Author: Ophelia Benson

The situation of women living in Islam-stricken societies and under Islamic laws is the outrage of the 21st century. Burqa-clad and veiled women and girls, beheadings, stoning to death, floggings, child sexual abuse in the name of marriage and sexual apartheid are only the most brutal and visible aspects of women’s rightlessness and third class citizen status in the Middle East.

This is Nothing but Islam

Apologists for Islam state that the situation of women in Iran and in Islam-stricken countries is human folly; they say that Islamic rules and laws practised in the Middle East are not following the true precepts of Islam. They state that we must separate Islam from the practice of Islamic governments and movements. In fact, however, the brutality and violence meted out against women and girls are nothing other than Islam itself. According to the Koran, for example, the fornicator must be flogged a hundred stripes (The Light: 24.2). Those who are guilty of an ‘indecency’ must be ‘confined until death takes them away or Allah opens some way for them.’ (The Women, 4.15). ‘Men are the maintainers of women’ and ‘good’ women are obedient. Those that men fear ‘desertion’, can be admonished, confined and beaten’ (The Women, 4.34). Wives are a ’tilth’ for men, which they can go into their ’tilth’ when they like (The Cow, 2.223). Veiling is promoted in the Koran: ‘O Prophet! Say to your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers that they let down upon them their over-garments’ (The Clans, 33.59).

Apologists for Islam say that these verses have been misinterpreted. They go so far as to claim that there is gender equity in Islam and Islam respects the rights of women. Regarding the verse in the Koran sanctioning violence against women, they say that Islam only permits violence after admonishment and confinement and as a last resort. They say, since men would beat their wives mercilessly at that time, this is a restriction on men to beat women more mercifully (Women Living Under Muslim Laws, For Ourselves Women Reading the Koran, 1997). In a Gender Equity in Islam Web Site, this verse is explained in this way: ‘In extreme cases, and whenever greater harm, such as divorce, is a likely option, it allows for a husband to administer a gentle pat to his wife that causes no physical harm to the body nor leaves any sort of mark. It may serve, in some cases, to bring to the wife’s attention the seriousness of her continued unreasonable behaviour.’ On the verse that says women are men’s tilth, they say the Koran is encouraging sexuality, even though women are killed for expressing theirs (Women Living Under Muslim Laws, For Ourselves, Women Reading the Koran, 1997). Regarding the fact that women are not to judge or consult, one mullah from Qom using a female pseudonym says: “Or, Let’s suppose that in other planets, women are stronger and more learned than men, do we accept their custom or do we reject it totally?” (Zanan 4 and 5). On the Gender Equity in Islam Web Site it states that ‘Islam regards women’s role in society as a mother and a wife as her most sacred and essential one. This may explain why a married woman must secure her husband’s consent if she wishes to work. However, there is no decree in Islam that forbids women from seeking employment whenever there is a necessity for it, especially in positions which fit her nature best and in which society needs her most.’

These ‘Islamic feminist’ interpretations are an insult to our intellect and cannot be taken seriously. Islam has wreaked more havoc, massacred more women, and committed more holocausts than can be denied, excused, re-interpreted, or covered up with such feeble defences. Misogyny cannot be interpreted to be pro-woman even if it is turned on its head just as fascism, Zionism and racial apartheid cannot be interpreted to be pro-human. These are mere justifications for people who want to legitimise their beliefs and religion or reactionary states and movements with a vested interest in maintaining Islamic rules and laws. They apologize because even they don’t want to associate with the outrages committed by Islam throughout the world. Nothing can hide the fact that Islam, like other religions, is anti-woman and misogynist and antithetical to women’s rights and autonomy.

Political Islam is a Contemporary Reactionary Movement

There are always those who say that we can’t blame Islam for the status of women in Islam-stricken countries. Apologists like Jackie Ballard, an ex-MP from the UK says blaming religion for the denial of women’s rights in countries like Iran ‘disguised as concern for human rights’ is tantamount to ‘blaming Protestantism in Britain or Catholicism in Mexico for endemic domestic violence’ and to seeing ‘paedophilia as a symptom of a Christian or western culture’. This is nonsense. Islam is in political power in Iran and many countries of the Middle East and North Africa and cannot be compared to Protestantism in Britain. The Bible is not the law of the land in Britain, while the Koran is in Iran; it is not in the constitution and penal code nor enforced in the courts and by morality police in Britain, while it is in Iran.

