A writer from a distinguished Zaidi family has likened the treatment of Muslim women in Wahhabi Arabia, I mean, Saudi Arabia, to the way African Americans were treated 60 years ago, before they achieved their civil rights. After speaking directly to Saudi women about how they feel about being covered from head to toe and unable to participate freely in society, and inspired by the Zaidi principle of a just society, Abdullah Hamidaddin was moved to become a champion of their cause.
Abdullah Hamidaddin’s article includes the following quote from a Saudi sister fed up with being treated as an "irrational human being" by her male guardians:
"I am a "seduction". This sums up how I look into myself. I am in the eyes of everyone first and foremost a body that is desired. A body that must continuously be concealed so as to protect men from the evils of my beauty. My mind cannot be seen unless I hide my body. And to the degree that I reveal my body less is seen of my mind even if it was casual and modest. I don’t own myself. My life is a set of roles that I didn’t choose and have no right to question. My duties and "rights" are tailored for me by others, and I must be grateful for whatever comes. My feelings have no value. Few look at me as I am and consider what it is that I really want. Rarely am I looked upon as a rational being that has the right to be a full human, has the right to have a body, and has the right to act as she will without considering its impact on others. I have no decision. I am an all time minor. I pass from the guardianship of one to another. From my father, to my brother, my husband and then even my son. And if neither of those then to a judge who knows nothing of me or my needs. I am a tag. I am a mother, a sister, a daughter, and a wife but I am never simply a "me". Don’t believe those who tell you that they accept this with satisfaction. Whoever accepts this is either a woman afraid of the responsibility of independence individuality and humanity. Or a woman who has no more sense of her marginalized character while she is being treated as a minor. Any person is choked by this. Some of us reject silently. Some of us vocally. I cannot be silent. The situation chokes me. But I pay the price dearly. Look how people talk about me."
Commenting on this sister’s predicament, Hamidaddin writes:
“Feelings of frustration, anger, sadness of the way she is perceived manifest differently according to the woman's temperament. Some women rebel openly against norms and traditions. Some go further and reject religion silently or as the case of some openly and publicly such those who wrote against everything including religion. Some accept this subjugation unwillingly sometimes due to survival necessities. And then there is she who decides to wipe off herself to relieve herself from the inner struggle between her individuality and her restraints. I don’t blame those whose anger takes them far.....We may not be practicing racial segregation, but when we separate a woman from her humanness we are practicing segregation from humanity which in some ways may be lead to experiences worse than that those experienced by blacks."
To read more of Hamidaddin’s ground-breaking article, click on comments.
In neighbouring Yemen, not a Wahhabi state but a republic with a Zaidi and Sunni population, women are also under immense pressure to conform to the Wahhabi interpretation of women’s role (or lack of role to be more accurate).
We have already seen in my post “What is the Zaidi Position on the Burqa?” (in June section), that women’s groups in Yemen have blamed the Saudi funded Salafi/Wahhabi invasion of Yemen since the Afghan war, for the revival of the burqa in their country. It would appear that, when the salafi women wore it, the non-salafi husbands may have wanted to “keep up with the neighbours” in keeping their women-folk out of view.
The Qur’anic verses relating to hijab (which do not mention covering the face) are also quoted and discussed in the June post in this blog.
In response to that post, Imam Rassi society has confirmed that Zaidi fiqh, like 12 Imamer fiqh and moderate sunni fiqh, does not require women to cover their faces or stay out of public life. A scholar from Imam Rassi society writes:
“I do not know of any opinion that precludes women from public life! Indeed, the perfect model for women, Fatima az-Zahra, alayha as salaam, went out herself to demand her rights from the first caliph! The isolation and confinement that is practiced is probably more cultural than textual!
As far as the burqa, the Zaidi opinion is that only the khimar (head scarf) is obligatory for women. In a book of fiqh written by a contemporary scholar, he cited that the Zaydi opinion is that the only portion of a female body that can remain uncovered is the face and hands. There is even a minority opinion amongst the scholars that allow the feet to be uncovered. However, the general view is that only the face and hands. What's practised in Yemen may be more cultural than anything. A woman is free to wear niqab if she wants, but it would be incorrect to force it upon her as an obligation. As for child marriages, a precondition of marriage is that the person reaches the age of baligh (past puberty).”
The lack of female representation in the arenas of politics, religion, business, the Arts and the Sciences in Yemen, when compared with other Muslim countries such as Iran, Egypt, Morocco, Malaysia and Pakistan, raises questions about the whether Yemen’s Zaidi women are being treated according to the Zaidi principles of justice and social progress. This backwardness in the development of women’s role in society may be more to do with Yemen’s lack of education in general than with interpretations of Islam. Yemen has one of the highest rates of illiteracy in the Muslim world, for males and females, and continues to struggle economically even more than the Muslim countries mentioned above.
