The Biggest Lie You've Been Told About the Oppression Of Muslim Women

[cbayer]

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/17552-the-biggest-lie-youve-been-told-about-the-oppression-of-muslim-women

Saturday, 13 July 2013 12:27
By Lauren Rankin, Policy Mic | Op-Ed


(Photo: Héctor / Flickr)

Over the weekend, prolific writer Joyce Carol Oates joined the fray of those who characterize Islam as inherently evil or misogynist with a series of rapidly criticized tweets indicting Islam for the rape of women in Egypt. Yet again, Islam is essentialized, demonized, and stereotyped as a violent and misogynistic faith, one from which Muslim women need to be saved. But no matter the rhetoric within which it shrouds itself, make no mistake: this is Islamophobia, a form of racism, and it does nothing to solve the problems of violence against women and patriarchal domination in general, because Islam is not the cause.

Let’s make something clear: the sexual harassment and rape of women in Egypt (as it is anywhere) is horrendous and unacceptable. Clearly, something is at play here, if that many women report being sexually harassed. I just don’t think that "something" is Islam. If it was, sexual harassment and rape would be limited to Muslim countries and communities. But as we well know, that is simply not true. Rape, sexual harassment, and violence against women are not isolated to a particular faith, but instead, they exist in every country, religion, and community that is patriarchal. The problem is not Islam; the problem is patriarchy.

Joyce Carol Oates conveniently left out the cases of sexual harassment, rape, and violence against women that exist in other faiths. She made no mention of the the Catholic Church, which has been embroiled in a worldwide scandal for the last decade in which priests sexually abused children and were often protected by the Church’s leadership. She said nothing of evangelical Christian leaders who openly endorse marital rape. She didn’t reference the community of ultra-Orthodox Jews in Brooklyn, NY ostracized and belittled the victims of sexual abuse, rather than the rabbi who abused them. Sexual violence is not particular to Islam. It’s part and parcel of many religious sects that are violent and patriarchal in their expressions.

Islam is a favorite target of liberals and conservatives alike. From state bills banning Sharia Law (like the one in North Carolina that is now being used as a prop for an omnibus anti-abortion bill) to liberal comedian Bill Maher claiming that Islam is a uniquely violent religion, Islam is an easy target for ridicule and demonization. Because Islamophobia is a form of racism, a means ofessentializing a group based on certain characteristics, it defies political ideology and runs through every political party and faction in America. Racism does not split on party lines.

more at link

[Stargazer09]

1. Interesting article

There are a lot of factors to consider, but she's definitely right that rape is not limited to Islam.

[cbayer]

2. I thought it was an interesting perspective as well and quite provocative.

My daughter recently married a Muslim man and we are quite interested in how this is going to evolve. It has already been an interesting trip.

[Stargazer09]

3. I can imagine

No matter what, trying to merge two different religions into one marriage is a challenge. I hope your daughter and her husband are able to make things work for the best.

[Igel]

7. True but misused.

She argues against "Islam --> rape".

She disproves "No Islam --> no rape." Then, showing that where there's no Islam you still have rape, she then concludes that they're unrelated. Not convinced. Try this one.

"Gun liberty --> gun violence."

"No gun liberty --> no gun violence." But even places with strong limits on gun rights have gun violence, so unlimited rights to own and carry guns have no relation to gun violence. Well, that is claimed by some, so perhaps we should make the problem really, really obvious.

"War --> gun violence."
"No war --> No gun violence." But there's gun violence where there are no wars, so there's no causal connection between gun-related deaths and warfare.

Bad logic, numerous counts. I've seen scholarly articles published that were like this. Some fields have their own standards for argumentation that make even linguists blush, and we're not always the most rigorous and sometimes rely on the old "Well, something's going on and unless you have a better solution this has to be the right one" argument. (Yeah, the last one left talking wins.) At least in the physical sciences you'd get " ... unless somebody finds a better solution this one accounts for much of the data and has some predictive value, so we accept it provisionally."

It goes on. This is a modern apologia. Apologias rely as much or more on rhetorical figures than they do on logic. At least historically apologia tended to try to follow some sort of logic, even if the nature of the defense necessary can't be logically rigorous due to the nature of the evidence necessarily cited.

[dimbear]

4. If it was, sexual harassment and rape would be limited to Muslim countries and communities.

One could readily drive a truck through the hole in the logic here.

Compare the statement "people are sometimes crippled by accidents, so polio is not a problem."

