|
March
18, 2002
The
situation of women living in Islam-stricken societies and under
Islamic laws is the outrage of the 21st century.
Burqa-clad and veiled women and girls, beheadings, stoning
to death, floggings, child sexual abuse in the name of marriage and
sexual apartheid are only the most brutal and visible aspects of
women's rightlessness and third class citizen
status in the Middle East.
This
is Nothing but Islam
Apologists
for Islam state that the situation of women in Iran and in
Islam-stricken countries is human folly; they say that Islamic
rules and laws practised in the Middle East are not following the
true precepts of Islam. They
state that we must separate Islam from the practice of Islamic
governments and movements. In
fact, however, the brutality and violence meted out against women
and girls are nothing other than Islam itself.
According to the Koran, for example, the fornicator must be
flogged a hundred stripes (The Light:
24.2).
Those who are guilty of an 'indecency' must be
'confined until death takes them away or Allah opens some way for
them.' (The Women, 4.15).
'Men are the
maintainers of women'
and 'good' women
are obedient. Those
that men fear 'desertion', can be admonished, confined and beaten'
(The Women, 4.34).
Wives are a 'tilth' for men, which they can go into their
'tilth' when they like (The Cow, 2.223).
Veiling is promoted in the Koran: 'O Prophet! Say to your
wives and your daughters and the women
of the believers that they let down upon them their over-garments'
(The Clans, 33.59).
Apologists
for Islam say that these verses have been misinterpreted.
They go so far as to claim that there is gender equity in
Islam and Islam respects the rights of women.
Regarding the verse
in the Koran sanctioning violence against women, they say that
Islam only permits violence after admonishment and confinement and
as a last resort. They say, since men would beat their wives
mercilessly at that time, this is a restriction on men to beat
women more mercifully (Women Living Under Muslim Laws, For
Ourselves Women Reading the Koran, 1997). In a Gender Equity in
Islam Web Site, this verse is explained in this way: 'In extreme
cases, and whenever greater harm, such as divorce, is a likely
option, it allows for a husband to administer a gentle pat to his
wife that causes no physical harm to the body nor leaves any sort
of mark. It may serve, in some cases, to bring to the wife's
attention the seriousness of her continued unreasonable behaviour.'
On the verse that says women are men’s tilth, they say the Koran
is encouraging sexuality, even though women are killed for
expressing theirs (Women Living Under Muslim Laws, For Ourselves,
Women Reading the Koran, 1997). Regarding the fact that women are
not to judge or consult, one mullah from Qom using a female
pseudonym says: “Or, Let’s suppose that in other planets, women
are stronger and more learned than men, do we accept their custom
or do we reject it totally?” (Zanan 4 and 5).
On the Gender Equity in Islam Web Site it states that 'Islam
regards women's role in society as a mother and a wife as her most
sacred and essential one. This may explain why a married woman must
secure her husband's consent if she wishes to work.
However, there is no decree in Islam that forbids women from
seeking employment whenever there is a necessity for it, especially
in positions which fit her nature best and in which society needs
her most.'
These
'Islamic feminist' interpretations are an insult
to our intellect and cannot
be taken seriously. Islam
has wreaked more havoc, massacred more women, and committed more
holocausts than can be denied, excused, re-interpreted, or covered
up with such feeble defences.
Misogyny cannot be interpreted to be pro-woman even if it is
turned on its head just as fascism, Zionism and racial apartheid
cannot be interpreted to be pro-human.
These are mere justifications for reactionary people who
want to legitimise their beliefs and religion or reactionary states
and movements with a vested interest in maintaining Islamic rules
and laws. They
apologize because even they don't want to associate with the
outrages committed by Islam throughout the world.
Nothing can hide the fact that Islam, like other religions,
is anti-woman and misogynist and antithetical to women's
rights and autonomy.
Political
Islam is a Contemporary Reactionary Movement
There
are always those who say that we can't blame Islam for the status
of women in Islam-stricken countries.
