Libyan Women: Demure and Prudish
A while ago, the assistant editor of Destiny, a South African women’s magazine, emailed me asking for help in finding information on successful Libyan women online. Unsurprisingly she had found very little, since what information there is about Libyan women does not fit the criteria of ‘successful’. While women like Ibtisam Ben Amer, who recently ranked 28 on Forbes’ list of most powerful Arab businesswomen, would by most standards be termed successful, the typical Libyan woman is more often represented with the usual connotations of backwardness and oppression attached, as in this picture from a Swiss magazine, which depicts a woman wearing a “traditional” farashiya.
As Berger has said, photographs are always much more than mechanical records, they bear witness to a unique choice being made. This one is no exception. The woman walking towards the camera hides most of her face and looks apprehensive, almost escaping what is behind her, cut off from the crowd by the bar of a shadow. The angle of the shot imposes as much mystery and menace as possible. Obviously, no photo would be complete without a reminder that this is a Third World country, although ironically, a few pages back the magazine had recommended Libya as a tourist destination precisely for being free of pestering street traders and beggars “so prevalent in many other North African countries.” Elsewhere the reader is reassured that “children in Tripoli are as healthy and happy as anywhere else.”
But it seems the temptation to cement the view of Libya as a mysterious/dangerous land is irresistible, something which is underscored by the frequent references in the magazine to a “journey into the unknown.” Libya’s attraction factor, it seems, is precisely the lack of information about it, and in a rather colonial trope of feminizing territory, this mystery appears to be metonymically represented in the figure of the woman.
Of course, this photo and what is conveyed through it necessitates ignoring the fact that women wearing the farashiya are not exactly prevalent in today’s Libya, the caption presenting the emblematic clothing and the attitude it supposedly represents as the reality of all Libyan women, as a statement, a fact. “Libyan woman are demure and prudish.” The picture supplies the proof for an already preconceived essentialist notion of what Libyan women are, and then adds this advise: “intense eye contact is not advisable.”
In marked contrast, the following photo shows a group of women in a more widespread form of hijab, yet in juxtaposition with the caption “Women power at the Swiss office in Tripoli”, the implication is clear: this is women power as “western imitation”, accessible to usually prudish and demure Libyan women because they are lucky enough to work in a Swiss office.
The same mentality informs a BBC article by Rana Jawad, which claims that “women’s lib is taking off in Libya” and cites various examples yet ends by informing the readers that regrettably, “society’s perceptions of more traditional roles for women prevail” and that “the abiding image in Libya is still of women who rarely mix with men in public and still cover themselves up with a veil”, the double ‘still’ underscoring the severe developmental problems crippling Libyan women in their slow, gradual evolution towards liberation.
Join the Conversation
Leaving the rest of post untouched, just replace names, photos and references with something associated with Iran, and it will be applicable to Iran as well.
The preconceived notions that Westerners have about Middle Eastern women, is somewhat balanced by the preconceived notions that Middle Easterners have about Western women.
American women, for example, are thought to embody the essence of feminism, with their educations, and their entry into the professions, and their place in corporate America. However, there is a growing trend for young educated women to put their careers on hold, while they take time to care for their children. Is this in keeping with feminism. Well, in a way yes, if feminism is equated with a woman’s right to choose her path, wherever that path may take her.
Misconceptions aside, women have always had a lot of power, whether they know it or not, and whether it is generally recognized or not. They are the givers of life, and the caretakers of life. As such, they know intuitively how to manage with scarce resources and to provide their families with the best that life has to offer: love, compassion, caring, sustenance, and a view to life that makes sense of it. For the most part, women have little patience for violence or ideological extremism. When you care for others, you have little tolerance for worldviews which promote death,destruction, and despair.
Women in all societies have held this power, the power of seeing this life as it is, since the beginning of human existence on this good earth. In most societies, at one time or other, the role that women played was somewhat marginalized in favor of what was considered to be the more imortant role that men played. But in reality, if you ask me, women always had the power, because most of the power resided in the home, and women took charge of the home, whether the men liked it or not.
When you marginalize women, you allow the ideological nonsense of the men to hold sway. We can no longer afford that. Empower women, in ways that they deem appropriate, and you will have changed the face of the Middle East. As the natural givers of life, and as the natural caretakers of life, women are uniquely qualified to reconstitute their societies consistent with a Vision of Hope. Therein lies the hope for women, and for mankind as well.
Since when is being demure an undesirable characteristic? Arab society has existed as it is for eons. American society on the other hand has existed only for a few hundred years. Accept that societies are different from each other and that there is no such thing as a right or wrong way to live so long as people aren’t harming society.
“Being demure” is not in itself an undesirable characteristic. But the context in which the caption is placed, and the very obvious negative connotations of backwardness and oppressiveness attached to it, I think, turn it into an undesirable characteristic, and one which is somehow innate to all Libyan women. That was my point: stereotypical representations which go a long way to creating the image of the typical Libyan woman as someone who cannot be “successful” due to socio-cultural-religious conditioning. Not whether or not being demure is desirable.
You’re saying that stereotypical representations are used to create false images of Libyan women, in that they don’t do justice to who these women really are, and that such representation is in fact a form of marginalization, because these women will be viewed as not “successful” by others around the world. And therefore, if you want to capture the essence of Libyan women in photos, you should give full expression to various aspects of their lives, and not to solitary aspects which can be interpreted as somehow demeaning them.
I think that stereotypical respresentations are dangerous in almost every context. And further, I would say that stereotypical thinking is also wrong. Usually, when we stereotype people, we de-humanize them. We don’t want to admit that in many ways, they are just like us. We would rather see a one-dimensional version of them, because if we look at them objectively, we would see that we share much more with them than divides us, and that we are not much better or worse than they are. Therefore, to hold on to our sense of superiority, we stereotype them, and thereby place them into an undesirable category of one sort or the other, thus enabling us to think better of ourselves.
I think that the global reality that is unfolding before our eyes points to the need for a commonality of purpose. Since we face global problems, we have to find ways to come together to solve them, and therefore all this pretense of superiority that people entertain should go by the wayside, as should all the ideological nonsense that we entangle ourselves in.
I understand where you are coming from Tasnim and I agree with Nissim. Just now I heard that Tunisia banned the headscarf from being worn. I am sure western countries are lauding this even though you could argue it is a violation of freedom as defined by the west. My argument is that Libyans and Muslims should not forget their Islamic roots and accept the western argument that their way of life is backward. An author by the name of Franz Fanon argued once that in order to subject a people it is necessary to make them feel inferior and this tactic of calling Islamic culture backward is a blatant example of it.
“I am sure western countries are lauding this even though you could argue it is a violation of freedom as defined by the west.”
What makes you so sure? The West is not the boogey man. We do not want to get you. I am sure most of you feel the same way about us (I hope). Most people don’t try to make trouble when there isn’t any. The problem is, the few who do are often the ones in power.
“My argument is that Libyans and Muslims should not forget their Islamic roots and accept the western argument that their way of life is backward.”
Nothing wrong with that. I feel that western standards of success focus to much on material wealth and endless freedom – two things that do no necesarily make one happy or spiritually content. In fact, I feel that excessive freedom and wealth have a tendency to make one feel entitled to indulge him or herself (adults need certain limits just like children, lest they too become spoiled).
What is the definition of success in Libya?
I am not Libyan so I cannot answer your question Madmax. I am a Muslim and since most Libyans are Muslims I can say that they aspire to live by God’s rules as defined in Islam.
What makes me so sure? Because I live in a Western society and the media constantly reminds me of so called women’s oppression in the Middle East because they were the hijab. The west is out to get us. They will not be happy with us and nor will they allow us to live peacefully until we conform to them. That is why we Muslims fight for our rights.
Tasnim you have a point but I do not agree with you. Statistically and factually, Libyan women today, in general, are oppressed, prudish and backward thinking as opposed to free, open-minded and forward thinking. Of course there are few exceptions and I personally know few highly educated and sophisticated Libyan women (living in the west) who, by any standard, are regarded as very successful women. In the 70s, women were in a much better state in terms of their aspirations and achievements. Today, most of Libyan women’s lives revolve around wearing the Hijab and what comes with it because that is what the man-dominated society dictates on them!
I am confident that those who wear Hijab lack in self confidence and use it as a means of hiding away from every day challenges. Wearing Hijab is the easiest thing a woman can do, but not to wear it is not so easy and requires strong will and a deep desire to be a fighter for the sake of herself and for others.
Before, the Farrashia separated between the old and new generations. Young women rarely wore Farrashia, and most never needed to cover their faces or heads. That is how life was perceived: progressive.
Now, it is exactly the opposite, because (it seems) of the need to cling to the past (Islam) as there is no hope in the future. No focus and no specific agenda to look forward to and no targets to achieve. It is very easy to find a scapegoat and to stick to it. They cannot face the challenges of today and of the future, so they escape into the past!