[MellowDem]

5. What a shitty article

Things wrong about it: Islamophobia isn't racism, no more than conserve phobia is. Author is stupid to keep parroting that and doesnt understand even the most basic definition of words. And criticizing Islam for being a sexist, violent religion isn't irrational, so it's not a phobia, it's a good point.

Another thing: Islam IS inherently violent and misogynistic. Read the Koran. It's all the proof that is needed.

Another thing: you can criticize Islam without saying other religions do it too, and your points are still valid. Yes, all the Abrahamic faiths are misogynistic, hateful creeds. No, people who point that out aren't racist.

Easy as pie to shoot down such stupid shit. This author is just dumb.

[cbayer]

10. I liked it.

While Islamophobia and racism are forms of bigotry based on different aspects of groups of people, it's still bigotry.

You may disagree with what she is saying, but she is hardly dumb.

[MellowDem]

14. Nope, she's dumb

Because she doesn't know the basic definitions of words and misuses them throughout her article, coming to terribly ignorant conclusions as a result.

Islamophobia isn't bigotry. It's an irrational fear of Islam. Some of it may be based on bigotry, or not. And certainly, criticizing Islam isn't automatically Islamophobic. The criticisms can be quite rational, like Islam being inherently misogynistic.

Islam is a belief system, not a group of people. You can't be bigoted towards a belief system. Islam is not a person. Treating ideas with contempt, even based on prejudices, is not bigotry, it's just poor argumentation if it's based on ignorance. There's a lot of Muslimphobia on the right. But that's distinctive from rational criticism of Islam itself. Treating ideas with contempt based on the actual substance of the idea is in no way bigoted.

I get the distinct feeling that this is a case of projection for many believers. Their belief systems they claim to follow are bigoted, and what better way to not examine that nasty reality than twisting the definition of bigotry so that everyone is, especially those criticizing religion. It's stupid sad intellectual dishonesty.

[cbayer]

15. So judgmental.

Once again you decide how words are defined then call people names for using completely acceptable definitions that are agreed upon by many.

Phobia, as I am sure you know, is used to describe all kinds of bigotry. Homophobia is the most common term used to describe bigotry against GLBT people.

You continue to make the argument that religious beliefs are a choice. I think you are wrong about this. Is not believing a choice?

Stop with the psychiatric diagnoses. Even if you are trained in the field, which I doubt, it would be unethical to make these kinds of statements.

I am done talking to you. You are too dogmatic and use the same arguments over and over again. You may be a dem, but mellow, you are not. At least not by any definition I am familiar with.

Good luck with your proselytizing and your attempts to justify islamophobia and other bigoted positions against people who believe in a god or gods.

[MellowDem]

19. You should see how the Koran judges people, a lot harsher than me

Homophobia is nearly always a product of bigotry, though it doesn't have to be. That's because the phobia is related to people, homosexuals, and not to an idea, like Islam. Technically, homophobia doesn't automatically arise from bigotry, though it usually does given that connection.

A more direct comparison to Homophobia would be Muslimphobia, because then you're describing people, and even then, people can choose or not choose to be Muslims, people don't choose their sexual orientation. Still, a lot of the bigotry on the right is directed at Muslims, not Islam, and the source is usually prejudice of all sorts of things, like ethnicity or culture etc. Calling all Muslims beasts or rapists or what have you would be bigotry. Substantive criticism of Islam itself on the right is pretty rare, mostly because the same criticism applies to Christianity, of which many of the far right claim to be a part of. So criticsim of Islam itself is usually based in ignorance, though not always, and many on the right actually make legitimate criticisms of Islam, even if the source of their criticism is irrational, and they're quite hypocritical. For example, you'll see some on the right scoff at the miracles of the Koran as unbelievable while fully believing in the miracles of the Bible.

The creation of the term "Islamophobia", which seemed to try to falsly conflate it with the usual bigotry of homophobia, is mostly to blame, and was the point of those who made up the term. It's a crappy term, and one that has led people to believe that criticizing Islam is somehow the same as criticizing homosexuals.

Imagine conservatives coming up with the term "Christianityophobia" or "conservaphobia". It's called trying to falsly play the victim, and conservatives do it quite often. The War on Christmas is a wonderful example. Indeed, when Christians claim they are being persecuted merely because people criticize Christianity, that's no different than what this article is saying about Islam.

Both reflect the tremondous privilege religious people have. Many Muslims have HUGE privilege issues with Islam. In many Islamic societies, criticism of Islam is not even allowed, and the punishment for doing so is severe. Islam is entitled to special protection for many Muslims, just as Christianity is for many of the far right Christians in the US. Faith-based religions, at their core, are not so different.