And that is exactly why Islam, and not Christianity for example, is at the forefront of the debate on women’s rights in the 21st century. Islam in political power, or as a movement targeting political power (political Islam), is as much a political ideology as it is a religion; it aims to establish Islamic states and rules and needs political power to do so. This political power has enabled it to maim, gag and kill women on a mass scale. Political Islam is a reactionary contemporary movement that was the Right’s alternative during the Cold War and also the result of Arab nationalism’s failure. In Iran, in particular, political Islam was brought to the fore of the 1979 revolution vis-à-vis the Left and as a Cold war tool and because of an anti ‘westernisation’ and Islam-ridden tradition dominant in a majority of the intellectual and cultural sections of society. It was in Iran that the Islamic movement became a notable political force vying for power. This meant that the misogyny in Islam was given a state, laws, courts, the military and herds of police, Pasdars, Baseej, sisters of Zeinab, and Hezbollahs at its disposal to carry out its laws. In Iran, women were slashed with razors and had acid thrown in their faces, many were killed and imprisoned until the Islamic regime in Iran was able to enforce compulsory veiling and establish its rule.

It is Racist not to Condemn Islam and Political Islam

This vile political Islam – which has sentenced women who have been raped to death for ‘adultery’, and has blamed mothers for not satisfying husbands as the cause of child sexual abuse – also has its defenders. Some of them say that women in England, like in Iran and Afghanistan, also face violence. Of course women face violence everywhere but surely the situation of women in Afghanistan and Iran are incomparable to situation of women living in France and England. And since when do we excuse violations because they happen elsewhere? When speaking of the status of women in Iran, they compare it with Afghanistan and state it is better. As if that’s all those born in the region can expect. They even go so far as to state that women in Iran have freedoms denied to many in the West. According to these racist cultural relativists, it is as if women living in Iran cannot expect more freedoms or don’t want them. They say Iran is an Islamic society and are incensed when we say it is not Islamic but Islam-stricken. They choose one of the many complex characteristics of a number of people living in Iran and label the entire society with it. Did they call it Islamic during the Shah’s rule? They go on to say it’s the people’s culture and religion. They ignore the fact that Islam imposed its rule in Iran through violence and terror. They say Iran is Islamic so that they can more easily ignore the violations committed against women by implying it is people’s choice to live the way they are forced to. In fact, there is an immense anti-Islamic backlash in Iran with people resisting Islam and its state despite the repression. They call Iran Islamic so they can prevent us from condemning Islam and political Islam by implying that any condemnation is an insult to people’s beliefs. In fact, they call it Islamic in order to make it so. Though it’s untrue, even if every person living in Iran had reactionary beliefs, it still wouldn’t be acceptable. If everyone believes in the superiority of their race, must we respect and accept their beliefs? Respecting people’s freedom of expression, belief and religion or atheism is one thing; that doesn’t mean that we must respect any belief, however heinous. Of course human beings must be respected, but that doesn’t mean that all beliefs must also be respected. Should we respect fascism, racism, nationalism, and ethnocentrism – they are all beliefs after all. And when we raise these realities, condemn Islam and political Islam and defend women’s rights, they say we are racists and are promoting abuse against Muslims. Criticising beliefs is not racism. Is it racist to condemn fascism, nationalism, capitalism, sexism, religion? Does a critique of fascism, nationalism or racism promote abuse against fascists, nationalists, and racists? If we criticise child labour, does it mean we are promoting abuse against children who are forced to work? This is the pathetic whining of reactionaries who want to silence defenders of women’s rights and frighten them into inactivity and submission. Racism, rooted in capitalism, exists in society and has nothing to do with a critique of Islam. Don’t non-Muslims also face racism? These apologists go so far as to call it Islamophobia. This is nonsense. Xenophobia and homophobia, for example, are the hatred of people: foreigners and homosexuals. You cannot have a phobia against an idea. If we are opposed to racial or sexual apartheid, does that make us apartheid-phobic! If we are opposed to racism and fascism does that mean we are racist-phobic and fascism-phobic? Come on. Opposing violations of women’s rights in Islam-stricken countries does not serve racism – just like opposing Zionism does not make one an anti-Semite. In fact, it is racist to assume that all those living or born in the Middle East are supporters of Islam and political Islam and that these vile governments and the Islamic movement represent women when in fact women are their first victims. Labelling women’s rights activists as racists is a dim-witted ploy to justify and excuse women’s status under Islam and political Islam, and deny women and people living in the Middle East and Iran universal rights and freedoms. Those who say these things do so because they want to maintain Islam. They want to justify it. Excuse it. They have an interest in safeguarding religion and political Islam. Or at best, they believe women in Iran and the Middle East are sub-humans who actually enjoy being segregated, veiled, stoned, flogged and dehumanised. Like Islam, political Islam is antithetical to women’s rights. It is not just a matter of consciousness-raising and creating a renaissance that pushes religion out of the public sphere and eliminating its role in people’s social lives, but also completely eliminating political Islam and Islamic states and its movement (as was done with Christianity). Well-meaning people assert that we need to separate Islam from political Islam in order to defend rights. In fact, to defend universal rights, we must have the courage to confront both. Any compromise with Islam is a compromise on women’s rights. There can be no compromise on people’s rights and dignity.

