In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Following the Egypt protests

Jill

Al Jazeera’s English-language site provides great coverage, and the Guardian is also posting live updates.

If you’re not familiar with the situation, Promoting Peace has a great post detailing the background.

Feel free to leave other resources in the comments. The Egyptian government is fighting hard against the protesters and is reportedly shutting down all access to the internet, which is an unprecedented move. It’s important to keep the spotlight on this.

63 thoughts on Following the Egypt protests

  1. This is the same Egyptian government we subsidize to the tune of $1.3B a year. It sounds to me as though we have a lot of leverage just by stopping the damned payments. It would not be interfering; it would be the opposite of interfering.

  4. Now CNN says the administrration is reviewing all that funding to Egypt, and says it’s $1.5B, not $1.3B. Good move. I hope they come to the obvious conclusion.

  5. Thanks Jill for providing these resources. I hardly ever watch the mainstream news, so I was hardly aware of what was going on.

    Jim:
    Now CNN says the administrration is reviewing all that funding to Egypt, and says it’s $1.5B, not $1.3B. Good move. I hope they come to the obvious conclusion.  

    I disagree, JIm. Cutting funding will get the government of Egypt t o cut money to the people. Mubarak will likely still be able to finance his military powers.

  6. Thanks Millicent. The live feed is awesome.

    Jim, my understanding is that the army hasn’t decided who they’re backing yet (i.e. the protesters or the government). The $1.3 bill I’m familiar with (the leaked cable billion) went to their army. If they back protesters, do you still feel the same way?

  7. The military has supported Hosni Mubarak up until now. Although some protestors still cheer the military, I think they must be treated as backers of the regime at the moment until their actions suggest otherwise.

    The real reason the US gives money to Egypt is as a bribe for them in exchange for Sadat’s peace treaty with Israel. Israel is the one to really be worried if the Islamists take over. Some people say Sadat is a hero for making peace, but others see him as a sell out to the Arab cause and of the Palestinians. Of course an Islamist takeover won’t be good for womens’ rights either. Right now the main protests are not overtly religious, it is more about economic issues, so that is the good news.

    I would guess, watch Mubarak’s speech. If he makes concessions, I think he’s done. The correct thing for Mubarak now is he needs to take a hard line. That said I do not support Mubarak. The best case scenario is that officers into the army take matters into their own hands and force Mubarak out, and bring in the opposition to form a new government, like in Tunisia, and then schedule elections as soon as possible. The army is the only institution that has power, the only real government.

    If a liberal democracy emerges out of this, even if a religious party is the biggest party along the Turkish model, it would be a miracle IMO. These are my thoughts as of today, of course the situation changes daily.

  10. PrettyAmiable: If they back protesters, do you still feel the same way? PrettyAmiable

    No, I’d feel a lot better about the $1.3B going to the Army.

    And there is a really good chance that the Army could back the protestors. This is what happened in Romania, eventhough the police apparaturs outnumbered the Army 7 -1. (Weird, I knowe, but it made sense for that dictator).
    people reading the tea leaves wondered why the Army hadn’t been sent in, ala Tian An men Square. The most reasonable explanation is that the government +doubted they would stay loyal, and it makes sense. The Army is drawn from a much wider sampling of the population, while the police beingused are drawn form the poorest and most depserate sections, the ones likeliest to be grateful and therefore loyal to the government. That’s what the tea leaf readers say.

    And I’m not too interested in listening to all the pearl-clutching about who might come in after Mubarrak. Every eventuality has downsides because that’s the nature of governance and of government. But if the Egyptians make some (hardly inevitable) mess of it, it will still be much better than the inevitable catrastrophe that foreign intervention or meddling would make.

    Tony, I get what you say about the army and which way it is going. But it’s important to remember that armies are not monolithic, even though that’s one major purpose of all that structure. That’s the purpose, but it can be very hard to realize it. There is no guarantee that one part of the army would not go one way and another in the other direction. Even in the US army officers joke darkly that the republic’s final, die-in-place defense against a military coup is the whole rest of the army that would crush the mutineers.

  11. Right now the main protests are not overtly religious, it is more about economic issues, so that is the good news.

    From whose perspective is it “good?” I’m tired of liberals here always framing unrest in the Middle East in terms of Western interests. How about what’s good for the people of Egypt and their interests/desires? Here’s a very good take on NYTs shitty coverage of Tunisia (and generally most things Middle East) and is applicable to what is sure to come from analysts re: Egypt

    http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/guest_bloggers/4052/secular_good,_muslim_bad%3A_unveiling_tunisia%E2%80%99s_revolution/

  13. Sid: Right now the main protests are not overtly religious, it is more about economic issues, so that is the good news.
    From whose perspective is it “good?”I’m tired of liberals here always framing unrest in the Middle East in terms of Western interests.How about what’s good for the people of Egypt and their interests/desires?Here’s a very good take on NYTs shitty coverage of Tunisia (and generally most things Middle East)and is applicable to what is sure to come from analysts re: Egypthttp://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/guest_bloggers/4052/secular_good,_muslim_bad%3A_unveiling_tunisia%E2%80%99s_revolution/  

    Ok fine… the Egyptians want to choose their destiny? Don’t expect me to worry about it. They don’t care for, or about our good wishes. So long as our government stays out of it. Which I fully support.