It would be interesting to see how Zaidi ijtihad would respond to the need for reform regarding women’s rights and self determination if Zaidism flourished in a highly developed Muslim nation or a Western nation.
Here is the article by Abdullah Hamidaddin, entitled " Segregating women from their humanity":
ReplyDeletePart 1: I was visiting a friend a few days ago in Little Rock, Arkansas, state of President Clinton and other prominent American leaders. He took me around the city starting from the Clinton Presidential Library and ending in Little Rock High School, the center of political and social events that constituted a turning point in the social history of the United States.
Though the American constitution grants individuals equal rights, yet there were those who interpreted it in a way that legitimized racial segregation between blacks and whites; thus "constitutionally" not allowing blacks to mix with whites in schools and other public areas. The legal principle which proponents of segregation upheld was "separate but equal". Whites and blacks are equal in the eyes of the law, but each in their own geographical space. Opponents of segregation resisted such a principle more than one time of which one was in 1923 where the majority of the Supreme Court supported that principle justifying it by saying: "if one race be inferior to the other socially, the Constitution cannot put them on the same plane."
In 1954 the Supreme Court rejected that principle and considered racial segregation unconstitutional. As one would expect, things didn’t simply end here. In spite of a constitution that guarantees equal rights and supported with an interpretation that prohibits racial segregation, some southern states rejected the court's decision. Three years later 9 black students decided to act upon their constitutional right and attend school in the whites only Little Rock Public High School. Events escalated till President Eisenhower intervened in 25th September 1957 sending 1200 soldiers to the high school to protect the students and uphold the law. The legal victory of 1954 was based on psychological considerations. Opponents of racism presented evidence proving that racial segregation creates a feeling of inferiority leading to a permanently unhealthy person, who despises him/her self and has low self esteem. Those studies helped turn the case around to the side of the opponents of racial segregation.
The whole story is rich in meaning and deserves much contemplation, but at the time the foundations of the court's ruling particularly caught my attention. The wording of the Constitution did not change, but consideration of the psychological impact of racial segregation lead to a change in its interpretation in a way that invalidates legalization of segregation even criminalizing it.
What can we say about the consequences of the demeaning situation of the Saudi woman? And how important is it to include those consequences in the legal and jurisprudential debate?
On different occasions I would ask Saudi women of different age groups to briefly describe their social experience of womanhood. One of the more expressive answers was:
Part 2:
ReplyDelete"I am a "seduction". This sums up how I look into myself. I am in the eyes of everyone first and foremost a body that is desired. A body that must continuously be concealed so as to protect men from the evils of my beauty. My mind cannot be seen unless I hide my body. And to the degree that I reveal my body less is seen of my mind even if it was casual and modest. I don’t own myself. My life is a set of roles that I didn’t choose and have no right to question. My duties and "rights" are tailored for me by others, and I must be grateful for whatever comes. My feelings have no value. Few look at me as I am and consider what it is that I really want. Rarely am I looked upon as a rational being that has the right to be a full human, has the right to have a body, and has the right to act as she will without considering its impact on others. I have no decision. I am an all time minor. I pass from the guardianship of one to another. From my father, to my brother, my husband and then even my son. And if neither of those then to a judge who knows nothing of me or my needs. I am a tag. I am a mother, a sister, a daughter, and a wife but I am never simply a "me". Don’t believe those who tell you that they accept this with satisfaction. Whoever accepts this is either a woman afraid of the responsibility of independence individuality and humanity. Or a woman who has no more sense of her marginalized character while she is being treated as a minor. Any person is choked by this. Some of us reject silently. Some of us vocally. I cannot be silent. The situation chokes me. But I pay the price dearly. Look how people talk about me."
I heard a similar answer from a woman living outside the bonds of customs and norms even outside religious boundaries. Assuming that she had a more positive answer I asked her: "How could you say this and your life is as free as it is?" Her reply was shockingly telling: "I am like this because it coincided that that my husband wants this life of me (not for me). My freedom is his freedom. My choices are his. Though I am happy being better than others, but my sense of humanness and personhood remains incomplete."
Part 3:
ReplyDeleteFeelings of frustration, anger, sadness of the way she is perceived manifest differently according to the woman's temperament. Some women rebel openly against norms and traditions. Some go further and reject religion silently or as the case of some openly and publicly such those who wrote against everything including religion. Some accept this subjugation unwillingly sometimes due to survival necessities. And then there is she who decides to wipe off herself to relieve herself from the inner struggle between her individuality and her restraints.