September 11: The True Face of Political Islam

On September 11, the world came to know political Islam as never before. What happened in New York is happening everyday to women and people living under the sword of Islam. On September 11, the monster created by Western governments moved beyond its control and the West is now moving to contain it. The USA and Western governments want to contain only aspects of it – those aspects of it that are moving outside of the region. It has no problem leaving it contained in the region to continue its reign of terror. That is where ‘fundamentalism’ comes into good use. It distinguished between the Islamists acceptable to the West and those which are not.

This is an important moment for those of us who have struggled against Islam and political Islam. For us, though, none is acceptable. Just as it not acceptable for women, men and children to be massacred in New York, it is unacceptable for them to be slaughtered in Iran, Afghanistan and Northern Iraq. Getting rid of political Islam is a precondition to any improvements in the status of women and people in the Middle East. The establishment of a Palestinian state and an end to sanctions against Iraq will get rid of the primary grounds for political Islam’s recruitment. The overthrow of the Islamic regime in Iran will also weaken political Islam considerably. The Islamic Republic of Iran is a pillar of political Islam; its overthrow is being delayed by Western government support. Those who truly support women’s rights must demand secular societies in the Middle East. The separation of religion from the state, education, and a citizen’s identity, relegating religion to the private affair of people is not only realizable but a necessity after the experience in Iran, Afghanistan and the Middle East. They must also defend the right to asylum for all women fleeing Islam-stricken societies. It is our task to move public opinion towards people’s movements in Iran and the Middle East for secularism, freedom and equality and universal rights and away from both poles of USA and Islamic terrorism.

The 21st Century must be the century that rids itself of political Islam. This will begin in Iran.

The above is Maryam Namazie’s speech at a March 8, 2002 conference entitled ‘Islam, Secularism and Women in the Middle East’ in London.

Despite the lack of evidence to support the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence, many people firmly believe in it. If you are skeptical on this matter you are likely to be accused of being arrogant, anthropocentric or even a religious fanatic. However, to consider the possibility that we might be alone in the universe doesn’t necessarily make you any of those things. You can believe both that humans are rare or unique and at the same time that they are a purposeless arrangement of matter or a curious accident in space-time.

In 1961 the astronomer Frank Drake announced that the number of extraterrestrial civilizations in our galaxy that might contact us could be calculated with the following equation:

N = R fp ne fl fi fc L

Where N is the number of communicative civilizations, R is the rate of formation of suitable stars, fp is the fraction of those stars with planets, ne is the number of Earth-like planets per solar system, fl is the fraction of planets with life, fi is the fraction of planets with intelligent life, fc is the fraction of planets with communicating technology and L is the lifetime of communicating civilizations.

Many people think that this equation actually proves the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence and some even believe that a close encounter of the third kind could be just around the corner. However, the truth of the matter is that there is no scientific evidence to support that intelligent life exists anywhere beyond Earth and the only factor that can be calculated with some certainty in this equation is R the rate of stellar formation (1). Numbers for the other components are the product of the creative speculations of astronomers, SETI researchers and Star Trek fans.

Of course, there’s nothing wrong about speculation (or about being a Star Trek fan). After all, if speculation is based on concrete facts and is not just a wild guess, it’s part of science. However, when it comes to evolution the facts are frequently misunderstood. People, including some scientists, tend to regard it as a linear process instead of as a tree of increasing complexity. Many assume evolution works towards achieving a certain goal, like intelligence. For instance, Lemarchand says “The principle of mediocrity suggests a logical progression: the emergence of life will lead to the emergence of intelligence, which will give rise to interstellar communications technology” (2). In the case of Drake’s equation these misconceptions can lead to fi and fc being hugely overestimated. Carl Sagan, for example, considered a guesstimate of one million possible civilizations in the galaxy “to be conservative” (2).

It is true that wherever life emerges in the universe it’s likely to evolve according to the same rules. However, as Alan Turing explained, incredibly complex and diverse patterns can come into being by following very simple rules. In the same way that there cannot be two identical trees in a forest with the same foliage or number of branches, there cannot be two identical evolutionary histories (unless they exist in some kind of bizarre parallel universe).