    I worry about the US, where I live, which does have interests and allies in the region. If that makes me a bad person, so be it. International politics is an amoral affair, and this is too important to be flippant or naive about (or sentimental, as is the article you linked to). These important allies of Egypt and Jordan have kept the peace with Israel now for 35 and 15 years, respectively. Putting all of that is jeopardy is a big deal and it’s not a shame to worry about it.

    Tony, I get what you say about the army and which way it is going. But it’s important to remember that armies are not monolithic, even though that’s one major purpose of all that structure. That’s the purpose, but it can be very hard to realize it. There is no guarantee that one part of the army would not go one way and another in the other direction.

    If that happens I’d hope it was resolved really quickly. A civil war would probably be the worst possible outcome.

  15. PrettyAmiable: Nahida, are you in the US? If so, yeah – our network journalism sucks.  

    Couldn’t agree more. In fact it took awhile for the US media to pick up on this. The messed up part is while the protest were unfolding CNN was interviewing the Kardashians. Total fail.

  16. And ditto about how news around these parts sucks. It’s funny that Al Jazeera is so superior to US news, because for most people I know that aren’t my like-minded friends, Al Jazeera may as well be the Terrorist News Network. The ridiculousness is almost hilarious.

  17. Thank god someone in the Anglo-American feminist world is paying attention to this! I’ve taken a look a number of the bigger blogs, because between Egypt and Tunisia a couple of weeks back, there are major changes going on in the world, and I wanted to see what feminist/womanist issues might be thrown up by them–but there’s been nothing!

    Also glad to see other fans of Al Jazeera: if I want to get some idea of what’s going on the world, I go there or to Russia Today (not as good, but at least acknowledges other parts of the world exist).

    The BBC are giving a lot of time to the Egypt protests, but far too much of it is centred around the concerns of British holidaymakers in the country. Yes, certainly that is an issue, especially if it’s your family who are there, but I think it’s getting far too much attention as opposed to news on what’s happening to the Egyptian people.

  18. I tend to like BBC and find it superior to US networks (it’s what I have on my phone), but I agree that BBC isn’t really digging into these conflicts. I think they were a touch behind on Tunisia as well.

    Another one I wish we (US news consumers) paid more attention to is Sudan. It’ll be interesting to see how that turns out.

  19. Sid, thanks for the link about issues with NYTimes coverage of the Tunisian protests. Although, even that analysis leaves something out: Tunisia actually had a ban on the hijab.

  20. I think it’s important for us feminists especially to have a critical analysis of “peace” in times like this. “Peace” in the way that Tony uses it in comment #13, for instance, means the stability of friendly dictatorships and repressive governments. Rhetoric in US news and Al Jazeera alike is valorizing “peace” and “law and order.” This should raise red flags for us as feminists, I think, since we’re familiar with the conflation of “peace” and submission to patriarchal/kyriarchal domination.

  21. I think the ideal model would be something like Turkey – a majority islamic country with a secular government.

    I don’t know if the political realities in Egypt would allow that to occur, but we can only hope that this urge for protest leads to a meaningful democracy with equal representation and freedom of religious practice.

    I always thought that it was a waste for the U.S. to spend money in foreign military aid to dubious governments, however, the waters do seem to be muddied a bit by the fact that Egypt is one of the major islamic countries in the region who hasn’t had an active role recently in trying to annihalate Israel.

    I think it comes down to two visions of how the U.S. should treat the rest of the world: As equal partners, or a world that needs our active protection and intervention. If we treat other countries as equals, we could stop spending so much money in foreign military aid and on interventions that may or may not help the people of a region. We could stop believing that we are the sole protector or benefactor of other people and let them have an active role in promoting peace in there own regions. and if some of those people choose theocratic states – so be it. It’s not our job to determine the kind of government that other people choose, for better or for worse.

    In short, the positive impulse to protect others is too many times being coopted into a patronizing view of the world – that America is some global cop that must come to the aid of others who are struggling. I say – let’s stop wasteful military spending that neither makes us safer nor better liked, and repurpose that for better endeavors – for higher education, economic and technological investment, and providing basic services to our people that are sorely lacking. The first step to this is recognizing that the U.S.’s obligation to the rest of the world is equal and not greater than anyone else’s.