I don’t blame those whose anger takes them far.
The least right a woman in such a situation is to be angry at a patriarchal male dominated society that reduced her to a body and deprived her of her most basic human rights.
We may not be practicing racial segregation, but when we separate a woman from her humanness we are practicing segregation from humanity which in some ways may be lead to experiences worse than that those experienced by blacks.
We need to acknowledge this, making it an integral part of the debate on women rights. Legislative debates that focus on Islam and its view on women rights are fundamental but not sufficient. Getting closer to the psychological situation of women enhances our ability to interpret legislative texts. The laws of the United States changed when their judges looked into the psychological consequences of racial segregation. It may take some time for our laws to immediately change but we would at least change our perspective on the predicament of women in a way that would set the ground for future change in legislation.
And as a first step, I would suggest to every man believing that a woman has rights to wear a veil for two hours daily. Then to follow the instructions of his wife (or other relevant woman) regarding travel and stepping out of the house. Or he should just place himself under her guardianship in the same way she is under his. After that he should look at the suffocation he will experience. This is despite that this is a self imposed temporary situation. So how would it be for those whose whole life is such? Once we start doing that, once we start trying to be closer to the predicament of women, then we can speak of women rights.
What a fantastic article!! Zaidism is paving the way for womens rights in the Islamic world by setting clear rights for women.
ReplyDeleteIts really interesting to read first-hand how a Saudi Woman feels. We so often judge their plight from the outside, without consulting those who are affected. Her response is moving.
I'm not sure I agree with the Zaidi theology on the issue of Hijab (covering everything but the face and feet)
I think the exterior appearance of a woman is trivial and of personal choice, not a condition of faith.
Men should just Butt out and instead concern themselves with protecting their own modesty.
Resisting temptations and 'seductions' should bear an onus on both women and men. Why should we walk the streets in cotton helmets with only our hands exposed to sunlight, while men gallivant around in whatever they choose!?
Instead of bestowing that responsibility fully on women, why not share the load?
Thanks for your comment. As far as women’s dress in Islam is concerned, I think the hope lies with the re-interpretation of the Quranic verses relating to women’s dress in a less literal way. Muhammad Asad (English translator with mu’tazili tendencies) points out, in his commentary of these verses, that they are to be understood as a general message of modesty and decency in dress, rather than as specific guidelines of exactly what to wear for all women-kind everywhere. What was appropriate, in order to distinguish oneself from a prostitute or promiscuous woman, in the days of the early Muslims of Arabia, may not be necessary in other cultures or in later times in order to achieve the same outcome. I think the best way to judge what is appropriate in a given society, is to look at the societal norms regarding decent dress and indecent dress and go from there. It should not be necessary to look like a medieval Arab if you happen to live in Australia or Romania in 2010. It should not be necessary for a Muslim woman living in a non Muslim society to be stigmatized where-ever she goes because she stands out and looks so different. But Muslim women should never imitate the dress codes of prostitutes and loose women living in their society. That might mean, for example, staying away from the high heels/ mini-skirt/ heavy make-up combination which has become so commonplace among today’s young Western women, and wearing instead a pair of loose jeans and a shirt.
ReplyDeleteHere's another article confirming the dismal plight of women in the Wahhabi state of Saudi Arabia:
ReplyDeleteSaudi women are being kept in perpetual childhood so male relatives can exercise "guardianship" over them, the Human Rights Watch group has said.
The New York-based group says Saudi women have to obtain permission from male relatives to work, travel, study, marry or even receive health care.
Their access to justice is also severely constrained, it says.
The group says the Saudi establishment sacrifices basic human rights to maintain male control over women.
The report says that Saudi women are denied the legal right to make even trivial decisions for their children - women cannot open bank accounts for children, enroll them in school, obtain school files or travel with their children without written permission from the child's father.
Human Rights Watch says that Saudi women are prevented from accessing government agencies that have no established female sections unless they have a male representative.
Male guardianship over adult women also contributes to their risk of exposure to violence within the family as victims of violence find it difficult to seek protection or redress from the courts.
Social workers, physicians and lawyers say that it is nearly impossible to remove guardianship from male guardians who are abusive, the group says. (BBC news, 21st April 2008).
This Western Puppets must be Stopped.Muslims unlike Other Religions(Except Confucianism)Encourage Sex,Reproduction and See it as a Sin not to Engage in Sexual Pleasures.Sex is Clean in Islam.and Provided it Is thru The right Outlet,it is a Great source of Godly Rewards,and Form of worship.