The whole society lives in despair partly due to economic and political pressures of the past 30 years. And partly due to the hypocritical version of Islam that existed in Libya for generations, which made most people religious and not religious at the same time and consequently unable to cope with the changes taking place around them!
I live in the west but regularly visit Arab countries, and wherever I go in the Arab world I find sadness and despair sticking out of the faces of the people I meet. I found most people leading lives they do not like or enjoy and they cannot do much about it. I found that they lack the imagination to change it even if they wanted to. I am not talking about repressive political regimes; specifically I am talking about repressive societies which have no tolerance or patience for difference or for change.
In the West, freedoms made people choose how they want to live their lives. Obviously they are not all happy, but mostly content with the choices they make. This contentment enables them to be positive and productive and helps them to achieve their goals and objectives. When they get old, they do not become more conservative or religious like what happens in the Arab world. They usually shift their focus to another endeavour to satisfy their energetic desire to achieve even more in the few days and months they have left to live.
Religion, any religion, is the easiest thing one could embrace to run away from making hard choices because it offers virtual comfort when faced with failure and empty hope when faced with despair. How to deal with religion in Libya and other similar societies is their biggest challenge in today’s ever changing and hungry world and women’s issues should be the focal and starting point of overcoming this challenge.
Hasan,
“What makes me so sure? Because I live in a Western society and the media constantly reminds me of so called women’s oppression in the Middle East because they were the hijab. The west is out to get us. They will not be happy with us and nor will they allow us to live peacefully until we conform to them. That is why we Muslims fight for our rights.”
I could say that the arab world is out to get the west when it accuses us of imperialism and decadence and portrays us all as greedy, exploitative bastards. I could also say you will not be happy until we all convert to Islam and adopt your ways. It goes both ways. Everyone thinks everyone else is out to get them and as long as they are afraid they can be manipulated by their governments. I do not want to hear the hackeneyed argument about how the arab media just recipricates the sentiments of the west because that is bullshit. One has no way of proving who was xenophobic first; in all honesty the sentiments were already in both cultures.
As for fighting, I guess America and Israel, having both been victims of attacks, should fight for their rights as well – obviously Muslims are out to get them. Same with Bahais and Kurds, who are victims of Muslim opression.
In essence, all your fears can exist in the minds of westerners as well. When both arabs and westerners have nothing in common but this mentality then we’ve got a war on our hands. If you hit us we’ll hit back and vice-versa. The end result will be global thermonuclear war leading to the destruction of the planet. What we should be focusing on is not letting fear overcome our emotions. We should resort to talking before fighting. Thats why I like places like this where we can talk – its the first step to avoid catastrophic global conflicts.
On the notion of oppressed women, I think that the media does overplay it. I am not sure how the women themselves feel about that. How many middle eastern women have been asked if they felt oppressed? I don’t think western feminism has made made society any better off – many of the gains have come at the expense of men. Also, the family unit is not what it used to be – more people are growing up in broken homes. Such children havae increased risk of mental problems and delinquency. Divorce rates are higher, marriage and birth rates are down, and deppression and infidelity are rampant. I admire the traditional values that still take hold in the middle east and I am hoping that a feminist style movement will take place there that incorporates them,empowers women, and lacks the exploitative taint and hypocracy inherent in western feminism. What do you think, Hassan?
khairi you obviously don’t know much about Arab society and thus can’t appreciate it. You are making an attribution error when you say that wearing the Hijab means you are prudish, demure, oppressed and backward.
In the Arabic and Islamic way of life has evolved in such a way that women are entrusted with bringing up the future generations. There is no greater challenge nor responsibility than that. My mother for example is a doctor. She was a practicing medical doctor until the birth of a child demanded she leave it for a while because she understood the importance of the future over pursuing her own career. You will see many Muslim female doctors world wide who wear the hijab. They are educated and thus you cannot say the hijab makes one backward.
You obviously know nothing about wearing the hijab. It is one of the hardest things to do to swallow your pride and follow God’s rules. Muslim women who wear the hijab, especially those in the west, are some of the strongest characters I have seen. No social pressure shakes their beliefs.
You are advocating that Libyans return to the ways of colonialism? The only reason you have a Libya now is because Muslims stood up for it. No so called progressive, forward thinking person stood up for Libya when the Italian colonists were abusing the Libyan people. Only the Muslims did in face of this huge mismatch. You do a disservice to the memory of the founders of Libya by saying they should revert to the ways of the murderous colonists.
You say we are a despairing people? You have no idea what you’re talking about. I haven’t seen people so joyous as us Muslims. Our faces aren’t anxious like those of West. We welcome our guests no matter what our economic state is unlike those in the West. I am currently reading a book called Ways with Words by Shirley Brice Heath who describes typical American communities. These Americans don’t even welcome their own family members because they don’t want to waste money on them. I live in the west and I can tell from experience that Arabs and Muslims find joy in their every action despite their economic state. Even if they are poor they would give their last morsel to their guest.
People in the west (me included) are not content at all. It is a constant drive to go one up on my neighbor or colleague. It is always about me first and to hell with my neighbor. We Muslims care about our brothers. Just because the western installed puppet leaders we have don’t care about us doesn’t mean the common Muslim does not care about his brother.
It is very much possible to be adherents of Islam while at the same time have a good life. We proved that during the times of the Abbasids, Umayyads, Ottomans, and in Spain. To be successful in life you don’t have to be an adherent of Islam. But if you care about what happens after life then you have to be an adherent of some religion.
Religion is the hardest thing to embrace because then you have to give up some of your freedoms as demanded by God. Islam offers inner peace and the perfect way of life. That is why it has a billion adherents.
Madmax, I am sorry, but this is a very ignorant statement:
With all due respect, you obviously don’t know anything about the Kurds, who are primarily Muslims. To say that Kurds are victims of Muslim oppression is just completely false and a testament to the fact that you don’t know much about the Kurds and what they are actually fighting for, or who is oppressing them and why. You need to do some serious reading about the Kurdish conflict and its background if you stand by such a painfully incorrect claim!
Islamophobes love to make everything about faith, even when it’s not. What about politics? Have you ever considered how many Muslims were being censored? Have you ever considered that most of the crimes here are politically driven and have nothing to do with faith, even if people say otherwise? Do you take everything our leaders say at face value? If so, then you must really trust them! We don’t. And we don’t let them speak for us other Muslims who did nothing wrong and continue to live by our religion’s true values.
Your absurd claim that Muslims are out to get America is just a result of tedious propaganda, go ahead and say that to the millions of American Muslims out there, many of whom fought for your army to defend you, and see what they say. I’m sure they don’t face enough discrimination, racism, and mockery as it is.
You claim to be concerned about the rights of Baha’is, can you tell me what you did as an American citizen? I can tell you what many of us did as Muslims. We set up the Muslim Network for Baha’i Rights. I don’t see you doing that Madmax.
Can you tell me what you did for the Kurds who you claim to be oppressed by the “Muslims”? Because we set up a Kurdish Human Rights network, as Muslims, together with other Kurdish Muslims to defend their civil rights. I don’t see you doing that Madmax.
So don’t tell us Muslims are out to eat the world; we are here and we are active and we are doing more than most of you are to protect our people regardless of their faith. And we are risking our lives for this.
On the other hand I see people like you attacking our faith and justifying abusive bigotry and military aggression, as well as widespread oppression against innocent Muslims on the basis of “self-defense” and propaganda, and it’s just so hypocritical. But I expect this. We all expect this. It lives up to the common stereotype people here make of the Westerners (see what it feels like to be stereotyped?), that you hate us enough to let a few terrorists represent everything we are and everything we stand for, and launched a war without even making an effort to communicate. Is that what you want? Millions of innocent Muslims are dead and are dying every day, what for? You’re not even winning. The real fight is happening back home and is by Muslims themselves against the political oppressors, because none of this has to do with our faith and trust me, we know this better than anyone else.
Anyways this is besides the topic of the thread. Some things just have to be said.
You are absolutely right that both parties think the other is out to get them. The only way you can solve this is to stay out of each others’ affairs. Do not invade our countries to impose your so called democratic values. We have our own values which we live by. So long as you are in our lands we will fight for our right. Not everything is obscure as you paint it. Every thing has a beginning and an end.
If you are oppressed then the best solution is to fight for your rights. You can’t expect an oppressor to simply listen to your calls for fairness and to get out of land that is rightfully yours.
