Perceptive recognition of excess respect for religious beliefs, regardless of content.
Author: Ophelia Benson
-
Jihad in 1857
Educated Delhi Muslims rejected the west and the gentle Sufi traditions of late Mughal emperors.
-
Garry Wills on Faith-Based Everything
Faith-based war, law enforcement, education, medicine, and science.
-
Reclaiming your head
Here’s a great listen for you – Julia Sweeney on Fresh Air. She’s got a one-woman show called ‘Letting Go of God’ at an off-off-Broadway theater, and she gives a pretty good run-through of the journey from theism to atheism in this interview. In fact it’s pretty hilarious what a lot she manages to get into thirty minutes or so – religion as consolation in despair, Bible study, Abraham and Isaac, perverse excuses for Abraham and Isaac, a wink-wink priest who explains that we sophisticated believers know better but myths are for the people, the anger and sense of treachery at being told that, withdrawal from the church, turn to New Age, in particular Deepak Chopra, being stimulated by his talk of quantum mechanics, which he cites to subvert science but she didn’t realize that at the time, reading about quantum mechanics because of Chopra-stimulus, being excited by science and the scientific way of thinking, seeing everything through that filter, that skeptical filter – that’s about the first five minutes. It’s good stuff.
There’s one bit where she talks about the way she used to have God in her head; she would talk to him, tell him about her problems, discuss things – he was very compassionate about my problems, she says with a cackle. So, Terri Gross asked, wasn’t it lonely when you didn’t have God in your head any more? I answered for Sweeney: maybe, but also freeing. Sweeney said yes but it was also liberating.
That’s exactly it, you see. It’s liberating. I think people underestimate that – people who emphasize the consolation of religion. It is consoling, of course I see that, but it is also – something the absence of which is liberating. It’s surveillance. The constant presence of someone you take to be real inside your head is (can be) consoling and companionable but it’s also relentless. Sweeney talked with some passion about realizing that her thoughts were her own, that what went on inside her head belonged to her and no one else. Well exactly.
And she explained, with some eloquence, how she finds skepticism and an interest in science themselves actually consoling. A great listen.
-
Atheists Top Book Charts by Teasing Deity
Publishers eager to replicate success of Russell’s Why I Am Not a Christian.
-
Tired of Endless Religious Babble?
‘Let’s stop describing these tax-funded establishments as faith schools. They are superstition schools.’
-
Woman Burned in Bus Torching in Marseille
High unemployment, discrimination, youth alienation from mainstream society cited.
-
Misogyny rules ok
All this kind of thing is useful in a way. A way one wishes we didn’t need things to be useful, but useful all the same. Useful in the sense of being an extreme and conspicuous form of a pervasive bad thing that one wishes were not there at all, so not useful in any ultimate sense, not inherently desirable; quite the contrary; but useful in educational terms; useful in making clear what we’re up against. Useful, to spell it out, in making it clear how deep misogyny really does go. It goes so deep that a lot of people think women have exactly two choices: lifelong confinement to a room, or deserved rape followed by stoning to death. It goes so deep that a lot of people think that when it comes to a choice between women’s lives and the lives of their fetuses, their lives are worth precisely nothing. (Which is odd in the case of female fetuses. Highly valuable in utero, and worthless once pregnant. But then misogyny is odd.)
Under the new law, abortions will no longer be permitted for rape victims or women who risk death during childbirth. Doctors and women who try to abort for any reason will face four to eight years in jail.
But that’s not as bad as it sounds, because women who risk (or face certain) death during childbirth who try to abort and fail will often not face four to eight years in jail, because they’ll be dead. Convenient. Saves expenses.
Members of the Left-wing Sandinista party which, in the past, has campaigned to legalise abortion, joined conservatives to approve a tightening of the abortion laws to prevent rape victims and women who risk dying in childbirth from terminating pregnancies. Daniel Ortega, the Sandinista leader, was thought to have fallen into line to avoid alienating church leaders ahead of the election.