Not believing in something is definitely a choice. All beliefs are choices. How are religious beliefs different from any other beliefs? We don't operate under mind control. I'm not saying all choices of beliefs are made without any sorts of constraints or outside influence, just that they are a choice, unlike, say, one's skin color.

If I ask you whether you believe I have a talking unicorn as my best friend, whatever you answer, it will have been a choice you made.

I don't think it's unethical to say my opinion on a discussion forum.

[okasha]

46. Even using your very restricted (and incorrect)

parsing of the word Islamophobia--you're dead wrong. Many people in the US do in fact fear the belief system of Islam. What do you think all those red-state statutes forbidding the implementation of Sharia Law are all about? It's about fear of the belief system.

[MellowDem]

49. I never said people don't fear Islam...

Or that the fear can't be irrational. A lot of the fear on the right is irrational, if not hypocritical. But a lot of fear of Islam in general is perfectly rational.

For example, it's rational to fear Islam for the misogyny it spreads, because it is a substantial part of the belief system, proven by any reading of the religious texts.

The believers I least fear are the most intellectually dishonest ones. They lie to themselves and others to ignore the nastiest parts of their religion while keeping the label. It's a rational response to such a terrible belief system to simply lie to yourself about it and say, for example, that Islam is a peaceful religion that is all about gender equality. Christianity has already created an alternate universe apart from its texts in order to survive in the modern world, and Islam will go through the same process. Heck, there is an amusement park being built about Noah's ark, a story where God committed mass genocide over the entire Earth. Watering down, lying about, or just plain ignoring what amounts to terrible religious texts with so many contradictions and inconsistencies is the main challenge of Abrahamic religions today.

[okasha]

44. So who died and made you the chairperson

of the Academie Americaine?

By the way, you seem to have a little problem with the meaning of words yourself. What's "conserve phobia?" An irrational fear of jam?

[rug]

55. Lol!

I hate compote but I have my reasons.

[MellowDem]

56. Pointing out dumb as shit articles is presumptuous now?

Who made you chairperson of the School of Snarky McSnark? Was it the same person that taught you the best form of discussion is ad hom irrelevant attacks?

As for conserve phobia, well, it's a made up word as basic reading comprehension would've pointed out, and also combined with autocorrect, leads to hilarious results. Results which, by the way, are still far more compelling than this stupid as all shit article. This article has been repeatedly destroyed on here, and the apologists for it have engaged in a lot of logical fallacies, just like the author. It's fun to see people ignore devastating relevant points against their position and play the schoolyard game.

[okasha]

57. I was freely elected as chairperson of snark, I will have you know.

And if you think I'm sarcastic, you should see some of my competition.

What's actually presumptuous is your presenting what you seem to think are definitive statements without any corroboration or support. You've been called on this numerous times and don't seem to think anything but your unsupported opinion is required. Now, if you're actually trying to persuade others, that's insufficient.

If, on the other hand, you're simply grandstanding to reassure yourself of your own superior intellect, you've convinced no one but yourself.

[MellowDem]

58. No, I made relevant points about why I think the article is wrong...

You addressed zero of them. Indeed, ignoring the relevant points seems to be your only strategy. Maybe some more ad Homs. Making this about me personally is your go to. You have no argument I guess.

[Behind the Aegis]

6. What an incredibly piss poor article.

"Islamophobia is a form of racism,"

No, no, it is not. It is a form of bigotry, but it is not racism. The key-jingling in the article ("but...but..but...such and such wasn't mentioned&quot is pathetic, but oh so common.

[MADem]

36. People who subscribe to the tenets of Islam come from all races, so that's just ignorance on the

part of the writer.

[cbayer]

38. I don't think it's ignorance so much as it is just sloppy.

What she clearly seems to mean is bigotry and uses racism loosely in its place, imo.

[MADem]

39. She's probably already gotten an earful on that score. nt

[okasha]

8. There's nothing quite like

suggesting that patriarchy is the root of a problem to send some of the gentlemen members into a hissyfit.

[cbayer]

9. Policy Mic is an interesting site.

Articles are written by very young authors who often have a unique and intriguing perspective.

This seems more about feminism and patriarchy than religion and I agree with many of the points she makes. I particularly agree with her position that stereotyping Muslim women, then using them as excuses to wage war, is pretty hideous.

Comparing Islamophobia to racism is more of a semantic issue and not reason to dismiss everything she has to say, imo.

[Taverner]

11. Interesting, but missing a bunch of key points

Did you know Iranian Islam in the early 70s was one of the most tolerant forms in the world?

