the headscarf to begin with - in fact a recent survey found that the number of women who choose to wear a headscarf is down by 8%. In the Muslim World, Turkey probably has the fewest number of women who wear a headscarf. But we did not get there by people wishing that veils would go away. If this is your goal, you have to back it up with laws and compromise some individual liberties along the way. It is not so easy being feminist or a democrat in the Muslim World - often your choices are between damned if you do and damned if you don't. The headscarf issue is immensely debatable, but it is not at all as black and white as this Broadsheet writer thinks.
I hate it when people who joined the conversation late think that they have it all figured out. Do not mistake the simplicity in your understanding of history and the region with the reality on the ground.
1 comment:
The obvious point of the just barely four paragraph article you bashed could not have been more clear - internal criticism, debate and reform is exactly what the Muslim world needs (sadly, even from half-hearted men, who had they known the ensuing controversy to come may never have uttered a single word).
Address the point - does or does not the Muslim world need to challenge itself whether it be veils or illogical fatwas?
I hate it when people who miss the conversation think that they have it all figured out. Your simple understanding of reality on the ground, cannot be glossed over by graspingly overstating history and shallowly hierarchizing the region, to the point of obfuscating the current state of affairs.
PS I wonder what the tone of your article might have been were it Ahmadinejad, some Al-Azhar cleric, or Sadr that had been quoted instead of a second-rate minister whose ineloquent statement didn't meet with your approval. I suggest being impressed by almost every pronouncement that may lead towards necessary and painfully incremental progress despite its originator, place within historical context, or region. If your opinion differs or if you choose to respond to this post, beyond a superficial seven paragraph blog, then offer ten instances from Middle Eastern leaders whose overt statements were meant, intentionally or even unintentionally, to challenge the achingly backwards status quo. In lieu of that, spend more time on the ground and less time supporting your arguments with 1920s nostalgia.
Post a Comment