The Dangers of Gendered Rights: “The Persistence of Social Injustice Requires that it is Addressed forwardly—that is in the Context of a Post-Gendered World:” An Interview with the Author of Contesting Justice
Interviewed by Sarah Raaii, April, 2008
__________________________________________________________________
Describe the process of writing Contesting Justice. How did you arrive at your conclusions?
It started with writing a controversial article about two of the most contentious topics in Islamic law: polygamy and inheritance. The article became the topic of a number of presentations which provided a good venue for commenting on my work. I took into consideration those comments and went back to the sources. After looking at some additional materials and employing new methodologies, I revised some of my original conclusions and strengthened others… The outcome is a work that I see as more challenging than informing, more questioning than answering, and more thought-provoking than mind-numbing.
What was most challenging about creating this book?Simplifying the approach and legal analysis to make the book accessible to non-specialist readers
The process involved providing more details than I would usually do if I were writing for an audience of experts. So it was not about omitting content. The difficulty was to anticipate the appropriate level of familiarity with the content and not go below it, which carries the risk of talking to the audience instead of having a conversation with them.
How did you simplify the book without sacrificing the content?
Does Islam work against women's rights, or has it been corrupted?
It depends on what or which Islam you have in mind. Perhaps a better way of making the distinction is to ask, "Does the Qur'an work against women?" The answer is fairly easy; no. Certainly the Prophet Muhammad was also an advocate for women and the vulnerable. But with time, that initial progress either stopped or was scaled back. Therefore, Islam today, with all its diverse manifestations and multiplicity of views, many of which may have been appropriated and manipulated by the new elite, does contain a strain of expressions that work against women.
What is the differentiating factor between the Middle East and the Western world, if it is not religion?
First, for the purpose of answering this question, perhaps it is better to say the Arab or Muslim world instead of the Middle East. Second, the answer can be framed as follows: the Muslim world’s economic and political status as weak and undisciplined party that has bet its fortunes on its alliances with the Superpowers instead of trusting its people. You can see this difference today in the level of disconnect between the rulers and the ruled all over the Arab and Muslim worlds; the loss of sense of pride in being citizen; and the despair that is causing the brain-drain: the siphoning of talented and knowledgeable young men and women…
What is the biggest obstacle Muslim women face today?
The same problem faced by the Muslim men and women: total absence of civil society institutions, lack of civility in the political discourse, and abuse of power.
Can and should the Western world do anything to help?
It can't and it should not. The invasion of Iraq proved that despite the brutality and unpopularity of an Arab regime—such as that of Saddam—not all people are willing to replace such a regime with an occupation force. It is best for the West to stay out of the affairs of Muslim societies and work on staying true to the values to which they subscribe. Because many citizens of the West are Muslim and the number is growing, it may be more effective to empower Muslims here to remain proud citizens, which will serve as a model for the people of the Muslim world. To not subject Muslims in the West to discrimination and racism amounts to teaching by example; this is much more effective than dictating, lecturing, and invading.
There are two major proven ways of excluding the vulnerable and the insignificant "other:" legal exclusion and social exclusion. In other words, there are two ways one social group could achieve economic and political advantage over another: legal discrimination and social oppression. In the West, exclusion of women and minorities has been achieved through societal oppression. That is partly why it took more than two hundred years for the first woman to be a serious contender for the presidency, despite constitutional guarantees. In some Muslim countries, women and religious minorities are excluded from running for high political offices by law. Is there a difference between the two if the outcome is the same?
A case can be made that societal oppression is more effectively enduring than legal exclusion. After all, all that it will take to change the situation in a Muslim country is to change the law to allow women to compete for the presidency or prime ministry and a woman could win; it happened in Bangladesh, Turkey, and Pakistan. Can we say the same about the chance of an American-Muslim winning the presidency in the next half century? I doubt it and the proof is played before us today in the form of "accusations" that Senator Obama might be Muslim (as if it is a crime), although running for the presidency is a right the Constitution guarantees to every citizen--including Muslim-Americans.
In the past five years or so, we learned that abuse of power, torture of people, and disregard to international law can be undertaken by the leaders we elected right here at home. Before lecturing others about human rights and democracy, we must work to preserve the values and principles we want the rest of the world to emulate and adopt. That will be the best way to help people elsewhere.