Irony

[cbayer]

12. Tolerant in what way?

I understand that women had many more liberties in Saddam's Iraq - more educational and vocational opportunities.

[Taverner]

17. Yes yes and yes

Iranian women wore bikinis on beaches - it was a bit more like Turkey

You can wear thongs on Turkish beaches (for now)

I have no respect for enforced modesty

[cbayer]

18. I had the opportunity to visit Turkey in 2012.

The variety of roles and clothing worn by the women was really fascinating.

I did not get out of Istanbul, but found it one of the most fascinating places I have ever visited.

The calls to prayer were very moving.

I wish I could have communicated more, because I would have liked to talk to many of the women I saw.

Sadly, it appears that Turkey may be making a hard right turn in terms of theocracy and women's rights.

[MADem]

37. Well, the Shah helped that along to no small extent--he gave "rights" to women.

He outlawed hijab, in essence (though there was no punishment for those who chose to wear it). He put women in public, in the workplace, in universities. He raised expectations for fifty percent of the population, anyway. Pity he wasn't a bit better at implementing the "constitutional" part of his constitutional monarchy.

Iran used to be full of Jews and Christian Armenians. Not so much anymore.

[Taverner]

40. He was forcibly trying to modernize Iran. It worked for Ataturk.

However, Ataturk painted himself a man of the people. A middle class Turk many could identify. The Shah acted like royalty, living in a castle etc.

[MADem]

43. Yes--the Shah wanted an Imperial History (like the Queen of England) that didn't exist.

He thought he could make it work with lots of gilt and fruit-salad uniforms with foot high hats and jewel-encrusted sashes.

In Iran, wealth and "trappings" are very admired, but at the same time, they are very envied. He would have been better off adopting an attitude that suggested he didn't care about the luxury of his surroundings, that they were just there as a function of the role he played, even while he covertly enjoyed them, but it was all too obvious that he took delight in farting through silk. When he became ill, that attitude was as much his undoing as anything else. Had he been a bit less imperious, he might have done better. Unfortunately, he kind of had the stiffness of Nixon in his approach to human interactions. His wife was much better at the PR game, but he always liked her a bit "overdressed." After Shah died, she loosened up considerably in terms of her outward presentation.

The Bazaaris, who thought (and who were promised) they'd get a better deal from Khomeini, learned to their dismay that over the long haul they would have been better off under Shah. The ulema stripped them of their power and taxed them to shit--now the bazaar is not the vibrant POLITICAL place it used to be, and even much of the business they used to enjoy has gone to individual shops. They were betrayed and gutted, in essence. If they had it to do over again, I suspect they'd have rather bided their time and worked with Reza--they'd be in better financial shape, certainly....!

[okasha]

45. Well, the secret police

and imprisonment and torture of dissidents might have had something to do with his fall, too. One of my major professors was the sole-surviving adult male in his family--his father and brother both died in prison under hideous circumstances.

[MADem]

47. Evin gets a way-better workout nowadays than it did under the Shah...!

Nowadays, they call you and tell you that they've dumped your kid's corpse in a sack outside the back door--if they don't bury the child and not bother to tell you he's dead.

That said, I agree Shah was no choirboy when it came to the Gang That Couldn't Spy Straight (SAVAK). They most certainly engaged in cruelties, though not to the extent of the current regime. They also did the odd public hanging-not like nowadays, where they do hangings by crane in a travelling show from town to town.

SAVAK were very clumsy, very obvious, and very incompetent, while being ubiquitous. They used to search my home with frequency, and often left things behind that fell out of their pockets when they'd look under my bed. No, I'm not kidding....! They left scuff marks on the floor, were obvious when they ruffled through belongings, as if they wanted a person to know they'd been there. I would also have to tell them to not breathe down the phone line when I was making a call, because it made it difficult for me to hear the other party. For a time I lived very close to their HQ, which was close to the Palace, which put me on their radar. I used to wish they'd follow me late at night, when there were greater opportunities to get mugged or stabbed, but the bastards didn't like keeping late hours, it seemed. I suppose if I wanted to do something nefarious, the best time to do it was round midnight. I used to fuck with them a bit, for sport, but I also knew that it was smart to watch one's assets when they were around.

[Taverner]

48. I may catch a lot of flak for this, but I wished the Soviet Vanguardists took power in 79

It would have freaked the US out completely, but I view the Cold War differently than most.

I don't think there was an Evil Empire or a Good Empire

There were just two empires, hurdling towards their demise

The next shoe is about to drop

[MADem]

50. I won't give you flak, but I will say it wouldn't have served the people of Iran well at all.

Of course, what happened in 79 didn't serve them either.