Dear church. Dear kind compassionate loving church.
Rights groups say the new law would be a death sentence for women who suffer ectopic pregnancies. In an ectopic pregnancy, a fertilised egg develops outside the uterus. “They are forcing women to die. They are not pro-life, they are pro-death,” said Xiomara Luna, a protester.
Yeah, but only pro-death for women, so that’s okay.
-
The line was busy
This is quite funny. It’s from an article on Alan Johnson’s U-turn on quotas for ‘faith’ schools.
The Guardian yesterday attempted unsuccessfully to contact Tahir Allam, an education spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain. Earlier he told Radio 4″s Today programme: “This assumption that faith schools are divisive is a false one because there is no evidence to support this.”
Actually I think that’s downright hilarious. The Guardian is so eager to check in with the MCB, and to be seen to check in with the MCB, that it even lets us know about its failed attempts. What – did it think we would be annoyed and ‘offended’ if it wrote a story on government policy on ‘faith’ schools without at least attempting to contact someone at the MCB? Does it think it is in some sense mandatory to check in with the MCB on pretty much all subjects that touch on ‘faith’?
Hey, yesterday I attempted to contact the Pope to ask him about ectopic pregnancies in Nicaragua, but, inexplicably, he ignored all my emails. Strange guy.
-
Mass resistance is the other side of mass oppression
In describing women’s conditions in a particular country, one refers either to laws governing that country or to statistics. In this manner, one either exposes the extent of the oppression women suffer, or admires their achievements. With respect to women living under the rule of Islam, it is pure discrimination and oppression, subjugation and state violence. If women are considered second class citizens in many countries, in Islam-ridden countries they are not even considered citizens. They are extensions of men. In fact, according to Islam, the concept of citizen is non-existent. There is a relation between God and religious hierarchy and a collective of right-less, conscious-less men, with women as their slaves. As a matter of fact this is true about any other religion. However, this is beside our today’s discussion.
You have heard a great deal about women under Islam, Islam à la Taliban, in Pakistan, in Bangladesh, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran under the Islamic Republic. The downtrodden situation of women, sheer discrimination, gender apartheid, the Islamic veil, forced marriages, officially recognized pedophilia by setting the legal age of marriage at 9 for girls, honour killing, polygamy, stoning women to death for engaging in sex outside marriage, encouraging men to hit their wives for punishment. The list is long.
If once the issue of Islam and women was an unknown topic, nowadays, thanks to the rise of political Islam, with Islamic states in Iran, Afghanistan, and now in Iraq, it has become a well-known topic. I am sure that you all have heard about the non-existence of women’s rights in Islam. However, some think it is not Islam’s fault, they blame the patriarchy. They maintain that it is not Islam, but patriarchal interpretation of Islam that is responsible for the conditions of women in countries under the rule of Islam. In other words it is the ruling men’s fault not the ruling Islam. We will not get into the debate that Islam like all other religions is the direct product of a patriarchal era. It could not have escaped being permeated by patriarchic values and outlook. However, we must state one undeniable fact, that is, millions of women are violated daily by Islamic laws, customs, values and states. We must deal in an effective manner with this violation.
I am here on behalf of the Organization for Women’s Liberation. I am here to familiarize you with the realities of Iranian society. You have heard about Iran. I do not mean the oil, or the nuclear project. I do not mean the mullahs or the fatwa against Salman Rushdie. I mean about the situation of women. Today, I want to talk to you about women’s resistance, rather than women’s oppression. You have heard long tales about women’s oppression. I am pleased to tell you that there is a mass resistance movement against this systematic oppression, this official misogynistic ideology. I am pleased to break this encouraging news to you that Iran is the birthplace of a very important historic moment in the international women’s liberation movement, a movement more significant than the Suffragette, and as vast as the women’s liberation movement in the Soviet Union during 1917-1930, or in the West during the 60s and 70s. I am here to ask for your solidarity and support. This movement has a great potential. If it materializes, it is capable of not only liberating women in Iran, but also it opens up the door to freedom to all women in the Middle East. We must recognise this fact.