  22. I do hope people understand that the $1.3b US provides Egypt is in exchange for keeping peace with Israel. You could very well be looking at a rather messy and bloody situation there if Egypt decides to take on Israel to deflect attention from domestic issues.

  23. Sonia, re: what I argued about peace, I hear where you’re coming from but I think it is more accurate to say that the $1.5 billion is in exchange for Egypt’s noninterference with the messy and bloody situation that Israel is currently enforcing.

  24. David: I think the ideal model would be something like Turkey – a majority islamic country with a secular government.  

    “majority islamic”? People aren’t Islam, they’re Muslim. Unless you meant “mostly Islamic” which I suppose would be true despite some of the more ridiculous aspects like banning hijabs in certain ares.

    There’s a difference between being Islamic and having a large Muslim population. With all the rights Egypt denies its citizens, it can hardly be called an Islamic country.

  26. Yes, having a large muslim population. That is what I meant.

    I’m not sure what you mean by the statement
    “With all the rights Egypt denies its citizens it can hardly be called an islamic country”

    Egypt is an islamic country if we define “islamic country” to be a country which has a majority population of practicing muslims. If we use “islamic country” to mean a country that has integrated islamic practices into its governing structure – Egypt probably isn’t. As far as I know, (and I don’t know much) Mubarak’s government is secular. It depends on what terms you or I are using.

    I guess what I was saying is that a secular, democratic government would be a good model for most countries to follow. Do you disagree?

  27. David: Egypt is an islamic country if we define “islamic country” to be a country which has a majority population of practicing muslims.

    That would be a “Muslim country.”

    David: If we use “islamic country” to mean a country that has integrated islamic practices into its governing structure – Egypt probably isn’t. As far as I know, (and I don’t know much) Mubarak’s government is secular.  

    You can be Islamic and secular at the same time. Tolerance is a huge part of the religion.

    David: I guess what I was saying is that a secular, democratic government would be a good model for most countries to follow. Do you disagree?  

    No. Why on earth would I disagree? What I did disagree with was your implication that you can’t be Islamic and democratic at the same time, which is completely untrue. I also felt uncomfortable with you suggesting for the citizens of Egypt what kind of government they should establish for themselves… unless, of course, you live there.

  28. David: Egypt is an islamic country if we define “islamic country” to be a country which has a majority population of practicing muslims.

    But this definition is far too simplistic. A majority of USians are practicing Christians; does that make the US a Christianist (to coin a term) nation? I sure hope not, since the constitution explicitly defines the country as a secular state.

  29. Nahida: That would be a “Muslim country.”You can be Islamic and secular at the same time. Tolerance is a huge part of the religion.No. Why on earth would I disagree? What I did disagree with was your implication that you can’t be Islamic and democratic at the same time, which is completely untrue. I also felt uncomfortable with you suggesting for the citizens of Egypt what kind of government they should establish for themselves… unless, of course, you live there.  

    I don’t know why you’d get that impression since I already said that Turkey is a muslim, secular, democratic country. Unless, of course, you took more issue with my use of the incorrect word than the actual content of my opinion.

    As for me suggesting what type of government would be good… I know that democratic, secular countries tend to be the ones that respect individual rights more and I hope that is the type of government that Egypt ends up adopting out of this. If you’re saying that people can’t comment on governments because they don’t live there… well, I don’t know what to say. I guess I’m not supposed to care about Egypt at all, in your words. Hey, theocratic state, democratic state, oligarchy, dictatorship, they’re all the same, who am I to judge?

  30. GallingGalla: But this definition is far too simplistic.A majority of USians are practicing Christians; does that make the US a Christianist (to coin a term) nation?I sure hope not, since the constitution explicitly defines the country as a secular state.  

    Actually, my classification would be “because a majority of Americans are practicing christians, the U.S. is a majority christian, secular democratic society”

    Same thing I said about Turkey, cept, I used the wrong word.

    and “Christianist”? I realize that I used islamic in the wrong context there, but you don’t have to go likening that to making up words. Next time, rest assured, I will consult the dictionary before posting on this site.

  31. Sonia, re: what I argued about peace, I hear where you’re coming from but I think it is more accurate to say that the $1.5 billion is in exchange for Egypt’s noninterference with the messy and bloody situation that Israel is currently enforcing.

    If you think that the current situation is bloody and messy I wonder what words you will use to describe what maywill be a major clusterfuck if Egypt decides to go back on its peace treaty.

  32. There’s a difference between being Islamic and having a large Muslim population. With all the rights Egypt denies its citizens, it can hardly be called an Islamic country.

    I am curious about this but which countries would you say are Islamic under your definition? That is they don’t deny “all the rights” to their citizens (citizens as in all citizens, not just Muslims).