Apologists like Jackie Ballard, an ex-MP from the UK who is
now living in Iran says blaming religion for the denial of women's
rights in countries like Iran 'disguised as concern for human
rights' is tantamount to 'blaming Protestantism in Britain or
Catholicism in Mexico for endemic domestic violence' and to seeing
'paedophilia as a symptom of a Christian or western culture'. This
is nonsense. Islam is in political power in Iran and many countries
of the Middle East and North Africa and cannot be compared to
Protestantism in Britain. The Bible is not the law of the land in
Britain, while the Koran is in Iran; it is not in the constitution
and penal code nor enforced in the courts and by morality police in
Britain, while it is in Iran.
And that is exactly why Islam, and not Christianity for example, is at the forefront of the debate on women's rights in the 21st century. Islam in political power, or as a movement targeting political power (political Islam), is as much a political ideology as it is a religion; it aims to establish Islamic states and rules and needs political power to do so. This political power has enabled it to maim, gag and kill women on a mass scale. Political Islam is a reactionary contemporary movement that was the Right's alternative during the Cold War and also the result of Arab nationalism's failure. In Iran, in particular, political Islam was brought to the fore of the 1979 revolution vis-à-vis the Left and as a Cold war tool and because of an anti 'westernisation' and Islam-ridden tradition dominant in a majority of the intellectual and cultural sections of society. It was in Iran that the Islamic movement became a notable political force vying for power. This meant that the misogyny in Islam was given a state, laws, courts, the military and herds of police, Pasdars, Baseej, sisters of Zeinab, and Hezbollahs at its disposal to carry out its laws. In Iran, women were slashed with razors and had acid thrown in their faces, many were killed and imprisoned until the Islamic regime in Iran was able to enforce compulsory veiling and establish its rule.
It
is Racist not to Condemn Islam and Political Islam
This
vile political Islam - which has sentenced women who have been
raped to death for 'adultery', and has blamed mothers for not
satisfying husbands as the cause of child sexual abuse - also has
its defenders. Some of
them say that women in England, like in Iran and Afghanistan, also
face violence. Of
course women face violence everywhere but surely the situation of
women in Afghanistan and Iran are incomparable to situation of
women living in France and England.
And since when do we excuse violations because they happen
elsewhere? When
speaking of the status of women in Iran, they compare it with
Afghanistan and state it is better.
As if that's all those born in the region can expect.
They even go so far as to state that women in Iran have
freedoms denied to many in the West.
According to these racist cultural relativists, it is as if
women living in Iran cannot expect more freedoms or don't want
them. They say Iran is
an Islamic society and are incensed when we say it is not Islamic
but Islam-stricken. They
choose one of the many complex characteristics of a number of
people living in Iran and label the entire society with it.
Did they call it Islamic during the Shah's rule?
They go on to say it's the people's culture and religion.
They ignore the fact that Islam imposed its rule in Iran
through violence and terror. They
say Iran is Islamic so that they can more easily ignore the
violations committed against women by implying it is people's
choice to live the way they are forced to.
In fact, there is an immense anti-Islamic backlash in Iran
with people resisting Islam and its state despite the repression.
They call Iran Islamic so they can prevent us from
condemning Islam and political Islam by implying that any
condemnation is an insult to people's beliefs. In fact, they call
it Islamic in order to make it so. Though it’s untrue, even if
every person living in Iran had reactionary beliefs, it still
wouldn’t be acceptable. If everyone believes in the superiority
of their race, must we respect and accept their beliefs? Respecting
people's freedom of expression, belief and religion or atheism is
one thing; that doesn't mean that we must respect any belief,
however heinous. Of
course human beings must be respected, but that doesn't mean that
all beliefs must also be respected.
Should we respect fascism, racism, nationalism, and
ethnocentrism - they are all beliefs after all.
And when we raise these realities, condemn Islam and
political Islam and defend women's rights, they say we are racists
and are promoting abuse against Muslims.
Criticising beliefs is not racism.
Is it racist to condemn fascism, nationalism, capitalism,
sexism, religion? Does
a critique of fascism, nationalism or racism promote abuse against
fascists, nationalists, and racists?