The situation in Iran is different from that of Afghanistan, Iraq or Sudan. There is mass discontentment in these countries. There is resistance, but there is a lack of a mass movement in defence of women’s rights. Such a movement exists in Iran.
In Iran there has never existed a secular state, the separation of religion from the state, or education. The laws have always been religious laws. There has always existed a dictatorship. The efforts to reform the family law in favour of women during the ‘60s were very meager and not very effective. During the 1979 revolution a women’s rights movement was born. This was not a mass movement, but rather formed by left and intellectual women. I am from that generation. My struggle for women’s rights and for freedom and equality goes further than that period.
The Islamic Republic attacked women full-force after coming to power. The first phase of the women’s movement was short-lived. It put up a brave resistance but it was silenced after 2 years. Women’s resistance continued in an individualistic fashion, against the veil, gender apartheid and the obligatory dress code. Many women have been imprisoned, tortured, or stoned to death. This brutal oppression was not able to obliterate the spirit of resistance. The new generation reignited this movement on a mass scale and pushed it forward. Fighting against the Islamic veil and apartheid is one of the main battlegrounds.
When I hear the apologists of the Islamic movement or the defenders of cultural relativism (which, thanks to our relentless struggle, has become a marginal tendency) say: “the Islamic veil and apartheid is their culture”, I get furious and want to laugh at the same time. If this is “their culture” then it is supposed that they practice it voluntarily. Why then has this massive means of oppression become necessary? Why are all these special forces formed to deal with cultural disobedience, non-observance of the veil and gender apartheid? I like to ask, are these people a bunch of masochists, who like to practice their culture by being tortured, imprisoned and stoned? What rubbish! Thousands of women who have been executed, stoned and tortured are the symbol of a vast movement against the Islamic laws, gender apartheid and the Islamic veil.
Perhaps, you may think that this is a peculiar way to demonstrate resistance. I believe there is a straightforward equation: a complex and sophisticated oppressive system only demonstrates that there is a vast and complex resistance to be suppressed. When there are more than one hundred thousand political executions, this bitter and tragic fact exposes that the society does not accept the existing order and wants change.
In Iran there is a special police force to deal with women, those who protest, those who do not observe the veil, and those who are innovative in fashion. This special force was used at the July demonstration in Tehran. It crushed the demonstration. Despite all the laws against non-observance of the veil and dress code, despite prison sentence, fine and lashing, women in Iran ridicule the veil and in their demonstrations have also burned it. The new generation cannot be silenced, cannot be forced back home. This is the resistance I am talking about.
In Iran there is a vast secular movement and for a free and egalitarian society. The women’s liberation movement is one of the main components of this general movement. The de facto status of women is much higher than their official and legal status. In the eyes of the dominant ideology and legislation, women’s status is half that of men. A woman is the man’s slave. She cannot travel or work without her “master’s” permission, does not have divorce or custody rights, cannot become a judge or a president. But women in Iran have not been subdued to accept this status and image. They want to be a whole person, independent and equal.
I like to mention a statistical figure: around 66% of university entrances are female. This is in a country in which you need to pass difficult entry exams. There is a very high competition. You also have to take into consideration the state’s efforts to push women home. Is this statistic accidental? No. This is a trend. Every year this figure has risen, from 30% to 66%. The parliament tried to pass laws to reverse this trend, to prevent women from getting in to university in this high number. They argued that this is very detrimental to Islam and the institution of the family. The Islamic parliament becomes alarmed by this statistics, I become overjoyed. This shows a resilient resistance on the part of a new generation of women in Iran. This brings hope that women’s liberation in Iran is live and kicking.