  33. sonia:
    I am curious about this but which countries would you say are Islamic under your definition? That is they don’t deny “all the rights” to their citizens (citizens as in all citizens, not just Muslims).  

    If those ever existed, it was centuries ago–maybe around the 7th century–before Islam was twisted to be used as a political tool to oppress women and non-Muslims. Women were allowed to vote, leave the house without male relatives, become political leaders, and were well-educated and even contributed to scientific innovations. It wasn’t yet forgotten that they had rights to abortion if they were raped or if their lives were in danger, or the right to divorce their husbands, or the right to keep their last names when they married. Now, if you weren’t Muslim, I think you had to pay an extra tax depending on the caliphate (which is total bullshit, but pretty good for back then when there seemed to be a lot of forced conversion) and that had nothing to do with Islam itself and more to do with the way the government was set up. Non-Muslims weren’t denied their right to worship as they pleased. (At least not on an official level… who knows what happened in actual life. I’m sure there was violence.)

    I’m not saying it was all great (it was probably pretty far from all great)–just that it was better than it is now with countries where the population is majority Muslim. And of course I can’t say exactly whether that fits my definition because–you know–I wasn’t alive back then. But for the purpose of answering your question, I hope I’ve given you a good idea of what would fit my definition.

    I understand it can be argued that this is all based on interpretation of Islamic texts and therefore anyone can pull anything out of their ass (which is basically what happened for it to get so awful) but some things are really, really inarguable–like the right for women to vote or run businesses or walk around without anyone’s permission–so I seriously believe a lot of the “Islamic” laws enforced today are completely unsupported… and far from Islamic.

  34. In short, sonia, the rights I have here in the US are more Islamic than the rights I would have in current countries with a huge Muslim population–including in Turkey, where women’s bodies are still policed (funny how this was an attempt to be secular) with things like headscarf bans. (I realize they’ve been going in and out of that and headscarves are currently permitted informally.) Policing women’s bodies is unIslamic–and a headscarf ban, as you can imagine, is kind of Islamically outrageous.

  35. Of course, this all has pretty much nothing to do with Egypt (where there’s more concern about the economic state of affairs and women are much better off than they were 50 years ago) and I apologize to Jill for derailing on her post. =X

  36. @Nahida.

    Look I see where you’re coming from. I too agree that Islam doesn’t have to imply a repressive, backward state.

    However I would say that it is not whether something is un-Islamic, or un-Christian, but whether something is bad.

    Something can be bad and still be Islamic, or be good and still be Islamic.

    Whether or not something is associated with a particular religion has nothing to do with whether or not it’s valuable.

    So in short, the U.S. is not more “Christian” or “Islamic” because it affords certain rights. I guess I don’t really have an adjective, but it would seem like some false kind of coopting of the U.S.’s history to say that the bill of rights has anything to do with anyone’s religion.

    Re: Turkey. It was my understanding that despite the bullshit headscarf bans, that Turkey was one of the better examples of a regional democracy that respected the rights of women. Am I completely off the mark here?

  38. Okay I read your (Nahida’s) comment in more detail. Actually you get quite a few things about current Muslim societies wrong. Abortion and contraception are really not a major issue in Islam. They are in fact explicitly allowed with some caveats, e.g., you cannot use sterilization as a means of contraception but condoms and pills and the like are allowed. You are encouraged to have babies but you can enjoy sex without guilt too as long as you are married. Also, abortion is quite okay in Islam up to 4 months in pregnancy and most scholars support that. Divorce for women is also fairly supported and Islam is pretty progressive on the remarriage front.

    Where things get sucky in Islam is if you choose to leave Islam (death for apostates), no controversy among scholars on that. If you are homosexual, again death, though in some Islamic societies you can get away with it if you are the top. Four wives for a guy, with obvious consequences. Right to beat ones wife (as a last resort though). Some of things like honor killings while ascribed to Islam are more a function of the underlying local culture though Islam could do more to curb them given that Allah is supposed to benevolent and all that.

  39. Re: Turkey. It was my understanding that despite the bullshit headscarf bans, that Turkey was one of the better examples of a regional democracy that respected the rights of women. Am I completely off the mark here?

    You’re pretty much on the mark but in most Islamic societies the right to wear a hijab is a lot more important than the right of a woman to walk down the street without an all covering garb.

  40. Sonia: Where things get sucky in Islam is if you choose to leave Islam (death for apostates), no controversy among scholars on that. If you are homosexual, again death, though in some Islamic societies you can get away with it if you are the top. Four wives for a guy, with obvious consequences. Right to beat ones wife (as a last resort though).  