You are absolutely right that the Kurds and Bahaiis are opressed. The Kurds by Saddam mostly. One of the greatest Islamic heroes, Salahuddin Ayyubi, was a Kurd. We muslims have nothing against Kurds. Kurds are not a separate religion. They are Muslims as well. The conflict between them is a cultural one not a religious one. As for the Bahaiis they went against the laws of the land (Iran) by creating a religion of their own. When you go against a country’s laws you have to face its repercussions. Now you might argue that goes against freedom of religion. But the fact is that at that time innovation of religion was a punishable offence unlike lets say America where it is not. That is how society is different from one another and you must respect that. I am not saying Bahaiism should not exist. I actually have a Bahaii friend myself. What I am saying is that if you want to prosper you should live in a land where such things are acceptable by law.
Ofcourse if you hit me then I have the right to hit you back. There is no question there at all. If Israel takes our land then we will hit back and fight for our land. Talks on a matter in which what is right is very clear (both as common sense and UN resolutions) accomplish nothing as we have seen for the past 30-40 years.
Your mistake is that you think Muslim women are opressed. Just because they were the hijab doesn’t mean they are opressed. That is an attribution error. You are applying western standards to an Islamic society. Its like comparing apples and oranges. There is no comparison. Islamic society has a set of rules just as western society has a set of rules. One is not better than the other. They are just different ways of living. I am sorry but I doubt you have lived in an Islamic society because you believe women in Islam have no power. You should meet my grandmother, mother, aunts; all who were the hijab but at the same time are productive members of society. We don’t need a feminist movement in Muslim countries. What we need is the application of Islam.
I have no desire to spread democracy to the Arab world. Govern yourself as you see fit. for both Esra’a and Hassan: I do not want to have American soldiers in Iraq. I want immediate retreat. Most of the country wants out in some way as well. Not a dollar more into the pockets of contractors. Why the hell should tax-payers (who are mostly middle class and poor – there are many American tax loopholes that rich people can take)pay these thieves to ruin their country. You think I enjoy being robbed and butt-fucked by Cheney and Bush? America is broke and tens of thousands are dead thanks to these two assclowns. I remember hearing on some leftist radio that Nouri Al Maliki has wanted America out for months – then why not grant his wish? Like our presences brings stability. Please. Nothing we could do would improve anything at this point. Too bad I could not vote until 2005. Really got screwed there. Maybe that can change, though from what I have been reading it seems as though both candidates are sell-outs who will be acting in the interests of their friends (Obama is just more subtle about it). It really might be the same-old-shit this time around as well. On top of that Mccain may cheat and win just like his predecessor. Sometimes I wonder how America will avoid collapsing on itself in the next 10 years. Tax laws and economic policy are getting more and more regressive and the bottom 99% of country is getting poorer.
On the note of trusting Arab and/or Muslim leaders: I do take what they say seriously because they have the power (or so it appears) in their nations. Bush fucking lost the popular vote and still managed to get power and rape everything in his presence. Thats the problem, Most Americans did not want the war. But, they couldnt do shit about it without having their own civil war. This goes with all nations. Leaders who dont represent the people still have power, and thats whats terrifying from any perspective.
As for minding our own business, that is easier said than done for both sides. The world is smaller now and what happens politically or economically in one country can affect other nations. What we can do is not use brinkmanship to solve all our problems.
“Ofcourse if you hit me then I have the right to hit you back. There is no question there at all. If Israel takes our land then we will hit back and fight for our land. Talks on a matter in which what is right is very clear (both as common sense and UN resolutions) accomplish nothing as we have seen for the past 30-40 years.”
Talk is first step. Listening is the second. Neither parties has listened or even attempted to empathize with the other. Talk without compromise is just two parties blaming each other and doing nothing. Technically, its talking, but it is one sided. I feel sites like this are kick-starting productive dialog efforts. These things have to start somewhere.
“When you go against a country’s laws you have to face its repercussions.”
Dangerous. What if the repercussions are far to extreme for the crime? Example: Detaining people randomly and for years with no outside contact because they said a word you did not like (like the patriot act in America, but their are other countries who have similar and more extreme laws).
On oppressed women, I do not recall explicitly saying I beleived that. You misread me. I claimed the media overplayed it. Yes there are some women who suffer but that is yet another one of those things that is not unique to one region of the world. I still beleive that suffering can be alleviated. If Islam is the solution than so be it. I also never said Hijab was bad or oppressing. I have nothing against modesty. Good for those who wear it. By the way, women never have no power. The power women have just manifests itself differently. When I discussed empowering women I asking that you not follow the western model but instead follow your own. You response indicates that you feel Islam does (or should not) not empower women. I have heard arguments to the contrary. Maybe I am not being clear where I stand or I need my diction to be more in line with my views. Empower may not be the right word for what I am describing, as we probably think of the word differently. Fair enough. If its worth anything to you I think there are many (not all) ways in which middle eastern women are better off than western women.
Esra’a my point was not to make a generalization about Islam. My point was to demonstrate that Hassan’s worldview could be replicated in others groups with the end result being armed conflict. It was a poorly thought out sarcastic remark designed to show that fighting should not be the first thing we resort to to solve problems. I do not actually think most bahais or kurds want to kill or get those who have harmed them if they do not have to (same with Americans or Israelis or Arabs or any other ethnic group who has had issues with any other group in the past). I am trying to show that the dangers of the “Us vs. Them” mentality and how it can be used by all sides in any conflict to justify violence. I did not makes this a religious issue. Hassan did: “Because I live in a Western society and the media constantly reminds me of so called women’s oppression in the Middle East because they were the hijab. The west is out to get us. They will not be happy with us and nor will they allow us to live peacefully until we conform to them. That is why we Muslims fight for our rights.” I was attempting to argue against this way of thinking, which I feel leads people to see things in black and white when they arent. My apologies for the mislabelling and misidentification of the issues.
Also, I took “fighting” to mean violent combat, not advocacy, which may have caused misunderstanding.
“Can you tell me what you did for the Kurds who you claim to be oppressed by the “Muslims”? Because we set up a Kurdish Human Rights network, as Muslims, together with other Kurdish Muslims to defend their civil rights. I don’t see you doing that Madmax.”
You want me to do something? I have no time. I have to work because American Universities are run like for-profit businesses (jackasses). I can give you some more money would that help? I am not made of money but I can spare some when needed.
I am sorry for pissing everyone off today. I hope I’m not digger a deeper hole with these comments. Its not my intention.
Where are you from Hassan?
I was born and raised in Saudi Arabia. I currently study in the US so I get your points about university. They really rub your nose raw especially if you’re in a tough major.
My intentions are not to contradict you for the sake of contradiction. It is mainly so that people reading this know that there is no such thing as a right or wrong way to live. Every society has its own and we must respect it.
Who decides what is too extreme? If American society is about liberty and justice as the constitution demands then the patriot act is a contradiction. Iran might not necessarily have had the same laws at the time of Bahai inception.
I know a lot of good American people. Most Americans are gullible and they fall for what the American decision makers say. My message is a contrast to those who are fed Fox News and other cable news.
“My intentions are not to contradict you for the sake of contradiction. It is mainly so that people reading this know that there is no such thing as a right or wrong way to live. Every society has its own and we must respect it.”
No problems here.
“Who decides what is too extreme? If American society is about liberty and justice as the constitution demands then the patriot act is a contradiction. Iran might not necessarily have had the same laws at the time of Bahai inception.”
Deep philosphical issue that would take the thread far off-topic if we discussed it.
“I know a lot of good American people. Most Americans are gullible and they fall for what the American decision makers say. My message is a contrast to those who are fed Fox News and other cable news.”
True. Watching the news is a terrifying experience. They never report anything good. Though as I mentioned in another thread, I think this problem occurs wherever there is large TV networks and ambitious leaders (in China, Europe, The Middle East, etc.).
Anyway, good luck with your studies. Sorry to mislabel your point of view.
Hasan, it is obvious that you are a typical arrogant fundamentalist who thinks any one who does not agree with you knows nothing, as you repeated many times in your comment the words “you know nothing, you know nothing …). I was commenting on Libyan women whom I know much more than you do because I am a Libyan and you are not. Regarding the Hijab, I know exactly what I was talking about in the context of Libyan society, which you do not know much about. Yes I may not know every little fact, but I can assure you that I have not said a single word which did not emanate from real life experience and following years of debates and arguments related to these issues.
Your claim that Arab and Muslim women are well educated and very advanced by citing the example of your mother doctor means nothing in this regard. I never claimed that Muslim men and women lacked the brains which make them capable of grasping complicated and advanced knowledge and applying what they learn in solving real life problems. These brains exist in every living society, but the difference manifests itself in Muslims inability to utilise these brains in advancing their nations and cultures to provide the welfare and happiness that people crave for. In your country, Saudi Arabia, did the wealth brought to you by the petro-dollar lift your people from their beduin way of life to grant women their freedoms and the respect they deserve. Your society still regard women’s function only as a means of satisfying man’s pleasures, and consequently a second class human being and a source of shame and humiliation (this is a generalisation which goes without saying that there are always exceptions).