The Soviets were "in" Iran here and there, doing the odd construction projects, and they weren't very nice, to put it politely. They probably gave as much help to the pasardan as Iraq did....!

[Taverner]

51. Couldn't be worse than a theocracy

Say what you will about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Afghani women were educated, the local health centers built up. They really did try to win hearts and minds.

Problem is the rural Afghanis wanted no part of it - and so it became war

[MADem]

53. Iran didn't need any of that, though.

There was one of the hugest middle classes in SW Asia in Iran--it was large, and getting larger. People had aspirations and were looking UP. They dressed for success and lived like their futures would be better than their pasts. Even the poorest of the poor in Iran had a "make work" job. It may not have been uplifting, but it put bread (which was heavily subsidized, cheap and delicious) on the table. There were more "grass waterers" in Teheran than you could shake a stick at--don't bother with sprinkler systems, guys with hoses are the way to go! For HIGHWAY medians, too! Parks, the "emerald necklace" around the city--it was kept green by guys with very long hoses...who stood there with them. No lie.

Health care was plentiful and cheap--it was rudimentary in some locales and circumstances, but it wasn't unavailable. The Shah prioritized education, he offered scholarships hand over fist to the poor and smart, and he didn't exclude the women at all. He built universities in the hinterlands as well as in the largest cities.

That wasn't their issue--they wanted more of a say in GOVERNANCE. The majlis wasn't representing them sufficiently and the Shah didn't have a light hand when he wanted something done--no one will argue with that; people who were related to shah or to his inside guys got preference. I had a friend who was related to Jamshid Amouzegar (I understand he is still living at his advanced age--in USA now); those kinds of relationships were REALLY useful. The USSR wouldn't have given them more of a say in governance. It would have been "Meet the new boss, worse than the old boss."

You look at the early pictures of the protests, and there was such hope. The WOMEN actually thought that Khomeini would come in, be a caretaker, and then allow free and fair elections. They were so hopeful and so damn foolish. I told them they'd be in chador head to foot within a year, better pull the sheets off the bed if you don't have one in your closet, and they would laugh at me and not believe me. Of course, nowadays they "let" the women wear, along with their heat-trapping scarves, those charming "manteaus"--read hot ugly raincoats; just the thing for those sizzling summer months!

The messages were so mixed, and so tailored, in the year and a half leading up to the revolution; what they were saying in Tajrish was not was they were saying in the south of the city. And what they were saying in Qom was something else altogether.

So now they deal with sanctions, they deal with -- no lie -- high gas prices (it used to be pennies a liter) and gasoline that is rationed because they don't have refining capacity and have to IMPORT the stuff, they have to deal with a government that cracks down at a whim, that doesn't let the people choose the candidates who stand for election, that demonizes gays (who were tolerated in an "amused" fashion back in the seventies; though I am not going so far as to say they weren't discriminated against....they were "fine" so long as they weren't a relative, is how most Persians dealt with the topic), that criminalizes the consumption of alcohol (in a city that used to have some of the best bars and discos in the region--guys from Saudi Arabia used to come to Iran for R and R)...

Of course, if you go way north, to the top of the city (where they have built so many high rise apartment buildings the place is damn near unrecognizable), that is where the upper middle class folks live. There are very high end stores up that way, a huge indoor "mall" that is like a bazaar for the wealthy where the baseej don't go, lots of places to hang out (if you have money) and live what looks like kind of a normal life with normal associations... and you'll see more nose jobs than you will ever see in Los Angeles (it's freaky how many young people get nose jobs over there--the Persian nose is a very distinct thing, and way too many youngsters just aren't loving it...it's not just the girls, either, the rich young boys are going under the knife too--often it is a birthday or graduation present--they want to look like something other than a Persian, it's kind of sad).

Anyway, it is a very schizophrenic place these days. Smart young population that wants more. Farty old asshole ulema keeping them down. Fear of "red lines." Cross one (say the wrong thing, act the wrong way) and the boom gets lowered, and it could be very BAAAAAAD indeed. It's like FOOTLOOSE on steroids, with the consequences for some misbehaviors being death.

The "frame" for these kids isn't "The Shah" at all--he is the distant past, in the world of their grandparents, ancient history, they never knew him. Their frame is "When I can get on the internet and use a proxy and really get out on the WWW, I see people living this way and that way and doing this thing, and that, and I want that too." They want to live their own lives and make their own choices; not be told what to do, what to wear, and how they are "allowed" to interact with members of the opposite sex in a public setting.

They want to be citizens of the world, like lots of kids these days.