    You don’t have the right to beat your wife, that’s due to a mistranslation. “Beat” on top of being metaphorical is supposed to be translated as “leave.” There are scholars who will back this up.

    The polygamy stuff had very specific conditions in which they should be practiced that aren’t applicable today. It wasn’t even applicable shortly after Muhammad’s (P) death. His own grand daughter (Sakina) refused to be in such a marriage and divorced several husbands who went against her wishes. (I am a great admirer of her.) She also refused to cover her hair, lived where she pleased, and visited whomever she wanted whenever the fuck she wanted. (Though back then the latter wasn’t even an issue.)

    For the other two, homosexuals and those who leave Islam aren’t supposed to killed either… The only time the Qur’an permits killing someone is in self-defense. The origin of the idea that you need to kill homosexuals and apostates are hadiths, which is a huge difference because the validity is brought into question. The fact that they advocate murder makes these hadiths invalid, as theologically (in Islam) people cannot take lives that God did not allow them to take, and the only time this is permitted is in self-defense.

    Most scholars today are men… and it leads to patriarchal interpretations. Wasn’t always like this, but unfortunately this is what it has come to. I hope in the future we’ll have more women like we used to before.

    Sonia:
    You’re pretty much on the mark but in most Islamic societies the right to wear a hijab is a lot more important than the right of a woman to walk down the street without an all covering garb.  

    I don’t care if women do or don’t wear the hijab. (I don’t wear it.) What I care about is whether they have the right to do so. And while I would fight for one before the other (walking down the street comes first) I wouldn’t say one is more important. Forcing women to wear it is just as bad as forcing them to not, and both stem from the same sick notion that women should be policed.

    David: Whether or not something is associated with a particular religion has nothing to do with whether or not it’s valuable.So in short, the U.S. is not more “Christian” or “Islamic” because it affords certain rights. I guess I don’t really have an adjective, but it would seem like some false kind of coopting of the U.S.’s history to say that the bill of rights has anything to do with anyone’s religion.  

    Good God, David, I never said that. WTF? I only meant to say that it sure as hell is easier being a real Muslim here than it is in other countries where you would think it would be easier. I’m drawing similarities, not saying they’re related.

  41. Sonia: Okay I read your (Nahida’s) comment in more detail. Actually you get quite a few things about current Muslim societies wrong. Abortion and contraception are really not a major issue in Islam. They are in fact explicitly allowed with some caveats, e.g., you cannot use sterilization as a means of contraception but condoms and pills and the like are allowed. You are encouraged to have babies but you can enjoy sex without guilt too as long as you are married. Also, abortion is quite okay in Islam up to 4 months in pregnancy and most scholars support that. Divorce for women is also fairly supported and Islam is pretty progressive on the remarriage front.  

    I didn’t get them wrong. I wasn’t talking about the actual law, sonia, but social pressures. Abortion is allowed in Islam, but few women know this because they are told it isn’t. My own mother was under the impression that it wasn’t. A lot of things are allowed in Islam, but women are kept from knowing about their rights as Muslim women.

  42. Nahida:
    You don’t have the right to beat your wife, that’s due to a mistranslation. “Beat” on top of being metaphorical is supposed to be translated as “leave.”  

    Okay, in case anyone cares, I’ll explain further on this.

    The misconception comes from this mistranslated verse:

    4:36. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they show remorse, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For God is Most Forgiving, Great (above you all).

    The verb used for “to beat” in the above translation (which doesn’t mean “to beat” but is translated as such) is idribuhunna which was derived from daraba the word that actually means “to beat.” Most translators seem to magically forget when rewriting these verses that just because a word comes from another word does not mean they have the exact same meaning. /facepalm

    And I do mean magically, because the exact same word is used here:

    14:24 “Seest thou not how God sets (daraba) forth a parable? — A goodly Word Like a goodly tree, Whose root is firmly fixed, And its branches (reach) To the heavens”.

    …But this time translated properly. Amazing! How did they miss that? (*Grumbles under breath about how translators are all douchebags doing these things on purpose*)

    As you can see, the same word is used to mean “set” examples. This time it was miraculously translated correctly.

    And it was also translated correctly here:

    4.94 “O ye who believe! When ye leave / go abroad (darabtum) In the cause of God, investigate carefully…”

    Darabtum is even closer to the original root than idribuhunna in the first verse, and it still does not mean “to beat” but “to leave.”

    I’m going to shut up about irrelevant things like this now =-= I just had to rant about that one.

    Sorry guys. Misconceptions stress me out.

  43. Sonia: Okay I read your (Nahida’s) comment in more detail. Actually you get quite a few things about current Muslim societies wrong. Abortion and contraception are really not a major issue in Islam.   