What is the contribution of the whole Muslim world in the fields of the arts and humanities? How many books have been authored or translated by the billion+ Muslims compared to one European country like Spain over the last 40 years? Wake up and consider the facts rationally without employing your emotions and ill conceived faith in covering up your deficiencies.
As you are not Libyan, there is not much room for argument with you about Libyan affairs, because it seems that your starting point is that Libyan society is a carbon copy of that of Saudi Arabia. You believe in the universality of Islam which came out from Arabia to which you are entitled to believe in, but I beg to differ with you as I am also entitled to believe that this universality is a delusion which is not applicable even if you wanted to.
To start with, you seem to know nothing about Libyan history and society to justify you making any claims which do not stand at all. You probably saw Akkad’s film “Lion of the Desert” and you made your judgements accordingly. I do not blame you regarding the history bit, because you are not alone in this. Libyans themselves are ignorant of their history to no fault of their own!
Of course, I guess, because the beduins who inhabit a large part of Libya today came from Arabia, you feel Libya should be like Saudi Arabia, and politically at least, I can tell you that it is gradually forming itself on the Saudi model. But Libya is not Arabia and the links we have had in the past with our neighbours (Egypt, Tunisia, Africa) and northern Mediterranean countries (Italy, Greece, Spain, Turkey) are capable of making this country uniquely cosmopolitan and multicultural. For that to happen, the version of Islam present in the country today must be adapted to accommodate all opinions from all sides in a peaceful and civilised manner. No body is asking you to abandon what you believe in, but on the same token, why should you give yourself the right to deny others this same right. The islmaisation of the Libyan society (wahhabism and salafism) which took place in the last 25 years was a direct result of the propaganda efforts that came directly from Saudi Arabia funded by the oil petro-dollars. Just as Ben Laden was funded by Saudi petro-dollars, all islmaisation efforts around the world were funded the same way. I regard this as the biggest culprit that crippled Arab societies in the last two decades.
I will never advocate the use of violence or war to claim our country back from the beduins, but I want people to exercise their right to live their lives as they wish willingly and freely. Islam does not allow them to do that, or at least the version that is dominant today. There might be facets of Muslims life which can be convincingly good, healthy and beneficial to society compared with western life styles, but why should you define for me what is good, healthy and beneficial instead of allowing me to choose what I want to do with my life. As an individual I have every right to go about my life in any way I want, and in the society it is up to me how I balance my choices to live in peace and harmony with my fellow citizens based on respect and consensus without fear of violence, oppression or coercion. The problem is that your Islam denies me all of these rights and the society which adopts this Islam forbids all its members from having and exercising their freewill.
Islam has always been the means to ultimate power and control of societies. It allows the ruler to unquestionably exert his will on others, and any dissent is dealt with in the harshest possible form, and the Shoyoukh and Ulama, as it happens all the time in Saudi Arabia, always ready behind the rulers giving them the justifications they require.
I know that peaceful means of argument and of change are adopted only by those who have heads on their shoulders and make full use of them at all situations. Violence and wars are the means of the impatient and the short tempered because they have no other way of figuring out how to resolve a problem or achieve an objective. They wrongly think it is a short fix that can pave the way to what they want, without thinking of the consequences. They put no value on the sanctity of human life and its right to exist and to be free. Had Ben Laden thought about the consequences of his atrocious actions, many situations would have been much better today for the Arabs and Muslims. But how could he do that if he was fed jihadism, qutbism, ikhwanism, wahhabism and salafism which makes him believe that his version of Islam is the ultimate truth which must prevail irrespective of the means or end result?
George W. Bush’s war in Iraq and the unjustifiable security acts which he blessed after 9/11 were opposed by all decent Americans and Europeans because they know that the achievements of their liberal and free societies were being threatened at their core. The values of western civilisation had penetrated every corner of the globe not by fighting wars, rather by their convincing arguments and examples concerning freedoms, liberalism and democracy. Where the west used violence to change societies, there has always been a backlash and numerous examples can be sited for this. For this reason, I would like to predict that Iraq will never have a sustainable and healthy democratic system of government for a very long time to come.
You talk about Saudi and Arab society as though you know it. You are no representative of Libyans, Arabs, or Muslims. When you ask questions like whether the petro dollars granted women freedom you expose your ignorance. Your concept of freedom is that free women would never choose to wear the hijab.When you make sweeping assertions that the majority women in Saudi Arabia are used for sexual pleasure and are treated as 2nd class human beings you once again expose your ignorance and bias.
You’re asking what the contributions of Muslims to academia were over the past 40 years? You are obviously ignorant because almost every other research paper I see as a student in the US has a Muslim name attached to it. Nobel laureate Abdus Salam is just one example.
You are saying Saudi Arabia funded Libya whilst it was under the rule of Qaddafi? What utter nonsense. The Saudi Arabian government abhors the Qaddafi regime.
Have you no sense of the accomplishments of Muslims? Are you not aware of the contributions they have made to Math, Sciences, Astronomy and so forth? All this was done under Islamic rule.
On what authority do you say Libya is not Arabia? Libya has been Arabia even before the Arabs occupied Spain. Libya is an integral part of Arabia regardless of your unsupported claims.
Islam cannot be changed by human beings because it is a Godly religion. If you want to impose your own man made ideology then its fine but don’t call it Islam.
You are absolutely right that I cannot define for you how to live. But don’t tell me how to live my life. Don’t go about saying ignorant things like the hijab is keeping women from progressing. Reality is women want to wear it and you by your own assertion cannot tell them not to. If you don’t want to live by God’s rules then thats perfectly fine. You have made a wise choice by choosing to live in the west because it is perfectly suited for you. But do not deny Libya’s thousand year of Islamic history and say that it should not be an Islamic country.
Islam is not like Christianity where its adherents are at the mercy of its clergy. Unlike Catholic Christians for example Muslims do not have to go to their priests to ask for forgiveness and thus they are not bound by them. Your argument that Ulama and Shuyookh control Muslims through Islam is invalid because of that. In fact other churches of Christianity beginning with Martin Luther were founded because the Catholic church misused their so called God given powers but in Islam this is not possible.
I am sorry but in your second last paragraph you coined several words which even the western media haven’t used until now. Qutbism and Ikhwanism? Even America now says that Ikhwanul Muslimeen are being democratically elected in Egypt. They do not advocate violence. Qutbism? Have you even read the book of Sayyid Qutb called in the Shade of the Quran? If so tell me where he preached violence unjustly? Sayyid Qutb is the victim of secular regimes.
Also in your second last paragraph you say Bin Laden did so and so because he was inoculated with certain ideologies. If you notice Bin Laden actually gave his reasons for violence. I am absolutely against his actions. I do not believe in unjust killings of human beings like in 9/11 and in Iraq. But his reasons were that he did it because of occupation of Palestine and because of US bases present in Muslim lands not because wahhabism or salafism advocates it. There is no such thing as wahabism or salfism. Salaf simply means the rightly guided one while Muhammad bin Abdul Wahab was simply a man involved in the revival of Islam in Saudi Arabia. He did not create any new sect of Islam.
Western civilisation penetrated the 4 corners of the earth through peaceful means? Are you high? It was spread to Indonesia through dutch colonialism, South Africa through the racist dutch, North Africa through the brutal Italians, French and British, Central Africa through the French and British, South America through the brutal portugese and Spanish colonists, North America through the Spaniards and British who murdered their indigenous populations, Japan through the annhilation of 2 Japanese cities by the US, India through the looting east india company of the British. There is not one place the west has gone into without violence and imposing their way of life. On the other hand most of Islam was spread by merchants and not by the sword as the west would have you believe.
Hasan, you say about Ben Laden: “But his reasons were that he did it because of occupation of Palestine and because of US bases present in Muslim lands not because wahhabism or salafism advocates it.” If this is no justification for what Ben Laden did, I do not know what is!!
I see no point in arguing with you because it is clear that you do not have what it takes to enable this debate (with you) to be constructive and useful.
The discussion on this web page concerns “Libyan Women” not “Saudi Women”, which you are not qualified to utter a single word about. I urge you to go somewhere else and let the debate carry on along the lines of Tasnim’s article which you have nothing to add to.
This article makes the assumption that the woman in the photograph, as an example of typical Libyan women, is backward and opressed due because she donned the ‘traditional’ farashiyya. Now my argument as opposed to yours is that this is not a correct correlation. I urge you to set aside your bias and read the article carefully. It seems to me that you missed the link the article makes between opression and restriction with the farashiyya.
Khairi and Hassan, if I were writing the screenplay, I’d have you guys end up marrying one another.
Actually, the two of you are very special. I’m sure for many reasons, but in particular, because you represent two ideological points of view in the Middle East. If we can bring the two of you somewhat closer, than there is that much more hope to bring about some sort of a reconciliation between the Middle East and the West.