[Taverner]

54. +100

[Act_of_Reparation]

59. Nonsense

It wasn't that Islam was more tolerant, but that Iran was a secular society.

[Taverner]

60. Yes, it was a secular society

But at that time the more popular Islam was a more secular strain

Many of those moderate clerics were chased out or disappeared after the revolution

Imams were told what to preach

In a big sense, Khomeini took a cue from the Communists and went Vanguard

[LostOne4Ever]

13. The author might have a decent point somewhere

But its hard to get to them because of all the poorly made arguments and the strong dose of religious privelege in the article.

Yes, patriarchy is the ultimate problem, but this does not excuse any religion for perpetuating said patriarchy. Nor does the patriarchy of other religions and cultures mitigate this fact either.

Criticism of a religion is not in and of itself a form of bigotry. Claiming that bringing attention to a religions promotion of patriarchy does nothing to actually help stop patriarchy is ridiculous. This is the very confrontation against patriarchy that is needed.

Just because someone criticizes one religion does not mean they are excusing other religions for doing the same thing. One does not need to criticize every single sect of every single religion every time one wants to critique a specific religion.

Claiming so is an effort to curtain any attempt to criticize said religion and is a type of religious privilege, and instead of fighting patriarchy it protects it. If we wants to fight patriarchy we must be willing to sacrifice our own sacred cows in the process.

Whether it be what we watch on Televisions, what video games we play, the activities we participate, or even our own religion it all needs to be questioned.

[cbayer]

16. She's a graduate student, so I am going to cut her some slack.

Having truth dig republish her piece is a pretty big deal, but that's neither here nor there.

I don't read her as excusing the patriarchy in religions. I see her as objecting to it being used to specifically attack Islam. She argues that patriarchy should be confronted in general, but I don't see the argument the Islam should be exempted from this confrontation - quite the contrary.

In general, I think her point is that the specific attention to the misogyny in many Islam cultures is being used by those that wish, for whatever reason, to attack Islam in general, while sparing other cultures where the problem is just as severe.

I do agree wholeheartedly with your last sentence.

[LostOne4Ever]

20. I didn't catch that

A big congrats to her on getting published then. In light of that I guess its not that bad of an article.

That said, from the way she phrased her article I got the impression that to her that anyone who criticized Islam without bring up EVERY other religion is an islamophobe. If this is not what she means then I apologize.

However the following statements just seem like she is trying to excuse Islam:


[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#dcdcdc; padding-bottom:5px; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-bottom:none; border-radius:0.4615em 0.4615em 0em 0em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/17552-the-biggest-lie-youve-been-told-about-the-oppression-of-muslim-women[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#f0f0f0; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-top:none; border-radius:0em 0em 0.4615em 0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]Yet again, Islam is essentialized, demonized, and stereotyped as a violent and misogynistic faith, one from which Muslim women need to be saved. But no matter the rhetoric within which it shrouds itself, make no mistake: this is Islamophobia, a form of racism, and it does nothing to solve the problems of violence against women and patriarchal domination in general, because Islam is not the cause.

For example, in the above passage it comes across as if she is saying that if you point out the mysogynistic parts of Islam, then you are an Islamophobe. The following sentence about how it does "nothing" to help solve the problems of patriarchy comes across as if she is trying to deflect any criticism of the religion.

[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#dcdcdc; padding-bottom:5px; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-bottom:none; border-radius:0.4615em 0.4615em 0em 0em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/17552-the-biggest-lie-youve-been-told-about-the-oppression-of-muslim-women[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#f0f0f0; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-top:none; border-radius:0em 0em 0.4615em 0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]Clearly, something is at play here, if that many women report being sexually harassed. I just don’t think that "something" is Islam..

Again this comes across like she does not want anyone to bring up the role religion plays in perpetuating patriarchy in this culture. She then goes into her argument that people are attacking Islam are ignoring other religions...which would make sense had she not brought up Bill Maher. Maher is not a temple of tolerance (and she is spot on about his sexist statements) but he HAS criticized other religions as well.

In my mind this makes it seem like she is saying you can not criticize islam without having to denounce every other sect of every other religion.

[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#dcdcdc; padding-bottom:5px; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-bottom:none; border-radius:0.4615em 0.4615em 0em 0em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/17552-the-biggest-lie-youve-been-told-about-the-oppression-of-muslim-women[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#f0f0f0; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-top:none; border-radius:0em 0em 0.4615em 0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]Until we begin to truly dialogue about the rampant racism, violence against women, and patriarchal control outside of Islam, we will simply continue to repeat the same cycle of racism that we continue to emphatically state is over.