    Nahida:
    I didn’t get them wrong. I wasn’t talking about the actual law, sonia, but social pressures. Abortion is allowed in Islam, but few women know this because they are told it isn’t. My own mother was under the impression that it wasn’t. A lot of things are allowed in Islam, but women are kept from knowing about their rights as Muslim women.  

    So, bascially, Sonia, I was saying that although things are not major issues in Islam they are issues in Muslim societies where backward cultures interfere to the point of swaying the government and women are wrongfully kept uneducated.

    That is why I was saying that these governments can hardly be called Islamic.

  45. @Nahida: I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. Islam is largely derived from Judeo-Christian sources and as such it is patriarchal from the origin. The patriarchal influences did not come later, they are built into it at the very core. That it is somewhat more egalitarian at places than Christianity does not in any way mean that it is egalitarian in general or something to look up to.

  46. To clarify, David, it made me uncomfortable when you suggested what type of government they should have because, in the context of the present, we’ve sent troops to random countries in the Middle East and killed millions of innocent people because we thought they should have a certain type of government–the type we want them to have, and decided to establish it for them.

  47. how do you leave someone (lightly)? Anyway, from what I could research along most of history the Qoranic translations have used the word ‘beat’. It is only in the later half of the 20th century that the ‘leave’ word started gaining currency as some translators decided that it was good to appear a bit modern.

  48. Sonia: @Nahida: I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. Islam is largely derived from Judeo-Christian sources and as such it is patriarchal from the origin. The patriarchal influences did not come later, they are built into it at the very core. That it is somewhat more egalitarian at places than Christianity does not in any way mean that it is egalitarian in general or something to look up to.  

    Really? What sources? And when and how exactly did these sources affect it?

    Besides that, I can look up to whatever I want, I would thank you not to tell me what that should be. I’m not telling you what to look up to, am I?

  49. Sonia: how do you leave someone (lightly)? Anyway, from what I could research along most of history the Qoranic translations have used the word ‘beat’. It is only in the later half of the 20th century that the ‘leave’ word started gaining currency as some translators decided that it was good to appear a bit modern.  

    The same way you admonish them lightly. And for the umpteenth time–perhaps I wasn’t clear–I don’t care what translators decide and when they decide it. It’s what the classical Arabic actually means, which is why there’s such a huge emphasis on preserving the language and reciting things in the original.

    I’m pretty much done here.

  50. @sonia:

    If you think that the current situation is bloody and messy I wonder what words you will use to describe what maywill be a major clusterfuck if Egypt decides to go back on its peace treaty.

    I’ll leave it to Ali Abunimah of electronic intifada:

    As for Abbas’s PA, never has so much international donor money been spent on a security force with such poor results. The open secret is that without the Israeli military occupying the West Bank and besieging Gaza (with the Mubarak regime’s help), Abbas and his praetorian guard would have fallen long ago. Built on the foundations of a fraudulent peace process, the US, EU and Israel with the support of the decrepit Arab regimes now under threat by their own people, have constructed a Palestinian house of cards that is unlikely to remain standing much longer.

    This time the message may be that the answer is not more military resistance but rather more people power and a stronger emphasis on popular protests. Today, Palestinians form at least half the population in historic Palestine — Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip combined. If they rose up collectively to demand equal rights, what could Israel do to stop them? Israel’s brutal violence and lethal force has not stopped regular demonstrations in West Bank villages including Bilin and Beit Ommar.

    Israel must fear that if it responds to any broad uprising with brutality, its already precarious international support could start to evaporate as quickly as Mubarak’s. The Mubarak regime, it seems, is undergoing rapid “delegitimization.” Israeli leaders have made it clear that such an implosion of international support scares them more than any external military threat. With the power shifting to the Arab people and away from their regimes, Arab governments may not be able to remain as silent and complicit as they have for years as Israel oppresses Palestinians.

    Entire article here.

  51. Nahida:
    To clarify, David, it made me uncomfortable when you suggested what type of government they should have because, in the context of the present, we’ve sent troops to random countries in the Middle East and killed millions of innocent people because we thought they should have a certain type of government–the type we want them to have, and decided to establish it for them.  

    So, did you not read the rest of my post where I said that the U.S. shouldn’t have anything to do with sending troops overseas – wasting the lives of our men and women, wasting the lives of civilians over there, and wasting everyone’s time, blood, and money?

  52. kloncke:
    @sonia:I’ll leave it to Ali Abunimah of electronic intifada:Entire article here.  

    If the Palestinians used this as an opportunity to stage a popular peaceful call for a Palestinian state, then I don’t see why anyone would want to oppose this. (Well, Israel would, but I don’t see most others wanting to oppose this)

    However, if the groundswell of change leads to regimes hostile to Israel – hostile in the sense of wanting to double down on another war with them – then I don’t see how this would be a positive result at all. We’d end up with another war in the middle east, hopefully one that doesn’t end up nuclear.