Hassan, you believe in traditional values, and religious teachings. You want to hold on to your identity as a Muslim. You think back to your mother, a physician who suspended her career to raise her children, and you are proud of how she exemplified the ideal with regard to Islam. You see the West as occupiers of Middle Eastern lands, and are convinced that if the West left and stopped meddling in your affairs, that Islam would once again be restored to its former glory. You don’t think much of colonial interference, and the effects it had on the region.
Khairi, you are a woman of the world. You want the Middle East to move forward, and as part of that movement, you would like to emulate some of the prgressive ideals you find in the West. I don’t think that you are particularly offended by the hijab, or other such clothing, but you feel that women, in particular, and perhaps the general population as well, are being kept down spiritually, culturally, educationally, and so forth, by an interpretation of Islam that is repressive in its effects on people. You see the empowerment of women as the path to a reformation in the Islamic world which should take place so that the best of Islam could make itself known once again.
Let’s assume, for the moment, that these are the two point of view. How do we bring them together? How do we move forward?
I would say that it does not disrespect a religion to say that there are times when we are compelled to pick and choose what we want to believe, and how we want to act. Islam is a great religion because it has a great deal of wisdom, wisdom which has appealed to a great deal of adherents. But that does not mean that Islam is absolute, and is not capable of change.
No religion is perfect. Religion may be inspired by the thought of God, but religion is not God. God is the creative energy of the universe, and He speaks to us most clearly using the language of Common Sense. That’s how He operates. Therefore, if something doesn’t make sense, it cannot be ascribed to God, and followed blindly in His name.
Honor killing makes no sense. You don’t kill your daughter, even if she slept with who knows who. As you both agree, violence is not the answer, no matter who is preaching it. Women should be treated as equal partners with their husbands, which was taught by non other than the Prophet Muhammad himself, who married Khadijah, a woman 15 years his senior, who ran a bunch of thriving businesses, and who proposed marriage to him. Their daughter became a great theologian. Muhammad rejected the tribal attitudes toward women, and could be considered as the ancient world’s first feminist.
So Hassan, if Khairi says that there are women who are being mistreated in the Middle East, then wouldn’t her call for reform be in keeping with the Prophet’s intent, as exemplified by his own life and teachings? In other words, are you two really that far apart? Can’t we hold on to traditions, and religious beliefs, even as we modifiy some of those beliefs to conform to modern sensibilies? Would that be disrespecting religion, or an affirmation of the best that religion has to offer?
Nissim thank you for your kind and respectful words. I agree with most of your thoughts but I must disagree with one major assumption you make.
Let me give you an example my teacher once gave me. A young married couple takes their sick newborn baby to the doctor. The doctor says that he must perform an operation on the baby in order to cure her. The couple agrees to it despite the fact that they have no medical knowledge. In other words the couple trusts the doctor’s knowledge enough to let him/her cut open their baby even though they themselves have no medical knowledge. If trust is possible at such a level then why Nissim can’t we bring ourselves to trust in God’s Word even though He is all Knowing? Just because we do may not understand His Word and Law doesn’t mean we have to change it to suit ourselves.
Let me make it absolutely clear that Islam does not advocate Honor killings. Islamic law says that the fornicator/fornicatress must be lashed. The one who commits adultery must be put to death. Now if we accept the Wisdom of God and trust in Him as all Muslims do we cannot argue against a Law which He made explicit. There are somethings in Islam which God has not defined and those are up to human debate. But in a Godly religion God’s Word cannot be changed. We Muslims believe that the Quran is God’s Word and we do not have the authority to change it.
My problem is that people like Khairi say that Islam is a backward and inferior way of life. You cannot say one society is inferior to another because that is a matter of opinion. There is a reason why these societies existed for eons and that is because they are compatible with this world. I take issue with people who say that the hijab is a symbol of backwardness and oppression. This is completely untrue. There are plenty of women out there who wear the hijab due to their Islamic beliefs and at the same time are successful in this life. The notion that the hijab is a symbol of backwardness is a western point of view. This point of view wishes to denigrate our culture (I very much suggest you read Franz Fanon’s Black skin white masks on this topic) in order to establish the superiority of theirs.
Just because I may not agree with someone elses culture doesn’t mean I should denigrate it and force my opinion on them. I may not advocate western culture but I certainly don’t go around telling westerners that their culture is backward and that they should convert to Islam. I expect people to respect different societies and accept that one is not better than the other. If you do not feel Islamic society is compatible with you don’t go around denigrating it or banning Islamic customs due to your beliefs and invariantly pressing your views onto millions others. Go to a society which is compatible with your beliefs.
I have my views on the status of women in western societies which I keep to myself. I see that us men have created such a society in the west that in order to be acceptable women dress like we tell them to (who are we kidding us men love to see women in skimpy outfits) and not only that but we go around telling our female and male friends of what we did to our women last night and got away with and on top of that we make sure that our female friends laugh or we say they have no sense of humor. I have seen women prancing around in skimpy dresses going to the bar in below zero weather while men just lay waiting. Now these are my views but there is no way I am going to force these on western society. They have defined their own society and way of life and I have to accept that.
I am totally with you Nissim on taking a stance against the ill treatment of women. But the question arises what constitutes ill treatment? If it is the western definition that Islam as a whole treats women badly then I am sorry but I cannot accept a view which does not take into account Islamic sensibilities and laws. If it is as khairi says the wearing of hijab then you are making the assumption here that the hijab is a symbol of oppression while in reality it is no such thing as my previous posts have argued.
When Hawaii was occupied by western settlers they claimed that the Hawaiians were savages because they ran around topless, chanted hymns and danced around fire. They denigrated their culture in order to rule them. This is what I fear and you may not share this view but if history is to be heeded we have to be wary of this. The western settlers did the same with the American Indian population. They took away their culture to such an extent that they have no structure in their society and men and women bide their time with alcohol.
All in all please do not say that we have to change our society because you think that it is oppressive. That is a very arrogant and baseless stance. Accept that societies are different and that none is better than the other.
Just to clarify one point: I’m not making the case that there is no room for improvement when it comes to women’s rights in Libya. In my opinion though, “Libyan women today, in general, are oppressed” would more accurately be defined as a generalization than a fact.
If I understand this correctly, you have summarized my post. Your statement moves from the theme behind the first photo (Libyan women in general are backward thinking), to the idea implicit in the second: (Salvation is possible, given western influence).
I think I prefer the first position.
It has been argued, with some credence, that Libya’s infrastructure was in a better state in the 70’s. However, if women “in general” were in a much better state in the 70’s, the statistics would reflect that. In the 70’s Libyan women constituted about 3% of the labour force. The hijab has not stopped that figure from rising. Literacy rates have not been adversely affected by the hijab, either.
I can’t say I’ve encountered the idea of hijab as evidence of low self-esteem before. But then the hijab has been variously described as an anti-westernization stance, an anti-modernization stance, and an anti-molestation stance, among countless other sensible interpretations. As Saba Mahmood points out in her book Politics of Piety, all these functionalist explanations of the reasons women wear hijab, often embarked upon to in the name of liberating women, ironically silence the voices of these same women. I agree with her argument that it would be more helpful to consider the hijab in the terms of mutahajibat themselves, since to imply hijab “equals” one thing or another imposes an interpretation on something which is often more complexly motivated than such a simplistic equation would allow.
The idea that women are somehow crippled by what they choose to wear, whether the farashiya, or the hijab, is something that I just don’t understand. To paraphrase Salome Nnoromele, the right to choose is not a prerogative available solely to women in the western world.
Hasan, you make your points very eloquently, and like you say, there are many points on which we can agree.
For example, if you are saying that a woman is selling herself short when she is promiscuous, I would agree with that. Forget about morality, for a moment. Think strategy. A woman creates her own sense of self-worth. If she gives herself too easily, she loses something of her self-worth. If a man is worth loving, then he should prove it by being willing to commit himself to her. The willingness to commit speaks of true love. The rest is wishful thinking.
Now, if you want to criticize the West, you don’t have to look very far. The decision, some 150 years ago, to run our econmies on fossil fuels, could prove to be the single greatest mistake ever made by mankind.
So if you want to be critical, there is plenty in the West that you could criticize, and it would be hard to argue with you.
On the other hand, I would take issue with your assertion that the Quran is immutable, and is not subject to change, or to interpretation. I don’t believe this is the case, and I think it is very dangerous to think like that, because when you come to believe that God is telling you what to do, you could end up doing some very bad things, in God’s name no less. And God ends up with a bad rap.
Jews believe that the Torah is the word of God. Christians believe similarly about the New Testament. And Muslims believe as such about the Quran. But did God really write Holy Scriptures? Or did the thought of God inspire men to write them? There’s a big difference here, the kind of difference that can make all the difference in the world when it comes to peace.