Again, the way she phrases this makes it sound like we need to criticize patriarchy everywhere EXCEPT when it comes to Islam. I agree with her that Patriarchy is the ultimate part of the problem, but religions promoting patriarchy is a part of that problem and needs to be addressed.

Again, if that was not her intention then my apologies. I just think all sources need to be called out for their role in promoting misogyny even if that means calling out members of our own religion. This means questioning the mosques, the churches, and even people making crude remarks in an elevator.

No Sacred Cows should be spared.

[cbayer]

23. I see your point. I think she is fairly defensive.

In my admittedly limited experience, we westerners make a lot of assumptions about Muslim women, many of which are not true in certain areas and cultures.

I have spoken with women who choose to wear a hijab and feel it protects them from unwanted harassment. I have spoken to professional women who actively confront the patriarchy in their own lives. My daughter recently married a muslim in a mosque.

While I agree that no sacred cows should be spared, I think it is critical that we listen to young muslim women like this one before continuing to make assumptions about their plight and the source of it.

Bottom line is that she is in the thick of if and to dismiss her voice, as some in this thread have done, is patriarchal in and of itself.

[LostOne4Ever]

52. I agree with that

I also ADAMANTLY agree that we should listen to these women. Especially, as you said, before we make assumptions about them or their culture. I have no issue with anyone CHOOSING to wear a hijab because they want to, I just have issues where people are forced or coerced into wearing it against there will.

I also think that you are completely right in that to dismiss her voice is patriarchal in and of itself. But I think being student and being a bit defensive about her religion caused me to focus on those other aspects of the article instead.

As always thanks for the polite discussion

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. Rankin wants dialogue about "patriarchal control outside of Islam"

“I'm not a person who feels very friendly toward organized religion. I think people have been brainwashed through the centuries. The churches, particularly the Catholic Church, are patriarchal organizations that have been invested with power for the sake of the people in power, who happen to be men. It breeds corruption. I found going to church every Sunday and on holy days an exercise in extreme boredom. . . .

I've never felt that anyone who stands up and says 'Look, I have the answers' has the answers. . .

How can people still be superstitious, still believe in nonsense and astrology and grotesque demonic religions of every kind, every fundamentalist religion crowding us on all sides?”

—Joyce Carol Oates (1938-), interview, Playboy Magazine, November 1993

http://ffrf.org/news/day/dayitems/item/14438-joyce-carol-oates

It's silly to presume that an author's tweets on a particular day are her entire thoughts on a subject.

[cbayer]

24. Good point. I have heard other comments by JCO along the same lines.

[trotsky]

42. Yeah, so that kind of completely knocks out the pillars of Rankin's criticism. n/t

[ButterflyBlood]

22. Islamophobic is not racism

Islam isn't a race. You can argue its bigotry, but it's not racism.

And her logic is very poor. "Other cultures oppress women too so Islam isn't the cause of oppression of women." makes as much sense as "Other animals besides dogs have tails so being a dog does not necccesarily mean an animal has a tail."

[cbayer]

25. As I pointed out above, she is fairly defensive, but she is also a young, muslim women in

the thick of it.

While I don't agree with all of her argument, I don't think she should be dismissed and that she represents a significant group within the muslim community.

[allin99]

26. Here's one thing i've always wondered...

why aren't there more people educating people on the muslim religion and culture of muslims? Some moderate spokesperson who decide to go on tv and explain that many muslims are just like you and me type of thing.

I know people who are muslim because i live in nyc, but the majority of people have never had much exposure to people who are muslim. You would think there would be a drive to educate people about moderate moderate muslims.

i ask my 2 muslim girlfriends questions all the time, b/c of course i wanna know what the truth is about how women are treated, etc. Granted, one is from moracco and the women ARE very restricted, but the other one is, even though not from this country, exactly like everyone else. but if the only exposure people have is the news about some of the craziness in countries in the middle east and north africa, i can understand why people have these prejudeces.

So why are there not people on shows or whatever educating us? i'm sure msnbc would be amenable to opening the conversation, or other shows. As silly as it sounds, they need some spokemen and an education campaign, b/c it seems all very secret and of course people only exposed to 1 side or going to think all muslim women are under the thumb of their husbands, etc.

[cbayer]

27. I think there is definitely a need for more of that.

The question is whether the general public would tune in, and I'm not sure they would. NewsHour and Al Jazeera routinely have female, muslim analysts and reporters, but is this where americans get their news?

People generally don't like to have their prejudices challenged, perhaps because prejudice doesn't stand up very well to scrutiny.