8 March has become an established tradition in Iran. In the past few years, 8 March has been celebrated in different cities and in different ways. I recall in 1979, we organised several 8 March celebrations in Tehran. The society was free from monarchist dictatorship, and we, the women’s rights activists, were celebrating 8 March for the first time. On the same day Khomeini ordered women to wear the veil. A large demonstration took to the streets in protest to this reactionary order and demanded women’s equality. This was the birth of a women’s right movement which was silenced after 2 years.
The Islamic Republic tried a propaganda tactic, it named the birthday of Mohammad’s daughter women’s day. The specialty of this regime has been to suppress a movement not only by brutal force but by means of demagogic propaganda. It crushed the 1979 revolution by calling its state a revolutionary state, its brutal forces the revolutionary guards, and the revolution itself, an Islamic revolution. It disarmed the left by taking over the so-called anti-imperialist movement by manipulating the anti American sentiments and taking Americans hostage at American Embassy. Naming the Prophet’s daughter’s birthday women’s day was a similar tactic. However, this tactic worked only for a few years. Then it was forced to assign a women’s week. This did not work either. Last year it was forced to admit defeat and a faction of the regime recognized 8 March as women’s day. 8 March now is an established tradition in Iran. Last year there were many different rallies and meetings organised to commemorate 8 March. Some of them, including one in Tehran, were suppressed. Three months later there was a large protest organised in Tehran; several thousand took part. This was crushed. A couple of months later a movement was initiated to collect one million signatures for changing the laws in women’s favour. The women’s liberation movement is not going to resign nor be silenced. They try to crush it, it rises again even stronger. It seems that all efforts to suppress it, only make it more resilient and stronger.
These are the positive aspects of women’s resistance. Unfortunately, there is a dark and sad dimension to it, as well. The number of suicides and self-immolations has risen considerably among women, especially among young women. Women in Iran have always lived under discrimination. Forced marriages, extensive restrictions on their lives, being in a servitude status vis à vis the men has always been the fact of life for the majority of women in Iran. It seems that they used to accept this as a divine and natural law, and resigned themselves to it. However, in the past decade we are witnessing a significant rise in suicide. This is a protest. The new generation has different expectations and aspirations. It does not resign itself to its “fate”. It wants to take it into its own hands. When it cannot protest collectively, when it cannot direct its anger and disapproval against the state, it directs it against itself. These self-inflicting harms are a means of protest.
It is our duty, it is the responsibility of women’s right activists to transform this method of self-inflicting hurt into a positive resistance. We must change this desperation into hope for change.
Another negative fact is the high number of girls who escape the restrictions and violence in the home in search of freedom and end up in the streets, homeless and unprotected, and become victims of prostitution. They are abused and exploited. Many of these girls wear male clothing, hoping to be freer and less harassed. However, there is no escape. The life of these girls is a telling story of brutality, exploitation and cruelty.
In my opinion, the last two factors are new sociological phenomena in a society undergoing profound social, cultural, political and economic changes. Analysis of this situation takes us to a massive and deep rooted social resistance against the ruling order, dominant ideology and culture, against the ancient and antiquated values of Islam.
And last but not least, we should mention the diverse cultural and NGOs which fight for women’s rights. These organizations must adapt themselves to the suppressive state and laws. We are witnessing the coming to birth of many different organizations, festivals, and solidarity camps. These are the bright and hopeful aspects of women’s resistance.
My friends – there is a mass resistance movement in Iran against sexual discrimination and for gender equality. This movement needs your solidarity and support. If we succeed in freeing women from oppression and misogynist laws and values, this would open up a door to all women in the Middle East and countries under the rule of Islam. We must lunch a vast international movement against discrimination, violence and systematic oppression, against gender apartheid and Islamic veil. The Organisation for Women’s Liberation calls upon you to join this movement. We have drawn a resolution against gender apartheid, I ask you to support it. Show your support by applauding and sign our petition. Thank you.
This speech was interrupted many times by the audience’s applause. The resolution was endorsed by heavy applause and hundreds signed the petition during the conference.