With all due respect, Hasan, I don’t believe that God wrote Holy Scripture. I believe that God wrote the universe, and gave us the common sense to decifer its meaning.
For me, God is the sum total of all the creative energy in the universe. His energy flow through me, and mine through Him. So if I choose to write a book, God’s energy may flow through me, and inspire me to write something that I may not have otherwise written. But that is different from saying that my book is the “word of God.” There is much room for misinterpretation. God may be trying to tell me one thing, but becuase I have free will, I may choose to substitute my own take on God’s intent.
The historical legacy of religion is filled with violence. How could this be so, if religion is supposed to promote peace, and The Golden Rule, “Treat others as you would have them treat you?” The reason for this violence is that people come to believe that they are acting pursuant to God’s will. In that way, they absolve themselves of responsbility for the evil they do. And in addition, some very unscrupulous people use religion to conslidate political power. They talk religion, but it’s really only about power, and control.
But God has made His will known very clearly, using common sense principles, and observing the fruits of His creation. It would not make sense that God would go to the trouble of creating us just to see us self-destruct before His eyes, in His name, no less. It would make more sense to say that we were put on this good earth to live; not to kill, and not to die before our time.
All the Holy Scriptures, Hasan, contain passages which make no sense, and which are not palatable to the modern mind. The Torah, for example, says that if you marry a woman, and she turns out not to be a virgin, you’re to kill her on her father’s doorstep. To the best of my knowledge, Jews have never done this. They used their common sense to ignore this commandment.
The New Testament contains The Book of Revelation. If you believe in that book, it means the end of the world, and an awful lot of killing in the process.
And like you say, the Quran tells you to kill the adulterer. We know that this is wrong, because adultery, as bad as it is, is not as wrong as murder. There are different levels of wrong, and they should not be punished the same.
Hasan, to my mind, if there is any chance to come together, and that’s a big “if,” then it will require us at times, to step away from some of what is written in favor of what makes sense. Instead of believing what we want to believe, or what people tell us to believe, we will start believing in what makes sense, because in the final analysis, Common Sense is really how God speaks to us. He gave us this wisdom not just for the hell of it, but to use it to bring a semblance of order to this world.
When we use our Common Sense, we may at times be drawn away from certain passages of Holy Scripture, but doing that does not detract from God, but pays ultimate tribute to Him. At such times, we are validating the efficacy of His creation, by proving to Him and to ourselves that His creation is indeed “Good.”
Brothers sisters you have deviated from the original question. not only this you all seem, brothers and sisters , ( including our dear saudi brother) not to have much Actual religious education beside perhaps what has been taught through relatives or your local imam. Remember this Allah is all forgiving, his creation is imperfect perfection, we all strive to acheive it..but it is impossible. Even our Beloved Prophet, peace be upon him, could not claim to be perfect, and when our forefathers battled their enemy it was to fight oppression..not to force Dinn upon them.
As to Libyan women..generally speaking (because i have been impressed at their apptitude compared to the male segment), ARE OPRESSED! but don’t always blame the men for this opression. My obsevations show me that it is the “razor-sharp’ tongue of other women commiting a sin with gossip and silent accusation that cause the women to be timid and cover themselves in this Psuedo-islamic hijab. Religious or not as a muslim one should know the history..this extreme cover up does not originate in Mecca, but in the formerly Christian City of Damascus. wealthy Greek and Roman women( typically Christian) would wear it so that no lower class plebe could veiw her master/husband’s possesion.
Islam promotes Moderation in all things.. balance is the path.
A. Libyan
Nissim, I am a man not a woman. I am puzzled as to where in my writing did you deduce that I am a woman!! I am not offended just curious
Thanks anyway for your enlightened analysis and comments.
Provocation sometimes is the only way to highlight an issue and initiate a debate and this is one of the functions of the media in the west. I guess if the Swiss magazine did not write the article which provoked Tasnim to write her piece, we would not be here arguing about all these important issues. I see provocation as a means of “shock therapy” by which you force and then inspire people to become aware of certain issues and subjects they would not otherwise be interested in. That is what I attempted in my writing so far and it seems it had paid good dividends! I am glad that the debate had picked up some momentum and few blogs and websites are carrying it forward to a reasonable level of discussion.
One thing I would like to apologise for, however. When I mentioned the beduins of Libya I should have made it clearer that it is not people themselves I am against but their mentality and way of life. I personally do not mind if the country is inhabited by any race as long as they are all Libyans and adhere to what is commonly known as Libyan. For this reason I would encourage the Libyan Jews who fled in the 60s to go back to Libya and to form the basis of a real multicultural society once again, as it was the case in the 50s and 60s of the last century. We would expect them (I hope) to have their prime loyalty to Libya and not to any other country and to make real contribution in its advancement and prosperity.
It is important to mention that the arguments I made about Hijab are related specifically to Libyan society. As I said before, in the west every one is free by law in almost every aspect of their lives and you can wear or believe in whatever you like. Many arguments and analysis have been devoted to Hijab in Western countries by many good writers. Just Google “Hijab” and you will have all kinds of articles and essays. The justifications I have seen appear to emphasise Muslim women’s need to protect their identity in a multicultural and multi-faith society. I know for a fact that those who wear it in the west are generally influenced by their parents and the ghetto culture many of them were brought up in. Most of the fathers adopted an Islamist ideology which eventually they pass on to their wives and children. Relatively a small number of girls deviate from the norms of their Islamic upbringing, and these brave souls go through so much hardship and agony as they become alienated and outcasts within their communities with all kinds of unjustified accusations and attacks on their personalities. I know many who are regarded as “leaders” in their communities whose wives wear Hijab only when they are among Muslims, and they do not do so in the street or when mingling with westerns. You will be shocked and disgusted if I reveal to you the names of these so called “leaders”!!
But this experience is not transferable to Libya, especially as all Libyans are Muslims (supposedly) so what kind of identity is Hijab wearing women are attempting to project?
Here in the UK, when we go out in the busy streets we normally encounter more women than men in all kinds of clothes. Recently, the fashion seems to inspire young ladies to uncover the top part of their bottoms and around the waist and almost bare breasts. This might sound as extreme but very common in all Western European societies. Because of its normality, as men, it does not affect us in anyway and we do not pay attention to it, discuss it or make it an issue.
By contrast, I remember when I was young usually there will be few middle-aged men playing cards (shkubba or skambeel) at one of the corners of the street and opposite the mosque. When a lady wearing farrashia passes in front of them covering herself from tip to toe, except for the eye and the feet, they all stop playing and start gazing anxiously at the only visible part of her body, the feet, until she disappears completely from their sight. I assume they would be having fantasies of all sorts at that moment. This is sickness and these men were sick and unfortunately a good proportion of our men were like that. Is this because we Libyan men are sick by nature or are there more underlying subtle reasons behind it?
I also remember when we visited Tunisia or Egypt in the early 70s, we used to see women taking off their farrashias at the border as they go through. Believing that no one will recognise them while abroad, they do not wear it until they are back at the border again. Why were they doing this do you think??
My secondary education was in a mixed school, which was unique at the time, where we learnt early on how to respect the other sex and how to value each other’s presence in the class, in the play area and in the street. Unfortunately, I do not think it is possible to find reliable statistics which could tell us what impact this experience may have had on those who graduated from this school and whether it had any effect on their perceptions of the other sex later on in life. In a western society this would not have been much of a problem!
When I was at university in the early eighties, there were few Libyan ladies who were the brightest and the smartest of all, yet I learnt later that some of them, as soon as they graduated they got married, given birth to a number of children (in one case seven) and that was it. Their life became the husband, the children and the weekly chatting parties they held with their relatives or friends. Where had all that education and the dreams they had gone?? Other similarly smart and clever young ladies were not even allowed by their parents to go to university, and this was in the capital Tripoli not in the countryside or the desert, fearing that they would become corrupted by the relatively liberal atmosphere of the university at the time which allowed girls and boys to mix together freely. In the time I was there, not a single Libyan woman wore the hijab and very few wore ma7rma. We used to camp and play football and other games together in an atmosphere of mutual respect and complete regard for each other.
Today, most (not all) women wear Hijab because of fear from the men, as admitted already by one of the ladies, who dominate and define this culture by their attitudes towards the women. If this is not oppression, I do not know what is??
Read more of my comments on the Brave Heart blog:http://smslibya.blogspot.com/2008/07/libyan-women-again.html
Thanks to you all.
Oh Oh! Sorry Khairi. I didn’t mean to get your sex wrong. I don’t really have a feel for the names of the region, and I guess I mistook you for a woman based on your highly emancipated point of view with regard to women. You don’t find many men who are willing to stand up for women the way you do, especially men from the Middle East.
