Here’s a news headline for you: The trial begins in Phoenix today for Faleh Hassan Almaleki, the Iraqi immigrant accused of killing his daughter for becoming too Westernized. The prosecution’s argument goes like this: Almaleki ran over his 20 year old daughter with a Jeep Cherokee because she was abandoning their traditional Muslim values, having moved in with her boyfriend’s family.
Several months ago in England a similar news headline ran when Harry Potter actress Afshan Azad went into hiding after her father and brother beat her, called her a whore, dragged her by the hair, and attempted to murder her for dating a Hindu. She has yet to re-emerge.
Sadly, these news stories aren’t so new at all because we hear frequently—too frequently—about violence against women, especially in the Islamic world. Of course, not all Muslims condone violence against women, but the kind of behavior exhibited in these crimes is based in certain Qur’anic interpretations and might go without question in some Muslim countries: In the United Arab Emirates, for instance, it is legal for a husband to beat his wife, so long as the beating does not leave any bruises or cuts; in Iran, the law says women can be stoned for committing adultery, as documented Freidoune Sahebjam’s book-turned-film, The Stoning of Soraya M. and the ongoing case of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani. And, of course, there is Saudi Arabia, with its strict provisions for gender segregation and male drivers. Recently some clerics in this country issued a fatwa encouraging women to feed breast milk to grown men, thereby allowing them to interact with the her family without violating segregation laws.
In other words, violence against women justified by Islamic law is common—what is newsworthy here is that the consequences of these Muslim policies are playing out in traditionally non-Muslim countries. They are violations rooted in Muslim values that bear fruit in the heart of the traditionally Christian West, in the United Kingdom and it’s younger cousin, the United States. These are crimes straight from the tomatoes in that diversity salad bowl or from the copper and silver mixing in that global melting pot.
So how is the West to respond? One option is the growing movement amongst progressives advocating for plurality in the West. As Archbishop Rowan Williams so contentiously said in 2008, blending Western and Sharia law would be unavoidable, “If what we want socially is a pattern of relations in which a plurality of divers and overlapping affiliations work for a common good.”
This kind of logic seems to be a panacea for cultural conflicts: Respect diversity! Allow for difference! But a panacea is not a solution, especially not when one culture has policies that allow for such widespread discrimination—or in this case, not when both cultures do. After all, the Western world hasn’t exactly earned its gold star for women’s rights either, not when 25% of women are victims of domestic violence, equal pay for equal work remains a myth, and the (now former) president of Harvard says that women have inferior math skills. It may not be the same kind of discrimination, but it is discrimination nonetheless.
So maybe plurality is not, in fact, what we want. Maybe, for once, we should focus on what I will call monality, on a common ideal that that should be shared between people—in this case, that women should be valued, that they should have the freedom to be intimate with the person of their choosing, to work for an equal salary, to drive where they wish, to not be exploited for their vaginas or their breast milk.
Imagine a headline that read: Western and Muslim countries unite for women’s freedom.
That would be news.
As I have said many times, I will say again: if the Protestant West wants equal rights for women and to treat women with due respect then they first should not have walked away from the ideal woman: the Theotokos!
Have you written on this? You totally should!
I would be interested in a post along those lines. I think there certainly is something to be said for developing religious symbolism that is more favorable to women. However, the Catholic Church does not have a particularly good record in its treatment of women. If anything, I would say that Protestant churches have done slightly better in that regard since they allow the ordination of women.
I am also slightly concerned that by emphasizing Mary’s role as the God-bearer the analogy that is drawn is to the value of women as mothers. Women are clearly of value in and of themselves and not merely for their ability to bring children (or even God) into the world.
Those concerns out in the open I remain very interested in a comparison of Catholic and Protestant approaches to Mary and the potential significance for women today.
First I am not Catholic nor do I support her ideal of the Theotokos. I am Orthodox. Second the Theotokos is not just the God-bearer. She is the New Eve born in a New Creation. She is the perfect response to Gods proposal, responding to Gods love with her own love. God proposes and Mary, being true woman, responds. This is synergistic with the idea of the Apostle equating the Church and Christ with marriage: man proposes, woman responds. This also shows the wickedness of Eve and our current generation.
Eve, instead of waiting for a proposal, proposes to Adam in the form of giving him the fruit. Here is a double sin, for not only did she partake of the fruit, she failed to uphold her purpose, her very reason for her existing: humanities response to God. Adam is Gods priest while Eve is humanities response. Christ is the New high priest and Mary is the New response. This is why female ordination is entirely unacceptable. It continues the inappropriate place of women while also keeping them from fulfilling their God given role. What on the surface appears to be equality just continues the duality brought forth by the fall of mankind from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
When trying to bring forth equality for the sexes it is vital that we do not attach our own ideal of what that means. Our perception of equality is not actual equality. Only in the roles that God created us for, to fulfill, and to glorify Him in can we find our true equality.
Thank you for this post Danielle! I can’t tell you how many times I have been engaged in frustrating discussions with those who will reply to almost any ethical claim by accusing me of ethical imperialism. As important as it is to be sensitive and aware of the concerns of others, it does not eliminate the ability to make any ethical claims.
Very insightful post, Elizabeth! Definitely a worthy goal to stand for.
