In reading Sasha Brookner’s essay, “Muhammad’s Mistresses,” I was initially furious with Brookner’s outlined attack against Muslim feminists. But upon reading further my anger was exchanged for a mere, “oh.” Brookner’s essay unfolds in a controversial manner but in reality espouses or rather mimics the deeply familiar “western,” offensively liberal, patriarchal nature that she intends to deflect.
Brookner begins the essay enlightening the reader to her knowledge of Muslim women, both historical and contemporary. Albeit through her “praise,” she manages to simultaneously dismiss their entire being declaring, “as I am humbled by your struggles and legacies, my inextricable love and concern for my gender trumps religious tolerance.” Here, Brookner employs the false dichotomy, infused by some secular feminists, that feminism and religion are mutually exclusive.
This intellectual deception fails to mention the countless Mujeristas (Latina), Womanist, Muslim, Catholic, and Jewish feminist theologians that have responded to secular feminists for years on this very issue. It also fails to include Muslim women that may not label themselves as feminist in their belief that the term “Muslim feminist” inherently discounts Islam’s commitment to justice and human rights for all.
She argues further, “Feminism is relinquishing Jehovah for Oshun, Leviticus for Audre Lorde, Allah for Allat, foster care for abortion, and beauty cult for academia.” Feminism, in my understanding, isn’t about choosing at all. It is, in fact, a very patriarchal notion that one (i.e. woman) must choose one or the other—work or mother; virgin or whore; beautiful or ugly, and the list of “choices” goes on. If we are to embrace a wholistic approach to feminism then it must be inclusive and allow for a spectrum of women that are committed to justice whether or not they read Leviticus, choose to mother, or even model.
I encourage Brookner to express her belief, as all women and men should have the freedom to do so. But in doing we must not discount the voices of women theologians and religious women that adhere to their traditions and work fiercely in reclaiming their faith traditions that have been stolen by patriarchy, colonialism, imperialism, neoliberalism and now the disgustingly misused and misunderstood secularism.
Throughout her essay, Brookner makes frequent mention of “Muslim women in the third world” and “these women, living in the margins of existence.” She appears to be calling us to a neocolonialist world order masked in the disguise of time and progress. Her use of “Muslim women in third world countries” falsely imagines that Muslim women exist “somewhere over there.” Thus, making “them” the unfamiliar along with those “backward values.” We’ve heard this rhetoric before in the works of colonial explorations and orientalist such as Bernard Lewis and we watch it now in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the assaults on French Muslim women.
There is no “third world” or “Muslim world.” To fashion a multiplicity of “worlds” within the context of development, both economic and ideological, allows for a paradigm of “us” vs./and “them” in which we fail to acknowledge the existence of shared values. Our refusal to coexist in one world will continue to serve as a hindrance ensuring the human rights of all.
As a student of theological studies, I will refrain from commenting on Brookner’s cursory “interpretation” of surah an- Nisa (The Women), knowing that any selective listing is not only insulting to the discipline but also counteracts the works of women in religious studies such as Leila Ahmed, Amina Wadud, Nimat Barazangi, Asma Barlas and Jamillah Karim. I encourage us all to continue to read and discuss the works and initiatives of scriptural re-interpretation.
Though I found this article deeply concerning and highly problematic in many ways, I must close reminding us again of the patriarchy that has yet to be removed from our conscious and subconscious. Brookner says, “…I’m thoroughly insulted by Muslim women appropriating my beloved “F word,” as if their prophet’s vision even remotely parallels with that of Matilda Joslyn Gage, Angela Davis, Mary Wollstonecraft, Virginia Woolf, Sojourner Truth, Gloria Steinem, Emma Goldman, and bell hooks.” The idea that feminism can be “my” is an oxymoron in itself. The competition of visions parallels not feminism but a capitalist vision that entails a winner and a loser, a right and a wrong, and a dangerous assumption of the monolithic. All of which sends us back to 19th century colonialism or better yet, keeps us in a 21st century “first-world.”
This photo of the Quwut-ul-Islam Mosque was taken by Koshyk and is reproduced here in accordance with its creative commons license.
I actually commented on this piece on Clutch. I loved the work so much I was googling the author to read some more stuff and instead came upon your link. I found this sentence of yours the most insightful in this entire critique:
“As a student of theological studies, I will refrain from commenting on Brookner’s cursory “interpretation” of surah an- Nisa”
Interestingly enough, I would rather you NOT refrain from putting these passages in context since you’re so well versed in theology and all. This evasion tactic is cowardly, almost a frantic running seems to be the norm in every response. Why can’t Muslim women simply sit down, remove their defense mechanisms, acknowledge the reality of these passages and honestly discuss them? It’s one fact that’s completely absent. I (and many others) asked Muslim women on the boards to do the same thing and you guessed it, none volunteered. Would you have rather the author quote the entire chapter? I’ve only read parts of the Quran but I would love to be enlightened as to what would put these passages in context through your eyes? besides a Surah prior that says “Don’t follow the next Surah” or a Surah after that reads “Ignore what I just said”.