    Regardless, there is a knife’s edge separating positive, transformative change and destructive violence. Let’s hope that we don’t end up on the wrong side of that edge.

  53. Sonia: The patriarchal influences did not come later, they are built into it at the very core.

    It’s worth noting that Judeo-Christian religions became MORE patriarchal over time. For example, while reviled by the Roman Catholic Church today, early abortion used to be okay there. As chuch doctrine was interpreted and reinterpreted over time, I would argue that it became pretty steadily more conservative. I wouldn’t be surprised if this happened in other religions.

    [/derail]

  54. If they rose up collectively to demand equal rights, what could Israel do to stop them? Israel’s brutal violence and lethal force has not stopped regular demonstrations in West Bank villages including Bilin and Beit Ommar.

    Well, Israel has, since 1967, run over its neighbors pretty much as it wanted, including Lebanon not so far back. Feel-good rhetoric aside, after every one of these wars/raids, the situation has ended up even more lopsided than it started with. So-much-so that Hamas is now asking palestinians not to lob rockets into Israel because it may bring a devastating raid. While Israel will likely tolerate simple demonstrations anything that goes beyond that is likely to be met with deadly force.

    Also, people may want to google “Samson option”.

  55. This may or may not apply to this thread (seriously).

    I think that when we say “Islam”, we aren’t all necessarily referring to the same thing. Some of us may be thinking about the (perceived) core principles and philosophies of Islam, some of us may be thinking about the (perceived) historical practice of Islam, some of us may be thinking of (perceived) current incarnations of Islam, and within these different spheres we are selectively counting and erasing various experiences of Islam in order to fit conclusions which don’t apply well to Islam as a whole, given that it varies tremendously from place to place, era to era, person to person.

    I can understand the motivation for emphasizing Islam’s progressiveness and human rights, because (as I’m sure any Muslim commenter knows) any thread involving Muslims dangles precariously over a seething abyss of Islamophobic (and often racist, and US-centric) sentiments and assumptions, and countering every potential conflation of Islam with violence and backwardness is sometimes the only thing that keeps it from tipping over.

    This is not to say that praise of Islam is illegitimate, or that anyone with “rave reviews” of Islam is holding back: depending on one’s experiences with Islam and which facets of Islam one is discussing, I’d imagine there’s a whole spectrum of feelings from deeply negative to mixed to glowingly positive, as with all things. But I suspect many Muslims are hesitant to share their experiences and analyses particularly when critique is involved, because they know – all too well – that they must speak very carefully or else their words will be re-purposed as Islamophobic ammunition.

    My point (which I’ve come to very circuitously, sorry) is that I think this topic calls for some soft treading, so that Muslim commenters in the thread (or reading along) are not backed into a corner, perpetually defending themselves and their faith against the venerable tide of Islamophobic attitudes. And if Muslim commenters take the considerable risk of discussing their faith, I think it’s important to listen and learn, so that there is room for this conversation to grow, and room to explore all the various facets of Islam without relying upon oppositional generalizations.

    In sum, let’s try to be sensitive to the tough position we may be putting Muslim commenters in if we non-Muslims adopt a “critical outsider, looking in, wagging finger” role.

  56. I wonder if we should also tread softly on Catholics when the Pope’s declarations on women and gays come out, or tread softly on Phelps clan, or on evangelical preachers calling for abortion to be banned?

  57. Sonia: I wonder if we should also tread softly on Catholics when the Pope’s declarations on women and gays come out, or tread softly on Phelps clan, or on evangelical preachers calling for abortion to be banned?  

    Oh, good points, all. Islam (a huge and diverse faith) is equivalent to the Westboro Baptist Church (an unambiguous hate group), and recognizing a religion’s diversity and the widespread discrimination against members of that faith is the same as approving every decision made by the Pope (who represents all Catholics, who are all straight men, natch) and the beliefs of every evangelical preacher. Also: taken to its logical conclusions, I think we can all agree that my comment is calling for acceptance of the neo-Nazi movement, media silence on all religion-related violence, and immunity for any crime committed while wearing a rosary. That’s why we should ignore my comment altogether, and instead forge a feminist movement in which we utilize stereotypes and generalizations about Islam to make Muslim feminists feel as uncomfortable as possible in this space. Because that’s the right thing to do.

    On a different note, the reports coming out of Egypt that some Christian Egyptians protected Muslims earlier this week while they prayed reminds me of a news story just a month older; when Egyptian Muslims protected the Coptic community from harm during their Christmas Mass (which falls after New Year’s).

  58. David:
    So, did you not read the rest of my post where I said that the U.S. shouldn’t have anything to do with sending troops overseas – wasting the lives of our men and women, wasting the lives of civilians over there, and wasting everyone’s time, blood, and money?  