Thank you, I look forward to that headline! However I am not quite as pessimistic as you about equal pay for equal work. Down Under has made much progress since becoming to the first country to give women the vote in 1893. New Zealand has legislation that requires equal pay for women doing the same jobs as men. It is a multi religious, secular country, with secular leaders for over two decades and nothing remotely comparable to a ‘Bible Belt’ problem. In fact, until recently, when our former PM, Helen Clark, regrettably lost the last election (although she is now Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme, the third-highest UN position), the top four most powerful jobs in New Zealand were held by women. I think there’s hope. Hopefully hope for that headline too… 🙂
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/wom1412.doc.htm
Wow everyone! Thanks for your comments! Jonathan, I still think you need to write a piece on this! And thank you to all for sharing such diverse perspectives! It is so wonderful to hear them all, especially about things from a Down Under perspective! 🙂
Perhaps, Danielle. Most of it, however, it already written in “For the Life of the World,” by Fr. Alexander Schmemann.
Danielle,
Although I respect your point of view and passion for women’s rights, I must be honest in saying that statements like the following don’t sit well with me:
“They are violations rooted in Muslim values that bear fruit in the heart of the traditionally Christian West…”
Not only does it reflect some lack of knowledge about “Muslim values” but it also a willingness to assign deeply troublesome components of Islamic Law and specific cases of abhorrent individual behavior as representative of “Muslim values,” while maintaining that similar problems in your own tradition are merely lacking ‘gold star’ credentials.
Furthermore, your wish for a headline declaring that Western and Muslim countries unite for women’s rights is troublesome for a couple of reasons:
1) It dichotomizes “Muslim” and “Western” and clearly allocates “western” to the favorable position. If a Muslim majority country East of Europe strives for freedom of speech, women’s rights, human rights and democratic election the are inherently western…it’s a way for us in the West to pat ourselves on the back for exporting supreme cultural values to those poor heathens in ____ [wherever those ideas take root.] It’s Cultural Colonialism and it says that the ideas of equality, freedom and democratization are, A) solely western products, and B)only a true expression of those ideals if strictly implemented based on the western model.
2) Attached to the first, it not only overlooks the fact that millions of Muslims are citizens of countries in the West, but it also overlooks the work of many Muslim-majority countries to address those very issues [women’s rights, human rights, free speech, et al.]
In short, the work of your wishful headline is already taking place, it just isn’t receiving headlines because too many of us are willing to highlight the negative as representative of the whole.
Correct me if I am wrong but please show me how stoning women is part of Western culture. The simple truth is the West IS superior in this way. To say otherwise is a denial of the truth. To claim the West has its own problems as a defense of Muslim crimes against humanity is deceitful and defeating in purpose. One must first admit their problem in order to fix it.
Democracy and Democratic republics are in fact creations of the West. So again your argument seems like nothing more than trying to avert a valid critique of Muslims.
In the imfamous words if Yoda: Do or do not. There is no try
Jonathan thank you for your questions and response.
In regard to your first question:
To which foundation of Western culture are you referring?
To go back to traditional Roman society, I’m not entirely sure if stoning was common but honor suicide was entirely common. If a Roman woman was raped – during wartime conflict or otherwise – the only way to preserve her honor was for her to kill herself. If she did not she was assumed to bear some responsibility for the rape.
If looking to the Jewish foundation of Western culture, look no further than Leviticus in general, but specifically chapter 20, verse 9 and 10 for instance.
If we ignore both of these cultural foundations of the west and look solely to Christianity as the cornerstone of Western culture than I would point to the Inquisition and Witch Hunts as exemplary of the atrocities against people in general and women in particular that Western society has proven itself capable of.
So as an overall response to your query I think I was not clear, or was misunderstood. In no way am I proposing any of these specific horrors as representative of the Western ethos. And I don’t think you would either. Am I correct? In other words, these moments in Western history, and specific acts of violence against women do not represent “Christian morality”, or “Jewish morality” or “Western Morality.”
Why then is ONE Muslim-majority country representative of ‘Muslim civilization’? Why are acts of violence against women carried out by specific individuals representative of, “Muslim morality.”
I am not defending these acts, but pointing to the prejudice that leads many of us in the west to see these acts as representative.
Regarding your statement about Democracy and Democratic Republics – it is true that these forms of government took root originally in the West. I would simply ask you to read my comment more carefully and see that I mentioned “democratization”. Which can refer to the election of public officials, or simply the democratization of information and media.
Again, my purpose is not to somehow defame the west, but to call attention to the fact that we should acknowledge our arrogance in 1)assuming that democratization must emulate the western model to be valid and 2)that the west is the sole guardian of all that is free, good and just — this is simply not the case.
Finally, I would ask that we more carefully aim our critiques at particular acts, policies, officials and so on rather than denounce an entire global religious community and civilization as committing, “crimes against humanity.”
Not to mention that your argument that Muslim attitudes towards women are primarily individual is equivilant to saying whites attitudes towards blacks in the 19th century was just a hand full of Southern plantation owners.
Once again Jonathan, I would prefer that you actually read my responses. I didn’t say they were solely individual (as in never supported by the institutions in place)…I said they weren’t representative of “muslim morality” or civilization…just like I would say that racism in America is not indicative of “christian morals,” at any time. You are taking issue with things I haven’t said.
I understand that you believe crimes against women is not rooted in Islam or predominately Muslim countries. But on this point you are horribly wrong
You are absolutely correct Allana. I think there is a clear misunderstanding of what constitute ‘Muslim values’ to Muslims in the modern world (and Muslims allowed to practise their faith alongside other religious faith groups in mixed cultures, assimilate well), and a confusion between ‘values’ and policies and particular acts of a few countries. And it is also regrettable that as so often, these policies and acts of a few are perceived as representative and justification to demonise the majority of Muslims and their faith, worldwide. I appreciate your clearly articulated comments very much. Thank you Allana.
Erroneous and laughable. Citing crimes against women in ancient Rome two thousand years ago is NOT the same as an honor killing trial done in 2011.
Jonathan, I am respectfully declining to comment further. I appreciate your responses but feel that we are not coming from a place of common respect.