Month: March 2022

What I am eager to better understand is the dynamics of women in Islam. In various readings, including the book I am reading in book club, authors are firm in their stance that Islam is not inherently oppressive. It is through different interpretations of sacred texts that people practice Islam. Prevalent in these readings though, is women are equal to men but are not valued like them. For instance, women doing housework and men working outside of the house.

Or in the context of homosexuality, gay people are not oppressed in religion itself, but face scrutiny by individuals. For instance, practicing Islam but being outed by a member of their family. The tensions between different minority identities and how they are treated in religion at it’s core versus other religious practicer’s are two very different things.

How are these tensions mediated? Especially when authority figures like policemen perpetuate these issues?

Further, I am not suggesting religion itself is the problem. I am just suggesting that the intentions of Islam versus the way it is practiced by people individually are two different things. The same goes for Christianity and the intentions of government. In theory there should be a separation between church and state. In practice, church and state is not separate. I just feel like it’s important to look at intention versus how different values are carried out.

As I read the first chapter of “Homosexuality in Islam,” I found myself invested in the tension between the claims of the author and the actual descriptions of homophobia in Morocco. Specifically, the case of Mehdi. The author asserted that Islam was not vehemently anti-gay in theory. For Mehdi, both Mehdi, his lawyer, and the author claim that the ways in which Islam is practiced in Morocco, it is not safe for homosexuals. The author then goes on to describe the issues of abuse that gay people face at the hands of authority figures.

The tension between the praxis and actual message the author is trying to perpetuate are contrasting views. I am eager to read more about the other applications of the readings of the Qu’ran and hadith and etc so I can better understand the argument being proposed by the author. Another interesting topic described in the reading that parallels the tensions of homosexuality, is the controversy of the hadith. What is it about the hadith that makes it valid and traceable?

Like my questions about the podcasts, I am curious about the relationships between the first wives and second wives in these multi-marriages. As described in this chapter, polygyny works best when the wives are present in decisions. For instance, the descriptions of Walladah being eager to establish connections with the potential second wives. While it seems self explanatory that every party should be consenting to the changes being made in a marriage, I do have to wonder to what extent Muslim women continue to be faced with criticism for not being married and further, a part of a polygamous (not sure the appropriate word) marriage. Unrelatedly, I really enjoy reading about this topic and am interested to know more about this rise in polygynous relationships.

Most interestingly about these podcasts to me is how the wives in the polygamous relationships handle the relationships with their husband. Is the management of their emotions a manifestation of sabr? For instance, in the Increasing Polygamy podcast Aliyah describes an “epiphany” where she became open to the second marriage her husband was taking on. I have to wonder where that comes from. Is it spiritual or religious or personal?

Further, I also found the way these relationships are structured captivating. Are the relationships with the husband separate from each other. Sure, they function as family units some of the time but are the wives involved with each other? How is the physical and emotional navigated in a polygamous relationship? The podcasts addressed these thoughts in passing but I do find myself curious.

As I was doing readings in my PHL of feminism class there was a lot of crossover on the demands of motherhood. In this chapter there was a description of motherhood as a personal hell. Paralleled in Tong and Botts called Feminist Thought, a variety of feminists became conflicted while discussing motherhood. Is motherhood limiting to women? Is motherhood freeing? Is it better to go about it technologically?

Responsibility for mother’s is also completely different than that of the father. There can be question of paternity not maternity. Men can leave, women are forced to raise their children. I find the commitment aspect super interesting. Women are expected to veil, engage with sabr and have children. What are these expectations for men? Navigating these different expectations and how they conflict from men to women is a very interesting conversation that occurred to me most in the navigation motherhood and their importance to family.

This reading was not assigned in our class, however, it was in my PHL of Feminism. Upon reading the first chapter of this, I recognized a multitude of connections to our class discussions. The term moral universalism is especially important here. Moral Universalism is defined as the notion that some things are better and worse for human beings across all contemporary contexts. In the context of missionary feminists and Islamic women, there is a western liberatory narrative. Missionary feminists believe that the practice of Islamic culture is objectively oppressive or “an other” to Western society. The tensions between missionary feminists and Islamic women also tie back to sabr and controversy of veiling.

Sabr is connected in the sense that passivity is deemed as weak. So, what is right and wrong or what is “gender-just” ? Is there a right way universally to be a woman? The controversy of veiling is relevant here in terms of power. In other words, is veiling a power over women or is it an autonomous decision made by women? The real issue here along with that of debating sabr is that missionary feminists don’t have a relativist consideration of other cultures differing from their own. Regardless of the reasons someone is doing something, unless practices mimic that of the west, missionary feminists want to change it. For instance, the quote “Afghan women might be called to personhood in a different language.”

My apologies if my thoughts don’t make sense!

First and foremost, before reading this article my perspective on the hijab was strictly based on my high school friends experience of wearing one. She always said it was empowering to feel so connected to her religion.

According to this article however, there is also an opposing view. Despite the hijab giving women a sense of connection to Islam and an expression of devotion, the hijab is just another way of establishing control over women.

While both perspectives are equally compelling, this article provides an insight into a topic I was not aware carried controversy. I never realized that there were laws in place forcing women to comply with wearing the hijab. Laws like that create controversy and complicate the sense of autonomy and choice I had always associated with the hijab.