If we criticise child labour, does it mean we are promoting
abuse against children who are forced to work? This is the pathetic
whining of reactionaries who want to silence defenders of women's
rights and frighten them into inactivity and submission.
Racism, rooted in capitalism, exists in society and has
nothing to do with a critique of Islam.
Don't non-Muslims also face racism?
These apologists go so far as to call it Islamophobia. This
is nonsense. Xenophobia
and homophobia, for example, are the hatred of people: foreigners
and homosexuals. You
cannot have a phobia against an idea.
If we are opposed to racial or sexual apartheid, does that
make us apartheid-phobic! If
we are opposed to racism and fascism does that mean we are
racist-phobic and fascism-phobic?
Come on. Opposing
violations of women's rights in Islam-stricken countries does not
serve racism - just like opposing Zionism does not make one an
anti-Semite. In fact,
it is racist to assume that all those living or born in the Middle
East are supporters of Islam and political Islam and that these
vile governments and the Islamic movement represent women when in
fact women are their first victims.
Labelling women's rights activists as racists is a
dim-witted ploy to justify and excuse women's status under Islam
and political Islam, and deny women and people living in the Middle
East and Iran universal rights and freedoms.
Those who say these things do so because they want to
maintain Islam. They
want to justify it. Excuse
it. They have an
interest in safeguarding religion and political Islam.
Or at best, they believe women in Iran and the Middle East
are sub-humans who actually enjoy being segregated, veiled, stoned,
flogged and dehumanised. Like
Islam, political Islam is antithetical to women's rights.
It is not just a matter of consciousness-raising and
creating a renaissance that pushes religion out of the public
sphere and eliminating its role in people's social lives, but also
completely eliminating political Islam and Islamic states and its
movement (as was done with Christianity).
Well-meaning people assert that we need to separate Islam
from political Islam in order to defend rights.
In fact, to defend universal rights, we must have the
courage to confront both. Any compromise with Islam is a compromise
on women's rights. There
can be no compromise on people's rights and dignity.
September
11: The True Face of Political Islam
On
September 11, the world came to know political Islam as never
before. What happened
in New York is happening everyday to women and people living under
the sword of Islam. On
September 11, the monster created by Western governments moved
beyond its control and the West is now moving to contain it.
The USA and Western governments want to contain only aspects
of it - those aspects of it that are moving outside of the region.
It has no problem leaving it contained in the region to
continue its reign of terror.
That is where 'fundamentalism' comes into good use.
It distinguished between the Islamists acceptable to the
West and those which are not.
This
is an important moment for those of us who have struggled against
Islam and political Islam. For
us, though, none is acceptable.
Just as it not acceptable for women, men and children to be
massacred in New York, it is unacceptable for them to be
slaughtered in Iran, Afghanistan and Northern Iraq.
Getting rid of political Islam is a precondition to any
improvements in the status of women and people in the Middle East.
The establishment of a Palestinian state and an end to
sanctions against Iraq will get rid of the primary grounds for
political Islam's recruitment.
The overthrow of the Islamic regime in Iran will also weaken
political Islam considerably.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is a pillar of political Islam;
its overthrow is being delayed by Western government support.
Those who truly support women's rights must demand secular
societies in the Middle East.
The separation of religion from the state, education, and a
citizen's identity, relegating religion to the private affair of
people is not only realizable but a necessity after the experience
in Iran, Afghanistan and the Middle East. They must also defend the
right to asylum for all women fleeing Islam-stricken societies.
It is our task to move public opinion towards people's
movements in Iran and the Middle East for secularism, freedom and
equality and universal rights and away from both poles of USA and
Islamic terrorism.
The
21st Century must be the century that rids itself of
political Islam. This
will begin in Iran.
The
above is Maryam Namazie's speech at a March 8 conference entitled
'Islam, Secularism and Women in the Middle East', organised by the
Middle East Centre for Women's Studies and Medusa on 9 March 2002
in London.