Furthermore, many American scholars and activists who have never visited a Muslim country, a South or Central American country, an African country, or an Asian country are knowingly or unknowingly perpetuating a supremacist (or racist) undertone when they rant about and critique other countries and other societies for human rights abuses and keep silent about abuses by the governments they elect. It can be argued that their energy and expertise can be better used here in a society, in a culture, in a political system with which they are most familiar. As the saying goes, charity starts at home. When Americans fight for respecting the dignity of every citizen, that commitment and determination can help empower others to work within their own communities. Sincere respect to human dignity is inspiring; calculated humanitarianism is hypocritical. This is especially important when considering the colonial history of the West and the persistent discrimination against vulnerable social groups within America.
If the West is not to interfere in Middle Eastern countries' transformations, who will make sure civil society institutions like free press and watchdog organizations are protected?
The people who fought to establish the civil society institutions in the first place will. But I would ask, who is protecting the civil society institution in the West? Would any Western nation allow another country to interfere in its internal affairs in the name of empowering the people against their government? The question in itself is expressive of the damage done by colonial powers first directly—through military intervention; and then indirectly—through influence and sponsorship of dictatorial regimes: the damage seeded in the mind of many Muslims that they are not responsible for their own future; that they need Western help to achieve their aspirations; that they don’t have the power to bring about change. I would argue that even if the West were to establish civil society institutions, the West would be expected to stay there in perpetuity to protect them because citizens of those countries won’t develop a sense of ownership.
After so many generations of complacency, how is it possible to change the status quo of oppressed women now?
It is possible by properly diagnosing the problem. It is a skewed perspective to make the generalization that Muslim women are oppressed; a view that is generally derived from counting the number of women wearing headscarves. It may be the case that it is actually the women who are not wearing headscarves that are more oppressed. In the Muslim world, there is an endemic problem of oppression of people—men and women—by the ruling powerful elite. Some of these powerful elite are in fact women. Consider, for example, the situation in Bangladesh: two powerful women ruled the country for nearly two decades, but did the status of women improve during their rule? Did the status of women improve when Turkey was governed by a woman prime minister? Did the status of women improve when a woman led the government in Pakistan? Abuse of power is just as oppressive when exerted by women. I believe that it will be possible to change the status of women when the question of oppression is properly framed, when cruelty is not given a gender, when abuse is not given an ethnicity, and when arrogance is not given a race.
What do you perceive to be the main ideas of Contesting Justice?
To take the Western reader beyond stereotypes, remind Muslim religious authorities of the richness of their legal heritage, reframe the question of social justice outside the context of race, gender, and religion, and identify majoritism and power-enabled arrogance as the platform for discrimination against and subordination of the vulnerable individuals and groups.
If putting women in positions of power will not improve the female standard of living, then what will?
The status of women cannot be improved in the long run by categorizing it as a gendered issue; that is, men oppressing women. Women, just like men, when enabled by unbridled power, can be just as brutal and cruel as men. Second, women are treated as second-class citizens in many Muslim countries not just because they are women, but because oppression is tolerated in the first place and because women are members of a vulnerable group that is systematically marginalized and abused. Third, legal reform alone will not solve the epidemic of oppression; all that legal reform provides is a tool to alleviate suffering. But like any other tool, it comes with a price and that price may be too steep for the poor, the disadvantaged, and the oppressed. Subsequently, the elite and the powerful from the oppressed group will seize the opportunities provided by legal reform, but those in need cannot. In the end, at best, you end up creating a minority-elite within historically disadvantaged groups, thereby shuffling the power-holders but never treating the question of oppression and abuse of power. Fourth, my book argues for a solution that trusts in the power of civil society institutions and in a culture that encourages awareness of the abusive nature of political power and the propensity of power-holders to oppress the weak and the voiceless.
In the end, a combination of measures will work, but creating civil society institutions must be the top priority. On top of the hierarchy of the list of civil society institutions are the free press, legally protected watchdog organizations, and truly independent branches of governance. Legal reform (or education) alone is like going to an ocean full of fish and expecting to fish without fishing gear.
Posts