I think it's great that you have the opportunity to speak directly to muslim women. I wish more americans did. They might be very surprised by what they hear.

Funny that you said "spokesmen" there at the end. I suspect that was done completely innocently, but perhaps it reflects the general problem here.

Thanks so much for weighing in.

[allin99]

28. only recently have i remembered to change...

the non-gender specific to "person" since growing up that was how we phrased non gender spacific, but technically i meant both genders should. .

I think men also need to speak and be part of the campaign to familiarize people with the muslim religion and even the culture b/c the opinion of muslim men is that they think women to be practically less than human.

Yes, i was very suprised, in both directions i must say, lol, but the perception is def. that all muslims are just nuts with control and extreme views of sharia law, not just those things pertaining to women, but obviously the treatment of women is quite frightening to most people in the u.s.

editing for context. "the opinion of muslim men" is referring to the negative stereotype of muslims in this country.

[cbayer]

29. See, you have made an assumption that I would argue is too broad and does

not apply to many muslim men:

the opinion of muslim men is that they think women to be practically less than human.

My daughter just married a muslim man. They would both laugh themselves silly at your statement.

It is because of these kinds of assumptions that I strongly support your idea for more visibility, exposure and communication.

[allin99]

30. it's not my assumption...

it's the assumption of many americans b/c all their exposure is the horror stories they read in the paper, those are the prejudeces whether we want that to be the case or not.

that is my whole point. i may know better, but many don't.

can't believe i just got accused of thinking that about muslims when my entire point is that people need to let them know that is not the case.

[cbayer]

31. You are correct. It's an assumption made by many in the us.

I'm not accusing you of anything and apologize if I came across that way. I may have read your sentence completely wrong.

I just found it interesting that you were inadvertently supporting your own case, which I fully support.

[allin99]

32. yes, please read it again...

b/c "you have made an assumption that I would argue is too broad and does not apply to many muslim men" is accusing me of having that prejudice. i added a sentence that hopefully makes that clear.

perhaps i should have been more specific.

[cbayer]

33. My apologies. Great example of how the lack of visual cues and inflection can

lead to great misunderstandings on discussion boards.

Anyway, I am very much in agreement with what you say. I think the more opportunity for muslim men and women, and particularly young men and women, to be heard, the better off we will be.

Which is why I found some of the dismissal in this thread off-putting. If young muslims speak up and are dismissed as "dumb", not only are we no closer to solving the problem, we have reinforced it.

[allin99]

34. right? totally agree...

i have found it rare to find pieces like this. It's not a perfect piece of writing, but i think they're important and if they were more common, i think the number of people with fears of the muslim religion would change drastically.

I'm from ny, and can't STAND former Mayor Guiliani, but he did something awesome in a Republican debate...at some point the candidates were all going off on muslims, it was ...disgusting, and guilliani told them to all shut it, and that they were making the acts of a few into demonizing a beautiful religion or one of the most practiced religions, or something like that. I thought that was so cool.

[cbayer]

35. I will try to find and post other articles like this in the future.

It's putting the human face on something unfamiliar. It can make all the difference.

[MADem]

41. The truth is that they're a lot like Catholics in terms of their variety.

Many people know the "lapsed" Catholic, who grew up with a religious education and turned away from the teachings of the church. And many know the Bunny Santa Catholics, who show up at church for Easter and Christmas. Then there are the Catholics who go to church most or every Sunday, sometimes because they're sincere, sometimes because they want to set a good example for their children. And then there are the "every day" Catholics, who are up and out to Mass at zero dark thirty, who do work around the church, who participate in every activity, who actually give stuff up that means something for Lent, and who give large sums of money to the institution as well.

There are Muslims who are the same sorts-- Muslims in name only, who won't eat in front of their fellow Muslims during the Ramadan daytime hours, but who will run home and privately have a sandwich and a beer; to Major Holiday Muslims who will go to the mosque for the big events, to "OK I'll do the Hajj once" Muslims who turn up at the mosque on most Fridays, to "I want to do the Hajj every year, or at least every other year..." who spend hours socializing at the mosque every day, and who tithe honestly.

If it makes Christians feel any better, they don't 'get' Christian 'nuance' any better than the western world understands that there are MANY flavors of Muslim--even beyond the broad Sunni/Shi'a divide (which Porgie didn't get at all).

There are cultural elements to Islam that are as much fun as Christmas/Santa, and these cultural elements are ties that bind. The culture doesn't always translate to religious fervor, but it is a feeling that can sometimes be likened to nationalism in the right circumstances.