I consider myself in the same category as you. For me, women have certain qualities which are superior to those of men. Unfortunately, some of those qualities are stifled in a culture that is often defined by men, as you suggest.
If women are able to give political expression to some of their innate qualities as women, then, as you suggested in one of your posts, this could be a pathway toward reform.
I think of women as the givers of life, and as the caretakers of life, and as such, I think they are best qualified to help reconstitute their societies consistent with a Vision of Hope.
Many women around the world have to care for their families with limited resources at their disposal. When your job is to care for others, you have no choice but to make things work. You have little time or patience for ideological nonsense, and for the violence that is often the result of such nonsense. In short, women often make more sense than men.
When you oppress women, you stifle their ability to calm things the hell down, and you allow men to call the shots, even if that means carrying ideological nonsense to an extreme.
Like you, Khairi, I am a man, but I realize that in many respects we may have made a mess of things. Maybe I’m wrong, but I see things heading toward a dark place. History seems to be heading quickly toward some sort of culmination of world events. Ideological Extremism, the threat to the Environment, and the inherent unfairness of certain Economic realities, seem to be converging in a bad way.
If there is a hope to get us out of this morass before it’s too late, it will be in part due to an empowerment of women by financing female entrepreneurs and promoting women’s rights. Their natural inclination toward peace can and should become a permanent fixture in the public mind, and could be used to bring about the kinds of reform which could point to the possibility of peace, prosperity, freedom, and a healthy environment.
You have said that so far you remain unconvinced by the arguments you’ve read. I don’t think convincing anyone is necessary to useful debate. But, in reply to your comments, I have a few points I want to make.
First, I’m not going to argue that Arab society is more “liberal” than the West, but I’d like to contest the idea that “you can wear or believe in whatever you like”. I’ve never been completely convinced that complete freedom reigns supreme anywhere. You can’t wear whatever you like when a student is not allowed to wear black because black is “an Islamic colour.”
For a fact? Earlier on you said “statistically and factually” Libyan women are “generally” backward thinking, later redefining the statement as a generalization. I’m thinking that this is another fact I would personally describe as a generalization.
On the reasons for wearing hijab (in the west or in Libya) I referred to Saba Mahmoud, because I really think she makes an important point. If functionalist explanations attempt to understand and then explain why women wear hijab to empower these women, they also silence them by denying them access to their own representation.
You note that girls who “deviate from the norms of their Islamic upbringing” become outcasts. I won’t deny that some women might wear hijab because of what they see as societal pressure. This does not mean every muta7ajiba has been nagged, needled or otherwise harangued into her hijab.
In my experience those who believe hijab is part of Islam see it as compliance with a commandment, in the same way as performing the daily prayers. If that compliance were to be enforced or imposed, you would be just going through the motions. It would have no real meaning.
I always thought this idea of hijab as a form of authenticating cultural identity becomes a little problematic when it comes to muta7ajib converts. Others have reassured me that it is always possible female converts either a) like the misunderstood minority look, or b) want a cut-and-paste “authentic identity.”
I don’t pretend to understand either explanation, and I can’t say I see the hijab as primarily an identity-projector, so my only response to this question refers back to Mahmoud’s criticism. Explanations of reasons women wear hijab would benefit from being considered in the terms of women who actually wear the hijab.
So these bright women graduated, got married and had children. If this is due to the nefarious workings of Islamisation, perhaps the West and its Patriot Acts needs to be alerted to the need for an investigation into the terrorist affiliations of housewives.
What I’m trying to say is this: I know women who don’t work and don’t wear hijab, I know women who work and wear hijab, and I know that educated, ambitious, successful Libyan women are not the exception to any generalization.
The fact is that in today’s Libya there are more women who wear hijab than in the 70’s. There are also many more female university graduates and women who work than in the 70’s, which kind of does away with the misconception that the hijab converts women to agoraphobic secluded housewives.
PH made a point linking colonization and secular values, which you argued was “only a figment of your imagination. This is exactly what your enemies want you to believe in!” I’m a little confused. What enemies? And if we assume the link between colonization and secularism is no more than paranoid delusion, what happened in Libya from 1911 to 1943? What, if any, effect did colonization have?
For such a silly ridiculously unimportant thing, the hijab seems to command a great deal of power. It can after all narrow the mind, kill ambitions, quell intelligence, cause lives to revolve around a piece of cloth and saddle aspiring, ambitious women with seven children and an oppressive husband.
How exactly do “silly things like hijab” kill ambitions? Who decides what is “ridiculously unimportant”? And, I know I’m repeating myself here, but why is choice the prerogative of women in the western world?
I think these are your words:
I recently read an article which discussed veiling of women in the Middle East. It is very puzzling how westerns can create such strong opinions from just a picture such as the one provided above of the women wearing a farashiya.
My main concerns relate back to the article which expressed great interest in how we should work towards making the world a better place, instead of criticizing and dictating how others choose to live their lives. Many of the preconceived notions we have about women who wear different veils are from the news and history of these women. I do not believe that Libyan women should have to stand against these judgments because they cloth themselves differently from other cultures and societies.
In my opinion, it is our cultures and different ways of living which make each of us unique from one another. Westerns have ideals about what is important to them such as: fashion what is acceptable what is not, relationships, marriage – age which is appropriate, family, and many other things.
For the most part, we cannot understand the importance of other cultures’ way of living because it is so different from our own. We believe in different gods, religions, rules, lifestyles and that is what has shaped our individual worlds. What needs to be considered and taken into account is that we do not have the right to take away people’s dignity by evaluating and comparing their lives to our own.
Questions I have: How can we change this view of women who wear veils? Would changing news/newspaper articles/internet’s focus on veiling be a step towards a different perspective on women in the Middle East?
Regarding the Hijab issue, a couple of days ago I came across this website (http://www.headscarf.net) which for those who have some time to spare and interested in finding out whether Hijab is obligatory (fard) or not, can spare a few hours to explore this outstanding encyclopaedic website about every thing “Hijabic”
Those who believe in shoyukh and ulama note in particular the eloquent views of the late Dr Zaki Badawi. If you want justification that Hijab is cultural and not religious see if you can work out what this sheikh is saying. I quote “….. Dr. Zaki Badawi who you will recall declared that the headscarf is not obligatory in Islam. A statement that in the mid 1990′s caused fanatic Muslims to brand Dr. Badawi ‘a criminal’, and ‘a forger’ after he had gone on television in Holland to tell Muslim women that it is not necessary to wear the hijab as it is not required in Islam. The Issue of the Veil in Islam has been subject to much interpretation by the classical scholars of long ago and also by modern day scholars. Some scholars in their enthusiasm to try and prove that the Veil is compulsory in Islam have used a weak hadith – one that is not of proven authenticity. ”
I also quote a female from one of the articles listed here “Muslim women need to stop fooling themselves. This hejab and burqa is not for religion, only for men to have power over them. Open your eyes I want to say to them.” You see, it is not only me who think that men are the source of the Hijab problem
Most of the comments appeared in Q-news magazine which was founded by Kenyan journalist Fuad Nahdi, whom I knew in the eighties in London when we were at the same university, although my studies were far from journalistic. Q-news was staffed by either Muslim converts or young ladies from the sub continent (Pakistan and India). Note that most (if not all) of the comments were made by this group of people and they reflect their cultural experience and point of view. It was a progressive Islamist magazine which founded on the pillars of western journalistic standards and ethics. It started in the late 80′s in a four page black & white newsletter form which I still have in my possession the first few issues. Remember that in this period Cat Stevens (Yusuf Islam) considered music “Haram” (I am glad he is back on track with his guitar and wonderful voice) and Sheikh Omar Abdulrrahman (the convicted terrorist) was preaching freely in London and in the houses of some Libyan Millionaires who lived here at the time!
I will keep repeating that what we have in Libya is one version of Islam and not the only or best Islam. Every one knows that there are many sects and groupings belonging to this religion and the version we have existed purely for historical reasons, just like the others, not because it is the one and only!
In the past, when people gather within one place of land and form a society it was possible to be immune from outside influences which allows them to protect themselves and their culture within their boundaries, at least for a while. This situation normally changes when they are conquered and occupied by another group of people who take their land and enforce their way of life, religion and culture leading to a different society being formed. Muslims were a superpower when they occupied most of the known world at that time. They remained in some areas where they enforced their religion and culture; in others they were thrown out and lost the influence they once had. Had Isabella and Ferdinand not gathered a more powerful army to kick us out, Spain probably would be a Muslim country today and Sunni Maliki as well! Also, had the Fatimid state الفاطميين not got defeated around a thousand years ago in North Africa, we would probably be all Shia today!! But that is history, we cannot change it, we can only learn from it.