You have offered up absolutely nothing to discount her critique of this patriarchal text. Do you think black people who are okay with the three-fifth compromise of 1787 can be part of the Black Power movement? Ofcourse not, it’s absolutely ridiculous for women who have a God that says they’re half a person to be part of a movement about female equality. That’s axiomatic. They may consider themselves Muslims, but Muhammad would not agree with that title in the least. You think he was even close to allowing feminism in his era? So you have to ask yourself if Muhammad nor God says that women are equal, female sex slaves are okay and domestic abuse is encouraged for non-obedience – can a woman who ignores this still consider herself Muslim? Did Muhammad say in the Quran somewhere it’s okay for you all to ignore some stuff in here if you want..
Just last week a pregnant girl in Mali was whupped 100 times (which is the punishment for adultery – Surah 24:2). why aren’t you guys over on The Telegraph posting critiques and why this doesn’t constitute true Islam?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/mali/9346850/Teenager-lashed-100-times-in-Timbuktu-for-having-child-out-of-wedlock.html
I find this “Quranic escape” by Muslim women so fascinating, it’s almost a pathology. It’s always a sermon on how the people who critique their religion are “outsiders” or part of “orientalism” yadda yadda. And then ALWAYS ends with “I refuse to discuss the referenced Quranic passages” “I won’t go down to that level of discussing those Quranic passages” “It’s so absurd I can’t even respond to those Quranic passages.” This ducking and dodging has become almost a motif don’t you think? Until you can respond with your vast theological knowledge and put some context around violence towards women in the Quran and Hadiths you have said absolutely nothing in this entire piece to defend Islam as feminist, other then “she doesn’t get it” and that doesn’t hold up in a court of law (plus you would need another male witness to back you up for it to even count).
And by the way I would hardy call Pakistan or Afghanistan “developing countries” – they have unstable economies and political systems and depend on Western aid – that is the definition of Third World. You disrespect your sisters in the Middle East and North Africa by acting like things are improving for them over there and if they just read the Quran a little more, equality and justice will be for all.
I find it interesting your site would erase my comment – almost hypocritical in a sense that this author feels she’s entitled to critique something, and yet threatened by my critique of her critique. All the comments (both supportive and non-supportive) were allowed on Clutch. I guess this site is only about ideas that are pro-god and holy books, which makes it understandable why she posted here – perfect choice. this is why religion should be obsolete – because it can’t co-exist with others ideas or people who don’t agree, subsequently censoring their voice. I guess I should say goodbye to this comment too lol.
Dear Colleague: I should follow up to mention that all comments posted on State of Formation must be approved before they are posted. This is not a concern of the authors. Further, we are a forum for honest dialogue, not berating authors. Kindly keep your comments focused on the content of the articles rather than the person writing them (unless immediately relevant — which it does not appear to be for this particular piece).
Jason: Is my comment that the fundamental difference between bikini and burka is a choice factor that controversial that it can’t be posted?
Hi, I’m only a writer here, not a moderator. I have no idea who moderates and thus approves or rejects comments, or what criteria they use in doing so, or even how often they check for new comments.
I’ve long been critical of many secular critics’ tendency to beat up on “straw theisms” that do not reflect a majority of religious believers. It seems to me that this author is commenting on a critic who has used the same tactic with a feminist angle attached to the anti-religion message.
There is, as Ikhlas notes, something deeply condescending in much of the rhetoric used by outsiders in discussing women’s status in Islam. I’m reminded of an editorial cartoon depicting two women passing each other in the street, one wearing a bikini and the other covered head to toe with only her eyes visible:
“She’s smothered in that outfit! What a terrible, sexist culture!” the woman in the bikini thinks.
“She’s out there naked like a piece of meat! What a terrible, sexist culture!” the woman in the body covering thinks.
And this author is right to call out the neocolonial spirit in these lines of attack. The whole “Your life will be perfect once you become just like us” attitude is offensive wherever its source; and the reduction of all Muslim women to victim status by non-Muslim critics is as insulting to decency as good-meaning people who reduce the term “African” to a photo of a skeletal child.
yes Jason, I remember that editorial. Very interesting. Thank you for your comments.
Thanks The Professor for reading and responding to this piece. I would first like to mention I tried contacting Clutch to post my article there as well. However, they failed to respond via all mediums.
In approaching your comments, it should be noted that it was not my intention to deliver a scriptural analysis in my response, but rather to point out the discrepancies in Brookner’s argument against the idea of a Muslim feminist. If you are interested in reading further about surah an-Nisa and other subjects of women in Islam I highly suggest Leila Ahmed’s Women and Gender in Islam, Amina Wadud’s Qur’an and Woman, and Asma Barlas’ Believing Women in Islam: Unreading Patriarchal Interpretations of the Qur’an. These are just some of the women that I think have made wonderful contributions to reinterpreting scripture.
Again, thanks for reading and posting your comments. I hope you find the suggested readings helpful and continue to visit us here at the State of Formation.
Lol and yet all my posts with contrasting opinions were erased, except the comment where I asked why my opinions were erased. You guys are truly a site of academics and honest dialogue.