Talal Asad

I have just read an interesting interview by Talal Asad (Distinguished Professor of Anthropology at the City University of New York (CUNY) Graduate Center). He discusses human rights, secularism and the interaction between Islam and Western traditions. He makes very interesting observations about the interactions of the public and private in Islam. Here is an extract from his interview - an extract that highlights the importance of questioning what we mean by 'equality' and the benefits of individualism. I try to keep such questions at the forefront of my mind as I work within the world of human rights law:
"Of course there are people who are trying to rethink the Islamic tradition in ways that would make it compatible with liberal democracy. But I am much more interested in the fact that the Islamic tradition ought to lead us to question many of the liberal categories themselves. Rather than saying, "Well yes we can also be like you," why not ask what the liberal categories themselves mean, and what they have represented historically? The question of individualism, for example, is fraught with all sorts of problems, as people who have looked carefully at the tradition of individualism in the West know very well. The same is true of the question of equality. We know that the equality that is offered in liberal democracies is a purely legal equality, not economic equality. And the two forms of equality can't be kept in water-tight compartments. Even political equality doesn't necessarily give equal opportunity to all citizens to engage in or contribute to the formulation of policy. What do Islamic ideas about the individual, equality, etc., tell us about Western liberal ideas?
These are questions worth pursuing, I think. So instead of leaping up and saying, "Ah yes, we can all be liberal," I think it is more important to ask, for example, "What exactly does the liberal mean by tolerance?" It is easy enough to be tolerant about things that don't matter very much. That tends to be the rule in liberal societies. Increasingly what you believe, what you do in your own home, whether you stand on your head or decide not to, is up to you as an individual in liberal democracies. So who cares? The liberal tolerates these things because the liberal doesn't care about them. Yet tolerance is really only meaningful when it is about things that really matter. Even in ordinary language we talk about "tolerating pain". In other words, the kind of tolerance that really matters is something we ought to be exploring, thinking more about - and the ways in which the Islamic tradition conceives of tolerance (however limited that might be) helps to open up such questions."
http://www.asiasource.org/news/special_reports/asad.cfm

Wearing a Veil .. my readings on the issue (I)

I have begun reading a variety of articles and books on women in Islam, focusing particularly on the the wearing of the veil.
The article I am reading today describes the rise of "Islamism"--a political form of Islam-- and how educated, well-travelled women who are part of this movement decide to wear the veil as a symbol of pride and distinction. The author, Nilüfer Göle, (a prominent Muslim Turkish scholar) admits that it is a "puzzling issue, because they have become assertive by adopting a symbol of gender subservience and stigmatization." She describes the veil as a "stigma," but how it is now being used as a 'positive' stigma by many women:
"veiling as a sign that is seen as debasing women's identity - as inferior to men, passive and secluded in the interior family space -- is voluntarily adopted by women as a stigma sign, but struggling to become a new prestige symbol. In short, the meanings of the veil are undergoing a radical transformation by women who have had access to secular education and agency and claim their difference in spaces of modernity. The headscarf, symbol of backwardness, ignorance, and subservience for Muslim women in modern contexts, fights back to bcome, once again, as it has thought to be in the Islamic past, a symbol of distinction and prestige for urban Muslim women."
(Nilufer Gole, "The Voluntary Adoption of Islamic Stigma Symbols," 70 Social Research 810, 820-1 (2003)).

Female Sexuality... part I

I have been thinking a great deal about many universal, age-old topics as I tramp the streets of Cairo. One of these topics is “female sexuality”… who hasn’t written or thought about this?? Living in Cairo, I am experiencing my sexuality in a completely new way. There are many elements of the society here that want me to regard my sexuality as a dangerous and unwelcome force that I need to keep well hidden. Because this is a male-dominated culture, with men crowding the public spaces, my sexuality is seen as a source of public disorder. Men, it seems, are naturally sexual animals and so it is the duty of women to prevent the men from becoming too excited. Yesterday, I wore a t-shirt that was a little more low-cut than usual. No, you could not see a hint of my breasts. But it also wasn’t all the way up to my neck. The hissing from men doubled or trebled. And numerous women also looked at me and my collarbones with disgust. Otherwise, I was wearing a long skirt down to my ankles and my hair was tied back. I wasn’t wearing makeup.
Yes… I know that I am in a foreign culture with strong religious beliefs and, as a visitor, I should show respect for Islamic customs. I wouldn’t wear a short skirt and tank top. And I understand and respect the religious convictions of many people here. But my perspective is not religious because, well, I am not religious. And I can see clearly how sexuality is being used as a source of repression and how, in many ways, women are the more powerful members of society because they are capable of ‘entrancing’ men with their bodies. But because of the male physical strength, the men have taken over the majority of societies in the world and women are forced to ‘regulate’ themselves so that the poor men can cope.
Today I am reading an article about how the Taliban controlled women and the private sphere in Afghanistan. The autobiography of one Afghan woman recounts how: “Women were not allowed to laugh or even speak loudly, because this risked sexually exciting males. High heels were banned because their sound was also declared provocative. Makeup and nail varnish were banned. Women who failed to respect such edicts would be beaten, whipped, or stoned to death.” (From Juan Cole, “The Taliban, Women, and the Hegelian Private Sphere,” 70 Social Research 3 (Fall 2003).)
The Taliban was a particularly oppressive regime with shockingly anachronistic interpretations of Islam. But I can feel the same type of attitude here: that women need to ensure that they are in no way provocative, in order to save the poor men from their sexual urges. On my better days, I feel sorry for the men on the street and pity their need to hiss at me. It’s a pathetic attempt to seem ‘manly.’ On the harder days, I begin to feel their aggressive shouts and stares get under my skin and undermine my strength. Last night, after walking the streets in my shockingly provocative t-shirt (with sleeves and just below the collar-bone), I decided to head to the all-women’s section of the gym and avoid any male attention. Constantly pushing against the male assertions of dominance can get tiring and I needed a few hours to feel comfortable with my body and not feel judged or sexually threatening. But these all-female rooms shouldn’t have to exist… it should be the men who are made to regulate their bodies and potential sexual urges. And it should be the men who are made to feel embarrassed and ashamed if they find themselves incapable of controlling their excitement at the sight of a woman’s body.