ReplyDeleteNow We All Know the Women of Ahl ul-Bayt(a.s)Wore The Niqab.
In regards to Women :
1.Muslim Women Had the right to Vote Since the Days of Our Prophet Muhammad(SWS),Whereas ion The civilized west,you didnt Get this right until the 20th Century.
2.Muslim Women Have Inheritence rights and Property Rights ,And this is Based on the quran and Traditions and PRactice of All Muslim States, something Not granted to Them in Western countries Until the 20thb Century.
3.Muslim Women Are Told To cover up,Because as many women Who CHOOSE to Wear the Niqab :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXzUuKdfnRE Hijab, Niqab or Nothing
Have Said,Men Respect Them,they See Them As a Object of Dignity ,Virtue And Appreciatte Their Value in society
in the West Women Are seen as Sex Objects Showing their Awrat for a Bottle Of Water!
A Great Lecture on This subject is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKi2JBUSFkw Dr. Shomali - Islam and Sexuality - PressTV, 'Minbar'
4.Comparing the Rates of Rape,Divorce,Sexual Abuse and Sexual Harrasment at the workplace in Muslim countries VS.The'' Liberated West'''We Find
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...pes-per-capita
That Saudi Arabia and other muslim Countries has the Lowest for Example on The List While Western-christian-Countries have the Highest Rates .
1 of 6 U.S. women has experienced an attempted or completed rape. (according to Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault)
Also 47% of rapes, both the victim and the perpetrator had been drinking. In 17%, only the perpetrator had been. 7% of the time, only the victim had been drinking. Rapes where neither the victim nor the perpetrator had been drinking were 29% of all rapes.
Now you Can See Why Islam,Forbids Alcohol completely .
Alcohol also is the major Source of Western Countries Debts,Social problems,Incest,Homicide(Al-Qatil),and other Crimes almost 86 % ,to my knwoledge Atleast,Of the Cases involve Alcohol.
Now in the U.K the Bastion of '''Freedom'''the Rates of Rape Are 230 cases every day
In muslim countries ,we Respect Our women,and do not See Nakedness adn Lewdness As Freedom.
May i Remind you :60 % of Parlement in some muslim Countries,like iran,and i think Saudi Arabia Are women
In The West,this is unheard of Practicly,but Nominally Women have Freedom.
Finally Feminism is a Ideolgoy Like Nazism
it was Created to Enslave Women
www.savethemales.ca/ -
See the Backround on Feminism and how the Powers That Be,Promoted it To Destroy the Family.
The Worst Type of Slavery is When You Think your Liberated!
The opinion and Irreligiousity of A Few Saudis Should not Spoil it for all these Millions of Women.
The Fact is Saudi women on the Internet always Say They dont nmind this Treatment Because They Are Treated As Queens.
In Regards to the south,Aden was Communist,and the Regime Openly Encouraged Irreligiousity.
im not Saying Niqab Should Be Forced.
but i am Saying it Should not be fought Against Either.
You Know there Were many Muslim women who Chose To Wear Niqab and Do Very Well for Themselves in the Society.
ReplyDeleteIn Yemen there Are many women Who Function Very Well with Niqab.
some Yemeni Beloved Rulers Like Queen Hurrat al-Malika Wore Hijab.
also the Bana'at Al-Risalah Wore niqab.
and you Saw That the worst Thing that Happened To The Ahl Ul-Bayt in the Battle of Karbala Was when The Bana'at Al-Risalah Had their Niqabs torn off of Them(a.s).
had it been Any further allah would Have Destroyed This Earth.
Thanks for your comments! I agree with you about the statistics, but I think the prohibition of alcohol and the wearing of modest dress would be sufficient to keep down rape stats, without women having to cover their entire bodies, which is frankly impractical if women are to lead an active life and experience what life has to offer (in a halal way of course). I am trying to ascertain whether Zaidi fiqh actually has a clear policy on the niqab. Anyway, we both agree that it shouldn't be compulsory. The Saudi Qur'ans make it seem that it is compulsory, and this is what I object to.