    Yeah, I read it. Dude I said it made me uncomfortable, not that I disagreed with you or that you shouldn’t make such statements. This whole thread, with Sonia equating broad theological dictations in Islam to very specific discriminatory words and actions of a few very specific religious leaders, is making me uncomfortable. I’m sorry if I’m snappish but when there’s an underlying anti-religious bias in a thread against a religion that’s beyond misconstrued by both outsiders and its own followers, it’s very hard to remember that people are making statements in good faith. Some guy told me just today that it’s impossible to be Muslim and a feminist at the same time (like WTF) because in his words the two will never be compatible because of “Islam’s origins” and he tried to argue that being calling myself an “Arab feminist” is more constructive. (Note that I’m not even Arab. [And even if I were, I don’t identify with any race.] When I pointed out that I, as a woman, should be able to decide whatever the hell kind of feminist I called myself, he accused me of being sexist against men.) So when Sonia says something like Islam is “patriarchal from its origins”–that’s what it makes me think she means. (I’m guessing with the gender pronoun here, forgive me Sonia if it’s not the one you prefer.) That because I’m of a religion that’s supposedly “patriarchal from its origins” (which I completely disagree with) I won’t be a proper feminist as long as I continue to

    Sonia: does not in any way mean that it is egalitarian in general or something to look up to. Sonia

    “look up” to it.

    And when you, David, make statements about what kind of government an “Islamic country” should have, I connect it immediately–whether or not it’s wrong of me to do so–to the same sense of US centrism.

  59. @Nahida.

    So that guy you talked to is an asshole.

    Regarding this entire discussion, I am perplexed. But, in the interest of making people more comfortable and maybe opening things up more, I will stop posting in this thread. I’m not interested in having this kind of discussion where everyone gets defensive.

  60. <A href="mailto:astrid@astridvanwoerkom.com">astrid@astridvanwoerkom.com</A>: I disagree, JIm. Cutting funding will get the government of Egypt t o cut money to the people. Mubarak will likely still be able to finance his military powers.

    Who made this excellent point? Astrid? Can’t find the original now. Yes, of course money is fungible. These subsidies have been going directly to the military, but they could be made up from elsewhere in the ogvernment, e.g. social services and such. But it’s important to remember that under governments such as this provision of social services and food subsidies, which have been hefty in Egypt for a very long time, are themsleves instruments of authoritarian control. Don’t make the mistake of belieivng that government is benign – I’m not saying that as some kind of minarchist libertarian statement; it’s just pretty obvious that this sopecific government is nowise benign.

    In any case the situation has moved beyond that discussion. Services and the flow of subsidized staples has been disrupted in some areas. In fact it looks like a government ploy to manipulate the population into calling for a crackdown.

    PrettyAmiable: It’s worth noting that Judeo-Christian religions became MORE patriarchal over time.

    PA, in the case of Christianinty it seems pretty clear to me that this is absolutley true, and that it was an effect of Hellenistic culture in the eastern part of the church and in the Empire in general. Whatever the situation in Judaism was at the time, classical Greek culture was explicitly misogynistic and this carried over into later eras. As for the the other Abrahamic religions, I think I see some of Platonic influence in rabbinical Judaism, but I’m not informed enough to say for sure, and WRT to Islam, I simply don’t know.

    saurus: On a different note, the reports coming out of Egypt that some Christian Egyptians protected Muslims earlier this week while they prayed reminds me of a news story just a month older; when Egyptian Muslims protected the Coptic community from harm during their Christmas Mass (which falls after New Year’s).

    This is interesting, Saurus. i had heard of course about the crowds of Muslims protecting churches as human shields, but I hadn’t heard the other bit. This sounds both like simple humanity and neighborliness, and also like an awareness of an Egyptian identity that ties Copts and Muslims together. And after all Egyptians have been Egyptian a whole long longer than they have been either Christian or Muslim.

  62. How do we ( general public and egyptian people ) know that this is not a plan to destabilize the region by using this historically pilitically strong nation as a” pretext”? Freedom is not a state of mind or something brought about thru guns and bloodshed. We were made to believe such nonsense. Will the “politicians of Egypt really step up to the nation’s demand for a better way of life or will they just dedicate their “energy” and “lives” to contradict each other as “men¿mbers of the opposition”?
    Why Egypt and why now?

    garga

  63. That was a really interesting conversation going on here. I personally think, that the life is full of shades of gray, nothing is black or white.

    On other note, I was really happy to hear about Christians protecting Muslims and vice versa – that’s the kind of behaviour we need if we are to make this world a better place.

    My heart goes to all Egyptians, be strong.

    Elli

Comments are currently closed.