Overall, I did find myself a bit over my head in this reading. I am not very well read on religion already, so going into these stories makes me curious about what really happened versus what didn’t.

Is to “vindicate” related to things getting better soon or clearing someones name of their slander and belittlement?

What is kayd and how is it related to slander? Is the plot the accusation?

However despite my questions, the concept of the truth eventually coming out seems very relevant to this reading. I also very much appreciated how the author(s) intertwined two stories to show the importance.

In general, human interaction is a complex feat. It is through interaction that we can build relationships, construct movements, and understand people differing from us. When aligned with feminist ideology, however, terminology and application conflate and complicate. For example, based on the context, movements like feminism become controversial. In the early developments of feminism, feminists like Mary Wollstonecraft advocated for white women’s moral and mental capacity. Due to the exclusivity of feminism as it developed, women of color expressed their disconnection with feminism as a movement and feminist as a descriptor. Like the complexities and dual meanings of feminism, the term agency in Islam has multiple meanings. In other words, how do you exercise your freedom? Is there a right way or a wrong way to do so? The ways in which we navigate these questions change the meaning and application of agency.

Simply, agency can be characterized by acting on your autonomy. For example, as a person with freedom, you can act on your freedom through speech and etc. In this framework, agency is about outward action within the western context. Like feminism, this definition of agency does not consider the cultural differences outside of a liberal and western society. In the context of Islam, a woman’s agency can be characterized with passivity and as nonpolitical, whereas in the western context a woman’s agency is described as active and political. The contrasting and even competing characterizations of agency in these two contexts interrogate the compatibility of Islam with feminism. In other words, like the reclamation of the term queer by LGBTQ+ individuals, is it possible that the enaction of passivity by Muslim women is an act of women redeploying structures used to oppress them? And further, is redeploying that passivity an impactful way of exercising agency? In pondering these questions, it is important to consider intersectionality and the variations in culture. No woman’s experience is identical, so applying western ideology to a non-western group of people is not constructive in trying to understand their methods of interacting or resisting structures surrounding them. Simply, no one way of exercising agency will look the same.

In “Feminist Theory, Embodiment, and the Docile Agent” by Saba Mahmood, Mahmood describes multiple of the Muslim woman’s practices of agency. On page 206, for instance, Mahmood writes that “the women she studied use what we in the West might prefer to consider instruments of their oppression as a means to assert their value both collectively, through the ceremonies they organize and stage, and individually…” (Mahmood, p.206). In summary, by “insisting on their dynamic complementarity with men” as Mahmood expresses, is a means of resisting and limiting domination. The desire of attaining autonomy or self-expression, can spark resistance, no matter how inexplicit. A less abstract example is detailed by Mahmood on page 209. Mahmood describes how modern Egyptian women are starting to wear a veil again “and identify it as a symbol of resistance to the commodification of women’s bodies in the popular media.” So in engaging with this practice, women are practicing a norm while still partaking in going against something, in this case the commodification of the female body. Despite the intricate differences between these two examples, each are non-intense and apolitical forms of resistance that utilize what is deemed as “instruments of their oppression.”

In contrast to the previous definition of agency, agency is broader than one’s ability to act or push for change. In the Islamic context, agency can also be “the capacity to endure, suffer, and persist.” (Mahmood, p.217). For example, Mahmood writes, “consider women’s ability to survive the ongoing presence of this pain not so much as defiance but in terms of an active engagement.” (Mahmood, p.217). In other words, through enduring hardship or oppression, you are exercising an agency internally with acceptance. Another example of endurance as agency is detailed on page 218 where Mahmood describes a conversation with their friend Nadia. Because being married in Egypt is so important for women’s status in Egypt, Nadia described the importance of having a strong personality to ‘endure’ the hardship of a ‘being-single situation’. In making the conscious decision to be patient (sabr), women are exercising an agency. Sabr, then, is “the act of persevering in the face of difficulty without complaint.” (Mahmood, p.220)

However, the ways in which women practice sabr are different. Mahmood also went into detail recalling another conversation they had with a friend named Sana. Sana described her interactions with sabr, similarly to Nadia in needing to be strong, but felt that practicing sabr required self-esteem as opposed to endurance. Sana said, “self-esteem makes you independent of what other people think of you. You begin to think of your worth not in terms of marriage and men, but in terms of who you really are…” (Mahmood, p.221). In other words, while similar to Nadia’s point of view, Sana suggests that sabr is less about endurance but acceptance of fate. There is still an element of patience in this agency but the acceptance of circumstances is more reflective of the situation and less of the person. As opposed to Nadia, who’s acceptance is more reflective of the person suffering in silence.

In summary, agency encapsulates a vast number of definitions. Agency on the surface relates to the capacity to act and engage with autonomy. In a Muslim context, agency becomes less explicit, and becomes defined by practices within the norms. Agency can also be enacted without pushback against the norms at all. For example, sabr is about enduring and accepting fate. It is through conscious choice in acts of defiance or enduring that women are able to engage with agency. Despite the non-inclusive roots of feminist theory, there is no one way to engage with your autonomy, rather there are many. It is up to women themselves to decide how they wish to engage with the world around them. And it is by considering cultures outside of our own, and experiences that differ from ours that feminism can be accessible to more than the upper-middle class white women. Like the multiplicities of agency, there are multiplicities of women.