-
Double Sids is Rare but so is Double Murder
Ben Goldacre notes a well documented piece of flawed reasoning known as ‘prosecutor’s fallacy.’
-
Hitchens Interviewed
‘It’s very important to these people that they still have their oppositionalist credentials. I think it’s narcissistic.’
-
Murderous New Abortion Ban in Nicaragua
Women’s rights groups in Nicaragua plan to file an injunction to stop a new law banning all abortions.
-
Nicaragua Declares Women Expendable
Nicaragua votes in new abortion ban, even in cases where the mother’s life is at risk.
-
Getting the message
Sheik Hilali clarifies things.
Australia is a multicultural society. Whoever wants to, let them take their clothes off. Whoever wants to go naked, let them go naked. Whoever wants to get drunk, let them get drunk. Whoever wants to smoke hashish, let them smoke hashish. It’s a free country, it’s none of our business. But it is our right to tell our women (that they dress appropriately).
And, presumably, that they stay home and stay in their room, since that’s what he said the first time. So anyway – who’s the ‘our’ in that sentence? Who is the ‘we’ who get to tell ‘our’ women what to do? Men, of course. It always is. ‘We’ are people and ‘we’ own ‘our’ women and ‘we’ tell them what to do; women are not people, so they are not included in ‘we’ and ‘our’; women are objects that are owned, and men are people who own them and tell them what to do. And it is their right to do that. And it is, presumably, not the right of the women to refuse to obey – because they are a wholly owned subsidiary.
After learning the mufti would not be sacked, John Howard urged the Muslim community to act against Sheik Hilali or risk a backlash from mainstream Australians. “If they do not resolve this matter, it could do lasting damage to the perceptions of that community within the broader Australian community and that would be a tragedy,” the Prime Minister said.
Thus getting thoroughly entangled in the various communities, poor guy. What about the perceptions of that community within the broader Australian community within the broader international community within the broader galactic community within the broader cosmic community within the broader possible worlds community? Lotta communities to keep track of these days. Lotta communities and mainstreams and backlashes. It’s all a bit dizzying sometimes.
Caroline Overington thinks the mufti meant every word of it, and she’s not the only one.
Tanveer Ahmed is a Sydney-based psychiatrist who is writing a book about Islam in Australia. He says the great shame is that “many, many” Muslim men, young and old, regard women – particularly Western women – as “less than ideal”. “The mufti meant exactly what he said, and those views are widely held,” Dr Ahmed said…”It comes from households, where young Muslims get the message that white girls are different, and that women in general are a corrupting influence.” Dr Ahmed said it was “an opinion I’ve heard throughout my life, that women can tempt you into trouble. Even otherwise sophisticated people will say this, and slur white women.”…Dr Ahmed rejects the argument that women wear the veil because “it’s their choice”. “You see children aged five wearing it. Are we seriously arguing there is an element of choice, when you sexualise a child in that way?”
Some are, but we disagree with them.
For Karen Green, the debate over the status of women is both personal and philosophical. She has a sister who converted to Islam. Dr Green, whose Phd in philosophy is from Oxford, said she initially accepted her sister’s view, when she argued that women were liberated by the veil. But over time, Dr Green concluded that women were so sexualised within Islamic society “that it is assumed that any private encounter between a woman and a man will be sexual. Women are thus assumed to have two functions, and these are sex and child-bearing. “By submitting to headscarf, chador or burka, women allow men to divide and conquer. Women are either ‘good’ – which is to say obedient – or they are ‘bad’.”
And that’s the context in which some women ‘choose’ to wear it. Sure, it’s a free choice in a sense, but it’s made within a particular context – that’s not a free choice. That context is there, and it can’t be chosen away.
-
Italian MP Gets Inspiration from B&W
At least, according to Islamophobiawatch, which cites an article by Maryam Namazie.
-
German Muslim MP Receives Death Threats
Ekin Deligoez received threats after she urged women to unveil; is under police protection.