Today things are different. The whole world comes to you even if you did not want to take the trouble and go to it. You are forced to takes notice of certain things which otherwise you would not have bothered to notice. Civilisations grow and prosper when they encapsulate all human experiences in a new form that proves superior and more beneficial in meeting the needs of human beings. This is what the Western civilisation had done over the past few hundred years which led to its domination, as we know it today. For Islam and Muslims, their civilisation and superpower status passed away long time ago, and all what we have left of it is a reminder that it once existed and it was great, which no body can deny. It was great because we presented to the world better value systems and practical solutions which helped mankind in the process of human evolution to land us where we are today. But that was in the past and today we have hardly anything to present to the world which they do not have. In fact we import almost everything from outside our borders to keep us alive and kicking! Many Muslims still live in the dream that we are still great and deserve to be treated as great, even though they can see that our civilisation is dead and exists only in the museums and in library books. I am not asking for anyone to convert themselves and become westerners, but I would like to raise the question how can you survive if you cannot comprehend that the world had changed? Don’t you know that unless you change you are doomed!!
Sometimes I feel it is futile to argue with certain kinds of people, who think that what they believe in is set in stone and hence they leave you no room for constructive discussion. They think it is only them who matter as if they are the only important living creature that counts. But I learnt, sometimes in a hard way, that controversial and contentious issues need to take their natural course of time and a lot of effort to become acceptable or at least tolerable. In other times it is the shock factor which does the trick.
You denigrate the religion of Islam in your posts but yet you cite Islam as the reason for not wearing the Hijab. But since you have used it I will give you the counter opinion based a hadith.
Allah (SWT) says: “O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) over their bodies (when outdoors). That is most convenient that they should be known and not molested.” (Sura #33 ayah #59)
And here is what Khairi forgot to mention. Dr. Zaki Badawi’s full words were:
“I have issued a fatwa that Muslim women in Britain have an Islamic right to take off their hijab at this point of time if attacked or fearing to be attacked,” Dr. Zaki Badawi, the Dean of the Muslim College in London, told IslamOnline.net over the phone from the British capital.
Here is the link to that article. http://www.mostmerciful.com/fatwa-on-hijab-and-my-rejoinder.htm
To protect oneself and others we Muslims are allowed to take our Hijabs off according to Dr. Zaki Badawi but you forgot to mention that clause and generalized it to all situations. As for the rest of your article be sure that I will address it.
I very much appreciate Alia’s comments. What makes us unique is our culture. The way forward isn’t to denigrate our identity and get rid of it. Our identity is what made us the most powerful nation at one time. We should see what makes we made since then and address those.
The way forward can be either good or evil. The evil way forward is usually the easier one. We could, for example, get rid of our Islamic notion of brotherhood and become an individualistic society like the US. No doubt it worked for them and it is after all harder to care for society as a whole than it is to serve your interests but this world is not the only aim for us Muslims. We have to follow our religion for the hereafter as well. It is because of this aim that we cannot absorb all that Western society promotes no matter how much success it will bring us in this life. That is not to say you cannot be successful in this life if you are a Muslim. To the contrary we have been successful in the past when we followed Islam. Islam promotes exemplary characteristics in people such as discipline, caring for society, piety, humility, caring for family amongst others. These are all desirable qualities regardless of what part of the world you live in. If Muslims implemented these qualities as mandated by their religion they would be successful in this life and the hereafter.
I would like to apologise for the delay in answering some of the questions that were directed at me.
Nissim, I agree with you all the way, I just hope that what you said made sense to those who read your comments
Tasnim, first of all I see no shame or embarrassment to mention your name, because I am attempting to communicate with a person I respect and who happens to have a name called Tasnim! Second, I thought I was unambiguous in standing for free personal choice without fear or coercion. You are free to wear hijab if that is your choice and no one should take that right away from you. But, by the same token, those who do not want to wear hijab should have the same freedom. I mentioned the 70s to make the point that the dominance of hijab today was never an essential characteristic of Libyan women or that of Islam. Otherwise, all the women who did not wear hijab in the past 1400 years will go to hell because they did not comply with the “commandment”!
Those who say that Islam makes it an obligation on women to obey men seem to forget that all religions were created by men and consequently tailored to serve their gender on the expense of other. Women’s contributions to religion were rare and far in between. Until today, most Muslim men keep repeating that women lack in faith and brain power ((ناقصات عقل ودين. It is engraved in the subconscious of most Arabs and Muslims in particular and some other societies as well, even if some deny this in public.
No wise person enters into a debate without considering his views as convincing. It is up to others to highlight any pitfalls they might see in his/her arguments. All debates are initiated for the sole purpose of exchanging ideas, and whoever comes up with a more convincing argument wins! But here winning is not for personal gain, as in the Olympics or in Football, rather it is for the betterment of the “human condition”!!
Women wearing black can be seen in almost every British city and no one is allowed by law to physically attack them or humiliate them. The only exception is where this style of dressing contradicts with job functions or particular institutions. For example, people in airport security are obliged to undress any person if they see fit. Do not forget that some terrorists were able to escape by veiling themselves in black dresses. As a student in a western higher education institution, what a woman covering herself in black is doing there??!! She is wearing that dress because she is in denial of everything these institutions represent! She is absolutely free to join any Islamic institution and continue her studies over there. I have never seen an orthodox Jew with his unique appearance or a catholic nun mingling with other normal people in any college or university I have visited in the UK. These people have their own institutions which is where they normally go.
Italian colonisation of Libya achieved one objective: They sent the country back at least 300 years. If you want the western academic reference for this let me know and I will dig it up for you.
I did not say that. The problem has to do with what the men want (Patriarchal society). Hijab protects the women from the men; effectively this means the law of the jungle is in place. Women do not have to fear men no matter what they wear or think. A bad woman is a bad woman, and what she dresses or wears will not change this fact. However, the notion of “bad woman” is debatable, because every society has its own definition of what is a bad woman, or a bad man for that matter.
You can change this view by taking the initiative to refuse to be subservient to men wherever you are. Forget that men exist in your surrounding and behave as responsible person who values herself irrespective of what other men or even women think of you. Do what you think is right, and steer clear of what you personally think is wrong.
Best wishes to all.
OK, did I miss something? Because I honestly don’t understand what you’re on about there.
You criticized Muslims who label or refer to non-hijabi women in a derogatory manner. I absolutely agree with you there. But then you go on to talk about women who wear hijab using words like silly and irresponsible. I find that contradictory.
Of course. What I meant was, I’m not trying to force my opinion on anyone. I wrote the original post in response to something I read. Personally, as a Libyan woman, I was irritated by the presuppositions the article made, but I don’t expect everyone to agree with me. I just think ideas can be usefully exchanged without convincing the other side.
Exactly. Which is why I find it kind of funny that someone should be prevented from wearing a colour because of its supposed religious significance.
I wasn’t talking about niqab, if that’s what you mean by black dresses. I was talking about just wearing a certain colour. If you’ve seen the BBC documentary on the French hijab ban, The Headmaster and the Headscarves, you’ll have seen that part where the Headmaster airs his opinion on the Islamicness of black. My point is “you can wear anything you want” is often a simplification.
You’re right. But that is no contradiction to the fact that colonization was a factor in increasing secularism.
In reply to the comments been pointed by khairi I am quit surprised as a Libyan my self to the way he presents his self even though I can agree he is got every right to express his views but that should be not looked as the Libyan views which he tried hard to convince the readers we Libyans do not agree to Islam to be forced on us
I do not think and very suspicious if Mr khairi even knows the cities and society of Libya but nevertheless Libya is a majority Muslim sunny country
The Libyan people are one of the strongest minded people in the Middle East
Going back to the Libyan women I for one have sisters in Libya and in the other hand have daughters in the UK and that is with my English wife
My daughters are growing up and in their twenties and if I could turn the clock back and have my choice considering my wife’s view to where should I bring my daughters up?
My answer will be with out any hesitation Libya this is not to say my daughters are bad but there is certain things in life more educational than been free to do what you like the western society uses women as an object and the media encourages woman to have no self respect as so called freedom
iam a libyan who has lived in canada for 9 years, and i just recently visited libya for 6 months. and i am always hearing about how mistreated and over powerd women are in middle eastern countries and honestly im sick of it.. honestly in libya and any other muslim countrys(with one exception) if you dont want to wear a hijab or the traditional abaya nobody forces you to, and wearing a hijab is a decision that you make and not one that society makes for you. libyan society might be strict but it is based on the islamic religion which shows equality between both sexes, but other then that libyan women are free to do what ever they want.
Kill the adulterer???? The Quran doesn’t mention this at all! The punishment for adultery is lashings for both the male and the female. They are both equal and get equal punishment.
To say Libyan girls aren’t forced to cover their hair is a LIE! Some girls can’t even leave the house and eagerly wait for any random man to marry them and set them free.