Author: admin

In relation to the film “Invoking Justice,” “Sisters In Islam” contextualizes the movement by women to be treated as equals as they are described in the Quran. What I am confused about is the difference in name from Women’s Jammat and Sisters in Islam?

While establishing seemingly self-explanatory points such as, “not Islam being oppressive but the different subjective practices and interpretations of the Quran,” this reading also provided me with more insight into the various ways violence is enacted on these groups. Not only through physical attacks but by undermining the work they do. I feel that it is imperative to differentiate but also name these attacks on this group as violence. Violence is defined as a destructive force. The devastation and violence of words is vital to conversations surrounding women’s liberation as well as advocacy in general.

The film entitled “Invoking Justice” details the movement of the Women’s Jammat. Unclear from my viewing, was what the Jammat’s authority actually is. As it appears the Jammat very much advocates and aids in public awareness and seeks for justice on a case by case basis. What I found profound about this film was the ease that many of the women appeared to have towards such heavy issues such as murder, suicide and domestic abuse. In their meetings there was a clear passion but also desensitization that allowed for joking and light hearted conversation alongside the advocacy and legal proceedings. Further and also interrelated with this observation is how this desensitization occurs. Early on in the film one of the Women’s Jammat members says that “violence is a fact of life.” This same woman also goes on to say that the violence wasn’t even recognized as violence because of the normalcy of it. What is it that makes violence so normalized?

A big take away from this film, specifically related to its ending is how justice is not always served. In the case of the seventeen year old girl who was murdered by her husband and his family, justice was not served. In the case of the mother and daughter, two women were given a chance to escape the persecution of a man who should have protected them: a husband/a father. The steps the Women’s Jammat is taking to invoke justice is truly groundbreaking. I hope to read more on this in the future.

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.