ReplyDeleteTo Ali, re “khumr” verse (24/31):
ReplyDeleteWhen Allah revealed this verse, as you pointed out, the word “khumr” meant a veil which was draped loosely around the womens’ body, in some kind of attractive way, without covering the bosom. If the word “khumr”, before the verse was revealed, already had the meaning of “covering the head and face”, why would Allah have needed to tell the women to cover their heads and faces with their “khumr”? They would have already been doing so! No, at that time, khumr simply meant veil. The reason why, in post -revelation dictionaries, the word “khumr” is translated as a “veil covering the head and face” is that at some stage after the verse was revealed, the word gradually became associated with the full head covering which some women wear and have worn in some societies (even before Islam). We need to understand the words as they were understood at the time and place of revealing, not how they were understood afterwards. So, in the context of this particular verse, “khumr” simply means “veil” and “juyoobihinna” means “bosoms”. There is no need to read extra words into it. In the Hadith you mentioned from Aisha (funny how Shi-ites use Aisha’s sayings only when it suits them), she used the verb ikhtamara which, according to what I said above, simply meant “veiled themselves”. She did not say “veiled their heads” or “veiled their faces”. Therefore her hadith (if we even accept hadeeth from Sunni sources) means that when women in Medina heard the verse saying that they should cover their bosoms with their veils, they cut their aprons and veiled themselves (i.e. presumably they covered their bosoms as the Qur’an had instructed them to) with them. Perhaps they did not have veils, so they used their aprons instead. The addition of the words “heads and faces” in English translations of Bukhari must be based on the dictionary meaning which the word “ikhtamara” later came to have. I see no need to add the words “head and faces” in the translation of this hadith, as the words “ikhtamara” at that time did not yet mean anything more than “veiled”. I think the practice of concealing the entire body like the Prophet’s wives did (because, as the Qur’an says, they are “not like other women”) is not compulsory. Some women may do it to imitate the wives of the Prophet, but most women do it either because they have been led to believe it is compulsory, or because they have no choice. I have worn it and I can tell you it is not a pleasant experience. If I were to wear it it would make my life extremely difficult. I do not believe religion is meant to be a source of suffering. It is meant to be a source of enlightenment.
''When Allah revealed this verse, as you pointed out, the word “khumr” meant a veil which was draped loosely around the womens’ body, in some kind of attractive way, without covering the bosom. If the word “khumr”, before the verse was revealed, already had the meaning of “covering the head and face”, why would Allah have needed to tell the women to cover their heads and faces with their “khumr”? '''
ReplyDeletei never said Khumr,ment covering the face,i said Khumr ment a Headscarf wich covers the head.i am not opposing your statement on that niqab is not Quranic,i am opposing your statement that The Quran does not Mandate Hijab for the head!
Now,you can Put a Hat on your Feet or your Back,
but its intended to be put on your Head.
The Saying of allah to cover their bosoms is because they wore these hijabs but did not cover there bosoms.
''''The reason why, in post -revelation dictionaries, the word “khumr” is translated as a “veil covering the head and face” is that at some stage after the verse was revealed, the word gradually became associated with the full head covering which some women wear and have worn in some societies (even before Islam). We need to understand the words as they were understood at the time and place of revealing, not how they were understood afterwards. So, in the context of this particular verse, “khumr” simply means “veil” and “juyoobihinna” means “bosoms”. ''''
actually,in order to make such a argument you need to prove this was a later day fabrication.All dictionaries from Muslim history define Khumr,and Jilbab as something wich covers the head. Unfotenatly WE DONT have any images or depictions or inscriptions wich show how muslim women dressed in the days of Ignorance and wether this refers to Khumr. Now i can Say Taharah refers to cleaning and not something religiouis,i can also claim that Qur'an means just any recitation and does not refer to allah's Book!i can also claim Nabi just means news giver and Rasool just means a postman but since certain words have special meanings i can not jump easily away from the Correct Interpretation.
i can also claim when allah Says:إِنَّمَا وَلِيُّكُمُ اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُه ُُ وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُوا الَّذِينَ يُقِيمُونَ الصَّلاَةَ وَيُؤْتُونَ الزَّكَاةَ وَهُمْ رَاكِعُونَ
005.055 Your Guardians Are Only Allah, His Messenger, and the (fellowship of)Are believers,- those who establish regular prayers and regular charity, and they bow down humbly (in worship). Notice the Word''إِنَّمَا'''
''إِنَّمَا''is like a Fortress that keeps all invaders out,Now i can claim that other hadith wich mention the Wali for marriage are Void,since my Wali is only allah ,his Messenger ,the Beleivers and and Ali(a.s)according to the Above ayat.therefore i dotn Need the Permisision of the Wali of a Kitabiya Fiancee is i take sucha Approach.and on the other hand,since my wali is the beelivers.i can marry a Muslima with my noones permission,since i am her Wali ,because i am a Beleiver too
but since Certain things have Special meanings,one cannot take such a Approach.
Thanks for your comments but I intend to keep up my hobbies of rock climbing and bush-walking in the great outdoors. I don't see why such pursuits should only be enjoyed by men. I don't believe Allah wanted women to miss out on enjoyable outdoor pastimes and hobbies which help them to get fit and healthy.
ReplyDelete