Similarly, although there are billions of us, all built from the same DNA instructions, we’re all unique (even identical twins). Just as we can say that you wouldn’t be yourself if a series of interrelated factors and fortunate events (or unfortunate depending on your self-esteem) have not taken place -for instance, your father meeting your mother, your father’s condom breaking, you being born a boy with green eyes, surviving meningitis, developing a twisted sense of humor, deciding to study philosophy, etc.- we may say that intelligence may have never appeared if a sequence of events and a series of factors had never occurred and interacted in the way they did. A single event, like the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, can conspire against or in favor of entire species and permanently modify the structure of evolution’s tree. We don’t know, but the number of events that lead to intelligence could be larger than the number of stars in the universe and the interaction of factors necessary for it to evolve more complex than your girlfriend’s moods. Hence, we can say that timing, luck and the interplay of biological and environmental factors are critical aspects in evolution.

Even though it can be argued that intelligence, as the ability to get process and act on information is such a useful and common trait (apparent even in slime molds) that it’s likely to evolve elsewhere, the kind of ability that you need to build civilizations, technology and be aware of it is, in fact, rare. Among the billions of species that have evolved in the planet, perhaps as many as 50, we are the only one that has developed that kind of ability. Furthermore, as Jared Diamond has pointed out, compared to other more successful species like rats and beetles this feature doesn’t seem to be the best way to take over the world.

So, if the same sequence of events is unlikely to play equally elsewhere, if the kind of intelligence you need to build civilizations and technology is rare even in our own planet and if there’s no actual evidence to support the existence of ET intelligence, there might be enough reasons to be a bit skeptical about having an interstellar chat with any space being in the near future.

The problem is that skeptics are often accused of being led by illegitimate motivations such as arrogance, anthropocentrism or religious beliefs. Of course, in some cases that can be true. However, what’s also true is that there are several moral stands and mistaken assumptions behind the “we are not alone” argument and behind these accusations.

On the one hand, there’s a kind of “IQ relativism” based on the notion that “there are many forms of intelligence, all different but equally good, valid and/or complex”. The idea of intellectual diversity is used to sustain that there’s nothing special about us, that intelligence is a standard outcome of evolution and therefore species like ours are likely to evolve elsewhere (yes, this may be the herald of intergalactic political correctness, we should perhaps start calling aliens “intellectually-diverse beings” so that they don’t get mad in case they’re listening).

IQ relativists assume that if you think extraterrestrial intelligence is unlikely, is because you somehow believe humans are superior and, of course, that’s arrogant. However, one thing doesn’t necessarily entail the other. Rarity or uniqueness is not equal to superiority. You can believe that cephalopods are also fascinatingly unique and that doesn’t mean you think they are superior. Moreover, it can be argued that viewing intelligence as an inevitable outcome of evolution is what’s indeed arrogant.

On the other hand, there are the Galileans who react against anthropocentrism assuming that if you are skeptical about the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations you automatically believe humans are the center of the universe. Thus, you may be some kind of religious fanatic or creationist freak who claims that we are God’s favorite creatures or the supreme objective of “Intelligent Design”.

However, there’s a difference between thinking that human-like intelligence could be exceptional and thinking that the heart of the universe is in Alabama or that we are the preferred children of some supernatural being. Again, “unique” doesn’t mean “central”, or “most important”. Exceptions are also part of nature. And, although homo-sapiens could be unique in the universe, so does cephalopods and that doesn’t make them God’s master pieces. What’s more, it could be said that:

• Thinking extraterrestrial intelligence is in some way human-like i.e., having civilizations and technology, is in fact what’s anthropocentric. (By the way, if they are really like us, are they also arrogant and think they are the center of the universe? Maybe that’s why they haven’t bothered to call and that will explain Fermi’s paradox.)
• Believing in extraterrestrial intelligence is as superstitious as believing in God because there’s no evidence of their existence.

In short, to consider the possibility that we might be alone in the universe doesn’t necessarily mean you are arrogant, anthropocentric or irrational. You can believe that humans are both, unique or rare and at the same time a purposeless arrangement of matter, a curious accident in space-time.

References

(1) Shermer, M., 2002, ‘Skeptic: Why ET Hasn’t Called’; Scientific American Magazine; August 2002; www.sciamdigital.com

(2) Lemarchand G., 1998, ‘Is There Intelligent Life Out There?’; Scientific American Presents; Exploring Intelligence; www.sciamdigital.com

(3) Darling, D. The Encyclopedia of Astrobiology, Astronomy, and Spaceflight; www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/M/mediocrity.html

(4) Darling, D. The Encyclopedia of Astrobiology, Astronomy, and Spaceflight; Fermi’s paradox